Up to 100 MLB juicers possibly to be exposed...

[fromthestretch]

maybe it is the angle, because his shoulder looks bigger than his head. I'd like to see his bicep side by side with Ernie Banks circa 1969....

 

That's not exactly a fair comparison either. Athletes are much stronger now that in the 1960's.

 

and yet Banks hit over 500 homeruns.....

 

Proving once again that steroids don't necessarily equal home runs.

 

If this list comes out, there's a good chance you'll see some names that won't surprise anyone. Let's face it, would anyone be shocked to see Clemens, Javy Lopez, Kevin Brown, or either of the Giles brothers on there? However, you're going to see a lot more names that many people would have never thought of. Guys like (and no, I'm not claiming these guys are juicers, just using them as examples) Reggie Sanders, Cristian Guzman, Jason Kendall, Josh Phelps and quite a few middle relievers.

 

What's really going to hurt is if you see guys that had good/great careers and were never really suspected of doing anything wrong. For example, how do you think people would react if Edgar Martinez was on that list?

 

Edited to correct a spelling mistake.

Edited December 28, 2006 by grassbass

[Derwood]

maybe it is the angle, because his shoulder looks bigger than his head. I'd like to see his bicep side by side with Ernie Banks circa 1969....

 

That's not exactly a fair comparison either. Athletes are much stronger now that in the 1960's.

 

and yet Banks hit over 500 homeruns.....

 

Proving once again that steroids don't necessarily equal home runs.

 

If this list comes out, there's a good chance you'll see some names that won't surprise anyone. Let's face it, would anyone be shocked to see Clemens, Javy Lopez, Kevin Brown, or either of the Giles brothers on there? However, you're going to see a lot more names that many people would have never thought of. Guys like (and no, I'm not claiming these guys are juicers, just using them as examples) Reggie Sanders, Cristian Guzman, Jason Kendall, Josh Phelps and quite a few middle relivers.

 

What's really going to hurt is if you see guys that had good/great careers and were never really suspected of doing anything wrong. For example, how do you think people would react if Edgar Martinez was on that list?

 

You may be right. Everyone focuses on the "strength building" characteristics of steroids, where I believe many players used them to play through injuries, etc.

[CuseCubFan69]

Boy, is this a bunch of crap. I'd be really surprised if all names on the list weren't leaked. What if Bonds isn't even on the list? He took stuff from a company that specialized in passing drug tests, for crying out loud. Careers could be damaged because of a "survey" by MLB back in '03.

 

Careers could be damaged because guys took steroids. Don't blame the release of the truth for their careers being damaged.

 

That being said, this isn't a good thing for anybody. It only adds to the distrust between MLB and the MLBPA. I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for some bum who used roids and is exposed. But dishonoring the confidentiality of this test only makes further testing more difficult.

 

What about the players that have been clean? IMO they might be thrilled to see this come out.

[wade]

Boy, is this a bunch of crap. I'd be really surprised if all names on the list weren't leaked. What if Bonds isn't even on the list? He took stuff from a company that specialized in passing drug tests, for crying out loud. Careers could be damaged because of a "survey" by MLB back in '03.

 

Careers could be damaged because guys took steroids. Don't blame the release of the truth for their careers being damaged.

 

That being said, this isn't a good thing for anybody. It only adds to the distrust between MLB and the MLBPA. I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for some bum who used roids and is exposed. But dishonoring the confidentiality of this test only makes further testing more difficult.

 

I know that if you sleep in hay you shouldn't be surprised to wake up itchy, but what if some guy tested positive because he smoked a hooter with his college buddies a week before the survey? As someone said earlier, the positive tests might show more than steroids. If they do, it seems this zeal to get Bonds is going to needlessly embarass other players.

 

I guess I shouldn't feel sorry for them, but I do.

[illiniguy]

What does this accomplish? We know people cheated, you have taken steps to fix it. Why ruin player's names when it wasn't even illegal at that point in baseball.

[USSoccer]

What does this accomplish? We know people cheated, you have taken steps to fix it. Why ruin player's names when it wasn't even illegal at that point in baseball.

 

So the self appointed guardians of baseball in the media can spend 6 weeks preaching to themselves about the sanctity of the game, and bemoaning the loss of the good old days where cheaters simply scuffed, spat on or otherwise doctored the ball, sharpened their spikes, and cheated the way the game was meant to be subverted.

[goonys evil twin]

What does this accomplish? We know people cheated, you have taken steps to fix it. Why ruin player's names when it wasn't even illegal at that point in baseball.

 

There's no such thing as illegal in baseball. It wasn't strictly against the rules, but illegal drug use was, and steroids without prescriptions are illegal drugs.

