Jose Canseco

[BruceW]

Remember when 50 home runs was a great achievement?

George Foster in the 70s and Cecil Fielder?

No one blinks anymore when someone hits 50.

No one hit fifty in the last two years.

As to the philosophical question asked above, it can be measured by the players who used to hit long outs and then suddenly hit loads of dingers. Those loads of dingers is the exact measurement of how much more is steroids.

Dan is exactly right.

However, since I am not a mathematician I cannot give the exact equation for arriving at a percentage BUT Dan is right.

Unfortunately we have no stats on "long outs." Probably the baseball clubs do! They keep stats on EVERYTHING, leading to an extrapolation of that theory and thus: THE CLUBS and MANAGERS KNEW ALL ALONG WHAT WAS GOING ON! They are all trying to cover their as*es........

B-)

Edited February 26, 2005 by BruceW

[JSngry]

Remember when the suspicions were that the ball was juiced?

[Eric]

I think Plato wrote to that point, but I can't remember in which book.

B-)

[johnlitweiler]

On the other hand, for half a season at the end of his playing career Canseco came out of nowhere and became a useful DH for the Chicago White Sox. gratefully, JL

How does this South Side baseballic affiliation affect your relationship with the other members of the mafia?

Wish I could have been at Sox Park at the 1919 World Series when King Oliver's band played in the stands.

Scarface John

[JSngry]

I meant the "Chicago Jazz Mafia" (as I suspect you realize )

Are you now, or have you ever been...

[chandra]

Dan  Gould: I see where you're coming from, Matt, but I think the testing process that's now in place is strict enough

I am not that sure about that. How does MLB's process compare to other leagues in U.S.A. and the Olympics, does anyone know? From what I read, the process may be adequate but the penalty is not damaging enough to discourage players from going the illegal steroid route. I am a bit suspicious when MLB has to negotiate with the Players Union to come up with this process.

[Dan Gould]

Dan  Gould: I see where you're coming from, Matt, but I think the testing process that's now in place is strict enough

I am not that sure about that. How does MLB's process compare to other leagues in U.S.A. and the Olympics, does anyone know? From what I read, the process may be adequate but the penalty is not damaging enough to discourage players from going the illegal steroid route. I am a bit suspicious when MLB has to negotiate with the Players Union to come up with this process.

They have to come to an agreement with the Players Union because the Basic Agreement covers such things as drug tests.

The fact is that the first positive test is a ten day suspension, which I view as pretty damn serious when you consider that the very worst baseball brawls hardly ever result in more than a five day suspension. The second is thirty days, and if you are a regular player, that is a devastating penalty to you and your team. Bear in mind that the suspensions are without pay - a month's worth of salary is a pretty huge hit when you consider that players only draw their gigantic paychecks over the six months of the season. I believe the third positive tests gets you a full season suspension and the fourth is banishment.

No, that's not as strict as the Olympics testing which has a two year ban for a first positive result. But then again, for things like 100 meter sprints, that little tiny impact of red blood cells carrying more oxygen to the muscles can make all the difference in the world (see Ben Johnson).

While there will always be a battle between drug tests and masking agents, etc., for those who are really intent on juicing, but I think the program is in place to severely restrict the number of players who will do it. With unannounced tests and ten or thirty day suspensions at stake, how long can they risk getting caught? And, the final piece of this puzzle comes from the minor leagues: MLB has total control over the working conditions of minor league players. They aren't members of the union til they make a major league roster. So, for several years now, MLB has had a stringent testing and penalty system in place, and I believe the percentage of positive tests is now no more than 1%. Its virtually a given that in the coming years, minor league players who reach the majors will be clean. That will go a long way toward keeping the majors clean in the future.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Dan Gould

[chandra]

The fact is that the first positive test is a ten day suspension, which I view as pretty damn serious when you consider that the very worst baseball brawls hardly ever result in more than a five day suspension. The second is thirty days, and if you are a regular player, that is a devastating penalty to you and your team. Bear in mind that the suspensions are without pay - a month's worth of salary is a pretty huge hit when you consider that players only draw their gigantic paychecks over the six months of the season. I believe the third positive tests gets you a full season suspension and the fourth is banishment.

In my book, this process is very weak. If the goal is zero tolerance for steroid use, this penalty system has to be tighted up a lot to achieve that. May be a major public outcry and a decline in baseball popularity will get them in that direction. And there has to be public shame in getting caught. This kind of weak process is what happens when one has to negotiate the process with the entity you want to clean-up. ( I realize why they have to negotiate .... ).

How does this compare with NFL?

