Moreno on Mitchell Report: "There's going to be names"

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't wanna go too McGwire on here, but why is everyone so obsessed with talking about the past? How is this report gonna help anything? Serious about stopping PED use? go hardcore on the testing procedures. Take the management to task for allowing the usage to go on as they look the other way. But that's not what baseball cares about, they care about taking down Bonds and getting themselves off the chopping block.

[Soul]

Sheesh, if you're gonna name the names, then name the freaking names.

 

Enough of this "get ready, here it comes!!" crap. Do it, or don't.

[SouthSideRyan]

Sheesh, if you're gonna name the names, then name the freaking names.

 

Enough of this "get ready, here it comes!!" crap. Do it, or don't.

 

Bud Selig is a believer in there's no such thing as bad publicity.

 

Bud's more interested in keeping his billionaire buddies making money hand over fist than he is in the interest of the game of baseball. He's a monster.

[wekse]

i want to start an all-steroid or "ped" league....my baseball will be much more exciting than mlb, book it.

[Outshined_One]

As a baseball fan, how can you honestly say that you don't care who has been cheating over the last X amount of years? That just boggles my mind.

 

Here's the thing that bugs me...

 

People react so freaking strangely to different kinds of cheating. The public's reaction to the cheating rarely has any correlation to how much of an actual advantage it gives the player who was caught cheating.

 

When a guy standing on second base steals signs from the catcher, it's considered part of the game. When a manager goes out and barks at the umpire to start calling balls and strikes he wants them called, and gets what he wants, it's considered good managing. Hard slides into second base? Catchers blocking the plate? That's all part of baseball! Gaylord Perry? He was a Hall of Famer who was never proven to have doctored the ball. People usually talk about him in wistful tones reserved for better times long past.

 

Well, guess what? THAT'S ALL CHEATING! Every single thing I listed above is illegal under the rules of baseball.

 

When Eddie Harris was talking about the sheer number of chemicals on his body in Major League to help him gain an edge, it was funny. If someone on those Indians talked about the sheer amount of HGH, steroids, and greenies he had taken in a similar fashion, I don't think people would have found it funny.

 

I would like someone to tell me with a straight face how PEDs give an unfair advantage to a player in a way worse than some of the examples I listed above. Keep it out of the legal context since certain illegal drugs (cocaine, amphetamines) can help aid player's performance, as can illegally obtained prescription drugs. Let's face it, we can make anything criminal if we really wanted to. However, I don't think Neifi Perez will be facing criminal prosecution any time soon. You can greatly help your team through cheating without engaging in criminal activities. You can also cheat in a criminal fashion, but not help your team in any meaningful way.

 

Let's face it, the way cheating is handled in baseball is arbitrary, hypocritical, and sometimes downright disgraceful. Gaylord Perry is a Hall of Famer despite being heavily suspected of doctoring the ball, yet Barry Bonds might find himself blackballed from playing another game and kept out of the Hall of Fame because he's been suspected of steroid use? Tell me how this makes sense.

 

I think this is one of the most utterly stupid things going on with baseball right now. They need to quit hyping this crap up like it'll clean up baseball once and for all. Quite frankly, I think it's so stupid that baseball has been throwing the spotlight on itself with all of this crap. They could have taken care of this internally, quietly, and effectively, but instead, they've been trying to do it loudly and publicly. It makes them look like they're actually doing something (who knows if they really are?), but it backfires on them through publicity that's way worse than it otherwise would be had they simply dealt with this quietly.

[Guest]

It's not as if rules haven't evolved over the decades in baseball, but no one points out the higher mound that existed as a reason to devalue the dominant pitchers of yesteryear.

Of course they do. It's recognized that baseball numbers do not exist in a vacuum and that they are highly dependent upon context. The great thing about baseball is that it's pretty easy to adjust for context... when the rules affecting the game are applied universally. We can see that all pitchers from the mid-60s benefited from a higher mound, or that the dead ball of the teens severely depressed offense and adjust our evaluations of those players accordingly. That's why you see names like Lefty Grove and Pedro popping up in discussions about the greatest pitchers of all time even though their raw numbers wouldn't seem all that special when compared to a moderately talented pitcher from the dead ball era, or why Honus Wagner is thought of as superior to Arky Vaughn even though Vaughn had a higher career OPS. (Well, that and the fact Wagner's career was 50% longer than Vaughn's.)

