Team Health Reports: W... (02/09)
Prospectus Today: Last... (02/05)
139 comments have been left for this article. BP Comment Quick Links
| |
|
|
February 9, 2009 Prospectus TodayStupid Media Tricksby Joe Sheehan And so it continues. Per Selena Roberts and David Epstein of Sports Illustrated, Alex Rodriguez was one of 104 players to test positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003. In that year, every player in Major League Baseball was tested, presumably anonymously, in an effort to learn the depth of the PED problem in baseball and weigh the need for a program that would mix random testing with penalties for use. This is a big story, in the sense that it involves a famous person, a bad act, and America's true favorite pastime of tearing down people of achievement. It allows the media to rend their garments over baseball's lack of purity on the issue of PEDs, substances which only began to affect the sport in the mid-1990s, which made a mockery of the record book all by themselves, and the rampant use of which makes baseball unique in American sports. It also provides a new way to pick on Alex Rodriguez, who-whatever he did in 2003-is probably the hardest-working baseball player to ever become a national punch line. While it's a big story, however, it's not a big deal. See, we already know that baseball players great and small were using PEDs. That was the only thing of substance we learned from the Mitchell Book Report on Game of Shadows, Plus Assorted Information From Weasels the Government Shook Down For Us: the 89 players cited by name in the report as having been directly connected to PED usage were a cross-section of the baseball world, pitchers and hitters, stars and scrubs, "no!" and "who?" With a minimum of sources, and the players themselves refusing to participate, 89 players were reasonably connected to purchases, and presumably usage. We had the 2003 survey testing, which set a baseline number of "5-7 percent" of players, a figure we now know to be the high end. Throw in the players who may have stopped using prior to '03 due to attention paid to the issue, and those whose use went undetected because their drugs were just that good, and you can comfortably say that some double-digit percentage of players were using PEDs up through 2003. Great baseball players used PEDs to be better, and until 2004, no one tried very hard to stop them from doing so. Some people continue to be surprised that highly competitive young men fighting for fame, honor, and a cut of $6 billion would do everything they could to beat the guy next to them, which is a pretty good way to make the Olympic team in Naive.
The price tag on proving Barry Bonds' purported use, all in, is approaching nine figures when you account for the time and effort of a couple of intrepid reporters with little regard for the law, an IRS agent, and the combined resources of just about every governmental entity this side of the Department of the Interior. Mark McGwire was named in a book, called before Congress, and labeled a fraud for telling the truth-just not the truth the witch-hunters wanted to hear. Roger Clemens is living out the adage that you should never wrestle with a pig. Knowing Alex Rodriguez used PEDs, in the context of those names, isn't information that changes anything. A great baseball player did bad things with the implicit approval-hell, arguably explicit approval-of his peers and his employers. It's cheating, yes, which would be a problem if we hadn't been celebrating cheating in baseball since the days when guys would go first to third over the pitcher's mound. You can argue that it's different in degree, though the widely accepted use of PEDs by peers and superiors, and the use of amphetamines before them, is a strong point against that case. What is clear is that it's not different enough, in degree, to warrant the kind of histrionics we're reading and hearing over this. It's not different enough to turn Alex Rodriguez into a pińata. Of course, the screaming is about the screamers. The loudest voices on the evils of steroids in baseball are in the media, and there's probably a dissertation in that notion, because for all that we have to hear about how greedy, evil players have ruined baseball by taking these substances (and then playing well, according to this selective interpretation; no one's ripping Chris Donnels these days), the reason we're talking about this in 2009 is that so many "reporters"-scare quotes earned-went ostrich in 1999. We hear every year around awards time that the people closest to the game know the game better than anyone, because they're in the clubhouse every day, and they talk to everyone, and they have a perspective that outsiders can't possibly understand. For those same people to do a collective Captain Renault, which they've been doing since beating up players for this transgression became acceptable, is shameful. Take your pick: they missed the story, or they were too chicken-shit to report it. In either case, the piling-on now is disgusting. In the same way that the reporters who vote for the Hall of Fame are going to take their embarrassment out on Mark McGwire, and probably Barry