PDA

View Full Version : The end is nowhere near (steroids)



RedsManRick
08-06-2009, 03:53 PM
I saw this article on CBSSports.com; very intelligently written. And an interesting link to the Reds.

http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/12031355

I also happen to agree with him. While I don't think we should necessarily ignore the context of the so-called "steroid era", no more or less than we do any of the era's of the game in which the conditions were different, no good will come from a witch hunt. It happened -- many, if not most, players were using illegal steroids and other performance enhancing substances.

Outside of individual confessions, we'll never know for sure who used. And more importantly, no matter what happens,we'll never know for sure who didn't use. There are now processes in place to limit it. Let's move on.



Hank Aaron set the career home run record with grace and humility, overcoming hateful racists with a sweet temperament and relentless power. Then he stayed above the fray when nuked-up Barry Bonds was stalking his record. No surprise -- that's Hank. Always classy. Always positive.

For his next positive contribution to baseball, I have a suggestion for Aaron:

Stop talking.

Stop talking about the steroid list of 2003. Stop asking for the release of names, said to be 104 in all, of players who failed the steroid tests administered by baseball in 2003. That goes for Hank Aaron and for any fans, media and even players who are weary of the slow trickle of names -- first Alex Rodriguez, then Sammy Sosa, now Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz -- and want those cheating players busted in one final tidal wave of shame.

Stop talking.

Think, for the love of God. Think.

This is the problem, of course. Nobody thinks for themselves. People just accept the thinking of others as fact, which makes me wonder how anyone made it to this continent in the first place. According to the thinking of others, the world was flat. You couldn't get from Spain to America.

Well, here we go again. You can't go from here (the unending steroid era) to there (closure) by releasing all 104 names from that 2003 list of drug cheats. It won't happen. But people think it will, because people aren't thinking.

Here's what Aaron said this week in an interview with the Associated Press.

"I wish for once and forever that we could come out and say we have 100-and-some names, name them all and get it over and let baseball go on," Aaron said. "I don't know how they keep leaking out. I just wish that they would name them all and get it over with."

Let baseball go on? Get it over with?

This will never be over with. Ever. Releasing those names won't end anything, because it will never end. The speculation, the rumors, the leaking ... there will always be another name, another cheater. Don't you see that?

Look, you remember the first, and so far only, big-time list of names that busted baseball's steroids cheaters, right? It was the Mitchell Report in December 2007. That report listed 89 players.

Guess who wasn't on there?

A-Rod. Sosa. Ramirez. Ortiz.

See my point? The 2003 list won't end squat. Because the 2003 list, just like the Mitchell Report, won't include every cheater. Some will have cycled off steroids just before those 2003 tests. Others will have avoided detection because of the sophistication of the specific steroid they took. And so forth.

That's the practical side of this issue, but there's another side. An ethical side. The players agreed to take those steroid tests in 2003 for one reason, and one reason only -- because the results would be kept anonymous. Those were the rules of engagement, and they were agreed upon by both sides even with both sides knowing there were cheaters in their midst.

The tests were agreed upon because of their anonymity, and to change the rules now, in mid-stream, would be unethical. It's wrong. Your curiosity to know the names on the list -- and look, I'm as curious as anyone -- doesn't outweigh the ethical violation of releasing those names. It's the same thing with the Erin Andrews hotel tape: Your curiosity to see what she looks like naked (again, guilty) doesn't change the fact that you don't have the right.

So don't listen to Hank Aaron. Don't listen to the bleating of baseball writers, either, because good grief can baseball writers bleat. The only group of people more illogically self-righteous than baseball writers are church leaders. (Both groups have exceptions. And you know who you are.)

Don't listen to active players, either, when they ask for the release of the 104 names. At best they're misguided, and at worst they're lying. By asking for the list, a guilty player could be trying to come across as innocent -- would a guilty player ask for those names? -- without worrying that the union will call his bluff and actually approve the release. It's tactically a smart move, but only if everyone falls for it. So don't fall for it.

Last week, Reds pitcher Bronson Arroyo volunteered that he took Androstenedione when he was with Boston in 2003. Arroyo then went a significant step farther and said he stopped taking Andro after hearing that it was oftentimes made with traces of the steroid Winstrol. And those hypothetical traces of Winstrol, Arroyo said, could have landed himself on the list. See, he doesn't know who's on the list, but he knows he could be.

