A-Roids?

[Pavelb1]

That memo was essentially meaningless. All it was was a reminder that (some) steroids were against the law. Any official MLB drug policy must be collectively bargained with the union. It had no power. Fay Vincent, in an interview with Maury Brown, said as much:

I would think, had a commisioner chose to do so, he could suspend a player for breaking the law. If he had irrefutable proof said hypothetical player had done so.

[HoustonGM]

I would think, had a commisioner chose to do so, he could suspend a player for breaking the law. If he had irrefutable proof said hypothetical player had done so.

He could, probably provided that the player was actually being charged with a crime. But, alas, no commissioner did.

[dickay]

I would think, had a commisioner chose to do so, he could suspend a player for breaking the law. If he had irrefutable proof said hypothetical player had done so.

I would agree that there are conduct clauses in contracts and MLB could theoreticallly suspend a player for violation a law which isn't in their rule book. It would be immensely controversial and unprecedented to do so retroactively like this, and for steroid use of which many have been accused of already without suspension. Selig has already said he's turning the page after the Mitchell investigation. MLB is not suspending or disciplining AROD over this in any way IMO.

[OldFatGuy]

Does anyone know if they're going to release ALL of the supposed "anonymous" positive results or if the cherry picking of names to be released will continue?

[HoustonGM]

Excellent piece here on how the society/the fans deserve blame for the "steroid era", and how athletes doing whatever they can to win isn't anything new.

I dare anyone to try to name an era in sports in the last in which any semblance of purity, now suddenly demanded by the public, actually existed. By all means, please direct us to this golden time where no currently banned performance-enhancing drugs were available, but went unused by the wholesome players of yesteryear. It's certainly not the 80s or 90s or 2000s, when steroid use apparently came most popular. It certainly wasn't the 60s and 70s, when players were distributing now-banned amphetamines and starting to experiment with steroids themselves. The only difference between a slugger in 1938 and a slugger in 2008 is the quality of the goodies he can get his hands on.

Until then, when you see A-Rod's face appear on the screen, with an ESPN Talking Head, delivering a steroids screed from a soapbox of sanctimony and wonder who's it fault, make sure to point at yourself, in the glare of the television. Fans demand athletes when to jump and the athletes simply heard the answer to "How high?"

[HoustonGM]

Does anyone know if they're going to release ALL of the supposed "anonymous" positive results or if the cherry picking of names to be released will continue?

Who knows. They really should release all the names at this point. While I feel it's absolutely terrible that the promises of the agreement weren't followed through upon (namely, the anonymity of the tests, and the destruction of the samples), it's now just as wrong to sacrifice A-Rod when that list of 104 players undoubtedly includes other All Stars, etc.

[OldFatGuy]

Who knows. They really should release all the names at this point. While I feel it's absolutely terrible that the promises of the agreement weren't followed through upon (namely, the anonymity of the tests, and the destruction of the samples), it's now just as wrong to sacrifice A-Rod when that list of 104 players undoubtedly includes other All Stars, etc.

Yeah, I totally agree. It should've been truly anonymous, but now that they've unleashed the wolves on ARod, they should go ahead and release them all.

Every
Last
One
of
them.

[Pavelb1]

The best way to put all this to bed would be for Selig to make a big speech asking Americans to turn the page and move on....explain to the general public how everyone is complicit, and then after Selig is done have Obama come on stage and issue a sweeping pardon for any MLB players who have used illegal PED's AND those who may have perjured themselves during investigations of PED use.

I'd also like a unicorn for Christmas.

[KowboyKoop]

Looks like he's admitted to using them from '01 to '03. Sorry if that is old news at this point...just got in.

Not a shocker. As for those saying we can't "prove" that steroids help performance......I think that's a little naive. Steroids aren't a magic pill that turn bums into studs..but steroids help make you stronger when used with other methods. That's just a known fact. Being stronger is an advantage. You can't say that "oh, steroids help you hit 10 more HRs a year" or anything like that...but it's obvious they help to SOME degree..and they are illegal. Even if MLB had no rules against it, they were still illegal. The players shouldn't get all or the majority of the blame..but they should get some.


This info never should've gotten out and hopefully we can all move on..but we all know that won't happen..so we just have to deal with it I guess.

[dickay]

Excellent piece here on how the society/the fans deserve blame for the "steroid era", and how athletes doing whatever they can to win isn't anything new.

I think fans have always expected those caught cheating in whatever aspect to receive appropriate disciplinary action. Thats the difference. I don't know why you are trying so hard to find sources that defend those who actually took this stuff at the expense of others. Fans want the maximum effort from the athletes and do expect more than they should....but they expect it within the conframe of the pre-set rules and integrity.

Who knows. They really should release all the names at this point. While I feel it's absolutely terrible that the promises of the agreement weren't followed through upon (namely, the anonymity of the tests, and the destruction of the samples), it's now just as wrong to sacrifice A-Rod when that list of 104 players undoubtedly includes other All Stars, etc.

This I agree with. While I find it hard to believe that this kind of a 'mistake' was made, all of the reports presently agree that this information was supposed to be immediately destroyed.

The players shouldn't get all or the majority of the blame..but they should get some.

Why shouldn't they get the majority of the blame? While I agree they don't deserve all........i'm pretty sickened by the way some are turning them into victims. They chose to put this into their bodies and risk the outcome should that become known. No gun was held to their head.