Bonds and Rafael Palmeiro behind him, and god knows who to follow, they should punish themselves as well. I propose that for as long as a clearly qualified Hall of Famer remains on the ballot solely because of steroid allegations-or for that matter, proven use-there should be no J.G. Taylor Spink Award given out to writers. If we're going to allow failures during the "Steroid Era" to affect eligibility for honors, let's make sure we catch everyone who acted shamefully. We shouldn't know that Rodriguez tested positive. Flash back to 2002, and the negotiations over a Collective Bargaining Agreement in which the MLBPA was beaten to a pulp in the public eye. It was management's first win in a long time, and in that win, they got the players to agree to a plan that would determine the extent of PED use within the game, and trigger a testing program if a problem showed itself. The 2003 testing was designed as a survey-test every single player in the game, and if at least five percent of the tests turn up positive, switch to a program of random testing that would include counseling and then punishments for failing tests. (This program, which seemed to deter use immediately, was later modified for no good reason when Congress again decided to grandstand on the issue.) The players agreed to be tested in 2003 on the condition that the testing be anonymous and no individual results would be tabulated. This was the necessary step to determine the breadth of the game's PED problem, and the solution was one of the few elegant elements of that 2003 CBA. However-and this is the crucial issue of this story-the 2003 testing was not anonymous. For reasons that the MLBPA and the testers have yet to explain, the samples were labeled in a manner that allowed the results to be traced to individuals. It wasn't anything like "TEX13," but whatever the method, there was a link from the sample to the player for the lab's use. When federal agents raided two labs (Quest and Comprehensive Drug Testing) in November of 2004 as part of the BALCO investigation, they collected enough information to connect the positive tests to the players involved. The failure was in not destroying the materials involved-samples, results, and documentation-once they'd served their purpose. Once the survey testing showed more than five percent positives, the new testing regime was put into place for 2004, and the 2003 tests were no longer needed. Destroying the materials does require a specific request to the labs, and it appears that no one at MLB or the MLBPA made that request, which is where they failed. It does appear that those entities were unaware that the tests weren't anonymous; the mistake was in allowing the materials to exist long after they were needed, long enough for them to be discovered. Once the government had the information, of course, it was just a matter of time before that information would be leaked. It is inevitable that we'll have the other 103 names in time, and just as inevitable that while all 104 will have done the same thing, only the successful ones will be treated harshly. I don't really care that Alex Rodriguez used steroids. There was a time, not very long ago, that I thought the issue of PEDs in baseball was overblown because use was overstated. Now, I think that use was common, with some significant number of players regularly using steroids in an effort to become better at that craft, and a larger number at least trying them out for a period of time. I remain skeptical that PED use is connected to performance in a way that warps the game, a conclusion supported by the evidence that proven use is mixed among hitters and pitchers, among good players and fringe ones, among the strong and the skinny. The establishment of a testing program with penalties does appear to have been a deterrent, as evidenced by the drop from 104 positives in 2003 to fewer than that number in total in the five years since. What interests me is the process, and the abuses we've seen. In 2002, the players agreed to anonymous testing in an effort to eradicate a problem, part of a process that created the first CBA arrived at without a work stoppage in decades. This should have been an absolute good. Instead, because of a failure of the MLBPA to tend to details, an out-of-control investigation and prosecution led by an IRS agent, and the government's inability to protect the sanctity of information, 104 players will have their promised anonymity taken away with nothing given in return. It's not enough to say, "Tough, they cheated." Even cheaters have rights to see their agreements honored, and these 104 men have been violated by their representatives and their government, complicit with a media that repeatedly asks the easy questions and takes on the soft targets while avoiding the real work of uncovering not just names, but truth. The story is bigger than Alex Rodriguez. It's more interesting than Alex Rodriguez. It has more depth and more nuance than the failure of one man to play by the rules. Tell that story, in a measured voice that embraces complexity, and I'll listen. Until then, it's all just screaming.
Joe Sheehan is an author of Baseball Prospectus.
