Mike Piazza Steroids Allegations in The Rocket That Fell To Earth

According to Jeff Pearlman’s new book about Roger Clemens, The Rocket That Fell To Earth, former MLB catcher and Clemens foe, Mike Piazza, used steroids and admitted it to at least one unnamed reporter. The book traces Clemens life from being born in Dayton, Ohio, to becoming a Major League superstar and prominent player in the steroid era.

The portions about Piazza have received the most press leading up to the book’s release, March 24. Deadspin first published excerpts about Piazza.

As the hundreds of major league ballplayers who turned to performance-enhancing drugs throughout the 1990s did their absolute best to keep the media at arm's length, Piazza took the opposite approach. According to several sources, when the subject of performance enhancing was broached with reporters he especially trusted, Piazza fessed up. "Sure, I use," he told one. "But in limited doses, and not all that often." (Piazza has denied using performance-enhancing drugs, but there has always been speculation.) Whether or not it was Piazza's intent, the tactic was brilliant: By letting the media know, of the record, Piazza made the information that much harder to report. Writers saw his bulging muscles, his acne-covered back. They certainly heard the under-the-breath comments from other major league players, some who considered Piazza's success to be 100 percent chemically delivered.

At least two former Major League players, one being Reggie Jefferson (another was not named), were quoted as saying they were sure that Piazza used steroids.

"He's a guy who did it, and everybody knows it," says Reggie Jefferson, the longtime major league first baseman. "It's amazing how all these names, like Roger Clemens, are brought up, yet Mike Piazza goes untouched."

"There was nothing more obvious than Mike on steroids," says another major league veteran who played against Piazza for years. "Everyone talked about it, everyone knew it. Guys on my team, guys on the Mets. A lot of us came up playing against Mike, so we knew what he looked like back in the day. Frankly, he sucked on the field. Just sucked. After his body changed, he was entirely different. 'Power from nowhere,' we called it."

When asked, on a scale of 1 to 10, to grade the odds that Piazza had used performance enhancers, the player doesn't pause.

"A 12," he says. "Maybe a 13."

The media chatter about Piazza’s supposed steroid use started weeks ago.

On February 26, The New York Posts’ Joel Sherman wrote about how Piazza had always been suspected of steroid use. Sherman noted that at the time, people were "talking about certain physical quirks that raised suspicion, notably a back full of acne."

On March 4, former New York Times reporter, Murray Chass, noting Sherman’s article, wrote on his blog that he was also suspicious of Piazza. Chass said that he had even written a story about Piazza’s back acne but the Times wouldn’t publish it.

When steroids became a daily subject in newspaper articles I wanted to write about Piazza’s acne-covered back. I was prepared to describe it in disgusting living color. But two or three times my editors at The New York Times would not allow it. Piazza, they said, had never been accused of using steroids so I couldn’t write about it.

Chass claims that Piazza’s back acne had cleared up by 2004, the first year that MLB had a drug testing program that could lead to a suspension.

I don’t know if Sherman noticed Piazza’s back after the 2003 season. But it was clear in 2004 and ‘05, his last two seasons with the Mets, and it was clear when I talked to him during the last week of the 2007.

The back acne implication is flimsy but it has become part of the story, and it’s not the first time.

In the Jason Grimsley Affidavit, Grimsley said that Glenallen Hill, who was also named by Kirk Radomski in the Mitchell Report, "was very obvious and had the worst back acne he’d ever seen."

View Mike Piazza’s career statistics.

Sources

• Mike Piazza: The Back Acne Was The Least Of ItDeadspin
• Piazza Rumors the Trouble with Steroid EraNew York Post
• Mike Piazza: His Bat and His BackMurray Chass Blog

Related Content
• Jason Grimsley Affidavit Unsealed, No Clemens, Pettitte, Roberts, Gibbons
• The Mitchell Report Reaction: Clemens, Pettitte, Canseco, Rodriguez, Donnelly, Cabrera

Giants Prospect Kelvin Pichardo Suspended 50 Games for Violating MLB Drug Policy

San Francisco Giants prospect, Kelvin Pichardo, tested positive for a performance enhancing drug and has been suspended 50 games for violating MLB’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program.