 

The fact that steroid use is (hopefully) not universal means accurately adjusting for context becomes very difficult if not impossible. Even if you care nothing for the game's history -- or even lament that history, as you seem to -- this fact still holds practical considerations for the here and now. The fact that all players are not necessarily playing by the same rules means that it's quite a bit harder to form an accurate opinion of a player's talents when compared to his contemporaries. The more uncertainty that exists when evaluating talent, the smaller your chances of fielding a successful team using a reasoned methodology.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Anonymous

[David]

As a baseball fan, how can you honestly say that you don't care who has been cheating over the last X amount of years? That just boggles my mind.

 

Here's the thing that bugs me...

 

People react so freaking strangely to different kinds of cheating. The public's reaction to the cheating rarely has any correlation to how much of an actual advantage it gives the player who was caught cheating.

 

When a guy standing on second base steals signs from the catcher, it's considered part of the game. When a manager goes out and barks at the umpire to start calling balls and strikes he wants them called, and gets what he wants, it's considered good managing. Hard slides into second base? Catchers blocking the plate? That's all part of baseball! Gaylord Perry? He was a Hall of Famer who was never proven to have doctored the ball. People usually talk about him in wistful tones reserved for better times long past.

 

Well, guess what? THAT'S ALL CHEATING! Every single thing I listed above is illegal under the rules of baseball.

 

When Eddie Harris was talking about the sheer number of chemicals on his body in Major League to help him gain an edge, it was funny. If someone on those Indians talked about the sheer amount of HGH, steroids, and greenies he had taken in a similar fashion, I don't think people would have found it funny.

 

I would like someone to tell me with a straight face how PEDs give an unfair advantage to a player in a way worse than some of the examples I listed above. Keep it out of the legal context since certain illegal drugs (cocaine, amphetamines) can help aid player's performance, as can illegally obtained prescription drugs. Let's face it, we can make anything criminal if we really wanted to. However, I don't think Neifi Perez will be facing criminal prosecution any time soon. You can greatly help your team through cheating without engaging in criminal activities. You can also cheat in a criminal fashion, but not help your team in any meaningful way.

 

Let's face it, the way cheating is handled in baseball is arbitrary, hypocritical, and sometimes downright disgraceful. Gaylord Perry is a Hall of Famer despite being heavily suspected of doctoring the ball, yet Barry Bonds might find himself blackballed from playing another game and kept out of the Hall of Fame because he's been suspected of steroid use? Tell me how this makes sense.

 

I think this is one of the most utterly stupid things going on with baseball right now. They need to quit hyping this crap up like it'll clean up baseball once and for all. Quite frankly, I think it's so stupid that baseball has been throwing the spotlight on itself with all of this crap. They could have taken care of this internally, quietly, and effectively, but instead, they've been trying to do it loudly and publicly. It makes them look like they're actually doing something (who knows if they really are?), but it backfires on them through publicity that's way worse than it otherwise would be had they simply dealt with this quietly.

 

Great, great post. Sums up my thoughts on this whole matter nicely.

[wade]

I'll jump on the bandwagon of the last two posts.

 

I remember sometime around the Congressional Hearing when people were all saying baseball should test as strictly as the Olympics. Guess what? The Olympics may have the highest number of PED users of any competitions.

 

This is a really tough issue because you want to be able to enforce a policy restricting use of illegal drugs, but we are at a point to where every athlete in every sport could very well be "on something". I'll bet a shiny quarter Lance Armstrong used PEDs, usage is far more rampant in the NFL, and several people you see at Gold's are on the gas.

 

None of that makes it o.k., but I do agree that baseball players are villified far more than anyone else for this sort of thing.

[seanimal]

Well, baseball used to have a clock. It was called "the sun". And it did have a noticeable effect on the length of games, and especially the length of the later innings when the sunlight began to dwindle. Somewhat similar to the effect of the end of regulation in basketball, but not all that much.

 

A small point, but one worth making.

 

Also, for my two cents, I could care less about steroids and the Mitchell Report. The vilifying of McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, et al is hilariously hypocritical given the circumstances.

 

That doesn't mean that I think players should take steroids, it means that I don't blame them for doing so considering the circumstances.

[CUBZ99]

I'll jump on the bandwagon of the last two posts.

 

I remember sometime around the Congressional Hearing when people were all saying baseball should test as strictly as the Olympics. Guess what? The Olympics may have the highest number of PED users of any competitions.

 

This is a really tough issue because you want to be able to enforce a policy restricting use of illegal drugs, but we are at a point to where every athlete in every sport could very well be "on something". I'll bet a shiny quarter Lance Armstrong used PEDs, usage is far more rampant in the NFL, and several people you see at Gold's are on the gas.

