Michael Weiner knew that PEDs were bad for the game, potentially worse for the user and worst for the non-user who’s struggling with the question “to do it” or “not do it.” Instead of squelching debate from within the union like Fehr did, Weiner protected potential users from themselves and allowed the staunch anti-PED player to have a loud voice

One of the most laughable parts of all of this is the concern trolling that PEDs are a "workplace safety" issue. As if it ever mattered to players, owners, fans, media that some PEDs - such as amps - were bad for players. Plus, steroids are reasonably safe when not abused, and that particularly goes for today's steroids. I'm still waiting for users from the late 80s such as McGwire and Sosa - or any steroids player, frankly - to have health problems.

DiPerna, sometimes I think that you love steroids more than life itself.

Darren Daulton has brain cancer. I assume he was on steroids, as he not only fits the profile, but admits to using tons of drugs during his playing years. However, given that, it'd be very difficult to establish a link between a specific drug and his cancer. Plus, there's the issue of concussions; etc. I'm rather skeptical that steroids are all that bad for overall health, which is to say that I tentatively agree with you, Ray.

I'm skeptical that, like many drugs, when used properly under a doctor's care steroids--at least certain steroids--aren't in fact good for you and ought to be widely used by athletes.

Like many drugs, it's abusing them that wrecks your body (ask bodybuilders and WWE performers).

Technically, backne is a health problem.

I'm skeptical that, like many drugs, when used properly under a doctor's care steroids--at least certain steroids--aren't in fact good for you and ought to be widely used by athletes.

I wonder about that too. But then, anabolic steroids have been around for decades. If there were real clinically proven uses for them for injury recovery or strength gain then why are they not prescribed that way? Seems to me above-board, opt-in steroid treatment plans from approved MLB doctors, in which results are carefully tracked and analyzed, would go a long way in taking the criminal element out of the game and building a body of research that would indicate once and for all the long-term effects.

It's time to take the criminality out of everything and start using science to solve more problems.

It's time to take the criminality out of everything and start using science to solve more problems.

QFT. But of course your whole post is reasonable, and thus has no place when talking about science and drugs.

If you ban PEDs, only the bad guys will have PEDs.

Seems to me above-board, opt-in steroid treatment plans from approved MLB doctors, in which results are carefully tracked and analyzed, would go a long way in taking the criminal element out of the game and building a body of research that would indicate once and for all the long-term effects.

If that were to happen, I wouldn't have any issue with PEDs in the sport. But that's not really up to MLB, I don't think, and until the time that usage can be above board like that, then I don't think MLB has a choice but to have a policy against it. So yes, I've always seen it as a workplace safety issue, but more from the aspect that we shouldn't have been asking ballplayers to make a perceived choice between falling behind their peers or potentially breaking the law.

If there were real clinically proven uses for them for injury recovery or strength gain then why are they not prescribed that way? Seems to me above-board, opt-in steroid treatment plans from approved MLB doctors, in which results are carefully tracked and analyzed, would go a long way in taking the criminal element out of the game and building a body of research that would indicate once and for all the long-term effects.

I'm not a doctor or pharmacist, but it wouldn't seem too far off-label if wiki covers all the approved uses, although WebMD suggests the dosages athletes use are quite high.

One of the most laughable parts of all of this is the concern trolling that PEDs are a "workplace safety" issue. As if it ever mattered to players, owners, fans, media that some PEDs - such as amps - were bad for players. Plus, steroids are reasonably safe when not abused, and that particularly goes for today's steroids. I'm still waiting for users from the late 80s such as McGwire and Sosa - or any steroids player, frankly - to have health problems.

Jose Canseco attributes his inability to produce testosterone to his past usage of PEDs. That's a health issue.

Jose Canseco attributes his inability to produce testosterone to his past usage of PEDs. That's a health issue.

He's 49 years old. My TV is saturated with testosterone treatments for guys his (and my) age.

Frankly, the world is probably better off if Jose Canseco has lowered testosterone production.

Boy, the loonies are out in full force today.

It's the science that is the reason behind legitimate physicians being unwilling to prescribe this stuff. The risks far outweigh the benefits.

Boy, the loonies are out in full force today.

And you complete the set?

Jose Canseco attributes his inability to produce testosterone to his past usage of PEDs. That's a health issue.

Jose Canseco also claimed he had a massive penis because it's a muscle and grew big and strong with steroids.

Well steroids plus an exercise routine that features #### push-ups will certainly have that effect.

[Edit: you can't say ####? Oh sure, but dick, weenie, wang, schlong, meatstick, dongue, all those are just fine.]

