Mitchell Report
Soon the results of baseball’s oft-halting, sometimes stymied, pearls-clutching investigation into how in the world those steroids got into the game will be announced. It supposedly includes some eighty names, and will probably include past Mariners. Possibly present Mariners, who knows. If advance leaks are to be believed, it credits MLB with trying to impose testing without noting how baseball squandered previous opportunities to implement a program with receptive players, or the circumstances that led to the union being so adversarial.
After which, Selig has his own conference, in which he’ll say “we appreciate these findings and all the hard work, so on and so forth, and we’ll do what we can.”
Most of the advance recommendations of the report I’ve seen are quite good, and baseball would be well-served to implement them — though I’ll wait on talking about the pros and cons at length until we see them. And, despite my reservations about the whole exercise, I’m pleased that those recommendations are reasonable, and don’t involve, say, torturing randomly-selected players until they finger others before banning them for life.
Inevitably, though, the story today’s going to be names, which is unfortunate. Still, I hope after the initial hysteria, there’s progress made.
Comments
-
USSM uses and recommends
I understand that people are drooling in anticipation of the names, but nothing about that helps the game move forward. ESPN online poll yesterday asked, “Which are you more interested in knowing, the names of the implicated, or who deserves responsibility for the steroid era in baseball?” You can guess which way the results heavily leaned, but to me the question is ridiculous, as the names are just fodder for sensationalism and a magnet for fan ire, especially given the fact that this whole “era” and the sad mess it’s left us in could never have happened without the owners and the players being duly complicit (and even the fans, to an extent).
All that really matters to me as a fan is seeing the game get cleaned up, so that we don’t have this mess again and the integrity of the game is repaired and maintained for both future and historical senses. I see no value in retroactively punitive measures when in the end, the finger should be pointed at everyone.
I thought that was how they got these names…
I just hope people realize after the 2 hours of initial hysteria that this report is probably just going to tell us 1% of the story since George Mitchell didn’t get a ton of cooperation in this investigation.
Could a drug policy make any progress without high profile names? If Jose Canseco’s book outed AAA no namers, would anyone have cared enough to pressure Congress and the MLB to implement changes?
FWIW, Buster Olney writes about the questions he hopes get answered in the report
As a big fan of market driven economics, I am consistently amused at how fans of baseball seem to have absolved themselves of this whole thing. We wanted Home Runs and 95MPH fastballs and the players obliged. We wanted a cheap lunch done in 2 minutes and McDonald’s obliged. We wanted big tanks for vehicles to make us safe on the roads and GM obliged. And then when the adverse side effects of our desires is exposed to us we act as if we were wronged.
I’m tired of hearing about who did what. If the discussion was more about what we will do moving forward then I might care about the Report a little more.
4
Good question, and you’re right, sometimes propaganda or sensationalism is what gets the wheels of progress moving. But I don’t recall Congress having to be pressured to get involved. As I recall, they were plenty eager to stick their noses into baseball at the expense of more pressing domestic and foreign policy matters. I sincerely hope it doesn’t take more interference from Congress to get the MLB and MLBPA to clean up their act.
FWIW, deadspin (and a few other sites) have posted a list of names. This didn’t come from MLB and apparently some of the names have been disputed by baseball. But it is what it is.
http://deadspin.com/sports/is-this-the-list%3F/is-this-the-list-of-players-mentioned-333479.php
I’ve heard multiple people talking about how they want “big names” in this report, and that peeves me. It seems like the people want names they can take torches and pitchforks to.
And I don’t like it. I don’t like it because if a player did do them but isn’t on the list, they’re off scot-free, while a player that might have done them once and never again are now going to be crucified alongside big users like Bonds.
I still think one solution baseball should be considering is a Truth And Reconciliation Commission style panel. Come forward and come clean. If you do, there will be no penalties. If you don’t and are found out, then you will be suspended, you will be fined, and you will lose your pension. And you might be blacklisted.
Personally, though, I think Selig and Fehr should be forced out. They saw this coming. They knew it was coming. This scandal jeopardizes the public’s perception of the sport in a way that hasn’t been seen since the Black Sox scandal. And they let it happen. But instead, it will be plaudits for Mitchell and pabulums from Selig and Fehr about “doing everything they can.” BS. They should be sent packing.
@9
There may be no official “penalties” for admitting use in your idea, but what do you think would happen if someone admitted use? He might not get punished by MLB, but he could lose his endorsements and possibly millions on a future contract. There’s no 100% guarantee that they will be found out later, but if they admit use there will be consequences.
I like the idea of an amnesty plan with a deadline.
As far as spreading the blame around, I am sure there will be alot of finger pointing. However to me, the MLBPA is the primary boogey man. They stonewalled, for years, various attempts to institute testing. Their claims of “invasion of privacy” smelled of smarminess 5-7 years ago, and the stench has only gotten worse.
8-No wonder we suck, we’ve got almost nobody on the list.
the MLBPA is just lucky they haven’t had a Lyle Alzado.
And part of it, too, is not being able to prove a negative. I don’t believe that Edgar used PEDs. I want to believe Edgar didn’t. But I don’t know for sure. Even if he’s not named in the report, I won’t know. But for many people, this will be the proof, one way or another, about these players.
And the “early” list I’ve seen from many sources suggests that most of the guys on the list were either people who have been suspended already, had some swirl of innuendo around them their entire career, or were just about jabbing themselves with needles in the on-deck circle. It doesn’t seem like it brings us any new information we didn’t already know.
But so many people are going to treat this like the gospel truth that it will mean people overlook those we have no information on and treat them as saintly. And the truth is, because MLB or MLBPA or WADA weren’t following them around with pee cups all these years, we’ll probably never know.
We should take this report with a grain of salt, but unfortunately, ESPN and others will just run with it and call for the pitchforks.
so is clemens going to still be the poster boy for hard training and longevity when his name comes out as a steroid user? it’s not like people didn’t suspect him using years ago…
There may be no official “penalties” for admitting use in your idea, but what do you think would happen if someone admitted use? He might not get punished by MLB, but he could lose his endorsements and possibly millions on a future contract. There’s no 100% guarantee that they will be found out later, but if they admit use there will be consequences.
I think if there were an understanding by the public about the amnesty and how it worked, you wouldn’t see that much pain from the endorsements. If Player A came out and said he used and the people accepted it, then Nike isn’t going to pull their sponsorships, because the people would still see Player A as a viable spokesperson.
And it’s far better to be seen as someone who tells the truth than as someone who lies and stalls for years. That’s why people hate Bonds, after all.
smb - I’m with you 100% brother (err.. it’s not sister is it?).
I’m sick of my buddies being ignorant to the fact that baseball, and it’s franchises, has just as much to do with this as the players. Saying “they didn’t hold a gun to their head and make them do it” is a bad excuse.
Also, I am holding on to hope that the list will contain more pitchers than hitters, so maybe people will start to see they weren’t poor victims to juiced sluggers.
Blame goes all around. Football players went to their union years ago and said do something about this or else we have to take it to. This didn’t happen in baseball. Money and paychecks were the driving force instead of moral thinking. I glad this report will name name’s. The players need to be identified and answer tough questions. I’m also glad that what I’ve started to hear is how we move forward. Better testing and commiting to a clean sport from all parties. Also need to test for HGH.
and we all know how that cleaned up football.
If Player A came out and said he used and the people accepted it, then Nike isn’t going to pull their sponsorships, because the people would still see Player A as a viable spokesperson.
Exhibit A: Shawne Merriman of the San Diego Chargers.
What kills me is the double-standard with baseball. Guys never test positive and they’re tarred and feathered. Merriman tests positive, gets some flak from Jason Taylor and sports writers and that’s the end of it. I want this report to tell us what baseball can do to fix this going forward, not start a lynch mob.
By the way, why are some people acting so shocked that Clemens may be named? Seriously?
I’d be curious to know what others think, but wouldn’t you agree that generally speaking, pitchers would benefit more from steroids/HGH/etc than hitters?
Yes, position players play every day, but they are not enduring the strain to a single body part like the pitchers are. I’m talking more about the recovery end of things than added performance. I’m still not conviced steroids make a guy recognize pitch spin any quicker. So, even if we do talk performance, I still think the pitcher has the edge.
i made a comment about clemens (15)…i’ve suspected him for years…you don’t throw that hard when you are that old and recover that fast…he is the name that they have hinted that will “upset” people…his career, if it wasn’t already, is almost assuredly over now…if his name is listed…
Brief PSA: Since this is going to be a very active and emotionally charged topic, please remember to be kind to the server by not refreshing as fast as you can hit F5, etc.
That out of the way, I agree that having witch hunts against specific players is the worst possible outcome that could happen.
This needs to be addressed in a systemic way by MLB and the players’ union, who in my opinion are both far more culpable in letting this problem get to the point that it has than any individual players.
Until the underlying problems get addressed (it pleases me that DMZ seems to indicate that there are real, feasible potential solutions included in the report), naming past/present/future players accomplishes exactly nothing.
you don’t throw that hard when you are that old and recover that fast
Wasn’t Nolan Ryan that old, throwing that fast, and using aspirin or something to recover? Or so he said in the commercials.
We can’t recover that fast, but pro-athletes are freaks of nature to begin with. I don’t think that just because a guy can bring the heat at 40 makes him a ‘roider.
Wow, I had no idea F5 was ‘refresh’. I’ll be…
#19 that’s more of a comment on how valid testing is. Testing is in place, sure, there are way to get around it but if they take it for a period of time they will come up dirty. What I understand is that baseball current system is two tests a season, not really random and not in the off-season. That need to change.
