Pete Rose: Guilty of More Than Gambling

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
http://deadspin.com/5555714/this-is-pete-roses-corked-bat

You're looking at an X-ray of a Mizuno PR4192 bat, commissioned by Pete Rose specifically for his 1985 chase of baseball's all-time hits record. Inside, clear as day, is a piece of foreign material, about 6 inches long, and the diameter of a nickel. This is the story of that bat.

In 1985, over the July Fourth long weekend, Rose and the Cincinnati Reds headed to Veterans Stadium for a four-game series with the Phillies. Rose was on the last legs of his career and had been traded from the Expos back to the Reds the previous season. Permanently playing first base now, and serving as the last player-manager in baseball, Rose was in hot pursuit of Ty Cobb's iconic record of 4,191 hits. It was the only reason he was still playing baseball.

Before the season, Rose had a box of about 30 black Mizuno bats specially made for him. His trademark quick swing not nearly as quick as it used to be, Rose ordered his bats a little lighter than usual to shorten up his motion. The bats were 34 inches long, and weighed 31.6 ounces. In honor of his quest for 4,192 hits, they were dubbed the PR4192.



Advertisement




* * *

He used one of those bats — the bat you see in the X-ray — in the Philadelphia series. It was captured forever by a photographer's camera: Rose, waiting in the on-deck circle, bat resting on his left shoulder.

Pete Rose went 1-for-8 that weekend. He was 37 hits away from breaking the record.


* * *

Steve Wolter was a huge Pete Rose fan.

"He idolized Pete, his hard work, the effort he put forward," his son Adam says.

Wolter was in insurance in those days, and it just so happened that his company handled the Reds. He got to know Pete, came to consider him a friend. So, on Sept. 11, the very day Rose broke baseball's all-time hit record, Wolter made him an offer.

Though the Hall Of Fame requested it, Pete Rose sold the record-breaking bat to Steve Wolter. The Wolter family won't discuss the actual price, but they claim it was the highest amount ever paid for a single piece of sports memorabilia at that time.

While Wolter may have considered Rose a friend, Pete considered him a buyer. In the late '80s, as Rose's gambling debts were mounting, he sold off a large collection of his memorabilia, much of which ended up with the Wolter family.

"Maybe he needed the money, and that was the most he could get," says Adam Wolter. Included among the items in that transaction was the PR4192 Rose had used in Philadelphia.


* * *

Bill Schubert considers himself an amateur collector, though the analyst from Stockton, Calif., did own one big-time piece of memorabilia: a Babe Ruth-signed baseball. But he always wanted one of Pete Rose's bats.

"Everything about Pete is so unique, and that goes for his bats," Schubert says. "The way he tapes it up; the way he sands down the hitting face; the way the barrel is scuffed on both sides, depending on which side of the plate he was hitting from.

"Pete's a divisive guy. But he's a big part of baseball history, and I'm a fan of baseball history."

In 2008, Schubert got in touch with Sports Investments, a Cincinnati-based collectibles store that is home to the largest collection of Pete Rose memorabilia in the country. It's owned by the Wolter family.

Steve Wolter had gotten out of the insurance business in the early '90s and opened the store and shrine to Cincinnati baseball. When Schubert called they didn't have any PR4192s left; they had sold the Philadelphia bat to a collector in Wisconsin. They promised to let Schubert know if they heard of one for sale.

As it happened, in August of last year, the Wisconsin collector moved to Hawaii and couldn't take his vast stockpile of memorabilia with him. So he called Sports Investments. Would they be interested in buying back the bat they had sold him? They were and they did, and then they called Bill Schubert.

Schubert balked at parting with the cash necessary to get his hands on the PR4192, despite its great condition, and despite his long-held desire for a Pete Rose bat. But he did have something to trade. He sent his Babe Ruth-signed ball (along with a cash difference that we won't mention in deference to his fear that his wife will find out) and in return received his game-used Black Mizuno PR4192. He didn't know it at the time, but it was the one Rose had used on that July Fourth weekend in Philadelphia.


* * *

Rumors of Rose corking his bat date back nearly a decade, to an ex-confidant's tell-all. In a 2001 Vanity Fair interview, Tommy Gioiosa said that Rose regularly corked his bats in 1985.

