Jose Canseco’s Wax Shadow
The word “sincere” comes from two Latin words, sin and cere, that together mean “without wax.” Artisans working with stone could fix errors by binding cracks with melted paraffin, a tactic that created statues and bowls with beauty — but no staying power, no durability. A sin cere work of art was one that not only looked good, but would stand the test of time.
Though books are often termed works of literary art, Jose Canseco’s effort merits neither that term or the term “sincere.” As such, it will fade into obscurity as the ramblings of a deluded, greeded huckster. Ball Four? More like bollocks.
So why write about his prattlings? Because the developing party line in sports journalism appears to be “sure Canseco is unreliable, but we can’t really dismiss his allegations.” With reporters the calibre of Larry Stone taking this easy out, a one-and-done condemnation of the messenger and his message seems worthwhile.
First, Canseco has zero credibility. He’s broke, reduced to selling off his Rookie of the Year ring and AL MVP plaque (and selling out former teammates) in a desperate bid to raise cash. Worse, he can’t even keep basic ‘facts’ undergirding his stories straight. In the 60 minutes interview, we learn that Canseco either injected Mark McGwire with steroids “often,” “more times than [he] can count” or “twice,” depending on whether we believe the written or spoken versions of his lurid tales.
One could conclude that the timing of the book’s release, which comes as baseball implements a new steroid policy, is a coincidence. Of course, you would also have to conclude that Canseco said George W. Bush knew about the steroid abuse simply out of Canseco’s concern for the truth, rather than as a cynical book promotion strategy. If you conclude that way, though, I have a night in the Lincoln Bedroom to sell you.
The Romans had another two word phrase that they used to determine what was behind certain phenomena: cui bono (who benefits)? Indeed, who has the most to gain from inciting an opportunistic moral panic over a hot topic? Certainly not McGwire, or Bret Boone, or Major League Baseball. The list of beneficiaries seems to start and end with a list of Ozzie Canseco’s twin brothers.
Some try to put the burden of proof on the victims. Assuming the allegations are untrue, it is said, we should expect McGwire, Boone or others at whom Canseco has directed mud to sue for libel. If they do not, the argument goes, that tells us something.
Maybe players implicated will choose a legal remedy. There are two very strict legal standards, though, that have made it very tricky to win libel cases. First, you have to prove that something is false, and it’s extremely difficult to prove a negative. Could you prove you have never done steroids?
A public figure defamed by the book would also have to prove that Canseco acted with “actual malice,” showing a “reckless disregard for the truth.” That’s tough to prove, too, because it’s tough to see inside someone’s mind.
Finally, to win a libel suit is also difficult and time-consuming. Even if a party was confident they would prevail, it would take years, and would have the counterproductive effect of keeping the allegations in above-the-fold headlines. If you’re Rafael Palmeiro, a four-year court battle might look much less enticing than allowing dismissiveness and derision of Canseco win the day.
It’s possible that someone will sue. But we shouldn’t draw any conclusions based on whether someone files a libel suit, and to think in this manner reverses the necessary presumption of innocence.
Let me state the obvious: of course there are steroid users in baseball. No one doubts that. But it is unwise and unfair to let that truism kick critical analysis out the window. Legitimate concern over drugs in sports should lead one to investigate how best to curb abuse, something that crass opportunism undermines. Information is never completely separate from its source.
Reporters know that. It’s their business. To acknowledge that Canseco may be less accurate than a stopped clock — but to implicitly endorse the line he pushes — is disingenuous.
If drug abuse is anywhere near as widespread as Canseco claims, then there are numerous other witnesses — ones without book deals and disasteful histories. Ones that might hold some semblance of sincerity.
Jose Canseco does not, and neither does his book. He might be riding high on attention from the 60 Minutes interview, but there’s an old story about flying with wings made of wax.
It ends badly.
Comments
60 Responses to “Jose Canseco’s Wax Shadow”
While I agree that it would be presumptuous to draw conclusions solely from the act of filing, or not filing, libel suits, I think there will be plenty of other evidence to weigh.
Bret Boone’s case comes to mind. While he very clearly denied the anecdotal incident, I am not so sure he denied steroid use. Rather, he labelled Canseco’s allegations as “ridiculous” and refused to talk about it further. I would like to see someone ask him point blank. The answer, or equivocation, could be very instructive.
Also, your presumption that Canseco is making conflicting statements rests on the assumption that “twice” is not “more than he can count”.
“we learn that Canseco either injected Mark McGwire with steroids “often,†“more times than [he] can count†or “twice,—
Ooh. There’s a really good joke there, waiting to come out!
Very well done. That was one of the most sensible, thought-provoking comments I’ve seen on the issue. Welcome to USS Mariner. I miss San Shin and Musings, but critical thinking such as this deserves the broader platform.
