Mar
13

Duh: Yanks knew about Giambi’s steroid use

By

When Barry Bonds broke the single-season home run record in 2001, most baseball fans knew he was on the juice. They had noticed his transformation from slender leadoff man to hulking power hitter. Not only that, but they noticed how he achieved such a mutation at such a relatively late stage of his career. It was pretty obvious, though it took a few years for anyone to do anything about it.

Another guy clearly on steroids at the time was Jason Giambi, then with the Oakland A’s. As we all know, he signed with the Yankees after the 2001 season. Giambi was outed for his grand jury testimony after the 2004 season, at which time the Yankees claimed they had no knowledge of his alleged steroid use. In fact, they knew so little of his steroid use that they thought it perfectly okay to remove any language referring to steroids from the guarantee of the contract. Yeah, that argument really holds up.

According to Jeff Pearlman’s new book, “The Rocket That Fell to Earth,” due in stores later this month, Brian Cashman seemed fully aware of the situation. Pearlman — he who wrote about Barry Bonds’s conversation in which he said he was going to use some hardcore stuff after the 1998 season — talked with a then-Yankee (or maybe a current Yankee?), who related this anecdote:

The book said that when Giambi went through a slump in the 2002 season, his first with the Yankees, Cashman was heard yelling at a television in the Yankees’ clubhouse during a game. Citing “one New York player,” the book said that Cashman screamed, “Jason, whatever you were taking in Oakland,” get back on it.

The book said that Cashman then added, “Please!”

Cashman, of course, denies the story, saying that Pearlman didn’t even bother to call him to confirm the quote. Pearlman owns up to that oversight, but stands by the story.

It’s tough not to believe Pearlman here, at least in that Cashman knew of Giambi’s steroid use prior to signing him (which was under directive from George Steinbrenner). Maybe the scene didn’t unfold exactly as told, but something similar might have happened.

It’s a funny scene, Cashman yelling at a televised Giambi to get back on the juice, because I’m sure many of us had similar sentiments at the time. The public outrage had not quite hit full swing, and there certainly weren’t any penalties at the time for players using. We knew players were using, and Giambi was one of the obvious cases. Which leads to an obvious conclusion: if we fans knew about Bonds, Giambi, and others using steroids, how could front offices not? The answer, of course, is that they did, but aren’t letting on more than they have to.

h/t BBTF

Categories : STEROIDS!
  • http://evilempire20.com/ Ryan S.

    This does make Cashman seem a bit duplicitous when he was talking about A-Rod’s steroid usage a month ago and he said something along the lines of “I’ve learned a lot lately about the game unfortunately”. I can’t remember exactly what he said, but the point he was getting at was that he was claiming to be fairly unaware of the juicing going on back in its heyday. But whatever, duplicity isn’t even a bad trait for a GM to have in the first place, and he’s just doing his best to keep the Yanks’ image clean.

  • random

    There is a difference between “knowing” and knowing. If Cashman had discussed steroid use with Giambi, that would be something. But just knowing based on looking at the size of him is something completely different. I’m sure everyone in baseball “knew” Giambi did steroids if that is what you want to call “knowing”. It isn’t like this is implying Cashman knew for any more certainty than any other GM, and it isn’t like you could choose not to sign guys you suspected of using….that would put you and your team at a significant disadvantage.

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

      Yeah, exactly. They didn’t know-know, as in they didn’t see a positive test and they didn’t catch him red-handed. But come on. They knew.

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

        They knew that there were things they didn’t want to know. So they didn’t ask and went out of their way to not find out.

        • jsbrendog

          know what i mean? know what i mean? wink wink nudge nudge say no more say no more

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

            Could be photos on holiday… could be.

      • random

        Yeah, but why is that a story then?

        By that definition every single GM/front office personel in the game knew that Giambi was on steroids. Same goes for a lot of other players. Why is is such a scandal that these players were able to find work while they were obviously juicing?

        • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

          It’s not. I’m more fascinated by the delayed public outrage, and teams trying to cover their tracks.

