A couple of links
Posted: July 31st, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 55 Comments »
Yuni Watch coming in mere moments. But first, a couple of links …
This is the column I wrote about Papi for Sports Illustrated. The main point in there is that while I don’t think any of us can be surprised anymore by the names, I think it does remain surprising that players who used steroids would so passionately and aggressively lie about it.
I really bring it up here, though, because I have a couple of paragraphs in that column going over my strong opinion that the people leaking these names are really scummy and that simply releasing the remaining names off the 2003 list — as many suggest — is a terrible and unconstitutional idea that pretty much goes against everything we are supposed to stand for as a country. It absolutely appalls me — more every day — that a witch-hunt to find which BASEBALL PLAYERS used drugs to make them BETTER BASEBALL PLAYERS would cause so many people to happily trample on the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and the rights to privacy that I would hope we still hold dear.
Well, actually, I’m not sure I got all that across as strongly as I might have in my column because that was not really the point of my column. But our E-migo Craig Calcaterra does make it his whole point. And I think he absolutely nails it.
The money quote:
If you’re one of those people, however, who simply insist that these guys are cheaters and cheaters are ruining baseball, think about it this way: what if you were involved in a nasty divorce case, and some of the confidential court records — say, a hearing transcript where people were talking about your personal failings, like say, an extramarital affair — were suddenly thrown out to the media? How would you feel if people clamored for “the rest of the records to be released?” What if the drug tests many of you out there have to take as a condition of your employment suddenly showed up on the evening news (“200 Microsoft employees test positive for drugs!”)? Would you be part of the crowd demanding that the names be named?
Loading ...
Circle me James Madison.
Say it ain’t so, Papi.
joe. please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YirEI7pPGzg&feature=player_embedded
I think the confidentiality thing misses the mark. Craig’s extramarital affair is embarrassing but it’s not illegal. Further, the union had the right to destroy the list but didn’t and the players knew they were being tested months ahead of time but didn’t bother to hide it. I don’t blame anyone for trying to find out who is on the list and it isn’t illegal for many of the people who have seen the list to leak it (only those who are under the jurisdiction of the judge’s order can’t legally leak).
The common theme coming out is “everyone did it so who cares.” But I’m not sure that’s true. We know the best players on the Yanks and Red Sox were cheating but were, say the Twins best players – Santana, Hunter, Radke – cheating too? I tend to doubt it, although it is possible.
So why should we not try to find out as much about the steroid era as we can. How much did PEDs impact who won in the post season? What benefits did players get from PEDs? Manny had a great swing but was it any better then John Olerud’s swing? Did steroids seperate them? Were agents or front offices helping players take certain drugs or were they just turning their heads? I think those are legit things for baseball fans to want to learn and the idea that information about illegal activity shouldn’t be shared is preposterious. I tend to think that those who think we shouldn’t know have ulterior motives. Red Sox/Yankee fans obviously want to move on (as they should). But did reporters covering the teams who are now saying it’s not a story worth persuing completely ignore the massive use of steroids for years and years? That could be embarrassing to them professionally.
I say release the full list. I’d rather get it all over with at once than repeat this cycle every couple of months.
Maybe MLB could hold a group news conference where all the players tearfully apologize at once. Nolan Ryan could guest host and slug each player in the mug as penance.
And then we can all finally move on.
@Ian:
Many of the same steroids which are illegal in the US are not illegal in the Dominican Republic. Many of the steroids which are illegal in 2009 were not illegal 6-10 years ago. To state that leaking confidential information should be allowed (if not lauded) because what Papi and Manny because of legal issues is what is missing the mark.
There are many players who took performance-enhancing drugs in this era who did nothing illegal.
Well said, Kermit. “The Express” would be a great guest host even if the show ended with his bloody knuckles bleeding onto the camera. He’d just take some Advil and go back to punching some cows down on the ranch.