Well, yeah, only it was trainers and strength coaches that they squeezed. I’m disturbed by the focus on big names. They are not needed to get changes - the NFL didn’t need to pillory a few dozen stars, for instance. I’m not sure what the ultimate results will be, but I am willing to bet on one thing:
This is the end for Bud Selig. The fallout from this report, in bruised PR, bruised relations with the player’s union, and even with the clubs, will convince the owners that Bud needs to go.
torturing randomly-selected players until they finger others before banning them for life
If it’s good enough for Guantanamo, it’s good enough for baseball.
Selig deserves a special rung of baseball hell for this mess. Even if he didn’t have players’ union support, he could have done a whole lot more to stem the drug use. But, as in everything else he’s done, he was looking at the short term bottom line.
I’m torn about seeing individual names. People who are marginal players who used drugs I can understand, though I think it was wrong. When there’s something so prevalent that gives other people an edge, it’s hard to stay away.
On the other hand, Clemens is up there with Bonds for me, as men who were insanely gifted to start with and simply cheated because of their ego.
“And, despite my reservations about the whole exercise, I’m pleased that those recommendations are reasonable, and don’t involve, say, torturing randomly-selected players until they finger others before banning them for life.”
I suppose this means we can assume that neither Donald Rumsfeld nor Alberto Gonzalez will be invovled with MLB or any future investiations and testing.
Dont’t get toooo upset, my people…
The purpose of the Mitchell report was to prevent congressional investigation of MLB (basically a stall tactic on Selig’s part) since it has kept congress out of baseball, it has already been a great success. After MLB throws a few players under the bus, it’ll be back to business as usual.
29 - Don’t feel torn. Just use that thing between your ears (which the general public won’t), and take the list of names with a grain of salt. Baseball let this happen, whether they want to admit it or not.
I’m really holding onto hope that Selig resigns today during his press conference. If the report is as bad as some sources think, I could see him making a scapegoat out of himself “for the good of the game, and so we can all move on.” He was going to retire after next year anyway, so this is good timing.
It would end up being one of the best things he’s done for baseball, and we could throw a joyful party. We all win!
31: Perhaps. But isn’t it just as likely that the purpose of the Mitchell Report is nothing more than a cynical attempt by the owners to gain leverage in their acrimonious relationship with the players union? The evidence (Mitchell commissioned by Selig, ownership pressuring non-union employees to “spill” lest they lose their jobs, not giving the union an advanced copy before the document is published, etc.) at least suggests as much.
As for me, I just hope a return of the Colbert Report generates as much anticipation.
well, it is being carried live on mlb.com
“Baseball commissioner Bud Selig hedged slightly on his retirement plans Thursday, saying he intends to leave in 2009 but that he’s learned “never to say never.”"
Agreed, except it might not keep Congress out. Selig blew it. Congress is, was, and (unfotunately always will be apparently, regarldess of which party runs it) interesting in cheap publicity. Congressman Fluffhair and Senator Blowhard know they’ll have more cameras pointed at them if they’re grilling Roger Clemens or Albert Pujols than if they’re aking some random undersecretary of Redundancy about a few billion in mis-directed pork. Only, they were reluctant to do it before, since attacking beloved sports heroes can backfire. By naming names, Mitchell makes it a little safer for his pals to go after the big names.
Can they really be called “performance enhancing” drugs when guys that are stuck in the minors keep testing positive? Let’s just call them steroids and quit giving guys hope.
Not all PEDs are steroids. That is like referring to all meat as pork.
FWIW, anyone testing positive (or in some cases being convicted even without a positive test) in most other sports around the world (cycling, track and field, weightlifting, etc.) gets a 2 year ban for their first offense! Two years!
Until we see something like this (instead of this pathetic 15 game suspension business), I doubt that the players will really take things too seriously. To them it’s worth the risk of a short suspension if it means an extra year of surviving on a major league roster.
Even if he didn’t have players’ union support, he could have done a whole lot more to stem the drug use.
I’m puzzled by this sentiment. I’m not really sure what realistic options were on the table for the owners over the 90s, so long as the media & fans pretended not to notice what was going on & the players union was adamantly against any kind of self-policing.
As I see it, they could have:
a) Publicly condemmed steroid use in an attempt to force pressure on the union, thus undercutting their own marketability & revenues
b) Collectively based signing & contract decisions on steroid specultation (or investigation) - this would, correctly I would add - been regarded as collusion and would have only required one ownership group/GM to break ranks in order to fail, not to mention the issue of added labor problems in the wake of the ‘94 strike.
c) Done nothing & made a bunch of money in the meantime while delaying the inevitable backlash.
C seems like the most rational strategy to me. I recall that Fehr & co fought tooth and nail against any testing regime when it first came up - even the initial, watered-down varieties. Without a partnership with the union, I don’t think there was any reasonable way for the owners & Selig to do anything about it.
If you want to place blame on the owners, I’d think you’d want to focus on the ownership groups of the pre-1980s eras who were primarily responsible for creating the toxic management/union relationship that still exists.
So far, poking through the report now, there’s not a lot of OMIGAWD SHOCKING NEW REVELATION stuff. Well, except that we now know Ryan Franklin got his roids from Ron Villone’s supplier, the same supplier for Mo Vaughn, Glenallen Hill, and Denny Neagle (who referred Villone).
I recall that Fehr & co fought tooth and nail against any testing regime when it first came up - even the initial, watered-down varieties. Without a partnership with the union, I don’t think there was any reasonable way for the owners & Selig to do anything about it.
This isn’t true. When Uebberoth was the commish, because of the cocaine scandals, players were open to drug testing and many of them were signing contracts with testing included. A deal could have been reached.
Uebberoth botched it by imposing mandatory testing without negotiating or even consulting with the union, with predictable results.
Oh, and Franklin shared a supplier with Miguel Tejada.
40 - I guess we just have a difference in outlook. I think your option A would have been the most reasonable course. It could have been done in a “rah-rah, look at how good we’re being” way. Mitchell started his conference with how many high school kids are taking drugs. Baseball could have approached it in the same way, or a number of other ways. That’s why PR people make their money.
The other reason to have done it that way was that you mention the inevitable backlash. We’re here now and it’s a much bigger issue than it would have been if MLB had tackled it 10 years ago. But the owners have been able to make a hell of a lot of money through that time.
I’d think you’d want to focus on the ownership groups of the pre-1980s eras who were primarily responsible for creating the toxic management/union relationship that still exists.
Well, Selig’s just made that a whole lot worse, plus he’s got the GMs, Coaches and clubhouse staffers mad at him too.
Brian Roberts? Wouldn’t have called that one.
I’m impressed with the report so far. It’s very thorough, summarizes everything we currently know, and does a great job laying out the case for the proposed recommendations.
It’s clear they were limited by the lack of cooperation by all sides, but they worked with what they had and left me impressed.
Well, Selig’s just made that a whole lot worse, plus he’s got the GMs, Coaches and clubhouse staffers mad at him too.
You may be right about his approach not being the best way to handle it - my point in #40 was just that I think this is a problem that he & the owners inherited rather than created.
To DMZ’s point (42), I’d forgotten about the cocaine era so I stand corrected on the timeline. I am under the impression that the MLBPA has been pummeling the owners on a pretty regular basis since at least the strike of ‘81. I don’t know what if anything the union wanted in return for coke testing, but I’m assuming it wasn’t a freebie.
Former M’s mentioned in the Mitchell Report (available on espn.com): David Segui, Josias Manzanillo, Glenallen Hill, Ron Villone, Ryan Franklin, Todd Williams, Fernando Vina, Jim Parque, David Bell, Jose Guillen, and Ismael Valdez.
Jack Cust on the juice? what a shocker…
[that's not begging the question]
Jim Parque counts as former Mariners? That sucks.
48 - Part of the reason Selig became commissioner was because he pushed out Faye Vincent. One of the complaints against Vincent was his suspension of Steve Howe for his seventh (I think) cocaine/drug offense and Vincent’s attempt to keep owners from circumventing the suspension.
Then of course, there’s the Selig involvement in the 1980s salary collusion.
So even if the problem was primarily union-management animosity, Selig was a major player in the development of the problem.
would it be indelicate to assume it was some sort of artificial testosterone for Josias?
The use of steroids, human growth hormone and other methods to enhance the human body bother me because one of the joys of baseball is the historical nature of its statistics. However, in recent years I’ve resigned myself to the idea that the biotech revolution is only going to make such enhancements more powerful and readily available. It’s something we’re all going to have to get used to and it will have an effect on baseball and other sports. It doesn’t excuse what players, general managers, owners and others have done and condoned in the past but it’s a reality we’re going to have to recognize as we move forward.
boy, that’s a lot of protein shakes.
55 - There have been plenty of other changes that have increased offense in the last quarter century or so that don’t involve steroids, ie: lowered mound.
So, I wouldn’t get too bummed out about steroids being the cause of all the records falling.
So even if the problem was primarily union-management animosity, Selig was a major player in the development of the problem.
Selig was part of the ownership group that brought the Pilots to Milwaukee in 1970 so he would certainly share some of the blame for the labor/management tension. I’m not trying to claim that he’s been a wonderful steward of the game or anything like that, just that management (& Selig) had a pretty limited arsenal to deal with the PED issue first started to generate headlines.
I think you needed to have someone on the player’s side of the fence pipe up (Canseco) before management was going to be able to do much with it.
That 2000 Yankees team was some serious juicers!
Mike Stanton, Clemens, Pettitte…
here’s a great line from the report the about sums it up:
“Naulty started using steroids as a minor league player, before the 1993 season, because he needed to put on weight. Naulty learned about steroids from other players. After starting his steroid regimen Naulty reported to spring training for the 1993 season approximately 20 pounds heavier and throwing five miles per hour harder than he did the year before. Naulty said that he went “from an A-ball pitcher to a major league prospect in a matter of two years.”
