McGwire Admits Steroid Use

[NatsAddict]

I don't buy the "strength was my own" excuse, either.  

One thing that changed in Bonds after he bulked up it that during that same year, the rate of the shoulder turn in his swing went from something like 24 rpm to 30 rpm (I'm trying to find the link, but I must have about a thousand in my "Baseball" bookmarks folder).  With that kind of super-human shoulder turn, it is no wonder his contact rate skyrocketed and sweetened - he could turn on any pitch.  Without the roids, there is no doubt that some of those HR would have been swings and misses or, at a minimum, less sweet contact that would not have resulted in a HR.  I haven't seen any similar comparison of the skinny McGwire vs the bulked McGwire, but I expect that he received a similar benefit.

[EDIT:  I haven't found the article I'm looking for, but did find this analysis of roided Bond's swing by Tony Gwynn.  Note, especially in frames 5 and 6, how he is able to turn on the ball without changing the relative position of his arms.  You may note earlier that Gwynn references that is it impossible to pull the bat through without using your arms and provide any pop, then notes that Bonds can do so (thanks to his 25% increase in shoulder rpm).

Gwynn's analysis of Bond's swing

[Lintyfresh85]

I don't have a problem with it.

Everyone did it. The fact that McGwire was even better than everyone else shows me his true talent.

The guy was an all time great in an era when everyone had an edge because they were on roids/HGH. Pitchers included.

So, claim he destroyed the game.... but without McGwire and Sosa, baseball is not where its at now... if its even still around (see hockey).

Mark McGwire had more talent than most could ever dream of, if he took drugs to stay on the field... so be it. But don't act like without steroids McGwire would be a chump... everyone did it; McGwire's true talent is what made him better than the rest of the cheaters.

[tomterp]

Everyone did it.

No, everyone did NOT do it, but those who did gained an unfair advantage over those who didn't.

[blue911]

So cheating is the true test of talent?

[mitlen]

I don't disagree with you.  I'm just saying he had a reason.  That being said, he made his own bed.

Oh I know TT.   I wasn't challenging your thought on it.   I guess I'm a little too "old school" some times.    I remember one time I got in a little trouble and went to see a lawyer ... hell I woulda been better off just takin' my whoopin'.     LOL     "He made his own bed."     Reminds me of what my dad told me when I was young.    He said, "If you EVER get arrested, save a dime.    Don't call home ! "     

[HalfSmokes]

[Lintyfresh85]

So cheating is the true test of talent?

No, I'm saying in an era where MOST cheated, McGwrie still had the most talent.

You still have to hit the ball. While I'm not denying that it helped him stay on the field, I'm not questioning his ability to punish a baseball.

No, everyone did NOT do it, but those who did gained an unfair advantage over those who didn't.

It would be naive to think anything under 80% used.

[blue911]

No, I'm saying in an era where MOST cheated, McGwrie still had the most talent.

You still have to hit the ball. While I'm not denying that it helped him stay on the field, I'm not questioning his ability to punish a baseball.

It would be naive to think anything under 80% used.

Is SF's mind your source?

[Lintyfresh85]

No. Of course not. Don't treat me like him either... I have opinions and I can back them up with stats.

I don't care if you like Jose Canseco or not... the guy was right about the majority of the steroid era. He said at least 85% were using steroids.

Choose to believe it or not... but don't come at me like I'm some mindless drone like SF.

[PANatsFan]

The 5th amendment:
It's being reported that McGwire first went to Rep. Tom Davis to indicate that he wanted to talk about steroids, but that he needed immunity to do so.  His lawyers then petitioned Alberto Gonzalez and attempted negotiations with Henry Waxman, but were rebuffed. No immunity.  He was advised by his counsel that if he testified truthfully regarding his past use of steroids, that he could be prosecuted.  No immunity, no testimony.

How do you think he should have handled this?

He didn't plead the fifth. He said "I don't want to talk about the past" repeatedly like a poorly-programmed robot. Pleading the fifth is a constitutional right, evading questions under oath is not.

[Kevrock]

A former trainer with the Orioles told me in 1999/2000 that over 80% of hitters and 50% of pitchers were juicing.

[blue911]

No. Of course not. Don't treat me like him either... I have opinions and I can back them up with stats.

I don't care if you like Jose Canseco or not... the guy was right about the majority of the steroid era. He said at least 85% were using steroids.

Choose to believe it or not... but don't come at me like I'm some mindless drone like SF.

