I agree with you but take a more jaded stance. Clemens' comments rub me wrong. This is purely speculation on my part, but I have a suspicion that this could be a steroid coverup. Clemens has a lot to lose and he's not only at the tail end of his career, he's chasing nothing. Bonds still wants Aaron's record and a WS ring would be nice too. Clemens can't risk taking steriods any longer (if he was in the first place)...He's going to quit, but he's afraid he'll break down out there...and is scared of the backlash. Coming up with this Vioxx story in spring training is his way of pre-qualifying his break down, should he quit taking other banned substances. This is just my opinion for I have no proof that Clemens ever took any banned substances..It could be jaded, but it's my opinon none-the-less.

www.funderbeans.blogspot.com

I think you might have pulled a muscle from that reach, David. As long as he obtained them legally, Clemens is as able to take Vioxx as any other 40+ male.

Clemens is, from all I've ever read, a complete idiot. I cannot believe he has the brainpower to make the effort described by Beans above.

I forgot to mention that any steroids Jose took, unless prescribed, were illegal.

I'm not saying that Vioxx is illegal. Nor am I saying that he didn't take Vioxx. What I am saying is that it's possible that he has a long history of taking Vioxx and has now quit. Which is fine and dandy and perfectly legal. It's also the perfect cover-up should his performance on the field suffer. You're telling me there's no other pain reliever out there that he can take? It's Vioxx or nothing? I find that hard to believe. I think the timing on this statement is curious. Should he have been taking anything illegal (besides Vioxx), now would be the perfect time to quit, not be found out, and should he suck this year, he can now blame it all on not being able to take Vioxx. Besides, how many athletes go out of their way to tell you what prescription medicine they're not taking? He gains nothing out of this. It's not like he's a sponsor and getting paid to comment on it. It's all very suspicious to me why Clemens would go out of his way to say that he's no longer taking Vioxx. It's clearly a pre-qualification regardless of whether or not he has taken anything else that is/was illegal.

OK I have never cared for Clemens... for those of you that dont know what Vioxx is... suffice to say it was manna from heaven for arthritis sufferers... if you take what he says just at face value I see nothing wrong with it. And no, I am not naive.

Ice, when used immediately after exertion, reduces swelling and pain, and allows quicker recovery.

It is a performance enhancing substance and should be banned.

Several of you are really reaching to make something out of nothing. Clemens has tormented my Indians for a couple decades so I have no reason to stand up for him. VIOXX acts in some ways like aspirin. Are we going to accuse pitchers who take aspirin of using "performance enhancers?" Also, for those who think Clemens is using this to explain any drop off in performance this year have you considered the fact that he is in his 40's? It would be evidence that he is aging like a normal human being if he had a drop off. I have no idea if he was or wasn't using steroids, but getting older as you age is not proof of former abuse. Also, many players over the years have raved about Clemens' work habits and amount of time on the bike between starts.

How about cortisone shots? Ice, as mentioned above? Liniment, like Koufax and others used? I don't think the Vioxx-steroid analogy is apt.

If the broader point is "where do you draw the line?" then it has to be something like government-approved (FDA) or not-disapproved (criminal law).

The problem with Beans' scheme is that Clemens has made this statement after the FDA commission that was looking into COX-2 inhibitors recommended that Vioxx be put back on the market, and Merck has said they may do so.

It's likely that during this season, Vioxx will be available again, and Clemens should know this. So why set himself up with an excuse that might evaporate in a month?

Of course the point is the broader one. The question is: should steroids be banned? Or, should we care if a player uses them?

People who say "yes" to these questions usually point to two things: that steroids enhance performance, and that they potentially cause great harm to the user. David Pinto is asking, how is this different then Clemens' use of Vioxx? The point isn't to criticize Clemens, but to criticize those who have a simplistic view of the questions raised by steroids.