Arroyo is confessing, in other words. Confessing before he gets caught. It's a brilliant move, and it might even be honest. Then again, he could be lying. The truth could be this: He took Winstrol in 2003, he knows he took it, and he's afraid his name is on that list.

This will never be over. Ever. And the truth is, baseball couldn't handle the truth. Neither could the average baseball fan. You don't want to know how many players were on the juice before those 2003 tests made a dent in things. You don't. Trust me.

For some reason, and there's a point to this, radio shows like to call me for my opinion. Well, I know the reason. You see the way I write, right? Imagine me on radio. No delete key. No editor reading over my shoulder. It's me, unfiltered. Well, I bring that up for a reason: For years, radio shows have asked me to name one player, just one, who would stun me if he were caught using steroids.

Every time, I say the same name. It's got to be a skinny guy, I say. A skinny guy whose game isn't predicated on power. And only one name comes to mind, but this name always came to my mind. I felt it was bullet-proof.

His name was Bronson Arroyo.

This will never be over.

westofyou
08-06-2009, 03:58 PM
I saw this article on CBSSports.com; very intelligently written. And an interesting link to the Reds.

http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/12031355

I also happen to agree with him. While I don't think we should necessarily ignore the context of the so-called "steroid era", no more or less than we do any of the era's of the game in which the conditions were different, no good will come from a witch hunt. It happened -- many, if not most, players were using illegal steroids and other performance enhancing substances.

Outside of individual confessions, we'll never know for sure who used. And more importantly, no matter what happens,we'll never know for sure who didn't use. There are now processes in place to limit it. Let's move on.

http://thefastertimes.com/baseballandphilosophy/2009/08/03/does-god-think-using-steroids-is-wrong/

Does God Think Using Steroids Is Wrong?




If I’m lucky, when I ask my undergraduate students why you shouldn’t punch a stranger in the face, I hear “because it’s wrong” rather than “because I’d get in trouble.” In either case, though, that question is enthusiastically answered. The follow-up question, “what makes punching a stranger in the face wrong?” however, generates more than the usual number of puzzled faces, and a return to silence. Part of teaching philosophy is pushing past the “it just is” or “I don’t know” answers that students tepidly offer under professorial compulsion.

Asking baseball fans — students of The Game, even — “what makes the use of performance-enhancing drugs wrong?” generates the same puzzled faces and responses.

At least, after the obvious answer “because it’s cheating” is ruled out; though tempting, that is probably not why most believe use of performance-enhancers is wrong. For that answer generates no objection to the claim that performance-enhancers should be made legal, such that using them would not count as cheating. If one believes they should be banned, they are wrong first and illegal second; they are illegal because they are wrong, not wrong because they are illegal.

Put another way, if you believe the answer to “why shouldn’t you use performance-enhancing drugs?” is “because it’s cheating” or “because I might get in trouble,” then you would have no reason not to use them if baseball simply lifted the ban, and no reason to say that baseball shouldn’t lift the ban.

Let’s agree for arguments’ sake that cheating is wrong, and if performance-enhancers are illegal, it is wrong to use them. But the use of performance-enhancing drugs was not cheating in baseball until 2004, which means that David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez failing a 2003 drug test does not make them cheaters. And it means Mark McGwire wasn’t a cheater when he hit 70 home runs in 1998, and it means Barry Bonds wasn’t a cheater when he hit 73 home runs in 2001. So why isn’t McGwire in the Hall of Fame? Why is it plausible that 7 time MVP Bonds won’t get there either? There is obviously a moral element involved in the controversy over performance-enhancers that is independent of cheating.

The problem is that it is just not obvious what exactly the moral element is, or what it is about performance-enhancers that people believe is wrong. As my students are forced to recognize (via relentless bullying), nothing “just is” right or wrong. Instead, there must be something about punching a stranger in the face or using performance-enhancing drugs that makes them right or wrong.