 

The players risked ruining their own names by taking the stuff in the first place.

[Soul]

Boy, is this a bunch of crap. I'd be really surprised if all names on the list weren't leaked. What if Bonds isn't even on the list? He took stuff from a company that specialized in passing drug tests, for crying out loud. Careers could be damaged because of a "survey" by MLB back in '03.

 

Careers could be damaged because guys took steroids. Don't blame the release of the truth for their careers being damaged.

 

That being said, this isn't a good thing for anybody. It only adds to the distrust between MLB and the MLBPA. I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for some bum who used roids and is exposed. But dishonoring the confidentiality of this test only makes further testing more difficult.

 

I know that if you sleep in hay you shouldn't be surprised to wake up itchy, but what if some guy tested positive because he smoked a hooter with his college buddies a week before the survey? As someone said earlier, the positive tests might show more than steroids. If they do, it seems this zeal to get Bonds is going to needlessly embarass other players.

 

I guess I shouldn't feel sorry for them, but I do.

 

Yes, that would really suck. They can all blame Bonds, for refusing to come clean.

[goonys evil twin]

Boy, is this a bunch of crap. I'd be really surprised if all names on the list weren't leaked. What if Bonds isn't even on the list? He took stuff from a company that specialized in passing drug tests, for crying out loud. Careers could be damaged because of a "survey" by MLB back in '03.

 

Careers could be damaged because guys took steroids. Don't blame the release of the truth for their careers being damaged.

 

That being said, this isn't a good thing for anybody. It only adds to the distrust between MLB and the MLBPA. I wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for some bum who used roids and is exposed. But dishonoring the confidentiality of this test only makes further testing more difficult.

 

I know that if you sleep in hay you shouldn't be surprised to wake up itchy, but what if some guy tested positive because he smoked a hooter with his college buddies a week before the survey? As someone said earlier, the positive tests might show more than steroids. If they do, it seems this zeal to get Bonds is going to needlessly embarass other players.

 

I guess I shouldn't feel sorry for them, but I do.

 

Yes, that would really suck. They can all blame Bonds, for refusing to come clean.

 

Do you guys really think some guys' career will be ruined if it's leaked that he smoked pot in 2003?

[Soul]

No, I definitely don't.

[wade]

It would be embarassing and it would suck that they thought they were participating in a confidential survey to see if there should be testing for steroids and something else came up.

 

As far as careers, some guys may suffer HOF shots for testing positive in an anonymous survey for taking steroids before MLB cared enough to test for them.

 

As has been said, they took the steroids and it's ultimately their fault, but it sure sucks if you used and took the test and have quit now that MLB implemented testing.

[Soul]

I don't see how baseball's non-testing of steroids makes any difference. At all.

 

You took 'em. You knew they were illegal. You got caught. End of story.

 

Baseball's policies---or lack thereof---doesn't even enter in to the equation. Law trumps corporate policy every time.

[Wheelimus]

Still, I think we're much more likely to come up with a list of MLB High Times subscribers than we are a definitive list of who was juicing at the time.

 

Most smart players who thought they could survive in MLB without them for a season probably went off, hoping that the survey percent would be below the testing threshhold and the problem would go away.

[Jehrico]

I know that if you sleep in hay you shouldn't be surprised to wake up itchy, but what if some guy tested positive because he smoked a hooter with his college buddies a week before the survey? As someone said earlier, the positive tests might show more than steroids. If they do, it seems this zeal to get Bonds is going to needlessly embarass other players.

 

I guess I shouldn't feel sorry for them, but I do.

 

Someone please point me out if I'm wrong, but I don't think other drugs will show up on this. I think it was just 'roids. I know what sparked this test back in '03 was because of all of the rumors of 'roid usage. We test quite abit in the military, and I know that there isn't one test that catches all drugs. Each sample usually gets tested several times for certain groups of drugs (i.e. one test reveals opiates, etc...). The more tests you run on each sample the more money the labs will charge you. I don't believe MLB was testing for pot or other similar drugs. I don't know if they were also targeting cocaine or any of the other harder drugs.

[goonys evil twin]

I know that if you sleep in hay you shouldn't be surprised to wake up itchy, but what if some guy tested positive because he smoked a hooter with his college buddies a week before the survey? As someone said earlier, the positive tests might show more than steroids. If they do, it seems this zeal to get Bonds is going to needlessly embarass other players.

 

I guess I shouldn't feel sorry for them, but I do.