          • random

            Yeah I guess thats what im questioning. Why there is public outrage that Cashman knew something that was general knowledge.
            If you just glossed over some of these articles you would think that Cashman had stumbled into a steroid den himself and then covered it up.

      • Chris C.

        It’s a double-edged sword for Cashman.

        If he knew, then he was part of the problem. If he didn’t, then he was fucking stupid.

        My opinion is that he did know, but was under directives from Steinbrenner to get Giambi here any way possible.

        But now he wants everyone to believe that he didn’t know, wasn’t stupid, was carrying out the typical “removing drug lingo from the contract” that everyone else did, and was absolutely stunned when Giambi was called to the carpet during the Balco investigation.

        Now, I may not think Cash is the best GM in the world, but I believe he is an upstanding guy and for the most part is pretty honest. But he can’t have his cake and eat it too in this case.

        • Jeremy

          I think you are right that Steinbrenner mandated the Giambi signing. But I don’t think Cashman would have opposed the signing based on Giambi’s steroid use.

          Baseball’s PED policy in 2001-2002 was a joke and no impediment to signing a player who was a known juicer.

          • jsbrendog

            regardless bry bry has the easy out of i didnt have to know or even think about it because king george said to sign him and at that time if king george said jump it was still your job to say how high king?

          • Chris C.

            Fair enough.
            But don’t act all stunned when Giambi gets eaten up by the BALCO investigation either. That’s just disingenuous.

            The Yankees acted like scorned lovers when Giambi got bagged. They even tried to get out of the very same contract that they had especially fashioned just for Jason Giambi.

            It was the good ole, “we know what you’re doing, except if you get caught” bullshit.

            • Jeremy

              The Yankees’ reaction was based on their fear that Giambi was cooked while the team still owed him a fortune. If he had still been raking when the PED revelations came out, their response would have been completely different – much more like when Pettitte was named in the Mitchell Report.

              Disingenuous? Absolutely. I am a big fan of Cashman as a GM, but I am not going to bother thinking about his character. Pretty much all owners and GMs of the last 15 years were hypocrites because they knew they were rewarding PED use.

  • random

    Also, I hate how hypocritical some of the more enlightened Yankee fans have become regarding steroids since the Arod story broke. I support Arod as much as anyone but I’m not going to make excuses for him, or claim that steroids didnt significantly help his power numbers. Yet that has been the general attitude around here, but I’m sure no one has a problem with the line
    “They had noticed his transformation from slender leadoff man to hulking power hitter.”
    when talking about Bonds.

    Can’t have it both ways.

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

      Why? I’m not demonizing Bonds for using. I’m just saying it was pretty obvious given his change in physique.

      • random

        I didn’t say anything about demonizing, but you clearly implied he developed massive power resultant from PED use.

        • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

          Bonds’s change in physique, at an age when most people don’t/can’t achieve such a change, coincided with his increased power. I’m just noting an observation.

          Whereas A-Rod’s change in physique came at a time when he’s expected to fill out. When he was a skinny guy, he was 20 years old. He filled out through his 20s, which is perfectly normal.

          I’m not saying this absolves A-Rod of everything or anything. I’m just saying that the connection between getting bigger – steroids – hitting for power is a bit more obvious in Bonds’s case because of the circumstances.

      • random

        If you don’t mind, I’m going to quote a previous post by yourself….

        “Edjumacating ourselves on steroids
        By Joseph P.
        A-Rod’s a cheater! His numbers are meaningless! The steroids helped him hit all those home runs! The mainstream media, and even many non-mainstream writers, have bandied about lines like this over the past few days.”

        The story, and what most people got here away from it, seemed to be how steroids actually didn’t help Arod’s power numbers, and that most people were too worked up to stop and learn the real truth about that. The funny thing about that is the article actually was misinformed, and only considered if he used primo (which doesn’t increase muscle mass by itself) and didn’t consider that when stacked with testostorone (which he did) that it is very effective in doing just that.

        I just see a huge double standard, where when regarding Bonds, etc, most people have no problem attributing his numbers to PED’s, but when Arods name pops up, all of a sudden steroids didn’t help him and the whole thing is fabricated by the media.

        • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

          That’s a fair criticism, and perhaps I was a bit too quick to defend A-Rod at the beginning.

          I think, though, that I’ve done an adequate job noting the difference between the Bonds and A-Rod situations. If we had an idea of when A-Rod actually started, we’d have a clearer view of the situation.

          • random

            I see what you mean, I’m just not sure that the physical size increase really matters to me, I don’t think that bulk = advantage nessisarily. And supposedly we are clear on when Arod got started, if his story is beleived, but I am not sure as to when in his career he began using is relevant on whether or not he gained an advantage from it for the X years he was using.
            Anyway, I’ve got to run, later.

          • jsbrendog

            socialist arod homer.

    • Memo

      Its the same for those who tar and feather A-Rod and give Andy a pass because Andy is such a nice guy. Can’t have that both ways either. I see Andy as no better than A-Rod.

      Its a sliding scale of acceptance based on the person and not the act. If its wrong, its wrong and it doesn’t matter how nice the guy is who did it.

      Its like saying, “When we do this its fine. But when they do it, then its torture.”

      • random

        Nah not really. Those who tar and feather Arod have there own problems and would do so regardless of steroids or not. Thats a special kind of deranged.

        But just as you have to admit Pettites use to PED’s helped him recover from injury faster, you must admit Arod gained a significant advantage while he was taking roids.

        • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

          I’d take a step further back on that last paragraph. I’ll admit that Pettitte’s intent with PED use was to help him recover faster, an that A-Rod’s intent with PED use was to help him gain a significant advantage. I’m just not sure they helped as much as the respective players wanted.

          • random

            “I’m just not sure they helped as much as the respective players wanted.”

            That is fair. My only issue with people taking this opinion is that I never saw anyone voice it UNTIL Arod’s name popped up. Before that, it was just assumed steroids = homeruns.

            While that is a valid opinion to have, I strongly dissagree. For example, check out this telling stat I recently saw:

            6 people in history have hit more that 200 homeruns past Arod’s current age:
            First three were
            -Ruth
            -Aaron
            -Mays
            Next three were
            -McGuire
            -Bonds
            -Palmerio

            With all the other fantastic hitters in history, all of a sudden these three pop up. Still don’t think steroids really give a significant advantage?

            • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

              I think we’re getting wires crossed here. Everyone who used steroids is on the same level, in my opinion. You used, you’re as guilty (or as not guilty, depending on your viewpoint) as the next guy who did.

              The issue of how much it helped a player is another matter. Are steroids going to help a player in his prime, hitting at a pure hitters’ park, as much as it does guys in the decline phases of their careers? If we knew when A-Rod started using, we’d have a better view of this. Still, I’d think that guys like Bonds and McGwire benefited a bit more from using, since they gained an advantage when they were supposed to be declining, as opposed to A-Rod, who used at the height of his career. How much higher can you peak? (Obviously, I don’t know.)

              They’re still at the same level of guilt, though, regardless of how much it helped.

              • random

                “Still, I’d think that guys like Bonds and McGwire benefited a bit more from using, since they gained an advantage when they were supposed to be declining, as opposed to A-Rod, who used at the height of his career. How much higher can you peak? (Obviously, I don’t know.)”

                I definitely agree they benifited more as the body would naturally have begun breaking down, no arguement there. I think there is definnitely an advantage when you are at your peak though, as the record breaking single season numbers in the late 90′s early 00′s show.
                An interesting study was done on bonds (i think it was mentioned in game of shadows) to trying to obejctively figure out how much he really gained from using and it was pretty startling.

                So yes – I agree it benifits in the older users more, but I think there is still a serious advantage even for arod those 3 seasons.

              • Chris

                Everyone who used steroids is on the same level, in my opinion.

                I think that’s an awfully simplistic view of things. We may not have all of the information that we need to make an informed decision, but as with everything else, I believe there are a lot of shades of gray. On the one hand you have someone who was determined to take whatever he could in order to succeed and made himself a walking pharmacy (and effectively monitored success and failure of various drugs). On the other hand you have someone who dabbled in it with the hopes of seeing improvements, but not really knowing what was going on or whether it actually helped.

