Steroid List Leaks David Ortiz+a.soriano+c.delgado Tested Positive

[patsen]

To streamline that monster of a post, I'm trying to say:

- I don't deny PEDs in baseball exist. I'm saying the effects if visible, are subtle.

- Too subtle to detect by statistical means, since random variance can overpower it.

- The casual fan will blindly listen to the media and their accusations, and will have a 'profile of a roider', which they'll apply as a standard to players.

- I don't blame the media entirely. The MLBPA, owners and commissioner's office are also to blame. But, it got everyone money.

[Hoop27]

while I agree with most of that Pat. You can't deny that there are guys that have physically grown dramatically, and lets face it cap sizes don't grow that much naturally.

So there have been some guys that are pretty clear juicers.

[CircleChange11]

To streamline that monster of a post, I'm trying to say:

- I don't deny PEDs in baseball exist. I'm saying the effects if visible, are subtle.

- Too subtle to detect by statistical means, since random variance can overpower it.

- The casual fan will blindly listen to the media and their accusations, and will have a 'profile of a roider', which they'll apply as a standard to players.

- I don't blame the media entirely. The MLBPA, owners and commissioner's office are also to blame. But, it got everyone money.

There is nothing subtle about the physical transformations of Sammy Sosa, Juan Gonzales, Barry Bonds, etc. They went from lean, sleak speedster types to beasts. I don't know if you guys have ever seen someone add 25 pounds of MUSCLE (not bodyweight, but muscle). Let me put it this way, 10 pounds of muscle will be very signifcant in your appearance (again, not 10 pounds of bodyweight, 10 pounds of muscle). Lenny Dystrka as a Philly compared to Lenny Dykstra as a Met.

Are you guys telling me that you literally cannot see any difference between a 185 pound Bonds and a 235 pound Bonds? Same with Sosa. Same with Gonzales. McGwire went from 225 to 265. Big Mac couldn't stay healthy to complete one season, then stays healthy for 3 and has power numbers like we've never seen before (HR/AB). The #1 benefit of steroids is RECOVERY. Like Canseco described, "you can be at your peak all season long". There's the benefit. Ask any cyclist, powerlifter/strongman, etc the difference between being "on" and cycle and being "off".

Are you REALLY telling me you can only see a subtle difference, because I have to drastically question your eyesight. If the girl that sat next to you in math went from a B cup to DD within one or two years, would you notice?

The effects are not "subtle". As I said in other thread, in 100 years of baseball there were two seasons of 60 HRs. Then in the 90s/2000s there were 5 such seasons in 7 years. I don;t feel the need to count up the number of 40 HR seasons in those time psans, but it'd likely be illustrative.

Maybe I'm over-estimating my audience here. As one that has played college sports, and worked in gyms during college years, I can tell you that whenever athletes work out for competition, steroids will always be there in some degree. They're no secret. They're readily available. Relatively inexpensive. Like marijuana, most of what you hear is scare tactics. They work ... and man do they work ... it's why athletes will take such risks in order to use them. Baseball, up to the last 15 years, had been somewhat naive to steroids, but once they were introduced to it, word spread like wildfire. What's sad today is the amount of steroid use in high schools and small colleges.

Anyway, I thought we were having an informed and an adult conversation about steroids and MLB. Canseco said it was rampant, Caminiti said it was rampant. 4 would be hall of famers have either tested positive or had so much evidence against them, they won't comment about it. I don't know what baseball you guys are talking about ... because I'm talking about the one that existed from around 1988 to 2003 or so.

[krawhitham]

looks like a BS list

What half the Cubs from 2003 are on the list but only 5% of all players

Do you really think Clemens would tell the government he had never tested positive if he had failed a MLB test? It would be automatic jail time

There just is not enough no name players on this list to make me think it is true

[CircleChange11]

What I'd love to see is an assurance that someone didn't use PEDs. For example if Carlos Delgado said "If someone can prove I used PEDs, than I will donate $10M to ____ charity." Something along those lines.

Why not just make them pay back the amount in the contract?

Is it fair that Gary Mathews Jr used steroids in Texas (ordered them from a "Youth Rejuvenation clinic"), and obtained a huge contract in LA, only to drop off into mediocrity? How is that not fraud to an employer?

FWIW, Sammy Sosa was the guy that said if there was testing he would be "the first one in line". Well, guess what.

Talk is cheap.

1 strike (positive test), you're out. That would be effective. Use multiple samples for testing, so there's none of this "it must have been something in my toothpaste" (a T&F star actually claimed this) or "it had to be the wiskey" (the American who won TdF, Tyler Hamilton I believe) BS excuse crap.