I couldn’t agree more with Jeff’s comments about a potential lawsuit. It would be incredibly time consuming and would have the unfortunate side effect of keeping this issue in the news for the suing party. However, I wanted to add two other issues to the mix: first, if McGwire, et al were to sue they would need to show some kind of quantifiable damages. Perhaps the only way that he/they could do this would be to show income lost from endorsements, public appearances, etc. McGwire has always shown a reluctance to endorse or even appear publicly, so it would be pretty hard to show any kind of economic damages. Second, and more importantly, why sue if Canseco can’t pay up? If Canseco is so broke he’s hocking his awards, he’s probably judgement proof, making a protracted lawsuit not only bad from a PR sense, but unwise from an economic sense. I suspect others who make limited endorsements (Bonds and Boone come to mind) would feel similarly.
#2- FWIW, Boone *has* said that he has not used. The subject has come up over the years, esp. after Caminiti made his first comments about 50% usage. I was entertained to see that Canseco’s annual claim of being ‘blackballed’ by baseball (which began around 2001) has now switched to being ‘blackballed for steroid use’
#5– re: libel suits, etc; if anything results from this, it might be via Peter Angelos, who issued his letter of support for Palmiero on his law firm’s letterhead, and said that he was willing to offer any legal assistance that Palmeiro would need to clear his name… I assume the idea is that Canseco’s accusation might damage Angelos’ property (the team & the player), and therefore be worthy of a suit.
Here is the thing with body building. If you do it every day for several hours you’ll get big whether you use steroids or not. When I started using weights my whole upper torso grew large enough that people noticed when I went back home. And thats after only 3 months.
I’ve known people who have used steroids that had a very small effect. Thanks to their body type all it did was help them define their muscles more.
Its very possible for someone who has played baseball for over a decade to be much smaller when they started than when they finished without using steroids. Thats a very long time to fill out your body.
Career years don’t mean anything. People have been having those since before steroids were around.
It bugs me that a guy who took steroids because he was lazy and didn’t want to work as hard can point at any large baseball player and get the media to think he could be right. It shows how few people in the media have actually seen how steroids work.
“If I see evidence that someone may have used steroids- all of a sudden large upper body that looks like a body builder[ Boone, Bonds, McGwire], has unusually high RBI and HR stats[ all of the HR record breakers of late], and people saying that this person used steroids.”
Add steroid usage to the legend of the RBI as a stat
I guess…
Ditto for saves, wins and productive outs.
In baseball, as in anything else, desperation’s a killer. Whether it’s desperation for attention, money, or relevance (or in Jose’s case, the trifecta), if someone’s desperate for something, they’ll get it, at whatever cost.
All you need to know about the veracity of Canseco’s comments comes from his Boone anecdote:
Anecdotal evidence is never strong, and this is reeeeeally weak even by anecdotal standards – “the bond of a secret code”? So apparently, they’re not steroid buddies, they’re Freemasons. Sweet.
#9 Because its an extremely long process that keeps it in the open for years during that process. Also its so hard to win one that even if a player had never used steroids they would still most likely lose the case.
If players know that others used steroids and injected each other. Does that mean pitchers were talking about something else when they complained that the baseballs were juiced all through the late 90’s? Where they trying to tell us something?
There is some credence to the fact that not filing a law suit makes some of these players guilty. Filing a law suit does not automatically mean you go to court. Many libel suits are settled without anyone making a sworn statement. If the players knew they had a case then they could file then ask for a settlement that would be less than the cost of trying the case for Regan Books and Canseco. I think that many of these players are more afraid of what might come to light if lawyers start poking around their past and compelling people to testify.
#1 and #9 — The burden of proof is NOT on the players named by Canseco. Saying “if you don’t sue, you must be guilty” is the ultimate McGuffin — unless you have videotape of every moment Canseco and McGwire spent in the same area code, there is no way to prove that Canseco is lying. The same rationale also says that there’s no way to prove if he’s telling the truth. By suing, the player automatically assumes the burden of proof — and takes it away from Canseco, which does nothing but a favor to Canseco. There is NO way to prove or disprove anything, unless DNA tests or whatever become someday so sophisticated that it can detect any trace of anabolic steroids in a person’s system at any time, no matter how long ago they might have been taken.
There is no truth here. Only whom you believe. “Credibility” is often a function of subjectivity — who is perceived as poipular, who is perceived as alienating, who has done things we disapprove of in the past. It should be about empirical fact. And there just aren’t any here, because there are no hard truths here —no smoking guns, only straw men, McGuffins and red herrings.
