YankeesRedSox.com

Andy?

I honestly don't think one team is any more "prone" to this behavior than another.

These are people who make their lieving with their bodies - the better the body performs, the more they make. And we're talking millions of dollars.

Tell me - other than everyone - who is really to be blamed the most here?

Would you take a drug to help you heal faster from an injury? would you take one to help you think more clearly? see the ball better? make your splitter dive an extra 2 inches? Hmm?

Let's be realistic here, this ain't about a specific team - this is about men trying to get an advantage any way they can.

Mitchell, I agree with you 100%, this isn't a Red Sox story. But, being the Red Sox guy on the site, I thought I'd take a look at how it impacted the Red Sox.

I was amazed at the number of players that played for the Red Sox. That statement isn't/wasn't intended to lay claim to anything specific. I was just stunned.

To me, it showed how prolific the steroid culture was.

To answer your question about would I take a drug to heal faster? I would it it were legal. Have I obeyed the law at every turn? No, but I like to think that now more than ever I do and that if I hurt myself (as a pro athlete), I would not take an illegal drug (or one banned by my sport).

If I was NOT an athlete (which Peter will attest I am not) I would most definetly stick with the word of my doctor. If he thought steroids were going to help, I would take them. Why? B/c in that case it would be legal. Without getting into too much specific here, a family member of mine just took steroids for a condition and it worked wonders and is considered the standard treatment for the condition/symptoms in question. Peter and I have a friend that has to take them for his/her condition. I don't think that was what you were getting at, but I'm offering it anyway, so thanks for reading.

Anyway, you ask a very good question, who is to blame? Other than all of us.

Here's a hair splitting argument - but a valid one nevertheless.

Supposed the statute on auto theft required only that a vehicle be broken into and the ignition "jacked" for it to be called a crime.

Now, along comes some guy who stops at a 7-11 for some beer before the Pats game on the tube. He jumps out, leaves the car running, door unlocked and - wellwaddayaknow - somebody takes his car, without permission, instead of the bus. Is there auto theft? Nope, not until the folks at the state-house rewrite that dumb statute. OK, so 12 months later, they have rewritten that dumb statute and they go to arrest the "perp" who drove off with the guys car. Can they prosecute? Nope, they can't as you can't legislate someone to be a criminal after the fact.

These players are going to say that either they didn't do what the trainer said (it's a he said/he said case and those stink) or they will say there were no regs against that particular drug or that they took every test required and they found nothing to prosecute. Soooo, MLB has got nothing to really prosecute.

Selig is walking on millimeter thick ice when he spouts that offenders will be prosecuted. Every litigator our there is so effin eager to take this on that it's like a shark feeding frenzy with the scent of blood in the water.

So - baseball continues to be great and frequently ridiculous theater.

Does this infuriate me about some (not all) of the players? Yup. Can I judge (some of) them harshly? Yup. Do I think I have the right to blame them. Maybe, but I think that the player's union and the commissioner's office committed the error here (big E on the scoreboard) and that Selig is now posturing for appearance sake. It's Selig who draws my ire for the way he let this little exercise play out. What really are you going to be able to do here Bud? You just stirred the pot, released the aroma of a huge stink, told me it stinks ... gee thanks, now someone go open a window so we can air this place out in time for pitchers and catchers to report.

Sorry Andy, sorry Peter - just calling it like I see it. My rant is now over.

Mitchell-

Your namesake addressed that issue and I quote:

"Beginning in 1971 and continuing today, Major League Baseball’s drug policy has
prohibited the use of any prescription medication without a valid prescription. By implication, this prohibition applied to steroids even before 1991, when Commissioner Fay Vincent first
expressly included steroids in baseball’s drug policy."

Now, the problem is it wasn't allowed,but there was nothing listed as a penalty. But, and I quote again:

"It is also inaccurate to assert, as some have, that baseball’s drug policy was not
binding on players before it was added to the collective bargaining agreement. Many players
were suspended for drug offenses before 2002, even though none of those suspensions related to
the use of steroids or other performance enhancing substances. Some suspensions were reduced
in grievance arbitrations brought by the Players Association, but no arbitrator ever has
questioned the authority of the Commissioner to discipline players for “just cause” based on their
possession, use, or distribution of prohibited drugs."

I think Mitchell has given Selig the justification he needs to punish players there.

