Haven't we done this before?

So, this was Bud's initial proposal, right?

Good.

Yeah, this obviously changes everything. In some way.

So, Barroids will retire in the offseason?

Funny that it was congressional leakers instead of bud's own. I wonder about the many details not leaked here: testing frequency, the drug list, appeals process and the like. Today's Tuesday, right? so when is the announcement?

So, Barroids will retire in the offseason?

I never understood people who thought Bonds was trying to avoid testing positive for steroids. There was a testing policy in place in 2004, and he played all season. Even on the DL, he was supposed to be tested for steroids in 2005.

Unless this policy mandates blood tests, nothing has changed.

I hear Jim Bunning is holding out for a deal where any player who tests positives will be forced to commit hari-kari on Sunday night baseball.

According to Will Carroll Bonds was tested 3 times this season.

As for the new agreement, I would like to have seen blood testing added, but for the initial penalty to be only 20 games or so.

Question... Why is "Seattle" related? Morse and Strong, perhaps?

Someone complains that this isn't enough in 3...2...1...

Question... Why is "Seattle" related? Morse and Strong, perhaps?

Yeah, I was just being a smartass.

Someone complains that this isn't enough in 3...2...1...

I say we pre-emptively give lifetime bans to all MLB players forthwith. You can't be too careful - it's for the children.

I'm digging to get the actual amendment to the JDA at the moment. Dying to see what kind of wiggle room there is in the agreement to deal with the "Mike Morse" issue.

I say we pre-emptively give lifetime bans to all MLB players forthwith. You can't be too careful - it's for the children.

I hope those people who got custody of the children also loses custody too, you can't be too careful.

I hope those people who got custody of the children also loses custody too, you can't be too careful.

would that apply to Steve Garvey's children, too?

that might require a whole 'nother bill

My understanding is that upon a third positive the lifetime ban is appealable after two years away from the game with the Commissioner having full discretion to reinstate an employees. Ooops, I mean player. Too wrapped up in my own CBA negotiations.

I have also heard that apmphetimines are covered by this agreement, except those contained in cold medications.

I say we pre-emptively give lifetime bans to all MLB players forthwith. You can't be too careful - it's for the children.

Not enough. I say we ban everyone currently alive and require anyone wishing to become an MLB player to present drug test results dating back to their birth, and a full genetic analysis proving they weren't genetically modified, and full drug test results for their mother from her birth until their own.

Obviously, the tests would be at their own expense until they start playing.

Here's the the amended version of the JDA (still needs to be ratified)

Summary of New Joint Drug Agreement

I. Penalties for Steroids

A. Test Results

1. First positive: 50 games

2. Second positive: 100 games

3. Third positive: Lifetime ban, subject to right to seek reinstatement after two years of suspension, with arbitral review of reinstatement decision.

B. Conviction for Possession

1. First offense - 60 to 80 games

2. Second offense - 120 games to 1 year

3. Third offense - Lifetime ban, subject to right to seek reinstatement after two years of suspension, with arbitral review of reinstatement decision.

C. Conviction for Distribution

1. First offense - 80 to 100 games

2. Second offense - Lifetime ban, subject to right to seek reinstatement after two years of suspension, with arbitral review of reinstatement decision.

II. Amphetamines

A. Suspicionless testing for amphetamines and other amphetamine-like stimulants during regular season and post-season

B. Disciplinary schedule for positive tests

1. First positive: Mandatory follow-up testing
2. Second positive: 25 games
3. Third positive: 80 games
4. Fourth positive: Discipline imposed by the Commissioner up to and including a lifetime ban, with arbitral review.

C. Conviction of Possession

1. First offense: 15 to 30 games

2. Second offense: 30 to 90 games

3. Third offense: 1 year

4. Fourth offense: Discipline imposed by the Commissioner up to and including a lifetime ban, with arbitral review.

D. Conviction for Distribution

1. First offense: 60 - 90 games

2. Second offense: 2 years

3. Third offense: Discipline imposed by the Commissioner up to and including a lifetime ban, with arbitral review.

III. Frequency of Testing

A. Every player will have:

1. A pre-season test in connection with spring training physicals.
2. An unannounced test during the season on a randomly selected date

B. There will be additional, year-round random testing

1. No matter how many times a player is tested, he remains subject to an additional random test

2. Testing will occur during the off-season

IV. Independent Administrator

A. Health Policy Advisory Committee ("HPAC") responsibilities reduced substantially.

B. An independent person, not affiliated with Baseball or the Major League Baseball Players Association, will be responsible for:

1. The scheduling of tests
2. Supervision of the collection process
3. Transportation of samples to the WADA-Certified Laboratory
4. Oversight of the laboratory
5. Reporting of positives

V. Governmental Investigations --

A. Agreement expressly recognizes the parties' cooperation with Congressional investigations.

I have also heard that apmphetimines are covered by this agreement, except those contained in cold medications.

