|
Post by fordham on Feb 21, 2009 16:19:09 GMT -5
I read today's Daily News. Angel Presinal is apparently well-known as a guy who trains baseball players and provides steroids. He traveled with A-Rod during the 2007 season, which does more than suggest A-Rod was using that year. To make matters worse, this guy trained with Cano. The A-Rod story is going to get worse.
|
|
|
Post by dg on Feb 21, 2009 16:49:04 GMT -5
Pssst..... he also trained with David Ortiz, Pedro Martinez and 100 or more other major leaguers. It will only be used as "evidence" against A-Rod, of course.
|
|
|
Post by fordham on Feb 21, 2009 17:06:09 GMT -5
Okay, I did not know that. Was he still working with other players around the league during the 2007 season?
|
|
|
Post by dg on Feb 21, 2009 17:45:17 GMT -5
Yes. Cano, for example, was in 2007. Not sure about the time frame for rest, but Gammons said it was up to 100 major leaguers.
FWIW: I agree that this looks bad, but disagree with ESPN using it as "evidence" against A-Rod, but OK for the other players.
|
|
|
Post by POTY on Feb 22, 2009 10:51:46 GMT -5
It PROVES nothing, but doesn't look good. I believe A-Rod has been clean while with the Yanks, but who knows anymore...
|
|
|
Post by roger on Feb 22, 2009 12:04:53 GMT -5
It PROVES nothing, but doesn't look good. I believe A-Rod has been clean while with the Yanks, but who knows anymore... All the people that believe he has been clean with the Yankees: (a) Did you believe he was clean between 2001-2003 ? (b) Did you believe what he said in the interview to Katie ? (c) Did you believe his "confessions" in his interview with Gammons ? (d) Did you believe he was telling the whole truth in the ST interview ? If you did, the people lined up outside your homes are hoping to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to you ! If you did'nt, then I would love to hear what events or data that has come out since the ST interview that makes you believe now that he has been clean with the Yanks.
|
|
|
Post by POTY on Feb 22, 2009 15:33:55 GMT -5
It PROVES nothing, but doesn't look good. I believe A-Rod has been clean while with the Yanks, but who knows anymore... All the people that believe he has been clean with the Yankees: (a) Did you believe he was clean between 2001-2003 ? Yes, prior to all this happening in the past two weeks. (b) Did you believe what he said in the interview to Katie ? Yes (c) Did you believe his "confessions" in his interview with Gammons ? Some of it (d) Did you believe he was telling the whole truth in the ST interview ? No If you did, the people lined up outside your homes are hoping to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to you ! If you did'nt, then I would love to hear what events or data that has come out since the ST interview that makes you believe now that he has been clean with the Yanks. (a) Did you believe he was clean between 2001-2003 ? Yes, prior to all this happening in the past two weeks. (b) Did you believe what he said in the interview to Katie ? Yes (c) Did you believe his "confessions" in his interview with Gammons ? Some of it (d) Did you believe he was telling the whole truth in the ST interview ? No I believe he has been clean since they started testing, but I wouldn't be shocked if we found out he was taking some undetectable PED. A-Rod has PROVEN that he is capable of Lying, Cheating, and showing disrespect for the game. But I don't think A-Rod is a COMPLETE idiot, and to deny using PED's outside of the period that he has admitted to, would be TOTALLY foolish.
|
|
|
Post by roger on Feb 22, 2009 16:23:33 GMT -5
I hope so POTY .... but the last thing I heard was that he was training with this Presinal guy prior to to the 2007 season and then came in much more terrific shape than at the end of the 2006 season, when he was bummed about being dropped to 8th in the playoffs. That kind of stuff makes me even more skeptical of him. Just boggles my mind that guys like Bonds, A-Rod, and Clemens were heading to be first ballot HOFers before they supposedly started taking PEDs. And, now they might not get in at all !!! The ultimate irony would be if they gave a plaque to Jose Conseco now bringing all this to light
|
|
|
Post by RJPinstripes on Feb 22, 2009 17:19:24 GMT -5
and with A-Rod an admitted user, how can we now go gaga when and if he breaks Bonds tainted record. Part of the deal in re-signing him after HE opted out was something like..."Oh great now we got a clean guy on our team who is in line to break Bonds tainted record and won't that be great!" "And he'll do it in OUR NEW STADIUM TOO!" Looks like the experts were wrong on this scenario too!
|
|
|
Post by POTY on Feb 22, 2009 18:37:56 GMT -5
Yes, it definitely boggles my mind as well. Some of these guys I would never have thought used roids, so finding all this out really is troublesome. How do you go from cheering someone on and celebrating their accomplishments after finding out what they have been doing? For me it is a kind of betrayal. When everyone was booing and slamming A-Rod, I was in his corner. Now I could care less about him.