Rule 6.06(d) prohibits the use of corked and otherwise tampered-with bats, but the practice goes back long before an official MLB rulebook. It's simple physics: a bat that's been hollowed out with a drill, its innards replaced with cork, will be lighter without sacrificing power. Lighter bat, quicker swing, better contact on the pitch. That's how the thinking goes, anyway; MythBusters looked into it and found that the ball comes off a corked bat markedly slower, and concluded that the cheaters have only been cheating themselves.

Graig Nettles used superballs; Norm Cash used glue and sawdust; Sammy Sosa used cork. The material doesn't matter. All that matters is that players believe it gives them an edge, and it's nearly impossible to get caught. Only six players in major league history have ever been punished.

In 2005, Internet casino Goldenpalace.com purchased a purportedly corked Rose bat at auction for a jawdropping sum. Known for publicity stunts and sponsored streakers, Goldenpalace.com announced that it would saw apart the bat see what was inside.

It's unclear if they followed through, but no corked bat was ever presented to the world, and Goldenpalace.com later sold the bat for less than a tenth of what it had paid.

Rose has vehemently denied corking his bat. But then again, Rose vehemently denied betting on baseball for a long, long time, and now he's autographing balls, "Sorry I Bet On Baseball."


* * *

Bill Schubert's bat was authenticated by Sports Investments, the premier source for Pete Rose memorabilia, so the chain of custody was as pristine as it gets. Still, there was no way to prove it had actually been used in a regular-season game, rather than, say, in batting practice or spring training. Today, all milestone-breaking equipment is immediately stamped, and tagged, and logged, and hologram-stickered for the collectibles market. But nothing of the sort was being done in Rose's day.



Last month, Schubert was cruising eBay when he stumbled across the September 1985 issue of Beckett Baseball Card Monthly. Now a bible of the card collecting market, the magazine then was just a few months old. And for that month's issue, to commemorate Rose's pursuit of 4,192, Beckett used a photo from the collection of a Camden, N.J., freelancer named Bob Bartosz. Bartosz had snapped the shot over the July Fourth weekend in Philadelphia. It shows Rose, waiting in the on-deck circle, bat resting on his left shoulder.



Schubert immediately noticed the browned tape and some telltale scuffs: one right above the "1" on the knob of the bat and three along the same grain above the tape. There was little doubt in his mind that the bat he held in his hands was the same one Rose held in the 1985 photo.



Schubert got in touch with John Taube of PSA/DNA authentication services, the closest thing the game-used bat industry has to a King Solomon. He showed him the photomatching, and Taube agreed that Schubert's bat and the one in the photo were one and the same.



Schubert knew he had a unique bat from the beginning. The tape job was uncharacteristically heavy, and Rose had painted a white "14" on both the knob and the head of the bat. Most of Rose's bats had his number on the knob, whether due to superstition or the practicality of finding it in the rack. But on the head? Well, that was a different story. Only a handful of known Rose bats have the "14" on the head.



A fellow collector urged Schubert to inspect the bat head, and he discovered a circular patch of rough wood under the white paint, about eight-tenths of an inch across. Could it be a drill hole?

Schubert had to know. He took the bat to an X-ray technician, who laid the bat on a table and punched a few buttons. Within minutes an image appeared on the monitor.


* * *

Many players use (or claim to use, after they've been caught) corked bats only in batting practice. If this bat turned out to be altered, there would be concrete proof that Pete Rose had used a corked bat in a game. Which wouldn't come as a surprise to many.

"There was no question he wanted the record," Taube says. "At that point in his career, he was going to do whatever he had to do." A game-used corked bat would add to the mountain of evidence that ballplayers only take the rulebook as a suggestion, especially when baseball's supposedly sacrosanct records are at stake.

Bill Schubert wasn't sure what he was expecting. Sure, he had heard the rumors about Pete corking. He didn't necessarily believe them; he didn't disbelieve them either. But he certainly didn't expect to see what he saw.

"I thought that I'd have to send the X-rays off to an expert to tell me if they saw anything funny," Schubert says. "But as soon as we saw it, there it was, right in front of our eyes. I said, ‘That's cork in there.' I was blown away."

