Bull Schmidt!

[Gooch]

Although I've only read excerpts from his new book, Mike Schmidt seems to defend the steroid-tainted sluggers like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc. In TV interviews he also supports them and their possible enshrinement in Cooperstown.
I don't get it. Schmidt was a stand-up guy and seemed to represent the best values of baseball... so why is he defending these guys when the evidence against them is so overwhelming???

[Ashburn1]

Didn't he say something a little while back about how he would probably have been juicing if he played in the steroid era as well?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Schmidt was ever considered a "stand up guy," who "seemed to represent the best values of baseball".

[ed hardiman]

Schmidt the greatest 3rd sacker of all time is just the latest example of ex-Phillies saying really wacky stuff to the press, like Dutch apparently the Fla. sun affects their noodles...

[runningshoes]

Schmidt the greatest 3rd sacker of all time is just the latest example of ex-Phillies saying really wacky stuff to the press, like Dutch apparently the Fla. sun affects their noodles...

To sell books, perhaps?

[ed hardiman]

To sell books, perhaps?
Not a bad contention except Schmidts's been way out on the wrong end of the steroid thing for a while, on the one hand he always was a contrarian where controversy over a player's concerned, like Rose after he admitted he was guilty a couple of years ago, but I think Schmidt would've used anything to make himself better as a player cause that fits his competitive drive and like a lot of players doesn't quite grasp they might play the game but it resides in fans to cherish and remember and this doesn't quite resonate as fair to them...Why stop at steroids why not a super ball core? Why not aluminum bats?
Baseball already screwed it up by lowering the mounds for batters....

[Androctus]

Schmidt admitted on TV earlier this week to taking over the counter amphetamines (he cited "No-Doze" as one, but thats obviously very different) I think he's just chosen to adopt a don't rock the boat policy where, if an investigation finds Bonds worthy of some punitive action by MLB, I think you'll see Shmiddy change his stance dramatically. Honestly, I was kind of shocked my self at his stance. If it was me, I think I'd be more upset and outraged my accomplishments we being trounced by a pack of pill-popping Venice Beach posterboys.

[ed hardiman]

Schmidt admitted on TV earlier this week to taking over the counter amphetamines (he cited "No-Doze" as one, but thats obviously very different) I think he's just chosen to adopt a don't rock the boat policy where, if an investigation finds Bonds worthy of some punitive action by MLB, I think you'll see Shmiddy change his stance dramatically. Honestly, I was kind of shocked my self at his stance. If it was me, I think I'd be more upset and outraged my accomplishments we being trounced by a pack of pill-popping Venice Beach posterboys.
Saying you popped no-doz is like saying you popped Flinstone vitamins...and this just in from Pillsbury A.Poppin, a highly touted juicer in the Devil Rays Organization, Pill's says:
"...On behalf of all the plumper juicier ballplayers built by steroids we resent your implication we worked out in any way, shape, manner, or form to build these rock hard steroidy abs and incredibly huge bald craniums..."

[Androctus]

Saying you popped no-doz is like saying you popped Flinstone vitamins...Well he was up front at least about the no-doze, maybe he wasn't ready to come clean about the Flintstones.... Some adults are too embarassed to admit they still pop the chewables..:crazy

But I have a question, because there are those who still contend we shouldn't fault the players so much because MLB knowingly allowed the whole ordeal to take place.

Maybe some more fluent in the law will correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most of these substances controlled in such a way that it is illegal for people to posess and distribute them without special authority to do so? I mean, not everyone can go to a drug store and buy a human growth hormone. Aren't there more laws that were being broken here by players than simply cheating at baseball? And if this is true, should we hold MLB accountable for not controlling the flow of illegal chemicals that clearly should fall under the jurisdiction of the DEA, and the law in general? But if in fact team ownerships and MLB knew players were doping and trafficking in illegal substances, wouldn't that make them accomplices to illegal activity, and subject to an investigation of their own, by the DEA?

Actually thats more than one question... but Phorumites should want to know the answer to the last question, because if true, maybe we have another avenue to replace the current ownership?