BP Comment Quick Links roughcarrigan (2901) I really wish that Selena Roberts wasn't connected with this. Her politically correct slanting of the NY Times coverage of the Duke Lacrosse team scandal was so reprehensible I'd hoped to forget her for good. Another great name in journalism, Jon Heyman at SI, says that the samples only still existed, according to his sources, because Gene Orza was on some quixotic quest to prove that the failure rate on the "anonymous" tests only exceeded 5% due to false positives. Ryan V. (7472) I think this may be the first article I've read on the steroids "issue" that has really captured the tone of how I'm feeling about all of this (setting aside that my true reaction to the story is a gaping *yawn*...). The year is 2009, not 2003. If you aren't willing to write a mea culpa for not saying anything prior to 2003, just shut the hell up. Richard Bergstrom (36532) On ESPN, Alex Rodriguez admits to using PEDs for a three year period. He also indicates that Orza did contact him: Metswest (23299) Great article. I must say that I wholeheartedly agree. I am no fan of Alex Rodriguez, but I am totally against this brand of selective prosecution. Richard Bergstrom (36532) As has been said before, the problem with PEDs wasn't the players as much as the system(s). The union did some fishy stuff, but meanwhile, owners and GMs also appeared to be complicit as mentioned in the Mitchell Report. That's what you get for taking a bunch of 20-something year old kids, making them believe they are god-like celebrities, have them work year round so that baseball becomes their sole reason for existence, then tossing them a few million bucks so they can get in trouble. In the grand scheme of things, though steroids are an issue, I get more miffed at all the DUIs in baseball. If I made the league minimum, I could afford to take a cab to and from a bar on a daily basis. Christopher Towers (47241) This is why a BP subscription is worth the price. This is the most level headed article I've read since the news broke on Friday. Bogomil (20001) This is the first interesting commentary I've read. All the other coverage is trite, predictible and, to borrow a basketball term, fake hustle. stables (14384) Thank you. It is rare to get some level-headed perspective in the middle of all of this nonsense (what you rightfully call screaming). mars2001 (28654) Excellent article. It touches everything mentioned in the furor to Will's Unfiltered article & fills in the hand-waving with facts. sabocat (29883) hey, fine, MLBPA is negligent and the media sucks, but you are going to far down that path of letting bygones be bygones. The fact is, the steroid scandal is a scandal because it punished honest players and rewarded cheaters. Until you or anyone else can show that the overwhelming majority of players were using, your complaints about this are excessive. This is the exact reason that Frank Thomas was the ONLY player to go and talk to Mitchell willingly, because he knew that he was being screwed by steroid users. Defending them screws Thomas. Sanctioning cheating punishes the honest. This is why it is offensive. Your story here loses sight of that. achase (26956) thanks. the first common sense reply. one doesn't have to be a hater or a screecher to see that Sheehan's article is shallow naysaying for the sake of being a naysayer. yes, we'd all love for this to go away (and I absolutely agree Bonds has been unfairly singled out). but cheating gets to the heart of the integrity of sport so, like it or not, it's not just a big story it's a pretty big deal. scstrato (29389) Talk about "tunnel vision". You appear more blinded than most fundamentalists. Both committed serious offenses against this nation and both are being persecuted to the extent of the law, but yet in your shallow minded eyes Bonds is somehow "singled out"? Feb 10, 2009 07:54 AM achase (26956) I have no idea what most of this is saying, nor what the references to fundamentalists and Sally Jesse Rafael and Fox news have to do with anything. Dr. Dave (1652) The cheaters had a better chance to win. scstrato (29389) I understand, and agree with, your point regarding Perry and Sheffield Dr. Dave, but I disagree with your underlying sentiment that PED's don't necessarily improve your performance. My point is the evidence doesn't exist simply because we don't know who took what and for how long, not because their numbers don't show it. Right? Granted this is a bit of conjecture but how else can we explain the statistical anomalies seen with guys like Brady Anderson, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, etc.? Dr. Dave (1652) You're assuming your conclusion -- namely, that there is a "statistical anomaly" to be explained, and that steroids explain it adequately. That's not science. Dr. Dave (1652) I disagree with your underlying sentiment that PED's don't necessarily improve your performance. Matt L. (27995) Joe -- where are you getting the nine figure cost estimate for the Bonds persecution? The