It is, indisputably, cork. And with an unbroken chain of ownership, no one but Rose could have put the cork there.

The bat's previous owners were flummoxed.

"We never thought to look," says Adam Wolter. "Usually you cork it for power. Pete didn't need that or want that. But I guarantee a lot of people are going to be checking their own Pete Rose bats now."



They have been. John Taube has a PR4192 with white paint on the head, concealing what appears to be a drill hole. Same goes for Chuck Long, an Ohio collector. And Steve Mears, a Southern California collector, also went and got his X-rayed:

Adam Wolter, the scion of the first family of Pete Rose memorabilia, acknowledges that the evidence is intriguing. The photomatching puts the bat in Rose's hands, preparing to step up to the plate in July 1985. What was already a highly sought-after collector's item now becomes a one-of-a-kind piece of history.

"I don't think it ruins his legacy," says Wolter. "There's already so much controversy surrounding Pete, this just falls into the same category. That's what drives his demand: the controversy. It only enhances the items even more."

Don't think Bill Schubert doesn't know that. A game-used PR4192 bat could go for $5,000 or more. But a proven corked bat is unique; no one has any idea how high the bidding could go. Certainly six figures.

Schubert's in no hurry to sell. He sent it off to John Taube for further authentication, and upon its return he will put it back in its case. He thinks he might display it in his den, next to a baseball signed by Bart Giamatti.


* * *

A few years back, Pete Rose addressed the corking rumors.

"Go up to Steve Wolter and get that 4192 bat," Rose said in 2004. "Take it to an examiner and see if there's any cork in it. I guarantee you there won't be.

"If somebody has a corked bat that has my name on it, bring it on down."

Rose has yet to respond to requests for comment.

This was from 2010. I don't recall Pete being accused of this, but it seems pretty legit to me.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,723
Liked Posts:
3,723
Was a bit lengthy for me so I sorta only read half. I assume they found cork in a bat. If they did my view is so what? Baseball is a game about cheating for an edge. It's literally always been a game about cheating for an edge be it stealing signs, corking bat, doctoring a baseball.... whatever. I honestly don't see steroids as the big deal people do. Players get legal cortizone shots and a multitude of other crap done to them in sports to get them through injuries and to make them better.

Hell, I don't even really care that Rose gambled on games even games he was managing so long as he wasn't gambling against the reds and as far as I'm aware while they have suggested he did bet on reds games I don't know that anyone has said he's bet against his team. I look at that like this. If you challenge michael jordan to a 1 on 1 pick up game he's going to bet on himself. Hell, 40 year old Wizards jordan would probably bet on the Wizards if he had the option to do so. That's the way high end athletes are wired. Some of them need that extra edge to a game to get more out of them.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
Was a bit lengthy for me so I sorta only read half. I assume they found cork in a bat. If they did my view is so what? Baseball is a game about cheating for an edge. It's literally always been a game about cheating for an edge be it stealing signs, corking bat, doctoring a baseball.... whatever. I honestly don't see steroids as the big deal people do. Players get legal cortizone shots and a multitude of other crap done to them in sports to get them through injuries and to make them better.

Hell, I don't even really care that Rose gambled on games even games he was managing so long as he wasn't gambling against the reds and as far as I'm aware while they have suggested he did bet on reds games I don't know that anyone has said he's bet against his team. I look at that like this. If you challenge michael jordan to a 1 on 1 pick up game he's going to bet on himself. Hell, 40 year old Wizards jordan would probably bet on the Wizards if he had the option to do so. That's the way high end athletes are wired. Some of them need that extra edge to a game to get more out of them.
If you go to the link you can see the pictures.

I am not looking to start another Pete Rose Gambling thread so I won't go thru the rebutal to your post for that.

Cotizone and roids are not the same.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,723
Liked Posts:
3,723
Cotizone and roids are not the same.