As for Canseco, I would be ironic if he was elected to the HOF, but I am confident that he will never see Cooperstown, and I hope these other frauds never see it either.
I've been watching a lot of these All Time Games on the MLB Network lately, and it is interesting to see the difference in the players then and the players during the roid era. I'm not buying the suggestion that players have been using even before the roid era. Yeah there may have been a guy here and there, but no way was the sport corrupted to the degree it was during the roid era that we all are talking about. Such a shame that the game has had to go through this.
|
|
|
Post by dg on Feb 23, 2009 11:29:37 GMT -5
A guy here and there? Tom House estimated 6 to 7 pitchers PER TEAM used in the late 60's/ early 70's. Sure, his estimate may be high, but is his story + the fact that congress began looking into steroid use in pro sports in 1973 less believable than Canseco? Not in my eyes.
The argument that remains: "The steroids used in the 60's/70's weren't as effective as the steroids used in the 80's and beyond". That's great, but the intent of users was the same. Many are calling for A-Rod to be burned at the stake for his intent.
I'd love nothing more than to turn a blind eye to PED use prior to "the steroid era", but I can't. I have a difficult enough time when asked to approve the high grade amphetamines used prior to "the steroid era" (please don't attempt to tell me vivarin was all that was being used).
If there's something wrong with having too many questions to only point fingers at only one generation, than I can admit to being way out of line. Am I wrong to doubt there was ever a "clean" era?
|
|
|
Post by roger on Feb 23, 2009 13:51:50 GMT -5
Stolen from the main Board: I stopped Joe Girardi in the clubhouse today as I wanted to get some clarification on how they plan to use Phil Coke. The verdict is … reliever. ....... Keep in mind that he is going to be 27 in July. This is not some kid. Hmmm....not according to Mr. A(PED)-Rod
|
|
|
Post by BernzAMatic on Feb 23, 2009 15:52:26 GMT -5
It PROVES nothing, but doesn't look good. I believe A-Rod has been clean while with the Yanks, but who knows anymore... Proves nothing is correct...But for me is the interview. I'll Paraphrase here, but the intention should be clear: Reporters Question: "ARod...Have you used PEDs at ANY TIME since 2003" ARods Answer: "I have been tested numerous times both Urine and blood since 2003 and never had a positive test" Notice how he didn't answer the question... I'm not saying he is or was juicing as I am not in the room, but that was a softball question that only required him to say "yes" or "no" 9 more years, strap in and enjoy the ride!
|
|
|
Post by POTY on Feb 23, 2009 16:00:12 GMT -5
A guy here and there? Tom House estimated 6 to 7 pitchers PER TEAM used in the late 60's/ early 70's. Sure, his estimate may be high, but is his story + the fact that congress began looking into steroid use in pro sports in 1973 less believable than Canseco? Not in my eyes. The argument that remains: "The steroids used in the 60's/70's weren't as effective as the steroids used in the 80's and beyond". That's great, but the intent of users was the same. Many are calling for A-Rod to be burned at the stake for his intent. I'd love nothing more than to turn a blind eye to PED use prior to "the steroid era", but I can't. I have a difficult enough time when asked to approve the high grade amphetamines used prior to "the steroid era" (please don't attempt to tell me vivarin was all that was being used). If there's something wrong with having too many questions to only point fingers at only one generation, than I can admit to being way out of line. Am I wrong to doubt there was ever a "clean" era? DG, I am having a hard enough time digesting dealing with steroids and PED's in what is widely accepted as the "Steroid era". I don't want to disagree with you regarding steroids usage in the 60's and 70's, because I truly do not know. While Tom House made a claim about "experimenting", he said nothing he took worked to help him throw harder, which was what he was trying to achieve. Regardless, I don't think the level of usage was nearly as widespread or sophisticated. All you have to do is look. The players back then did not look nearly as bulked up as you see today. I'm also comfortable with the statements from a multitude of former players who say that the stuff wasn't around then. Now that doesn't mean that it truly wasn't around, but it does mean that there were a lot of guys who were ignorant to it. Either way, I think the record book is fairly clean. Contrast that to the "steroid era" where we see guys looking like something out of a video game. Guys that are transforming before our eyes and hitting 500+ home runs as if there is nothing to it. Little guys hitting 40, 50 home runs a year, the rash of injuries associated with steroid usage. Bottom line, the evidence is ALL OVER THE PLACE. I didn't see it back then, and I personally do not believe it was used to anywhere near the extent it has been used recently. Having said this, let me just say that nothing surprises me anymore.