@ Ian-
So because the union screwed up by not destroying the list means that those that were supposed be protected by the anonymous testing, the players, should no longer have that protection? That makes no sense.
@Ian: You’re missing the point. Since when do two wrongs make a right? You know why we’ll never know who’s releasing the names on that list? Because by doing so, they’re not operating within the framework of the law.
Also, see Bronson Arroyo’s comments today – if it’s true that then-legal supplements were “tainted” with illegal stuff, you’re not necessarily outing knowing law-breakers, even if you think that gives you the moral high ground.
Bud Selig wants you to know that Bud Selig tried his best and in know way is Bud Selig culpable in anyway. Nor will Bud Selig take responsibility now and help baseball move past the steroid era. Oh, look! A rainbow!
Oh brother. Baseball fans and historians are the worst. “How do we know in what context to evaluate the players and teams of the Steroid Age?” My answer: Baseball didn’t test for steroids. Steroids were permissible under the rules of basbeall until a few years ago.* No player’s accomplishments should be devalued, no team’s accomplishments should get “asterisked”, because baseball, the players, the reporters, and most of us fans were complicit in the whole affair.
*I hate it when someone says that steroids were legal in baseball. It wasn’t banned, and the players weren’t tested for them, but possession of steroids is a CRIME under state and federal criminal statutes. The players who used them, while not subject to punishment by BASEBALL, should be prosecuted. That would solve the whole mess. This is a law enforcement issue, not a baseball issue.
Teams, owners and the players avoided the whole steroid issue while it was rampant. Players wanted to get better, and make more money. Teams and owners wanted on-field success, to generate more revenue. Agents wanted bigger contracts for their players, to make more money. Reporters, the media, had the only real power and access to blow the lid off of the steroids era, and I don’t remember one instance of a question being asked with the exception of the Mark Magwire “Andro” situtation, and if I remember right, that reporter was accused of violating Magwire’s privacy. Fans loved the offense, and everyone ignored the OBVIOUS, that these players were putting on size and putting up numbers at unprecedented rates.
So spare me.
….Why would he so boldly stand out on this issue when he tested positive in 2003?….
“first smeller, guilty feller”
YES YES YES
Lay off the players who may have done something wrong six years ago and track down and prosecute the idiot slimeball lawyers who did something very, very wrong yesterday.
http://the-daily-something.blogspot.com/2009/07/semi-daily-something.html
It both amuses and irritates me that the same sports media that was somehow blissfully unaware of baseball’s drug culture when it was in full swing despite rather blatant clues and sketchy explanations (the baseballs were juiced!) now is so sanctimonious regarding players who have been linked to steroids. Look, they weren’t illegal back then, and there was no testing policy. Why not use them? Don’t give me any BS about the integrity of the game, as if everyone who has ever played or worked in baseball, from Judge Landis to Ty Cobb to Mickey Mantle to Pete Rose, was a fine upstanding gentleman of tremendous moral character. Enough. Get over it. Especially that hack Bill Plaschke.
What’s the statute of limitations on illegal drug use anyways? It’s probably less than 6 years.
It constantly amazes me how many people are more than willing to throw away the Constitutional rights on which this country was founded, all in the name of their “right to know.” Perhaps if some of these people would post their most private and personal failings for all the world to see I would take their “rights” more seriously.
I see the point that Craig C is making but I have to say that personally, if I were in a truly analogous situation I think I’d support putting out the full list.
If my company had tested for drugs in 2003 and I had tested positive, and subsequently names were leaking out bit by bit in an exasperating process, and the company had since instituted a different policy that resulted in me and a lot of other guys being clean….yeah, I think I’d say let’s just put it out, cop to making some bad decisions, and get on with our lives.
Joe – kind of a technical point, but the only entities that can violate the Fourth Amendment are the federal government and (according to the Supreme Court) state governments. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t protect anyone from the actions of private parties. It’s possible that the players whose names have been leaked have civil causes of action against the leakers (or MLB or the union, depending on the facts) under certain legal theories, such as violation of privacy or perhaps breach of contract, but not based on a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Thank you, Joe. I have been making a similar point – I’m not letting the players off the hook here but these lawyers know they would be disbarred if their names were ever released. They are doing something illegal just as much as what the steroid users were doing was illegal.