article below suggests $55MM (which is staggering/shocking/bewildering in of itself) for the taxpayer-funded portion of this; not sure there's enough private sector costs to bump that up over $100MM. Vinegar Bend (477) Joe remains a voice of reason. Nathan (28175) Thanks for the thoughtful article, Joe. Two questions: 1) The government isn't a party to the CBA. They have no obligation to abide by its constructs. Feb 09, 2009 12:54 PM Joe's partly right on both counts. Feb 09, 2009 14:18 PM davidmartin (5744) Joe makes a good point that the ladies auxiliary (to use M. Lewis' term for baseball writers) really botched this story, pre-Verducci's SI piece. But I can't accept that Clemens is some kind of victim, as Joe suggests. Sorry, I have trouble rooting for meatheads. I'm human. Edwincnelson (33517) I think the real problem here is getting lost in all the discussions about cheating and not cheating. The issue here is that these players broke the law, not just once but multiple times. Possession of a controlled substance with or without the intent to deliver is a felony and in most states carries a serious penalty. Matt L. (27995) I feel that if the feds or state authorities wanted to pursue non-perjury criminal cases against particular athletes for possession, they would have done so by now. It seems that the main targets have been those in charge of production and/or distribution of the controlled substances, and that probably makes sense from an enforcement standpoint. While the government could presumably look to toll any statute of limitations under some ongoing conspiracy theory, my guess is that the ship has sailed (or will soon sail) for prosecution of individual players where we are looking at use in the period up to 2003 due to expiration of statutes of limitations and problems of proof. Christopher Towers (47241) I believe Primobolan would not have been illegal to possess in the United States until January 20, 2005, when the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 went into effect. awayish (20768) Nevertheless, in terms of baseball history, going to jail is less of a black eye than 'CHEATER!!' Not that going to prison because you made a choice with steroids is in any way less silly than treating ped use as cheating on the level of changing the nature of the performed acts, but people do care more about the baseball side of the matter. Edwin, Feb 09, 2009 17:54 PM Ameer (31336) I'm not sure calling this a "large scale, prescription drug ring" is appropriate. A hundred or a few hundred people using steroids is not a "drug ring," in my opinion. mglick0718 (30785) Joe-- krissbeth (40802) "It puts pressure on players, particularly those on the fringe of a major league roster, to do something dangerous to their health." Fresh Hops (41607) Not all PEDs are illegal. Some of them are actually yet to be approved by the FDA for medical use (and hence don't fall under perscription drug laws) and aren't scheduled by the DEA (and hence don't fall under the same laws as, for example, marijuana.) This situation is more complex than that the actions are simply illegal. Besides, it's not the sort of crime for which one goes to a maximum security prison, under ordinary circumstances. Baseball players who break more serious laws are widely tollerated, so don't pretend like the legal issue here settles the case. krissbeth (40802) "Besides, it's not the sort of crime for which one goes to a maximum security prison, under ordinary circumstances. Baseball players who break more serious laws are widely tollerated, so don't pretend like the legal issue here settles the case." Fresh Hops (41607) I don't think BP has ever downplayed the concerns about health, although (as with all drug abuse) this is a point on which far too few media sources are willing to be candid. I wonder how serious the health concerns really are. Aaron/YYZ (34268) To further this, normal people can and do get prescriptions from legitimate, qualified physicians for steroids to help them with a smoother, stronger recovery from major injuries (e.g. major knee surgeries). Amateur and Professional athletes are denied this exact same treatment for the exact same injury purely to preserve the "purity of the game". krissbeth (40802) A good point. It's far worse with hockey and football, however. That blood sport quality is one of the things that makes me uneasy with being a football fan. Shoulder and arm injuries strike me as being different: pitchers can still walk and think, as opposed to football players, who recent brain studies suggest may suffer dozens of concussions over their careers. mars2001 (28654) And it gets even more complicated in that some steroids ARE allowed (and are used) on a regular basis... Ameer (31336) I'm glad we're all hitting on the more complex issues surrounding this. Philosofool's point about the media not even touching the possible benefits of steroids is very valid. buffum (458) > I propose that for as long as a clearly qualified Hall of jramirez (11690) Joe - Your point about the Spink award is absolutely phenomenal and one I had not considered. Fresh Hops (41607) Thanks Joe. This really needed to be said. BottomoftheNinth (31822) Joe, jbacow (23895) I agree with VORPie and disagree with Sheehan on this - we don't need to have congressional hearings on PEDs, and there might need to be legal ramifications to whomever leaked this information given that it was supposed to be confidential, and Orza's behavior, if true, is probably cause for resignation. However, A-Rod and the 103 other players cheated in a way that baseball has determined is outside the spirit of acceptable methods, and also might cause bodily harm to both himself and other athletes attempting to emulate him.