|
|
|
Post by dg on Feb 23, 2009 16:21:59 GMT -5
It's certainly true that a level of degrees is involved. What's being labeled "clean play" wasn't clean.... merely "cleaner". Steroids were around in the 60's. They didn't just vanish in the 70's. No, "sophistication" certainly wasn't involved. I'm sure a good % of what was being taken did nothing to help a player. That doesn't change the intent, though. Is a player who is more successful at cheating "dirtier" than a player who tried to cheat, but failed? I'm unable to answer that one.
House mentioned pitchers. Were pitchers in the 70's able to throw 20+ CG per season because of 4 man rotations, or was there something else in the mix? I'm content with accepting the difference was 4 man rotations. I'm better off not looking into it.
I'm just finding it impossible to join the "Burn A-Rod at the stake because all the players were clean when I was a kid" group. I hate to admit it, but the game wasn't clean when I was a kid (and I'm not just talking about the cocaine epidemic).
|
|
|
Post by POTY on Feb 23, 2009 16:37:06 GMT -5
I'm just finding it impossible to join the "Burn A-Rod at the stake because all the players were clean when I was a kid" group. A-Rod is getting what he deserves, not because all players were clean when I was a kid, but because he was caught. FWIW, I feel exactly the same way about Bonds, Clemens, etc. and they haven't been caught through testing, although Bonds was but it deemed inadmissible in court. In my book, you're a STEROID cheat, and there is enough proof of that for a lay person like myself to conclude that you cheated, then you burn at the stake for all I care. It's a freakin disgrace that these guys feel they have to abuse the system when they are among the most privileged people in our country. There is a responsibility that comes along with that privilege, and we seem to discount that. Maybe their punishment should be to have to REALLY WORK for a living. They might think twice then.
|
|
|
Post by dg on Feb 23, 2009 16:45:44 GMT -5
That's fine.
I would hope that I'm entitled to my stance of not wanting to see A-Rod burned at the stake every bit as much as you are entitled to your stance. Change will not take place as long as there is only 1 target.
|
|
|
Post by POTY on Feb 23, 2009 17:20:57 GMT -5
That's fine. I would hope that I'm entitled to my stance of not wanting to see A-Rod burned at the stake every bit as much as you are entitled to your stance. Change will not take place as long as there is only 1 target. You certainly are entitled to that stance, and for what it's worth, this is not something I WANT either, but as A-Rod sai, the game is bigger than him, and for me, that is the OVERIDING concern. He made his choice, and now he has to live with that. The game is what deserve protecting, and if that means burning these guys at the stake to set an example and hopefully prevent some young kid from thinking this is a viable alternative, SO BE IT.
|
|
|
Post by dg on Feb 24, 2009 9:33:54 GMT -5
My problem: had the situation been handled better, more than 1 player from the 2003 group would have come clean. Not a chance of that happening now. If the game is bigger than 1 player, there should be more than 1 name.
|
|
|
Post by POTY on Feb 24, 2009 12:03:57 GMT -5
My problem: had the situation been handled better, more than 1 player from the 2003 group would have come clean. Not a chance of that happening now. If the game is bigger than 1 player, there should be more than 1 name. I'm not sure I understand this reasoning. The game is and always has been bigger than 1 name, with the exception of Ruth. As names become known, I reserve a special place for them on my list. Sure, I would love to know all the names, but lack of that knowledge does not exclude those who have made the list already. And this is not to say that I don't allow room for a mistake, because I want to move forward like everyone else, but when it comes to looking at the stats of these players and their HOF eligibility, I believe this has to be taken into consideration.
|
|