I do think the harm steroids cause are the point (because in combination with their performance enhancing capabilities, they create great pressure on non-users to take the risk to health that they would rather not), and I think there are ways or drawing lines of degree -- degree of harm, degree of general application, whether the help is primarily pain relief or primarily some other form of alteration of the body. Nonetheless, Pinto's questions are serious, and at least demonstrate that the question is one of degree, and that steroid use isn't a simple question of morality.

"People who say "yes" to these questions usually point to two things: that steroids enhance performance, and that they potentially cause great harm to the user. David Pinto is asking, how is this different then Clemens' use of Vioxx? The point isn't to criticize Clemens, but to criticize those who have a simplistic view of the questions raised by steroids."

uh, critics hardly take a simplistic view of steroids. I would never have recommended that Clemens take Vioxx becaus the health issues were well known before the FDA cracked down. Vioxx and Steroids are entirely different substances. The fact that Vioxx may serve a function that overlaps with steroids is only more reason to ban steroids.

And Clemens taking Vioxx is not going to cause young kids to emulate him and start taking Vioxx. Vioxx is good for arthritic-type joint pain, something that young kids don't have to worry much about.

Capybara,

Thanks for understanding the post.

I should point out that the question of harm isn't the primary cause for wanting to ban steroids. The issue of the harm caused by steroids is a response to steroids advocates who argue that if steroids is harmless that it should be allowed. It is not harmless hence that particularly argument for steroids is not valid. That is where the harm issue comes in.

Last October I wrote a post after I read Vioxx taken out of locker rooms: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/sportsbusiness/news/story?id=1895036
Medical people from the NFL's Jets and NBA's Knicks were quoted about anti-inflammatories. In it, it said Shaquille O'Neill took an anti-inflammatory for 7 years. Gary Sheffield was quoted in it as well.

Can you count what Schilling was having injected into his ankle as being "performance enhancing" too?

let us not forget what happened to Mourning...

David, just to clarify Vioxx a bit.....and I can do this because I'm a registered pharmacist...

Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra are all a specialized form of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAID) called COX-II inhibitors. Being in this specialized category, they have some advantage in that they can be used in patients that are at "high risk" for a GI Bleed or a Bleeding Ulcer.

All NSAIDs are good for pain, and Vioxx and the other COX'II inhibitors have no advantage over traditional NSAID's for pain. This means that Vioxx is no better for pain than ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin), naproxen (Aleve) and aspirin.

So Clemens has used Vioxx, but the pain relief is no different than if he popped a few Advil with Nolan Ryan.

The only advantage is that with the Vioxx, there is a degree of stomach protection that isn't there with the other NSAID's.

The other thing about the COX-II inhibitors is that they are very much over-used in the medical and pharmaceutical industry. Most people using COX-II inhibitors don't need the specialized med, and can get by with ibuprofen or another traditional NSAID. But, with Dorothy Hammill taking Vioxx to help her skate, and the guy that was the great dancer in the Celebrex commercial, everyone wants to dance like this guy!! And physicians don't get samples of the generic NSAID's, but get lots of samples of Celebrex and at one time, Vioxx.

Hope that this helps everyone to understand that the Vioxx really isn't a "Performance enhancing" drug anymore than taking a few ibuprofen is.

Thanks, Ray

I was actually thinking the same thing as Ray's knowledge provided...I can't believe there's much stronger for pain than Aleve, which the doc told me to take years ago, 2 every 4 hours, since it was much cheaper than any prescription and just as effective.

There are forms of steriods that are prescribed as well, and I am not sure if they are still allowed in the MLB plan or if they have to be avoided, like in the Olympics.

Regardless, the rules are now set, and all must follow them. I can't believe it'll be much of an issue, with power numbers or positive tests.

