How will he be "clearly an All-Star based on every other criterion"? Contrary to what I know you've argued sometimes, Joe - that we should vote based on history of performance, rather than a player "going supernova" for half a season - an awful lot of people DO make their All-Star picks for a given season based either solely or largely on players' performance from that particular season.

Obviously you can make arguments for or against doing this, but what if voters just waited until June 15th and then all voted for the players at each position who had achieved the highest WARP in 2009? Might not be the perfect formula, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than what we, collectively, do now. And because he'll end up missing the majority of the games during the relevant period, under that formula, Manny won't qualify, just as he wouldn't qualify if he were missing 50 games with a broken leg.

That's not really to say he is or he isn't deserving. But to say he's "clearly an All-Star based on every other criterion" is a significant overstatement.

"and no one argues that the home runs hit by Alex Sanchez should be stricken from the record book. "

What, BOTH of them?

Re: Manny

Disappointed. Not surprised.

All of us, right?

If we are looking at fans who've voted for "players...who were having lousy seasons, who were injured and missing large parts of the current season, or who had been in decline for years", doesn't that give them less credibility amongst more informed baseball fans? It sounds like that's what BP is insinuating here. If so, what exactly is to be gained on seeing how those same uninformed fans vote for a player who's been suspended for violating the JDA?

If we want to know how much baseball fans care about the steroid issue, I would think there are 10,000 blogs that will already tell you that. Hello, Internet. I think that MannyGate will show how much All-Star voters care about voting for suspended players, but not how "the fans" feel about the issue.

I don't think any one thing can capture what baseball fans think about the steroid issue, short of asking every fan to take a vote. Steroid use in baseball is obviously a complex subject, and there are millions upon millions of baseball fans. I can't agree that those who vote for the All-Star game are necessarily a cross-section of all those fans, not without doing a little more research to validate that hypothesis.

Lastly, I am a little curious as to whether or not Manny will be on Joe's ballot come July...

You write: "He was suspended for testing positive for a substance banned under the agreement."

But Will writes in today's Unfiltered: "Ramirez was suspended under section 8.G.2 of the Joint Drug Agreement, which is “other.” In his statement, there’s no clear statement that Ramirez ever tested positive."

My understanding was that it was a Jordan Schafer situation; no positive test. Which is it?

Thanks, Joe.

You just inspired me to go vote for Manny 25 times.

First thing that came to my mind about this: Between Manny and Brett Favre, SportsCenter is going to be completely unwatchable for at least the next week!

I think it will be at least as interesting to see who the third baseman is for the American League in the All-Star game.

You're not the only one who left Camden early: http://www.realclearsports.com/articles/2009/05/david-steele-fired-baltimore-sun-press-box.html

Mmmm, Joe makes a good point. I seriously doubt that Manny will get voted in, in light of this, but I guess we'll see.

Whether or not the fans care about PED use is one thing, but whether it is *important* is another matter entirely. I'm not saying that Joe is asserting that PED use isn't important (although honestly, I think his past writing shows that this is his belief), but I think it's crucial to keep the matters separate. Personally, I *do* think it is important to try to keep dangerous PEDs like anabolic steroids out of professional sports, and my opinion will not be influenced at all by how many all-star votes Manny picks up.

Personally, I wouldn't vote for him because he pushed around a 60 year old man. That's a more important issue to me than a PED suspension.

Didn't stop Manny from getting a new contract though.

A significant number of the All-Star voters make decisions based on how somebody played the first 10 weeks of the season. That won't ever change.

I guess comparing the votes that Manny gets vs. what we could expect had he missed 50 or so games from injury would be a useful comparison, though not sure how many data points on that.

I hate the whole PED issue, and favor implementing the most stringent, useful (hopefully those are correlated) testing. Given the potential, real or perceived, gains in taking PED's, really thorough testing is needed. If you don't it places players with unconscionable decisions: cheat and maybe make marginal millions or stay clean but probably earn less. I would not want that choice.

Further, I am deeply suspicious of the argument that PED's have minor impact. Look at Bond's HR's:

http://www.stokes-analysis.com/BondsCheater7.html

Also, why would players keep taking them if they did not have a significant impact?

I am sorry for the players, Manny included, who have to make this choice. MLB and the MLBPA need to clean this up. Not a bargaining chip, but clean it up. No moral posturing, just clean it up.

Good luck; it would appear that Manny will need to be a write-in because he just got yanked from the regular ballot. So much for hearing what the fans think...

Defining baseball story of the year and we get "let's see what the All-Star ballots look like?" That's it?

I think it's a bit unfair to equate Ryan Franklin, and Manny for that matter, to Bonds. Franklin, and to a considerable extent Manny, owned up to having done something wrong. That goes a long way in gaining forgiveness from the public.

