So on the front page of SI.com's football is a story about Ray Lewis, but judging by the excerpt, it's wondering whether people who are tired of hearing about Ray Lewis' "inspirational story" have a point or not. Having skimmed it, the gist is that if you don't like it, tough.

I only mention this because Ray Lewis was also implicated in the exact same steroids investigation as A-Rod and very few sports writers/publications (with some notable exceptions) seem to have noticed the different treatment.

I don't think they'd pursue a contract invalidation. The Yankee/Rod incentive here is the same: if he comes back in 2014 and has a huge year, this stuff goes away. If he's a permanent, injury-prone shadow of his former self going forward, this kind of talk happens every year.

someone defined by his help, not by his talent

By whom? Oh, yeah.

Football only will get hit if it affects the point spread. Gambling and PED's are the nightmare of baseball and the sweet dreams of football. Go figure.

as if it made perfect sense that he used for a last-place Texas team but suddenly would have no more use for performance enhancers upon being put on the New York stage.

OK but it would make "perfect sense" for him to stop using at the time given the beginning of testing and he was on a contract that still guaranteed him $200 M. Given he signed the new contract starting in 08 that guaranteed him an even more ridiculous sum of money, his only possible incentive to use from 2008 on was competitive pride.

No matter the damage control Rodriguez brings, it is a terribly sad story. It is sad because the scouts who watched him play in high school will tell you they never saw a better, more complete player at that age. He needed no help. And now he stands as someone defined by his help, not by his talent.

But does this compute? Assume (reasonably) that ARod used PEDs for extended periods of his career. The "enhanced" ARod is a great, great player (3 MVP, 111 WAR, etc.) but he's not going to break any records. If PEDs enhance performance substantially then how good would the "natural" ARod have been? Does he end up like some combo of Banks (1st half) and Ripken (2nd half) -- amazing peak, good but not great 30s, move to 3B anyway? Obviously it's still a sad story if we somehow lost a "natural" HoF career but, if PEDs matter and ARod used significantly, then the "natural" ARod is not likely to be competing for a slot on the All-Time team.

It's an interesting but common view: It's a shame ARod's numbers aren't "real" because the real ARod would have ... put up the same numbers? been substantially less amazing?

As always, it's a triple bind -- it's a shame the numbers aren't real, the main evidence of performance enhancement are the "unreal" numbers that challenge 30+ year old records, the "real" ARod wold have been as great a player as we have ever seen. At least one of those things has to be wrong.

The ARod we got was Hank Aaron with the ability to play SS which was what we saw from ARod at 20 and presumably what the scouts dreamed about when ARod was 17. Either ARod never had the talent to live up to that or PEDs didn't have a big impact on his performance.

PEDs remind me of the torture argument. Yes it's used. But no, just because it's used by others and my enemies doesn't make it any more ethically proper to use myself. We're better than that.

I don't care. Why does anyone care.

I only mention this because Ray Lewis was also implicated in the exact same steroids investigation as A-Rod and very few sports writers/publications (with some notable exceptions) seem to have noticed the different treatment.

Has Lewis been implicated in the Miami operation? I see something about deer antler spray, but that sounded like a different operation.

I'm getting the impression that the Lewis and Miami clinic stories merely broke on the same day, which is why a lot of writers are conflating them as the same story. But I'm not sure. The whole thing is a little confusing at this point.

"Rodriguez was careful to shield the Yankees from his taint..." Well, thank goodness!

[10] Damn, beat me to it.

Ray Lewis was also implicated in the exact same steroids investigation

I'm stunned, STUNNED to hear that an NFL player might be taking steroids. Do you mean to tell me that incredibly fit dudes that are 6'1' do not naturally weight 265lbs or more...I am gobsmacked...

8,9, well shoot, you guys are right, it's two different stories, my bad. I hadn't been paying enough attention to all of this, which is a sure fire way to look stupid when posting about something.

I don't care. Why does anyone care.

Amen brother. There are penalties against it. There is education regarding it. Why do we need to belabor this? Yes, these people are the most horrible terrible worstest worsts that ever worsted. What would happen if baseball media had to write and discuss y'know, baseball?