Someone, I believe SI’s Jon Heyman, had Buhner on a list. I have not seen Buhner appear anywhere else. Other than Ryan Franklin, I do not see a Mariner of significance; someone who played full-time for multiple seasons and/or came up through the the M’s farm system.
My sentiments exactly.
I’ve always thought that the actual impact of PEDs was vastly overstated; getting better as a baseball player is much more complex than getting stronger, whether as a pitcher or a hitter.
They help, sure, but I’ve never been convinced that there was any sort of magic pill that would make you hit 20 more home runs a year than you would have otherwise.
Proof steroids can’t help you throw a ball 80 feet: Chuck Knoblauch
“Proof steroids can’t help you throw a ball 80 feet: Chuck Knoblauch”
if you wanna make that analogy, then you have to say
it had something to do with him being screwed up mentally,
as steroids, obviously, are scientifically proven to
do.
He could throw it 80 feet with no problems. Aiming was the issue.
Will this report end the suspicion that Beltre’s monster season in 2004 was due to steroids?
61. Bret Boone is on the list, from the article I was looking at.
Boone’s an interesting case to me. It was pretty obvious when he got off the juice and his confidence seemed to shrink with his body. He blamed his vision, got that fixed, and still stunk.
When I hear the denials of PED use, I’m reminded of a fascinating interview I heard with a journalist for one of the outdoor type magazines, 50-ish, who took steroids as a test to see if they really worked. He did long distant biking, I believe.
Besides the obvious physical effects, he noticed a psychological effect. Although intellectually he realized it was the drugs, he found himself believing he had improved from hard work. Yet he also feared going off and losing this advantage. The psychological dependency of PED was also discussed in Geoff Baker’s excellent blog post yesterday.
I searched the entire report and did find “Boone” don’t know where you saw his name.
there was a list this morning, circulated by both Deadspin & WNBC, that was immediately dismissed by MLB as not being the names from the Mitchell report.
68. Yeah, this is odd. I’m looking at WNBC online article with a list, that has both Aaron and Bret Boone.
Because I’m into instant gratification, I’ve been looking for just a list of all the names, and haven’t been able to find it.
I’ll shut up until such a list is compiled and posted somewhere.
Rotoworld has one. Boone isn’t on it. Either of them.
here is a .pdf file of the complete report
Anyone surprised about Eric Gagne being mentioned?
“Will this report end the suspicion that Beltre’s monster season in 2004 was due to steroids?”
i’m NOT saying that beltre is guilty, but just because he (or anybody else) isn’t in this report basically only means he didn’t use TWO guys to get his hgh/steroids, if he did ever try to get them… and that he was probably better than most people about not talking about it in clubhouses and doing things like sending $8,000 in cash to drug dealers via fedex with your full name written on the return address, etc.
72. I opened it, looked at the table of contents, and saw no listing for Chapter 43: Juiced up players. Yes, I am truly that lazy.
Thanks, SeattleDan, I don’t usually check Rotoworld because I don’t do the fantasy thing. That’ll teach me.
F.P. Santangelo is the one who interests me. He’s been doing on air work for KNBR in San Francisco, the Giants’ flag station. Have to wonder if he’ll continue that work. I’m wondering that same sort of thing as I watch ESPN, and there’s a few old players as commentators. It’s one thing to keep your trap shut because of your own legal situation, it’s another to pass judgment on others.
Gagne–it’s tough that the list is just that, a list. No differentiation between players who routinely used PEDs to do just that, aid their overall, ongoing performance. Then there’s Andy Pettite, who in the report at least, seems to have used the drugs to recover quicker from an injury. That could be the case for Gagne as well. Should they be judged equally?
#73 - The saddest part about Gagne being mentioned is the part about the Red Sox scouts in regards to trading for him. The scout mentioned that steroids was an issue and they still wound up trading for him. I think that sums up the fact that it just doesn’t matter that players are on steroids when it comes to winning games.
Tejada, Gagne, Pettite, the fight for Clemens - these all show that ownership will turn a blind eye to steroids if it means winning games.
I recommend everyone to try to read through the report. It’s actually really interesting and well written.
Juneau- read through the player part of the report itself (starts at like 145). there it breaks down who bought what and (if there’s evidence or interviews) why and when they did it.
Selig’s news conference at 1:30, Donald Fehr at 3:00
So can the Yankees get stripped of there 2000 World Series? Below is the named players who were on that roster:
Jose Canseco
Roger Clemens
Glenallen Hill
Chuck Knoblauch
Denny Neagle
Andy Petitte
Mike Stanton
No mention of A-Rod (despite Canseco’s previous bluster about his second book including “explosive” allegations against A-Rod).
Also, no mention of Ken Griffey, Jr. — he has always had the reputation of being a “natural” talent who didn’t have to use PEDs.
And, no mention of Edgar. God bless Edgar.
I’ve always thought that the actual impact of PEDs was vastly overstated; getting better as a baseball player is much more complex than getting stronger, whether as a pitcher or a hitter.
Strength = Bat speed. Bat speed is a huge part of being an effective hitter. Any player gifted with the hand-eye coordination to hit a baseball stands to benefit by improving his bat speed.
Between my Freshman and Soph. seasons at a JC, I put on about 25 pounds with the help of weight training and creatine and every aspect of my hitting improved. Increased bat speed gave me a split second longer to recognize a pitch. Based on my experience, I think that the impact that steriods have in hitting a baseball is probably understated, because their effects are not just manifested in increased power numbers.
“So can the Yankees get stripped of there 2000 World Series?”
Tough to take away a championship from a team, though the NCAA seems to do it all too regularly. I for one think that removal of *individual* awards would go along way towards putting a “using” player’s career in the proper light for posterity. They’ll be the topic of trivia and trick questions for years.
67 Boone’s an interesting case to me. It was pretty obvious when he got off the juice and his confidence seemed to shrink with his body. He blamed his vision, got that fixed, and still stunk.
I did a search in the complete report (available as a pdf file on CNN’s website) and there were no matches on Boone.
I did a search in the complete report (available as a pdf file on CNN’s website) and there were no matches on Boone.
Yes, and this fact, above all others, confirms that the report is not complete with respect to players who used PEDs.
I’ve always thought that the actual impact of PEDs was vastly overstated; getting better as a baseball player is much more complex than getting stronger, whether as a pitcher or a hitter.
They help, sure, but I’ve never been convinced that there was any sort of magic pill that would make you hit 20 more home runs a year than you would have otherwise.
I think the strongest evidence against this view is the truly unprecedented late career explosions we’ve seen in the last 10 years that have never been seen before in baseball. It is tough to argue with the implication that steroids have enabled older players to do things that their predecessors have never been able to do.
Examples include:
Bonds, who simply went on a power tear late in his career.
Palmeiro, who did the same.
Sosa/McGwire, both of whom saw their power blossom as they got older (though they are a little different than the two above)
Clemens, who, while admittedly being a once-in-a-generation talent, was able to perform at a level unprecedented for someone his age
Can we please not start speculating about who used steroids and is not in the report? That’s a sucking whirlpool of discussion.
Also: late-career explosions are not that rare, historically. Nat Silver did a whole study on this, and we haven’t seen more of these than we used to, even though there are high-profile cases tied to steroids where it seems there are clear benefits.
81 - Steroids don’t do what spinach did for Popeye. You don’t take a pill and POOF, you have muscles. You still have to weight train. Just like you did with creatine.
Should creatine be illegalized? Protein shakes? Should we put a repetition limit on player’s bench presses between each game so that the competitive balance is there? Maybe we should just say weight training as a whole is bad. Barry Bonds and Willie Bloomquist have different body builds. If they both worked out the same amount for a year, Bonds would be bigger. Advantage: Bonds.
I’m not a doctor, and I’ve never used the stuff. But I maintain that the real benefit is in healing, not performance.
Why are people assuming that if they’re not in the Mitchell Report, then they did not using performance enhancing drugs?
Just cause Boone or any other Mariner is not there doesn’t mean they’re necessarily off the hook…
I’m not a doctor, and I’ve never used the stuff. But I maintain that the real benefit is in healing, not performance.
So, in your view, assuming that his health would have been the same (i.e., he would have played the same number of games), Barry’s homerun totals over the last 5 years would have been roughly the same even if he had not taken steroids?
In other words, the only likely benefit he received was his health (maybe playing a few more games)?
off the top of my head, Hank Aaron. Davey Johnson. Carleton Fisk.
off the top of my head, Hank Aaron. Davey Johnson. Carleton Fisk.
Not to quibble with Nate Silver’s study (of which I was not aware), but I don’t think these names make your case.
Hank Aaron did not have a true power spike as he got older. In fact, he was pretty consistent his whole career until he tailed off badly at the end.
Davey Johnson did not have a late career spike period. He only had one big power year — 1973 — when he was 30.
Carlton Fisk did crack 20 HRs 4 times after turning 35. That was impressive.
But compare that to Bonds (who we know had an unbelievable late-30s, early-40s power spike) and Palmeiro.
Palmeiro, after turning 33, had years of 43, 47, 39, 47, 43, and 38 homeruns (ending in his age 38 season). Prior to that, he had never had a season over 40 homeruns. Now that is a late career power surge.
I think Bonds and Palmeiro are different in kind from the names you list.
89 - I’m not really sure, but I think so, yes. If he didn’t have the injuries, he may have hit even more than he did. I don’t think anyone really knows what percentage of advantage steroids gives a guy skill wise.
I believe Barry Bonds’ skills, even without steroids, far exceed almost every single person who has ever swung a bat. To suggest steroids is what put him on a different level than a guy who can’t get out of AAA is asinine.
Babe Ruth proved to the world (with a higher mound, and different ball) that 700 home runs is possible when you drink yourself silly every night, smoke, and the only thing you lift is a cheeseburger.