 

None of that makes it o.k., but I do agree that baseball players are villified far more than anyone else for this sort of thing.

 

Don't you think that baseball is villified so much because of their refusal to have any sort of real testing until recently? I'm suprised to see so much shoulder shrugging in this thread about cheating. Isn't the reasoning behind the of banning PED's, to make it an even playing field for all players including the ones that didn't have to cheat or take steroids to do it?

 

Many sports regulate their sport to keep the playing field even. Golf restricts the size and type of club you can use, Auto racing restricts the type of engine setup you are allowed to have, and on and on, even baseball restricts the useage of corked bats, or scuffing the ball.

 

In football, if you are caught using PED's or other drugs you are automatically suspended for 4 games for first time use. Until recently, baseball had nothing of the sort. The reason the names in baseball are such a big deal is because speculation has been running rampant about drug use, and the league repeatedly refused to do anything about it until recently. If anything it will be a black eye on the league for being in denial for so long.

[USSoccer]

As a baseball fan, how can you honestly say that you don't care who has been cheating over the last X amount of years? That just boggles my mind.

 

Because it's irrelevant to the here and now. I would care if a Cub tested positive now, because it would have a direct impact on the team, as well as proving that individual an idiot for taking something now that MLB has a testing program. But revealing who used in the past serves no purpose.

[Soul]

As a baseball fan, how can you honestly say that you don't care who has been cheating over the last X amount of years? That just boggles my mind.

 

Because it's irrelevant to the here and now. I would care if a Cub tested positive now, because it would have a direct impact on the team, as well as proving that individual an idiot for taking something now that MLB has a testing program. But revealing who used in the past serves no purpose.

 

Does it have to serve a purpose in the here & now in order to be something that's worthwhile knowing?

[rocket]

troy glaus was linked to receiving steroid shipments, and now 3 months later after that fact is revealed, no one seems to really care. the media doesn't constantly harass GMJ even though his name was dropped. ivan rodriguez was named in jose canseco's book which was probably more accurate than people first realized, and what do people talk about when talking about pudge? they mention how he's one of the top catchers of all time and ignore that he probably used steroids. likewise with gary sheffield.

 

once the intial shock of the names revealed wears off, i think a lot of you will be surprised at how little effect it has on baseball, and how a few months later, how little the fans really care. it will all blow over, and the game will be fine, probably a lot sooner than you think.

[USSoccer]

As a baseball fan, how can you honestly say that you don't care who has been cheating over the last X amount of years? That just boggles my mind.

 

Because it's irrelevant to the here and now. I would care if a Cub tested positive now, because it would have a direct impact on the team, as well as proving that individual an idiot for taking something now that MLB has a testing program. But revealing who used in the past serves no purpose.

 

Does it have to serve a purpose in the here & now in order to be something that's worthwhile knowing?

 

And what purpose does it serve? How is it worthwhile knowing?

[jersey cubs fan]

As a baseball fan, how can you honestly say that you don't care who has been cheating over the last X amount of years? That just boggles my mind.

 

Because it's irrelevant to the here and now. I would care if a Cub tested positive now, because it would have a direct impact on the team, as well as proving that individual an idiot for taking something now that MLB has a testing program. But revealing who used in the past serves no purpose.

 

Does it have to serve a purpose in the here & now in order to be something that's worthwhile knowing?

 

And what purpose does it serve? How is it worthwhile knowing?

 

It could help probably evaluate, and value a player's worth in the market right now. Somebody who is coming off a down year or two might be viewed as poised for a bounceback, unless it's known he dabbled in the juice, which could help explain his situation.

 

If I had solid proof Mark Prior was juicing in the past, I'd be much less interested in giving him the type of contract I've been talking about giving him.

[CubinNY]

I don't see the point of "naming names". These people aren't communists out to do the country ill. At the same time, it is important to clean up the sport. As usual, baseball is handling this terribly. IMO, they should give every player still playing today immunity and carry on with a more rigorous testing standard. Start from ground zero.

 

Finally, I'm not convinced that steroids/HGH HAS NOT had an appreciable impact on the game of baseball. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. It is a simple matter of physics. I do think it will be almost impossible to quantify though.

[seanimal]

I don't see the point of "naming names". These people aren't communists out to do the country ill. At the same time, it is important to clean up the sport. As usual, baseball is handling this terribly. IMO, they should give every player still playing today immunity and carry on with a more rigorous testing standard. Start from ground zero.

