Palmer Outs Brady Anderson

[Crash Course]

Not entirely what you may think............ ;)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-palmer0315,0,46004.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines

Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Palmer created a stir at Orioles camp Monday when his comments on baseball's drug-testing policy, aired on a Baltimore radio station, included suspicions that the franchise's single-season home run leader used steroids.

In an interview with 98 Rock (WIYY-FM) that was taped Saturday and played Monday, Palmer indicated Brady Anderson's 50-homer season in 1996 might have been tainted. Palmer cited how Anderson hadn't previously come close to that total and how his production dropped in subsequent years while he dealt with various injuries.

"I like Brady, and it doesn't mean he's a bad guy because he took steroids. But I'm sure he wanted to enhance his performance," Palmer told the station.


FWIW, later in the article, it looks like he recants.

[Craig S.]

A friend and I were just talking earlier this morning about Brady, particularly about how he went from 20+ to 50 homers. Both of us suspected that it had to do with more than just being a fitness nut, but it's hard to ever know for sure without hearing it from the player.

Never a good idea to accuse without proof, and Palmer should have known better. But I guess that's what having a forum like radio can do to you.

[JamesI]

Well, considering his career high in homers (other than 1996) was 24, I would consider it likely that something was going on with Brady that year.

He always claimed it was due to watching Rafael Palmeiro hit and learning from him.

Is he still active in the minors anywhere?

[Caught Lookin']

Clearly, there is a level of paranoia running around the sport right now. Every major accomplishment in the last few seasons will draw attention to the possibility of steroids. These sorts of articles are noteworthy only for the lack of scruples the person quoted has for airing their accusation in the first place.

Can't we start leaking stories about how a bunch of football players take steroids and try to shift the attention of this debate back to the NFL where it belongs.

Palmer is an idiot for saying that.

[JamesI]

Nevermind the question of whether he was still active...The article said he retired last year.

[Craig S.]

Nevermind the question of whether he was still active...The article said he retired last year.

Yeah, he got released from Portland and must have called it quits at that point.

[sweaver]

Not really an "outing," more "casting unfounded suspicions."

When we find out who has done steroids, it will not be all the people we suspect. Remember, Manny Alexander was caught with the evidence, and how many homers did he ever hit?

[thermos]

Not entirely what you may think............ ;)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-palmer0315,0,46004.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines



FWIW, later in the article, it looks like he recants.

This (Palmer's comments, not your post) is precisely the kind of over-simplistic meat-headed "thinking" that deserves a swift kick in the nuts.

If we believe Palmer, Anderson should be deemed guilty because of a spike in performance. How about the guy who dopes and achives through the steroids an ordinary level of mediocrity, instead of AA ball obscurity? Somehow he's less culpable? Or the guy who's always been good, but somehow prolongs his decline through some brief use of performance enhancers? He's not culpable? Running around casting aspersions at Bonds, Brady Anderson, Tino Martinez, or anyone else based just on some observed spike in performance is irresponsible. If you want to cast doubt on a player's accomplsihments because of the potential to have used steroids, they're all deserving of suspicion. That includes not just Anderson, but Clay Bellinger, and Enrique Wilson and, well, Jim Palmer. Success is not the issue, the issues is whether or not you took something that made you better than you'd otherwise be.

If Jim Palmer wants to tell me that Brady Anderson was probably on steroids, my answer is "You may well be right, Jim. And in that respect, you probably were also." That's what they all deserve. Then, maybe the clean ones will put some kind of pressure on the MLBPA and MLB to address those who are not.

[Makofan]

This (Palmer's comments, not your post) is precisely the kind of over-simplistic meat-headed "thinking" that deserves a swift kick in the nuts.

If we believe Palmer, Anderson should be deemed guilty because of a spike in performance.

Exactly. Was Maris on steroids in 1961? George Foster in 1977? George Brett in 1980? Spikes in a player's career are to be expected from a statistical (mathematical) perspective. More surprising is a career with no spikes

[thermos]

Exactly. Was Maris on steroids in 1961? George Foster in 1977? George Brett in 1980? Spikes in a player's career are to be expected from a statistical (mathematical) perspective. More surprising is a career with no spikes

Beyond that, the "method of analysis" of accusing players having spikes in performance to be on steroids is nonsense. It attributes a cause based solely on an observed effect. There's no logic to it whatsoever.

[sweaver]

I have it on good authority that Zolio Versalles was taking steroids in 1965, and Bob Hazle in 1957.......

[cubsin04]

He seemed to get awfully ripped really fast which I think adds to the speculation that he may have been taking something to enhance his performance.