So crystal meth is okay then!

My understanding is that upon a third positive the lifetime ban is appealable after two years away from the game with the Commissioner having full discretion to reinstate an employees. Ooops, I mean player. Too wrapped up in my own CBA negotiations.

Good. There should always be a way to reverse a lifetime ban.

I have also heard that apmphetimines are covered by this agreement, except those contained in cold medications.

We should be paying attention this spring to see who is sneezing more often.

Not enough. I say we ban everyone currently alive and require anyone wishing to become an MLB player to present drug test results dating back to their birth, and a full genetic analysis proving they weren't genetically modified, and full drug test results for their mother from her birth until their own.


Liberal rubbish!!

You forgot to add that ALL players must submit, to all citizens of the USA, a note thanking them for their support, and containing a promise never to do anything bad to themselves or anyone else, and to express remorse for taking money to play a kid's game

(oh, and no player is allowed to be the highest paid player in the game)

Wow....they really went after the greenies quite strong too. Surprised they got that through so quickly.

I have also heard that apmphetimines are covered by this agreement, except those contained in cold medications.

What about medication for ADHD?

Interesting that distribution is part of the new agreement. "Miggy Provision"?

Summary of New Joint Drug Agreement

I. Penalties for Steroids

A. Test Results

1. First positive: 50 games

2. Second positive: 100 games

3. Third positive: Lifetime ban, subject to right to seek reinstatement after two years of suspension, with arbitral review of reinstatement decision.

B. Conviction for Possession

1. First offense - 60 to 80 games

2. Second offense - 120 games to 1 year

3. Third offense - Lifetime ban, subject to right to seek reinstatement after two years of suspension, with arbitral review of reinstatement decision.

C. Conviction for Distribution

1. First offense - 80 to 100 games

2. Second offense - Lifetime ban, subject to right to seek reinstatement after two years of suspension, with arbitral review of reinstatement decision.

II. Amphetamines

A. Suspicionless testing for amphetamines and other amphetamine-like stimulants during regular season and post-season

B. Disciplinary schedule for positive tests

1. First positive: Mandatory follow-up testing
2. Second positive: 25 games
3. Third positive: 80 games
4. Fourth positive: Discipline imposed by the Commissioner up to and including a lifetime ban, with arbitral review.

C. Conviction of Possession

1. First offense: 15 to 30 games

2. Second offense: 30 to 90 games

3. Third offense: 1 year

4. Fourth offense: Discipline imposed by the Commissioner up to and including a lifetime ban, with arbitral review.

D. Conviction for Distribution

1. First offense: 60 - 90 games

2. Second offense: 2 years

3. Third offense: Discipline imposed by the Commissioner up to and including a lifetime ban, with arbitral review.

III. Frequency of Testing

A. Every player will have:

1. A pre-season test in connection with spring training physicals.
2. An unannounced test during the season on a randomly selected date

B. There will be additional, year-round random testing

1. No matter how many times a player is tested, he remains subject to an additional random test

2. Testing will occur during the off-season

IV. Independent Administrator

A. Health Policy Advisory Committee ("HPAC") responsibilities reduced substantially.

B. An independent person, not affiliated with Baseball or the Major League Baseball Players Association, will be responsible for:

1. The scheduling of tests
2. Supervision of the collection process
3. Transportation of samples to the WADA-Certified Laboratory
4. Oversight of the laboratory
5. Reporting of positives

V. Governmental Investigations --

A. Agreement expressly recognizes the parties' cooperation with Congressional investigations.

Nobody loses their children? (drumroll) THIS ISN'T ENOUGH!!!

Best Regards

John

What about medication for ADHD?

I'd assume that any treatment for a diagnosed, recognized medical condition would be allowed. That would potentially create other problems, but I don't think they can get around it.

I think the unlimited testing allowed is a bit drastic. Should a player really have to be tested, say, 1,000 times in a year? Shouldn't there be a limit? I understand they never want to rule out one more, but they should have a maximum they'll never go near.

Will this be a real lifetime ban or a Steve Howe lifetime ban?

From the Press Release:

Commencing next season, Major League Baseball also will increase the frequency of testing. Under the new policy, every player will be tested at least twice during the season. The program of year-round random testing will also be expanded. All players will remain subject to additional random tests (beyond the mandatory two tests) no matter how many times they have been tested.

Major League Baseball and the Players Association also agreed that the scheduling of tests, the collection of samples, the implementation of the parties' agreement with the World Anti-Doping Agency Certified Laboratory and the reporting of positive tests results to the parties will be turned over to a new Independent Program Administrator, unaffiliated with either Major League Baseball or the Players Association. Previously, the Health Policy Advisory Committee, comprised of management and union representatives, was responsible for these tasks.

