Roger & L______

So, can you name a Texan athlete with an incredible seven trophies—a national hero—who participated in a sport suffused by drugs, and excelled at an age when others fail, is known as a workout freak, and has been accused by former personal trainers as an abuser of PEDs without much or any concrete evidence? I can think of two, actually. Can you? One seems to be taking a pretty hard fall in the eyes of the public and the press. The other—whose transgressions have been more convincingly documented—has kept his reputation pretty much intact. So. Kind of curious, no? A

39 comments… add one
  • The fact that Lance has not been touched is curious indeed. Although rumors have swirled around him, he was able to get Discovery Channel (surprise, surprise) to do a 1 hr. documentary (describing him more as a freak of nature whose lung and heart capacity were greater than the average bear) to throw off the scent of impropriety.
    This years TdF was a joke, with multiple dnf’s and disqualifications due to PED’s. Even a team captain (Vinikuorov of Asana) was booted by his own team because of them!

    rz-yf December 16, 2007, 11:25 am
  • Lance Armstrong is one of them. Can’t be Clemens though. He will never be confused as a workout freak.

    RS Fanbase December 16, 2007, 11:25 am
  • It’s not that curious. Cycling, while a massive sport worldwide, is a marginal one in the US, not the national pastime. And Armstrong has cancer on his side, to be kind of crass about it. Armstrong’s recovery from a potentially deadly disease buys him a tremendous amount of latitude, rightly or wrongly. Clemens, on the other hand, threw a bat at a player in the middle of a World Series game, has a reputation for surliness, and has created a mercenary persona over the course of two decades in the most high profile sport in our country that hasn’t served him entirely well.
    Armstrong, to the cognoscenti, doesn’t escape the suspicions.

    SF December 16, 2007, 11:34 am
  • Im sure that Clemens was indeed a workout freak. The drugs just would have added more. Get the most benefit if you will….

    sam-YF December 16, 2007, 11:35 am
  • (Carl) “Lewis, though not born in Texas, spent almost his entire track and field career as a Texan”

    RS Fanbase December 16, 2007, 11:36 am
  • Hmmm…. “So, can you name a Texan athlete”
    Not neccessarily texas born?
    Yes. Carl Lewis

    RS Fanbase December 16, 2007, 11:39 am
  • SF –
    When you examine the causes of testicular cancer (the type he had), the one that jumps out are PED’s. I agree that his cancer recovery, plus his foundation, has generated an enormous amt. of goodwill that has shielded him. The double standard is there.
    I guess Roger has to start a foundation that helps players resist the temptation to throw bats, or more importantly, do PED’s

    rz-yf December 16, 2007, 11:53 am
  • Clemens was born in dayton ohio (didn’t knew that), so I assume the two you refer to did not have to be born in texas. my guess on the two are armstrong and lewis.
    sheryl swoopes would apply also
    ….sorry for deviating from your point.

    RS Fanbase December 16, 2007, 11:57 am
  • at this point, i’d be inclined to believe that if armstrong was a cheater, it’d have come out, considering he’s had the full might of every tabloid in europe (and even some american ones, considering his new habit of dating celebrities) brought to bear on him. i’d argue that their scrutiny is considerably more dogged and resourceful than the drug testing authorities themselves, and if nothing has come out now, there may just not be anything.
    all the mitchell report suspects were undone by an array of paid (not enough, obviously) assistants and hangers-on. all those same types of people have come out against armstrong (at the urging of aforementioned tenacious press), but then been discredited.
    as a cyclist, i sure wonder, but he really has held up to an obscene amount of investigation thus far.

    rcolonna (sf) December 16, 2007, 2:47 pm
  • lance felt an “obligation” to his bicycle…….

    sf rod December 16, 2007, 5:45 pm
  • Is this like 20 questions? As mentioned by others, Lance Armstrong obviously comes to mind.
    The other Texan would be … Ricky Williams! That wacky weed is a groovy performance enhancer in more ways than one–from what I hear.

    SoxFan December 16, 2007, 6:17 pm
  • during the a-rod 60 Minute interview tonite, pay attention for the freaky mouth twitch when he says he’s never used PED’s. i’m sure it’s just something he does naturally, like jogging heels to ass, but weird none the less.

    sf rod December 16, 2007, 9:33 pm
  • For whoever’s interested, Jon Sickels has put up his evaluation and rankings of the Sox farm system (top 20 prospects), and will soon put up the top 20 Yankees prospects.
    He has a nice writeup of Ellsbury, and a nice writeup of Horne too.