So, why is it thought that the only way to do it now (with a lower mound, and more home run prone ball) is by use of PEDs?
Steroids don’t do what spinach did for Popeye. You don’t take a pill and POOF, you have muscles. You still have to weight train. Just like you did with creatine.
But I maintain that the real benefit is in healing, not performance.
To suggest steroids is what put him on a different level than a guy who can’t get out of AAA is asinine.
You’ve been busy building straw men.
Are you really arguing that steroids do not have a significant effect on hitting performance?
I believe Barry Bonds’ skills, even without steroids, far exceed almost every single person who has ever swung a bat. To suggest steroids is what put him on a different level than a guy who can’t get out of AAA is asinine.
Babe Ruth proved to the world (with a higher mound, and different ball) that 700 home runs is possible when you drink yourself silly every night, smoke, and the only thing you lift is a cheeseburger.
So, why is it thought that the only way to do it now (with a lower mound, and more home run prone ball) is by use of PEDs?
The only way to do it? No, but evidence suggests that it sure helps.
You would have to admit that Bonds’ career went off onto a different trajectory than it had been on. Obviously, he was a HOF player prior to 2000 (or whenever he started using PEDs). But his power went up dramatically at an age where most — if not all — players begin to see decline.
Could his skills just have naturally changed — i.e., transformed from a young, fast athlete (admittedly, with significant power) to a plodding power hitter of historic proportions? Maybe, but history suggests that it would be very difficult for it to change that much (it certainly had never been done before).
#6 SEC 108: I totally agree. Very well written…
#23 JeffNye: That’s exactly what needs to start happening. It doesn’t solve anything to try and squeeze names out of people to hurt their image. It hurts baseballs image more the more we talk about it.
Illegal substances and cheating in baseball!?!?!?! How could this happen. In a sport where a pitcher can write a book called “me and the Spitter” in 1974 and get inducted into the hall of fame in 1991. His admission of cheating and using illegal substances amounted to jokes, not suspension, asterisks, or being blocked from the Hall. Former Manager Gene Mauch famously quipped “He should be in the Hall of Fame with a tube of KY Jelly attached to his plaque.” Note that’s not “he shouldn’t be in the Hall, that cheater.”
I remember seeing a homemade sign at a SF Giants game that read “Ruth did it with Beer and Hot Dogs” but that could read “Ruth did it with Cork” and still be accurate.
This is a cheaters sport. Always has been. The only thing that fans had gotten up for before was the WS being thrown. Rose should have known better than to do things that could be construed as being similiar to that. But cheating in general?
I didn’t see outrage at speculation about amphetamines in baseball, also illegal substances. Cheating has always been laughed about in this sport.
As long as you’re still trying to win, that is. I guess these players just stole the wrong sign.
Amphetamines, Steroids, HGH, etc. are only likely to hurt the player using them, while a baseball with vaseline loaded on a side can be hard to throw to 1B and not into the stands. There’s far more likelihood that someone else would get hurt by a doctored baseball than another persons steroid use.
And this report is not at all inclusive, even the checks don’t add up to any real evidence. There’s quite a bit of hearsay and speculation attached to some of the names as well.
This is like the argument at the end of a bad relationship. We need to move out and get over it. Forget it, quit dwelling, there’s little proof and nothing at all should be done with this speculation. Fix the problem and quit focusing on the symptoms. This witch hunt is not likely to be any more accurate or helpful than past witch hunts.
Steroids in Football were first known to be a problem in the 70’s, so how foolish does the speculation that it hit the scene in baseball in the 90’s?
#24 Yeah, Ryan could have been backing into the needle. Is there any reason to keep guessing? I’ve heard different things about quite a few names I’m still not hearing. Some reliable sources, but what’s the point of sharing any of it?
We’ll never know. This is all hearsay, speculation and slander.
Because really, history showed these players that cheating was applauded in baseball. Who’s to blame for the state of cheating in baseball?
This is a cheaters sport. Always has been. The only thing that fans had gotten up for before was the WS being thrown. Rose should have known better than to do things that could be construed as being similiar to that. But cheating in general?
I didn’t see outrage at speculation about amphetamines in baseball, also illegal substances. Cheating has always been laughed about in this sport.
As long as you’re still trying to win, that is. I guess these players just stole the wrong sign.
This sounds like an apologist rant to me.
Has cheating happened before? Of course.
But the evidence suggests that this type of cheating — using PEDs — has had a greater impact on the game than the cheating you reference.
It also continues to put the integrity of the game at risk.
So, while you say, “fix the problem,” I’m not sure the rest of your post is consistent with that. Baseball has a crisis of integrity — they should do everything they can to weed PEDs out of the game. Scuffing the ball, KY jelly, amphetimines are (rightly) not viewed with the same urgency.
Could his skills just have naturally changed — i.e., transformed from a young, fast athlete (admittedly, with significant power) to a plodding power hitter of historic proportions? Maybe, but history suggests that it would be very difficult for it to change that much (it certainly had never been done before).
That’s not as outrageous as it sounds at first: the normal progression of elite hitters is from young, fast, XBH hitters into older, slower, home run hitters.
That his skillset changed is not by itself all that damning.
What you might want to argue is this: no other athlete in a physically demanding sport like baseball (football, basketball, hockey, whatever) has had their greatest seasons so late in life. So either Bonds is a singular example, or there’s something to his use of PEDs that helped him far beyond what he’d have done normally.
That’s not as outrageous as it sounds at first: the normal progression of elite hitters is from young, fast, XBH hitters into older, slower, home run hitters.
That his skillset changed is not by itself all that damning.
I totally agree. That’s why I put in the reference to “historic proportions” after rereading it.
Your point is a good one.
Is pointing fingers a solution to anything?
That is the point I used the most words describing. Stop pointing the finger and speculating. Fix the problem.
If you see my main point as being “this is a cheaters sport” you’ve missed the point. The point is that the targets for outrage go far deeper than the random names we’re being given. The outrage solves nothing. Fix the problem and move on is the point.
93 - “Are you really arguing that steroids do not have a significant effect on hitting performance?”
Are you arguing that they are? Have you ever seen or found a study that says they do? Has this -ever- been studied seriously? And if not, why?
I see absolutely no correlation between taking steroids and becoming a better hitter. Hitting requires a great deal of hand eye coordination as well as raw muscle, and even then sheer muscle doesn’t translate into power.
Anyone who plays golf (which is a skill -somewhat- similar to hitting a baseball) might be able to identify. Simply being a musclebound oaf doesn’t mean that you’ll be able to hit the ball far, or straight. There’s far more involved in hitting the ball than that.
I see absolutely no correlation between taking steroids and becoming a better hitter. Hitting requires a great deal of hand eye coordination as well as raw muscle, and even then sheer muscle doesn’t translate into power.
Then why is the use of steroids so prevalent?
I find it hard to believe that these players are not seeing a benefit in their performance — otherwise, why the hell risk your reputation and liberty and health in taking the stuff?
I have seen no evidence that taking steroids only helps your health (recovery) as suggested above as an alternative. If anything, there are injuries that are attributed to steroid usage.
I think it’s pretty clear that there is SOME correlation between steroid use and increased ability to hit a ball farther/throw a ball harder.
What people are arguing, though, is that we really have no insight (that I’ve ever seen a study to support anyway) as to exactly how much they help, and that considering all the other things that go into determining better results in those activities there’s good reason to be skeptical of the actual effect being anywhere near what the general public thinks it is.
Honestly, I’d say that within the context of baseball, steroids are much more useful for injury prevention/muscle recovery than for raw strength building, and that the effect is probably a lot more pronounced for pitchers than for hitters.
I also agree (I forget who posted it) that it’s pretty sad that amphetamine abuse in baseball still seems to be a total non-issue, as I think the potential for deleterious health effects there is a lot more substantial.
The reason steroid use is so prevalent is because it is so helpful to recovery of stressed muscles when used in the proper proportions. Yes, it is also helpful to build muscle strength, which does give incremental increases, but without the ability already there, it isn’t going to make the difference. For example, if I started taking steroids, it wouldn’t have changed the fact that I was a decent high school ballplayer, but nothing special. While yes, I would’ve gained muscle mass, that wasn’t the problem - the problem was the lack of elite hand-eye coordination necessary to go to the next level.
I find it hard to believe that these players are not seeing a benefit in their performance — otherwise, why the hell risk your reputation and liberty and health in taking the stuff?
Millions of $’s maybe? If I could offer you a pill and tell you that it would let you do your job so well that another company would pay you $10 million to do the same work, would you take it? What if I told you I used it myself and had made that much money? Even if you think it might not work, don’t you risk it?
“I find it hard to believe that these players are not seeing a benefit in their performance — otherwise, why the hell risk your reputation and liberty and health in taking the stuff?”
If baseball players thought that rubbing themselves in dog excrement before every game would make them better they would do it.
I am saying that as far as I know no study has EVER shown conclusively that taking steroids actually improves ones’ ability to hit a baseball. If you can find something to the contrary, please show me.
I can buy that taking them might cut down on recovery time, but that’s not the same thing as enhancing performance. Endy Chavez didn’t suddenly start hitting balls out of the park.
100. Let’s say you’re a pro baseball player. You have fantastic hand/eye coordination, but you lack consistant power–the season wears you down, you’ve got those nagging injuries. As you watch fly ball after fly ball die on the warning track, you start to think. I could figure out how to keep the ball down and be satisfied with racking up the doubles, or maybe I could find a way to push that ball a bit further.
And there’s been some rumbling in pro golf, from players, that drug testing needs to start. It’s been treated like a joke on something like “PTI,” but I doubt the players would be saying something that bring ridicule at the least and scrutiny at the worse to their sport, unless they knew other golfers were doing PEDs. Perhaps those golfers have been watching baseball and don’t want a replay of this drama.