 

+1

 

Finally, I'm not convinced that steroids/HGH HAS NOT had an appreciable impact on the game of baseball. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would think otherwise. It is a simple matter of physics. I do think it will be almost impossible to quantify though.

 

It's probably impossible to take the numbers and narrow down steroids' effect on individual stats with rare exception, but as an overall effect on the game, it might be possible to figure out what overall trends emerged during the period, such as pitcher velocity and slugging ability. Conceivably, anyway.

[Soul]

As a baseball fan, how can you honestly say that you don't care who has been cheating over the last X amount of years? That just boggles my mind.

 

Because it's irrelevant to the here and now. I would care if a Cub tested positive now, because it would have a direct impact on the team, as well as proving that individual an idiot for taking something now that MLB has a testing program. But revealing who used in the past serves no purpose.

 

Does it have to serve a purpose in the here & now in order to be something that's worthwhile knowing?

 

And what purpose does it serve? How is it worthwhile knowing?

 

It's just one more piece of information that I can use to determine how I will view that period in baseball history. It's like anything else historical. There's no current purpose served, it's just knowing more about what really happened.

[wade]

Don't you think that baseball is villified so much because of their refusal to have any sort of real testing until recently? I'm suprised to see so much shoulder shrugging in this thread about cheating. Isn't the reasoning behind the of banning PED's, to make it an even playing field for all players including the ones that didn't have to cheat or take steroids to do it?

 

I think baseball catches some crap because they're slow to act, yes, but it amazes me the level of contempt people have for baseball players who do them as opposed to athletes in other sports.

 

Many sports regulate their sport to keep the playing field even. Golf restricts the size and type of club you can use, Auto racing restricts the type of engine setup you are allowed to have, and on and on, even baseball restricts the useage of corked bats, or scuffing the ball.

 

I'm not trying to nitpick or be a jerk, but I don't think the PGA has drug testing. PEDs don't have to be steroids either, an illegal drug that could calm nerves and get rid of the yips could help a pro golfer, in theory.

 

In football, if you are caught using PED's or other drugs you are automatically suspended for 4 games for first time use. Until recently, baseball had nothing of the sort. The reason the names in baseball are such a big deal is because speculation has been running rampant about drug use, and the league repeatedly refused to do anything about it until recently. If anything it will be a black eye on the league for being in denial for so long.

 

I mostly agree here. I think baseball players are paying the price for their union fighting so hard to keep drug testing of any sort out and I think they spilled over into PEDs. Now that there's testing, though, I don't see the difference like others seem to. I.E., you get 4 games in the NFL, don't you get 50 in MLB? A similar portion of the season?

 

I always sound like a steroid apologist in these type discussions, but it just seems ridiculous to me that people are wondering if the Patriots season is tainted in the NFL because of "spygate" but not because their all-pro safety was on the gas. If that shoe was on baseball's foot, it would be a much bigger story. Maybe for the reasons you give, I just don't think that makes it right.

[wade]

It could help probably evaluate, and value a player's worth in the market right now. Somebody who is coming off a down year or two might be viewed as poised for a bounceback, unless it's known he dabbled in the juice, which could help explain his situation.

 

If I had solid proof Mark Prior was juicing in the past, I'd be much less interested in giving him the type of contract I've been talking about giving him.

 

Good point. While I don't always understand the harsh judgements levied on players, I agree that it's worthwhile to know in this regard. A young player with a couple of unexpectedly good years is gonna hurt your team if he's signed because of that and due to testing might be hard-pressed to repeat it.

 

As much as I think baseball players get a raw deal in the PED world, I still am curious who was on and who wasn't, and general managers sure should be.

 

I'm going to edit to add that from what I gather about steroids in particular, players who used it "properly" (I only mean using with weight training - not that there's a proper reason for an athlete to use) and made strength gains will retain a portion of that strength even though they theoretically can no longer use steroids due to testing in MLB.

 

Let me go on to say that a surprising number of high school athletes take steroids (which is ironic, since their natural testosterone levels are already high) to get bigger and stronger in order to get an athletic college scholarship. That's been happening for years.

 

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that some who did it before MLB was strict enough, or before they got to MLB at all, will retain a portion of those gains and benefit from their usage without ever being in danger of testing positive.

[brinoch]

This has been talked to death, and I no longer care about who used PED's. I'm sure there were lots of guys who did them. I'm sure there were Cubs who did them, too. But the operative word here is did. Those seasons are in the past. I care about next year, and I care about stopping PED abuse. The testing regime will likely put an end to steroids, at least for a while, and that's all that really matters. After all, it's not like they can or will punish these players ex post facto.