Saw an interesting quote from Nomar today.
“”I knew guys who didn’t take the test just to be positive because they wanted testing,” Garciaparra said. “Are those guys on the list? I don’t know. I don’t know. There’s literally guys who said I’m not taking it go ahead and put me positive because I want the number to be above, because they wanted steroids testing. If those guys are on the list, how about that, now they’re going to be looked at like ‘You’re positive,’ like wait a minute, ‘I just didn’t take it because I wanted it to be done.’ The whole thing was, ‘Listen, with five percent or more we’re going to have it, if it’s under five percent there’s not going to be any testing.’ And guys, a lot of guys, were like, ‘Yeah, we want to have testing’ and I was one of them. So guys even refused to go [get] tested just because well what’s the repercussions, I’ll just refuse it and the number will be high and we’re gonna have it. People don’t talk about that and that happened so that’s why I’m saying this list is unfortunate.”
Asked it he had concerns about the time about the list remaining anonymous, Garciaparra said, “Me personally? No I didn’t have any concerns. I knew I didn’t have to worry about anything.”"
Source: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/07/30/ortiz.steroids/index.html
Now, maybe Nomar is making it up to cover for his friends. Maybe he’s just creating plausible deniability so that when his name comes out he can point back to this moment and say, “See? I told you I failed on purpose!” Or maybe what he’s saying is accurate.
I really wish more players had come out at the time to publicly demand their union implement testing.
As for the list… well, I’d love to see it come out honestly, with the player’s union agreeing to it somehow. I know that won’t happen, though, for various reasons.
Joe, you make a good point that helped clarify the list release issue for me. As I see it, releasing the remainder of the names is probably the best thing for the institution of MLB, especially if they keep dribbling out 2 names every 3 months or so. However, not releasing the names is obviously best for the individual players. How you feel about the issue probably hinges on which of those two groups you support most. Personally, I think the players have already had to bear a disproportionate share of the blame for the steroids era.
Also, I agree with #9. Arroyo made some very interesting comments that someone should actually do some, you know, research on.
Finally, I think we just took one more giant step towards Bill James’s steroid era Hall of Fame prrediction coming true. The man scares me.
John, the actual issue about the fourth amendment is that the government may have illegally seized the documents. It is currently on appeal. The documents were seized in conjunction with a criminal case by the government. Everyone who has seen it are either working for the MLBPA, a judge or working for the prosecution (well that’s how it works in theory). One or some of those persons are leaking. Sure there are possible civil actions against the leakers, but the “Government” may also be held accountable in the odd way in which we override sovereign immunity of the feds since they were probably gov’t employees that did the leaking and possibly doing so in the course of their governmental duties.
I understand the point made by a commenter above that the reporters are not doing anything illegal. That depends. Maybe the government can prove a conspiracy to leak. That would be an interesting fight between the criminal conspiracy laws and 1st amendment. Regardless, you have to question the ethics of a reporter who thinks that obtaining information that is given, the manner of which constitutes a crime by the person giving the information, is a-ok.
Calcaterra’s divorce example reminds me of what Obama did to seven of nine’s husband during Obama’s senate campaign.
Joe-
It’s simple why they all lie agressively: They all how saw how McGuire’s tactic worked out for him.
@17 Mike – I think you’re missing the point. You as an individual or your group of 100 wrongdoers can unamimously decide to forfeit your rights and admit past wrongdoings. But a third party cannot make such a decision, regardless of public curiosity.
I absolutly can not get past the apologists who whail “But, but, it wasn’t illegal in the MBL at the time!!!”