** We presume an equal basis for comparison here on BP, which is why we have park factors and league factors and adjustments based on strength of schedule, etc. The PED adjustment, while unknown, could be huge. The ethical ramifications are questionable but should be up to the individual fan to determine. Ignoring this based assuming that players aren't doing it or aren't gaining advantage from it or that it's the same as stealing signs or that we didn't care about Ty Cobb being a racist violent a$$hole seems questionable at best. tballgame (21265) Joe recognizes that it is unfair and, in some circumstances, illegal. warmsox (20985) Amen, brother. brucelamon (15044) Is there any statistical analysis concluding that steroids likely enhanced the performance of any particular player or players generally, and if so to what extent? It is not enough to say that the effects of steroids varied from player to player, or that steroids were used by batters and pitchers. To judge great player(s) against his peers and predecessors, we need to know how to normalize his/their performance. montanabowers (31863) I applaud you. I wish we could find such integrity in the realm of national and international journalism. Thank You Joe. KPod (987) There are many things I like about this article, but there are a couple things that bother me: Fresh Hops (41607) Regarding (1), we're far less harsh on players that doctor bats and balls than we are on steroid users, and doctored balls and bats have a demonstrable performance enhancing effect. SC (27400) I'm no lawyer, but if your assertion that the MLBPA could (and should) have ordered the test results destroyed but did not, it seems that ARod (and any other player who has been "exposed [does Bonds fall into this group?]) could sue them for millions for negilgence resulting in very real economic injury. ICTimer (47139) Fantastic article Joe, and thank you for for such excellent reporting. Matt L. (27995) As noted by another commenter above, Jon Heyman at SI has a story up (link below) that Gene Orza resisted destroying the list because he wanted to prove there were enough false positives to keep the percentage of players testing positive below 5% so that new testing and penalties would not kick in the following year. I imagine the only way you could actually prove false positives would be to know the identities of the players and get them re-tested or use other means to have them clear their names. kcboomer (4676) This whole PED's thing gives me heartburn. Every article, including this one, has a sanctimonious "holier-than-thou" tone to it. And from the prima facie evidence PED's didn't seem to help most of the players who used the stuff. Only Barry Bonds's late age performance is beyond all reckoning. Hands22 (32669) People should just stop worrying about the raw statistics. Some eras inflate hitting numbers just as some deflate, the same way ballparks do. How a player compares to his peers will always be the metric we should use when looking over someones career. Part of me believes that if Bonds was clean but took a bunch of legal supplements, had some new medical surgery to repair a bum knee, and had lasex surgery, people would be ragging on him because Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth never had those things available to them. BarryR (1188) The problem with this is that in other eras, such as the 1930s in the AL, statistics were inflated across the entire league. The problem with the steroid era is that there were players who were helped by the use of steroids and others who didn't use them. How do we compare Frank Thomas records to his contemporaries, assuming he was clean? We don't know who did use and who didn't. How many MVP Awards did Barry Bonds steal? Should those who finished second behind him get the award, like those who finished second behind Olympic cheaters would? Since we don't know who did the drugs, we can't compare players to their peers, let alone to any other historical group. That BP has consistently downplayed the importance of the added strength gained through steroid usage is a joke. I can only assume this has something to do with how much damage the unknown nature of the raw data of this era does to statistical analysis of the players involved. Before they talk about others