Pichardo has never appeared in a major league game but was on the Giants 40-man roster and therefore subject to the major league portion of the drug agreement. He becomes the third player suspended in 2009 after Philadelphia Phillies reliever, JC Romero, and Florida Marlins pitcher, Sergio Mitre. Pichardo had already been optioned to Triple-A during spring training when the suspension was announced.

The Giants released a fairly typical statement that included the following.

"The Giants were disappointed to learn that one of our players, Kelvin Pichardo, has failed a test for a performance enhancing drug. Our organization fully supports Major League Baseball's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program"

View Pichardo’s career statistics.

Sources

• MLB bans Pichardo 50 gamesESPN
• San Francisco Giants Press ReleaseMLB.com

Related Content
• Sergio Mitre Suspended 50 Games for Androstenedione Found in Legal Supplement
• JC Romero Suspended 50 Games for Failed PED Test, MLB Rules "Negligence"

Physical Evidence Contains Performance Enhancing Drugs and Roger Clemens DNA

According to the New York Times, government investigators have found performance-enhancing drugs among the drug paraphernalia Brian McNamee claims he used to inject Roger Clemens with steroids and/or human growth hormone.

Federal authorities investigating Roger Clemens on perjury charges have found performance-enhancing substances on the drug paraphernalia that his former trainer said he used to inject Clemens, according to people briefed on the case.

McNamee turned over syringes, vials and gauze pads to investigators in January 2008. On Feb. 3, 2009, The Washington Post reported that Clemens’ DNA had been found on the paraphernalia. The test results were said to be preliminary and "subject to verification tests."

McNamee's lawyer, Richard Emery, was not surprised to hear the paraphernalia also contained performance enhancing drugs.

"I assumed, and I am not surprised, that the tests were positive for both DNA and for performance-enhancing drugs, because that's what Brian said all along, and there's not much doubt that Brian's been telling the truth… The confirmation of that fact, once again, just seems to me to be another significant step towards jail for Clemens."

According to ESPN legal expert, Lester Munson, the new evidence could indeed be very damning to Clemens.

The Times report didn't indicate whether the PEDs were found on the same syringe that contained Clemens' DNA, but if federal agents can connect the PEDs to that syringe, it would be strong evidence that Clemens lied when he clashed with McNamee in their testimony before the House Committee on Government Reform. Although the process will be difficult, it can be done. With Clemens and McNamee contradicting each other, the evidence of PEDs on the paraphernalia, if authenticated, could become conclusive.

If Clemens is indicted, his lawyers will surely challenge the chain of custody.

“Duh,” (Clemens’ lawyer, Rusty Hardin) said with exaggeration. “Do you really think McNamee was going to fabricate this stuff and not make sure there were substances on there? The fact is Roger never used steroids or H.G.H.”

The Clemens case and the Barry Bonds case now share a common thread. Bonds’ lawyers challenged the chain of custody of blood tests Bonds had supposedly taken through BALCO. The judge in that case ruled the evidence inadmissible (later appealed) largely because Greg Anderson refuses to testify that they pertain to Bonds. ESPN legal analyst, Roger Cossack, thinks things would be quite different in a Clemens trial.

They’ll try and make the same claim that Barry Bonds lawyers are making, that there’s not been a sufficient chain of custody, that is, of the syringes, to allow them into evidence.

But unlike the Bonds case where the person that can give that testimony is the trainer and Greg Anderson, and won’t testify. In this case the person who can give that testimony is the trainer Brian McNamee, who will testify. So the feds are going to have an easier time.

There is still no indication as to whether or not the government intends to indict Clemens.

Sources

• Banned Substances Found on Materials Linked to ClemensNew York Times
• Clemens should worry about PED reportESPN
• Drug items link Clemens to McNameeESPN

Related Content
• Roger Clemens Grand Jury News, DNA Tests, CJ Nitkowski
• Congress Asks DOJ to Investigate Whether Roger Clemens Committed Perjury, Memo States Seven Contradictory Assertions

Barry Bonds Perjury Trial Delayed by Appeal

The government filed a last-minute appeal of judge Susan Illston’s ruling that some evidence would not be admitted to Barry Bonds’ perjury and obstruction of justice trial which was set for Mar. 2. According to ESPN legal expert, Lester Munson, the appeal could delay the trial over a year and a half.

The Administrative Office (AO) of the federal courts, which is the Elias Sports Bureau of the court system, says that the median time to complete an appeal in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- where the Bonds case appeal will be argued and decided -- is 19.4 months.