[wade]

This has been talked to death, and I no longer care about who used PED's. I'm sure there were lots of guys who did them. I'm sure there were Cubs who did them, too. But the operative word here is did. Those seasons are in the past. I care about next year, and I care about stopping PED abuse. The testing regime will likely put an end to steroids, at least for a while, and that's all that really matters. After all, it's not like they can or will punish these players ex post facto.

 

Don't mean to argue, but the testing regime won't completely stop it. As I've said over and over, it happens in the Olympics and they supposedly have the toughest testing. And, for every Marion Jones caught, there's probably a dozen that don't get caught.

 

I'm way more pessimistic that anything can completely stop it, but you're right that it should slow it the heck down a bit.

[Banedon]

 

Exactly. And this isn't the only place that Old-Timeyness gets in the way of baseball becoming what it's capable of.

 

What it's capable of?? Like what? I suppose getting in the way of even MORE rampant abuse of illegal substances....which aren't just illegal in baseball, but illegal in the "real world" as well.

 

Don't any of you realize that the "Old-Timeyness" is what separates the game from other sports and makes it special?

 

I'm really late back to this discussion...sorry about that.

 

My comment was more about how the "Old-Timey" attitude about baseball affects the sport in other way besides this whole PED issue. I'm not justifying the use of PED's...but do think that the issue is focused on with the MLB much more than other sports, I think this attitude is part of it.

 

Baseball is no longer America's pastime. It might be something we all love here on this board, but for the vast majority of americans, I'd be willing to bet that football has taken the place of baseball in their hearts. Baseball lost it's "Old-Timeyness" during the strike. It was no longer about the game, but about money. And that's fine. That's what sports are now. But so many people in and around baseball still hold on the "Old-Timey" mystique around it. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the historical aspects of baseball. But that doesn't mean you can't move forward and change the game with the times.

 

"Old-Timeyness" keeps things like "grit" and "cluch" and "hustle" and "He's a good baseball man" in the lexicon. It keeps players in the game far past their prime because baseball has a long memory and can remember when so-and-so was a good player, even though they aren't now. It's things like this that I was referring to.

[brinoch]

This has been talked to death, and I no longer care about who used PED's. I'm sure there were lots of guys who did them. I'm sure there were Cubs who did them, too. But the operative word here is did. Those seasons are in the past. I care about next year, and I care about stopping PED abuse. The testing regime will likely put an end to steroids, at least for a while, and that's all that really matters. After all, it's not like they can or will punish these players ex post facto.

 

Don't mean to argue, but the testing regime won't completely stop it. As I've said over and over, it happens in the Olympics and they supposedly have the toughest testing. And, for every Marion Jones caught, there's probably a dozen that don't get caught.

 

I'm way more pessimistic that anything can completely stop it, but you're right that it should slow it the heck down a bit.

 

You're right, of course. There's no testing system that will catch everything and anything. Testing will always be a reactive process, but strict testing with stiff enough punishment can do a heck of a lot to deter PED's.

[The Voice of Reason]

I realize most of the Shepherds and a lot of the sheep around here don't care for Roz but I thought today's piece was worth sharing with the class.

 

 

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=86911

 

So while the commissioner tries to point out every day that the game has never been more popular or profitable, this investigation has cost a fortune and been a distracting headline for the game, not to mention a source of aggravation and angst for many club employees.

 

Let's hope that when it comes out, it was worth the price baseball has paid for it.

 

Starr witness

 

Most witnesses probably had little to offer, but former Reds and Marlins trainer Larry Starr, who is out of the game after 30 years, told Florida Today that he gave the Mitchell boys plenty to talk about.

 

"They sit there … Bud Selig and … Don Fehr and … say, 'Well, now that we know that this happened we're going to do something about it,'ø'' Starr said. "I have notes from the winter meetings where the owners group and the players association sat in meetings with the team physicians and … team physicians stood up and said, 'Look, we need to do something about this. We've got a problem here if we don't do something about it.' That was in 1988.''

 

Starr, who didn't name names for Mitchell, said he knew by 1984 that players were using steroids and that there were times when some teams had 30-40 percent use.

 

Starr also said one player came to camp in 1990 having gone from 171 pounds the year before to 205, while his body fat dropped from 8 to 5.8 percent.

 

Added Starr, "When Mark McGwire was discovered taking (andro) … four players walked into my office within an hour and asked, 'Where can I get (it)?' ''