sticking their heads in the sand, they might want to check where theirs have been. mkapellas (17748) "The loudest voices on the evils of steroids in baseball are in the media..." WCE (7237) Very well put, Joe. I am in almost total agreement. I've been reading BP writers since very close to the beginning, and when I think the its voice of judicious rationality now plays a role in national discussions of baseball it gives me hope. Edwincnelson (33517) Let's just put the stats aside. SFC B (3125) As others have pointed out above, it's not exactly clear what players used what drugs and they they used them. It's possible (probable) that some of the substances being used weren't actually illegal at the time of their use and possession. I also doubt that any of these baseball players actually forged a prescription to get their PEDs. They probably got some doctor to write a legit prescription for it, or just bought it through a lab or vendor because the things weren't actually illegal. Nate W. (36153) I'm not interested in adding anything to the conversation. All I want to do is say thanks for the article Joe. Articles like this, along with Will's article on Thursday, are the reason I continue to renew my subscription each year. jelinich (20012) Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway. A person agrees to take a drug test as a condition of the collective bargaining agreement with his employer with the pledge of anonymity and that the samples will be destroyed once the survey is completed. A Federal Judge orders that all of the samples be taken into the custody of the Federal Government for purposes of pursuing evidence regarding ten people under investigation for crimes other than himself. A Federal Judge further orders that all of the information relating to the tests be sealed. Nevertheless, the information - under control of the government - is released to the public to the embarrassment of the person. dbertelli (10809) Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway. Say you're not a fraud, A-Rod! koryio (30841) why is no one talking about the frequent use of cortisone among professional athletes? players regularly get these injections to get back on the field, why arent these illegal? also what about players receiving I.V.'s in the locker room at halftime or during innings? arent these also performance enhancing. this whole steroids thing is an absolute joke chaglang (16313) We've been through these PED/MLB stories so many times that everyone's reaction is utterly predictable, right down this article. Apparently I'm in the minority but this didn't strike me as anything new - it's basically the standard PED Media Outrage article that has been appearing on BP for the last 5-7 years. Different names, different details, same shrillness. WCE (7237) Who has been busted carrying steroids in MLB? You cannot be punished for a "status crime", that is, being a drug user. Possession, distribution or dui offense, or in your case, falsifying a prescription for a controlled substance, are all crimes. Having taken the illegal drug is not. jrwatts (10274) I really must echo the sentiments of mglick0718 and sabocat. The pressure to use PEDs when millions of dollars are on the line is immense. I certainly agree that MLB and MLBPA bear the responsibility of setting up a system that discourages the use of PEDs, and it's obvious that they have previously failed in this responsibility. That said, players who used PEDs are far from blameless, and as fans I think we have every right to be more disappointed by stars who helped create a culture that put pressure on others to use PEDs. awayish (20768) The degree to which performance enhancement from PEDs are held to be illegitimate is not a clear cut question as some believe. Suppose we have a safe substance with common accessibility, and potency on par with any anabolic steroid, but that it is a cutting edge thing and some guys use it and some do not, due to differing networking. What would the rationale be for baseball to restrict its use, if at all. Players do things that both improve performance, and does so with efficiency. Should we value an ethics of hardwork in such a manner that we refuse to adjust to the reality of a new technology. Advantages of this form are widespread in society, yet they pass without remark save from radical quarters. I find any moral indignation towards people finding quick shortcuts more than a little hollow, given the uneven treatment. awayish (20768) The first line is a bit misleading, I am not arguing that taking steroids in MLB in 2003 etc is ok, but the type of energetic reactions are misguided. People do wrong things all the time, but reactions are of varying degrees. There is something particularly irritating when I see people treating steroid use so seriously as to write off entire careers, all in a reflexive second. villapalomares (33685) "Does anyone believe there's really more steroids in baseball than football? Why not take a page out the NFL's PR department and learn to