 

Someone please point me out if I'm wrong, but I don't think other drugs will show up on this. I think it was just 'roids. I know what sparked this test back in '03 was because of all of the rumors of 'roid usage. We test quite abit in the military, and I know that there isn't one test that catches all drugs. Each sample usually gets tested several times for certain groups of drugs (i.e. one test reveals opiates, etc...). The more tests you run on each sample the more money the labs will charge you. I don't believe MLB was testing for pot or other similar drugs. I don't know if they were also targeting cocaine or any of the other harder drugs.

 

I was under the same impression as you. But I do believe there was talk of looking into testing for other drugs, which might have just been an unreported side issue.

[wade]

I'm going off what I thought guys on ESPN radio said this morning- there was concern that "other stuff" would show up as well. Maybe they meant amphetemines (sp?) but I took it to mean other illegal drugs.

 

EDIT- I just checked about a dozen on-line articles and most have verbiage about testing "for anabolic steroids". I can't tell if they tested for other stuff and it doesn't say they did, so the radio guys may have been just trying to get people reiled up, in which case it worked with me.

[fromthestretch]

I'm going off what I thought guys on ESPN radio said this morning- there was concern that "other stuff" would show up as well. Maybe they meant amphetemines (sp?) but I took it to mean other illegal drugs.

 

EDIT- I just checked about a dozen on-line articles and most have verbiage about testing "for anabolic steroids". I can't tell if they tested for other stuff and it doesn't say they did, so the radio guys may have been just trying to get people reiled up, in which case it worked with me.

 

Everything I've read so far just indicates that they were tested for "performance enhancing drugs."

[Jehrico]

I'm going off what I thought guys on ESPN radio said this morning- there was concern that "other stuff" would show up as well. Maybe they meant amphetemines (sp?) but I took it to mean other illegal drugs.

 

EDIT- I just checked about a dozen on-line articles and most have verbiage about testing "for anabolic steroids". I can't tell if they tested for other stuff and it doesn't say they did, so the radio guys may have been just trying to get people reiled up, in which case it worked with me.

 

Everything I've read so far just indicates that they were tested for "performance enhancing drugs."

I only have one qualm about this list being released. They didn't know how to test for HGH (not sure they do today even), some players may be artificially "vindicated" if they're not on this list while others will get roasted (as they rightfully should). Bonds is a perfect example. He shouldn't show up because Balco was all about HGH if I recall correctly.

[David]

 

Baseball's policies---or lack thereof---doesn't even enter in to the equation. Law trumps corporate policy every time.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. There are tons of laws that have no direct bearing on an athlete's performance in a professional sport. So any professional athlete that commits a crime should have his accomplishments brought into question? Let's just say that Darryl Kile had HOF credentials (he didn't). Should he not get into the HOF because they found marijuana in his system upon his death, and, we can presume, therefore broke the law?

 

It shouldn't work that way. If steroids weren't against MLB policy, they weren't violating any MLB rules. As an aside, who is to say that marijuana doesn't have some sort of effect that enhanced Darryl Kile's own performance? Does it matter? Did MLB have a legit/enforced substance policy? Why should their statistics, then, be questioned? They didn't break any MLB rules in the process of achieving whatever it was that they achieved.

 

An additional question which might bring up something to consider. Would it it illegal if these guys, say, drove to down to Tijuana, shot up there, and came back? Is it illegal for a US Citizen to go to Amsterdam and use recreational drugs and return while the drugs are still technically in his/her system?

 

My point with the second part is that, if it's not illegal, (I'm not sure that it is or isn't), the player may not have even broken the law by using.

[Soul]

 

Baseball's policies---or lack thereof---doesn't even enter in to the equation. Law trumps corporate policy every time.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. There are tons of laws that have no direct bearing on an athlete's performance in a professional sport. So any professional athlete that commits a crime should have his accomplishments brought into question? Let's just say that Darryl Kile had HOF credentials (he didn't). Should he not get into the HOF because they found marijuana in his system upon his death, and, we can presume, therefore broke the law?

 

It shouldn't work that way. If steroids weren't against MLB policy, they weren't violating any MLB rules. As an aside, who is to say that marijuana doesn't have some sort of effect that enhanced Darryl Kile's own performance? Does it matter? Did MLB have a legit/enforced substance policy? Why should their statistics, then, be questioned? They didn't break any MLB rules in the process of achieving whatever it was that they achieved.

 

An additional question which might bring up something to consider. Would it it illegal if these guys, say, drove to down to Tijuana, shot up there, and came back? Is it illegal for a US Citizen to go to Amsterdam and use recreational drugs and return while the drugs are still technically in his/her system?

 

My point with the second part is that, if it's not illegal, (I'm not sure that it is or isn't), the player may not have even broken the law by using.