Previously, the Health Policy Advisory Committee, comprised of management and union representatives, was responsible for these tasks.

One wonders if removing HPAC, the union and management from this process if the turnaround will be quicker, or...

Commencing next season, Major League Baseball also will increase the frequency of testing. Under the new policy, every player will be tested at least twice during the season. The program of year-round random testing will also be expanded. All players will remain subject to additional random tests (beyond the mandatory two tests) no matter how many times they have been tested.

Option J has saved the day?

Best Regards

John

Will this be a real lifetime ban or a Steve Howe lifetime ban?

Left-handed relievers will be exempt, under the Protection of Valuable Resources Act (aka Tony's Law).

Guess the Padres will be dumping Ben Johnson soon.

1. No matter how many times a player is tested, he remains subject to an additional random test

That's the best sentence in the whole agreement. None of this "well, I don't have to worry about being tested again this year" stuff.

And three cheers for "coercion." This deal never would have happened without it.

My understanding is that upon a third positive the lifetime ban is appealable after two years away from the game with the Commissioner having full discretion to reinstate an employees. Ooops, I mean player. Too wrapped up in my own CBA negotiations.

How long before Pete Rose cops to steroid use?

I'm satisfied with the severity of the new regime.

It's too bad that it took so long for MLB and the Player's Union to agree to a steroid policy with real teeth, but better late than never, I guess. And kudos to Congress, which has taken some undeserved flack on this site, for pushing both sides into increasing the penalties to this point.

Now MLB needs to figure out how to stay ahead of the new steroid development curve or at least to close the gap between steroid advances and successful testing.

Albert Pujols is a defensible selection although I would have given the nod to Derek Lee. Their numbers were close enough, however, to make it understandable that the guy who helped his team finish first in their division came out with the hardware. I was glad to see that Andruw Jones and his .263 batting average did not win the award.

Whoops. Sorry for post #39. I don't know how it made it into this thread.

I don't understand why possession is worse than use, which is what the above punishment schedules seem to indicate.

(For that matter, why is distribution worse than use? (Note that it doesn't say distribution to other players, but distribution, period. If I go sell Winstrol at my local elementary school, why should MLB punish me?))

Also, are the punishments cumulative? Presumably if someone is convicted for possession of steroids, he may also test positive; would he be subject to punishment for both possession and use?

David,
I think the higher punishments for distribution and possession targets unknown BALCO-type designer drugs that they can't test for. Just a guess, though.

Clearly, Chris L is insinuating that Pujols is on steroids.

How long before Pete Rose cops to steroid use?

That would be most interesting indeed, adding perhaps another decade to the steroids era. And it would REALLY call into question the drugs' effectiveness wrt home runs.

But I don't think it happens.

Amphetamines are prescribed as a medicine. Will there be a sudden rise in ADHD among ballplayers so those scripts for Dexedrine and Adderol keep rolling along?

Methamphetamine can also be prescribed, although i doubt it happens anymore. Its product name was Desoxyn i believe.

Re: Rose--did you read the ESPN article? They don't come right out and say it but they certainly imply he was knee-deep in the distribution of steroids in his gym.

Why is everyone so exercised about steroids in baseball but completely oblivious about the obviously more prevalent use of steroids in football? Seems like a double standard to me.

According to Will Carroll Bonds was tested 3 times this season.

Oh, well if Will Carroll says it, there's no question that it's true then. [eyeballs rolling up to the ceiling]

Amphetamines are prescribed as a medicine.

So are steroids. Is there a medical exemption for them?

So are steroids. Is there a medical exemption for them?

I'm sure if a player had one of the diseases for which anabolic steroids are an approved medical treatment, he would receive permission for the treatments. I doubt any MLB players have those diseases, though. I've heard of using testosterone or testosterone substitutes as treatments for some cancers and as a treatment for people with advanced AIDS. It'd be significantly harder to get a doctor to risk his license on such a diagnosis than on something like ADHD.

Why is everyone so exercised about steroids in baseball but completely oblivious about the obviously more prevalent use of steroids in football? Seems like a double standard to me.

I think the "money drug" in football is human growth hormone. It may be in baseball, too. Relatively few guys tested positive for Steroids, so if the figures former players were throwing around were accurate then growth hormone may be the real "problem" in baseball as well.

<i>Re: Rose--did you read the ESPN article? They don't come right out and say it but they certainly imply he was knee-deep in the distribution of steroids in his gym.</i>

Yes, I did read it. What I got out of it was that he knew about it I don't recall any mention or insinuation that he was using or dealing them. In fact the raticel said that he declined to use when offered. (That said, if he did use or deal, it woudln't surprise me, I just didn't get that from the ESPN piece)

Why is everyone so exercised about steroids in baseball but completely oblivious about the obviously more prevalent use of steroids in football? Seems like a double standard to me.