[HoustonGM]

Looks like he's admitted to using them from '01 to '03. Sorry if that is old news at this point...just got in.

Not old. Just happened. Good for him. I think he took the optimal path here.

Not a shocker. As for those saying we can't "prove" that steroids help performance......I think that's a little naive. Steroids aren't a magic pill that turn bums into studs..but steroids help make you stronger when used with other methods. That's just a known fact. Being stronger is an advantage. You can't say that "oh, steroids help you hit 10 more HRs a year" or anything like that...but it's obvious they help to SOME degree..

Isn't it possible that getting stronger doesn't necessarily mean you will become better at baseball? Baseball isn't like being a linemen in football where throwing your weight around is really all you need to do. Baseball requires a wide range of skills, some of which could easily be negatively affected by increased strength. Weight training was mostly rejected, until the 1980's, because player's feared that bulkiness would have a negative effect on their game. There's at least one example that I've linked to of a player experimenting with steroids and claiming that while it helped him recover from injuries faster, he saw no increase in his fastball velocity, and the steroid use also contributed to injury problems. Why are people so opposed to the notion that different players are likely affected in different ways? Sure, for some players, steroids might help them be better at baseball, but is it really so hard to believe that there are some players harmed by it, and some players that get no effect whatsoever?

[HoustonGM]

I think fans have always expected those caught cheating in whatever aspect to receive appropriate disciplinary action. Thats the difference. I don't know why you are trying so hard to find sources that defend those who actually took this stuff at the expense of others. Fans want the maximum effort from the athletes and do expect more than they should....but they expect it within the conframe of the pre-set rules and integrity.

So that explains the huge uproar about keeping players out of the Hall of Fame back in 1971 when it was revealed that amphetamine use was rampant in clubhouses....and why Gaylord Perry is on the outside looking in filled with shame....etc. etc. etc. Nope. Sorry. It's not cheating that fans care about. It's just steroids.

Why shouldn't they get the majority of the blame? While I agree they don't deserve all........i'm pretty sickened by the way some are turning them into victims. They chose to put this into their bodies and risk the outcome should that become known. No gun was held to their head.

There's a pill that you're told makes you better at your job. You face a huge amount of societal pressure to be the very best possible at your job. The culture of your job environment is flooded with the pill. You know that your job has no policy on it, and thus, can't punish you for using it. How many people DON'T take the pill?

Note: I'm not saying that it makes it right. I'm saying that I understand why players did it, and that there are so many people involved with it that trying to apportion out the blame is quite silly in my opinion. The players took the drugs. The front offices signed the players that were on the drugs. The league didn't have rules governing the drug. The media looked the other way and didn't care as long as it made them money. The fans came out to the park in droves to see the players. etc. etc. etc. Does it really matter who "deserves" the most blame? Everybody deserves blame. Everybody was involved. It's time for everybody to accept that fact and move on and focus on the present and future.

[HoustonGM]

Heh, it is pretty amazing what admitting it will do. Only 33% of voters "won't" forgive him. The other 77% will or think he doesn't need to be forgiven.

[KowboyKoop]

Not old. Just happened. Good for him. I think he took the optimal path here.


Isn't it possible that getting stronger doesn't necessarily mean you will become better at baseball? Baseball isn't like being a linemen in football where throwing your weight around is really all you need to do. Baseball requires a wide range of skills, some of which could easily be negatively affected by increased strength. Weight training was mostly rejected, until the 1980's, because player's feared that bulkiness would have a negative effect on their game. There's at least one example that I've linked to of a player experimenting with steroids and claiming that while it helped him recover from injuries faster, he saw no increase in his fastball velocity, and the steroid use also contributed to injury problems. Why are people so opposed to the notion that different players are likely affected in different ways? Sure, for some players, steroids might help them be better at baseball, but is it really so hard to believe that there are some players harmed by it, and some players that get no effect whatsoever?

Sure, it is possible that for some steroids don't work the same as they do for others. I definitely agree that steroids aren't as big of an advantage as some may think, but to say that they offer ZERO advantage for any players would be a huge stretch (not saying you are saying that). I think you have to just accept that steroids, if used "correctly," is a way to POTENTIALLY gain at least some kind of advantage, even if only a small one. They make you stronger when used right. Unless you are trying to say that increased strength is a negative in baseball..you have to admit that steroids help to some degree for some players.

So, yeah, I agree that there are most likely some players not affected by steroids and some that are a lot probably. Thus, I don't think we should just completely devalue all of the accomplishments/numbers of all the players who did steroids. We shouldn't say "oh, this player used steroids, thus he sucks without them" or anything like that. Steroids don't make the player, they just POTENTIALLY give them a little advantage..and they are illegal and harmful, especially if abused, so we should get rid of them as efficiently as possible.

[HoustonGM]

Sure, it is possible that for some steroids don't work the same as they do for others. I definitely agree that steroids aren't as big of an advantage as some may think, but to say that they offer ZERO advantage for any players would be a huge stretch (not saying you are saying that). I think you have to just accept that steroids, if used "correctly," is a way to POTENTIALLY gain at least some kind of advantage, even if only a small one. They make you stronger when used right. Unless you are trying to say that increased strength is a negative in baseball..you have to admit that steroids help to some degree for some players.

I do think that increased strength CAN potentially be a negative in baseball. Again, depends on the player, though. It depends on how that increased strength affects your other actions, such as joint reflexes, etc.