The could be the most futile attempt at something in the history of all things moot. To the rational public, Roger Clemens was assumed to be a PED user for as long as I can remember, at least as far back as it was assumed Sammy Sosa also used. Then the public's assumption is confirmed in a document not written by a marginalized ex-Major Leaguer like Jose Canseco, but by a universally respected ex-senator and his team.

Roger Clemens, his representation, and friends, the only thing you can do is simply disappear, it will not leave you. If you are going to continue on the path of denial, the best course of action is what Mark McGwire has chosen - exile. Of course, you won't make the Hall-of-Fame, but at least you wouldn't be top-of-mind in the public's PED conscience.

Clemens only chance of long-term validity is to completely come clean with specifics, that way all of his cards are on the table and the public and voters can judge the information to reach an informed decision to whether or not the drugs MADE him a HOFer or simply extended what was already a HOF career.

Clemens, in no scenario, is going to "prove" his innocence. Sorry Roger, that ship has sailed.

Two questions:

I know how Clemens can afford to have a team of attorneys, but how can Brian Mc afford a legal team? He is an ex-trainer, disgraced and outof a job. How can he pay these guys $ 500 to $ 700 per hour?

Why are we concerned with PED's? The proper term that should be used by each reporter should be illegal or banned PED's. We don't throw people in jail for using legal products.

We are concerned about PEDs because they have significant side-effects, all the way up to early death. And when major-leaguers can get away with using them, others feel like they have to follow. We saw this very clearly in the Mitchell list, which mostly included marginal players just trying to eke out a career. For them, even a slight performance boost can make the difference between riding the minor-league bus and financial security for life.

Then there's a domino effect: if the Phil Hiatts and Josias Manzanillos of the world are using, the hundreds of guys competing with them for a bench/bullpen spot will be compelled to use. If they're using, the guys trying to work their way through the minors will use. If they use, so will the college players hoping to be drafted and the high-schoolers hoping for a scholarship. Then you have an epidemic affecting thousands of athletes, many of whom will suffer health consequences.

I don't know about you, but I don't want that.

I don't think that there's a "domino effect" to any of this. Let's keep it in perspective that MLBers (and athletes from EVERY single sport) have been involved with "PEDs" (ill-defined) for decades.

...but I agree, Clemens' ship has sailed. For me at least the question revolves around the effects of Clemens' "substance" use.

Any evidence that there's no "domino effect," or do you just not think so? I can't prove that there is, but the parents of teenaged athletes who took steroids and DIED certainly believe that there is. (See Congressional testimony by Donald Hooton and Denise Garibaldi, among others. They spoke on the same day as McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro, but they didn't get nearly as much publicity.)

And there are plenty of definitions out there for PEDs. Let's take the Olympic standard if you like. Or the Tour de France standard, if you want to bring up a sport that was absolutely riddled with doping and is now trying to clean up. Baseball's problem can't possibly be worse than cycling's.

As for rmt's question about lawyers - there are only so many opportunities in a lawyer's career to get national publicity.

Yes, I absolutely DON'T think so. Find me how many teenagers have died from steroids use in this country. In fact, I'll even open that point up. Find me how many teenagers died directly or even possibly from steroids use. I suspect you'll find very few, very few.

Should steroids be monitored and used under a doctor's supervision? You bet they should, but don't tell me that steroids--with a host of medical uses (i.e. my son's lungs)--are more dangerous than the hundreds of drugs out there that I can't pronounce that'll cure acne, control ADD and ADHD, and whatever else befalls us. What's more (and you can cast this aside if you wish), steroids have NOTHING on alcohol or tobacco use in this country or in any other. Do I advocate kids shooting up any drug? No, of course I don't. But, around baseball (see Leyritz, Jim) and around life, steroids are not the evil that they've been purported to be.

Yes, I know this is a minority opinion in this forum. But, for the life of me, I don't understand why it is.

Kent - you are right. Alcohol, tobacco and aderall are larger concerns.

Millions of kids are taking aderall to boost their ability to get into college - it is out in the open and affecting millions more kids. Why not a crackdown on academic cheating by chemicals - or are baseball stats more sacred than the high school and college tests and SAT's?

As for the avergae steroid user...it is a white guy in their thirties who wants to look buff for the ladies - it is NOT a teenager playing sports. There is NO domino effect in sports, but now teachers and wall street guys and poker players are loaded up on adhd drugs illegally.

http://www.jissn.com/content/4/1/12/abstract

Results
The majority of respondents did not initiate AAS use during adolescence and their NMAAS use was not motivated by athletics. The typical user was a Caucasian, highly-educated, gainfully employed professional approximately 30 years of age, who was earning an above-average income, was not active in organized sports, and whose use was motivated by increases in skeletal muscle mass, strength, and physical attractiveness. These findings question commonly held views of the typical NMAAS user and the associated underlying motivations.

Conclusion
The focus on "cheating" athletes and at risk youth has led to ineffective policy as it relates to the predominant group of NMAAS users. Effective policy, prevention or intervention should address the target population(s) and their reasons for use while utilizing their desire for responsible use and education.

-

I will check for steroid deaths on government web sites.

As an asthma sufferer, I feel compelled to point out that "catabolic steroids" (which is what most asthma sufferers take) are substances that break down tissue (in my case, the mucus clogging the airways in my lungs). "Anabolic steroids" are substances that build up tissue (usually muscle) and promote tissue-building.

The lung issue is not germane to the major point; those substances aren't performance-enhancers for athletes.

I would love to get one question right on an exam or come up with partial rationale in a paper and get full credit for it. That is essentially what Murray Chass is stating.
So yes, he was 'right' on Pettitte, but he was also WAY OFF on Roberts - given the testimony v. the truth.

I also think that anyone who is facing a long jail sentence has little credibility as they will simply fire off any name that they think they can remotely back. This would be like me saying I hooked up with Elisha Cuthbert because we are both Canadians.

"We are concerned about PEDs because they have significant side-effects, all the way up to early death. And when major-leaguers can get away with using them, others feel like they have to follow."

Question:
What about drug addicted holly wood stars?
What about DUI charged professional athletes?

The problem has nothing to do with the 'domino effect', rather, it is solely and completely to do with people not wanting records to be broken. However, the records are kept to be broken. So unless we want to stop teams from performing state of the art surgeries, or players from having a nutritionist and only eaten foods that have been studied and concluded that they are best, or a list of many other things that have improved the performance of a player, complaining about PEDs is laughable....

back to the PED definition.

Curt Schilling used marcaine in order to help win the AL playoffs and the World Series for the Red Sox in 2004. That was a performance enhancing drug.

Willis Reed received carbocaine in order to limp onto the court in 1973 and help the Knicks win game 7 vs. the Lakers. That was a performance enhancing drug.

It has to be illegal or banned PED's

"It has to be illegal or banned PED's"

No, it just has to be banned by the sport in question as a PED. If the sport in question treats it no differently then a recreational drup like Pot with no penalties but just counselling (as MLB did with steroids thru the 2003 season) then it ain't a banned PED even if it is illegal without a perscription.

rainman:

my point is that reporters are saying PED's without using illegal or banned PED's when writing about the topic. It is lazy and sloppy