The reason steroid use is so prevalent is because it is so helpful to recovery of stressed muscles when used in the proper proportions. Yes, it is also helpful to build muscle strength, which does give incremental increases, but without the ability already there, it isn’t going to make the difference. For example, if I started taking steroids, it wouldn’t have changed the fact that I was a decent high school ballplayer, but nothing special. While yes, I would’ve gained muscle mass, that wasn’t the problem - the problem was the lack of elite hand-eye coordination necessary to go to the next level.
Of course, but the point is that PEDs may well have turned a HOF player with elite power into a HOF player with supernatural power after he turned 38.
In regards to the better hitter argument, I remember reading an article, I believe it was on THT, about Barry Bonds sudden increase in bat speed and if he had never gotten that increase due to steroids that he would be sitting around 680 home runs at the start of 2007 season. Basically they took away the distance his newly found bat speed was getting him. I have no idea if that is scientifically or logically correct but it seemed to prove a point.
I can’t find the article on THT right now but I am sure someone else one here read it.
93 - No. Like I said, I’ve never done the stuff, so I don’t really know the true effects. Have you? Will it increase your bat speed more than training with the use of creatine? Do you have some studies you can show me that suggest that?
94 - I can agree with that. I’m speculating, just like everyone. I honestly don’t know the true effects of PEDs anymore than anyone here.
I guess my biggest problem is, why is a PED so taboo, while other advances in technology and medicine are encouraged to today’s players?
Ty Cobb couldn’t go watch his at bat immediately afterwards to see what was wrong with his swing? The Braves didn’t provide the same quality of medical advances to Hank Aaron that Alex Rodriguez now enjoys from the Yankees staff.
Just curious if anybody else noticed that Mark McGuire didn’t show up on the report. I know that it doesn’t clear his name but I thought it was worth mentioning.
Ty Cobb couldn’t go watch his at bat immediately afterwards to see what was wrong with his swing? The Braves didn’t provide the same quality of medical advances to Hank Aaron that Alex Rodriguez now enjoys from the Yankees staff.
True, but at least part of the problem is that the game was equal in those respects. With regard to PEDs, the game is not equal — some players cheat and others don’t. And then they compete on the same field.
So, perhaps some of the anger over PEDs is intra-era rather than just inter-era.
Here is the article I mentioned in 108… From Page 2 so take it as is but it seems fairly logical.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/060512
“What people are arguing, though, is that we really have no insight (that I’ve ever seen a study to support anyway) as to exactly how much they help, and that considering all the other things that go into determining better results in those activities there’s good reason to be skeptical of the actual effect being anywhere near what the general public thinks it is.”
Yes, yes, well put Jeff Nye.
So doesn’t this report really vindicate Palmeiro’s previous statements and call Tejada a liar? That’s what jumped out at me when I read it.
110 - Depends on what you consider cheating. During a portion of this steroid era, it’s use was not against the rules, correct?
Baseball didn’t ban the use until 2002 (three decades after the olympics, by the way). McGwire retired at the end of 2001. So, can you really be called a cheater if you didn’t break the rules?
Baseball didn’t ban the use until 2002 (three decades after the olympics, by the way). McGwire retired at the end of 2001. So, can you really be called a cheater if you didn’t break the rules?
It was against federal law. So, yes, I think so (assuming he used a federally-proscribed substance).
As far as studies on steroids, there is this from a physicist, that came out earlier this year:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/83119.php
114 - I still maintain that if a substance is against the laws of the US, it is inherently cheating to use it, even if your sport doesn’t specifically list it.
Okay, I think I’m getting the argument being put forward about ‘testing for steroids effect on bat speed.’ If there’s no scientific study, there’s no proof, we have no right to make statements about the apparent results of PEDs use.
But how could this bat speed study be done? Wouldn’t you need to use legit, big league players as the control group? (Can’t see using rats.) And how could you ethically ask men to risk their health and future career to prove a point?
At the least, MLB could argue that players should not use PEDs for the same reason they shouldn’t use cocaine. They injure the player’s health, can cause detrimental psychological effects, and may give that player an unfair advantage.
Thanks for the link to the study, jlc. I hadn’t seen it before and while I’d hardly call it conclusive, it’s at the very least interesting.
I’m somewhat skeptical of the assertion that a 4% increase in bat speed has the potential to double a player’s home run total, but I haven’t seen the guy’s statistical models either.
But really, steroids are the big bugaboo right now because it’s an easy statement to make; “Player X started hitting more home runs, he must have taken steroids.”
It makes people feel good because they’ve “figured it out”, when it’s almost never going to be that simple.
There has not been a study where baseball players on steroids have agreed to have their hitting analyzed. Surprising!
I’m fairly certain that you can find a study that asserts that the use of steroids increases strength. Has increased strength (through weight training) improved athletic performance in the last 100 years?
I know for a fact that bat speed can be increased through strength gains, and increased bat speed has more benefits than just power.
Hmmph. Is this really such a stretch?
115/116 - Fair enough. And, I totally respect your opinion there. Which is why i said “Depends on what you consider cheating.”
Though, this is a tad different, because baseball essentially turned the other way and allowed this to go on. No, they didn’t put a gun to anyone’s head and force them, but they didn’t stop them either.
But, since you bring up it’s being illegal, I’m just as angry at baseball as I am the offenders. Am I saying the players shouldn’t be punished? No. But just like an accomplice to any crime, Baseball, and anyone else who turned away, should be punished.
“I’m fairly certain that you can find a study that asserts that the use of steroids increases strength. Has increased strength (through weight training) improved athletic performance in the last 100 years? ”
Well if that’s easy, where is it? Steroids increase strength? So I can eat steroids with every meal and do no other work at all and get stronger? That’s news to me. Regarding your second point, is increased strength the only factor in that? Improved nutrition, better understanding of human body,etc.
“I know for a fact that bat speed can be increased through strength gains, and increased bat speed has more benefits than just power.
Hmmph. Is this really such a stretch?”
But again - hitting isn’t all about bat speed. Again I think you are simplifying the argument to fit your preconcieved conclusions.
It’s easy to jump to conclusions when you can’t/don’t/won’t offer any evidence in support of them.
120 - I’m sorry, but your days playing baseball at some community college, taking creatine and pumping iron, hardly provide proof to what a steroids can do to someone such as Barry Bonds, whose skillset is somewhere in the range of 7346.82% better than yours was.
But really, steroids are the big bugaboo right now because it’s an easy statement to make; “Player X started hitting more home runs, he must have taken steroids.”
It makes people feel good because they’ve “figured it out”, when it’s almost never going to be that simple.
While there certainly isn’t a one-to-one correlation between taking steroids and hitting homeruns or throwing harder, to pretend that it is more likely than not that there is no (or very limited) impact is equal folly.
The players certainly don’t support that view (including players quoted in the Mitchell report). And they are likely to know more about it than any of us.
There certainly is evidence (if not direct, than unquestionably circumstantial) that PEDs increase performance on the field as measured by traditional baseball statistics. Falling back on the “you can’t definitively prove it” argument won’t change that.
And we should keep in mind that we are not in a court of law — the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof does not apply. We are free to (and should) draw reasonable inferences and conclusions based on the record, even if there remains some doubt about the exact mechanism or extent to which PEDs influence on-the-field performance.
Yeah, MLB and the players’ union pretty much entirely ignored the entire issue of PEDs so long as the people using them were a pair of affable guys who helped bring baseball back from the brink of irrelevance.
I would not expect elite athletes to do anything other than search for ways to give themselves an edge; it is the responsibility of those who make the rules to keep those impulses in check.
If that didn’t happen, which it clearly didn’t in this case, the culpability lies far more (in my opinion) with the people responsible for making and enforcing the rules, rather than those who gave in to human nature and the promise of a big bump to their bank accounts.
PED’s are not limited to steroids. There’s some speculation that there are PED’s that increase reflexes.
The best solution is for the testing to be done by an outside source, randomized more and when a new PED is being tested for, not sharing that it is. The MLB FO is already spinning that it wasn’t even suggested in the report for the testing to be outsourced, in response to reports that it was.
From page 262 of the report (310 of pdf):”As a result of this history, certain characteristics are now widely recognized as essential to an effective program to prevent the use of performance enhancing substances in training and competition. These are:
1.Independence of the program administrator
2….”
Independence from…the governing of the sport it’s testing?
from 263:”Major League Baseball’s joint program was revised in 2006 to create the position of independent program administrator. This reform was a significant positive step, but the program still falls short of true independence”
Sounds like it was very strongly suggested. #1 on the list.
Juneau is right about any studies. How can there be a study?? No major leaguer will admit to it while playing and no non-pro in their right mind would take that risk to their bodies. To say that you refuse to acknowledge any correlation between PEDs and power/recovery until there’s a conclusive scientific study than you’re probably never going to get it. Yes, they can do computer models but it’s not as if you can feed rats (the mice, not narcs) steroids or HGH and hand them a little bat and have another mouse throw them a fast ball and see what happens.
These guys are rightonthecuttingedge of athletics and any help, no matter how minute, will make a huge difference.
That said, I’m not about to chalk up all of Bonds’ power output to ‘roids or whatever. I read the Nate Silver study too, and it seemed pretty well done (from my very layman’s point of view). It simply stands to reason that almost all males add weight and muscle as they get older. It’s terribly common throughout baseball history for players to develop more home run power and lose some footspeed and range.
