19 comments Two For One Thursday: King and Steroids

You know you all wanted it and you got it. Two different articles in one post. Don't act like you aren't excited at this wonderful deal. Today we have my personal favorite Peter King and Johnette Howard.

I have a soft spot for Peter King mailbags. I don't know if it is because usually the first part is just an extension of his MMQB or it is the only time he directly answers his fan's questions. It's probably a mixture of both, but either way I enjoy reading Peter's "these people aren't an insider like me" reaction to his fan's questions and his indignant responses when they question him. Fortunately, we get a little bit of both in Peter's weekly mailbag this week.

Five quick observations, then your e-mail from a busy NFL week:

Busy week, but still a one page mailbag. If I was a major sportswriter I would probably do a huge mailbag, depending on how mail I got of course. Mailbags just seem like a lot of fun, I can't lie, so I don't know why Peter doesn't do a larger one. I think Bill Simmons does a good job in getting a huge mailbag together (though the questions and answers sometimes irritate me).

1. We don't know who the Bills' coach might be because, and I can assure you this, they don't know either.

Anyone really surprised the Bills have no idea who their coach will be? Me neither.

When the Bills began this process, they made it clear they're going through a long process that won't be short-cutted unless Cowher would have said yes early.

Because of course Bill Cowher is the mecca for any team that wants to hire a coach who has had success in the NFL before. Bill Cowher is the only qualified coach currently available in the job market apparently. I like Bill Cowher and I think he is a good coach, but doesn't anyone remember when he was on sort of thin ice with the Steelers and couldn't win the big games? His last year at Pittsburgh he went 8-8 and there was a 3 year stretch where his best year was 9-7. Again, he seems to be a great coach, but he also has a 12-9 playoff record and a history of losing home AFC Championship Games.

If they're the only job open (other than Oakland, which almost doesn't count because the pool of candidates is so different), why rush? But I do know they like Frazier a lot.

Two things:

1. I like how Peter acknowledges the pool of candidates for the Oakland job is so different from the pool for any other NFL team. I just wonder if people who have never actually coached or played in the NFL are candidates? Is Al Davis going to attempt to lure Phil Jackson or possibly a high profile celebrity (Matt Damon?) to the Raiders to coach them? Would we put this past him?

2. I also like how the Vikings like Leslie Frazier a lot, but they want to wait on Cowher first of course. Bill Cowher is the high school girl who broke up with her boyfriend after sophomore year and now all the guys are trying to score with her when they are seniors. These senior guys are spending so much time trying to get with her, they are completely ignoring the fact there are potentially as good sophomore and junior girls to date. I feel like some NFL teams are too blinded by Cowher to look at other candidates.

(How's that for a random high school analogy?)

2. Tom Cable's in limbo. I keep hearing Cable expects to get fired, and I also hear of conflicting signs from inside the building that Al Davis may try to get him to fall in like with JaMarcus Russell again.

If I were Tom Cable and "falling in line" with JaMarcus Russell is a condition of employment then I am going to soon be unemployed. At what point do you think the NFL should step in and start running the Raiders? It's not that the team doesn't know what they are doing, it is that they don't get a chance to show they know what they are doing because the owner is a moron. A meddling owner getting older and more senile is not a path to success.

3. Pete Carroll has this bit of good news to welcome him. The Seahawks have three of the top 40 picks in the April draft -- No. 6 (theirs), No. 14 (from Denver, in the deal that allowed the Broncos to draft Alphonso Smith last year) and No. 40 (theirs).

Peter looks at this as good news, while I am not so sure this is really good news. Sure, give a good head coach a bunch of draft picks and that might lead to success, but give a head coach with a career record of 33-31 and hasn't coached at all in the NFL in a decade those three early picks and it could be disaster waiting to happen.

Pete Carroll has coached 4 seasons in the NFL and led his team to the following finishes in the division: 5th, 1st, 4th, and 4th.

Here is a list of players that Pete Carroll's teams have drafted while he was the head coach I realize he wasn't the General Manager, but he had to have some say in these picks:

1994 (with the Jets):

1994	1	1	12	12	Aaron Glenn	DB	Texas A&M
	2	2	12	41	Ryan Yarborough	WR	Wyoming
	3	3	29	94	Lou Benfatti	DT	Penn State
	4	4	14	117	Orlando Parker	WR	Troy State
	5	5	21	152	Horace Morris	LB	Tennessee
	6	6	12	173	Fred Lester	RB	Alabama A&M
	7	7	14	208	Glenn Foley	QB	Boston College

Other than Aaron Glenn and Fred Lester does anyone recognize those names?

