Shane Monahan used steroids

DMZ · December 29, 2007 at 5:28 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Steroids ran through those hockey bloodlines? What? I thought he was the essence of scrappy leadership!

Clubhouse culture led ex-Mariner to steroids and greenies

Monahan says he began taking steroids late in the 1998 season.

“I saw what kind of money it is going to get you,” he says. “I had great minor league seasons, but I wanted to stay in the big leagues. I know my teammates and I know guys on other teams are doing it, and they’re hitting home runs left and right. And I’m sitting there going, ‘All right, well, what I’m going to do?’

Oh, it gets better.

During his brief time in Seattle, Monahan came to believe steroid use was widespread in the Mariners’ clubhouse, although he refuses to identify those he suspects were using.

So, 98-99. I wonder how widespread widespread is. The Franklin connection’s tough to make in 99 — I’d have to go back through the transaction logs, but I don’t think there’s a huge overlap. Segui’s name has been all over the place, as you know.

I don’t know. It’ll be interesting to see if there’s any further investigation of this — I don’t expect the local papers to go after the story, since they’re dependent on the team’s goodwill for coverage. Heck, Blowers was on that 99 team, and now he’s in the broadcast booth. He’s not going to be spilling.

This makes me sad.


43 Responses to “Shane Monahan used steroids”

  1. JI on December 29th, 2007 5:44 pm

    Blowers was only on the team during September that year, so I think it could be hard to peg something there too.

  2. CDavis on December 29th, 2007 6:12 pm

    As the caption of the Monahan bandwagon back in the day, I am so sad to hear that that I have decided to give up on baseball similar to the way that Bavasi has done!

  3. scott19 on December 29th, 2007 6:13 pm

    #1: Not to mention, Blow was fairly washed-up at that point as well.

  4. CDavis on December 29th, 2007 6:14 pm

    Hmmm refreshing can lead to double posting, sorry about that!

  5. argh on December 29th, 2007 6:30 pm

    Blow was fairly washed-up at that point

    All the more reason perhaps?

  6. Dave Clapper on December 29th, 2007 6:36 pm

    Sad, I totally understand. But are you really surprised? I suspect the story (were someone of Monahan’s level to come forward) would be pretty much the same in every clubhouse in baseball. It wasn’t explicitly against the rules and was fairly openly used by a number of players–why wouldn’t anyone but the cherubs like Dan Wilson use?

    Personally, I hope more reports come out like this all over baseball so that hopefully Bud Selig AND the sportswriters who are insistent on decrying Bonds while professing the innocence of others will have their freaking eyes opened.

  7. teacherrefpoet on December 29th, 2007 6:36 pm

    You’ve elided the bit about amphetamines. Monahan says that they were a virtual necessity for the M’s because of their brutal travel schedule. He says he saw every player take them except for Dan Wilson, who refrained due t his religious beliefs.

    Pretty sad stuff.

  8. argh on December 29th, 2007 6:41 pm

    Jeez, Wilson could have been HOF with a little assistance there.

  9. scott19 on December 29th, 2007 7:09 pm

    Yeah, this “say it ain’t so, guys” story REALLY jibes with the supposedly “family-friendly/role model” image, doesn’t it?! 🙁

  10. Matthew Carruth on December 29th, 2007 8:19 pm

    eh. whatever.

  11. Typical Idiot Fan on December 29th, 2007 8:25 pm

    Stories like this seem to be cropping up everywhere as more players who are retired and, thus have nothing to lose are coming clean. At this point is anybody surprised? It has become very apparent that steroid use was a lot more wide spread then any of us will ever know.

    Clean it up, out of the system from here to forever, and move on. Anything else is a witch hunt that can’t change the past.

  12. shortbus on December 29th, 2007 8:28 pm

    Regarding the travel schedule…does the team fly the players around in coach? Can’t they sleep on the plane? Why would they need amphatamines?

  13. Typical Idiot Fan on December 29th, 2007 8:32 pm

    Replace that last “that” with “and”. “..a witch hunt and can’t change the past.”

  14. wokster on December 29th, 2007 8:34 pm

    I knew i loved Dan Wilson for a reason 🙂

    I’d much rather move forward with a stricter policy on steroids than dwell on the past and the who-did-what and finger-pointing that’s going on right now.

    In my own little world they’d put scanners on all urinals in the clubhouse bathrooms, and require a small blood sample before each game, just a little prick like the ones for diabetes… then again my own little world also has the M’s with a front office that knows what they are doing so let’s not wait for miracles 🙂

  15. msb on December 29th, 2007 9:25 pm

    the TNT reprinted a NYTimes story talking about the steroid trail that followed Segui. Monahan’s time with the club parallels Segui’s stint with the M’s, and it can’t really be a coincidence that he thought there was a culture then. If someone else would talk about it, it would be interesting to know if it was as prevalent before and after.

    greenies, well, no real suprise there, that has been a staple forever.

  16. msb on December 29th, 2007 9:34 pm

    It’ll be interesting to see if there’s any further investigation of this — I don’t expect the local papers to go after the story, since they’re dependent on the team’s goodwill for coverage.

    well, they’ve all reprinted or mentioned it today; Hickey talked to Mac about it.

  17. msb on December 29th, 2007 9:54 pm


    ’06 article about the history of greenies in baseball

  18. Typical Idiot Fan on December 29th, 2007 10:32 pm

    I honestly never thought baseball’s drug problem would rival pro wrestling’s, but man.

  19. msb on December 30th, 2007 12:19 am

    what, just baseball?

    fwiw, Stark had a column last week on the double-standard viewing MLB & the NFL

  20. Colm on December 30th, 2007 2:33 am

    Hey, let’s not slander those clean-living, God-fearing 5’10”, 375lb Hulk-lookalikes in the the NFL. What have they done to attract our opprobrium?

    I think it’s becuase of the nature of the game. Because hitters and pitchers are so visable during the game, the viewing public recognize baseball players in a way that they don’t recognize football players. No face = no story.

    Either that, or people have always assumed that football players are all assholes.

  21. milendriel on December 30th, 2007 4:21 am

    #20- I think it also has to do with the general lack of statistics for linemen, the guys who are most likely to be on those drugs. There aren’t any hallowed numbers like home runs or pitcher wins/strikeouts for them to “profane”.

  22. scott19 on December 30th, 2007 5:13 am

    Hmm…wonder if those “hockey bloodlines” of Monahan’s might’ve included Sean Hill or Bobby Holik as “distant cousins”?

  23. PhilKenSebben on December 30th, 2007 5:45 am

    If it was Monahan, Hill, Segui, ect.. It doesnt bother me that much, but I could not imagine Edgar, Joey, Jr., Buhner doing drugs, (ok, maybe Buhner) Damn, Mariners marketing. That was about the same time i used to call the Mariner fan-phone for Rick Rizzs’ Hot stove update. I was pretty young then, about 11-12 I really looked up to alot of mariners.

  24. floydr on December 30th, 2007 8:50 am

    A couple of things come to mind, reading the Monohan story, and the comments.

    1) That was a very loose, free-wheeling clubhouse (Griffey, Buhner, etc.) Not to say there weren’t “leaders”, but there was lots of room for “shady” behavior to exist.

    2) I hate “guilt by association”, and pre-judging people. Nevertheless, it’s getting hard not to say: the preponderence of specific cases of guilt is starting to lead to conclusions. But by that very token, it’s wrong to deny that some people (as 23 alludes) are “just too good” to do drugs. If you’re pre-judging some people guilty by association, you’ve got to apply that principle equally. I think that’s leading some conclusions (especially about specific examples) to be wrong.

    ARod has definitely said never, but he was in that clubhouse. Ibanez, now the clubhouse leader. Moyer. All guilty by association, but (probably ???) not in reality.

  25. floydr on December 30th, 2007 9:12 am

    Note I wrote 24 before reading the Seattle Times this morning:

    Looks like “See no evil, hear no evil” was the norm back then. Speak no evil is evidently not the current norm.

  26. msb on December 30th, 2007 9:18 am

    fwiw, Ibanez’ biggest influence with the M’s has been Dan Wilson ….

    interesting that Shane’s mom (who grew up with hockey players on both sides of her family) is fielding calls for Shane, and says he thinks what he said was interpreted incorrectly by the writer.

  27. ivan on December 30th, 2007 9:33 am

    What? Shane Monahan used steroids and he didn’t hit 50 homers? But . . . but . . . but I thought steroids gave users an unfair advantage!

  28. fetish on December 30th, 2007 10:48 am

    Who the hell cares about amphetamines? That’s like accusing a police officer of running red lights.

  29. Karen on December 30th, 2007 11:26 am

    I tend to agree with what you said in #23, PhilKenSebben, but unfortunately — if what I’m reading on a lot of non-Mariner-fan blogs and message boards is the prevailing opinion — the entire Mariner clubhouse of the past 6-8 years is being tarred with the same brush Ryan Franklin, Mike Morse, and the seemingly multitudinous minor league Mariners have been via testing, as well as the brush self-applied by Shane Monahan.

  30. pygmalion on December 30th, 2007 11:36 am

    27 Why do you equate “unfair advantage” with “hit 50 homers”?

    Many (most?) steroid using players seem to be borderline players who need a little something to get them out of the minors. If this allows them to excel above other players with similar or superior talents and make it to the Show and stick around for a while, how is that not an “unfair advantage”?

  31. mstaples on December 30th, 2007 2:06 pm

    Pygmalion, he was using sarcasm.

  32. Grizz on December 30th, 2007 7:56 pm

    The next time someone wonders why Raul Ibanez is the Face of the Franchise, please refer them to today’s Times article.

  33. jeffinfremont on December 30th, 2007 11:31 pm

    I’m one of those “legalize it/regulate it/tax it” types, so I’d rather see athletes using performance enhancing substances under the direct supervision of a physician.

    I know purists hate it. But hey, Babe Ruth didn’t have access to Gatorade, sports medicine, and MetRX, and didn’t have to face black/hispanic pitchers.

    The game is going to evolve as the technology and culture evolves. If we don’t embrace it, then we’re going to continue swim against the current.

    (not to mention jails overcrowded with small-time drug offenders, but that’s a topic for a different blog.)

  34. Carson on December 31st, 2007 9:40 am

    He’s not naming names. Until his book comes out.

    I don’t know much about the guy, but if a publisher out there thinks people want to read about a clubhouse with “widespread” roid use, he may get an offer that pays more than selling insurance or whatever it is he does now.

  35. msb on December 31st, 2007 9:59 am

    so, why did Shane move up to Vail? did they open a new Home Depot up there?

  36. msb on December 31st, 2007 10:18 am

    #34– McGrath puts in his 2 cents on Monahan

  37. Eugene on December 31st, 2007 10:20 am

    Don’t interviewees typically get a fee for spilling the beans in a story like this, or do they share their story out of the goodness of their heart?

    Also, what ramifications would admitting steroid use (or any form of cheating in general) have on a player’s MLB pension?

  38. DMZ on December 31st, 2007 10:22 am

    No they do not.

    Interviewees are almost never compensated outside of the tabloids, where it’s a fairly common practice to pay for a tip on celeb x’s location/activities/etc

  39. Eugene on December 31st, 2007 10:33 am

    Thanks. I just read Rob Huizenga’s “You’re okay, It’s just a bruise” which is about the author’s time as the Oakland Raider’s physician during the late 1980s. Steroid use was just coming into play in the NFL at the time, and RH talked about one player being paid to give “don’t do steroid” speeches after his career ended. That’s why I was wondering about SM’s interview. Overall, Huizenga’s book is quite an interesting read.

  40. heyoka on December 31st, 2007 11:00 am

    Next player to come out will be WFB?

  41. Jeff Nye on December 31st, 2007 11:51 am

    Those would be the most defective steroids EVER.

  42. scott19 on December 31st, 2007 7:09 pm

    41: Unless the supplier goofed and gave him the placebo steroids instead. 🙂

  43. pumpkinhead on January 2nd, 2008 9:50 am

    Clubhouse culture led ex-Mariner to steroids and greenies

    Who’d have thought people would eat dog biscuits to gain an advantage!

    And yes, I know that’s not what it’s referring to.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.