Maybe not to you. But my view is they are the same. For example, was Willie Mays getting shots of Cortizone to help him play through pain? Whether or not steroids are legal to me is just semantics. Amphetamines as far as I'm aware weren't legal either and players in the 50's and 60's used them often. Hell Dock Ellis threw a no hitter on LSD reportedly. Today's players are taking all sorts of supplements that players in the past didn't some of which may have long term health issues. They have access to all sorts of training and equipment that those players didn't. If they want to gamble with their long term health in the hopes of fame and fortune that's their call. I'm not saying people should line up and take steroids in mass. But at the same time I'm not going to condemn people for taking a perceived edge. Like it or not that's the game be it the examples I mentioned above such as stealing signs or the more comical Bill Veeck batting Eddie Gaedel at 3 feet 7.

As it pertains to Rose and the topic at hand, way I see it is that it is MLB's job to catch you. I've already shown there's a culture of cheating in baseball. I mean its rather poetic that the game has "steals" as a statistical category. So if he didn't get caught then good for him getting an edge if corking a bat even gave him one. Hell we've seen multiple pitchers just this year get caught for using pine tar or something similar on their forearms not even trying to hide it. Should that sully their careers? And interestingly that's is a difference not often mentioned. Sosa gets blasted for using a corked bat by some but then when you talk about pitchers using whatever to mess with the ball its almost never a big deal.

I guess it's just hard for me to get outraged about "cheaters" when so many aspects of the game are at best gamesmanship and at worst down right cheating. If we're going to be holier than thou about stuff then framing should be illegal as the intent is clearly to influence the umpire. The cuture of hitting batters should be far more punished...etc. You start going down that road and it's a dark one with lots of crap on it.
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,630
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
I do have a problem with cheaters and steroids. I do not have a problem with someone gambling and gambling on his team winning.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
Maybe not to you. But my view is they are the same. For example, was Willie Mays getting shots of Cortizone to help him play through pain? Whether or not steroids are legal to me is just semantics. Amphetamines as far as I'm aware weren't legal either and players in the 50's and 60's used them often. Hell Dock Ellis threw a no hitter on LSD reportedly. Today's players are taking all sorts of supplements that players in the past didn't some of which may have long term health issues. They have access to all sorts of training and equipment that those players didn't. If they want to gamble with their long term health in the hopes of fame and fortune that's their call. I'm not saying people should line up and take steroids in mass. But at the same time I'm not going to condemn people for taking a perceived edge. Like it or not that's the game be it the examples I mentioned above such as stealing signs or the more comical Bill Veeck batting Eddie Gaedel at 3 feet 7.

As it pertains to Rose and the topic at hand, way I see it is that it is MLB's job to catch you. I've already shown there's a culture of cheating in baseball. I mean its rather poetic that the game has "steals" as a statistical category. So if he didn't get caught then good for him getting an edge if corking a bat even gave him one. Hell we've seen multiple pitchers just this year get caught for using pine tar or something similar on their forearms not even trying to hide it. Should that sully their careers? And interestingly that's is a difference not often mentioned. Sosa gets blasted for using a corked bat by some but then when you talk about pitchers using whatever to mess with the ball its almost never a big deal.

I guess it's just hard for me to get outraged about "cheaters" when so many aspects of the game are at best gamesmanship and at worst down right cheating. If we're going to be holier than thou about stuff then framing should be illegal as the intent is clearly to influence the umpire. The cuture of hitting batters should be far more punished...etc. You start going down that road and it's a dark one with lots of crap on it.

The properties and purposes of the drugs are not the same. It's not an opinion thing.
Now you want to allow anything and everything that is your right and there are some that share that opinion. I would be willing to say most do not agree with that stance and would say it sullies the game.

There is a clear difference between gamesmanship and cheating. I'm not going to go to discuss the tangents that you went to. Suffice it to say we don't agree on gamesmanship/cheating.

I gather from your post you think it's a single straw. It sort of is a single straw but on top of a large pile of it. Back to Pete. Rose lied habitually. Rose gambled habitually. Rose broke rules of baseball habitually and put the game in jeopardy of becoming the WWE. That's detrimental.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
If I don't want to win every game at the MLB level, there is something wrong.

Wanting to win and going all out to win are not the same from a manager perspective.

Let's look at the Arizona Diamondbacks. 2001 WS Game 7. Schilling starts and RJ ends the game. They went all out for the win and rightfully so. The prize is the championship. Do the same thing during the regular season to win a wager and now it's a major issue.

That's the problem with betting on your own team.