Makes no difference, it was the law of the land. Matters not what baseball rules were or weren’t in place. IT WAS ILLEGAL. period. Just because baseball didn’t ban or test for it simply doesn’t matter.
Its no different than claiming baseball should make a rule outlawing any other crime or infraction, from jaywalking to murder, because if the MLB doesn’t say so, then it must be acceptable.
John, since the Supreme Court is in fact the final arbiter of interpretation of the Constitution, and since the Fourth Amendment is in fact now a portion of the Consitution, the disclaimer “according to the Supreme Court” is not needed. The Fourth Amendment applies to state government. Get over it. Thanks.
To further John’s comments… Fourth Amendment rights? Who is being “searched” or “seized” here? The testing process is something to which the players voluntarily submitted as a part of their collective bargaining agreement. Even if MLB were a considered a “state actor” for Fourth Amendment purposes (there is at least a plausible argument, albeit not a great one, that MLB has a symbiotic relationship with the federal gov’t via the antitrust exclusion and the congressional steroid inquisition), one’s consent to a search eliminates any taint under the Fourth Amendment.
Further, there is no specifically enumerated constitutional right to privacy… rather, it is a vague doctrine that the Supreme Court breaks out from time to time to strike down governmental actions that otherwise offend our sense of justice and fairness. “Privacy” under the Constitution typically pertains to reproductive and sexual rights, and other actions performed in the sanctity of one’s own home. Clearly it does _not_ apply to a star baseball player (a public figure if there ever was one) and the results of his on-the-job drug testing.
Alright, I need to cut myself off here… I think I am still feeling the lingering effects of taking the Mass. & New Hampshire bar exams over the past three days, and instinctually wanting to discuss legal technicalities!
@23 – I’m not sure how Obama gets blamed for an L.A. judge unsealing court documents.
BTW, why is anyone surprised at this point when one of the outraged, “hang ‘em high” players gets nailed for steroids use? Seriously, has any player who has come out saying anything along the lines of “users should be drawn and quartered” NOT tested positive.
@Eric
“Makes no difference, it was the law of the land. Matters not what baseball rules were or weren’t in place. IT WAS ILLEGAL. period. Just because baseball didn’t ban or test for it simply doesn’t matter.
Its no different than claiming baseball should make a rule outlawing any other crime or infraction, from jaywalking to murder, because if the MLB doesn’t say so, then it must be acceptable.”
Steroids are not illegal in the Dominican Republic! You don’t know where any of these guys took their drugs, you don’t know when any of these guys took their drugs. Not all steroids that are illegal today were illegal in 2003.
For you to say that what these players were alleged to do is “illegal”, much less to equate it to murder, is a gross oversimplification.
I agree with what Eric says above.
Steroid possesion is illegal so every player caught possessing illegal drugs deserves an asterisk next to their name as well as all the jaywalkers, tax cheats, murderers, drunk drivers, etc..
@ 22 Kevin – got it. Thanks.
@ 27 Curtis – you’re right, not really necessary. Why the hostility though? I have no axe to grind.
@Eric #26 – What’s illegal here isn’t illegal everywhere in the world.
If you go to Amsterdam and smoke some weed, you’re haven’t violated any laws of the US and can’t be said to have done so.
If you go to the Dominican Republic and buy and use steroids, that’s not illegal either.
@Eric and others … another technicality, but claiming steroids are illegal is not quite accurate either. It is illegal to possess, not illegal to use. So if someone else were to do the rump injecting, and you never had actual possession of the steroids, you’re clear. Sorta like having a joint … illegal to walk down the street with it, but not illegal to walk down the street stoned.
I’m completely exhausted by this who used, who didn’t use dance. There is not one player, not one, I would be surprised to learn used steroids or performance enhancers. To be clear, not one. I have no inside info, I’ve done no research, but the use of those substances was clearly far more prevelant than Bud Selig wanted us to believe. If there were some who were not using (and the entire roster of the Royals circa 1994 to 2009 would seem to be the most likely candidates) they were clearly in the know that those they were competing with and against were using, but honored the clubhouse code to remain silent.