1997 (with the Patriots):

1997	1	1	29	29	Chris Canty	DB	Kansas State
	2	2	29	59	Brandon Mitchell	DE	Texas A&M
	3	3	1	61	Sedrick Shaw	RB	Iowa
	4	3	29	89	Chris Carter	DB	Texas
	5	4	1	97	Damon Denson	G	Michigan
	6	4	29	125	Ed Ellis	T	Buffalo
	7	5	29	159	Vernon Crawford	LB	Florida State
	8	6	29	192	Tony Gaiter	WR	Miami (FL)
	9	7	29	230	Scott Rehberg	T	Central Michigan

1998:

1998	1	1	18	18	Robert Edwards	RB	Georgia
	2	1	22	22	Tebucky Jones	DB	Syracuse
	3	2	22	52	Tony Simmons	WR	Wisconsin
	4	2	24	54	Rod Rutledge	TE	Alabama
	5	3	20	81	Chris Floyd	RB	Michigan
	6	3	22	83	Greg Spires	DE	Florida State
	7	4	23	115	Leonta Rheams	DT	Houston
	8	5	22	145	Ron Merkerson	LB	Colorado
	9	6	23	176	Harold Shaw	RB	Southern Mississippi
	10	7	22	211	Jason Andersen	C	Brigham Young

1999:

1999	1	1	17	17	Damien Woody	C	Boston College
	2	1	28	28	Andy Katzenmoyer	LB	Ohio State
	3	2	15	46	Kevin Faulk	RB	Louisiana State
	4	3	30	91	Tony George	DB	Florida
	5	5	21	154	Derrick Fletcher	T	Baylor
	6	6	11	180	Marcus Washington	DB	Colorado
	7	7	21	227	Michael Bishop	QB	Kansas State
	8	7	35	241	Sean Morey	WR	Brown

Out of those four drafts there are four players that are or were starter quality in my book. The Patriots had bad luck with Robert Edwards and I didn't count him in that list of quality starters, but from his previous draft history is Pete Carroll a guy a team should trust to handle multiple draft choices? Even ignoring the fact he has been out of the NFL since 1999, I would say "no."

I'm not saying Pete Carroll is going to bust in Seattle, certainly he may have become a better coach in his time at USC, but based on his coaching and drafting history it doesn't look good to me. Coaching college football is so different from coaching in the NFL and part of Carroll's success at USC was that he was a great recruiter and usually had better players than anyone else because of that. I know it sounds like a cliche that he played with better players, but it is also partly true.

When you watched a USC game did you think, "man, Pete Carroll is getting a lot out of these guys," or "what a game plan by Pete Carroll and his staff!" Probably not. He always seemed to have better players because he was a great recruiter. This won't be the case in the NFL. Count me as apprehensive for the Pete Carroll Era in Seattle.

The draft picks could be the edge Seattle needs to fill two long-term holes -- at quarterback and left tackle. Carroll needs to work the Combine and the college stops as hard as he worked recruiting to have a good chance to turn the Seahawks around quickly.

But it's still not the same as recruiting. Pete Carroll can still work hard but he also has little control over what players fall to him beyond the #6 pick. It also isn't a situation where he can get three good quarterbacks (Aaron Corp, Matt Barkley, and Mitch Mustain) on his roster and hope to God one of them stands apart in training camp and practice enough to be the starter. If Carroll wants a quarterback at #6, he will have to pick THE GUY at that spot. Drafting is ever-so-different from recruiting.

I heard from a few people, mostly on Twitter, about my statement saying I wasn't sure which QB-WR-TE trio I'd rather have right now -- the one in Green Bay or the one in Indy.

Probably because Peter phrased his opinion poorly. He picked an older trio and a younger trio and then tried to compare them now, instead of saying he would rather have the Colts trio now and the Packers trio in 3 years.

"You never cease to amaze me,'' wrote Tom Illg of Apple Valley, Minn. "Are you completely insane? You are debating between Peyton Manning, Dallas Clark, Reggie Wayne and Aaron Rodgers, Jermichael Finley, Greg Jennings. How do you possibly stay employed as a football expert? You have to think about choosing either a first-ballot Hall of Fame player or a player who still has a lot to prove.''