                I don’t think both should be vilified equally, since there is clearly a difference in their actions. It’s kind of like someone stealing a pack of gum vs an ipod. Yeah, they both broke the law, but it’s not the same.

                • Memo

                  And treating them differently based on why they took the steroids (or better yet, based on if they could come up with a good enough reason to make people feel better) is just the first step in hundreds of justifications about roid use.

                  Either you cheated or you didn’t. Doesn’t matter why you cheated.

                  And then, either you care or you don’t. I don’t. But they may have everything to do with how I view sports – as nothing more than entertainment.

            • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

              With all the other fantastic hitters in history, all of a sudden these three pop up. Still don’t think steroids really give a significant advantage?

              FWIW, at first glance, the thing I think Bonds, McGwire, and Palmeiro have in common is not necessarily that they became bigger and better and thushit more homers than they normally would have but that they continued playing and thus hit more homers than they normally would have.

              Bonds has that massive statistical outlier season of 73, of course, but for the most part it seems like the steroid usage of those three more allowed them to maintain their muscle mass into their late 30’s/early 40’s and thus, remain productive ballplayers past the typical age and continue to hit homeruns, where a guy like Jimmie Foxx was done at 33…

              And, Aaron and Mays similarly, with or without chemical enhancement (since we’ll never really know) also had surprisingly long careers of production into their late 30’s/early 40’s.

              Just my quick, non-analyzed thoughts on the 6 you listed.

              • random

                Yeah, I agree with this, perhaps it wasnt the best stat in regards to Arod’s case, but see what I said just above in response to Joe.

              • MattG

                McGwire had the raw power and talent. Steroids helped him stay on the field–but even then, I wonder if steroids weren’t more helpful psychologically than physically.

                I think Bond’s ridiculous season had a lot to do with his arm gear. I read an article somewhere that explained that his ‘elbow pad’ was much more than that–it actually constricted the path of his bottom hand, forcing it into an arc optimal for hitting home runs. Neyer blogged about it, and gave it legitimacy. If that is true, that is much more of an advantage, and a cheat, than steroids could ever be.

                • steve (different one)

                  If that is true, that is much more of an advantage, and a cheat, than steroids could ever be.

                  isn’t it safe to assume that MLB had to sign off on that elbow pad?

                  if so, how is it cheating?

                  just playing devil’s advocate here. there may be more to the story than i know.

      • Chris C.

        “Its the same for those who tar and feather A-Rod and give Andy a pass because Andy is such a nice guy. Can’t have that both ways either. I see Andy as no better than A-Rod”

        I think Andy would be tarred and featherd more if he was approaching the all-time win record, or something like that.
        I think the fact that Pettittes numbers don’t threaten to blow apart all-time digits is why he gets such a pass.

        And that’s why Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, and AROD have received such malice. Because they accomplished, or threaten to accomplish things that tore apart vaunted historical numbers.
        In other words, people seem angrier at ballplayers who cheat to break records.

      • jsbrendog

        dude, andy pettitte “admitted it” then we found out he “forgot to mention” the SECOND time he did it and then he went, oh yeah, well then too. and its all good?

        • Chris C.

          It’s as if you didn’t read my post at all.

          • jsbrendog

            get your eyes check buddy, this was in response to memo’s post. not yours it is not in the window below yours. doesnt matter about any records, andy was happy we only knew about one and lied, eve saying ONE TIME I DID IT ND IT WAS a mistake. and then the second time comes out and hes like, oh yeah, duh, oops, of course! and everyone just shrugs it off. doesnt matter what records you have. this isnt about doing steroids, in this instance it is about lying about it.

            it was to this:

            Its the same for those who tar and feather A-Rod and give Andy a pass because Andy is such a nice guy. Can’t have that both ways either. I see Andy as no better than A-Rod.

            Its a sliding scale of acceptance based on the person and not the act. If its wrong, its wrong and it doesn’t matter how nice the guy is who did it.

            Its like saying, “When we do this its fine. But when they do it, then its torture.”