Stone and his “We can’t dismiss Canseco’s allegations outright” are correct as far as they go, but they’re useless lines of reasoning because they can’t possibly go anywhere. All Stone is really saying is, “Bret Boone and the others named by Canseco have a cloud over them, and we intend to keep pointing it out and pestering them about it until we get a reaction.” That’s less than useless, and, as far as I’m concerned, damages Stone’s “credibility.” He’s saying he’s willing to prop up a stick to keep open a Pandora’s Box that he has no interest in closing. Because the rise and fall of athletes makes good copy.
If there’s nothing sportswriters love more than building up an athlete, it’s tearing one down. Who really cares if it’s true anymore? It’s all good copy.
By the way, Jeff, I’ve re-read your post several times, and it is one of the finest pieces of essayism I’ve ever read. It should be included in anthologies for college-level logic and journalism classes. Your gifts were entirely wasted at the friggin’ North Kitsap Herald.
My opinion is that even though the book obviously hurts some baseball players image….no one will sue. The process is just too long and extensive as well as the baseball player has to reveil their entire life of “behind the scenes” just to prove that they didnt do steriods. I highly doubt anyone in baseball wants to be dragged through the ringer, especially if you are a Big Mac or even a Bret Boone.
Secondly, no law suits have been filed against Victor Conte, and people believe the stuff he has said! His information is more damaging than Canseco’s in my opinion.
NEWSFLASH: CANSECO NEVER HIT A DOUBLE VS. THE MARINERS IN 2001
He walked as a PH in 1 game, hit a single as a DH in another game, and went 0 for 3 in a 3rd game. At best, his Boone anecdote is a fuzzy memory as he never hit a double. Perhaps he winked at Boone from 2nd after being advanced from 1st base. More likely, it’s a total fabrication.
Fact checked on Retrosheet.
Without Wax? Just finished reading Digital Fortress by chance?
I especially liked KJR this morning, where Mitch Levy (the morning host) spent 15 minutes speculating on Edgar’s steroid usage… based on various rumors he’s heard.
Yeah, I’m sure he was juicing in Calgary winning those PCL batting titles, too. And boy, 25-30 HR’s a year (where Caminiti and Canseco hit 40)? What was he using, Mountain Dew Code Red?
Since Canseco hit no doubles in that game (you can check the records), it’s pretty clear that his Boone story is at least partly false.
#1 your comment about asking Boone point blank about steroid use since he dismissed the alegations as opposed to answering them is how witch hunts start.
The burden of proof in our society is to prove guilt, not insinuate it. Let’s not lose sight of that with our public figures.
Rusty:
You are my new hero. Way to be a fact-checker. If you had worked at The New Republic seven years ago, Stephen Glass would never have happened. Your research is an important, ground-breaking discovery that deserves wide play in the mainstream media. Please send it to the P-I, Times, News Tribune, Weekly, etc.
Now … where was Canseco’s editor? Don’t publishers of “non-fiction” books employ fact-checkers anymore?
Canseco’s ambiguous, unsubstantiated ramblings notwithstanding one of the things the book does is to reignite the flames of conjecture, finger pointing and controversy. Canseco’s integrity, motives and reporting accuracy should not be used to diminish the fact that use of steroids distorted the baseball stats of the last decade. And we all know stats and history are essential ingredients to the lure of baseball. Look at the Bash Brothers, McGwire/Sosa, Bonds HR run, and dare I say it Boone/Edgar of recent years. Maybe rapid body growth by itself should not incriminate a player but couple that with breakout record years or the extension of a career past 40 years and it becomes very suspicious. Just look at baseball’s history of the players with 50 home runs a season and you will see a real spike in the stats over the last decade. Commissioner Siegel says if Bonds breaks the HR record baseball will celebrate as they have in the past when a record is broken. The question the fans must deal with is are these terrifc stats legitimate and worthy of praise based on the raw talent of the players or have we entered the 21st century and are beginning to see that the best players may have some talent but also have a lot of science working for them? Have steroids made a joke of baseball stats and history? Baseball needs to test for steroids, test often and unannounced. Penalties must be severe. This will clean up the sport and return integrity and legitimacy to the game. Then hacks like Canseco will no longer have an audience.
Jim,
I sent it to the P-I and Times. Thanks for the comments. It just seemed so easy to check. I can’t believe the book editor didn’t have one baseball fan on staff that thought to fact check some of his stuff using the easy internet tools available.
The book excerpt makes it clear that the double against the Mariners was in a spring training game, which Retrosheet does not keep records for. Sorry to burst your bubble Rusty, but in this case, the fact checking is not nearly as simple as your statement makes it sound.