Of course that's why you've resorted to hearsay and innuendo. McGwire was a cheat and a liar and will always be a cheat and a liar, when it come to steroids.

[Lintyfresh85]

Am I backing up my opinion with an opinion of a guy who's been right about nearly every player he placed accusations on? Absolutely.

But look at my post as a whole and I fill them with stats/graphs/factual proof that what I'm saying is right.

So, once again, don't treat me like SF.

[tomterp]

He didn't plead the fifth. He said "I don't want to talk about the past" repeatedly like a poorly-programmed robot. Pleading the fifth is a constitutional right, evading questions under oath is not.

Nobody is required to incriminate themselves by their testimony under oath.  While he did not technically "plead" the 5th he was on solid ground in not answering questions that might have resulted in self incrimination.

Nowhere in the constitution is a pleading require for one to avail oneself of the right.  See also Miranda.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

But don't act like without steroids McGwire would be a chump... everyone did it; McGwire's true talent is what made him better than the rest of the cheaters.

Linty - actually, i kind of take what McGwire said at face value for my conclusion that, without roids, he would not be an all time great.  He was very good before his body started to break down.  So was Tony Conigliaro.  Injuries can separate a shooting star from an all time great.  McGwire said the 'roids kept him on the field after '93.  If he were playing JD Drew length seasons, he would not have gotten much past 400 home runs, and that 70 HR season becomes 45 -48. Seriously - chop 1/3  of his home runs after 1993 and where does he rank among the all time greats?  If his body was broken down, as he admits, then he does not play enough games to set records. I'll not get into the shoulder rotation angle (cool stuff, Addict) and I'll give him credit for the effort to improve his stroke.  Great hitter in his prime, but his prime without the steroids is not enough for the HOF.

[Minty Fresh]

I'm starting to think that MLB should LEGALIZE the use of steroids and HGH.

[tomterp]

Here's a very well written post by a BP reader, in response another reader's post following a short Wil Carroll piece on McGwire.  I post it because I like and agree with the analysis, by and large:

Evan:  The purpose of that congressional hearing was explicitly NOT to talk about the past. I applaud McGwire for being the ONLY GUY IN THE ROOM who appeared to have read the rules before opening his mouth.

tcfatone:  I agree with you wholeheartedly that Congress was merely putting up a "dog and pony show" that was embarrassing to watch. But this is irrelevant in determining whether we should continue to give McGwire the benefit of the doubt. All that matters is what McGwire did and why he did it. We know what he did; he clammed up. Next we need to look at the possible reasons why he clammed up in this situation.

Perhaps he was concerned for his privacy and felt Congress had no right to ask such questions? The problem with this argument is two-fold. He refused to answer the exact same questions he forcefully and confidently answered many times over the years to reporters. Reporters who were not off the record; they had microphones, TV cameras, notepads and pens. They were going to publish these questions and answers in the public sphere. Secondly, and more notably, he had to know that refusal to answer those very same questions would do irreparable damage to his reputation and HOF eligibility.

Is it a reasonable conclusion to assume a noble intent for his sudden refusal to answer the same question he has answered publicly many times over the years under this circumstance?

Let's bend over backwards even further to allow for such a noble intent as standing up for some kind of privacy, even in the face of the predictable (and subsequently accurate) HOF ballot retribution. Wouldn't such a stand only make its point if stated openly? In any case I know of where someone was taking such a messianic stand in the past, they made that stand quite clear. Tellingly, McGwire didn't hold a press conference after the hearing expressing noble reasons for his refusal to answer. Instead, he slinked off into the darkness, avoiding comment. In fact, it was pointed out that his refusal came about due to legal advice he had received.

What if we take his assertion that he "was not here to talk about the past" in the best, most positive way by allowing for the possibility that he was too concerned about steroid use among children and wanted to stick to the point by avoiding talk about the past. He implies such reasoning with the statement, as pointed out in your article, "I’m not here to talk about the past". Let’s think this idea through. If he had never done steroids and simply answered the question, "No, I have never used steroids", then wouldn’t he be able to move on to the more pressing issue of helping the nations children? Wouldn’t he then be a beacon for children as to what great accomplishments could be achieved while avoiding the dangers of steroid use? Wouldn’t it be obvious to McGwire and everyone else that by refusing to answer the question, he was making "not talking about the past" an impossibility? Isn’t it obvious that the last thing he should do, if his intent was to help the children by keeping focus on present day situations, would be to create an enormous controversy by refusing to answer a single question? Again, does it seem reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt here? I don’t think so.