[ed hardiman]

Well he was up front at least about the no-doze, maybe he wasn't ready to come clean about the Flintstones.... Some adults are too embarassed to admit they still pop the chewables..:crazy
But I have a question, because there are those who still contend we shouldn't fault the players so much because MLB knowingly allowed the whole ordeal to take place.
Maybe some more fluent in the law will correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most of these substances controlled in such a way that it is illegal for people to posess and distribute them without special authority to do so? I mean, not everyone can go to a drug store and buy a human growth hormone. Aren't there more laws that were being broken here by players than simply cheating at baseball? And if this is true, should we hold MLB accountable for not controlling the flow of illegal chemicals that clearly should fall under the jurisdiction of the DEA, and the law in general? But if in fact team ownerships and MLB knew players were doping and trafficking in illegal substances, wouldn't that make them accomplices to illegal activity, and subject to an investigation of their own, by the DEA?
Actually thats more than one question... but Phorumites should want to know the answer to the last question, because if true, maybe we have another avenue to replace the current ownership?
The law requires you actively conspire in such activities unless or until one of the players died as a result and someone might try using reckless indifference as a basis to take a feeble swipe at you.
With millions of dollars on the line with these athletes teams are well aware of every little pill that crawls down their gullet but was there a profit driven reason to stop them?
The opposite is true, HR's put fannies in seats, bigger tv ratings, if the pills wrung them out quicker, all the better they'd get a bigger supply of HR hitting juicers which in the long run depresses the cost per juicer to the team.
Win-win.
I'm sure they never figured the fans on calling it straight up and down cheating.
They keep acting like it will go away if they shut their eyes really hard, it won't.
And I deny eating the Betty-vitamins first...

[Androctus]

Oh I understand it was in the owners best ineterest to do nothing. But my real question is that don't most steroids fall under the same category as say, cocaine, in legal terms? In that it is simply just not lawful to have them in your posession, period? (I confess my ignorance in this matter....)

[ed hardiman]

Oh I understand it was in the owners best ineterest to do nothing. But my real question is that don't most steroids fall under the same category as say, cocaine, in legal terms? In that it is simply just not lawful to have them in your posession, period? (I confess my ignorance in this matter....)
Look would you ix-nay on the ug-drays?
Steroids can't be snorted or smoked consequently Selig doesn't realize they're illegal drugs and possession or use alone should fall under current drug policy not the weaker Alice in Wonderland steroid policy.

[Gooch]

Schmidt defending Rose I can understand since they were/are good friends (much like how Mays and McCovey are now defending their pal Bonds).
I said Schmidt was a stand-up player with good values because his career was largely free of controversy (despite the boos he received from Phillie fans) and he seemed like a good guy to me.

[Androctus]

Rose is becoming alot more defensible these days. Rose may have had a gambling problem, may have bet on baseball, may have wagered on his own team, but bottom line is never to my knowledge bet against his team or threw a game, so his actions never really had an impact on the game itself. Doping has taken the sport and turned it into a vague parody of itself.

Sorry Ed. Heads should roll over this one. Nothing would be a bigger deterrent than to see some of those enormous craniums behind bars. There should be a firing squad, gallows, deserted island, sinking ship, something.

[ed hardiman]

There should be a firing squad, gallows, deserted island, sinking ship, something.
How about
"Death by Ed Wade Motivational Seminar?"

[Androctus]

How about
"Death by Ed Wade Motivational Seminar?"Yeah thats a good one....ranks right up there with taping the eyelids open and forcing the victim to watch a Maury Povich marathon.

[FrenchyLefebvre]

Although I've only read excerpts from his new book, Mike Schmidt seems to defend the steroid-tainted sluggers like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc. In TV interviews he also supports them and their possible enshrinement in Cooperstown.
I don't get it.

Ahhh, but gotta get it, & read the entire book, Gooch. He doesn't necessarily defend them, as much as trying to relate to why players in general have always done things to get an "edge".

And he merely states, as far as Sammy & Bonds go, that he, himself, wouldn't condemn them just yet; until something is proven. (This book was written back in November before the new Bonds book came out).
He does elaborate on Bonds as a player, though. Good points, even if we despise Bonds.