If a sport truly wanted to rid itself of steroids, it likely could. Frequent, random testing, multiple samples, etc. The problem is that you (the league) spend a lot of money for bad press and less excited performances ... only to have athletes switch to something that's undetectable (formerly, the clear) or a naturally existing substance (GH). Cheaters are always ahead of the testers.

[patsen]

It's not that easy. As long as tests are imperfect, false positives would lead to innocent players getting penalized. We'd need a better system to try to prevent this. Multiple samples from the same source could have the same bias. That's why I liked the original system where the first positive was ignored.

Though are we debating whether the issue was rampant, or whether it still is? Give immunity of anything in the past to assure it's settled in the present and future. Stop trying to retroactively punish players for something which wasn't against the rules at the time.

And as for trying to fix the issue, it'll never be that simple. Players try to cheat to have an edge, either to get to the next level, or to get the big contract. We need the MLBPA to try to convince players that the only way for the sport to be clean is for everyone to be clean. It just happens that players will always have incentive to take the risk to get the reward, so like the prisoner's dilemma, the 'correct' answer seems to be to cheat.

That's why I like the escrow account idea posted above. It gives people disincentive to cheat and incentive not to cheat. But, it seems the current system is doing something.

[DylanBradbury]

Why not just make them pay back the amount in the contract?

Is it fair that Gary Mathews Jr used steroids in Texas (ordered them from a "Youth Rejuvenation clinic"), and obtained a huge contract in LA, only to drop off into mediocrity? How is that not fraud to an employer?

FWIW, Sammy Sosa was the guy that said if there was testing he would be "the first one in line". Well, guess what.

Talk is cheap.

1 strike (positive test), you're out. That would be effective. Use multiple samples for testing, so there's none of this "it must have been something in my toothpaste" (a T&F star actually claimed this) or "it had to be the wiskey" (the American who won TdF, Tyler Hamilton I believe) BS excuse crap.

If a sport truly wanted to rid itself of steroids, it likely could. Frequent, random testing, multiple samples, etc. The problem is that you (the league) spend a lot of money for bad press and less excited performances ... only to have athletes switch to something that's undetectable (formerly, the clear) or a naturally existing substance (GH). Cheaters are always ahead of the testers.

Hey man, I totally agree with you. You get caught, you're out. I'm just tired of these "lists," and I wish a player would say something that would make it abundantly clear he never used PEDs.

[patsen]

Pipe dream. There's no way to prove someone's clean, hence why accusing is so damaging.

As for getting caught, because of false positives, the one strike rule could catch clean players. We need a way around that.

Getting kicked out of the league is too far. Escrow a large percentage of their money, so if you insist of cheating, you get a small pittance for a salary, if anything. That way only the players who play for the love of the game would accept those conditions, and such players wouldn't take PEDs.

[crud]

I'm so glad Pujols and Griffey Jr. Aren't on the list. I think I'd quit watching baseball if that happened.

But if the list is legite than it's a shame because the 2004 Red Sox might as well have their rings taken away.

[CircleChange11]

It's not that easy. As long as tests are imperfect, false positives would lead to innocent players getting penalized.

Does anyone have any reliable medical/professional evidence as to how often "false positives" occur? I know it's an accusation athletes that test positive like to throw around. But how legit of a concern is this really?

As soon as an athlete tests positive, test em again for support. I would take this very seriously and test often, so a positive test on Monday could be verified by another test on Thursday.

Though are we debating whether the issue was rampant, or whether it still is?

I'm saying it was rampant, up until every a couple of years ago, and that it's still here as athletes will always try to get an edge or have a breakout year to earn a big contract. I think it's toned down big time, but will resurge in the near future with HGH. There's no realiable test for it, and it improves everything from tendon/ligament strength, to eyesight, to whatever.

Give immunity of anything in the past to assure it's settled in the present and future. Stop trying to retroactively punish players for something which wasn't against the rules at the time.

I think it is important to understand just how severe the problem was and/or is.

I don't understand the whole immunity just because it was in the past typer of thing. But, that's moot because no one is being punished for anything that happenned in 2003. I don't even know what you're talking about. ARod admitted his positive test and did not pay a fine nor serve a suspension. Where is this punishm,ent you're talking about?

But, there are Hall of Fame implications. Those that testified in front of Congress also have some other issues if they tested positive.

And I will point out this VERY important aspect because I'm tired of people making the incorrect statement. Using steroids was illegal in baseball, and the US, when these guys were using. PEDs are, and have been, universally prohibited in major American sports. It just wasn't tested for. [1] Not testing for something, and [2] having it be legal are two DIFFERENT things.