Different moral theories give different explanations. Utilitarians, for example, would say that punching someone in the face is wrong because the sum of pain it causes is greater than the sum of pleasure it causes. Kantians would say that David Ortiz (potentially) lying about whether he knew of the results of the failed 2003 drug test was wrong because lying treats the person lied to as a means to the liar’s ends, rather than as the “ends in themselves” that all people deserve to be treated as. But the general point is that in the eyes of the philosopher, any moral judgment or evaluation ultimately must be backed up by an appeal to a theory that accounts for what makes something right or wrong. (Even “because God says so” counts as such a theory, though this leads to the Euthyphro problem). But what is the moral theory or principal that explains what it is about performance-enhancing drugs that makes using them wrong?

Despite all the moralizing and condemnation from Congress, fans, and bloggers, there is remarkably little reflection on this question. In lieu of a more Socratic method, permit me, then, some armchair anthropology — a hypothesis as to the moral theory or principle that underlies the rash of judgments.

Many people operate — implicitly, probably — with what I’ll call the “religious concept” of the person. This religious concept holds that there is a Way People Are, and this Way is Natural and Right. This Way, perhaps crafted in the image of God, is immutable and unchanging, an essence, if you will (and even if you won’t).

If the Natural is Right, then the Unnatural is Wrong. If there is a Way People Are which is natural and right, then there is some other deviant Way People Could Be, which is unnatural and wrong. And because this Way People Are is Essential, and so unchanging, the religious concept of person believes that tampering with- and so changing- what is natural is itself unnatural and wrong.

All these divisions — Natural and Unnatural, Right and Wrong — require a sharp line dividing them. If you hold this religious concept of the person, then, it is rational to worry about Frankenstein’s monster, mutants, and anything that might erase the sharp lines. Republican Kansas Senator and Christian Evangelical Sam Brownback’s recent introduction of a bill to ban human-animal hybrids because they would “blur the line” between species is an exemplar of this worldview. (He also complained that such hybrids would “challenge the very definition of what it means to be human”; unless he just doesn’t want to spring for a new edition of Webster’s, this is an Essentialist’s lament if I ever heard one.)

It should be clear how opposition to performance-enhancers fits into this picture. Because performance-enhancers are artificial. i.e., unnatural, and change the Way People Naturally Are, they are therefore wrong. The drug designers are yet another case of science run amok, as in Frankenstein. These drug designers are able to alter nature and “play God,” able to give the players superhuman or monstrous strength. The ingestion of such unnatural substances into the natural body blurs the line between the natural and artificial, and so blurs the line between what a person deserves due to his own “natural” or intrinsic abilities, and what he is able to do when enhanced by external agents, undeservedly. This appears a crime against the meritocracy that is baseball.

The problem, though, with the moralizing about performance-enhancing drug use is that simply describing — or believing in — the religious concept of person is not an argument for its truth. In other words, simply because the view that the use of performance-enhancers is wrong falls out of (or is entailed by) the religious concept of person doesn’t mean that the use of performance-enhancers is in fact wrong, or that the religious concept of person is true. Needless to say, this view carries quite a bit of metaphysical baggage, and many of its claims are quite controversial, and so the belief that the use of performance-enhancers is wrong cannot simply rely on this picture for justification without significantly more metaphysical and theological argument.

It is true there might be other reasons to object. One might worry about the adverse health effects of performance-enhancers, and argue that Major League Baseball should ban anything so dangerous, especially as any young person growing up hoping to make the big leagues would be forced to take the drugs in order to compete with his enhanced competition. Though this line of thought is reasonable, it generates no objection to the Jose Canseco-endorsed claim that chemists and doctors should devote resources to creating safer performance-enhancing drugs for use by all athletes. If health concerns were alleviated, this argument cannot be employed to object to the advocacy of the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

After reflection, we may be left only with the vague or nagging sense that performance-enhancers are wrong, and that something creepy is going on. At every moment of our lives, we are each faced with the question “what should I do?”. When that ballplayer is faced with a decision whether to take certain chemicals that might allow him to continue to do what he loves, or provide for his family’s long term financial security, and he is wondering if using them is wrong, he should hear more than “it just is.”

Chip R
08-06-2009, 04:00 PM
I saw this article on CBSSports.com; very intelligently written. And an interesting link to the Reds.