Mitchell isn't a legislative body, he didn't even have subpoena powers. His words are, in fact, not a basis or cause of action. Bud's got some problems:

What's a steroid? Remember, can't go back to redefine one.

How is it different from a naturally occuring hormone?

Uh - I took all your tests, they were negative, got any proof or is this just hearsay?

Is it the purchasing that's banned (easy) or the consumption (show me the results).

This is going to keep the papers flying off the trucks and the lawyers in the green for a long time.

Let the games begin.

Let me start with , I believe that I am the ideal type of fan that MLB should be concerned about.

I am a (potentially) high spending, passionate fan of baseball.

I am a fan of the history of the game.

I am a fan of two major league teams because of where I grew up (24 years) and where I reside now (17+ years)

My opinion should be the one that MLB and the players association care about.

I want the "go forward" picture to be squeeky clean. I want no doubts and that would require the union to be busted (ain't happening).

If somebody making minimum salary ($400k) doesn't want strict testing that "proves" he is clean, let him make his money elsewhere. Garbage collectors (no offense meant to any readers that are collectors) have to take drug tests if they work for the city/town. My guess is they aren't making $400k.

If the one downside is you have to toe the line and be tested to make MILLIONS, then that is what I want as a fan.

I'm pissed off and wish there was something to be done about it instead of posturing.

A few randomly interspersed thoughts, not necessarily cohesive or coherent:

I am particularly saddened to see Andy Pettite's name on the list. I've always considered him a good man and a stand-up guy. That having been said, I am surprised at the fact that I am not at all surprised at his inclusion on the list. Had you asked me two days ago if I would be surprised to see his name included, I would have said yes, but in fact I am not. I suspect that even if Mo's or Jeter's name came out, I would not be surprised to see their names on the list. That's how cynical I've become. And it's a shame that it has come to this.

Additionally, I can't stop thinking that Pettite is not as bad as Bonds and Clemens. The latter two are liars, cheats, frauds. But I can't get past thinking that Pettite is somehow not in the same class. That he just used them in 2002 to heal faster for the team. Understand: I am not condoning, excusing, pardoning Pettite. I am just saying that based on the information that was released yesterday, the magnitude of Pettite's crime seems to me to be smaller than that of Bonds and Clemens. Call me a naive fool, if you will, but I want (pathetically?) to believe that Pettite only used in 2002, and only to heal more quickly. That offends me less than Bonds and Clemens, who were apparently trying, over the course of many years, to turn back the clock, to improve their endurance and to enhance their performance.

I have to ask this (and no, this is not moral relativism): why is it okay for teams to administer cortisone shots to players in pain, but not okay for players to take steroids. Some of sports' greatest legendary performances revolve around players out on the field/court where they arguably had no business being. Think of Willis Reed (Knicks) and Curt Schilling (Red Sox), and God only knows how many NFL players. Why exactly is it okay for teams to dope up their players to help them play through pain, but not okay for players to take steroids to increase their strength and endurance? Am I the only who finds that standard just a bit arbitrary, and hypocritical? And is it so hard to see how players can come around to believing that hey, if it is okay to stick me with cortisone to mask the pain, how different is it, really, to stick myself with steroids to enhance my performance. That doesn't seem like much of a leap to me. Oh, by the way, unless I'm mistaken, taking cortisone on a long-term is not good for the body, just like taking steroids is not good, so no one can argue that "steroids are bad for you, but cortisone is not".

Finally, the most important issue here, in my eyes, ultimately has to be Lyle Alzado (NFL). By that I mean this: Lyle Alzado took steroids for years, and later he paid the ultimate price: he died a painful death, wasting away internally as his organs literally failed. Ken Caminiti died young, too. That's what's these players are risking, and many don't understand that, or don't want to. That should be the primary issue here. Not that Bonds and Clemens and so many others, named and unnamed, are scoundrels. Not that the season home run record and career home run records are tainted. Not that more Yankees than Red Sox have been implicated. Not that the Yankees' accomplishments from 1998-2002 are tainted. Not that some fans feel "cheated". If the fans feel cheated, they have a simple recourse: Don't attend the games, don't watch the games, don't buy the branded merchandise, until MLB genuinely tries to put a stop to this nonsense. Don't feed the money machine. Until then, fans share in the guilt, because they are enablers of that money machine, just as surely as baseball management and the players union are enablers. And their whining about being cheated/duped/misled is every bit as hypocritical.