Agreed

I also wonder why greenies don't arouse the same level of breastbeating as steroids. Both are illegal, dangerous PED's.
Well I don't wonder, I think I know why. Nearly all of us drink coffee. A good number of us drink a Red Bull before a soft-ball games, etc. Most people can get their heads around stimulants becasue most people regularly use stimulants. Most people don't use roids, hence the disconnect.

I think its because the NFL suspends players for a fourth of the season if they are caught. And they actually suspend some name players (David Boston, for example).

Interesting poll at ESPN's website. Early returns indicate the new policy is a hit with two exceptions:

(a) Fans favor "no reinstatement"; and
(b) Fans want some record penalty, most preferrably asterisks.

Well I don't wonder, I think I know why. Nearly all of us drink coffee. A good number of us drink a Red Bull before a soft-ball games, etc. Most people can get their heads around stimulants becasue most people regularly use stimulants. Most people don't use roids, hence the disconnect.

No, I think amphetamines has a large negative perception even to the average person - the media just hasn't made a big deal out of it. And the media isn't going to push things that ruin their nostalgia and talk about how Willie Mays and Duke Snider and Pete Rose all used drugs that are now banned by baseball as a performance-enhancing drug.

Interesting poll at ESPN's website. Early returns indicate the new policy is a hit with two exceptions:

(a) Fans favor "no reinstatement"; and
(b) Fans want some record penalty, most preferrably asterisks

How many times has Andy voted?

It'd be significantly harder to get a doctor to risk his license on such a diagnosis than on something like ADHD.

The interesting thing is that, at least in theory, some players might be using amphetamines to counteract undiagnosed ADHD (I think they'd work--I know caffeine does). Right now, those things can help them stay focussed on the game better, so they use them. There will probably be a legitamate uptick in the number of players diagnosed with and getting treatment for ADHD, just because they aren't self-medicating to cover it up.

I don't kow if they'll get benefits over the average player, but if players have it and don't get treated, it could really hurt their careers. I don't mean to open a can of worms over ADHD diagnoses in general; just guessing that it will be an issue that could negatively affect players if it isn't dealt with well..

I find this one pretty interesting:

How many times has Andy voted?

LOL, about a third of the fans want the records vacated. And close to 2/3 want no HoF eligibility. Baseball fans make Andy look like a softy.

This was the most interesting response so far:

11) Which act do you find most inexcusable?


50.7% Taking performance-enhancing drugs

26.0% Betting on games

17.7% Not hustling

5.6% Corking a bat or doctoring a baseball

I hope JC has a chance to read that one.

Why is nobody commenting on the HUUUUGE loophole that this whole "lifetime ban" thing does absolutely NOTHING to prevent performance-enhancing-drug use by dead players!

Pesonally, I have no firsthand knowledge that David Bell has a pulse.

Interesting poll at ESPN's website. Early returns indicate the new policy is a hit with two exceptions:

(a) Fans favor "no reinstatement"; and
(b) Fans want some record penalty, most preferrably asterisks

Of course, this is just an Internet poll which is not legally binding.

Unless Proposition 304 passes. And we all pray it will.

Interesting poll at ESPN's website. Early returns indicate the new policy is a hit with two exceptions:

(a) Fans favor "no reinstatement"; and
(b) Fans want some record penalty, most preferrably asterisks

Never mind legally binding. This kind of poll is likely heavily biased and the numbers aren't really worth anything except their entertainment value.

If the NFL wants to become a WWF-like freakshow, let them.

Why is this sentence written in the past tense?

I've heard of using testosterone or testosterone substitutes as treatments for some cancers and as a treatment for people with advanced AIDS

Um, a friend of mine heard that you could get testosterone prescribed if you were having, er, performance issues, and your blood work indicated you had low testosterone.

A friend of mine heard from someone I don't know.

LOL, about a third of the fans want the records vacated. And close to 2/3 want no HoF eligibility. Baseball fans make Andy look <strike>like a softy</strike>.

smart.

Fixed that for you.

That poll demonstrates one thing: John Q. Internet is an imbecile.

Does this policy mean amphetamines are performance-enhancing?

They[NFL] lost me long ago. I don't want the same thing to happen to baseball.

I do.

Are the penalties for greenie use the same as for steroid use?

If a player has tested positive once already and served his suspension, is he on "strike two" next? Or is it grandfathered?

Do you think the first player to receive a lifetime ban will be at least a MLB regular, or a scrub?

Now MLB needs to figure out how to stay ahead of the new steroid development curve or at least to close the gap between steroid advances and successful testing.

Why would they? There's zero incentive to do so. That's the fallacy of a testing program: You never can claim that all players are 100% clean. There will always be substances ahead of the testers. Besides... I don't think MLB wants that. If they can have their cake and eat it too, they'll be perfectly happy.