Lumping Edgar in this group is stupid. Was Edgar jucing when he was hitting doubles and winning consecutive PCL batting titles in Calgary in the mid-80’s? Edgar’s stats are remarkably consistent through his career- it’s not like Caminiti or Boone where all of a sudden there’s a “What the HELL?” kind of year or two in the middle of his career. There’s simply no evidence there’s anything at work here other than weight training.
And chief, Ted Williams and Stan Musial played past 40, too. Were they on steroids?
Okay, first, nobody has ZERO credibility. It’s a spectrum, as I tell my clients frequently. You look at his allegations as self-interested. Aren’t they all? Whistle-blowers may not gain financially, but they benefit from their freedom from guilt, or maybe a boost to their sense of self from helping others. Are we to take environmentalists claims less seriously because they — along with us, I suppose — are the primary beneficiaries of a cleaner environment?
I will agree that you have to discount his credibility because of the financial gain. Also because his anecdotal evidence is fuzzy, at best. (As I also tell my clients, don’t lie. But details make lies seem more truthful. That doesn’t work if you screw up the details.)
Then again, let’s look at the support for his claims. First, I’m not sure how the book might have been changed since it was first shopped, but let’s assume that no names were added. In the book, Canseco claims to have done steroids with Giambi. Big-time user. From Giambi? Denial, denial, denial, just as we’ve seen from Raffy, Pudge, Mac, etc. And lo and behold, Canseco was right. Giambi admits to the grand jury that he was a big-time user. Next, Canseco implicates Bonds. Deny, deny, deny. Lo and behold, in his grand jury testimony, Bonds admits to using substances that sound an awful lot like “the cream” and “the clear,” two steroids. Next, Canseco implicates Sosa. Deny, deny, deny. We still have no proof, but remember that when Rick O’Reilly famously tried to take up Sosa on his offer to pee in a cup any time, any day, Sosa refused.
Second, look at the people that Canseco has accused. As a lawyer, I’m used to seeing lies, so I think I have at least some ability to see the truth. Okay, if you are going to lie about people you DIDN’T take steroids with (Boone, etc.), it would be pretty easy to just point the finger at the most oft-rumored users (Boone, Brady, Sosa, Bonds,etc.) For the most part, Canseco did that. And you could see him trying to bring Mac down because of jealousy. Okay. But you would not expect him to point the finger at guys who, to my (admittedly limited) knowledge, have NEVER been the subject of steroid rumors. Pudge? Raffy? Wilson frickin’ Alvarez?!? Now, maybe Canseco has mastered the art of providing unexpected details to sell the lie, but this enhances his credibility in my book. You can dismiss the claims about Mac as being fueled by jealousy; what of the claims about Alvarez? Why would he say that if it weren’t true? For money, as we’ve suggested is the base motive for the book? Who is going to care about Alvarez? For notoriety? Again, who cares about Wilson Alvarez?
So I think guys like Stone have it exactly right. Jose is a rat. He’s a bad ex-teammate. You question his motives. On the other hand, MLB and the other players also have an interest in denial. On the other hand, at least two guys he’s pointed the finger at have turned up “dirty,” and he presumably made the allegations before the grand jury testimony was ever leaked. One other famously refused to be tested even after he said he would submit to testing. On the other hand, Canseco has made allegations against players that don’t fit neatly into the “he’s just jealous” or “he’s just trying to be sensational to get money” arguments.
Dave: As Jeff Sullivan noted, the Times checked spring training records for 2001. Canseco didn’t hit any doubles against the M’s then, either. He reached base once, and it isn’t apparent whether he advanced to second afterward.
Cody: I’m afraid I don’t know what Digital Fortress is. Apologies for my ignorance.
Eponymous: To steal Norman Chad’s line about Chris Berman, listening to Mitch Levy is like watching a toilet overflow.
Jim: Thanks. Sincerely.
Dave-
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/mariners/2002178449_mari12.html
A check of spring-training records from 2001 shows that Canseco batted four times against the Mariners and didn’t have any doubles. He reached base once, and it was not clear if he advanced to second
I’ll bet you dollars to donuts the M’s provided those to Lsrry Stone to rebut Canseco.
Bah! I just looked up spring training stats only to find I’d been beaten to it.
Jose only hit one double in spring training 2001 as far as I can find, none against the M’s.
I knew about Sullivan’s post, and wasn’t trying to defend Canseco. More than anything else, I was simply pointing out that a quick check of retrosheet by the editor wouldn’t have revelead the necessary information to refute Jose’s claim.
USS Mariner has a good post about steriods in baseball. I got into an argument about this once, and it ended with the guy saying “You can’t honestly believe that McGuire didn’t do steroids?”. That’s the kind of discussion we’re…
you may not believe that he is 100% accurate in his claims, but to discredit him is blind.
i can only speak from what i have seen with my own eyes, but i have personally known more than a few teammates when i was playing in college who used steroids. i have a number of friends and former teammates who now play in both the big leagues and minor leagues and from what i hear from them, the steriod use only increases with each level they go up. i think its pretty amazing that the media continues to look the other way when it comes to this. i think calling steroids a ‘competitive advantage’ is outdated by about 10 years because it has now become a ‘competitive requirement’.