Someone must have written it for him since it's Gregg Doyel.

Johnny Footstool
08-06-2009, 06:27 PM
That is a fun little intellectual exercise. However, if we view the game of baseball as essentially "balanced," then we tend to agree that cheating is wrong because is upsets the balance of the game. That's why they banned the spitball, why fielders can't carry mirrors to reflect sunlight into the batter's face, etc.

Using performance enhancers is cheating, and it has been considered cheating for a long time.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1151761/1/index.htm


Though major league players were not tested for anabolic steroids until 2003, the use of steroids for performance enhancement has been implicitly banned by baseball since 1971 and expressly banned since '91.

Baseball's first written drug policy was issued by commissioner Bowie Kuhn at the start of the '71 season. The policy did not explicitly address anabolic steroids, but it did say that baseball personnel must "comply with federal and state drug laws." Federal law at the time mandated that an appropriate prescription be obtained for the use of anabolic steroids.

What followed were memos from commissioners Fay Vincent in 1991 and Bud Selig in '97 (excerpted below) that spelled out a broader drug policy and directly prohibited the use of steroids without a valid prescription. However, there was still no mandatory drug testing, and the union maintained the right to challenge disciplinary decisions that resulted from a violation of the policy.

Brutus
08-06-2009, 06:45 PM
I disagree with his premise.

Frankly, even if we do 'leave it alone' when it pertains to the remaining 'list,' this won't go away. Questions will continue to linger about what players were on that so-called list until they are all out of baseball. And when some of them are up for HOF election, the controversy will be talked about yet again. It won't go away no matter what we do. So at this point, I'd prefer total and complete transparency, let's get all of the dirty secrets out in the open on this issue, then it will at least help people to move forward (somewhat). It won't die, but it sure will answer some of the remaining questions.

jojo
08-07-2009, 09:39 AM
For those that think releasing the "steroid list" will help make the issue go away, I'd point out that the media implored Rose to just fess up and everything will be forgiven and forgotten....

How did that work our for Pete?

Roy Tucker
08-07-2009, 10:03 AM
Not sure I completely agree, but an interesting take on the 2003 testing from Doug Glanville...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/opinion/04Glanville.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1249650014-647HV1xUQwDh+cZnVJ3iDQ



Op-Extra Columnist | Heading Home
Confidential, With an Asterisk
By DOUG GLANVILLE

Published: August 3, 2009
I can understand why there are so many calls for the heads of the 104 players on the so-called “list” that marks them as guilty for testing positive in the 2003 survey drug test. It seems that publishing this list once and for all would make us all feel better. We could put this chapter behind us, convince ourselves that everyone not on the list is clean as a whistle, and rest assured the game would never return to such disgrace.

But it would be a Pyrrhic victory, at best.

The 2003 drug test was a “survey” test. It was devised to establish the extent of the drug culture in baseball. Instead of just running with innuendo, rumor and guesswork, the Players Association decided that they needed to actually find out for sure.

So this test was put in place to get a true number. It also allowed players a safe place to be truthful (or sloppy). And it is safe to assume that the assurance that the results wouldn’t leave the premises persuaded some to not mask their samples to hide a potential positive result. Here was a chance to actually be forthright, and give the league a truer sense of the extent of a problem that needed to be addressed. Ironically, the players who may have found ways to beat the test seem to be better off today. Those players are quietly in the “clean” column and those who were either sloppy enough or open enough to provide a real sample, which helped move this testing policy forward, are about to get a Scarlet Letter.

The tests were contingent on some semblance of confidentiality. No player in the game would have ever agreed to a collectively bargained drug policy if they had been told beforehand that the results would end up in the public domain. Sure, if the government found a way to bypass that, then we would have had to comply, but instead we got this chronic leaking of confidential and anonymous information after five years, with only selective players being “outed.” Kind of shady. Well, if this is for such a good cause, then why the negative approach? Why pick and chose who gets the center square stockade? How about we start leaking the names of the other 1000 players that didn’t test positive? That would be nice change of pace, but whoever is leaking this information isn’t playing nice, at all.