Among the evidence that Illston ruled inadmissible were lab results of tests done though BALCO, doping ledgers and doping calendars believed to be made by Bonds former trainer, Greg Anderson. Anderson has maintained he will not testify.

Without Anderson, Illston ruled that the government would be relying on hearsay to establish that urine and blood samples said to be Bonds' actually were his. And so, with no one to affirm directly the samples came from Bonds, Illston ruled there is no proof that the results of the tests or entries in doping ledgers actually refer to the ballplayer.

Illston also ruled inadmissible doping calendars believed to be made by Anderson for Bonds, as well as calendars for other ballplayers and athletes.

Munson, a lawyer and senor writer at ESPN, believes the government has a good chance of winning the appeal.

The prosecutors offered clever and creative arguments for the use of their evidence. The major obstacle, of course, was personal trainer Greg Anderson's refusal to testify against Bonds. If he had agreed to testify, the use of the evidence would have been simple and routine. But without Anderson's testimony, the prosecution had problems in meeting the requirements of the rules that govern evidence in federal courts. Relying on a series of rules that allow evidence to be presented even though it is hearsay, the prosecutors seemed to have met the legal requirement for use of the evidence. Illston, however, disagreed. Was she correct? The higher court will decide, but it looks good for the prosecutors.

Shysterball’s Craig Calcaterra, another lawyer and baseball writer, respectfully disagrees.

The prosecutors' arguments for admitting the test results and other BALCO records were that they were business records, that they fell under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, or, most forcefully, that they were subject to the residual hearsay exception. I won't bore the non-lawyers with a full analysis of this, but I've read the briefs, and none of those arguments, especially the residual exception argument, were remotely convincing. Basically, they argued that the records, though hearsay, should be admitted because, well gosh darn it, they're really good evidence that we want in this case. In light of these weak arguments, and in light of no one who can authenticate and speak about these documents with first hand knowledge, no, I do not agree that "it looks good for the prosecutors." And that's before we get into the political/philosophical predispositions of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which favor Mr. Bonds.

The government must submit its opening brief on June 1, Bonds must respond by July 1, after which the government can submit a rebuttal by July 15. After that, the court could rule on the appeal, or request oral arguments. The deadlines could be delayed if either side requests more time to complete their arguments.

Sources

• Judge Susan Illston's rulingPDF
• Judge rules some evidence inadmissibleESPN
• Bonds trial faces long delay for appealESPN
• Appeal to hold up Bonds trialAssociated Press
• Bonds appeal could take 19 monthsESPN
• Appeal is smart move in Bonds trialESPN
• A Contrary ViewShysterball @ Hardball Times

Related Content
• Barry Bonds Indicted for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice
• Barry Bonds Evidence Unsealed

Alex Rodriguez Press Conference, Boli, Cousin Yuri Sucart, Fallout

Eight days after Alex Rodriguez admitted using a “banned substance” in an interview with ESPN’s Peter Gammons, Rodriguez held his much anticipated press conference at spring training.

This time around, Rodriguez admitted using an “over the counter” substance he called “Boli” that his cousin (later identified as Yuri Sucart) purchased in the Dominican Republic. Rodriguez said that from 2001 to 2003 his cousin would inject him twice per month for six months, presumably the six months spanning the baseball season.

Sports Illustrated had previously reported that Rodriguez had tested positive for Primobolan (Methenolone) and testosterone in 2003. It was later discovered that Primobolan was not available over the counter in the Dominican Republic, but could be acquired on the black market rather easily.

Rodriguez certainly provided new information, but the story seems to have changed.

This is from the Peter Gammons Interview (Feb. 9):

There's many things that you can take that are banned substances. I mean, there's things that have been removed from GNC today that would trigger a positive test. I'm not sure exactly what substance I used. But whatever it is, I feel terribly about it.

And this is from the Press Conference (Feb. 17):

"Going back to 2001, my cousin started telling me about a substance that you could purchase over-the-counter in DR know as, in the streets, it's known as boli or bole. It was his understanding that it would give me a dramatic energy boost and (was) otherwise harmless. My cousin and I, one more ignorant than the other, decided it was a good idea to start taking it. My cousin would administer it to me, but neither of us knew how to use it properly, providing (sic) just how ignorant we both were.

According to Gammons via ESPN’s Le Anne Schreiber, Rodriguez’s story may also have changed the night before the interview.