Verducci as the high priest of this stuff because he wrote an article in 2002 is laughable to me. He shouldn't be proud of that story, he should be ashamed and embarrassed for missing the story for as long as he did.

8,9, well shoot, you guys are right, it's two different stories, my bad. I hadn't been paying enough attention to all of this, which is a sure fire way to look stupid when posting about something.

It's not your fault, a lot of writers seem to be saying the same thing.

I don't understand why anyone still cares about this, on any level. The sport will never be rid of PEDs - indeed, in time there is a great chance that PEDs will be legal again and accepted; see the change in the laws against same-sex marriage or inter-racial marriage -- and nobody has any clue which players who have been anointed 'clean' are actually clean.

I actually feel sad for people whose thought process is so warped that they would still think negatively of a player for using PEDs, or, even worse, would think that they have the faintest notion which players presumed clean are actually clean.

We have had testing for a decade, and now get hit with this 'bombshell.'

I love the breathless panting about whether the Yankees will be able to void his contract over this.

Um, no.

There are collectively bargained penalties for dealing with this. Contract voiding isn't one of them.

I actually feel sad for people whose thought process is so warped that they would still think negatively of a player for using PEDs

This really is the nut of the matter for you, isn't it?

This really is the nut of the matter for you, isn't it?

Sure. Why not?

Should I pretend the wash of bad anti-steroids arguments I've seen over the years didn't happen, aren't still happening? What about the vitriol directed at players for doing something so many of their peers were doing? What about - I'll use the same level of silliness - the celebration of the conduct by a naturally huge player - Thomas - who had nothing to lose by trying to prevent people not born with his natural size from playing on a level field with him?

If I _did_ care about the character clause, I would not support him for the HOF, using arguments similar in silliness to the arguments we see against Sosa and McGwire and Clemens et al.

What about the fact that even now, after all this time, it can't be shown that steroids significantly impact baseball performance? What about people ignoring the inconvenient fact that the known users are all over the map, from good players to bad to old players to young to durable players to injury prone to pitchers to hitters to speed players to power players to players who saw a significant jump in performance to players who didn't see one. From players who burnt out early to players who played until they were 40.

But... DRUGS ARE BAD, M'KAY

I don't care. Why does anyone care.

Amen brother. There are penalties against it. There is education regarding it. Why do we need to belabor this? Yes, these people are the most horrible terrible worstest worsts that ever worsted. What would happen if baseball media had to write and discuss y'know, baseball?

I don't understand why anyone still cares about this, on any level. The sport will never be rid of PEDs

Amen to all. Seriously, these "revelations" are like finding out that (insert rock star of your choice) is using drugs. Yawn.

Should I pretend the wash of bad anti-steroids arguments I've seen over the years didn't happen, aren't still happening? What about the vitriol directed at players for doing something so many of their peers were doing? What about - I'll use the same level of silliness - the celebration of the conduct by a naturally huge player - Thomas - who had nothing to lose by trying to prevent people not born with his natural size from playing on a level field with him?

If I _did_ care about the character clause, I would not support him for the HOF, using arguments similar in silliness to the arguments we see against Sosa and McGwire and Clemens et al.

What about the fact that even now, after all this time, it can't be shown that steroids significantly impact baseball performance? What about people ignoring the inconvenient fact that the known users are all over the map, from good players to bad to old players to young to durable players to injury prone to pitchers to hitters to speed players to power players to players who saw a significant jump in performance to players who didn't see one. From players who burnt out early to players who played until they were 40.

I agree that the vitriol directed against the players who used PEDs may be better directed against the owners whose tacit acceptance of their use encouraged many players to use them. I can see the argument that players used PEDs because their peers were using them and being naturally competitive people they either wanted an advantage or didn't want to be at a disadvantage.