#25 From the way they made it sound he re-wrote a chunk of the book to focus more on steroids after the steroid debate started to heat up. That would make it easy for him to point fingers at players who have already been “outed”. Adding lesser known players could be a way, in his mind, of validating what he says. It would seem to me that it would be the less talented players who would use steroids more in an attempt to gain an extra edge and another million dollars to their contract.
#30 Its extremely possible that McGuire had enough success with the legal substances that he stayed away from the illegal ones. Its going to take more than one guy’s tainted word and insinuation for me to label someone guilty of steroids use.
This is going to get extremely annoying if anyone who gained 10 pounds or had a career year is going to get pointed out as having used steroids. Its one thing to be naive of the situation and its another to point at every player who looks different a decade after he started playing MLB.
Canseco acts like everyone knew this was happening. If thats so either the juiced ball era was the pitcher’s way of telling us or they are so completely removed from the rest of the team that they had no idea what was going on.
Look, philosophically speaking, nobody knows ‘xcept the people involved; everyone is mucking things up by adding their own bias conclusions.
you may not believe that he is 100% accurate in his claims, but to discredit him is blind.
But people need to decide whether they should be financially supporting him, and whether he really adds any new evidence towards steroid use in general and with specific players. I’m really not convinced that the incidents he alleges are true, rather than just a case of him slinging mud at the usual targets and hoping enough sticks to drive book sales through the roof.
Do you give a psychic your bank account number to invest in the stock market when they say you have “woman trouble” half an hour after you were dumped by your girlfriend? Someone may be right but lying about how they came to that conclusion. If some, or much, of what he describes never happened why should you support (at best) a partial lier?
Even if something supports your particular side of an argument you should give it at least some sort of critical eye. It lowers your own credibility if you’re trying to support your argument with evidence that is obviously faulty
There’s an awful lot of finger pointing going on right now regarding steroids. Jose Canseco, of course, has his book and 60 Minutes interview. Murray Chass is pointing fingers at Yankees management for not heeding a signal that Giambi was…
#32. I admit that if Canseco added Giambi and Bonds AFTER the grand jury testimony was leaked, then obviously one argument supporting the truth of the rest of his claims goes away. But, IIRC, he was touting this book as a tell-all, including steroids, when he first brought it up several years ago, long before the testimony leaks. Sure, it was in response to the steroids issue raised by Caminiti and others, but the point is he named two guys who were later found to be juicing, before the evidence was made public. I’m just saying it supports the truth of his other claims.
As to the lesser known players, I also admit that he just might be a really good liar. He might know that by adding a few smaller fish that you wouldn’t expect, it makes people like me think more of the allegations against players you would suspect. But that seems pretty far-fetched: “Hey, just to make it seem more truthful, I think I’ll just throw some random guys under the bus here. Hmmm, who did I play with in Tampa? Alvarez, that’ll work!” Seriously? That seems very unlikely to me.
I can’t let a discussion like this go further without linking to my favorite story of all time.
Can you imagine bulking up via illegal steroids in the hopes that one day, God willing, you’ll hit like Eddie Kasko?
I think the simple fact is that for the most part we will never know who did or didn’t use steroids. There mya be a few cases like Giambi where the player has to testify under oath. But most guys will have clouds that will never be resolved unless they say they did.
Also, as in most situations, it won’t be good guys coming forward with information, it will be sleazy guys like Canseco out to make a buck or save their own skins. We will just have to get used to spending the next few years listening to lots of sordid accusations and know that some of them likely contain kernels of truth (regradless of the motives of the accuser) while many of them are outright lies.
Peter Gammons had a good comment in his latest ESPN.com piece, you have to wonder how differently things would have been had Bart Giamati or Fay Vincent remained as comissioner?
In my opinion, it is Bud Selig that should be blasted with criticism, and not Jose Canseco. Also, the deital light that the likes of Barry Bonds, Bret Boone, Jason Giambi, Juan Gonzalez, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Ivan Rodriguez are being held in is pitifully idolatrous. (However, that is just my opinoin, which is not worth only so much.)
http://sportsline.com/mlb/story/8197833
Now, in regards to journalism, I must state that I don’t think Larry Stone did a good job, as he gave a slanted report on a situation that is wholly debatable. Futhermore, the naive nature most of the columns on this website is somewhat sad. Although, what is even worse is the ignorant claims some of you writers make, such as saying [I am paraphrasing] that: “Jus’ ’cause Jose Canseco has made a few contradictive statements, it therefore discredits everything else he says.” That is asinine logic.