Gammons told me, as well as other interviewers, that he was stunned by Rodriguez's admission that he had taken banned substances for three years.

"When I talked informally with Alex the night before," Gammons said, "I got the impression he was going to say whatever he tested positive for in 2003 was related to prescription drugs he had taken for a back injury in spring training."

Rodriguez’s statements thus far have raised as many questions as they have answered. Here's some comments from the media since the press conference.

Yankees radio broadcaster Suzyn Waldman

"Do I believe that Alex Rodriguez, who won't have a Snickers bar or a cookie, let his cousin inject him with something that he didn't know what it was? I find that really hard to believe."

ESPN’s Jayson Stark

Let's start with this: He sure didn't tell the same story Tuesday that he told to Peter Gammons a week and a half ago. Did he? Nine days ago, A-Rod didn't know what kind of drug (or drugs) he was taking -- even though he says he took it for three years.

Now, nine days later, he knows it was something called "boli." Which, best we can tell, is another name for Primobolan, the exact drug he was asked point-blank by Gammons whether he had taken.

Nine days ago, there wasn't one word uttered about any mysterious cousins who were procuring this stuff and helping him inject it. Now, it's time to start poring over his family tree to try to figure out which cousin it was.

Nine days ago, A-Rod was implying that whatever he was taking, he was buying it down at the mall, presumably while he was waiting for an Auntie Anne soft pretzel to come out of the oven.

Now, he's admitting his cousin was the one doing the purchasing. And although he continued to say this drug was bought "over the counter," we now know that counter was located in the Dominican Republic, not outside his friendly neighborhood food court.

Nine days ago, there was no mention of any other "substances." But on Tuesday, Rodriguez admitted to ESPN's Hannah Storm that he also used to take Ripped Fuel, which was later banned -- at least in its original ephedra-based form -- by both baseball and the FDA.

And nine days ago, Rodriguez was angrily accusing universally respected Sports Illustrated reporter Selena Roberts of "stalking" him. Now, it turns out, he just had a "misunderstanding of the facts." So never mind.

Some reporters touched on how coached Rodriguez seemed to be. Rodriguez has a team of lawyers and recently hired PR firm, Outside Eyes, to help him through this process.

ESPN’s TJ Quinn

What A-Rod said: "Going back to 2001, my cousin started telling me about a substance that can be purchased over the counter in the D.R. [Dominican Republic]. In the streets, it's known as 'boli.'"

What he didn't say: That simple statement, apparently designed to satisfy reporters about how, where and with whom his steroid use began, sparked more questions than anything else A-Rod said. Where did he hear about "boli"? Where did Sucart learn about it? If boli refers to Primobolan (a brand name for methenolone), it can't be purchased over the counter in the Dominican Republic. So how did they get it? The black market?

Sports Illustrated’s Ben Reiter

He never called the substance he took -- which was reported by SI's Selena Roberts and David Epstein to be the cutting-edge steroid Primobolan -- by anything but the name "Boli" (which he explained was its street name in the Dominican Republic, where he said his unnamed cousin acquired it). That seemed as if it was one facet of a strategy to underscore the youthful nature of his indiscretion. "I didn't think they were steroids. That's part of being young and stupid. It was basically amateur hour," he said. Later he added, "I knew we weren't taking Tic Tacs."
…
Given the chance to communicate openly and honestly, he seemed to have mainly spin to offer -- and, sadly, it seems likely that nothing he can ever do as a baseball player, from this day forward, will make the public forget that.

Video: Alex Rodriguez Press Conference Statement

Sources

• A-Rod says he took energy boosterESPN
• A-Rod's cousin lives in MiamiESPN
• Primobolan not legally available in DRESPN
• Rodriguez statement textESPN
• A-Rod answers questions, raises moreESPN
• 'Boli,' A-Rod's steroid of choice, is illegal, but that won't stop you from getting it in DominicanNY Daily News
• Transcript of Alex Rodriguez’s Press ConferenceNew York Times
• Gammons/A-Rod was no Frost/NixonESPN
• Rodriguez blames youth instead of genuinely owning up to mistakeSI
• Q & A-Rod: Answers still neededESPN

Related Content
• Alex Rodriguez Admits Using Performance Enhancing Drugs from 2001 to 2003
• Alex Rodriguez Tested Positive for Steroids in 2003