    • MattG

      I don’t believe any player got significantly better because of the use of steroids. Remember, steroids don’t do a damn thing on their own–you still have to put in the work. It has no immediate results, and everything done with steroids can be theoretically done without steroids. Everything.

      For the young player, I honestly believe steroids–at most–gets them to where they would be a little bit sooner, or maybe a smidge beyond. Steroids may be a shortcut, and in particular they may help to stave off the effects of aging—but there are other ways to do this even. Steve Finley credited his brilliant age 40 season to yoga. Curt Shilling was able to pitch a post-season game due to a surgery that would allow him to only pitch for a couple of weeks. Laser surgery can get you the eyesight very few come by naturally—these are only a few examples.

      The way I look at it, steroids is just another option players have to get their bodies into playing shape, and keep it there. It happens to be an unethical, illegal option, but I don’t see it as anymore particularly effective than natural or permissible surgical methods. And to this point, all the subjective evidence I’ve seen supports this belief.

      • Glen L

        “It has no immediate results, and everything done with steroids can be theoretically done without steroids. Everything”

        Not to be a dick, but that’s emphatically untrue. Steroids allow a person to become stronger/bigger/faster and recovery more quickly than is otherwise naturally possible … you can’t do unnatural things without unnatural help .. its not possible to reach certain physical levels without steroids

        Now how much that helps a baseball player become a better baseball player is up for debate. Although I’m strongly on the side that says, aside from helping older players play at a higher level longer, its not going to really increase a player’s peak level performance.

        • MattG

          Realistically, it is probably untrue. But theoretically, I think it is accurate. I doubt that the body can attain feats with steroids that aren’t possible on some level without them. This is not bionics—this is still the body doing these things. If they can get there with steroids, there must be some combination of exercise, nutrition and rest that will allow the body to achieve these results without them. There are even exercises to improve eyesight. If there weren’t ways to do these things without steroids, steroids just wouldn’t work at all.

          • Chris

            Nothing that is physically impossible can be attained with steroids, but the ceiling of what an individual can attain is raised by using steroids. For example, without steroids Ben Johnson may have been able to only run a 100M in 10s. With steroids, he was able to do it in 9.79s. By comparison, Usain Bolt (presumably) can run it in 9.69s without steroids. So while it’s technically possible that Ben Johnson could have achieved the same results with or without steroids, it never would have happened had he not been juicing.

            • MattG

              Oh, I agree. But the path to success in track and field with steroids is going to be more direct. Steroids are all about strength, nothing else (well, recuperation, but I am talking about something else now). So in what endeavor is strength a greater predictor of success—baseball or track and field?

              Despite steroids being around for a complete generation of player, only one person actually passed Hank Aaron. The point being—if the strength you can attain without steroids is good enough for #2 all time in home runs, what exactly is steroids giving to the baseball player? Longevity, certainly. A head start, probably. A greater peak? Not at all conclusive.

      • Ed

        I don’t believe any player got significantly better because of the use of steroids. Remember, steroids don’t do a damn thing on their own–you still have to put in the work. It has no immediate results, and everything done with steroids can be theoretically done without steroids. Everything.

        Except that’s flat out wrong. The entire point of taking steroids is that they cause your muscle cells to grow at abnormal rates. It’s altering the natural balance your body strives for.

        Remember Bonds’s arm injury when he started taking steroids? It was due to his muscles being too strong compared to his tendons and ligaments. There’s a reason your body has its own limits on muscle development.

        • MattG

          Well, that’s always the flip side, right, is that your muscles can grow too strong to be supported by your ligaments, and you end up with heinous injuries where muscles are totally separated from bones.

          Yet these injuries, while rare, happen without steroids, too—meaning while it might be abnormal , it is not impossible.

          More to the point—gaining strength is what steroids are all about. Strength alone does not make a ball player, and there are more ways than just steroids to get strength, and there are more types of strength than what we commonly think of as strength (What a 14 year old female gymnast can do requires incredible strength, for instance).