There are times I could take what Tom from Minnesota wrote here and just put it on a loop when talking about Peter King. I could just throw these three phrases in after every Peter King statement when I am doing the MMQB Review:

1. "You never cease to amaze me."

2. "Are you completely insane."

3. "How do you possibly stay employed as a football expert?"

I could just simply write those three phrases and it may still be entertaining. Let's see how Peter responds to this reader...

Well, glad you're reading, Tom.

"Gosh, you have a lot of anger Tom. I am surprised that someone would have so much anger that a football expert would make exaggerated or unclear claims. Can't I just say whatever I want without repercussions from you picky-ass readers?"

On opening day 2010, Tom, I'd take the Colts' trio. For the next seven years, I'd take Green Bay's. And that's my insanity defense.

You know who else this type comparison could go for, but it doesn't seem like Peter ever brought this up when "he who should not be talked about" was retiring/unretiring? I hesitate to say it since I talk about these two all the time, but this "I'd rather have this guy now, but this other guy 4 years from now" comparison could also have worked well for (code names) Brett Rodgers and Aaron Favre two years ago. Yet Peter never attempted to make it when analyzing the situation two summers ago.

Michael Donner of Rochester, N.Y.: "Hear me out, as I think this makes sense given the history of the Belichick Era (Deion Branch, Richard Seymour, Ty Law, Curtis Martin): Offer Tom Brady to the Raiders for their 2010 1st, 2nd, 3rd; 2011 2nd, 2012 1st, 2nd. Brady's contract is tradeable and Al Davis would love him for a variety of reasons; Belichick could deal one of the first-rounders to the Rams for Steven Jackson and then draft Tim Tebow to run the exact same system in New England as he had in Florida.

This is why normal people should not try to be amateur General Managers. Is Tom Brady really the problem with this New England Patriot team and is Tim Tebow really a great replacement for Brady? I say "no" to both of these questions. I call this type trade proposal a "Fantasy Madden Trade" because it combines the idea in Fantasy Football you can try to trade which ever player you want, in return for a ton of draft picks which is a staple of the Madden football games. These do not work in real life. I hate it when a person just assumes an inferior team will cough up draft picks for established players. It drives me crazy.

I am sure the Raiders like Tom Brady, but would they trade: 2 first round draft picks, 3 second round draft picks, and one 3rd round draft choice for Tom Brady when he is a free agent after 2010? How does this make sense? Then this guy just assumes the Rams will take a 1st round pick for Steven Jackson and Tim Tebow will be available for the Patriots to draft...oh yeah, the Patriots will also change their entire offensive system to the one Tebow ran at Florida.

So the plan is to rebuild the entire Patriots team, offensively around Tim Tebow...by trading one of the best quarterbacks of all-time. Does this sound a bit risky to anyone?

The Pats then have a solid running threat added in the backfield and under center. Am I crazy, or does this not make perfect sense?''

The Patriots then have an unproven 1st round draft pick starting at quarterback and a team learning a new offensive system. It sounds a little crazy to me.

PK: All except the trading Brady part.

Haha, Peter with the smackdown! Then Peter loses his mind and irritates me.

What makes more sense to me was raised by one of my Twitter followers the other day -- deal the first-rounder, 22nd overall, to Carolina, without a first-rounder right now, for one of its backs.

Oh of course, the Panthers would love to trade one of the top 13 running backs in rushing yards last year to any team who will give them a 1st round draft choice! Can Carolina throw in a 2nd round pick just to make it even? Then Peter jumps right on the crazy train...

If it's Jonathan Stewart, I'd do it. I'm a little worried about the injury bug biting DeAngelo Williams.

Well of course they will trade the younger (22 years old) of the two backs for a 1st round pick that is almost a 2nd round pick (#22). The Panthers drafted Stewart at #13 and he looks like a franchise back, but I am sure, since they are stupid, they would trade him now that he is a proven player for an upper 1st round pick. Where can they sign to make this happen?

Not to mention, Peter King proves he really doesn't follow the NFL that closely when he mentions DeAngelo Williams having the "injury bug." Jonathan Stewart participated in roughly 30% of the practices during the season this year because he has nagging injuries and needs to be ready to play on Sunday. Williams only missed games at the end of this year because the team had Stewart and they didn't have to rush him back since they weren't in the playoff hunt. I would expect someone who follows the NFL to know this.