Every counterpoint in the paper’s story this morning was an ad hominem attack on Canseco’s ‘character’ and ‘credibilty’–whatever those are and whatever those are worth in the last pro league in the world to take a pussyfoot stance on steroids. Except for the pro wrestling leagues–I forgot them…
The denials, excuses and evidence have all been thin, flimsy or under seal. From Bonds to Boone to bums (last one maybe not a stretch), who’s going to need the airtight CSI/Law & Order evidence, in the court of public opinion, to see there could still be some long-range, damaging repercussions from this, regardless of the shallowness of Jose and Ozzie?
#39 It brings even more doubt to what he says. Its not just a few contradictive statements. The book has been out for one day and already half-truths are being discovered all over the place.
He took his little knowledge about other player’s steroid use and wrote it up to seem like he new a lot more than he really did. This isn’t a non-fiction book. Its historical fiction.
I, for one, don’t care if these guys were on steroids. From my point of view, the only guy worth criticising is Canseco himself, because he clearly can’t get his facts straight.
Oh, and the NHL doesn’t test for steroids. Never has. So MLB is not “the last pro league in the world” to do it.
Futhermore, the naive nature most of the columns on this website is somewhat sad.
Did you mean columns, or comments? If the columns, do you believe that most of the writing on this site is naive? How so?
i wonder…
what if it had been mark mcgwire who came out and said the exact same things canseco said. i’m guessing people would give it a lot more credibility. like someone else mentioned earlier, you’re not ever going to get the guys who are well respected coming out and saying these things because they have too much to lose. a guy like canseco, although his motivation for being sensational is clearly monetary, i for one believe that what he is saying is mostly true. the fact that he can’t keep his story 100% the same speaks more to him being a dumb ass than a lier.
look, from what i KNOW first hand of MLB steroid use and what i have SEEN as far as player physiques and stats over the last 10 years, i would say that he is probably 95% accurate in what he is saying. did he spice it up a little bit? maybe, but it doesnt change that this has been going on and covered up for years.
to me, the message is more important than the messenger. his lack of personal credibility does not take away from what i believe to be a mostly true portrayal of what the game has become
“The earth is round!”
“You’re a liar!”
Why are so many so eager to protect the integrity of baseball players. Undoubtedly, some of the claims in Canseco’s book are bound to be exagerated. It’s like fans are in such a state of denial that they can’t bear to see what’s obvious–that dozens, if not hundreds of MLB players are doping to get an edge.
While it may be hard to prove that you did not use steroids, it’s also just about impossible to prove that you once did. In other words, it’s easy to deny that you ever took them. I don’t need to see Barry Bonds urinalysis to know something’s wrong with that picture. Same with Mark McGuire and possibly Boone, too.
Be realistic. We make heroes of HR hitters and give them millions of dollars yet rely on their sense of honor to not use performance enhancing drugs. The real criminals here are those who stood in the way of banning and testing for Steroids for so long.
#43
In all reality, Derek, I am not actually sure what I specifically meant. As it is, most of what I say is rhetorical, and is only there to raise questions. Personally, I’ve always figured it is good to throw the opposite opinion — or at least a different viewpoint — into a discussion because it keeps everyone in check, and makes ‘em usually think twice ’bout what it is that they believe. All in all, I’m nothin’ more than jus’ an average guy who says things to intice some thought on behalf of those who read it. That said, I guess my main qualm is that y’all sometimes go with slanted commentary, instead of being straight news, so I feel it is my place to balance out the perspective of the writing. So yeah, I don’t think it’s a matter of being naive — though, in this case, that was my retort to the original standpoint on how Jose Canseco is nothing more than a worthless liar — but a matter of being unknowingly bias, which is what makes me inclined to reply to the colums that are posted. Ultimately, you all do a good job, and that should be more than understood by not only the readers, but the writers [i.e. y'all], too. Truthfully, my thought on this whole ordeal is that nobody will ever real know what went down, and when it went down, since everything is all muddled up and whatnot, thereby making it nearly impossible to discern the actual facts. In the end, however, it is not about which players took illegal performance-enhancing drugs, but rather what can be done in the future to prevent further happenining. (Wow, I actually agree with Bud Selig on something—amazing!)
Canseco said or wrote injected Mark McGwire with steroids “often,†“more times than [he] can count†or “twiceâ€. Technically, it is possible that Canseco did get the fact right here. That is, if he can count only one.
In the end, none of this matters. Unless someone ‘fesses up (like Giambi), or gets caught red-handed (like Ben Johnson of yore), there’s nothing that can be done about the ridiculous home run numbers that have gone in the books in the last seven years. We just gotta accept them, some of us credulously, some of us skeptically.
