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!

Verducci On Clemens

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Boom_70, Feb 23, 2008.

  1. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Verducci is the anointed SI baseball steroids guy. He owed the readers better then, he owes them better now.

    Ragu to your point about pitchers, there were many who were talking about pitchers taking PED's for recovery purposes in 2003. Verducci even wrote about pitchers taking steroids in the SI "Totaly Juiced" special edition.

    My feeling is that Verducci does not want to take himself out of contention for doing The Roger Clemens story.
     
  2. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Hardly.
     
  3. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Predictable.
     
  4. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    In what way do they actually compare?
     
  5. broadway joe

    broadway joe Guest

    Nobody said Verducci should have grilled Clemens about steroids or launched his own investigation or put him on the cover with an asterisk. Back when he was writing about Clemens being a workout god, all he had to do was include a line or two that showed he was aware of the obvious. Something like,

    "Even Clemens would acknowledge that in the current climate of baseball, a pitcher in his 40s who throws in the 90s is inevitably going to be the subject of steroid suspicion. But there is not an iota of evidence that the Rocket has ever used anything stronger than Red Bull."

    That's it. That's all he needed to write. It wouldn't have been unfair to Clemens and it would have kept Verducci from looking like he was in the Rocket's back pocket.
     
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Joe, Looked to me like Boom in several posts has been claiming a double standard of some sort... This post above suggests that Balco and Game of Shadows didn't lead to that asterisk cover he posted and that Clemens was deserving of the same treatment BEFORE the Mitchell Report came out. Of course SI had no problem asking Bonds about steroid use... AFTER there was reams of evidence that he used. No credible evidence approaching that level existed with regard to Clemens until the Mitchell Report came out. And now he is getting hammered. That is consistent, not a double standard.

    Verducci could have put the line into his stories you are suggesting. But then essentially everything he has written since 2002 would have had to have had similar lines in it saying, "Gee, so and so is a good player," or "the XXXXXXs are having a good season" ... "but in this era of drug use we can't be sure whether they are doing it naturally or not." In his "going through spring training with the Blue Jays story," he'd have had to say, "I hear that steroids are rampant in baseball. But I didn't personally see anyone shooting themselves in the butt i the clubhouse."

    Well, duh. What does that accomplish, other than bogging down the story with something not related to what he was trying to do with the story, which was a given anyhow? He could have pointed out that he didn't see any players stealing signs--even though we know they do it--or banging supermodels, either, I suppose.

    What does that accomplish? In 2002 or 2003, steroid use wasn't getting the attention it was now, yet. No writer was throwing in those caveats into every story. It would have gotten old for readers having to dredge through those disclaimers in every magazine story about a baseball player. And even today, fans are so sensitized to the issue that it really isn't necessary. People provide for those possibilities on their own.

    This wasn't Verducci's failing, in my opinion. It was Clemens'. Clemens was the one using illicitly and now (and apparently in 2003 when Verducci heard him address those execs at the 21 Club) lying through his teeth about it. You are saying, "Verducci should have called bullshit all along, or at least put out the possibility that Clemens was using."

    I disagree, unless every baseball story since 1998 or 1999 or so that didn't have a standard "this all might be bullshit" clause in it is an indictment of the writer who wrote it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  7. broadway joe

    broadway joe Guest

    Ragu, I think the difference between Clemens and most other players is that he was doing something way, way beyond the norm by throwing that hard at his advanced age. That's why I think a writer has to deal with the steroid issue with him. Especially a writer who, like Verducci, had written extensively about the steroid problem in baseball. You don't have to raise the issue with every player who has a great year. Ryan Howard hitting 50 HRs doesn't make people as naturally skeptical as Clemens, for instance, because he's a big guy entering his prime. But given Clemens' circumstances, and Verducci's, it's odd that he'd write features about his workout routine and act like the steroid issue didn't even exist.
     
  8. Small Town Guy

    Small Town Guy Well-Known Member

    Although he wasn't doing anything that Nolan Ryan hadn't done, and I don't remember anyone questioning him back in the early 90s as he kept firing no-hitters (and maybe someone should have brought up the fact his beating of Robin Ventura was a possible sign of roid rage).
     
  9. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Ragu - check your time line. Bonds cover was 3/15/04 - prior to Game of Shadows

    SI Special report "Steroids in Baseball " was 6/3/2002 - This is the Verducci story that brought the entire PED issue in baseball to forefront.


    Clemens workout story ran 6/2/2003 - When there was already major discussion about who was using steroids.

    [​IMG]

    I raised the question at the time right here on sj. If you are going to write that story how do you not raise the possibility of PED"S as part of Clemens regimen.?

    Mcnamee had already been dumped by the Yankees and rumors were rampant as to real reason.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  10. digger

    digger New Member

    I thought Verducci's story was pretty good.

    It seemed to me this story was pretty much Verducci saying "I was fooled by Roger''.

    He lays out the evidence against Clemens pretty well, and explains how Roger's personality allows him to lie about it. (and blame everything on others).

    There's no way you could view this column as pro-Roger.

    If you want to fault Verducci for not recognizing Roger's use in the past, go ahead.

    But this is a real blast at his pal. (or former pal).
     
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Boom, my timeline -- and my reasoning is correct. The Feds began investigating Balco in 2002. No one knew anything at that point, though. The grand jury testimony, in which the athletes were paraded out was in 2003. By then stories about Bonds and his alleged involvement in getting steroids from Balco were common--his involvement was well known. The indictments against Conte and his cronies happened in February, 2004. The indictment specified Bonds as a the most prominent client.

    That SI cover in March, 2004, was not only timely based on current news--Balco was in the news because of the indictments a few weeks earlier--it wasn't pulled out of anyone's ass. Bonds name was all over court documents and in press accounts--notably the SF Chronicle--credibly linking him to steroid use.

    Game of Shadows came out much later, but all it did was put everything that had come out over time into one digestible, one-volume book. Game of Shadows wasn't when the evidence against Bonds came out. We knew a lot before Game of Shadows. On 3/15/04 Bonds had already been credibly linked to steroids. In 2002 , 2003, 2004 or whatever date you want to crucify Verducci on PRIOR to the Mitchell Report, there was nothing credible linking Roger Clemens to steroids yet. That cover made perfect sense for Bonds. A similar cover with regard to Clemens would have not only been unjustified, it would have been grounds for a law suit.
     
  12. broadway joe

    broadway joe Guest

    Nolan Ryan came before we knew of widespread steroid use in baseball. If Ryan were throwing gas in his 40s today, you can bet there would be skepticism about it.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page