To me, there's a big difference between taking a pain reliever or having Tommy John surgery and steroids. A pain reliever is just getting you back up to square one. Same with transplanting a muscle from one arm to the other. Steroids help build up muscle, so they're in effect boosting you from square one to square two. Maybe that's too nuanced a position, but I just don't like to see bulked up ballplayers. For me, when I watch a ballgame I can put myself out there, the guys aren't much bigger than me. That's not true with sports like football or basketball, and is one reason why baseball's my favorite.

The libertarian in me doesn't like the drug laws, but I've got no problem with private employers (such as MLB Inc.) putting restrictions on their employees.

Steroids are a performance enhancer period. Anabolic steroids are serving no medical purpose for the atheletes taking them whatsoever. Yes, anabolic steroids do have medical purposes but thats not what they are being used for in this case. The vioxx is being used to reduce inflamation and pain. By your arguement the atheletes should not be allowed to drink water during the game because it will replace the H20 that was released through thier eccrine glands during the game thus enhancing thier performance. Its a stretch to say the least. Steroids can turn a pop fly to center into a 408 foot homerun. There is a difference between that and vioxx. We might as well argue that glasses are a performance enhancer and the subsequent rhetoric would be easy even by the simplist minds to formulate. Turning this into a philosophical question of what is enhancement is as trivial in this case as asking which hit what, the bat or the ball.

As for the accusations about Clemens using this as a cover for steroid use. I personally think that anabolic steroids would hinder a pitcher more than anything else. Steroids cause tendons and ligaments to harden thus decreasing mobility while increasing the likely hood of tears. Maybe, it could be taken in a combination that could possibly help a young power pitcher but i even doubt that. The art of pitching derives its power from the entire body, using it as a lever, like a hammer. The power is the technique more so than the arm strength. Weight and hight mean the most. It certainly would not help longevity for a pitcher. Mind you there are banned perfomance enhancers that could help a pitcher but steroids are not a viable option. A hitter uses his body to hit but uses arm strenght especially in the forearms in order to hit a homerun. A hitter uses shoulder strenth in order to hit the other way. Steroids would definitely help here as seen with barry bonds.

How much wood would a wood chuck, chuck? If a would chuck could chuck wood? dag nab it. spank me red and call me fred. Hoo rah!!!

Roger is by far the best pitcher of the modern era. The only one you can compare him to is sandy koufax. Steroids is cheating. Taking aspirin or vioxx is not. Bonds is a cheater so is sosa and mark mcguire. I dont think that Marris's record has been broken yet by someone that has not used steroids or GH. the closest that any natural player has been to breaking it was Jr and Arod. Griffey is the greatest power hitter of our time. A true class act. The steroid inflated league of the past 15 years takes away from his incredible accomplishments. He is probably the best defensive fielder ever including Willie mays. Now, all of this takes away from people like Hank Aaron, mayes, and Ruth. People hear ruth and they only think homeruns. But the man that built american sports was also an incredible pitcher. He had two 20+ win seasons under his belt before he was 22 and had a few pitching records that stood for a long time, most consecutive scoreless innings. All that and he wasnt chasing a record in hitting he owned them all except his batting average which is a measley 7th all time in MLB history and even the roided bonds cant match his career Slugging Percentage thanks largely impart to his non roided days of average power. The point to be made is that records meant something in baseball and they are suppose to be broken but not through enhancing our bodies with hormones that create growth. Espcicially in a time where the parks are hitters parks compared to ruths day. The bats are engineered instead of caveman whoopass stick of ruth. The strike zone is smaller, and the players are armoured while the pitchers toss up "live" balls today istead of the carpet balls of the past. One thing you can read about ruth is he never backed off the plate. BAseball covets records more than any other sport because it is our past time it is americas first sport the one that storied us through two world wars and gave us a break from the depression. ITs baseball god damn it. We should take it back from the cheaters like we took jeans back from the hippies. We should scale back the economic rent associated with it too so the normal owners can make a profit again and the fans can see teams that last instead of constant reloading and unloading. hoo rah. Baseball, the sport thats still worth a damn.