That said, I am a bit amused by the vehemence with which Mark McGwire has been defended. We all cluck earnestly about the shame and scourge of steroids in baseball, but god forbid any of us should actually look askance at the guy who destroyed a fourty year-old record that had scarcely been approached before then. C’mon, guys, why is Mac so danged sacrosanct? I mean, whatever, not to worry… he’s still gonna get his bust. But in the meantime, why not let us skeptics be skeptical for a while?
One final thought: remember that movie, “The Fan”? The main character was clearly a Barry Bonds knock-off, played by Wesley Snipes. That movie was filmed 1995. Wesley Snipes probably could’ve pulled off a passable Barry Bonds in 1985 as well. Well, who could they possibly cast to play Barry Bonds in 2005? Not Wesley Snipes, that’s for sure. And it’s not because Wesley Snipes has gotten suddenly smaller.
Maybe Michael Clarke Duncan could pull it off. _Maybe_.
Canseco……if your telling the truth, take a lie dector test.
Imagine if he did and he passed it with flying colors, wow.
So if i’m Canseco’s P.R. agent i say…”if infact you are telling the truth Jose take a lie dector test, and if you pass it book sales will even be carzier then they are right now, more $$ for you Jose”
There is a story on cbssportsline.com just up that states that 10 years ago an FBI agent told baseball security chief Kevin Hallinan that Jose Conseco and a number of other MLB players were using illegal steroids and of course this Hallinan denies that ever occurred. MLB is going to pay a price for their greed and lack of integrity and unfortunately the innocent,naturally talented players during the questioned years will be impacted. It will be interesting to see what happens with this, where it ends.
I believe that what Jose is saying is true, and of course McGwire and Bonds and Giambi and Sosa are going to say no way!!
Bonds may be in deep doodoo with his ex-mistress reporting that he “knew” he was taking steroids. He told her that and to the Grand Jury it is thought that he said he applied a cream not knowing what it was. What happens if the Grand Jury calls her to the stand. Uh OH!!
#50– of course, if Canseco *has* convinced himself of all he says, he just might pass a polygraf. (you know, Alex Rodriguez told him in 2001 that baseball was blackballing him. he did. really. Of course, Alex didn’t recall that conversation.)
Taking it as a given that there has been steroid use, and we may never know how widespread it is/was, what bothers me more is Canseco’s willingness to swipe at anyone (Ripkin got ’special treatment’ from everyone in the game that Jose never got, John Hirschbeck went ‘a little berserk’ calling games after the Alomar incident) The offhand Boone anecdote bugs me more, I suppose, as it hits home with both the M’s and with what the Boones have been in baseball.
According to Canseco, he got to 2nd (on that double he never hit) and Boone had arms bigger than Jose’s, and why Jose just couldn’t believe his eyes. Just to be accurate, Canseco had last seen Boone on the field in 1999. Boone was a chunky 185 (17% body fat, per Boone) when they both played in two interleague games in Atlanta June ‘99. In 2000 Canseco didn’t see Boone at all– either during the season when he played at 175 (after Boone did his first organized offseason workout), or at the end of the season when he’d eaten back all the lost weight while on the DL. He did see Boone (from 1st we assume) in spring of 2001 when Boone was at 190 lbs (7.8% body fat, per Griffin)
The current situation with Jose Conseco is eerily similar to that of Whitaker Chambers more than 50 years ago. To those who are not familiar with Chambers, he made allegations claiming that many well-known and highly respected people at the time were communists. He claimed to know this because himself had been a communist and had worked together with these people as spies.
Chambers was not an admirable character. He was an admitted liar, and a confessed communist spy, among other things, and the people he accused were for the most part pillars of the American political scene. There was hardly a person in the United States who believed him.
One of those named by Chambers, Alger Hiss, had testified under oath to a Senate committee that he was not and had never been a communist, and after Chambers accused him in public, was pressured by his supporters to sue for libel. Hiss was a well-known figure on the national and international scene and the list of those vouching for him was impressive, including a Supreme Court Justice.
The problem was that Chambers was in fact telling the truth. And when the libel case went to trial, Chambers produced his evidence. Hiss ended up being sentenced to prison for perjury (lying to the Senate). This case still stirs passions today.
Now fast forward to 2005, and put Conseco in Chamber’s position. To those who dismiss his claims because of his reputation and his motives, and to those who defend those accused by Conseco, there is a lesson to be learned. He might be right.
You can rely on the legalities, that there is no way to prove or disprove, that there is no hard evidence, or that no policies were violated. You are indeed innocent until proven guilty. Legally.
