Comments on: Obligatory post about Canseco

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:09:53 +0000

Like most people, I’m for Canseco doing whatever he has to do to get his doubtlessly brilliant moving picture version of Juiced to the big screen

By: BigMax

BigMax — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:30:13 +0000

Blackmail is a far worse crime then use of steroids. Canseco may have the goods on Magglio — he could have 11,000 text messages proving Magglio used steroids every day — but the attempt to extort money from him is far worse, and a very serious crime.

The discussion should not be about Jose Canseco’s past semi-credible allegations. Instead, if he’s moved on to blackmail, he ought to be imprisoned.

Both Dombrowski and Scott Boras (Maggs’ agent) went to the FBI. Good for them. It takes courage to expose blackmail when there may be either rampant speculation or even some truth to the underlying allegations. Note: Maggs’ agent went to the FBI on his behalf.

If Magglio now becomes the target of suspicion, or worse, Canseco’s blackmail succeeds.

Am I the only one curious about the list of investors in his movie? Now THAT would be suspicious!

By: Chris in Dallas

Chris in Dallas — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:41:43 +0000

Just to clarify. Steroids are illegal without a prescription. Baseball has *always* stated that taking any drugs for off-label purposes (e.g. without a prescription) is against the rules. Hence, even prior to 2003, the use of steroids was against baseball rules. Common misconception.

As for this whole Ordonez-Canseco mud slinging fest, it’s a shame. I don’t know what Maggs did or didn’t do (though at this point I’m more inclined to believe him over Jose if there’s a lack of, you know, evidence), but regardless he’s now in the Steroid Club - at least as far as public opinion is concerned.

By: greg

greg — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:24:52 +0000

quote:

Robert in BA: While steroids weren’t against baseball rules in 2003, possession of steroids was a violation of federal law in 2003.

unquote.

True, but so was tearing off those tags from mattresses, and we all know how serious THAT is.

By: Rings

Rings — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:57:58 +0000

Mat, while I agree with your sentiments on being objective…Jose hasn’t been “proven” right in much of anything, aside from the fact that many players used PED’s, which anyone who didn’t have their head buried in the sand already knew. Most players he’s “named” have NOT been independently corraborated or accused.
And if you think Canseco is anything other than an opportunist, you’re hanging your hat on the wrong guy.
This thing has become a Salem Witch Trial or a Red Scare - guilt or innocent don’t matter, only accusation - and he’s the chief finger-pointer at the moment, which I’m sure he’ll milk for all its worth. He knows that “names” sell, which gives him a highly motivating factor in his accusations. In addition to having trouble financing his movie, he had his sequel book turned down by his sleazy publisher, citing “standards.” You can do the math.

By: PHT in HK

PHT in HK — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:50:44 +0000

I agree with our host - It is amazing that the Washed Up Superstar couldn’t get legitimate financing for his movie!

By: Drew

Drew — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:49:43 +0000

Robert in BA: While steroids weren’t against baseball rules in 2003, possession of steroids was a violation of federal law in 2003. As for Mags, who knows what he did. The whole blackmailing part of this story obviously makes Jose look horrible.

By: Mat

Mat — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:14:42 +0000

Canseco was similarly vilified when his first book came out. Turns out that book deserves much of the credit for exposing the prevalence of steroids in MLB. No “journalists” or “investigative reporters” uncovered the depth of the issue until after Canseco’s book came out. In fact, I recall Dan Patrick and Rob Dibble pleading with Jose to not release this information and telling him not to “do this to himself” (since when are talk radio hosts looking out for athlete’s best interests?).

Now, Canseco may indeed be lying and just out to get money. I’m not saying he’s a great guy - but, he’s been proven right more than he’s been proven wrong.

Its natural to defend Maggs, as Tigers fans we can’t not be inclined to side with the guy. I also understand everyone is sick of hearing about steroids in baseball at this point. We don’t know what Maggs did or didn’t do, which is why IMO neutrality is probably the best policy here. This seems a bit of a case of shooting the messenger to me - even if that messenger is a bit of a sleazeball, he probably doesn’t deserve it.

By: Robert in BA

Robert in BA — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:02:06 +0000

I have no problem with Maggs if he took steroids before 2003.
They weren’t against the rules, and any player who believed taking steroids gave himself an advantage over players in the other locker room and still didn’t take steroids didn’t want to win enough for my tastes.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:15:57 +0000

Clearly, Jose just forgot about all the times he and Magglio discussed steroids until now. You talk to enough people about steroids and it’s all a blur!