From the article linked by jlc at #117…
Muscle Mass Boosts Bat and Ball Speed
Tobin reviewed previous studies of the effect of steroid use and concluded that muscle mass, the force exerted by those muscles and the kinetic energy of the bat could each be increased by about 10 percent through the use of steroids. According to his calculations, the speed of the bat as it strikes the pitched ball will be about 5 percent higher than without the use of steroids and the speed of the ball as it leaves the bat will be about 4 percent higher.
here’s some info about the author…
Tobin, a specialist in condensed matter physics with a long-time interest in the physics of baseball, will publish his paper “On the potential of a chemical Bonds: Possible effects of steroids on home run production in baseball” in an upcoming issue of the American Journal of Physics.
Is the American Journal of Physics an authoratative enough source?
I should edit-
These guys are rightonthecuttingedge of athletics and any help, no matter how minute, will make a huge difference-relative to each other and those within their skill set. Ryan Franklin could take all the s*** he wanted- it wasn’t going to make him Greg Maddux.
BTW the “independent program administrator” can be let go by either the Commissioners office or Players Association at any time for any reason. Doesn’t sound too “independent” at all.
“While there certainly isn’t a one-to-one correlation between taking steroids and hitting homeruns or throwing harder, to pretend that it is more likely than not that there is no (or very limited) impact is equal folly. The players certainly don’t support that view (including players quoted in the Mitchell report). And they are likely to know more about it than any of us.”
4 out of 5 doctors surveyed in 1807 would tell you that leeches could cure disease. I’m saying in the absence of ANY evidence that steroid use improves hitting (or pitching, let’s not forget them) it is difficult for me to point fingers or call guys cheaters. We don’t really know what effect on performance these substances have. I agree that it is reasonable to assume that they may have a beneficial effect on recovery times, but that is still an assumption, not a fact. And what is the effect on performance? Again, what did doing steroids do to improve the hitting performance of Alex Sanchez or Endy Chavez? Did Ryan Franklin go from being a flyball pitcher to a strike-inducing 97 MPH groundballer? In fact was there any measurable effect at all on the performances of players like these? I’m not sure there was.
Again, JeffNye, Totally agree.
The wrong names are being published, not that the right names being published would solve anything either.
121 - I completely agree that the responsibility for this mess rests on more than a few cheating players. I’ve already done my rant on Selig; all the clubs that let this go on (by not ostracizing users, etc.), and all the players that didn’t want drug testing are a bigger part of the problem than the individuals who took advantage of the system, or tried to keep up with others taking advantage.
Do we have any evidence that there’s been a competent effort to really, from a competitive standpoint, determine which substances should be allowed and which shouldn’t in baseball?
We have anabolic steroids, HGH, then there’s greenies and other uppers, probably some stuff I’ve never even heard of…it’s a veritable rainbow of substances. Some are otc legal, some prescription, some narcotic. Some suggest a potential boost to performance abilities, some don’t. We have little reliable research that quantifies the effect of substances on performance in baseball. We have unlimited conjecture.
The why behind everything is solved as far as I’m concerned…it’s money and ego on all sides, plain and simple. We can instead look at how to improve the game, which I think includes lots of earnest research, more transparency in and frequency of testing, and a practice of identifying and classifying substances based on empirical research. I just want my ticket prices to help pay for it, not my tax money.
Courtesy of the Seattle Times:
‘Wrote Mitchell: “Radomski charged Villone $3,200 for each of these three transactions. Villone paid Radomski in cash each time. On two occasions, Villone mailed Radomski a Mariners yearbook in which he had placed cash inside the pages of the book.”‘
I KNEW those yearbooks would be worth a bundle someday.
Xteve X,
There is a report linked to in this thread (#117) that states exactly what you’re asking for. Read it and get back to us.
131 what are you talking about. These things are very well proven:
It’s fairly common knowledge that Steroids are used to heal and strengthen the lungs of patients with Asthma.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2004/9/20048802.shtml
“Anabolic steroids benefit millions of people a year, said Karas, including those with deficiencies in sex hormones and burn victims who need to build up their metabolism to repair musculoskeletal tissue. They also are FDA-approved for treating anemia for their ability to help the body rebuild blood.”
Do a search if there’s something you don’t know. It’s nobody else’s fault that you don’t know it.
121 - “Baseball, and anyone else who turned away, should be punished.”
Interesting. “Baseball should be punished.” Conceptually, I can’t disagree - but how can you punish baseball as a whole? I mean that seriously. Baseball benefits from congressional granted exemptions, right? Maybe congress can actually put some heat on baseball by threatening to withhold some of those benefits.
Unlikely, perhaps, but what other options are there to “punish” the entire system? Though you could argue that is really just punishing the owners.
133 Unions tend to fight to not give up rights, especially ones that potentially (have and will) take away income from it’s members by fines and unpaid suspension time. Whether the members of that union are really for or against the testing the Owners had to fight for it and never really did before 2002.
I’m sorry, but your days playing baseball at some community college, taking creatine and pumping iron, hardly provide proof to what a steroids can do to someone such as Barry Bonds, whose skillset is somewhere in the range of 7346.82% better than yours was.
No need to be sorry.
I didn’t mean to ever imply that my experiences were proof of anything or that they made me an expert. And you are right about Barry Bonds being a lot better baseball player than me.
I think that it’s pretty easy logical step to conclude that steroids can help a player’s hitting. From this report and Game of Shadows, some players seem to agree with me. You obviously disagree, and it doesn’t sound like that is going to change. So there you go
Xteve: Somewhere along the line you got the idea that I was trying to explain away all performance increases with steroid usage. Give me a little credit; I know athletic improvements aren’t all strength increases/steroids. My only “preconceived conclusion” is that steroids had a positive, though unquantifiable impact on some players’ offensive performances.
Pretty easy. Typical medical studies can look at the effect at steroids on average humans (typical variability and all that) and state what they are. That can be safely extrapolated (i.e., steroids affect fast twitch muscles, which are can be used for elite athletes for such and such). And certainly, there ARE legitimate uses for steroids.
That said, I still feel there’s too much of a bogeyman effect attributed to steroids and “drugs.” I once asked if there was a substance that could performance by 10%, but absolutely safe and could be done without a doctor’s OK–should it be legal? And the overwhelming answer was “No!”
I don’t think that’s a rational response….
It’s that unquantifiable part that bothers me, though.
It’d be funny if it turned out that you could get much of the same increase from a placebo….
Still, I hope after the initial hysteria, there’s progress made.
Progess would involve letting sleeping dogs lie. There’s no benefit to anyone digging up the past like this.
Selig already threw away any shot he had at progress. He opted for overwrought histrionics instead.
I once asked if there was a substance that could performance by 10%, but absolutely safe and could be done without a doctor’s OK–should it be legal? And the overwhelming answer was “No!”
You’re right, that’s not rational. Because that description covers things like physiotherapy and good nutrition, and those same people would insist there was something “different” about this, but would unable to describe it.
Most people aren’t rational. I’ve mostly given up on humanity.
The next chapter in this will be what penalties will players get. Mitchell said he didn’t think there should be any (with the caveat that the commissioner can do what he thinks is best for baseball). But Guillen and whats-his-name have already been handed suspensions before this report came out. So I don’t see how Selig can ignore the report. Some of the names may have tangential evidence, but some of them have pretty detailed evidence.
gwangung - I see what you’re trying to say, but as i wrote, who’s going to agree to be tested? I certainly wouldn’t agree to be ‘juiced up’ the way a pro ballplayer does/did just to solve this question. And I doubt you would either. In order to get the answers a lot of people want you’d have to conduct an actual study with people using actual PEDs who could actually hit/throw/catch a baseball. It’s not ‘pretty easy’. Yes, we could certainly look chemically at certain steroids and go, ‘hey, these increase fast-twitch muscle response’ and could make a pretty good guess as to it’s real world effect. But there’s no way that’s going to convince people who doubt the performance benefits of PEDs.
You are totally right about the bogeyman effect though. But was it in regards to baseball? And would everyone be taking it? I think all everyone wants is a level playing field in MLB.
[don't do that]
Yeah, I was shocked about how much information was detailed in Clemens’ section. And Segui’s too.
Q Jose Canseco, who played for the President’s team from ‘92 to ‘94, has said he cannot comprehend why Mr. Bush didn’t know that steroid use was going on, on the team. Does the President regret that? Has the President thought about how it was he missed that?
MS. PERINO: Well, the President said — I would point you to the ESPN interview from earlier this year in which he said that he did not recall steroids being used or discussed in that period in 1993 or before. But now that we have this report, which is something the President encouraged, we can shine a light on this problem and hopefully bring help to those who need it, and make sure that kids know that the strength of their character is what counts, not performance on the playground.
Q Does he regret, though, the fact that he didn’t know? Does he understand why he didn’t know? Did he feel he wasn’t paying enough attention, or was it hidden from him?
MS. PERINO: The President said he thought long and hard about it, he just does not recall ever hearing it or seeing it. And I don’t think it’s time for regret; I think it’s time to do what the President has done, which is take time in a State of the Union address to shine light on the issue. And now we have a result of a report that is getting a lot of attention and deservedly so.
148 - Some things never change…
What, precisely, does this have to do with the effect of steroids on someone’s ability to play baseball, which is what people are calling into question?
The thing I marvel at is how easily guys from different teams (competing teams) referred Radomski (or other dealers) to one another. It’s like MLB is one giant fraternity instead of a league with 30 competing teams.
I realize free agency (and all the player movement that it conferred) broke the dam open on fraternization, which was often frowned upon by many of the old time players. But still… you’d think a guy on 1 team would be leery of recommending performance enhancers to a guy on another team. You’re shooting your own team in the foot.
Two of the most dominant performances I’ve ever witnessed were Roger Clemens one-hitting the M’s in the 2000 playoffs (Al Martin got the hit), and Jason Giambi knocking ball after ball after ball off of the Hit it Here Cafe in the Home Run Derby the following summer. When Giambi “confessed” that he was “wrong to do that stuff”, part of the reason I was so upset was that this wonderful memory I had turned out to be a lie. Today it appears that the other memory may be one as well. Clemens has already denied it, and I ought to give hime the benefit of the doubt. You will forgive me, though, if I am having trouble buying it. I read the report, and the section on Clemens was, as others have commented, quite detailed. Could be lies. Could be true. But wait, it gets worse.