I don't agree with your second point though, about PEDs not affecting performance. The players clearly believe that they affect performance and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that players came back from injuries more quickly, gained bat speed or added velocity to pitches. Obviously there is no controlled scientific experiment that proves any of this since such an experiment would be illegal. The fact that different people appeared to have different affects from using PEDs doesn't mean that they didn't help anyone, or even most users, depending on how effectively they were used.

Regarding Rodriguez, I do think it a pity that we didn't get to see a clean all-time great player for the duration of his career. I don't expect that the sport will ever be rid of PEDs either, and I hope that one day safe PEDs will be discovered that are just as effective as the Faustian variety available now. That doesn't mean that it's not bad news when a great player, who has been injured for much of the past few years, possibly in part due to unsafe PED use and possibly not, is found to be risking his health for competitive gain. Sports aren't about risking your health to win, they're about competing in ways that promote positive stuff.

Jeter can play SS and 3B next year batting 1st and 5th in the order.

Esoteric, here's my litmus test for being taken seriously on this issue:

"Would you be at all surprised if Jeter was found to have used PEDs?"

I solicit answers from anyone who desires to answer.

indeed, in time there is a great chance that PEDs will be legal again and accepted;

See a bit I cut-and-pasted in the other thread from the New Times article. An AP report said that HGH sales (by the big pharms) last year in the US was $1.4 billion while estimates are that only 45,000 people might have a disease for which it's a recommended treatment. The Feds rarely prosecute these anti-aging clinics. There are tons of regular people using testosterone and HGH so they can look or feel better (or believe they will). I don't know if it will ever be legal but it seems to pretty clearly already be as or more acceptable (to government and general society) as marijuana.

Of course that's not to say it is considered acceptable (to general socity) for use by athletes.

The players clearly believe that they affect performance

They also believe HGH improves performance although studies say otherwise. Some of them also believe that metal bracelets or magnets or St John's Wort or eating chicken have benefits. Players, like the general public, are often suckers who will fall for any placebo that sounds good. If Pujols tragically lost his pinky but hit 50 HR this year, you just might see guys giving that a try.

That said, studies (such as they are) do suggest that steroids increase performance. What's not remotely known is what sort of effect that would have for elite athletes in general and baseball in particular. I'm comfortable with a reasonable assumption that roids (with workouts) help build more muscle (or more easily/quickly) and that, generally, more muscle probably helps you hit the ball farther or throw it harder. But whether we are talking flyballs that go 5 feet farther or 50 feet farther is completely unknown. That said, I can't imagine a steroid benefit large enough to turn the Barry Bonds we saw into a player whose "natural" performance would not have been worthy of the HoF.

Placebos work, if you believe in them.

#23 is pretty much exactly where I'm at.

Placebos work, if you believe in them.

People throw this out as if it's a universal truth, but it's not always so. In fact several studies have "shown" (to whatever degree we believe any particular study) that there is no such thing as an actual placebo effect and that previous large-scale results were due to bias, while other studies have shown that a placebo effect works for some forms of treatment but not others. Given that steroids literally create more of a substance in your body which directly leads to the building of muscle and bone mass (i.e. testosterone) we can throw it out there whether steroid use seems like the kind of treatment that would operate via a placebo effect. Personally I think not.

Placebo ... depends. If you think steroids allow you to work out more often, presumably you'll work out more often whether they're actually doing anything or not. Unless you were already working out as much as your body can stand, you should see "benefits" even if you're taking sugar pills.

If you think steroids allow you to work out more often, presumably you'll work out more often whether they're actually doing anything or not. Unless you were already working out as much as your body can stand, you should see "benefits" even if you're taking sugar pills.