This new JDA should placate Congress, and after all, that's what this was all about.

Forget my first question - I just re-read Maury's summary.

They[NFL] lost me long ago. I don't want the same thing to happen to baseball.

I do.

You want too many men on the field?

Testing will occur during the off-season

No where to run for players now... Spring Training... Off-season... multiple times during the season...

Ridiculous, i wish Congress would do something about Congress getting into things they shouldn't

Why is everyone so exercised about steroids in baseball but completely oblivious about the obviously more prevalent use of steroids in football? Seems like a double standard to me.

football isn't a sport -- it's gambling. take away betting, & no one would pay the slightest bit of attention to it. actually, it probably wouldn't exist, period.

That poll demonstrates one thing: John Q. Internet is an imbecile.

I'd be okay with an agreement that made players who tested positive ineligible for the HOF. It'd have to be part of the agreement, though. I doubt most who test positive will make it in, anyway. Voters are always looking for a reason to exclude candidates and a public positive steroid test is a big reason for some (most?) voters.

Palmiero's HOF chances took a huge hit when he tested positive simply because it led many voters to change their minds. A formal agreement may be unnecessary if so many in the media follow through and keep him out. That would serve as both precedent for future exclusion and deterrent for future, potentially HOF-bound players.

I think its because the NFL suspends players for a fourth of the season if they are caught. And they actually suspend some name players (David Boston, for example).

Kinda. They went after Boston a couple of years too late for him to be a name player. He was already bulked up and crazy when he was catching 100 passes in AZ. It wasn't until he became a disruptive presence and injury-prone, and therefore negligible, that they nailed him. I'm pretty sure he was out for the season when the punishment was handed down.

If the system doesn't catch guys like Bill Romanowski, I don't give it much credibility.

It's too bad that it took so long for MLB and the Player's Union to agree to a steroid policy with real teeth, but better late than never, I guess.

Why do you think the old policy didn't have real teeth?

(by "old policy", I mean the one that was in place this past season)

I think all of my suggestions for a workable steroid policy are included in this agreement.

1) There's never a "get out of jail free" final test for the year.

2) Penalties are severe enough that a star testing positive affects a pennant race.

3) Amphetamines covered, less severely than steroids.

4) Independent testing agency.

All testing programs are susceptible to outright cheaters, but a) Evading a test is a lot more work than laissez-faire, and b) Evading a test introduces conscious deception to the equation -- it eliminates the "everybody is doing it excuse."

"No, I think amphetamines has a large negative perception even to the average person - the media just hasn't made a big deal out of it. And the media isn't going to push things that ruin their nostalgia and talk about how Willie Mays and Duke Snider and Pete Rose all used drugs that are now banned by baseball as a performance-enhancing drug."

When Steve Courson died the other day, I read that he said he was using steroids in college, which doing the math would have been 1974-78 IIRC. So they were easily available (I'm assuming this based on the fact that a college kid could get them) in the mid-70s. So do we need to go back a generation here with the accusations?

Interesting poll at ESPN's website. Early returns indicate the new policy is a hit with two exceptions:

(a) Fans favor "no reinstatement"; and
(b) Fans want some record penalty, most preferrably asterisks


How many times has Andy voted?

Not once, but of course I control the votes behind the scenes. Which is pretty amazing, since I'm not even Jewish.

I just now visited the site and note that the fans agree with what I've said all along about the record book, which is that the records should remain but an asterisk be placed beside the Butt Boys' names. This way the records would be unchanged, but anyone---even a Frenchman---who looks at the record book would be able to see at a glance that the BB's statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt.

But I don't think that Congress has any business requiring this---that's just amusing fluff. The important thing is the extra random test and the stiffer penalties. In all, a reasonable compromise.

The other satisfying poll result was the overwhelming number favoring the thought that this agreement was due solely to Congressional pressure. On that, a toast to the powers of persuasion, or "persuasion at the point of the gun," as Nieporent would put it. And it's about time, too. I only hope that Congress keeps that gun fully loaded to protect against any backsliding.

And to the Chicken Littles of 'privacy': Hey, you can't win em all.

Andy,

Do greenie poppers get an asterisk too?

Andy,

In your regime, do greenie poppers get an asterisk too?

The other satisfying poll result was the overwhelming number favoring the thought that this agreement was due solely to Congressional pressure. On that, a toast to the powers of persuasion, or "persuasion at the point of the gun," as Nieporent would put it. And it's about time, too. I only hope that Congress keeps that gun fully loaded to protect against any backsliding.

Do you think they will keep the gun loaded until the NFL, NHL and NBA also institute similar testing programs and penalties?

Do we know yet if testing will be required for the person who gave Scott Eyre an MVP vote?

Andy,

In your regime, do greenie poppers get an asterisk too?

At the risk of provoking a nuclear attack from Dial's Greenie Party: No. For three reasons.