    Anonymous December 17, 2007, 1:27 am
  • “…pay attention for the freaky mouth twitch…”
    i noticed it too rod, but i was also focused on his eyes for clues…actually though, i wound up more interested in his words…i believe he stated that he has been tested as many as 6 times this past season…if they had something on him, we’d have heard about it by now…we’re going to get ourselves into difficult discussions if we continue to speculate about players not mentioned in the report…

    dc December 17, 2007, 1:47 am
  • I’m torn about ARod. I don’t think he has used PED’s, but if he tested positive I wouldn’t be terribly surprised.
    Now, when it comes down to my hopes… part of me hopes ARod is clean so he can break Bonds’ record during the next decade, and make it clean again. However, I hate ARod, so if he tested positive I wouldn’t shed a tear.
    Anon, do you have a link to that Jon Sickels evaluation?

    Atheose December 17, 2007, 8:41 am
    He writes a lot about prospects.

    AndrewYF December 17, 2007, 8:49 am
  • The “testing positive” thing is totally limited. MLB does NOT test for HGH, which is the drug of choice now that they DO test for most urine-detectable steroids.
    The Mitchell Report was explicit in stating that there is a major gap in MLB’s testing policy, and that is for HGH. I am 100% certain that many players are still using.

    SF December 17, 2007, 8:49 am
  • Sorry, poor choice of words. (Although I do believe that stricter drug-testing policies will arise in the next year)
    I should have said “if it comes out that he used PED’s” instead of saying “tested positive”. The latter was easier to say, and I’m lazy this Monday morning ;-)

    Atheose December 17, 2007, 9:00 am
  • It cracks me up completely that Yankee fans, instead of being stand-up about the roles their guys have played in this ugly saga, first deny (there’s no proof! Umm, oh, yes, there is), then, when Pettitte brings down THAT wall, now deflect (oh, yeah! Well, look at who ELSE MIGHT be doing them!)
    Pathetic. What does the idea that Lance Armstrong might have used have to do with the fact that Roger Clemens DID use, and destroyed whatever credibility he may have had left with threats of lawsuits?
    Everytime you guys point a finger, just remember, there are three more pointing back at you (or seven, or nine…)

    Lisa K. December 17, 2007, 9:23 am
  • Lisa what is the point of your post? This is a place for the respectful discussion of topics between the fans of two teams. Go troll elsewhere and keep your hatred on your own “blog”

    sam-YF December 17, 2007, 10:12 am
  • Lisa, your post contributes nothing and is an attempt to start a flame war. Please troll somewhere less intelligent–head over to if you feel like taunting Yankees fans.

    Atheose December 17, 2007, 10:21 am
  • I don’t believe I’ve said anything that isn’t true. How does smearing people or pointing out who else may have done dope add anything “intelligent” to this conversation?

    Lisa K. December 17, 2007, 10:42 am
  • I do apologize for the tone…it wasn’t meant to be as personal as it sounded.

    Lisa K. December 17, 2007, 10:47 am
  • Just please refrain from turning posts into flame wars. We’ve had too many of those lately, during what should be a somewhat peaceful offseason.

    Atheose December 17, 2007, 10:53 am
  • Because some people find it interesting that there are many similarities between Lance and Clemens, yet they have received different treatments in the press and public. Nobody here is smearing anyone except you.

    sam-YF December 17, 2007, 10:53 am
  • Also, Lisa when you say things like “Yankee fans” are acting in a specific way its a vast generalization that is far from true. There are many yankee fans including many on this site who are very upset about Pettitte and said as much here. Yankee fans are made up of a wide variety of people just like Sox fans and all other fanbases. There are jerks in all fanbases as there are intelligent people with differing opinions on complex subjects. Coming in here and posting what us “yankee fans” are thinking and doing is inflammatory, especially if you haven’t bothered to read the posts in this and other threads on this website. If you did so you would find that there is much agreement on the many sides of this issue regardless of team loyalty.

    sam-YF December 17, 2007, 10:58 am
  • Coming back to earth…
    I don’t think the reason for it is all that hard to figure out, myself. Armstrong is perceived to be a sympathetic figure, a cancer survivor, and a tireless worker for his causes. Nobody would enjoy see him fall.
    Clemens, on the other hand, has a long time reputation of being an arrogant me-firster with very few friends and no social capital to draw on.
    It may be unfair, but that’s just the way it is IMO, and will continue to be.

    Lisa K. December 17, 2007, 11:01 am
  • Cheating is cheating, period.
    Whether it’s done with a needle or a video camera, cork, or pine tar, it’s the same thing. If you’re not willing to tolerate cheating in sports, then I don’t buy that because someone is a “sympathetic figure” they should get any kind of special treatment.

    The Sheriff (Andrews) December 17, 2007, 11:15 am
  • I didn’t say he should get special treatment, but that wasn’t the question that was posed. It was why is the treatment different, not should it be.