I enjoyed the chapter in the book “Freakonomics” about how the true hazard of a situation often falls short of the outrage. We can be fuming about something, but it may not be the most pernicious problem. Of course I have no love for the drug culture in baseball — it was pervasive and, by raising the performance level in the league, probably contributed to shortening of my career — but systems have and will continue to be put in place to curb what will be an ongoing problem. No list of 104 guys being splashed up on your home page will change that.

Nevertheless, there is a lot of outrage being spewed, and I understand. Something dear has been lost. The culture of a game that had the rare ability to bridge generations of fans and players has been broken. Before the steroid era, a home run was a home run and we could look at and admire and compare the achievements of Mantle, Aaron, Kaline, Ruth, Schmidt, and Mays and feel like we were speaking the same language. The steroid era wipes that out: the magic created on the field starts to seem artificial, patronizing us, appeasing us, making us doubt whether we are truly seeing what we are seeing.

But we need to pay close attention to our outrage because the precedent set by allowing confidential and anonymous collectively bargained tests to be completely breached is a bigger problem. It creates the impression that agreements between employers and employees on policies and procedures can be thrown out at any time, just because someone felt they had the right to know. In such a world, what would prevent your employer from taking your drug test result at C.V.S., at I.B.M. or maybe the hospital you work for and slap it up on the Internet tomorrow?

Granted, somewhere in the morass is a federal investigation, which often changes the rules of these kinds of things. But while investigating the players wrapped up in the BALCO affair, all players got cast in its shadow. This led to the samples not being destroyed as planned since the union could not destroy what could have been evidence in an ongoing investigation. The union was just following the law.

(So if the test was anonymous, you might ask, why is there some key out there to match up the names with the numbers? Answer. There had to be some way to trace back in the event someone lost a sample, or it got tainted, or there could have been a false positive giving the players some right to re-test. )

I don’t know who or which organization is leaking these names. But, I find this act more outrageous than that of the players who tested positive. At least these players helped the game take a step towards putting a better policy in place. It may not have been out of nobility, but at least it was real. I do find it curious that whenever a player is arrogant and bold enough to declare his “cleanliness” he quickly gets nailed by their 2003 positive test. To me, it appears more like a targeted impeachment process. I am not crying for those players’ choices, but what is happening to them is telling.

Certainly, I can understand the frustration of the investigators. When all is said and done, these players are simply “users,” low men on the totem pole of a drug scheme. The players lying at hearings and in the media are creating a distraction and getting in the way of the investigators’ ability to do their job. They are also inhibiting their need to focus on the more significant issues, like the suppliers and the source of these drugs. We’re talking amounts that are changing local economies, not the meager thousands of dollars these guys spent in a year on their “fix.”

I think the release of this list of 104 would be a travesty. The promise of confidentiality was in place to allow players to be more willing to provide a true test. We can’t go back and change the rules after the fact and then claim we are now noble and honorable. I want drugs out of the game, too, but there is more effective, long-term way to go about it that doesn’t compromise principles that make the rule of law in our country so unique

bucksfan2
08-07-2009, 10:32 AM
The problem that MLB is facing now is someone has the MLBPA steroid list. Names will keep being released until the list runs out. The problem is that the person with the list isn't doing anything illegal, its not like he is breaking sworn grand jury testimony, he has a list that the MLBPA didn't destroy. We will continue to hear name after name being released until the MLBPA steps in and releases the entire list.

M2
08-07-2009, 10:44 AM
A big part of baseball from the fan's perspective is believing in the players. Fans pay to see the talent and they need to believe Hitter A got the better of Pitcher B because he won a straight up contest.

Once you start mixing in medications, fans no longer can be sure as to whether they're watching an athletic contest or a pharmaceutical one. This feeds into why Mark McGwire is never gettng into the Hall of Fame. Without the chemical enhancement, he wouldn't have had that ridiculous power and without that he'd never have put together a HOF resume. No one believes McGwire would have been that good without the drugs.

And fans need to know the names of who used. Leaking a confidential list is wrong and a violation of the agreement under which those tests were taken. And of course there's a pile of names beyond it. Yet what did we see during the steroids era? We don't really know. Maybe there were some players we've overlooked a bit and haven't given their due. For instance, if Fred McGriff was clean, then perhaps he deserves to be seen in a brand new light by the folks who've docked him for not measuring up the chem lab creations of the era.