I have no more time for this who used, who didn’t stuff. Manny used? A-Rod? Barry? Papi? McGwire? Sosa? Palmerio? Rocket? Giambi? Whoever? Sure, why not. Release the list, don’t release the list…I don’t need to see it to know what names are on it. They all are.
Wade
You are missing the act of seizure, possibly due to your brain being fried by the NH and Mass bar exams. Believe me, I have been there. The seizure was by the government taking the MLBPA test results. That issue is currently on appeal as to whether it was constitutional. I believe it is at a Court of Appeals. Anyway, had the results remained with MLBPA, no results would be made public because the MLBPA would pay dearly in civil court, in all likelihood. (They still may) However, the government, on a witch hunt, IMO, seized the results. Now government lawyers or others who have seen the results are releasing info anonymously.
Until recently the US was torturing and imprisoning innocent people in the ‘war on terror.’ Some of them are still in prison. The whole ‘principles this country was founded on’ argument doesn’t carry a lot of weight anymore.
Papi’s actions & words are textbook self-justification. If you’re interested in learning more about why people cover-up their past transgressions illogically I just finished a good book called, “Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)” (http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986) Some of it might be common sense, but I thought it was really interesting.
@ Martin (#39): Ack! passive voice!
I use that sentence (“Mistakes were made.”) when I’m teaching the idea of passive voice to somebody. It’s a great political tool. 
Also, there’s two Johns posting in this thread. I’m the one who also posted #20.
I bet if you asked him, Ortiz would do it all over again. Hell I would do it if I were him. All those immortal hits, all those great playoff games, HRs, millions of dollars, all the love he was getting…….
Even if you tell me I won’t live to be 51 I might still do it. What Ortiz was is better than being a movie or rock star or an astronaut or whatever else you want.
I know that’s not PC, but let’s be honest…..
Joe
Where do you get that “I’m not talking about that anymore” quote from Ortiz? I didn’t see that, although I saw a quote like that from Ramirez. Even if Ortiz did say it, he also said he was going to find out more about the positive test and share his findings with the public. You don’t have to believe him, but at the very least, I think it’s unfair to say “I’m not talking about that anymore” is “all he can say.”
To further what stefan says, if I’m a baseball player, I want Ortiz on my team.
I want to know that my teammates will do whatever it takes to win. As they say: if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying.
Although, I seriously doubt and there is certainly no proof that steroids actually improve performance.
But if there is a chance they do, you gotta go for it.
And as consumers, why should we care? If it makes the product better, shouldn’t we be happy.
I’m not going to buy a black and white tv because the new HD models use performance enhancing electrons.
I don’t know about everyone else, but when I say that I think the whole list should just be released, what I mean is that the players’ union should consent to it. As a practical matter, it’s not fair that ARod, Sosa, Papi and MannyB get excoriated while the other 100 players do not.
Plus, it’s likely that many more names are going to come out in dribs and drabs. The Union might be better served by simply agreeing to release the whole list and getting it all over with.
As far as Nomar’s comments, I believe it is true that players who declined to be tested were counted as positive for purposes of determining whether the 5% threshhold was reached. I have no idea whether the list of 104 names includes players who were not tested and thus counted as “positive” or whether it is limited to actual positive test results.
Just a point…
Amphetamines are now banned by baseball, so can we go back through some of the great books written about baseball and its culture from the ’70s and ’80s and start calling out players from that time period?
I remember reading that “greenies” were VERY prevalent in major league clubhouses during those two decades, and that to go out without taking them was called going out “naked”…
For some reason I remember Mike Schmidt talking about the how much Pete Rose added to the Phillies when he came over as a free agent in ‘79, and part of his energy was fueled by amphetamines…
It was a part of the culture then, yet no one is screaming about it now…
What’s the difference? Both, in theory, give a player taking them an edge over a player not taking them… Is it because steroids created some insanely obvious leaps of production from players with no history to suggest their steroid-boosted numbers, and amphetamines only helped players survive 13-game road trips and long homestands on 130-degree Astroturf?