First, given the general consensus that their use was nearly universal, whatever theoretical competitive advantage they might have allowed any individual is just that: theoretical.

Second, show me one player during the "greenie era" whose career took a sudden surge the way McGwire's or Bonds's did. Dial & Co. have yet to show anything like this in any of the record books.

Third, I also remain unconvinced that greenies are anything more than in effect a mega-dose of caffeine. They restore (temporarily) one's sense of alertness, but they don't add anything to a player's skill level in the way that steroids + weight training can add competitively advantageous muscle mass. If they did, you'd think that evidence of this would show up in the record books the way it does for McGwire and Bonds. But it doesn't.

With McGwire and steroids, you got (McGwire + x) rather than just "McGwire"; with Mantle on greenies, you got "Mantle" rather than (Mantle - y). To me that's a fundamental difference.

For health reasons, I'm glad they'll be testing for greenies. But other than that, I'm relatively indifferent to their use. Dial can call me a hypocrite all he wants about this. I'll just have to live with that scathing accusation.

The other satisfying poll result was the overwhelming number favoring the thought that this agreement was due solely to Congressional pressure. On that, a toast to the powers of persuasion, or "persuasion at the point of the gun," as Nieporent would put it. And it's about time, too. I only hope that Congress keeps that gun fully loaded to protect against any backsliding.

Do you think they will keep the gun loaded until the NFL, NHL and NBA also institute similar testing programs and penalties?

I have no idea. I've never watched a hockey game in my life, and I seldom watch the NBA or NFL any more until playoff time. To be honest, I don't care.

My only concern about steroids is the competitive advantage they give to power-related skills of players who have the physical potential to benefit by them and the brains and willingness to develop a training program which brings out their full potential.

That's a potentially deadly combination from a competitive pov, as evidenced by Bonds, McGwire, and likely Palmeiro, and possibly others. From a competitive pov, that potential for unfair competitive disadvantage is enough for me to be indifferent to the sort of 'privacy' concerns which bug so many people here. It's a tradeoff, and I'm glad that Congress stuck that loaded gun at baseball and forced it to fork that 'privacy' over.

Or, to sum it up, you want to see an asterisk next to Bonds' eventual home run total, but not 660* or 4256*.

I look forward to "caught Hank Aaron's 715th HR*"

And - CLEARLY amphetamines are being considered and treated approximately the same as steroids.

The problem, Andy, is that you believe because you believe.

Define what you would consider a "show me one player during the "greenie era" whose career took a sudden surge the way McGwire's or Bonds's did"

I mean, according to the latest ESPN piece, a large portion of players were using, and it was out in the open. You have two players with "sudden surges", and that was from players that were already considered to be significantly good players.

So what "change" would you consider convincing, Andy? How much of a surge do I have to produce? Since I can't possibly draw a line of where they took them, you are pretending like you are offering a "challenge", but you are not. Define what you would consider an improvement - everything I would point to, you'll hand wave off "oh, that's just normal development curve".

Because you believe what you believe. Unless you proffer some definition, I cannot believe you you seriously want some examples (at least as many as steroids has - which is two or three).

I mean you want to point to Caminiti, but he basically had a good season or two. A big OPS spike and then next to nothing. You attribute this to steroids because we know he took them then. However, if I point to Bob Gibson's 1968 as greenie induced, you claim I then have to prove greenie usage.

Well, that was 40 years ago. I can't expect Bob Gibson to admit or even accurately recall what happened that season. Moreover, what would he have to gain? A clean conscience?

That says to me you *CAN'T* be convinced.

Or, to sum it up, you want to see an asterisk next to Bonds' eventual home run total, but not 660* or 4256*.

Correct. I have no interest in "obliterating" or "erasing" any record, merely noting that certain specific individuals were known to have used steroids. This would be the case for not just Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Canseco, Caminiti, etc., but also BC's pets, the assorted no-name rum-dums she keeps bringing up. It would not include Sosa or Brady Anderson, although if any compelling evidence came out about them, an asterisk could be added beside their names (and others) as well.

And I might add that if it turned out that Bonds really was using flaxseed oil, that asterisk by his name could just as easily be removed. I have no particular grudge against any player, and I'm certainly not trying to "protect" any of my "childhood heroes," or any of that BS you hear so much from those trying to score a soundbite. The game today is so far advanced over the game of 1961 that this is a completely irrelevant non-issue. My sole interest is in maintaining a level playing field for all players today, and if (as I believe) steroids give a certain number of players an unfair competitive advantage over their peers, the record books should reflect an acknowledgement of that unfair advantage. This seems to be a fairly mainstream opinion with the public, though that, too, is somewhat beside the point. The point is that it's right.

And as for why no asterisk by Mays or Rose, see my previous post, or any one of many prior threads on steroids vs. greenies. Both Dial and myself, plus countless others, have gone back and forth on that to the point of endless repitition.

kevin said...