bury these things." Vinegar Bend (477) anyone care to lay odds that Derek Jeter is on that list of 103 positives? Now THAT would be a interesting news story to see unfold. I almost hope it's true. Ameer (31336) Actually I was thinking the same thing. ruben398 (17702) Passionate, biting, emphatic... all words I would use to describe this article. awayish (20768) well, the most glaring hysterical behavior comes from reactionaries who scream "cheater!!11" etc, so a levelheaded response to the entire situation should address these shriekers first, as is proper. JayhawkBill (17771) Joe, I share your frustration at the leak of supposedly anonymous testing data, and I would support the harshest penalties possible for those responsible for the leak. I don't feel, however, that it in any way exonerates Alex Rodriguez. He evaluated the risks, he made choices, he made literally hundreds of millions of dollars from those choices, but his reputation is now ruined for his cheating and his lies. It's a harsh consequence, but he knew the possible consequences of his actions, even if he didn't know how the information might someday be leaked. Tuck (667) Blame the Media! Ask that guy in St Louis who asked about McGwire's andro. Not exactly well received. Ask Tom Boswell, who brought up the issue about Canseco way back. There's a bibliography in the Mitchell Report (which I had to re-read today, hours of my life I'll never get back!) that shows the before and after of articles regarding steroids. Feb 09, 2009 17:01 PM tballgame (21265) Will, SydFinch (20732) Joe James Martin Cole (31941) There's a couple things about this that kind of bug me. Random (46010) Cole: "I, for one, want to try to figure out what went wrong, and how to make sense of the last few decades of baseball." James Martin Cole (31941) For few decades, I mean back to about the seventies, maybe earlier. Hands22 (32669) All we keep doing is bringing up the past. Nothing good will come of it. So what if the 103 names are released. Now we know 103 more guilty players and we still can't assume anyone that's not on that list is innocent. Maybe they didn't test positive, maybe they just started later, either way it doesn't clear anyone. Nice Claude Raines reference! Feb 09, 2009 16:53 PM Ok, I have one answer --- the extra tests *were* part of the agreed to process. According to documents in the Mitchell Report, there was a second round of 240 tests. I'm not sure what purpose they served or why that number, but it's not a "B sample" as I speculated. Feb 09, 2009 16:55 PM mars2001 (28654) I just re-read the JDA & am having trouble with the 104-name list coming out on 2 counts: (I've included a link to the JDA below) Vinegar Bend (477) Primo Bolan. Vinegar Bend (477) Everybody should check out Doug Glanville's recently posted column at NYTimes.com. klipzlskim (22546) These comments got me thinking about the child's perspective on the issue. I know, I know, the media likes to go for easy indignation with the "Poor Billy used to be a Barry Bonds fan" crap. But that doesn't mean it's not a significant angle. I'd guess that anyone who reads BP is old enough and intelligent enough to understand the legal and performance implications of PED use. But not every kid can. And besides, they haven't yet become as cynical as most of the posters here (myself included). As an adult, I couldn't care less about A-Rod. But if you had told when I was ten, for example, that Rickey Henderson used drugs that helped him cheat, I would have been crushed. I do think that players have responsibility for their image. The players were kids once, they know how they felt about their heroes, so they can't just shrug off being a role model like Bonds does. ZeusIsLoose (19940) Thanks Joe. soBC (2918) Joe gilgamesh (19005) I wonder about someone like Hall of Famer Peter Gammons. mars2001 (28654) I expect he'll release a statement that goes something like: sblonder (1371) You are an excellent writer and an interesting voice Joe, but your perspective on this issue is as one-sided, shrill and illogical as those who you assualt in this piece. You say "the reason we're talking about this in 2009 is that so many "reporters"—scare quotes earned—went ostrich in 1999." I think you should name names here. Which writers knew about players taking steriods in 1999, had evidence to back up their beliefs and "went ostrich" in order to maintain access? Tuck (667) For a well-reasoned, appropriate response to this, check out Doug Glanville's op-ed in the NY Times, which highlights the privacy issues while not ignoring the icon at the heart of the story. hokie94 (1211) Excellent article Joe, I am amazed at some of the reaction by some of the readers though. Illegal really? not even relevant and not exactly true. leaking the names from sealed court records, now that is illegal and current, get upset about that. It is great to have the MLB network, they can hand-wring 24 hours a day now! ruben398 (17702) I think it is possible to be upset about multiple things in this