An edge is an edge, right?
A few points in this crazy discussion:
- The union did not have the RIGHT to destroy the list. The union, AND MLB, had teh OBLIGATION to do so. It was a contractual agreement.
- As pointed out above, the 4th amendment issues relate to the seizure of the list, most of which had nothing to do with the case for which it was seized.
- All steroids are not illegal, even in the US. Cortisone is a steroid. HGH is not illegal (although it is illegal to use without a proper prescription). THG (“the clear”) was not banned by the FDA until the end of 2003, and thus was not illegal during the time of the testing.
- Nothing is legal or illegal within baseball — baseball does not have laws, it has rules. The Players Association has a contractual right to approve any changes in the rules through negotiations. Therefore steroids, despite what Fay Vincent or Bud Selig might want you to believe, were not against the rules (some were illegal, some not) until it was collectively bargained in the rules. The governmnet has a right to prosecute folks who used illegally, if we are still within the statute of limitations and the evidence was seized legally. Baseball does not have a right to enforce laws, only its own rules, rules which were not in place in 2003.
Does this seem like an ethically gray area to anyone else? It doesn’t seem so cut and dried that I feel strongly about either side.
One one hand, these guys probably cheated (I say probably, because these tests do produce some false positives). They also created an environment that put their peers in a position where they could choose between taking steroids and risking serious health complications, and losing out on some salary and possibly a career in baseball. It’s not the most awful thing in the world, but it’s not good.
On the other, the court grants legal protections to testimony and evidence in order to promote the social good that comes from letting legal parties conduct complete and thorough investigations and freeing people to testify honestly without fear of the consequences.
The question, then, is: does the leaking of these names damage people’s faith in the judicial process enough to discourage complete testimony and full cooperation with government investigations? Because this is a situation fairly specific to major-league sports and because this is not the first time confidential information from a government investigation has been leaked, I have trouble believing that the system suffered much at all or that the players involved will be unduly damaged.
From my point of view, it seems like the parties with the biggest legitimate grievance are the players who didn’t use. The ones who are still around get a little sympathy every time we find out another slugger juiced, but what about all the fringe players who couldn’t quite break through? Remember Kevin Orie? Maybe he sticks if half his isn’t trying anything they can to be the next Sosa.
* team
Erik, I didn’t make myself clear ( it’s my fault I was in a hurry) . A lot of people when they are rationalizing taking steroids talk about the money. The payday is great, but I think there’s another side to it- maximizing your potential.
Isn’t that huge part of anybody’s life? Pursuing your passion and actualizing the very best of yourself- in any possible direction – creatively, intellectually, athletically, morally……
There’s no pill you take to maximize your talent if you are a writer, musician or a lawyer. I know that the big difference with sports is the competition ( and it’s purity ), but don’t tell me that the art world(for example) is not competitive. I just read a quote from Ernest Hemingway where he was bragging he has already beaten Turgenev and Henry James( by writing stories about similar subjects) . I am not sure that if there were PEDs for writers or journalists there would be such outrage about the steroids issue in baseball.
My point is that Bonds, Ramirez, ARod and Ortiz chose greatness. They wrote their own future of superhuman achievements. I am not sure that if regular people are offered a shortcut to becoming the best version of themselves most of them wouldn’t take it. Even if they know it might be unhealthy or give them unfair advantage. Of course there are no such shortcuts for most of us, so I guess we’ll never be 100% sure.
@25 indyralph – Read Craig C.’s comments again. He’s not asking you to consider the propriety of a third party releasing this info – a point on which I agree with you; he’s asking you to imagine how you would feel in a similar situation. And my feeling is that I’d be willing to forfeit my established right for the sake of getting on with my business, and I think a fair number of ballplayers are starting to feel the same way.