Or, at the end of the day, you can just plain ask yourself: Do you really believe that Barry Bonds never knowingly used steroids? Do you really deep down believe that Boone or McGwire or Sosa never used steroids? Do you really believe that Jose Conseco is so ‘clever’ that he would simply throw out the random names of inncocent teammates like Wilson Alvarez to add credibility to an otherwise fabricated story?
Sorry for the long post
George S
This is not intended to support Canseco’s allegations, but I don’t think the fact that he misremembered hitting a double really means much. Most people’s memories are not as accurate as you might think, and that probably goes double for those who have used a lot of drugs, like Canseco. Since he certainly hit many doubles in his career, he could easily have one memory (of hitting a double) mixed up with another. I’ve had memories that I later realized were somehow mixed up or filed in the wrong order somehow. I suppose its even possible to remember things that didn’t actually happen, like it may happen that a person says one thing (or thinks they say one thing), and the person listening hears something else or records something else in their memory.
Canseco’s emergence in 1988 as an Atlas-sized masher showed players (and management) that weight training was not (as was perceived at the time) a bad thing for baseball players. So, lots of players got into weight training. Since Canseco proudly admits that he supplemented his training with steriods, he automatically assumes that everyone else did, too. And, since he is already known to have jealosy and spiteful issues with other players and baseball as a whole, we can understand why he’s so willing to “out” almost every other player who had obviously benefitted from weight-training. Canseco really does believe that Boone and others were using, since he’s convinced himself that it’s the only way to get bigger. It’s not. You can get just as big without using steriods.
Another thing. Boone’s sense of humor is well-documented. If Canseco (a known steroid user and promoter) had pulled into 2nd base as he claimed, and commented on Boone’s ripped body, what do you think Boone’s response would’ve been? “Shh…don’t tell anyone.” But, what Canseco can’t see is that Boone was JOKING!
from Tom Verducci, SI
“Baseball’s official position is that it does not anticipate any followup action to Canseco’s book, though — true story — the A’s did dispatch an employee to the clubhouse bathroom to take visual measurement of the stalls, imagining if two 250-pound men actually could fit in without rupturing a disk or wiping out the plumbing.”
Jeff Merron ESPN article, fact-checking a few points from Canseco’s book (including his alleged conversation with Boone at second):
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/050216
While I agree that we shouldn’t conclude that someone took steroids based on a factually-challenged, secret code allegedly shared with Jose Canseco, I believe Boone’s integrity *should* take a beating here. And Edgar’s, and Jamie Moyer’s, and Cal Ripken’s, and every other player in the majors who encouraged — actively or by their silence — their union representatives to block any serious steroids testing before this year.
They — every one of them, who didn’t push the Union to separate the clean from the dirty — are the reason many of the most cherished records in the history of the game will be besmirched for generations to come. They didn’t care enough about the integrity of the game to stop homerun records from turning into a joke.
Blame Bud Selig? Come on, let’s not let our fandom or the broadness of culpability blind us to all who really deserve a major league chunck of the blame.
So, while we’re at it, how about tossing Gaylord Perry out of the Hall of Fame for cheating? Why is a spitball OK, but steroids somehow make records “cheap”? Does not having a racially integrated game before 1947 invalidate any “cherished records” before then?
(Note that steroids weren’t against league rules prior to testing- but spitballs certainly were, have been since 1920 except for pitchers who got them grandfathered in after Mays killed Chapman.)
This is a serious question, folks, not being snotty- it’s my honest reaction whenever I hear about how steroids cheapen records. I have a hard time seeing why you’d consider records attained with many of the best players of the game excluded due to skin color as more sacrosanct than records attained with chemical assistance.
Why complain about steroids more than spit balls? For that matter, why complain about steroids and not other performance enhancing substances, anywhere along the slippery slope from greenies to caffeine or vitamins?
For me, it’s a matter of both extent of the effect and acceptance of substance, primarily the former. Jose claimed not only that steroids gave him an edge, but that they made the difference between him being an MVP and him not being good enough to make the majors. At an age where we would normally expect him to be considering retiring, Barry Bonds is the best player in the game by a huge margin. McGwire and Bonds didn’t just reach the HR mark, they shattered it. I don’t know the true extent to which these cases are attributable to steroids, but until I do, I’m not going to put steroid use in the same category as occasionally doctoring the ball.
Secondly, steroid injection (outside of proper medical supervision) just seems a log uglier. Kids die from injecting steroids. We care about steroids on a societal level that has no parallel with use of a spitter.
Granted these are a bit arbitrary, but they are, I believe, valid reasons for the distinction. Life is full of arbitrary decisions on continua, and not having a precise definition of where to draw the line does *not* mean either that we should not draw it, nor that we cannot recognize that certain acts are clearly on one side of it.