So it's wrong.
Could it be made right?
Hypothetically maybe. You'd have to wager on every game with the risk of losing the exact same amount each game.
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,630
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
Whatever, Brett. Since there was no bloody sock incident with Rose, the comment is completely hypothetical and hyperbolic, I'm done conversing with you about this. Enjoy your day posting to yourself.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
Whatever, Brett. Since there was no bloody sock incident with Rose, the comment is completely hypothetical and hyperbolic, I'm done conversing with you about this. Enjoy your day posting to yourself.

First off the bloody sock was with the Red Sox not the Dbacks.
But rage on my friend, rage on.
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,630
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
First off the bloody sock was with the Red Sox not the Dbacks.
But rage on my friend, rage on.
I know that. It was just as extreme as your example. Good day.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
I know that. It was just as extreme as your example. Good day.

BuhBye.jpg
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,723
Liked Posts:
3,723
The properties and purposes of the drugs are not the same. It's not an opinion thing.

I gather from your post you think it's a single straw. It sort of is a single straw but on top of a large pile of it. Back to Pete. Rose lied habitually. Rose gambled habitually. Rose broke rules of baseball habitually and put the game in jeopardy of becoming the WWE. That's detrimental.

From what I've read on the subject, steroids are as much about quicker recovery from injury as they are about power. Cortizone allows people who arguably shouldn't be playing to play through pain at a long term risk. Again, we can argue over the semantics here but my point is athletes aren't using Cortizone the way you or I would. They are often habitually using it just to allow them to play at a risk to them long term. If you want to argue steroids have a large impact fine but to me that's the same thing. I mean we're seeing this in an obviously large scope now with NFL players who often can hardly walk at older ages. And to me a star numbing his way through pain to play more games has just as much impact statistically as steroids because you look at any of the leaders in fWAR and one thing they have in common is longevity even more so than being the best of their time. Koufax was one of the best ever but you don't go out there and play and you're not putting up the stats. Also, we're assuming here that everything teams are giving these players is legal. It frankly wouldn't shock me if team doctors gave guys stuff they shouldn't. My view is at the end of the day it's the players choice what he puts in his body. If that helps him be a better athlete and you have issue with that my question is where is the line? If steroids are past it where are diet supplements? I ask that rhetorically here just to illustrate the point that no 2 people will have the same line. My view here is it's all or nothing and in the case of Cortizone at least in the way it's actually being used if that's fair game then everything else should be too.

As for the second point, ty cobb is a baseball legend. He also happened to be probably one of the meanest sons of bitches you were ever likely to meet. If baseball can celebrate him as a player they can celebrate anyone. As I said before, if they ever prove rose bet against the reds while managing them that's an entirely different thing in my opinion. Fixing games and gambling are two entirely separate issues. But until that point I fail to see how gambling changed the game at all. Best argument I can see from your side on that is he might put players at risk to win a game he has money on. My counter to that is Dusty Baker presumably didn't have money on games and he arguably did the same thing with Wood and Prior and over pitching them. At the end of the day, as manager Rose was paid to win games whether or not he was betting for the reds. So his job was tied to him winning games and as such any risks he would take on players would be there regardless of gambling.

As for Rose habitually lying, so what? MLB themselves are liars. Are we seriously to believe that the MLB had no clue that steroids(or amphetamines before it) were a problem until McGwire started hitting 70 HRs? People can't be that naive. It's pretty clear what went down here. Baseball had a strike and lost a huge chunk of it's viewing audience to football and basketball. Suddenly 98/99 roll around and McGwire and everyone else are hitting ridiculous amounts of HRs and suddenly those boring 3-2 games become gaudy 10-8 mashfests that a causal fan is more interested in. Then reporters being reporters find out the dirt and MLB goes into CYA mode and throws these guys in the wind.