So, while I'm unhappy about the way these names are coming to light, the fact remains that light is needed. It was ridiculous to think the Mitchell Report would allow baseball to sweep this nonsense under the rug. This is going to remain an open case file for the rest of our lives. Evaluating the era we've just been through is going to be a cottage industry that thrives into the next century.

If we don't know the history of modern baseball, then we really don't know what to believe in moving forward. Can we trust the next great power hitter or power pitcher? Can ballplayers really thrive into their early 40s? We want to believe, but we're wary of believing in a sham.

Hoosier Red
08-07-2009, 10:47 AM
The problem that MLB is facing now is someone has the MLBPA steroid list. Names will keep being released until the list runs out. The problem is that the person with the list isn't doing anything illegal, its not like he is breaking sworn grand jury testimony, he has a list that the MLBPA didn't destroy. We will continue to hear name after name being released until the MLBPA steps in and releases the entire list.

Depends on who has the list. If its a lawyer working on the case, he's at the bare minimum breaking the judge's orders not to release any names.

RedsManRick
08-07-2009, 10:53 AM
What people in this thread seem to be ignoring is fact that releasing 104 names will not alleviate the paranoia about everybody else. Completely setting aside the legal and related moral arguments for not releasing the names, the idea that somehow the release of this list would appease suspicions on everybody else is just ludicrous. Surely other people were using who simply didn't get caught -- should we give them an implicit pass? I don't think so -- and I don't think people will.

The release of the names would not lead to any sort of resolution. This thing is going to smolder for a long, long time regardless of who admits to doing whatever or who appears on a list. Releasing the names, in addition to being illegal and immoral would merely fan the flames. This isn't about sweeping anything under a rug. It's about not picking a scab; not scratching the itch. It won't make things any better.

M2
08-07-2009, 11:03 AM
What people in this thread seem to be ignoring is fact that releasing 104 names will not alleviate the paranoia about everybody else.

Of course it won't. Yet it will put 104 players in context. Just because this list won't provide final resolution doesn't mean it's information we can't use.


It's about not picking a scab; not scratching the itch. It won't make things any better.

Nothing's ever going to make it any better. It's a blot on the history of the game. The choice is whether, over time, we learn what happened or we willfully ignore it. Human nature more or less dictates it's going to be the former.

bucksfan2
08-07-2009, 11:17 AM
What people in this thread seem to be ignoring is fact that releasing 104 names will not alleviate the paranoia about everybody else. Completely setting aside the legal and related moral arguments for not releasing the names, the idea that somehow the release of this list would appease suspicions on everybody else is just ludicrous. Surely other people were using who simply didn't get caught -- should we give them an implicit pass? I don't think so -- and I don't think people will.

The release of the names would not lead to any sort of resolution. This thing is going to smolder for a long, long time regardless of who admits to doing whatever or who appears on a list. Releasing the names, in addition to being illegal and immoral would merely fan the flames. This isn't about sweeping anything under a rug. It's about not picking a scab; not scratching the itch. It won't make things any better.

I really think it would put an end to the mainstream steroid speculation. I don't remember when the general public found out about the "list" but it seems like everyone has used that as the guilty or not telltale. If the "list" from 2003 is released and we have better testing dating back to 2007? then I think you will in essence put an end to the steroid speculation in baseball.

I don't think its about getting every user out there. I think its more about putting an end to this black eye for baseball. I think releasing the list will do exactly that for about 90% of the fans. That would be a very good thing.

RedsManRick
08-07-2009, 11:30 AM
Of course it won't. Yet it will put 104 players in context. Just because this list won't provide final resolution doesn't mean it's information we can't use.



Nothing's ever going to make it any better. It's a blot on the history of the game. The choice is whether, over time, we learn what happened or we willfully ignore it. Human nature more or less dictates it's going to be the former.

I don't think we need to break the law to learn from it. A lot people, at minimum 15% of active players in 2003, used a wide variety of performance enhancing substances. What will revealing those names teach us? And who is this "us", this "we" that you speak of? Fans? The people who need that information to craft more effective testing procedures already have it. The people who weren't caught in that testing cycle because they were better cheaters or smart enough to cycle off temporarily will get a underserved label of innocence. In reality, this has nothing about learning and everything about wanting to stare at the car crash.