And as for trying to fix the issue, it'll never be that simple. Players try to cheat to have an edge, either to get to the next level, or to get the big contract. We need the MLBPA to try to convince players that the only way for the sport to be clean is for everyone to be clean. It just happens that players will always have incentive to take the risk to get the reward, so like the prisoner's dilemma, the 'correct' answer seems to be to cheat.

Yeah, that toothpaste ain't going back in the tube. Rather than "be clean" it's more like "find something undetectable". It sucks.

As a lefty pitcher in college (early 90s) at 6'3 155 (now 210 at 35) throwing 84mph, steroids were a VERY big temptation for me, especially with lots of friends on the football team, and a good buddy that had the connections to acquire just about anything. I knew if I went that route my days of being able to look myself in the mirror would be over. In that regard, I'm glad McGwire doesn't show his face, and Bonds stays away, etc. Sure, they've got the records, they've got the money, but what they don't have is respect.

[CircleChange11]

Pipe dream. There's no way to prove someone's clean, hence why accusing is so damaging.

I think when you continually test positive and don't have people (former teammates or trainers, etc) saying they sold you steroids and/or personally injected you with syringes, it's fairly reasonable that people will think you are clean. There's no way to prove anything, only degrees of certainty.

As for getting caught, because of false positives, the one strike rule could catch clean players. We need a way around that.

There are simple ways around the alleged "false positive". An immediate follow up or "second chance" test is given without notice (i.e., time to take masking agents).

Getting kicked out of the league is too far.

How? Is playing baseball a right? I have never understood how being banned from MLB for deliberate and calculated cheating is too severe.

If I steal money from my employer, is getting fired too harsh of a penalty?

I guess I look at it from this perspective, taking steroids is not an "accident". It's not a "mistake" that "just happens". You have to sit down and think it over, plan the logistics, work with consultant/advisor/buddy on what to take, when to take it, how much, how long, etc. You have to put a lot of thought and planning into cheating. It's as premeditated as cheating gets. I don't get your leniency. Have long have you played baseball?

Escrow a large percentage of their money, so if you insist of cheating, you get a small pittance for a salary, if anything. That way only the players who play for the love of the game would accept those conditions, and such players wouldn't take PEDs.

Okay, you know baseball players are generally only good at baseball, right? It's all they've done and it's all they've ever known. They'd play for 50K, because for a lot of them, that's about 20-25K more than they could make in the real world doing something with only a high school diploma or a couple of years of college.

Does playing in the major leagues for 50K sound like punishment to you? I'll take that punishment starting tomorrow morning. Do I report to St Louis or Kansas City?

[patsen]

Hmm... given it's currently based on urine, it would probably be in the neighbourhood of pregnancy tests.

But false positives can also come from external factors. Like how poppy seeds can trigger false positives for opiates. When the Romero story came out, they were talking about how scared players are of taking anything in case something banned was accidentally attached to it. Ideally, there would be a way to separate the intentional cases with the accidental ones.

And, on the other side, we have an increasing number of ADD players in the league it seems.

Part of the issue is also ethical. Right now, someone taking steroids has clearly ruined baseball. But what was the difference between that and amphetamines? Why is one more ethical than the other? Once something else comes along, people will think that is the next Hitler. This is also why I spite the media for this. Everyone's blindly screaming "think of the children", then advertise all these stars who took steroids and made it huge.

Of course, people just might put higher standards on baseball for some reason. No one seems to care about Hollywood actresses with performance enhancing implants. People pay their money and watch, taking their Viagra and Rogaine to try to recover some of their youth as well.

The players' penalties now are in HOF implications. Players like McGwire and Sosa are fringe candidates anyway (McGwire much more worthy), so some will want to keep them out, but by any reasonable timeline, Bonds and Clemens were HOF before even touching any of the stuff, so does it completely discount their feats or a modest penalty? There are no lack of established cheaters in the HOF, but their methods were apparently more ethical, since no one's rallying for their banning.

I'll always respect Bonds for being the best hitter of his generation. When all this was happening, I was hoping he'd sign with one of my teams because he'd have been a huge difference. He might still be now.

[DylanBradbury]

Getting kicked out of the league is too far. Escrow a large percentage of their money, so if you insist of cheating, you get a small pittance for a salary, if anything. That way only the players who play for the love of the game would accept those conditions, and such players wouldn't take PEDs.

CircleChange11 beat me to it but steroids are illegal. People who poses steroids can face up to one-year in prison for a first-time offence:

"the first offense simple possession of such substances without a prescription a federal crime punishable by up to one year in prison"

Athletes shouldn't be treated differently. Those who use are criminals.

[patsen]

Is HGH illegal? I know anabolic steroids are, and I agree that illegal substances should treated as such.

But I'm talking about PEDs in general. Amphetamines aren't illegal, but they are banned in baseball.