          Steroids are a path to a possible outcome—probably a best-case, extended, possible outcome—but still a possible outcome. I would not say that any player absolutely could not have done what they did without steroids.

  • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

    I, for one, am shocked. Shocked and appalled.

    The good news is, as far as baseball is concerned, at least, is that there is only one team in all of baseball that ever had a rampant steroids culture: The Yankees. So, we can just blame the whole thing on them. That’s a big relief.

    That’s the biggest takeaway from the past half-decade of steroids investigations: Everybody, except for Derek Jeter and Don Mattingly, who has ever played for the Yankees has used steroids, and no player outside of Barry Bonds has every used steroids and NOT played for the Yankees*. This is the only logical conclusion I can draw from everything that has been revealed about the Steroid Era.

    (*Side note: The only reason Bonds is the only steroid user not to play for the Yankees is not because the Yankees weren’t interested in acquiring him, because, clearly, they were – I mean, he uses steroids, the Yankees love steroid users, it’s a perfect match – rather, it’s because they couldn’t agree on an appropriate salary that the league would approve of. The Yankees were prepared to offer Bonds 40M per year to hit steroid-induced home runs for them, but Selig intervened and stopped that for the integrity of the game. Again, I have no proof of this, but this conclusion is the only logical one I can draw given the overwhelming mountain of evidenced presented to me that screams out that STEROIDS = YANKEES.)

    • http://evilempire20.com/ Ryan S.

      At least Boston is a bastion for pure, gritty sportsmanship and their farm is a breeding ground for gutsy, championship caliber players that always play the game the right way. Any irregularly high testosterone levels in their players would be from the distilled grit they make from Veritek’s sweat.

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

        Jason Varitek doesn’t need steroids, he’s an American Bad-Ass©®™.
        http://farm3.static.flickr.com.....4a3c65.jpg

        • Darth Stein

          When I see that picture I just imagine Varitek putting on that hat and thinking wistfully about 2007, his last year of relatively decent ball before jumping the shark.

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

            …his last year of relatively decent ball before jumping the shark declining to pathetic, sub-Melkian levels of production.

            He jumped the shark YEARS before 2007, my friend.

        • anonymous

          When I see that picture I think

          Just for Men Gel! Penetrates tough gray and puts it away! In just 5 easy minutes!!!

      • pat

        Speaking of sweat PETA wants to make tofu out of George Clooney’s

        No really, thats not a joke,weird reference or an allegory.
        http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....ooney.html

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

          “CloFu”…

          (shudders in disgust and abject horror)

        • http://evilempire20.com/ Ryan S.

          I just died a little inside.

          • jsbrendog

            ietc

  • Rich

    There is a reason that hearsay is notoriously unreliable. Anonymous hearsay is libelous.

    • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

      Judge: Do you have any more evidence to present?
      Lionel Hutz, Esq.: I have plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are kinds of evidence…

    • anonymous

      Kevin Youkilis has lady parts.

  • Sweet Dick Willie

    Maybe the scene didn’t unfold exactly as told, but something similar might have happened.

    And exactly how does this meet any level of journalistic standards?

    That’s okay to use in a novel, but when you are writing a purported factual book, well, I for one, believe it should be, um, how do I say this, FACTUAL!

    • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

      I don’t doubt that Pearlman relates the tale as told to him by the player. I suppose that’s as close to factual as he could get.

    • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

      I might not have brutally stabbed and killed my ex-wife and her lover.

      Sincerely,
      O.J. Simpson

  • Bo

    Pearlmans trying to sell books???

    No way

    • Rich

      Which is the American way, but he to be so freakin’ self-serving about his unnamed sources is pathetic, and really self-defeating to any thinking person.

  • Chris

    If I remember correctly, Giambi admitted to steroid use beginning in 2002 or 2003 – not while he was with the A’s. This would cut at the heart of this accusation about Cashman.

    • Chris C.

      “If I remember correctly, Giambi admitted to steroid use beginning in 2002 or 2003 – not while he was with the A’s.”

      You got it backwards. Giambi admitted steroid use with Oakland, and not with the Yankees.

