"Once and for all, I did not use steroids or any other illegal substance"

A blunt, categorical denial designed to end debate, the statement asserts innocence with the force of final judgment. “Once and for all” signals exhaustion with scrutiny and an attempt to seize control of the narrative, as if a single emphatic declaration could close a chapter others keep reopening. The tone is authoritative, even judicial, inviting the public to accept a verdict rather than continue cross-examination.

The phrasing “steroids or any other illegal substance” widens the scope beyond the most obvious accusation, positioning the speaker against a broader category of wrongdoing. Yet the key word “illegal” introduces a legalistic frame that can be narrower than moral or institutional standards. In the culture of professional sports, substances may be banned by a league before they are illegal under law, and public expectations often extend beyond technical legality to notions of fairness and competitive integrity. The sentence therefore functions as both denial and boundary-setting: it defines the terms on which innocence will be judged.

Such absolutism is a high-risk strategy. If accepted, it promises closure and vindication; if later undermined, it damages credibility far more than a qualified or nuanced response would have. In the steroid era of baseball, where fans and reporters were already attuned to evasions, the emphatic finality could read as confidence, or as defensiveness that invites more skepticism. The very attempt to silence speculation can paradoxically amplify it.

The line also reflects the tension between personal legacy and communal trust. Records, awards, and reputations in sports are collective assets, and categorical denials aim to protect not just an individual’s status but the audience’s desire to believe in authentic achievement. When denial collides with subsequent revelations, it becomes a cautionary artifact of crisis management: an effort to hold back an era’s reckoning through sheer certainty. Its resonance lies in that struggle, between image and truth, legalistic precision and ethical expectation, and the fragile bond between hero and crowd.