Boy, the loonies are out in full force today.

Seems a lot like yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, and the day before that...

It's time to take the criminality out of everything and start using science to solve more problems.

"Doctor" Mengele? Is that you?

A-Rod is worse than Hitler!!11one!!!

I'm still waiting for users from the late 80s such as McGwire and Sosa - or any steroids player, frankly - to have health problems.

Give them time, they will. So will everyone else.

Ray has become totally unbalanced on this subject. The fact is that the large majority of the ball players themselves have decided that they do want to compete against PED users. And to reach a point where you start denying that there are any health risks associated with steroids is both intellectually and morally bankrupt.

He's 49 years old. My TV is saturated with testosterone treatments for guys his (and my) age.

a lot of that stuff is problematical. From what I read the problem with male hormone treatments is that once you give the male body hormones, it will stop producing them on its own. So you further the downward spiral. I guess it depends on how far down you are to start with. The same thing apparently does not happen to females, notice there are many aged beauty queens who are still hanging on due to hormone replacement therapy.

If there were real clinically proven uses for them for injury recovery or strength gain then why are they not prescribed that way?

They are prescribe that way -- well, strength gain. And there is clinical evidence that they help a little bit with that. It's just that for some crazy reason the federal government doesn't find a person's ability to dead-lift only 100 pounds instead of 104 or to have pecs that aren't quite as attractive to be medical health problems of sufficient magnitude to warrant treatment by prescription drugs.

Doctors can and do go off-label all the time and most any anti-aging clinic will be happy to dose you up with roids in the same way you'll have little trouble finding a plastic surgeon to give you liposuction. Most of Biogensis' clients were plain ol' folks who have found that turning 40 sucks.

This is one of Bill James's arguments. Society really has little problem with regular people "enhancing" themselves to look better and ward off the effects of aging. This trend seems to be growing stronger. Within 20 years there will likely be tons of people using various methods to "cheat" nature and that as we begin to see this as common and accepted, enhancing yourself may be little more dramatic than wearing glasses. I think James understates the human capacity for cognitive dissonance and to distinguish between the obviously acceptable extraordinary measures I go to and the obviously unacceptable measures that a pro athlete goes to.

One of the keys of the deal is confidentiality. An aspect of the deal that Selig’s ego just couldn’t allow him to follow. The entire sport of baseball is supposed to be the last bastion of class in sports. Instead, Bud Selig acted like Yasiel Puig.

Instead of following the protocol set in the joint drug agreement, Selig sent a baseball representative to make a statement to 60 Minutes. The CBS news show had an extensive interview with Alex Rodriguez’s PED provider. MLB crushed A-Rod in front of the arbitrator and won their case but they had to show him up too.

Some of this is already addressed in other threads, but...

1. If 60 Minutes wants to do a piece on this, obviously they will want to talk to Bosch. It is not up to MLB to decide if Bosch can talk with 60 Minutes; it's up to Bosch.

2. 60 Minutes wanted to ask questions about MLB's investigations and their dealings with Bosch, neither of which are subject to the confidentiality provisions. Their COO led the investigations, so having their COO appear to answer those questions makes sense. As long as he doesn't stray into discussing what PEDs Rodriguez used, I believe he is not in danger of violating the confidentiality provisions.

3. The COO of MLB, Manfred, also happens to be on the arbitration panel. Sending someone from the arbitration panel to talk with 60 Minutes APPEARS improper, and it would have been wise for MLB to arrange for someone other than Manfred to answer the investigation questions to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

3a. Having said that, from the transcript it does not appear that Manfred gave any answers that violate the confidentiality provisions. The two answers he gave that provided insight into the arbitration process basically came down to this one sentence: in arbitration Rodriguez did not rebut nor deny the evidence against him.

4. 60 Minutes did also ask questions of Tacopina (as Rodriguez's representative) and played parts of Rodriguez's radio interview that took place during arbitration. They also (with Manfred) questioned the integrity of the investigation and the credibility of Bosch. Although this was more a puff piece than the kind of investigative journalism we used to see from 60 Minutes, it was by no means a piece that was overly friendly to MLB. It only was friendly to MLB to the extent that nobody other than Tacopina was made available to speak on behalf of Rodriguez's case, and it wasn't because of confidentiality provisions. It was because Rodriguez had nobody. Nobody spoke to the arbitrator on his behalf; nobody spoke to the media; nobody spoke to the investigators; nobody spoke to the MLBPA.

On 60 Minutes, it wasn't that MLB "showed up" Rodriguez. It's that nobody showed up for Rodriguez.