    Lisa K. December 17, 2007, 11:20 am
  • I think needles and drug use are quite different than having an extra inch of pine tar on the bat, but that’s just me.
    I find these kinds of black/white absolute statements as too extreme.
    It’s why I view Pettitte as different from Clemens or Bonds, though I don’t like what any of the three (supposedly!) did. It’s possible to think they all transgressed but at the same time to believe that some transgressions are worse than others.

    SF December 17, 2007, 11:22 am
  • I think the Lance thing is appropriate because one of the major things that has bugged me about the whole baseball steroids scandal is the free passes the other sports seem to be getting (in the public eye at least). We have Congress threatening to come in and put MLB under a microscope when I’m sure the PED problem in the NFL is at least as prevalent as in MLB. There’s no public outcry or government response when NFLers test positive. It just seems there is a big double standard for baseball players.

    Mark (YF) December 17, 2007, 11:39 am
  • Lance has been accused a number of times, most recently by Greg LeMond. Lance, being the heroic figure that he is, responded with vicious threats, as he has done in the past. Maybe he is trying to prove he has balls.
    Wasn’t he linked to some doctor in Europe who was trafficking in PEDs?

    Tom sf December 17, 2007, 11:41 am
  • “I think needles and drug use are quite different than having an extra inch of pine tar on the bat, but that’s just me.”
    But, as far as the rules go, don’t both give an unfair advantage? As far as the rules of sport go, it’s really pretty simple…
    We could debate the whole “negative effect on society” side of this issue until the cows come home – teen alcohol use accounts for far more fatalities than PED’s. Funny how Congress and the public shows so little interest in that regard.
    I’m really getting weary of all the self righteous moralizing that’s been going on for the past few years, to be honest.

    The Sheriff (Andrews) December 17, 2007, 12:04 pm
  • “Maybe he is trying to prove he has balls.”
    Hey now!!!! Let’s keep cancer out of this? :-)

    LocklandSF December 17, 2007, 12:06 pm
  • But, as far as the rules go, don’t both give an unfair advantage?
    Sure. Maybe. I don’t know. Part of my response is visceral, subjective. If a guy runs inside the baseline but doesn’t get caught is he as bad as a guy who shoots Winstrol in his gluteus maximus? Because that’s basically what you are arguing, it seems.

    SF December 17, 2007, 1:06 pm
  • i see a clear distinction between cheating that involves taking a drug, and cheating that involves spitting on a baseball, or corking a bat…while all 3 of those examples are clearly cheating, the taking of drugs, has another, more sinister, side to it…let’s remove the legality of how the drugs were obtained from this equation, the focus should be less on the cheating than on the harmful effects these drugs have on one’s body, and the powerful influence sports heroes have on our youth to follow in their footsteps…again, while both corking a bat and taking steroids is cheating, ‘roids are far more damaging than a little cork in a bat…again, baseball has itself to blame by treating non-drug cheating with a “wink and a nod” in the past, so to act so indignant about that aspect of this story now, seems pompously disingenous…if baseball wants to be a solid citizen, they should worry less about asterisks and barry bonds “tarnished” record, and more about mlb’s contribution to a serious problem with our youthful athletes…

    dc December 17, 2007, 1:22 pm
  • “Because that’s basically what you are arguing, it seems.”
    What I’m getting at is that my basic concern as a fan should stop short of all the moralizing going on over the PED issue.

    The Sheriff (Andrews) December 17, 2007, 2:32 pm
  • I’ve been thinking a lot about why baseball is treated differently than almost every other American sport. And the difference for me comes down to the history and numbers. 61. 300. 500. 56. etc. Those transcend time. Or did.
    The closest comparison is track and field. And that was ground zero for PEDs back in the 80s. Worse, baseball had that example and the specific case of Canseco, and still they did nothing. What we’ve seen is not only a crime against the game, but a crime against the history of the game. That stings.
    Still, for me, that’s very different than blaming individual players. Collect, and store, blood samples today and no one would dope.

    Mike YF December 18, 2007, 10:44 am
  • “It’s not about the bike” detailed Lance’s use of steroids, at least to the extent in which he wants us to know. I believe there’s a verse in their that states how he was getting injected with some stuff for his chemotherapy that was definitely banned by the world cycling organization. But he also (and this was before the accusations of his steroid use in America) denied rumors of using steroids during his Tour de France victories as soon as it was put out there and when the French were going crazy over doping. Clemens, on the other hand, has never been forthright with any of the rumors but all of a sudden we’re supposed to believe him, especially when McNamee and Radomski are being legitimized by every admission? I’m sorry to say, the burden of proof is on Clemens.

    Zuri Berry December 19, 2007, 12:50 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Next post:

Previous post: