The likable, steady, viagra-touting Rafael Palmeiro, who had recently joined the 500 home runs/3000 hits club virtually assuring himself a spot in the Hall of Fame, threw all of that into question when he tested positive for steroids and was suspended for 10 games by Major League Baseball late last month.
For example, Indians beat writer Paul Hoynes has completely turned on the slugger, writing yesterday, "After telling Congress in March that he never had used steroids, baseball's new drug net recently snagged Palmeiro with a positive test ... Palmeiro's long career has produced big stats and little in the way of sizzle. Steroids have taken care of that, and it is unlikely the heat will fade in the five-year waiting period between Palmeiro's retirement and Hall of Fame eligibility. Was the lure of steroids worth it? Palmeiro is the only one who can weigh what has been lost or gained. As a Hall of Fame voter, I know he has lost my vote."
Hoynes was referring to the specific anabolic steroid for which the Oriole slugger tested positive, stanozolol, which typically doesn't provide the eye-popping physique associated with other performance drugs, but does help an athlete get stronger, build muscle mass, boost acceleration, and in particular recover faster from workouts and other physical stresses. This would exactly fit Palmeiro's career profile: in 20 years, he never went on the disabled list. He joined Hank Aaron, Willie Mays and Eddie Murray as the only players with 3,000 hits and 500 homers despite never finishing higher than fifth in MVP voting.
Oddly, Palmeiro chose a drug that is easily detectable, cannot be masked and lingers in the blood for months. "No tested athlete in their right mind should be using that drug," Charles Yesalis of Pennsylvania State University told AP, who also said he was "shocked" when he heard reports that the Baltimore Orioles slugger had tested positive for the drug.
Article comments
1 - dietdoc
This could, truly, get very uncomfortable for both MLB and Mr. Palmeiro. It is sad (and before everyone starts chiming in, I am keeping this in its proper perspective - it is just baseball!) that, by all appearances, a nice guy might - and I am holding to that presumption for now - be guilty of such behavior. A sticky wicket, certainly.
Thanks for the links, Eric.
Cheers,
Ron
2 - Eric Olsen
thanks Ron, there is a serious brain fart in there between 1) apparently using the roids for a long time, 2) telling congress under oath "no," 3) continuing to use the easily detectable substance after denying it to congress
3 - Nancy
I do wish congress would be held to the same standards it sets for everyone else who deals with them: I'd just LOVE to see every single congressperson & their staffs & the administration lined up & forcibly tested for drugs periodically, and also REQUIRED to hold to strictest truth, or suffer actual consequences, like jail, or at the least ostracism.
4 - dietdoc
Nancy: "...also REQUIRED to hold to strictest truth"
Nancy, you truly must be joking! The TRUTH? In Congress? Nancy, Nancy, Nancy. Methinks you hope for far too much. (wink)
5 - Nancy
I'm on drugs...but not steroids. I don't think. But if I am, I never knew it.
6 - dietdoc
Nancy, next you're going to ask for truth from people who testify on corporate finances and the pharmaceutical industry. Or the physicians lobby. Or...
Nancy, step away from the bong.
Cheers,
Ron
7 - Tan The Man
"As much as Mark McGwire was ridiculed for refusing to discuss his own steroid use before the committee, at least he didn't lie under oath to congress."
Seriously, and as much as I don't like the guy as a player, he is a heck of a person. Although it would have been better if he had just say a yes or no. How many of us would have done the same.
8 - Eric Olsen
he chose the middle path, grasshopper, which was better than lying but worse than tellign the truth. But the truth would have locked him out of the Hall for sure. Quite a dilemma.
9 - scott
i have three words for you guys: ohhhh baba cunda!