M2
08-07-2009, 11:45 AM
I don't think we need to break the law to learn from it. What will revealing those names teach us? The people who need that information to craft more effective testing procedures already have it. In reality, this has nothing about learning and everything about wanting to stare at the car crash.

More like a bus caravan crash. And I want to know who was in those buses.

As for breaking the law, while this isn't the way we should be finding out this information it doesn't change the fact that we're going to be getting steroids in MLB information throughout the rest of our lives.

The column you posted at the top of this thread was right, this will never end. It's become part and parcel of following the game. Just wait until we start getting a steady stream of roids confessionals. Jose Canseco was a pioneer. Looks like Lenny Dykstra needs money (and he's got gambling excesses to boot).

The very notion that baseball could move on from this is absurd. It's a game intimately wound in its own history. There's no escaping this and Hank Aaron should keep talking.

Eric_the_Red
08-07-2009, 11:48 AM
Wonder what the general public and casual fans will say when they realize that we have exited the steroid era only to enter the HGH era?

flyer85
08-07-2009, 11:57 AM
the best history will be able to do is to use anecdotal evidence. There will probably a lot of guys who used PEDs just to hang on an MLB roster, we will never hear about them and maybe no one cares.

RedsManRick
08-07-2009, 12:03 PM
I don't think its about getting every user out there. I think its more about putting an end to this black eye for baseball. I think releasing the list will do exactly that for about 90% of the fans. That would be a very good thing.

This is the part I don't understand. If the list is admittedly not comprehensive, how does this put an end to the black eye? I dont' understand how an incomplete reveal of names will build trust among the fans -- especially if that reveal is itself the result of the breaking of a confidentiality agreement.

What will build trust and allow fans to move on is a belief that people can no longer get away with juicing. That is about rigorous testing (mandatory random testing in and out of season -- agreed upon by the MLBPA) and transparency of process and results moving forward. Insofaras it's possible, the era is over and I just don't see how releasing the names will bring any additional closure.

jojo
08-07-2009, 12:42 PM
The way to end the steroid issue is to actually do an exhaustive study that is honestly meant to clearly define the extent of PED use in mlb (and it must reach back to the "innocent years"), the impact of PED use on performance, how/why PEDs use was facilitated both by teams and agents, the nature of the PED pipeline and finally why PED use seemed so easily tolerated in the culture of baseball.

Major league baseball has already tried the shell game by passing the flaccid, contrived Mitchell report off as definitive. Now "the list" is supposed to provide all of the answers needed to define the issue.

The only thing we can be assured of is that neither the owners nor the players (nor a great many sportswriters judging by the way they cover the issue) are truly interested in clarifying this issue and as a result it never will be.

Eventually the fans will become so bored with PEDs that the media will be forced to find another easy story to milk though since PEDs has given many self righteous sportswriters a golden opportunity to climb upon their HOF soapboxes to moralize, they'll likely greedily cling to the issue like vultures feeding on carrion until even lime can't mask the stench of its decay.

Releasing "the list" can really only help us settle into a cozy notion that we know something meaningful when actually we don't really have a clue. Basically, the greatest purpose served by releasing the list would be to provide a rationalization for casual fans to turn their attention to other things. In essence, mlb will have won the second shell game.

Of course, reasonable people might disagree.... :cool:

Chip R
08-07-2009, 12:50 PM
It's really not that big of a deal. We don't really care who juiced and who didn't because it is some kind of moral question and the sacredness of the game is at stake. We want to know for the same reason we read the gossip magazines and watch TMZ. It's tittilating. It's something else to talk about besides the score of the Yankees-Red Sox game. If we really cared, we wouldn't have hometown fans giving standing ovations to Manny like he just cured cancer. In Baltimore last Friday the news had broke a day or so earlier that Ortiz was on "The List". Camden Yards was half full of Sox fans and they treated every at bat like he just hit a walk off HR in the 7th game of the World Series. Fans don't get caught up in that moral dilemma if their own guy is the one doing it. A small amount might care but the vast majority just want something to talk about besides the actual game.