 

It doesn't matter if they weren't violating MLB rules. Companies and organizations don't have to come up with parallel rules to match every law that's out there. How ridiculous.

 

Here's a test. Go out and break a law which has no corresponding specific policy with your employer. In the process, make sure it reflects poorly on the company you work for. See what happens.

 

I'm betting you won't. Think very carefully about *why* that's the case.

 

BTW, these are federal investigators, not MLB ones.

 

As for Marijuana, I don't think it's all that bad, but it's also illegal. I've known a friend or two who lost his job over the stuff. Nobody asked or cared if they snuck out to Amsterdam to smoke their joints.

[David]

 

Baseball's policies---or lack thereof---doesn't even enter in to the equation. Law trumps corporate policy every time.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. There are tons of laws that have no direct bearing on an athlete's performance in a professional sport. So any professional athlete that commits a crime should have his accomplishments brought into question? Let's just say that Darryl Kile had HOF credentials (he didn't). Should he not get into the HOF because they found marijuana in his system upon his death, and, we can presume, therefore broke the law?

 

It shouldn't work that way. If steroids weren't against MLB policy, they weren't violating any MLB rules. As an aside, who is to say that marijuana doesn't have some sort of effect that enhanced Darryl Kile's own performance? Does it matter? Did MLB have a legit/enforced substance policy? Why should their statistics, then, be questioned? They didn't break any MLB rules in the process of achieving whatever it was that they achieved.

 

An additional question which might bring up something to consider. Would it it illegal if these guys, say, drove to down to Tijuana, shot up there, and came back? Is it illegal for a US Citizen to go to Amsterdam and use recreational drugs and return while the drugs are still technically in his/her system?

 

My point with the second part is that, if it's not illegal, (I'm not sure that it is or isn't), the player may not have even broken the law by using.

 

It doesn't matter if they weren't violating MLB rules. Companies and organizations don't have to come up with parallel rules to match every law that's out there. How ridiculous.

 

Here's a test. Go out and break a law which has no corresponding specific policy with your employer. In the process, make sure it reflects poorly on the company you work for. See what happens.

 

I'm betting you won't. Think very carefully about *why* that's the case.

 

BTW, these are federal investigators, not MLB ones.

 

As for Marijuana, I don't think it's all that bad, but it's also illegal. I've known a friend or two who lost his job over the stuff. Nobody asked or cared if they snuck out to Amsterdam to smoke their joints.

 

You're missing my point entirely. I'm probably at fault for that in the way in which I presented it. Rather than attempt to explain it right now, I'll just try to illustrate it with a hypothetical.

 

IF it is not illegal for a player to travel to Tijuana, inject steroids there, and then return to the United States (again, I am not positive as to whether or not this is, indeed, the case), and MLB did not have a legit, official steroid policy (which they didn't up until a few years ago), what rules or laws has the player who used steroids and played baseball in the late 90s really broken? Why, aside from our own moral and subjective qualms about steroids, should the players be looked down on? The player in question broke no rules or laws (again, assuming that it is legal to use the substance in a country where its use is accepted).

 

As for my point about laws, it wasn't that a business should have corresponding policies for every law in the book. Players break laws all the time. Why should one directed at possession/use of a controlled substance within the jurisdiction of the US be treated any differently? It's not a law directed at keeping athletes from having a competitive advantage. It's meant to keep a dangerous (as the government deems it) substance out of the hands of the American populace. Baseball would need it's own policy directed at their belief that such a substance would, in fact, give certain athletes an advantage over others. That is, if we want to call their performance into question. They didn't a few years ago. Now they do.

[Soul]

Because the breaking of that law has a direct effect on their job. I.E., they are reflecting poorly on their employer in so taking said steroids.

 

People get fired all the time for doing perfectly legal things that nevertheless reflect poorly on their employers. These players actually broke laws in the process of doing so.

 

And by the way, moral judgement always plays a big part. Like it or not, if the predominant opinion is that something you did was morally repugnant, you will be judged poorly. Ask Mike Price about this.

 

As for sneaking out to a country where they are legal-----I'm ignoring that argument because it's ridiculous and I was hoping you would stop trying to use it on your own.

[Soul]

BTW, I heard a radio report this morning that 8/10 players implicated in the BALCO scandal tested positive in '03.

[wade]

BTW, I heard a radio report this morning that 8/10 players implicated in the BALCO scandal tested positive in '03.

 

That's amazing to me simply because I thought Balco's appeal was testing clean while gaining the benefits.

[UMFan83]

BTW, I heard a radio report this morning that 8/10 players implicated in the BALCO scandal tested positive in '03.

 

Which 10 players were those? The ones that Grimsley named?