WRT football, the reason I don't get exercised about it is that I don't care much about football. If the NFL wants to become a WWF-like freakshow, let them. They lost me long ago. I don't want the same thing to happen to baseball.


Andy said...

I have no idea. I've never watched a hockey game in my life, and I seldom watch the NBA or NFL any more until playoff time. To be honest, I don't care.

My only concern about steroids is the competitive advantage they give to power-related skills of players who have the physical potential to benefit by them and the brains and willingness to develop a training program which brings out their full potential.

That's a potentially deadly combination from a competitive pov, as evidenced by Bonds, McGwire, and likely Palmeiro, and possibly others. From a competitive pov, that potential for unfair competitive disadvantage is enough for me to be indifferent to the sort of 'privacy' concerns which bug so many people here. It's a tradeoff, and I'm glad that Congress stuck that loaded gun at baseball and forced it to fork that 'privacy' over.

I find these admissions to be pretty telling. I thought you considered this a public health issue; I thought your concern was for young athletes who might feel pressured to use dangerous drugs in order to compete on the field of play. Now you guys admit you didn't really care about that at all, and what you really cared about was just your aesthetic enjoyment of the game? I think that's a pretty big deal, and I think if the Senate feels the same way it's a pretty big deal as well. Of course, Andy doesn't even care about the integrity of our lawmakers, just the integrity of a game.

Now maybe I'm mixing and matching the positions of the Union members here; but I know that Backlasher has made the point many times that this is a public health issue. In that case, why just care about it in baseball?

By the way, I'm not accusing Backlasher of inconsistency in my above post; I believe he still holds the same views he always has.

And just for the record, I am not trying to score rhetorical points here. I believe that this is a public health issue and I have argued in your support on this issue a number of times because of that. If you don't believe it is, or you don't think it's a compelling enough issue to warrant your interest in sports other than baseball, I'd like to find out why.

Chris,

You're right abut one thing: You're never going to convince me that greenies are the equivalent to steroids in terms of their effect on the record books.

If "everyone" was using greenies back then, then where would the competitive advantage lie? With the ones who took the biggest pills? You can try to figure the math out on this if you wish, and good luck. You can publish your findings in your blog.

I cannot believe you you seriously want some examples (at least as many as steroids has - which is two or three).

Well, you can start with two or three of your own if you wish: Two or three players whose greenie used gave them a relative competitive advantage over their peers, who of course were at a relative competitive disadvantage because they weren't using greenies.

Of course you'll first have to make up your mind as to whether they "all" were using them (as Bouton and many others have claimed), or only "some" of them were (which is essential for there to be any competitive advantage for the users), and which ones had the advantage over which other ones.

But I'm sure that you're up to the task. Looking forward to your magnum opus.

by his name could just as easily be removed.

I disagree, and so does Roger Maris.

Dave,

I'm glad you've noted that all union members don't agree on our points of emphasis. But to refresh your memory about any previous posts I've made:

I'm not against raising the health issue, and I was glad to see it addressed so eloquently by Backlasher over the course of many threads.

But there's only so much time in the day, and when the health of large numbers of people is an issue I want to address, I'll talk about tobacco or drinking water in Africa. I'm more specifically concerned about the integrity of the game when it comes to steroids.

And again, it's not that I don't care about the health of athletes in other sports, only that it's not my primary focus.

If "everyone" was using greenies back then, then where would the competitive advantage lie? With the ones who took the biggest pills? You can try to figure the math out on this if you wish, and good luck. You can publish your findings in your blog.

Andy,
the competitive advantage lies the same place as it does with steroids. Shirley you recognize that steroid users haven't 1. all benefitted, and 2. benefitted to the same degree.

What makes you think that wouldn't apply to amphetamines?

Each individual will have pharmacological effects (imagine your response to an NSAID as compared to mine). See Bob Gibson's 1968.

Of course you'll first have to make up your mind as to whether they "all" were using them (as Bouton and many others have claimed), or only "some" of them were (which is essential for there to be any competitive advantage for the users), and which ones had the advantage over which other ones.

This paragraph is demonstrative that you have a closed mind on the issue.

Of course not "all" were using. Thus "some" had to be. And even you cannot answer "which ones" wrt steroids because you don't know who or how many steroid users there are now nor when any of them started (exceptions of one or two, but not 20%). So you cannot even meet those requirements for steroids. And you wonder why I consider your position hypocritical?

by his name could just as easily be removed.

I disagree, and so does Roger Maris.

Which was a non-existent asterisk in the first place, but one whose purpose would have been merely to note the undeniable difference between 154 games and 162 games.

Now if you think that's a meaningless distinction, fine. I would then presume that if baseball were to expand to 224 games, you would lump all subsequent counting records in the same category of "season" along with those set before then.