My kids (ages 7 and 4) heard me talking to my wife about the report. They started asking questions. I had to explain like this: “Remember when those guys had to go home from the Tour de France for cheating?” Yes, I watch pro cycling with my kids, no, I won’t apologize for it. Although after today, I wonder how I can watch either baseball or cycling with my kids again. I want to teach them that not everybody cheats. Unfortunately, that’s not how it’s playing out. My love of sport is running into direct conflict with my desire to be a good parent. No question which one will win, but I’ll sure miss baseball and cycling.
140 - And, some players think that their veteran experience makes them better candidates to help a club win games than a more talented rookie. A lot of foolish GMs and managers agree.
Doesn’t make them right.
151, Jeff Nye:
131 said “I agree that it’s reasonable to assume that they may have a beneficial effect on recovery times, but that is still an assumption, not a fact.”
You quoted that I was replying to 131, not “what people are calling into question”…
The first study on steroids was done in 1951, and the stigma that would keep people from joining such a study wasn’t always around to keep people from joining such a study.
should read first study on steroids was *published* in 1951
Sorry…please ignore the 1951…true, but incomplete classification…
Here’s some interesting information that answers a bit of that and more…
http://teendrugabuse.us/teensteroids.html
Metabolic and anabolic – androgenic steroids were first studied on experimental animals. The influence of the testis on metabolic processes in tissues other than the accessory sex organs has been recognized for a long time. The dramatic effects on vigor and energy reported by Brown-Seguard (1889) after the self-administration of testis glycerol extracts focused attention on energy metabolism. Early attempts to confirm these results were conflicting and unconvincing. Later several investigators administered extracts to experimental animals, with small and questionable results on energy and nitrogen metabolism (Koch, 1989; Moore, 1939).
Effects of androgens in humans are:
1. Skeletal growth and maturation
2. Effect of bone resorption and bone formation
3. Effect on serum calcium, phosphorus, and alkaline phosphates
4. Effect of testosterone on calcium and phosphorus balances
5. Effect of other synthetic anabolic agents on calcium and phosphorus balance
It’s that unquantifiable part that bothers me, though.
It’d be funny if it turned out that you could get much of the same increase from a placebo….
This is EXTREMELY unlikely. Steroids wouldn’t be where they are pharmacologically if they didn’t have a substantial effect on the body. FWIW, I’ve got a degenerative eye condition where steroids are a common treatment to restore visual acuity among other things. I haven’t gone that route because of some of the side effects but the science is pretty black and white.
What, precisely, does this have to do with the effect of steroids on someone’s ability to play baseball, which is what people are calling into question?
Steroids act to rapidly reduce/eliminate tissue inflammation. Mostly they are prescribed for people who have chronic inflammatory conditions.
In a healthy person, they will limit the damaging effects of heavy duty excercise on muscle tissue, allowing for more rapid recovery. This in turn allows the individual to work out at a higher intensity & more frequently. For a hitter, this leads to increased muscle mass, increasing the total amount of force they can apply to the ball. For a pitcher, it allows them to achieve peak velocity more frequently.
Nobody is disputing that steroids can be used to help build strength.
What people are disputing is that they have any significant quantifiable effect on increasing baseball skills.
What people are disputing is that they have any significant quantifiable effect on increasing baseball skills.
If pre-steroids, I could throw 50 pitches at >90mph and post-steroids, I can take that up to 55 or 60, you seriously question whether it’s going to make a difference?
By the same token you think if your swing yields a max distance of 450 feet and if roids can take it to 460, you think that’s going to add up over the course of a season?
Seriously, if you question the impact steroids can have on baseball, then you really have no understanding of how the body works. It’s not rocket science.
Then it’s quantifiable and measurable, then.
Then it’s quantifiable and measurable, then.
Oh please, for crying out loud. Go to the NIH site, search for anabolic steroids + any combination of search terms related to strength, muscle gain, etc.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/
It’s been tested humans, rats, hamsters and god knows what else.
part of the reason I was so upset was that this wonderful memory I had turned out to be a lie.
No, it wasn’t a lie. Those guys still did those things. They cheated, you say? Hell, Derek is making (I hope) good money from a book that deals with the grand history of cheating in baseball. I don’t feel cheated of any memories, and I have enough worries of my own to be worried about what health impacts juicing will have on guys who made millions playing ball. If they don’t want to prevent each other from using it, it doesn’t bother me. As far as I’m concerned, we could all ignore the entire roid’s issue. Except for one thing.
I dont’ want fifteen year old kids thinking they need to juice in order to be competitive. That’s about the only thing that really matters to me.
And the way I figure it, about the worst possible way to prevent kids from thinking they need to use steroids is to tell them half the guys from the All-Star game are using ‘em. Every previous step along the path of publicizing steroid use has, it seems, been taken by someebody - reporter, politician, or prosecutor - eager to get their name in the paper. Now Selig takes this step in order to… do what? Exactly what purpose was served by this report, especially the making it public part? It has a bunch of good suggestions? Fantastic. I’m willing to bet none of them are new ideas, that all of them were known before Mitchell stepped into this mess. Whatever changes happen could have been enacted quietly, without telling every teenage kid that Roger Clemens used steroids. The Player’s Union wouldn’t have gone along with anything before? And they’re more likely to go along know because… Selig has demonstrated no regard for the player’s privacy? The MLBPA has (legitimate) concerns about privacy, and Selig just sent them a message he can’t be trusted.
I just don’t see any good coming of this. At all. What a catastrophe the Commissioner has hatched.
JMHawkins: All true except that this list has players that weren’t All-Stars outweighing the All-Stars.
The public perception that it’s a failsafe way to “turn yourself into an ‘All-Star’” is shown to be flawed more by this list than any that’s come out before. I still think the game would have been better served to go 100% after trying to remove all PED’s sooner. The fact that you’re talking about getting employees who have a strong union to agree to testing and they did start too late made it difficult for things to get going much quicker than they have. I really think making 5%+ the benchmark for implementing testing was a masterstroke to getting the union to agree. Unfortunately things got to that point years behind the need. The fact that it’s been 10 years since the media got all over Steroid speculation and 5 years since first testing and they’re still digging up bodies rather than locking up the killer is a bit depressing.
Any big surprise that Rocker the Nazi Neanderthal is also on this list?
But, but…who’s doing greenies?!? That really turned into an offensive explosion, so amphetamines+steroids must be some sort of superpowered combo. Plus, then you have to consider LSD…if LSD led to Ellis throwing a no hitter it must be important. And then…the Olympics has a caffeine limit, drink too coffee and you’re out. So we need to look for that too. No more Starbucks for players.
I’m not saying steroid use shouldn’t be dealt with harshly, but look at how the current generation of athletes has leapt forward in every sport. Before my knee went I could do a marathon faster than the first Olympic winner. Which didn’t make me good at all. Weight training, diet regimens, training year-round, hard science on bats and other equipment…and things are constantly making it easier for strange things to happen that wouldn’t have happened in the past. Attacking players just because their careers take a strange path is counterproductive to cleaning up the sport. Effective, random testing with real consequences is a much better solution than jumping on the back of anyone who has a career year.
The only sense I can make of this is that Selig saw this as the best way to further testing. With this many names I would think the Players Association would want the investigations to stop before more come out. The best way to move on is to get testing up to the standards put forth in the Mitchell report, which Selig said they plan to start implementing as soon as possible (all 20 bullets). I didn’t quite understand the need for an HGH Summit to figure out how to test for HGH when there are ways to test for it presently. The only thing that’s really stopping the sport from moving on is that most people seem to think that the present testing is a joke, so the bargaining chip at this point would seem to be ‘more investigations, or PED reform.’ I think the PA would agree to the reform suggestions put forth pretty quickly if those are the choices.
That may have nothing to do with it at all though, we’ll see…
Nobody is disputing that steroids can be used to help build strength.
What people are disputing is that they have any significant quantifiable effect on increasing baseball skills.
I mean, seriously, comments like this one start to sound a lot like the folks who continue to dispute global warming. Is their iron-clad, irrefutable, 100% certain evidence that humans are contributing to global warming? No. But the scientific community has seen enough, studied enough, and know enough to conclude that it is happening.
The same is true of steroids giving an edge in on-the-field performance. It really isn’t that complicated. And, despite the fact that you want to be a skeptic and look at the issue critically, you can only bury your head in the sand for so long.
For crying out loud yourself, that’s NOT what I’m asking–nor is it good rhetoric. Yes, we know steroids can add strength and muscle—but is there a cost in other attributes such as flexibility (or some other factors)? Some people claim there’s an increase in bat speed, but is that something that’s supported by the literature?
And when someone asks for some quantifiable parameters, it’s extremely poor form to tell folks to set up a search themselves. You’re saying there’s support–you’re the ones who should set up the search parameters and present the results.
Again, give me an idea of how much—how much is separable from placebo effects? How much separable from a focussed exercise program or nutritional program? What are the relative contributions of each? Even ballpark figures would be helpful.
Good point, but there’s enough research out there to get ball park estimates of the severity of the problem and some probable models of how human activity contributes.
That’s what I’m asking here, is for a better idea of how much, and how it compares with placebo effects and non-enhanced training. Is there effects from use alone? Or is it from more rapid recovery from the effects of training? A synergy between the two? And what costs to other parts of the game is there, if any?