Just to be sure I am not crazy, I asked my favorite Panthers beat writer and fellow Appalachian State grad Darin Gantt on Twitter if this was a possibility. Gantt is easily my favorite beat writer that follows the Panthers and he actually knows his stuff and writes well, rather than being the type of writer who tries to start speculation or increase readership with his columns. I can appreciate that.

daringantt I wouldn't. Same for Pep? Let's talk. RT @bengoodfella Peter King said Pats could trade 1st to Carolina for J-Stew. Would Cats go for that? about 18 hours ago from web

By "I wouldn't" he means "They wouldn't."

daringantt Just read the King item in question http://tinyurl.com/yfhzwkv, not sure I see Stew being that much more durable than DeAngelo.

daringantt Not sure they're eager to give up either one. RT @OrangeChuck Maybe Carolina is more willing to trade Stew because of his injury status.

My point of all this writing is that Peter King should realize the Panthers set up their entire team to run the ball and that requires keeping two of the best running backs in the NFL. Stewart is young, affordable and productive. There is no reason to get rid of him. This is like asking if the Giants should trade Steve Smith for a 1st round pick to use on defense or the Cowboys should trade Felix Jones for a 1st round pick. Just because there is depth at a position doesn't mean the team wants to trade out of that depth. Peter also should know that Stewart is the one with the injury bug, not Williams.

From E. Alberto of Honduras: "If Peter King were head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles would he have benched Donovan McNabb for Michael Vick versus Dallas after Vick's touchdown?

What is with some of the questions Peter is asked today? If McNabb was going to be replaced, it better be with Kevin Kolb and not Mike Vick. I would hope to God this is how it would be. Also, didn't Vick fumble a handoff in the Cowboys game? It's not like he performed supremely well.

PK: Once you take that genie out of the bottle -- the genie of yanking McNabb without warning from the biggest game of the year -- the mayhem would be so pronounced that you'd already have determined that Kevin Kolb was going to be your quarterback going forward. So the answer is no. Not sure at that exact moment I'd have been ready to make that call.

This is another problem with yanking McNabb, though really I don't know if yanking him in the game should cause a massive quarterback controversy, even though it probably would. More importantly, the part Peter didn't address is why the hell the Eagles would yank McNabb for Vick and not Kolb?

From Robert of Portland, Ore.: "With what seems to be a large number of juniors coming out early in what was already a deep draft, what teams besides Cleveland look to be in the best positions to take advantage of this cornucopia of talent?''

PK: New England has the most picks in the top two rounds -- four. I haven't gotten the exact spots confirmed yet, but I believe they'll be picking 22nd, 44th, 47th and 53rd overall. As one club president said to me Monday: "The Patriots are in the perfect spot to get some new pieces because it's going to be a pretty deep draft and they don't have the cost of one of the top six, eight picks.''

What? Hasn't Peter heard? The Patriots dynasty is over! Done! Never to rise again! Trade Tom Brady to the Raiders and draft Tim Tebow to run the Urban Meyer offense and watch the team succeed in the future! Trade Moss, Welker, and Mayo, it is time to rebuild around Tim Tebow!

You can't tell me all these media outlets were over reacting to a bad playoff loss can you? There is no way the media could over react to a loss like this, especially a large media outlet like there is in Boston.

I just wanted to take this time to emphasize how stupid it is for everyone to assume the Patriots are done as a team. They have a bunch of draft picks in prime spots and a bright head coach. Everyone needs to simmer down a little about writing the obituary for the Patriots team.

From Heather Boyer of Brooklyn: "The one thing that I read this morning that made me feel slightly better about the Packers loss Sunday was your column. I appreciate that you recognize the strength and talent of Aaron Rodgers and the team. But most of all I appreciate that you analyzed the last sack over and over and determined that the face mask was not a factor. I know that the missed call did not lose the game for the Packers, but it sure made the loss more difficult to accept with any sort of aplomb. I always enjoy your column, but this one helped me work through a difficult Monday morning. Thank you.''

Actually, the facemask sort of was a factor in the Packers losing the game (other than the fact they played zero defense), but I am glad Peter can help other people feel better about a tough loss.