We need to continue our search for the most likely reason for his refusal to answer. The obvious question becomes, what was different about the situation in which McGwire found himself when asked this same question that he had no problem answering so many times in the past? The answer is obvious. He was, for the first time, under oath. This factor cannot be taken lightly. A lie under oath to Congress is a potentially serious crime that carries heavy penalties, far more grave than merely being denied the honor of HOF acceptance

Why so many still feel the need to give this clown credit for his actions is beyond belief.

and a continuation:

Evan:  No, we don't need to continue that search, because his motives aren't knowable to us.

The hearing purported to be forward-looking. McGwire looked forward. End of story.

Every other person in the room, players and senators both, completely disregarded the purpose of the hearing in order to score cheap political or PR points. They're the ones who deserve our scorn and derision, not McGwire.

I don't care why McGwire elected not to talk about the past. But given the forum, I thoroughly appreciate that he did.

tcfatone"
 His motives are clearly "knowable," if one has even the slightest grasp of common sense, as I detailed above. I don’t think one needs to invoke the theory of Occam’s Razor to find a much more obvious and satisfying answer to the question of why McGwire would have effectively pleaded the 5th when asked under oath in front of Congress as to whether he took steroids or not, but I’ll do it anyway. He was refusing to incriminate himself.

[sportsfan882]

80% is way too high. I agree with tomterp.

[PANatsFan]

Nobody is required to incriminate themselves by their testimony under oath.  While he did not technically "plead" the 5th he was on solid ground in not answering questions that might have resulted in self incrimination.

Nowhere in the constitution is a pleading require for one to avail oneself of the right.  See also Miranda.

Well the Senators were ridiculous too. If they had pressed him and he had then pleaded the fifth, fine. It was a farce. Palmeiro knows where he can stick that finger.

[HalfSmokes]

I heard something that got me thinking, when the Jets and Chargers play, each team will have a prominant steroid user (Calvin Pace/Sean Merriman). If this was baseball with ARod vs. Manny is would definately come up- anyone want to bet on whether or not it gets mentioned in pregame or during the broadcast?

[eckseid]

Just a note on this post: This is directed in the general direction of anyone who believes he should be in the HOF.

I don't give a crap if 80% (or whatever number you like to use) used steroids.

Pete Rose isn't in the HOF for betting on the game as a manager. But people defend players saying they should be allowed in the HOF when they were using steroids while PLAYING? Because 80% (not buying that number) were using them, we should just forget that they were cheating the game of baseball?

If you used steroids during that time, you should NOT be allowed in the HOF.

[HalfSmokes]

Just a note on this post: This is directed in the general direction of anyone who believes he should be in the HOF.

I'm sorry, I don't give a crap if 80% (or whatever number you like to use) used steroids. If you used steroids during that time, you should NOT be allowed in the HOF.

Pete Rose isn't in the HOF for betting on the game as a manager. But people defend players saying they should be allowed in the HOF when they were using steroids while PLAYING? Because 80% (not buying that number) were using them, we should just forget that they were cheating the game of baseball?

"I'd always have it (grease( in at least two places, in case the umpires would ask me to wipe one off. I never wanted to be caught out there with anything though, it wouldn't be professional."

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/quotes/quoperry.shtml

Until Perry gets kicked out, the HOF you can't really say cheaters don't belong in the hall

[KnorrForYourMoney]

Am I backing up my opinion with an opinion of a guy who's been right about nearly every player he placed accusations on? Absolutely.

But look at my post as a whole and I fill them with stats/graphs/factual proof that what I'm saying is right.

So, once again, don't treat me like SF.

That's an appeal to authority, which is logical fallacy.

[The Chief]

That's an appeal to authority, which is logical fallacy.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

I'm pretty sure we've all thrown logic out the window here at one time or another.  And it seems to me that most people aren't going to change their minds about McGwire regardless.

[imref]

Just a note on this post: This is directed in the general direction of anyone who believes he should be in the HOF.

I don't give a crap if 80% (or whatever number you like to use) used steroids.

Pete Rose isn't in the HOF for betting on the game as a manager. But people defend players saying they should be allowed in the HOF when they were using steroids while PLAYING? Because 80% (not buying that number) were using them, we should just forget that they were cheating the game of baseball?

If you used steroids during that time, you should NOT be allowed in the HOF.

I like McGwire, but there's absolutely no way that he nor Bonds should be in the HOF.   I'm hopeful that Selig does the right thing and wipes McGwire and Bonds's HR totals from the record books and gives the HR crown back to Aaron.