Jpup
08-07-2009, 01:41 PM
It's really not that big of a deal. We don't really care who juiced and who didn't because it is some kind of moral question and the sacredness of the game is at stake. We want to know for the same reason we read the gossip magazines and watch TMZ. It's tittilating. It's something else to talk about besides the score of the Yankees-Red Sox game. If we really cared, we wouldn't have hometown fans giving standing ovations to Manny like he just cured cancer. In Baltimore last Friday the news had broke a day or so earlier that Ortiz was on "The List". Camden Yards was half full of Sox fans and they treated every at bat like he just hit a walk off HR in the 7th game of the World Series. Fans don't get caught up in that moral dilemma if their own guy is the one doing it. A small amount might care but the vast majority just want something to talk about besides the actual game.

That's my take as well. Baseball fans don't care. They keep going to the park in record numbers. Hardcore fans keep watching and going because they love baseball. Casual fans keep watching and going because they are entertained and it's a social event for them.

The media is about the only ones that care.

Eric_the_Red
08-07-2009, 03:02 PM
That's my take as well. Baseball fans don't care. They keep going to the park in record numbers. Hardcore fans keep watching and going because they love baseball. Casual fans keep watching and going because they are entertained and it's a social event for them.

The media is about the only ones that care.

And some HOFers and other old curmudgeons.

If only Bonds played when players didn't cheat,. You know, back when they just threw spitballs, corked bats, stole signs and took amphetamines. :oops:

Johnny Footstool
08-07-2009, 04:43 PM
What will build trust and allow fans to move on is a belief that people can no longer get away with juicing. That is about rigorous testing (mandatory random testing in and out of season -- agreed upon by the MLBPA) and transparency of process and results moving forward. Insofaras it's possible, the era is over and I just don't see how releasing the names will bring any additional closure.

We already know there are 104 names on the list. How can you build trust and move on knowing (not just suspecting, but knowing) that 104 players used PEDs and were not punished for it?

Big Klu
08-08-2009, 01:32 AM
And some HOFers and other old curmudgeons.

If only Bonds played when players didn't cheat,. You know, back when they just threw spitballs, corked bats, stole signs and took amphetamines. :oops:

Stealing signs is not cheating.

RedsManRick
08-08-2009, 03:00 AM
We already know there are 104 names on the list. How can you build trust and move on knowing (not just suspecting, but knowing) that 104 players used PEDs and were not punished for it?

Maybe because when they were tested those substances were not against the rules... Illegal perhaps -- just like pot or coke -- but not "cheating".

cincinnati chili
08-08-2009, 04:03 AM
There's something to be said for sweeping things under the rug and then lighting the rug on fire. I said it at the time on this very board and I'll say it again. Bud Selig ordering the Mitchell Report was the dumbest marketing decision since "New Coke."

I don't want the names published out for two reasons:

1. As far as I'm concerned, the people leaking sealed court records have committed a much greater moral transgression than those who took illegal drugs. I'm honest-to-god not all that curious about who's on it.

2. Even if the entire list of 104 is leaked, and even assuming the testing was completely reliable, it's not going to tell us the full story of who was using and who wasn't.

Assume that M2 is right and skinnier guys like Fred McGriff get a boost in Hall of Fame voting due to all these positive tests. Well, for all we know McGriff was juicing too. The data I find most reliable are the results that occurred on the field. McGwire hit 583 homers, including 49 as a lanky rookie. Put him in the Hall of Fame. (and I think they will put him in the hall in my lifetime... even if he has to wait until the Veterans Committee is comprised of his co-juicers who were just a bit more subtle about it).

Johnny Footstool
08-08-2009, 04:57 PM
Maybe because when they were tested those substances were not against the rules... Illegal perhaps -- just like pot or coke -- but not "cheating".

Read the article I posted earlier. It's very clear that they WERE against the rules.

Unfortunately, the procedures for testing and proving that players were using those substances were not in place, so the rule couldn't have been enforced unless it was somehow independently proven that a player was knowingly using.

BCubb2003
08-08-2009, 10:51 PM
I'm curious about which era was more of an anomaly. Was it the juiced era of 70 home runs or the pitching dominant era when a league batting leader hit .301?