I am surprised there has not been more discussion about how this impacts placing value on player’s abilities. How do you take into account illegal drug use by players? When that player is traded do you expect them to keep abusing the same performance enhancing drugs? Should you have a system in place in your minor leagues to prevent players from using drugs? The current system is not working as shown by this report. What will happen to players if steroids and human growth hormone are really removed from baseball?
Bill Plaschke has an interesting article today about how steroid use has effected the Dodgers over the last decade: Bill Plaschke.
After reading this article would you still want to trade with the Dodgers?
Ok, I clearly do not know how to hot link an article. Here is the URL: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschkela14dec14,1,5849997.column?coll=la-headlines-sports
There has been a LOT more exhaustive research done in regards to global warming than there has been on the effects of steroids on baseball performance.
The science is better, and there is a lot more of it.
I will say this yet again; no one is disputing that there IS an effect. What people are disputing is whether we have enough solid science to be able to QUANTIFY the effect.
It was against federal law. So, yes, I think so (assuming he used a federally-proscribed substance).
But not the rules of baseball. It would be paternalistic of baseball to pursue these players.
Read the dissenting opinion of Justice Gray from Riggs v. Palmer. Since the rules that prohibited pre-2002 steroid use were not baseball’s rules, it’s not baseball’s place to impose sanction for their violation.
…If it was not obtained through a valid prescription it was illegal according to baseballs rules since 1971.
Bonds went from a home run in 1 out of 16 ABs in his mid-30’s to a home run in 1 out of 8 — at the age of 39. Better conditioning?
just as an aside, if you want the cooperation of the MLBPA, wouldn’t it have been polite to give Donald Fehr a copy of the report when you gave Selig a copy of the report?
whoever is still saying that there’s little/no proof that steroids can help a baseball player…Did any of you read the link on #117 “Studying the Physics of Baseball” or are you all arguing that that isn’t proof enough?
Apparently, Jeff Nye, you’re no longer saying that, but did the article really not satisfy your need for quantification, or have you not opened the link either?
If you take a guy that’s scrawny and limber then add 80 lbs to him the muscles will get in the way of the movement of certain joints thereby inhibiting that persons flexibility. If a ballplayer is taking steroids to bulk up the weight gain will inhibit their movement, yes.
#179: Sure. Bonds spends more on training/diet a year than the average person in Indiana makes yearly….
Bonds went from a home run in 1 out of 16 ABs in his mid-30’s to a home run in 1 out of 8 — at the age of 39. Better conditioning?
Bonds walks so much it skews the AB number. Look at his HR/PA.
And then, compare that to the HR/PA progression through Hank Aaron’s career. They’re remarkably similar.
…If it was not obtained through a valid prescription it was illegal according to baseballs rules since 1971
Mitchell makes the same argument in his report, and you’re both wrong. While the commissioners kept putting in “rules” against steroids, that sort of rule is subject to collective bargaining, so it didn’t count until the MLBPA agreed to it in 2002.
Having now read Mitchell’s report, some of the evidence he brings against some players is remarkably sketchy. Many of the players are implicated by a lone informant with a bunch of cancelled cheques that could have been for anything.
no one is disputing that there IS an effect. What people are disputing is whether we have enough solid science to be able to QUANTIFY the effect.
So, a little cheating is morally OK, but a lot is not?
Or cheating we can delineate down to the gnat’s ass should be punished, but cheating whose effects are acknowledged but not quantified has to be allowed or ignored?
180 - I think Mitchell said he gave both Selig and Fehr 3 days to look at the report. There is a statement from Fehr in the report talking about the unfairness of revealing secret test results.
Or cheating we can delineate down to the gnat’s ass should be punished, but cheating whose effects are acknowledged but not quantified has to be allowed or ignored?
Right on. I often wonder what the player who decided not to take PEDs thinks about the users getting a free pass because we couldn’t “quantify” how much they benefited. The guy didn’t have the guts to roll the dice and take a drug with dangerous and long lasting side effects, but the guy who did is still collecting huge paychecks based on his juiced up mega-seasons. Tough luck for him, I guess.
So, a little cheating is morally OK, but a lot is not?
Cheating is morally neutral. The question is whether the offenders warrant sanction under Selig’s “integrity of the game” powers.
I understood that Selig got 3 days and Fehr got an hour.
While not the end-all report on steroids and baseball, this is still good reading.
http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff/images/DeVanyHomeRunMS.pdf
Bonds walks so much it skews the AB number. Look at his HR/PA.
And then, compare that to the HR/PA progression through Hank Aaron’s career. They’re remarkably similar.
No, they really aren’t. Bonds and Aaron, despite a number of folks suggesting otherwise in this thread, really don’t have similar career arcs. Bonds transformed himself in his mid-30s. Aaron stayed relatively consistent.
For Aaron:
Age 25 season: 17.7 PAs per HR
28: 14.8
30: 26.4
32: 15.6
35: 14.5
36: 15.7
38: 16
42: 30.8
And now Bonds:
25: 18.8
28: 14.6
30: 19.2
32: 17.25
35: 12.4
36: 9.1
38: 12.2
42: 17
There really isn’t much similarity, frankly. Aaron should not be used to “explain” Bonds’ remarkable late-career power surge. They were different in kind.
I, Mitchell and the rules were not referring to steroids per se, but possessing or taking any controlled substance that was not legally prescribed by a doctor. This says nothing at all about testing, which the CBA would not have supported.
I totally agree about the sketchy proof from sources. They’re still being called allegations, which amounts to the same as ‘he-said-she-said.’
189 - Thanks for the correction. I guess that’s the problem trying to watch TV and work at the same time.
Fehr seemed almost pissed and under pressure at the same time while explaining that he hadn’t had time to look over it and would have further comment on it once he had.
Mitchell makes the same argument in his report, and you’re both wrong. While the commissioners kept putting in “rules” against steroids, that sort of rule is subject to collective bargaining, so it didn’t count until the MLBPA agreed to it in 2002.
I believe it’s not the rule itself that is required to be collectively bargained. It’s the mandatory testing.
So, a little cheating is morally OK, but a lot is not?
Or cheating we can delineate down to the gnat’s ass should be punished, but cheating whose effects are acknowledged but not quantified has to be allowed or ignored?
If only there was a book out there that could explain the long history of cheating in baseball, and perhaps place this in the proper context…
183 — I disagree with you that HR/PA is the better metric for judging Bonds. The suggestion would be that the better home run percentage stems from plate discipline.
But in his age 39 year, Bonds had 120 intentional walks. Aaron had 13. Intentional walks tell you nothing quantitative or qualitative about a hitter’s power, except inferentially that the recipient of the IBB(Bonds is that all time leader) has substantial power (in his age 39 season). Take out the IBB’s and the difference between the Bonds and Aaron even with respect to PA’s is even more stark.
The suggestion would be that the better home run percentage stems from plate discipline.
Hey, and guess what - steroids also help improve visual acuity and are a treatment for an array of eye ailments. I’m guessing no one has done a study on healthy people (would be pretty unethical to say the least given the long-term complications) but there’s some anecdotal evidence:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/060512
“More on confidence: “Game of Shadows” reports that performance enhancers improved Bonds’ eyesight, helping him track pitches. Coincidence? Not necessarily. Extra bat speed means extra time to differentiate between a fastball and a slider.”
So I’m a little curious now. Back a decade or so when offensive numbers were starting to take off one of the explanations mentioned was the “juiced ball.” Were a lot of people in the know back then and the “juiced ball” was really just a euphemism for “juiced players?”
More like two decades now, the explanation is associated particularly with the year 1987. Home runs spiked dramatically that year (when McGwire set the rookie HR record, incidentally), then fell back to a lower level the next year. As a temporary phenomenon involving a lot of players - Wade Boggs breaking 20 HRs - it’s generally thought that the ball was indeed different that year, and attributing it mostly to steroids would leave a lot of unanswered questions. So no, it wasn’t purely a euphemism.
OK, now THAT is what I was asking for (and thank you!). That articles details how, why, where steroids could help and estimates (and in a way where we can see where the fiddle marks are) what the effects were.
So I’m a little curious now. Back a decade or so when offensive numbers were starting to take off one of the explanations mentioned was the “juiced ball.” Were a lot of people in the know back then and the “juiced ball” was really just a euphemism for “juiced players?”
Derek had a pretty good take on this over at his Cheater’s Guide site:
He also notes, via comments from Bobby Valentine, that at least some smart people in the game didn’t immediately realize what was going on.
Any Tom Toles fans? Here’s his take.
http://www.gocomics.com/tomtoles/2007/12/14/
Fehr seemed almost pissed and under pressure at the same time…
Yeah, I’d guess that Fehr is pretty P.O’d and that the way this was handled will really complicate the process of actually solving the problem. The Player’s Union is the key - they have to sign on to any real testing program and punishment schedule. If I were representing the player’s (and realized something was inevitable given the scrutiny), I would want to negotiate for three main things: amnesty, confidentiality, and a combination due process/benefit of the doubt.
Amnesty - what happened years ago happened years ago, and lots of people are responsible, so nothing good would come from punishing guys who juiced years ago.
Confidentiality - No one should have his name officially associated with PEDs except when absolutely necessary. E.g., if he tests positive, appeals and wins the appeal, no one ever knows (call this the Travis Henry rule if you want). The only time the public hears someone’s name is when they have exhausted the appeals process and begin their suspension/penalty, etc. Otherwise, it’s treated like medical information and treated like HIPPA.
Due process/benefit of the doubt - hearsay, speculation and one-off test results are not sufficient to punish a player.
This report spectacularly violates every single one of those points. Okay, enough. I’m all done bagging on Mitchell and Selig and this stupid fiasco.
well, good, because the Pres sez we should just put the steeroideera behind us.
Can we start another topic to talk about the Haren trade? I’m all steeroided out at the moment, and would like to put this topic behind me.