-Everyone has obviously heard the least shocking news of the week. Mark McGwire finally admitted he used steroids for nearly a decade in the late 1980's to the late 1990's. One reason I dislike the sports media is that revelations like this from athletes is never enough for them. You read articles written by sportswriters about how players should just come clean and then when players come clean the media writes crap about how the players didn't really come clean...or they have some other complaint. Our example for the day is Johnette Howard.

It was supposed to be the day that Mark McGwire re-surfaced and finally made things right.

Clearly McGwire felt compelled to do it since he is now the hitting instructor for the Cardinals. He must have felt now was the right time or was motivated to come clean since he was getting back involved with MLB.

But by time McGwire finished talking Monday about his tainted home-run hitting career, McGwire’s expected but long overdue admission that he used performance-enhancing drugs deserved an asterisk, too.

No apology is ever good enough for the media. A contrite apology is seen as not really coming clean and an apology without a player being contrite is seen as not really being sorry. The sports media will not let the players win. They can't let it happen. They want more than tears, more than blood. It's like they want to just get a chance to rip the player one more time and will use any excuse to do it.

What McGwire delivered wasn’t a show of true contrition.

Does it really matter? He is getting low Hall of Fame vote totals, everyone assumed he used steroids anyway, and there is very little sympathy from fans and baseball people alike. Who cares if he was contrite? He admitted he used PEDs like everyone wanted him to do at the Congressional hearing a few years ago. Mark McGwire is just another baseball cheater that has wrecked the record books and our illusions about baseball over the last 20 years. We knew it then sort of and we know it now for sure. Let's move on.

The most fascinating mutation of baseball’s drug era has always been The Superstar Steroid User like McGwire or Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens, not the journeymen who were all just trying to keep their roster spots.

Because the media doesn't get any joy from tearing down journeymen who cheated and possibly cost another borderline player a roster spot. Pointing out the journeymen who cheated and possibly denied another player his dream of playing in the major leagues isn't as fun to talk about as players who are stars and cheated. I think a good case could be made that more wrong was done to players who were borderline MLB players and didn't get a spot because the guy ahead of him was on some sort of PED.

The ego and hubris, the sense of entitlement and indignation McGwire felt at being criticized for his admittedly bad choices all bubbled up as he talked.

This is why players don't confess. If a player doesn't confess, he is just a cheater. If a player does confess the media can then call him a cheater and take personal shots at him (by calling him names) as well.

Mark McGwire cheated. Did him admitting it tell us anything we didn't really know prior? So what's different other than he admitted it? He is still a PED user who is going to try and make the Hall of Fame despite his admission. Does the direct knowledge of his PED use really change our opinion of him compared to the suspected knowledge? He got 23% (or around there) of the Hall of Fame vote this year. He was already treated like a PED user in the Hall of Fame voter's eyes, so really his admission doesn't do much other than give people like Johnette Howard a chance to call him names.

A workmanlike question about the five years McGwire went underground after the disastrous 2005 Congressional hearings in which McGwire said “I’m not here to talk about the past” struck a raw chord with McGwire.

“It wasn’t an exile,” McGwire tersely corrected Costas, “It was a retirement.”

The thing was, IT WAS A RETIREMENT! Mark McGwire had been traveling for 7 months of the year for 20 years of his life. He wanted to spend time with his family and get away from baseball. It's his right. He wanted to get away from baseball, so he did. He shouldn't be forced to do baseball television shows or make himself available for interviews anymore if he doesn't want to. Contrary to the belief of Johnette Howard, Mark McGwire may have actually been retired and away from the game for reasons that don't have to do with steroids. The perception the media has that athletes should always make themselves ready and available for interview at all times has mystified me for a while now.

McGwire didn’t mind freely admitting that the carefully orchestrated way his apology was rolled out — the surprise release of his written statement at 3 p.m. ET Monday, followed by supportive statements that baseball commissioner Bud Selig and St. Louis manager Tony La Russa released within the hour — was intentionally timed to smooth his return to baseball next month as the Cardinals hitting coach.

Yes, this is absolutely true. It's a public relations move. I wonder at what point sportswriters are going to quit standing over headlines of college football coaches who leave a college for more money and PED users admitting their PED use when it is convenient and beneficial for them, and stop naively screaming, "Oh my God, I can't believe this! What a shocking and underhanded move!" Maybe I am more jaded but I expect these things to happen and it doesn't bother me anymore. Isn't it time to stop being shocked?