  • Will

    It’s nice to see SI further its credentials as a bastion for tabloid journalism in magazine format.

  • zack

    I think, whether true or not, this is pretty sketchy evidence and pretty lousy reporting. I mean, I could call up someone who could relay to me a pretty good story or two about hearing someone else say something, and then use that as evidence that that person knew something, without actually bothering to check with that person first. Then, I would just say it was “oversight” and stick by my 100% impossible to prove, he said/she said “reporting.”

    Honestly, even if Cashman did say that, is that even proof of anything? I could say during a Jeter slump, “borrow some more of A-Rod’s stuff dammit!” but that doesn’t mean a) I’m serious b) I have any knowledge of anything related to Jeter’s usage past or present and c) I am even referring to steroids.

    Sure, Cashman probably thought Giambi was on roids. Hell, its pretty obvious that basically EVERYONE was. But that doesn’t mean that that passage is acceptable as a piece of journalism.

    On the other hand, there is the actual memo from Theo that shows he knew that Gagne was a user and traded for him anyway.

    • Will

      Good point. If Pearlman named his source and said he was sticking by it, he would have some credibility. Instead, he cites an anonymous source and doesn’t even bother to corroborate it. At best, that’s extremely sloppy. More likely, Pearlman probably didn’t want facts to get in the way of something that would generate headlines.

      • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

        That’s why I brought up the Bonds conversation. Same idea. Totally uncorroborated story.

    • Chris C.

      WOW.

      In one post, you manage to supply us with enough bullshit, not only to get Brian Cashman off the hook, but to toss Theo Epstein under the bus as well!

      You are a true doctor of spin, my friend.

      • steve (different one)

        how is that spin?

        1. the part about Gagne is in the Mitchell report, based on an actual email from Theo
        2. the part about Cashman is an anonymous quote that the author never bothered to fact check

        the point of the the post was about journalistic integrity.

        2 pieces of evidence that GM was aware of a player’s PED use, one sourced, one unsourced.

        • jsbrendog

          exactly. theo is therefore guilty, because of proof, in my mind. cashman is neither guilty or innocent because there is no proof either way and anything used is hearsay. I have screamed at the tv tons of times in past years at many people START TAKING STEROIDS AGAIN YOU ASSHOLE! or whatever. and if i were an eomployee of a sports team would that mean I knew they had been or just was a normal person, made an assumption and then got angry when they sucked because i am an empassioned sports fan? without proof there is no way to know.

          with theo there is proof.

  • zack

    I just still have such a hard time being outraged or even caring about steroids. Its not like every other era hasn’t had something that drastically altered the playing field. The dead ball, segregation, greenies, the height of the pitching mound, World War II. Whatever, there will always be something that gives certain players advantages. What if a player has a Terminator like eye or arm? What if a player has a baboon heart? What if a girl plays? What if an alien wants to play? Or, more seriously, what about the ridiculous usage of ADD drugs?

    • Will

      Couldn’t agree more…I honestly believe steroids have been an outlet for latent jealousy among a legion of fans and sportswriters who resent the salaries being made by players.

      • MattG

        But anything could be a outlet for latent jealousy. This has something to do with steroids itself. The writers must think that if they had just a little talent, and steroids, they could do what the players are doing.

        For a player to call another player a cheat is fine, but when the writers say it, they are accusing players of something different, and something untrue. They are saying they owe their careers to a drug. They think the players would be unloading trucks if it weren’t for steroids.

        Steroids just aren’t all that magical, and although no one knows just how much steroids have affected the statistics of the era, one thing is for certain: not nearly as much as the media says it has.

        • jsbrendog

          if you plant a used syringe in your back yard an mvp tree grows there.

  • GG

    Was it on RAB where I saw a breakdown of all trades/signings of the last decade, and who of the Yankees brass advocated them? Would love to find that

    • steve (different one)

      it was. i think it was by Davidoff.

    • steve (different one)

      meaning, i think Davidoff wrote it, and it was linked on RAB.

      • jsbrendog

        oh id like to see that.

  • Pingback: Interviewing the Rocket reporter | River Avenue Blues