There's nothing new about that. From my too-distant childhood, I remember a pro football scandal (imagine...) involving Paul Hornung and Alex Karras, both of whom were implicated in gambling and associating with organized-crime figures or other "undesirables." Hornung fessed up and apologized right away, served a one-year(!) suspension, and went back to work. Karras threw a hissy-fit, and only when it was made clear that he was in danger of a real lifetime ban (it was in fact decreed) did he confess and recant, getting out of the whole thing with a one-year break like Hornung's. Guess which one of the two emerged with the less tarnished reputation?

It'll be interesting to see exactly how the fans do take to Manny's acceptance of responsibility, such as it was.

You lost me on this one. He's been a great player and will likely have had a great 1/5th of a season, but nobody thinks about extrapolating those stats over the first half of a season-plus that compiles a player's All-Star stats so he simply won't get a lot of votes.

Help me here, though, please. Is it really too much to require players who get paid a minimum of $390,000/year (in 2008) to piss in a cup once a week and/or provide a hair to be tested? In fact, that seems not only like a reasonable job requirement, but also a necessary one considering the disadvantage that players who don't cheat face when they compete for jobs with players on their own team, or on the field against players on other teams, who do cheat.

Does anyone know how much would it cost to test 40 players a week (the active roster) on 30 teams for 52 weeks (a total of 62,400 drug tests)? I'm sure they could get a discount rate for so many tests on a regular basis (ask Uncle Drayton to talk with his friends at WMT). At a $100 a pop, that would be $6.24mm, not chump change, but likely under 0.005% of the total salaries at stake. If I'm a player competing for the big leagues (and the big bucks), it seems like an incredibly reasonable investment to make to insure that no one I'm competing against is gaming the system and essentially stealing from another teammate of competitor.

Would you have to test more than once a week, I don't know, but you get the picture.

But I don't care anything about the steroids issue, and I like to vote for the people having the best season (meaning I probably would have voted for him if he played). I think there might be a lot of people in the same boat.

Spuriousness is the first thought in my mind when it comes to the All-Star Voting. A causal relationship will be hard to prove.

Manny being on the All-Star team will be a telling indication that fans don't care about PED's. Manny being off the All-Star team could be attributed to several different reasons, including not playing for 50 games.

"but also a necessary one considering the disadvantage that players who don't cheat face when they compete for jobs with players on their own team, or on the field against players on other teams, who do cheat."

This is the REAL educaton that needs to take place.

The clean players need to realize more damage is being done to them by the union protecting cheaters than any loss of personal privacy.

The clean player is better served, not harmed, by the full disclosure of the 103 names.

jrwatts wrote: "Whether or not the fans care about PED use is one thing, but whether it is *important* is another matter entirely. I'm not saying that Joe is asserting that PED use isn't important (although honestly, I think his past writing shows that this is his belief), but I think it's crucial to keep the matters separate."

This is an excellent and important point. BP writers often point out that fans don't care about the PED issue. Fans don't care about VORP, either. Why should we ask the fans and then stop there?

I say the following as a long-time friend and vocal supporter of BP: I've been disappointed so far by its approach to the PED question. BP is uniquely situated to take a rigorous look at the effects of PED use on performance, short term durability and long term durability, and it is one of the most important performance issues of this era. Maybe I somehow missed the whole discussion, but I haven't seen much of this here. There may not be enough data or enough certainty about who used what when to say much, but that issue itself could at least be discussed with some scientific rigor.

Columnists here certainly can hold and state personal opinions, but in my opinion, constant snarky asides and dismissiveness towards the issue undermine BP's authority on the subject, while a serious study would ensure it. BP is brilliant at moving us past easy assumptions, taking the lead and advancing our understanding. Here's a big chance to do that.

will this episode give the teams more clout in putting language in their contracts allowing them to void contracts for failures of the drug agreement? or does the agreement prevent that form of seconary punishment? this isn't a-rod being outted after the fact. manny waited late into the off-season to sign his contract, and one could assume that if the HCG was to compensate for past steroid use, that he was hurrying to get into game shape to get ready late. he just signed a huge contract and now tests positive. if i'm the dodgers i look for a way out, and if not push the union to allow changing contracts. that may be a bigger deterent than missing games, given the guaranteed money that performance gets an athlete.

The fact Bonds will remain unsigned, even in light of this suspension, is a joke. He'd look sick in dodger blue!

A-Rod on the ballot is another (and perhaps more appropriate) fan vote on steroids. A-Rod will have played comparably to many people who are voted in. Very few players are voted in who miss 50 games in the first half. He, like Manny, is a presumptive all-star without the steroids story.

No one boos Ryan Franklin? I do, every time I see him pitch. I've booed Mike Morse and Jorge Piedra. I'm pretty sure I've booed Alex Sanchez and I'm darn sure I've booed Juan Rincon. I'm not even that upset about their usage. If it wasn't against the rules I wouldn't even care. But, if there is going to be outrage over the issue and such contempt held for the Clemens' and Bonds' and Palmeiro's over the world, then these guys deserve to hear it too. So I give it to them.