So are all "season" counting stat records inherently comparable, no matter the length of the season?

If so, fine. It's a legitimate position, even if somewhat mathematically challenging.

If not, though, then when is a season not a season for purposes of comparing counting stats? After 800 games?

Andy:

You must surely be aware that your standard lets a lot of juicers slip through the cracks. Granted, this isn't like criminal law - murder is illegal for good reason, and is aggressively prosecuted even though an honest LE officer will admit they'll never crack every case.

But an asterisk can destroy a player's livelihood & reputation. To star one player's line when you know others are going scot free doesn't seem fair to me.

And what is the standard of proof anyway? Take McGwire. We have the "word" of Canseco, whatever the hell that's worth, and some public tears. No positive test, no proof that would hold up in criminal court (and yes, I know this isn't court). Is flaky behavior and the rantings of a lunatic sufficient proof to warrant trashing Mac's reputation and records while Sosa escapes without a mark? Sosa's amazing shrinking body the first year of testing, and his toothache excuse for gainging weight in the 90's, are at least as suspicious as the "evidence" against Mac.

But one wears the scarlet letter and the other doesn't.


(And I think both men juiced & I'll hazard a guess that most here think the same, even you.)

I'm more specifically concerned about the integrity of the game when it comes to steroids.

OK, so it's Congress' responsibility to enforce the integrity of the game of baseball. You are okay with this?

Of course not "all" were using. Thus "some" had to be. And even you cannot answer "which ones" wrt steroids because you don't know who or how many steroid users there are now nor when any of them started (exceptions of one or two, but not 20%). So you cannot even meet those requirements for steroids. And you wonder why I consider your position hypocritical?

Enough, Chris. This is like punching the tar baby, and we've been over this about sixty zillion times already. We're not convincing each other of anything, and I think we can both agree that the new agreement answers both of our concerns. As for the past records, in my great magnaminity I'll let the ones who publish the record books decide that. For the time being I only have one life to live. You seem to have several---I hope it's not just the greenies that make it seem that way!

I'm more specifically concerned about the integrity of the game when it comes to steroids.

OK, so it's Congress' responsibility to enforce the integrity of the game of baseball. You are okay with this?

Let's just say that I'm glad that Congress convinced baseball to do what was right. I wouldn't have favored the actual bill, but I was nevertheless glad to see it introduced. It seems to have served its purpose.

Which was a non-existent asterisk in the first place, but one whose purpose would have been merely to note the undeniable difference between 154 games and 162 games.


While you and I know the asterisk didn't/doesn't exist *the public thinks it does*.

That's the damage of putting it there in the first place. Roger Maris deserved better.

I appreciate your piss-poor strawman regarding hte length of season.

Are you saying Maris' accomplishment *should* be asterisked?

Andy:

You must surely be aware that your standard lets a lot of juicers slip through the cracks. Granted, this isn't like criminal law - murder is illegal for good reason, and is aggressively prosecuted even though an honest LE officer will admit they'll never crack every case.

But an asterisk can destroy a player's livelihood & reputation. To star one player's line when you know others are going scot free doesn't seem fair to me.

And what is the standard of proof anyway? Take McGwire. We have the "word" of Canseco, whatever the hell that's worth, and some public tears. No positive test, no proof that would hold up in criminal court (and yes, I know this isn't court). Is flaky behavior and the rantings of a lunatic sufficient proof to warrant trashing Mac's reputation and records while Sosa escapes without a mark? Sosa's amazing shrinking body the first year of testing, and his toothache excuse for gainging weight in the 90's, are at least as suspicious as the "evidence" against Mac.

But one wears the scarlet letter and the other doesn't.


(And I think both men juiced & I'll hazard a guess that most here think the same, even you.)

First, Canseco's testimony standing alone is not what I'd ever base my opinion on.

In McGwire's case, it was the stonewalling of Congress. His use of the "Fifth Amendment," so to speak, told me all I needed to know. He ducked any possible perjury charge by doing this, but he has to live with the consequences.

As for Sosa, he's clear for now. And would you have it otherwise, given any lack of real evidence? There hasn't been to my knowledge, any proof or evidence beyond his power spikes, and that in itself isn't enough in my book. It wasn't enough for Bonds, IMO, before the BALCO leak.

Other players in the 1920's and 1920's quite possibly threw games. Because they weren't kicked out of baseball, does that mean that it's "unfair" that the Black Sox were given the boot? Should nobody be convicted of a crime if others who committed the same crime are walking around as free men?

As for "reputations," they exist and will continue to exist, with or without an asterisk. The asterisk is merely a codification of that reputation, and as such shouldn't be added without a compelling mix of admission (Camininti, Canseco), positive testing (Palmeiro), testimony (Bonds), or logic (McGwire)---and here I mean stonewalling before Congress, not hat size.