The Baseball Drug Question

Tony Peters | January 4, 2008
I didn't want to respond in Scott's thread since it would be off topic and I didn't want to take over the thread.
So.......Baseball and drugs, Curt Shilling came out with a rather extreme POV about Clemens, his records and whether or not he should keep them if it is proved that Roger was juicing at the time he earned them. At first I thought that this would be a recordkeeping nightmare but then it dawned on me that maybe it really is the right thing to do. All those that were juicing ought to be eliminated from baseball....period, they tainted the game and skewed the numbers by there very existence. Who knows how many strikes a pitcher would have thrown had then not had to face the likes of Canseco, Giambi, McGuire or Bonds and the same goes for hitters having to face juiced up pitchers like the Rocket etc. Yes righting all the statistical wrongs that chemically improved players posted will be a PITA but by not doing anything we are approving what they did and no amount of wrist slapping changes that. They cheated on a level that amounts to stealing and if that means that a world series or two need to be deemed unearned because too many of the players involved were ruled as no longer part of baseball then maybe just maybe players will learn that some behaviors aren't tolerable.

Aaron Shurtleff | January 4, 2008
The headache here is in one simple word: proof. How do you prove that (using Bonds here) a person with so many connections to a company that (allegedly) was making performance enhancing drugs which were designed to not be detected in a normal drug test was doing so? They weren't detected, but that's what they were designed for, right? Short of someone admitting to it, we're not going to ever ever know. And with that said, why admit it? That's why (IMO) when Bonds is asked, he can say, in all honesty, "I've never failed a drug test."

And how many players is too many, when removing the World Series is done? Two? Three? Four? What about some guy who did his job, didn't use the drugs, and now he has to lose his ring? I know people love to say that the players all know who's doing what and when, but what if there is a guy on a World Series team who's 100% clean, even though some number of his peers are not, who earned his right to play for and win the series? And what about those person or persons who had legit reasons for the steroids (injury, for example)? Are baseball players not allowed to rehab with the same sorts of medications regular folks are? Apparently not. There are legit and proper reasons for some of these drugs, and I, personally, would hate to see the good guys get bunched in with the buttholes.

And, really, since Mitchell had no subpoena power, and very limited in who he could talk to, that report was probably just the smallest portion of what might be out there. I think he really could only talk to one or two folks (my memory is spotty, but I recall there being a very small number of people he could speak to...). What if (and I say this not as a Red Sox hater (although, honestly, I am)) we find out that Schilling used? Do we take back the Bloody Sock? What if someone puts in a claim that he did, knowing that the court of public opinion would convict him, and that claim is never substantiated? Right now, we don't have very much hard evidence at all, and until we get it, there's not much that can be done. I think, in the end, the questionable players will only be punished by not getting voted into the Hall of Fame, and even that is questionable. How "punished" is Pete Rose?!

The best thing about this all is that, maybe, we can finally put to bed the ridiculous rumor that they are only going after Bonds because he's black. No, they're after people who are wrongly using performance-enhancing drugs, no matter what color, creed, religion, etc. The race argument seem s kind of silly, but I still hear it being argued.

And, yeah, I'm not an expert on any of this (I'm hitting all your peeves, aren't I, Eric?), but that's what I feel, and I would welcome hearing other opinions on the topic.

Steve West | January 5, 2008
There will never be a way to know with certainty who was juiced and who wasn't. Amending the record books to reflect the removal of the "known" juicers only keeps the record book viewed with skepticism as to who is still in there (the record book) who should not be (the juiced players). The records are what they are. Tainted yet historical in that they are a real event in baseball history. The only thing I can think of is to color the pages or portions of individual records a certain color to reflect that these numbers occured in the "juiced" era of baseball and let the cloud of suspicion hang over all players who played in that time. Maybe urine test yellow. As to which years constitute the juiced era? I'd go with 1994 - 2004.

Tony Peters | January 5, 2008
Shoeless Joe Jackson was from all accounts innocent but he paid the price...if you know someone is breaking the rules (or in some cases the law) and you don't report it then you are just as guilty as they are. Yes are are legit reasons to use these drugs and if a team doctor proscribes them for rehab then that would be acceptable....I mean when I get drug tested they check my medical record....anything that isn't in my record is flagged and I get prosecuted for it.

I mentioned Shilling because he is so famous as a Clemens Protege' the overall idea that if you are guilty then your record/career should be expunged was the point I was trying to make

the Mitchel report was written mostly from the ravings of one guy, Brian McNamee, who was threatened with jail. I'm not sure that anything that he said warrants accepting as gospel

Tony Peters | February 15, 2008
Pedro has the right idea and there is pretty much no way he could have ever done any drugs he's too damn small