McGwire Finally Acknowledges Steroid Use

---

---

It was dumb luck that I got to see the news coverage of the congressional testimony about steroids use in baseball that Mark McGwire gave on March 17, 2005.

I had been called for jury duty that day, and things got wrapped up early that afternoon, so I went home and switched on my TV. I don't think McGwire's testimony was live at the time I saw it. As I recall, I saw taped highlights.

And what I remember is his insistence that he wasn't there to talk about the past. It never seemed to occur to him that it was his past that gave any credibility to recommendations he had for the future.

It was a non–denial denial.

I was very disappointed in McGwire that day. When he broke into the majors with the Oakland A's, I liked him. I didn't care much for the other "Bash Brother," Jose Canseco — but, as it turned out, Canseco told the truth in his book when he not only admitted using steroids but fingered McGwire as someone who had injected performance–enhancing drugs with him.

Canseco told the truth. McGwire did not.

Technically, I suppose, you can't say McGwire lied. But implied in his protest that he did not want to talk about the past was the suggestion that he was guiltless. Actually, it wasn't even implied at one point, when he said, "[I]t remains a fact in this country that a man, any man, should be regarded as innocent unless proven guilty."

And during those hearings, McGwire sought to cast doubt on Canseco's credibility, saying, "[C]onsider the source of the statements."

I liked McGwire. His home run duel with Sammy Sosa in 1998 revived baseball with the public after the 1994–95 strike wiped out the 1994 World Series.

But it seems likely now that it was a hoax. McGwire was juiced. Sosa insists he never used steroids, but how can baseball fans believe him? Evidence is mounting that most of baseball's top performers in the last 20 years or so used steroids.

Even if no one proves his guilt, there will always be a stain on his name. Both he and McGwire exceeded the record for a single season. And McGwire apparently used steroids that season, but he has the audacity now to say he could have hit 70 home runs in 1998 with or without steroids. And Mike Bauman is right to call him on it in his article for MLB.com.

Essentially, Bauman said, McGwire is his own worst P.R. enemy: "What is apparently needed here is a basic, introductory course: Steroid Apologies 101," Bauman wrote. "You admit you took the steroids. You express your regrets for having done so. You appear to be genuinely penitent. You are a sincere seeker of redemption. You are a steroids sinner who has returned to the flock.

"What you do not do next, is what Mark McGwire did on Monday in an interview with Bob Costas on the MLB Network. He was fine through the admission and the apology. And then he said that if he had never used steroids he still would have hit all those home runs, because he was just that good. Talk about creating a nice moment and then crushing it."

Yep. Arrogance is a bad quality to project when you're trying to defend your use of performance–enhancing drugs. I must admit that I feel about the same way about McGwire as I do about Pete Rose. Even when admitting guilt, they insist on rationalizing their actions.

And that makes it difficult for those who always admired (and some envied) their talent to defend them.

This whole thing reminds me of the quiz show scandals of the 1950s. When Charles Van Doren — that scandal's version of McGwire — admitted in his congressional testimony that he had been "deeply involved in a deception," he was praised by most of the congressmen. But Rep. Steven Derounian, R–NY, refused to join the chorus praising him for admitting that he cheated.

"I am happy that you made the statement, but I cannot agree with most of my colleagues who commended you for telling the truth," Derounian said, "because I don't think an adult of your intelligence ought to be commended for telling the truth."

Well, McGwire, who likes to brag about his intelligence, cheated to get that home run record. Rose spent years denying what he finally admitted was true — that he gambled on baseball and he wagered on the team he managed.

As far as I'm concerned, they should both be kept out of the Hall of Fame.

I Still Support the Ban on Charlie Hustle

It was 20 years ago today that Major League Baseball Commissioner Bart Giamatti banned Pete Rose from baseball for gambling.

There were many great baseball players when I was growing up. I've heard some people argue that Rose was the best of that era, but that's a tough case to make.

Even so, he was a great player. And I assumed, as did many other people, that he eventually would claim his spot in baseball's Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y.

Rose initially denied betting on the Cincinnati Reds, the team for which he played for many seasons and later served as manager. But he finally admitted publicly, in his 2004 autobiography, that he gambled on the Reds but never gambled against the team.

That is a distinction that Rose's supporters have latched on as justification for lifting the lifetime ban on Rose and permitting him to be eligible for the Hall of Fame.

I believe it is exactly the opposite.

As manager of the Reds, Rose was in a position to make decisions that could jeopardize the integrity of the game. But, even when he finally admitted gambling on his own team, he did so in a book. He never stood up and spoke the words, never answered questions truthfully in public. He remained defiant, even when admitting his own wrongdoing.

I believe the evidence against Rose — including his own, albeit long delayed, confession — is considerably stronger than the evidence against "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, who was banned from baseball along with his teammates on the 1919 Chicago "Black Sox" for throwing the World Series.

When Giamatti banned Rose, I said I would favor lifting the ban only when Jackson's ban was lifted. In the 1919 World Series, Jackson set a record for hits in a World Series (12) and hit .375. He committed no errors in the field. He did acknowledge receiving $5,000 of a promised $20,000 bribe, but there is no evidence that he ever did anything in a game to help his team lose.

The case against Jackson is not clear cut. The case against Rose is.

Jayson Stark writes, for ESPN.com, that Rose made his reinstatement impossible because he "could never bring himself to do what seemed so obvious."

I agree that it is a sad story. Rose, now 68, "has lived two decades in purgatory," writes Stark. But he brought it on himself.

Football is Back

Tomorrow night's preseason game between the Buffalo Bills and the Tennessee Titans is nothing special — other than the fact that it is the game that is being played for the NFL Hall of Fame's induction weekend and it is a homecoming, of sorts, for Buffalo's Dustin Fox.

But, other than that, it doesn't mean anything. Unless something unexpected happens, it would be surprising if very many people remember much about Hall of Fame weekend by the time the regular season begins.

I expect they will remember it in Buffalo, though. Two of today's six inductees, defensive lineman Bruce Smith and the team's 90–year–old owner Ralph Wilson, played prominent roles in the Bills' glory days.

The other four inductees are Bob Hayes, Randall McDaniel, Derrick Thomas and Rod Woodson.

Obviously, the game won't count in the standings. The players have only been working out as a group for about a week. And what is probably the most intriguing storyline — Terrell Owens and his adjustment to upstate New York — is unlikely to have any additional chapters written tomorrow night. If you see T.O. at all tomorrow night, my guess is he will be on the bench, available only if absolutely necessary.

It will be nothing more than a scrimmage between the backups for two teams. And it may be a bit uncomfortable. Tomorrow's forecast calls for a high of about 90° in Canton, Ohio. With an 8 p.m. (EST) kickoff, much of the first half is likely to be played in daylight and it may be awhile before it really cools off, even after the sun goes down. The forecast low for tomorrow night is 70°, which sounds pretty good here in Dallas but I would expect that the game will be long over by the time the mercury falls to that figure.

The weather isn't as cool as most football fans probably want it to be. And the recognizable players won't be playing.

But it is still football.

I'm more of a college football fan myself. But it is football, and I'm ready to watch some football.

So tee it up and let's go.