1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Murray Chass: Does Torre deserve any blame for the Yanks' steroid abuse?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by hockeybeat, Dec 23, 2007.

  1. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

  2. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

  3. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    You can ask the same question of the other 29 managers.
     
  4. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

    Absolutely, you can. Chass points out, though, that almost half of Torre's 2000 World Series winning team was on the juice.

    So asking if his reputation was, in part, aided by steroid abusing players is fair.
     
  5. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    How many more Yankees were using it as opposed to the other teams?
     
  6. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Just saying, seems like a lot of ex-Rangers were well-represented, too (Raffy, Canseco, Segui, Juando, et al). And those mid-to-late-90s Rangers could mash with the best of them. Unfortunately we cannot ask that particular manager ... Johnny Oates is no longer with us.
     
  7. PhilaYank36

    PhilaYank36 Guest

    So, is it fair to assume that the ONLY players who were using steroids were the ones named in the Mitchell report, the Grimsley affidavit and Canseco's book? Please, let's not be gullible here. Were a good portion of the '00 Yankees using steroids? Probably, yes. But is it too big a stretch of the imagination to think that every other team had a significant population, if not the majority of its roster on PEDs?

    Maybe it's because I'm a Yankees' fan from New Jersey, but I don't understand why there is such criticism directed in their direction. The day the Mitchell report broke, NBC 4's Len Berman implied that the 1996-2001 run was tainted, and that rubbed me the wrong way. Can we journalists or sports historians say with absolute certainty which World Series were played without the taint of PEDs since the mid-1980s? I don't think that's possible. As unethical we might think PED abuse is, I tend to believe that it's been a level playing field since the early '90s. The only thing is that specific field has been artificially elevated.
     
  8. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    I think the biggest problem with suggesting Torre's legacy should be tainted (aside from the fact that of nine Yankees mentioned, six are alleged to have used after their time in pinstripes) is that the Mitchell report relied heavily on the testimony of two trainers from New York. Obviously, much of their interaction is going to be with guys from New York, hence the large number of Mets and Yankees mentioned.

    As one sportswriter put it (I think it was Bill Reynolds from the Providence Journal), if Mitchell had relied on the testimony of a Boston trainer, you can be sure there would have been a lot of Red Sox mentioned. The problem in baseball is a lot broader than just New York. It just so happens they got two New York trainers to roll over.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page