Though in Canada-US, marijuana is also an illegal substance, and I'm sure most of the people here can't say they're 100% clean of that, or other similar substances (underage drinking is also illegal).

I'm all for a system that doesn't penalize for false positives and gives great disincentive to cheaters, and incentive to those who don't cheat. I don't support illegal activities, of course.

[CircleChange11]

Hmm... given it's currently based on urine, it would probably be in the neighbourhood of pregnancy tests.

But false positives can also come from external factors. Like how poppy seeds can trigger false positives for opiates. When the Romero story came out, they were talking about how scared players are of taking anything in case something banned was accidentally attached to it. Ideally, there would be a way to separate the intentional cases with the accidental ones.

Not to sound rude, but I'm not really interested in what you think it "probably is" or some other hypothesis that's based on poppy seeds influencing mairjuana tests.

List me some non-PED substances that trigger a positive PED test.

Part of the issue is also ethical. Right now, someone taking steroids has clearly ruined baseball. But what was the difference between that and amphetamines? Why is one more ethical than the other?

Cheating is cheating. Personally, I don't have a problem with someone being banned for deliberately and consciously using a corked bat or scuffed ball. Again, that stuff doesn't happen by accident. We're not talking about kids making mistakes, we're talking about grown men making a conscious decision to cheat for their own personal gain.

Steroids gets more attention because its affect on performance is to a much greater degree than amphetamines. It's that simple.

Once something else comes along, people will think that is the next Hitler.

You keep saying this as if the more you say it, the truer it becomes. It's not true. Stop saying it. It's just your wild assumption. Nothing more.

This is also why I spite the media for this. Everyone's blindly screaming "think of the children", then advertise all these stars who took steroids and made it huge.

It has to do with the integrity of the game. But, it is interesting that I just went to the video store and noticed in the kids section a video of baseball superstars .... 4 guys on the cover: Bonds, Pudge, Clemens, Palmeiro. Classic.

My 8yo son (in my avatar) is baseball crazy. Unfortunately, he already knows what steroids are and who has tested positive for them and on and on.

Steroids are stillillegal in the US, a class 3 substance, I believe. It's not like we're talking about guys getting caught with a little moonshine here. In legal terms, pocessing steroids is some serious poop. whether or not it should be is another discussion.

But, really, you're just rambling instead of making evidence-based points.

Of course, people just might put higher standards on baseball for some reason. No one seems to care about Hollywood actresses with performance enhancing implants. People pay their money and watch, taking their Viagra and Rogaine to try to recover some of their youth as well.

I'm only talking about baseball, not actresses. I was never an actress, I didn't make movies for 20 years of my life, I don't live and breath movies. I don't care about Hollywood the way I care about baseball.

The players' penalties now are in HOF implications. Players like McGwire and Sosa are fringe candidates anyway (McGwire much more worthy), so some will want to keep them out, but by any reasonable timeline, Bonds and Clemens were HOF before even touching any of the stuff, so does it completely discount their feats or a modest penalty? There are no lack of established cheaters in the HOF, but their methods were apparently more ethical, since no one's rallying for their banning.

Bonds and Clemens were HoF locks before the years of their steroid use accusations. That's why they get a little more leniency toward HoF (I'm assumming they will anyway, they might not). Bonds has 7 MVPs, 3 before SF. Clemens has 7 Cy's and 1 MVP.

The thinking is that Sosa and McGwire only attained HoF numbers/credentials by their steroid-enhanced performance.

The difference is obvious ... you're being intentionally dense.

However, Pete Rose's actions (gambling on baseball as a manager) prohibit his inclusion to the HoF as a player, even though the actions took place years after he attained HoF numbers/credentials. There is precedence.

[DylanBradbury]

Is HGH illegal? I know anabolic steroids are, and I agree that illegal substances should treated as such.

But I'm talking about PEDs in general. Amphetamines aren't illegal, but they are banned in baseball.

Though in Canada-US, marijuana is also an illegal substance, and I'm sure most of the people here can't say they're 100% clean of that, or other similar substances (underage drinking is also illegal).

I'm all for a system that doesn't penalize for false positives and gives great disincentive to cheaters, and incentive to those who don't cheat. I don't support illegal activities, of course.

If you have a prescription for HGH it's legal. They usually give HGH prescriptions to small children, not to athletes.

"possession of HGH without a prescription is a crime punishable by five years in jail.".

Seems pretty clear to me. You use HGH you should be in prison for at least five years.

When these athletes are doing PEDs, they know what they are doing is wrong.

That's why at spring training you don't hear "Oh I injected myself with HGH this off-season ." You hear: "Oh, I really worked on my weight training in the off-season."