My point here isn't that Rose is some outstanding person. My point is it's hypocritical for the league and people within that league to cast him off as a pariah as though they are without fault. I'm not a deeply religious man here but the phrase "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" comes to mind. Overall, I feel like people need to learn to separate being a good role model and being a good athlete. And honestly, I don't think most people have the first clue what being in a world class athlete's shoes is like. It's easy for the 99% of us to sit here and say they are terrible people for cheating/betting but until you are in that person's shoes you don't have a clue. They are every bit as human as you and I and some would argue deeply flawed because that same drive that made them a 1% athlete is also the drive that leads them to do stupid things like betting money on games they play for an additional edge or using steroids because they don't just want to win. The HAVE to win because a large portion of them is tied to that. Some of these guys if they don't make it are high school graduates who have no other skills because they spent the better part of 2 decades only playing baseball(or insert sport here).

Feel free to have your opinion but I honestly think too many people buy into the easy media narrative of white knight/black knight good guys and villains. Alex Rodriguez will go down with Rose as a villain. He was 25 years old when he went to Texas and apparently started using roids. 25 years old man. How many stupid decisions did you make at 25 that compounded on you? And with Rose, I'm not going to sit here and judge. Maybe he had poor advisors who stole from him and left him with a financial burden he thought he could gamble out of. I'm sure there's a story there and maybe even a compelling one. Rose is probably a lot closer to you or I than the Hilter-like villain MLB has painted him as. But from the day he was caught he's had to do the same thing ARod did and the same thing Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire did before him which was to continue the lie because baseball was all they had. That's why you end up with crap like Favre "retiring" 4-5 times or Jordan playing pickup games with his charlotte players. These guys don't know how to live without that outlet for their competition.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
From what I've read on the subject, steroids are as much about quicker recovery from injury as they are about power. Cortizone allows people who arguably shouldn't be playing to play through pain at a long term risk. Again, we can argue over the semantics here but my point is athletes aren't using Cortizone the way you or I would.

It's not semantics. It's here when I stopped reading as we just don't see eye to eye on the basic premise.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,723
Liked Posts:
3,723
It's not semantics.

You're being pretty naive to believe that addiction to pain killers in which many players have is some how any less of an issue than being on steroids.

Also, if that's all you took out of what I wrote that's pretty sad to be honest because far more people really should consider the impact of what I discuss in the latter half of that post.
 

Diehardfan

Well-known member
Joined:
Jun 10, 2010
Posts:
9,268
Liked Posts:
6,692
Location:
Western Burbs
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Can't believe I'm agreeing with SoxTroll, but he is correct. Pain killers and steriods are two different animals which is exactly why they are treated in a different manner. Pain killers (for the most part) were taken to be able to get on the field to play....while in most cases(not all) roids were taken to be able to hit a baseball farther, run faster or throw a pitch harder.

Here's an example that a lot of us can relate to.....

I don't take steriods to go out and cut the grass better and faster but I do take Aleve so my broken down knees will allow me to cut the grass.
 

beckdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Oct 31, 2012
Posts:
11,723
Liked Posts:
3,723
hile in most cases(not all) roids were taken to be able to hit a baseball farther, run faster or throw a pitch harder.

Go back and read the reporting on the balco case. Read Palmario's report. Any number of people out there have said they thought they were taking stuff to help them recover faster. The obvious implication is that it must have been working or else why take it. Now maybe those players are lying as for motive but maybe they aren't. Either way, my point is that steroids are every bit as much about helping you stay on the field as they are about overall strength. It's why asthma inhalers use steroids because it allows the lungs to recover to normal functioning faster rather than building insane strength in them.

I just think it's rather cynical to view steroids and this type of pain killer in different lights. We're not talking about aspirin here. Repeated use of cortison is believed to lead to deterioration of cartilage. It's every bit as dangerous to use long term as steroids but one is legal in baseball and one isn't. My point here is that there was a time when heroine was a perfectly legal pain killer sold in everything from cough syrup to many other things. MLB only cares about steroids because they muddy their precious history. It has nothing to do or at least very little to do with player safety which is why they should care and which is why they still allow any number of highly questionable things like cortisone as legal.

Regardless, if you don't personally care about pain killers that's your opinion but as I said to brett that doesn't make my view any less valid. I don't distinguish between the two because there is rather clear evidence both aren't good for the player long term. I don't see how MLB sits here and casts down steroids as this great evil while in the background they are allowing just as dangerous to player safety stuff to go down. I'm willing to bet in the next 10 years reporters are going to crucify the NFL and various other sports for this too but no one cares now.
 

Top