Lou Merloni: Red Sox Had Doctor Show Players How to Use Steroids Safely

[greg683x]

i absolutely think there should be an astersisk. if we find there was players from the c's title juicing i think there should be an asterisk. i'm not saying doing roids makes you a bad person. it definitely DOES NOT.but i'm all for using the asterisks. any title influenced by roids just is'nt as legit.

if you could prove the C's players were the only players in the NBA juicing when they won that title, then I might agree with you.

However, your point is different than the one Roy made.  Yes the sox did juice, most likely, when they won their title.  However it's already been proven that steroid use during that period was rampant throughout all of baseball, so it's really silly to assume that the opponets the sox faced werent using roids like the sox were.  It makes it an even playing field, a dirty field, but still an even one.

As far as asterisks as a whole, I think penalizing entire teams for it is crazy, like in this case where you almost know both teams were juicing.  I am however in favor of asterisks for individual records, I dont think it's fair for a clean players record to get shattered by a player who used an illegal substance to gain the ability to break it.  I think that needs to be recognized in the record books.

[LB3533]

The only way for any of our World Series asterix to be justified is if there is proof that any of our starting pitchers used steroids.

I don't agree with that at all. As a matter of fact I don't care if the whole entire "04" team was juicing. An asterisk has no place in the steroid era.

I totally agree with you. The steroid era is untouchable, in fact I would go on to say that anyone who used steroids or PEDs prior to 2003 did not or does not constitute as cheating in my book.

"March 1, 2003: Drug testing begins in Major League Spring Training camps. Some teams, including the Chicago White Sox, consider balking at taking the tests to skew the results. A refusal to participate in the "Survey" phase is considered a positive test. That first year, all MLB players on the 40-man rosters are subject to be randomly tested once. In addition, MLB had the right to retest up to 240 players a second time by the end of the season. All players ultimately complied and took the tests."

Likewise, anything after March 1st, 2003 is "fair game".

If any Red Sox pitcher on the 2004 or 2007 staff is found and proven to have used steroids or any banned PEDs then an asterix is certainly justifiable.

[Fan from VT]

i absolutely think there should be an astersisk. if we find there was players from the c's title juicing i think there should be an asterisk. i'm not saying doing roids makes you a bad person. it definitely DOES NOT.but i'm all for using the asterisks. any title influenced by roids just is'nt as legit.

Doesn't that mean you put an asterisk on every World Series for the past decade or more?  90% of the players in MLB are under suspicion. 

(The same would be true in the NFL, of course, if anybody actually cared that the players are juicing.)

Exactly, roy. We know that NFL players have juiced since the '70s. we know tons still do without getting caught (after all, if every player that took steroids got caught, players wouldn't take steroids). So should we asterisk the last 35 years of the NFL and the last 15 years of baseball?


not to mention the fact that a league like the MLB purposefully ignoring and even subtly condoning the use of steroid then turning around and placing asterisks is just preposterous.  Like a parent telling their kids it's okay to drink, then getting mad and punishing their kids when they get drunk and do something stupid.