I doubt very much that's true. Even if you did hit some exact optimal level of working out, if you add extra testosterone to the mix your body is going to create more muscle and bone mass. That's just the way it works - increased testosterone directly leads to greater muscle protein synthesis, leading to larger and quicker-healing muscles. Personally I think the placebo argument only hurts the "not anti-roids" position, at least in terms of leading to acceptance by the wider audience of the not anti-roids position. And I say this as someone who thinks the pre-testing roid users should go into the Hall of Fame, and probably the post-testing one as well other than extreme examples which I have not yet personally encountered. To me it's akin to campaigning against climate change science due to politics - it's not really a question. This is the way it physically works. You can debate to what degree the effect is (as you did in your previous comment - we don't know whether the ball goes 5 feet further or 50) or whether we actually want to consider it a problem in the first place, but the effect is there (i.e. increased testosterone leads to increased muscle mass). Throwing out wishy washy science (i.e. the completely unmeasured, unverifiable steroid placebo effect) vs. the mountains of data we have that steroid use increases muscle mass by direct and clear physiological ways doesn't help the cause, it hurts it, because it seems like wishful wishcasting in the face of all the obvious evidence. There's an issue of scale. It seems like a better way to go would be to show studies that increased testosterone doesn't lead to more muscle mass in people who are working out (as there is probably literally no one in this world who is at their exact optimal level of working out anyway). Or that increased strength doesn't lead to throwing a ball any faster or hitting a ball any further. I don't know if there are any studies like that are out there. If there are, for obvious reasons those would be a better argument to make.

They also believe HGH improves performance although studies say otherwise. Some of them also believe that metal bracelets or magnets or St John's Wort or eating chicken have benefits.

I find your lack of faith... in chicken disturbing.

"Would you be at all surprised if Jeter was found to have used PEDs?"

I solicit answers from anyone who desires to answer.

It depends what the question really is. You've said "found to have used," so, yes, I would be very surprised if Jeter was announced as having tested positive. No player especially loved by the media has been announced, and I doubt one will be. Obviously I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to find out that he had used, if I were granted omniscient knowledge of all baseball players' activities.

When I was walking to the subway this morning--I live on the Upper East Side of Manhattan--I saw somebody had put 3 framed Alex Rodriguez posters outside with the trash. It was kind of sad and reminded me of when I was a kid and the news about my idol Pete Rose broke. Kind of fits with the gloomy weather today in New York, I guess.

But judging players' real talent level is complicated by the overall change in approach. Sacrificing contact for power leads to more strikeouts as well as more home runs. Improved bat speed is somewhat offset by improved velocity and recovery time for pitchers. Are we just going to forget all the factors that were used contemporaneously in the late 90s to explain the increases in homers. Smaller strike zone, smaller ball parks, lighter bats with thin handles, better training, body armor, etc.?

No player especially loved by the media has been announced, and I doubt one will be. Obviously I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to find out that he had used, if I were granted omniscient knowledge of all baseball players' activities.

I doubt Jeter, or anyone else, is universally loved. All it takes is one guy to out him, and he will be outed if evidence surfaces.

I saw somebody had put 3 framed Alex Rodriguez posters outside with the trash

Are they still there?

The day after John Lennon was killed my brother saw a guitar sticking out of a trash barrel.

Are they still there?

I don't know, I didn't set up a web cam!

No player especially loved by the media has been announced, and I doubt one will be.

Ryan Braun?

No player especially loved by the media has been announced, and I doubt one will be.

David Ortiz too.

I saw somebody had put 3 framed Alex Rodriguez posters outside with the trash.

Were any centaurs harmed in the making of those posters?

No player especially loved by the media has been announced, and I doubt one will be.

You underestimate the pull of the "say it ain't so, Joe" story. See Garvey, Steve and Rose, Pete for previous iterations. The fallen angel is the best narrative there is.

The thing that's been interesting to me is that "hey, that guy's probably on steroids" has been reasonably predictive - with Melky and Colon and A-Rod getting busted this time around, for instance. However, that only accounts for a third to a half of the revelations, and the rest seem entirely random. so I wouldn't be surprised by any new exposures or positive tests, but that doesn't the outcomes are entirely unpredictable.

I also don't see the case for denying that the major PEDs** help you play baseball better. There's good evidence of the utility of steroids for athletic enhancement, particularly with regard to strength. There's good evidence of the utility of amphetamines for athletic enhancement, particularly with regard to reaction times. One can come up with evidence-free theories of how these athletic enhancements wouldn't help someone play baseball better, but it seems this close to obvious that being stronger and reacting faster will make you better at baseball. It won't transform a regular dude into a professional ballplayer or a bench-warmer into a HoFer, but it will enhance their performance.