Raffy? Schmidt says "...probably not ... More likely, he will never be honored for 3,000-5000, but will always be remembered for 'Never. Period.'"

He'd say yes to Big Mac HOF, basically, because nothing's been proven (and the stuff Mac admitted to taking could be brought at a store -- he had it visible right on his shelf in his locker).

Reading this book was as if I was sitting at a bar shooting the **** with him myself. The title is misleading, IMO, for it's all really just his humble opinions, based on his own experiences & insights -- with open-minded rationales accompanying them. No controversies, or sound-bite shattering quotes. Just honest and open-minded views. He's not a Bob Feller here.

And this was certainly not the impression I had gotten reading the stragetically phrased "excerpts", either. Matter of fact, with Hochman's review in the DN (he's always been my favorite columnist), I was expecting less.

Schmidt makes a lot of really good points in the book. I was surprised at his feelings about the DH, for instance. But upon reading more, it really makes you think. And hard to argue with him, as I thought I would want to.

He's very articulate and most thorough in conveying the points he wants to make.
Get a hold on one if y'all can.

PS While I wouldn't expect Schmidt to remember years and dates for every mentionable event as a Phillie, my only real critique is I wish he'd have chosen a Stan Hochman to write it with. And years were off, and one of his quotes (retirement speech) was inaccurate.
I saw these instantly, while a Waggoner/Wank didn't catch some things, such as ... Giles wasn't the owner until 1981...

And I do think Schmidt is being extremely "polite" regarding some people, especially the Phillies Org. (post Ruly).
I think he went' "mild", not wishing to use his book for "stick-it-to-you" type stuff.

Again, title and paraphrased "excerpts" = very misleading. Schmidt actually takes a very diplomatic approach to each topic, IMO.
I get the "I'm not supreme to these present players or anybody" impression throughout.

If anyone has a question about something, I'll post some of Schmidt's points.

But I do recommend the book, a quick read at 196 pages. I do think he was rushed for a March release by Harper-Collins (baseball starved fans this time of year) -- and even moreso, "coached" by the publishing people for those "teaser" sound bites in recent interviews; i.e. greenies thing. JMHo, though

[Ashburn1]

Rose is becoming alot more defensible these days. Rose may have had a gambling problem, may have bet on baseball, may have wagered on his own team, but bottom line is never to my knowledge bet against his team or threw a game, so his actions never really had an impact on the game itself. Doping has taken the sport and turned it into a vague parody of itself.

Heavy sigh.

I hate that people are using this steroid business to excuse Rose's actions.

What Rose did was a lot worse as far as the integrity of the game on the feild is concerned.

Steroids are just another way to get an edge. It's not much different than corking your bat or throwing a spitball. A little different maybe, but not much.

Pete's ban is just and fair. I think that he should be banned for life from the game, and possibly the HOF as well.

And before anyone calls me a Rose-hater, he was, and still is, my favorite player of all-time. But he commited the cardinal sin, and he can't be let off the hook.

[FrenchyLefebvre]

Oh I understand it was in the owners best ineterest to do nothing. But my real question is that don't most steroids fall under the same category as say, cocaine, in legal terms? In that it is simply just not lawful to have them in your posession, period? (I confess my ignorance in this matter....)

I believe so, Androctus. Illegal is illegal (that is, if you weren't a baseball player).
But with ANY illegal drug/action being done by its players (especially stars), baseball's stance has continually been:
"While these may be crimes against society, they are not rules against baseball and do not undermine the integrity of the game itself."

Whatever.
Bet Giamatti's rolling in his grave. When asked to reconcile baseball's drug policy with the sport's stance on gambling back in '89, he replied:
"I don't think the drug problem has reached that proportion".
Man, if he could only see this mess now!

And think about it ... If Vincent/Selig had been commissioner back in 1919, there would be Bookie-Booths alongside every beer stand in all the ballparks. And Odds posted on the scoreboards.

I blame MLB more than I'll ever blame the players for doing everything within MLB's warped and skewed "legal boundaries" to get an edge to perform better.