situation. Caring that the law was broken does not mean I have to ignore the fact that one of my favorite players cheated (regardless of how that information was obtained). By that same token, I don't think A-Rod should go to jail, I don't even think he should be suspended. But I do think he deserves to lose endorsements, that he deserves the loss in revenue from jersey sales, and he deserves every last boo bird he receives in every ball park he visits. For those purposes, this information is very relevant (even if it was only "partly" true that steroids were illegal, whatever that means). Winkler (11363) I believe that you should step back, and review the moral fiber that encloses your ethics. Random (46010) From Bizofbaseball.com (http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2943:mlbpa-releases-statement-explaining-why-qsurvey-testq-results-were-not-destroyed&catid=38:performance-enhancing-drugs-peds&Itemid=49): fred45 (4459) This is just a spectacular article. I have noticed that ESPN.com is now posting certain prospectus articles and i hope that you push this one to make it over. trask77 (1390) You're missing the point. I agree that certain banned performance enhancing drugs are possibly in the same harm/benefit category as some of the accepted drugs, surgeries and painkillers that MLB players are allowed to take advantage of. Rob_in_CT (25572) The more time passes, the more it looks like Jose Canseco was closer to the truth than anyone really wanted to know. bbmaven (31885) http://steroids-and-baseball.com/actual-effects.shtml Wharton93 (23153) Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway. Arod 52 HR per year 2001-2003. Arod 41 HR per year every other year (even throwing out his 23 HR clunker). Not even park effects can explain it. eighteen (1432) A-Rod actually hit fewer HRs (47) in 2003, the year he flunked the test, than in 2001 and 2002. Dr. Dave (1652) Both of you are wrong to use total HR, rather than rate, as a measure of HR ability. brslart (1074) "Not even park effects can explain it." awayish (20768) there is a basic moral rift between those who are seriously upset by steroid usage and those who see it on the level of pot. to form an overall judgment of the entire situation, both sides of the rift should be examined, with their basic motivation laid bare. jseely (4976) Many were unhappy when Copernicus observed that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Still, unhappiness with the facts did not diminish their intrinsic worth. How much of this "PED use was rampant and therefore affected all of the competitors the same" argument is just wishing away the bad news? AirSteve01 (19155) "I remain skeptical that PED use is connected to performance in a way that warps the game..." Vinegar Bend (477) I would love to read a column by Sheehan wherein he discusses the issue of PEDs in baseball without digressing into a commentary on the media. I share his disgust for those who anoint themselves the moral guardians and have no idea about what they write, but that doesn't mean Sheehan himself cannot take a position that expresses his views on the ethics of PED usage and testing. His view would be welcomed because it would likely be circumspect and based on reason and facts. eighteen (1432) The MSM doesn't report news - it creates stories to make money off an ignorant public. jayman4 (4850) I just have to agree with bccurls (posted above). I knew the jist of this before I read it. I don't watch the "mainstream" sports shows so I cannot comment on what they are saying. But, based on the comments, I can guess. dbiester (25354) The people making money off of the story are the people selling the story -- newspapers, websites, etc. Matthew (455) Joe, tburke (29842) Joe, ncimon (25424) I like everything you wrote and the way you wrote it. So thank you. But not all of what's going on slides so easily onto the pile of righteous crap you describe. Tejada has just admitted lying to Congress and has already coppe+d a plea. And my wife is beating the crap out of me because kids got take-away messages that are truly revolting, and she's got a point. soBC (2918) I have to agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Cole. I also sometimes get the feeling that people want "to turn the page" on the steroid issue only because they want mainstream media to stop ranting about it. To do that would be a disservice to every player who's played the game drug-free. sbnirish77 (17711) "There was a time, not very long ago, that I thought the issue of PEDs in baseball was overblown because use was overstated. Now, I think that use was common, with some significant number of players regularly using steroids in an effort to become better at that craft, and a larger number at least trying them out for a period of time." Not a subscriber? Sign up today!
|
Joe, I know BP is in now but please never join the BBWAA. You're more fun this way. Keep throwing fire, those self-righteous drama queens deserve to feel the heat way more than they ever do