**So I'm excluding HGH here, which might really just be placebo. Unlike roids and amphetamines, there's no clinical evidence of athletic performance enhancement.

#29 But there is at least one study out there that shows that athletes get the same perfermance gain on a placebo as they do on PEDs -- providing they sincerely believe they're taking a PED.

I read about the study a few years back in the Economist, and the author speculates about the salesman who sells "undetectable steroids" -- and they would in fact be undetectable because there's nothing to detect.

Now the study in question is pretty rudimentary, but to my knowledge nobody's shown the conclusions to be wrong.

I, for one, appreciate these athletes taking hgh and other new drugs. Hopefully by the time i get old enough where taking such drugs would be a good idea, there will have been enough athlete-human trials so i know which ones to take and which to stay away from.

It was inevitable that the arguments in favor of PEDs should shift from "PEDs are bad, but we can't know who is taking them or not" to "PED use is okay, after all everyone else was taking them" to "PED use is not only not bad, but is a positive good, the more player that take them the better". (The 'we don't know that PEDs were beneficial at all!' is a second, goalpost-shifting line of argumentation, which is often made by the same people, even though it contradicts the first line of argument).

The idea that a practice could be bad, widespread, and also hard to stop seems to create a sort of cognitive dissonance in some people. They want to like baseball, PED use is a part of baseball, thus PED use must be a positive good. It's akin to folks who deny the concussion problem in football.

...it is a terribly sad story. It is sad because the scouts who watched him play in high school will tell you they never saw a better, more complete player at that age. He needed no help. And now he stands as someone defined by his help, not by his talent.

Why would we assume at this point that ARod wasn't using in high school? Seems quite plausible, if not likely, that he was. I don't think we have any way of even guessing how good a PED-free ARod was or would have been.

No player especially loved by the media has been announced, and I doubt one will be

McGwire, for starters.

And while Sosa hasn't been announced, he has been smeared anyway, and this was a player who the media loved.

I agree that the vitriol directed against the players who used PEDs may be better directed against the owners whose tacit acceptance of their use encouraged many players to use them.

Rewriting contracts to remove "steroids" from the generic banned substance clause, and hosting team clinics to instruct their players on how to use steroids more safely goes beyond "tacit."

Lupica spews his vitriol. Has he found time to condemn his friend Bill Conlin yet?

All this time later there is this idea that the government should somehow just look the other way on drug cheats in sports because they couldn’t pin the perjury rap on Clemens that Clemens deserved. But the feds cannot allow Rodriguez to make this just his word against Bosch’s, make this a wretched war fought in A-Rod’s behalf by handlers and crisis managers and spin doctors.

If baseball is going to continue to clean up its sport, something it has done mightily over the last decade, the government has to continue to go after Bosch and his clinic and his “patients.” The government has subpoena power. Major League Baseball certainly does not.

...

You may be one of those who didn’t care what Armstrong was taking, doesn’t care if Bonds or Clemens were juiced to the gills. You may be one of those, like Armstrong’s enablers, who fall back now on the defense that Everybody Was Doing It. But if you believe these guys are cheats, if you are one who believes that what the juicers have done is a form of athletic fraud, then you should want the government to get to the bottom of this with Rodriguez and everybody else.

...

Maybe in the end the truth about Rodriguez is that he was juicing from the time he was a kid. It would mean that the real lie isn’t the stories coming out about him now. The real lie would be Alex Rodriguez himself.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/lupica-time-bring-closer-feds-article-1.1250937?pgno=1#ixzz2JTfmeP12

Why would we assume at this point that ARod wasn't using in high school? Seems quite plausible, if not likely, that he was.

How easy was it for a high schooler to get steroids in the early 1990s? Both in terms of cost and access. And I don't know anything about A-Rod's financial situation as a kid - was his family rich? Poor? Medium?

To be clear, I'm not attempting to imply an answer to the "why would we assume" question, neither one way nor the other. I'm just curious.