OK, even the staunchest Bonds-bashers I’ve talked to have not come up with a good answer for this one:
Putting aside legal/rules issues, what is the difference between one player taking steroids and another having Lasix surgery?
Both involve an athlete voluntarily introducing something artificial into his/her body that alters the way he/she was born. The intent of both is strictly to enhance performance.
First of all, and I think some of your not so B Rs need this point driven home, most steroids are LEGAL to use with a doctor’s prescription. I had to have injections for a rare skin disease, up to as many as 30 injections per doctor’s visit. Most professional athletic unions have voluntarily agreed (often with a gun to their heads) to ban use of some substances. So we are holding baseball players to a higher standard than we are normal folks in this country. I sure know that I didn’t like all the infections and bleeding I got before I started getting the steroid injections, and as a father I also would happily batter any jerk who insisted my daughter not use her steroids to reduce her allergies to some insect bites.
Secondly, given that we have a fifth amendment in this country, protecting us from self-incrimination, the 2003 testing was akin to testifying under a promise of immunity from prosecution. Anybody who leaks a name from 2003 is violating the terms under which they received those names and deserves firing if not prosecution or disbarment.
That said, it’s no longer 2003. There is now a CBA that covers steroid testing. One of the biggest stars in baseball suffered a 50 game suspension earlier this year for getting caught even though, and yes, I’m repeating myself, it strongly appears that MannyBManny received that drug through a legal prescription from a licensed MD. This isn’t a crime. It’s a crying shame, but it’s not a crime.
Now I personally favor release of all the names. There were far more baseball players tested negative than positive in 2003, and I’d really like to know if, say, Curt Schilling is a good guy or just another posturer. But it’s Schilling’s right to decide, and also Joe Cortisone’s right to the anonymity he was promised not to have all the negatives announced so we can figure out who the positives were.
My desire to know does not count as heavily as the promise of anonymity that the baseball players were given. If they weren’t given that promise, there would have been no testing at all in 2003, and the Dodgers with Manny would be on a pace to win 110 games. I’m happier with baseball being clean* than I am not knowing all the users in 2003.
I’d be even happier with less rhetoric and more intelligence applied to the topic. Steroids were developed to treat certain medical conditions and found to have as side effects things that some athletes, especially big strong ones needing lots of muscles, really can use. But how are steroids any different from laser eye surgery, possibly to correct a ballplayer’s eyesight to 20:10, the better to pick up the spin out of the pitcher’s hand? How are steroids any different from Tommy John surgery, which might have greatly extended the careers of many a pitcher, or arthroscopic surgery in general? What do we do if they develop a mostly harmless surgery that has no positive benefit except to enable somebody to be a better baseball player? Say, insertion of titanium plates in ones forward arm and hand enabling one to crowd the plate without fear of breaking bones, or stimulating the pituitary to make the kid grow up 7′ 3″ instead of 6′ 3″? Isn’t becoming a college athlete on scholarship as a lane clogging center not a major health benefit for the rest of ones life, especially for somebody too poor to go to college otherwise? How do we ban one surgery and not another? Babe Ruth didn’t have antibiotics: should we deny them from today’s sluggers? So I think this issue has way too much noise and not enough signal. It might take a decade or two before we finally are behaving reasonably about this issue, may I live so long.
OMG, OMG, OMG! I submit. When I said that steroids are illegal according to US law, I should have said, “Possession of steroids wihtout a prescription is illegal in the US.”
Still,I haven’t seen a credible argument from a busted player that he was prescribed the drugs. Aside from Manny, who claimed he was prescribed the hormone drugs he was suspended for. Anyone beleive he was having a problem with female fertility?
Also, many state and local statutes and ordinances are being revised to include the crime of possession by consumption, so that walking down the street stoned is now illegal
Bravo Richard Aronson
. . . . and I voted ‘none of the above’ because quite honestly, i think Pittsburgh probably helped themselves the most