[ed hardiman]

Heavy sigh.
I hate that people are using this steroid business to excuse Rose's actions.
What Rose did was a lot worse as far as the integrity of the game on the feild is concerned.
Steroids are just another way to get an edge. It's not much different than corking your bat or throwing a spitball. A little different maybe, but not much.
Pete's ban is just and fair. I think that he should be banned for life from the game, and possibly the HOF as well.
And before anyone calls me a Rose-hater, he was, and still is, my favorite player of all-time. But he commited the cardinal sin, and he can't be let off the hook.
Steroids dwarf gambling because it helped a bunch of puffy juiceheads break records otherwise extraordinary in the achievement by great players like Mays, Ruth and Aaron.
Steroid use by Bonds cost Pujols the MVP in his rookie year an incomprehensible travesty that should create a big enough stink to float Bonds out of baseball.
If they have proof Bonds used them, they should strip him of the MVP and give it to Pujols, plain and simple...
Look baseball has screwed Shoeless Joe for years knowing full well he got the shaft over betting.
Look at his stats from that Series!
So Rose who got bait & switched in the Giammatti croaking-Fay Vincent deal is finished bidness.

[FrenchyLefebvre]

[QUOTE=Ashburn1]Heavy sigh.
I hate that people are using this steroid business to excuse Rose's actions.
What Rose did was a lot worse as far as the integrity of the game on the feild is concerned. Pete's ban is just and fair. I think that he should be banned for life from the game, and possibly the HOF as well.QUOTE].

There's that "integrity of the game" thing again ;)
Nobody is excusing Rose.

People questioned the "legitimacy" of games which Rose may have bet on. And people question the "legitimacy" of these homers & records.

Different ships, different long-splices?

Don't recall such a cloud of stench surrounding those 4256 hits themselves.

So it was wrong that they invented that HOF rule (JUST for Rose) in 1991. Wasn't there for the Black Sox all those decades. Heck, Cicotte was NEVER ineligible for the HOF until 1991!

I agree with Rose staying out of baseball. But the HOF? I don't get how anyone can doubt the legitimacy of those 4256 (or even 4192) hits. And just the way he played the game was most obvious to even the blindest eye.
Hence, Rose will always come up in discussions like this. Just as Gooden & Howe always came up in Rose ones.
Sickening, most ironic cycle it's turned into, hasn't it?

If there were questions & doubt surrounding his on-field play, different story.

[Androctus]

Heavy sigh.

I hate that people are using this steroid business to excuse Rose's actions.

What Rose did was a lot worse as far as the integrity of the game on the feild is concerned.

Steroids are just another way to get an edge. It's not much different than corking your bat or throwing a spitball. A little different maybe, but not much. It sheds new illumination over the entire lanscape of the game and the ethics of those who play and produce it. One could argue that Rose's actions, when taken in context, didn't really have a significant impact on the game at all, the damage was done mostly to his own image, not the least of it preventing him from his final and greatest acheivement: enshrinement. It has yet to be seen where he bet against his own team, and if he wasn't throwing games in his position as manager, then the only harm was that it was simply against the rules. No one can contest that, and his ban is just in accordance with those rules. I never disputed that. But there will always be a symapthetic movement to have his acheivements recognized, especially since they fly in the face of all those that have been gained unnaturally.

Steroids changed everything - how else do you accredit the home run explosion since the mid-nineties? An "edge"? Comparing it to corking is ludicrous. Corking didn't help Greg Nettles hit 70+ home runs a season. Throwing a spitter never allowed Perry to strikeout 300 batters a season. These infractions, even though illegal, have become an amusing footnote in the game's heritage, baseball's "foreign object", if you will. Steroids have had such impact that hallowed records that before seemed unattainable have been shattered again and again in such a brief span their influence is indesputable. Their presence now has become infuriating to all, and the responsibility for it lies apparently equal with the players, the players union, owners, management and MLB, now its up to them to clean up the mess. Some people, however, will never be content till they see 100% testing of all players and all the offenders and their records wiped away.