Like Pettitte, McGwire said he used steroids only so he’d be healthy enough to play, and not for any strength gain — which is simply impossible to believe.

So don't believe it. McGwire is probably lying about this. He lied about using steroids for 5 years since that congressional hearing, so it should be nothing new. If you assume a player is lying, it saves a lot of time when going through the moral indignation phase of writing columns about that player.

Like A-Rod, McGwire tried for a little legacy repair by pointing out to Costas that he’d had good years and bad years before he used steroids in 1993 and afterward.

Which is probably a true statement. What does Johnette Howard expect McGwire to say?

"I don't really have any good years other than when I was on steroids, so don't even bother looking to see if I did. I was a marginal player at best."

McGwire is proud of his accomplishments and is trying to back up his statement that he was a good player and took the steroids to get healthy, by pointing out he was a good player before he took steroids.

He blamed his drift toward steroid use partly on the era he was playing in when he should’ve put the blame wholly on personal choices he made.

I hate to break it to Ms. Howard but this is probably true. McGwire made a poor personal decision to use steroids but if he played in an era when no one else was using steroids he may not have felt the need to do them to keep up. He made a bad decision because he felt pressure to do anything to stay on top of his game. It's an excuse built solidly on a truth.

He swore La Russa, his manager at two major league stops, never knew the truth about his steroid use until he told him in a phone call Monday morning — a farce that La Russa, McGwire’s longtime apologist, continued to repeat during the rounds of interviews he did Monday.

I personally don't see how La Russa gets off without any more blame like he does. He should get a tiny amount of blame from the media but he doesn't. He personally has had alcohol-related problems, there is a list of players he has coached baseball players who were the benchmark for steroid users, and he continuously claims to not know anything about steroids in baseball. I can't help but feel he always knew more than he claims he knew.

I have never said Albert Pujols used steroids, but how can he not be linked to them when his manager has managed other players who are known PED users, nearly every other top slugger of this era other than Pujols has been found to use some form of PED, and he has been linked to a trainer who used steroids? There is some circumstantial evidence regarding Pujols. I want to believe Pujols is clean, but it doesn't help my belief with some of his affiliations.

He was the closest thing baseball had to The Hulk when he and Sammy Sosa locked up in their mesmerizing chase of Maris’ single-season home run record in the summer of 1998. By then McGwire was a 255-pound strongman. His Cardinals uniforms looked like they’d been shrink-wrapped on him.

Yet how many sportswriters, journalists or observers who are criticizing McGwire now and had access to McGwire at the time blew the whistle or said anything about what they thought? Zero that I could find. As I have said before, the sports world, including sports journalists who had access to see these players bodies before/after steroids were all along for the ride. I find the same writers who condemn McGwire now at the time of his steroid admission to be culpable in turning a blind eye in 1998. Don't lie, I bet many of them suspected something.

McGwire’s statements might be worth getting more worked up about if most people who are inclined to care hadn’t long ago decided that McGwire used steroids and moved on.

Yet, Johnette Howard is still worked up.

Nothing McGwire said Monday is going to help him lose the stigma of being the only hitter with more than 500 home runs not to be voted into the Hall of Fame. (In four tries, he’s never gotten more than 24 percent of the 75 percent of the votes needed;

I can't answer the question of whether Mark McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame or not. My inclination is to say, "no," but then I believe Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez should be in the Hall of Fame when they retire. That's a sort of contradiction. More importantly, what about those players that have been suspected but never linked, is it fair they may be in the Hall of Fame while the unlucky ones who got caught aren't? Probably not, but life is not fair. PED users are a tough case and I am glad I don't have to vote one way or another on this issue for the Hall of Fame (actually, I would like to vote because I am sure the voters are going to screw it all up).

So don’t say he finally came clean. He didn’t even come close. He just got closer than ever before.

I am sure there are some things McGwire is holding back. He attempted to come clean though and I can understand why he didn't fully come clean. It's because nothing is good enough for sportswriters, no matter how the apology goes, they will still find a problem with it. McGwire just told us what we all knew already, I don't know what else Johnette Howard wanted from him, other than being able to have the pure joy of him being in a position where he can make whatever apology he wants and still get criticized. No apology a PED user has given has ever satisfied the sports media. He used steroids, more information about this isn't going to change anything and his reasoning really shouldn't matter that much.