[Dan Gould]

Ten day suspension, followed by a 30 day suspension is "very weak"? You've got to be kidding me.

And do you think there will be no "public shame in getting caught"?

There's no provision whereby those who are suspended for ten games get to make up a story about why they are not playing. There WILL BE a public announcement of a positive test result, and if you don't think that will result in some public shame ....

as far as the NFL goes, I believe the first positive test results in NOTHING but "counseling". Its only with subsequent positive tests does anyone get suspended, starting with four games. So, at least MLB goes straight for the punishment, even if their punishment isn't quite so bad on the first positive test vs the second positive test for an NFL player.

[Dave James]

Here's all you need to know. The Babe hit 60 in 1927. It took 34 years for Roger Maris to hit 61 in '61 and then 37 years before McQwire broke his record in '98. Then, in the three year period between 1998 and 2001, the 60 home run barrier was broken six different times by three different ballplayers. That just doesn't make any sense unless steriods are part of the picture.

Up over and out.

[chandra]

Ten day suspension, followed by a 30 day suspension is "very weak"? You've got to be kidding me.

And do you think there will be no "public shame in getting caught"?

There's no provision whereby those who are suspended for ten games get to make up a story about why they are not playing. There WILL BE a public announcement of a positive test result, and if you don't think that will result in some public shame ....

I concede a bit to you on the short term public shame part of it, but on the money side, for multi-millionnairre ball players, loss of 10 day or 30 day pay is nothing.

Back to the public shame part, fans are quite forgiving. Play this scenario out for giggles: a top notch player gets caught and there is all this media frenzy over that, the player gives an explanation that he took a cough medicine and did not know it contained the prohibited substance, sits out the 10 day suspension. Yeah, there is a bit of short term shame in getting caught. Let us continue.... Play off time, seventh game, crucial stage, our man hits a home run and wins the game. Everything is forgotten and he is a hero. Several variations on this theme can be played out. My point: Fans don't hold any of these transgressions against their favourite players if they win games for their teams.

[Dan Gould]

Well, I agree that steroids are part of that picture but there is no way that you can ignore other factors:

smaller parks

diluted pitching

players who work out year round (and aren't all juicing either) and are in better shape than the vast majority of the players of yesteryear.

Which brings me to this, in today's NYT:

Mike Schmidt Dismisses Steroids - HRs Link

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 6, 2005

Filed at 5:18 p.m. ET

FORT MYERS, Fla. (AP) -- Mike Schmidt refused to blame steroids for the increase in home runs in the major leagues -- or for his diminishing stature on the career homer list.

``Leave steroids out of it,'' Schmidt said Sunday. ``There's a simple explanation why the home run totals are what they are, and the guys that are hitting would agree with me -- it's park size, hard baseballs and hard bats.''

Since the Hall of Fame third baseman retired in 1989 with the seventh-most home runs (548), he has been passed by four players -- Barry Bonds (703), Mark McGwire (583), Sammy Sosa (574) and Rafael Palmeiro (551). Several others could move ahead of Schmidt in the next five years.

``Guys are passing me like I was a car on the freeway,'' said Schmidt, a spring training instructor for the Philadelphia Phillies.

Schmidt estimates the smaller ballparks and the equipment help elite power hitters add 10-12 home runs more per season than those of his generation -- or about 150 more career homers. But he's quick to note that he isn't bitter over the evolution of the longball.

``That's an honest answer. That's not a chip on the shoulder (or) an old timer whining about things,'' Schmidt said. ``We're not blaming the kids that are playing the game now. They are great hitters. They are further along fundamentally as hitters at this point in their careers than we were in the old days. Everything is better about the game now. They are bigger, stronger and they work out harder.''

Schmidt also insists these changes make it harder to compare players from different eras.

``We all know any discussion about whether Henry Aaron is a better hitter than Barry Bonds is ridiculous because of the conditions under which both played,'' he said. ``The environment in which they played is so totally different, you can't compare.''

****************************

Now, I would not go as far as Schmidt does, but to assert that the home run totals of the last ten years are entirely due to steroids is a bit much.

[Dan Gould]

Ten day suspension, followed by a 30 day suspension is "very weak"? You've got to be kidding me.

And do you think there will be no "public shame in getting caught"?

There's no provision whereby those who are suspended for ten games get to make up a story about why they are not playing. There WILL BE a public announcement of a positive test result, and if you don't think that will result in some public shame ....

I concede a bit to you on the short term public shame part of it, but on the money side, for multi-millionnairre ball players, loss of 10 day or 30 day pay is nothing.

Let's say we've got someone making 8 million a year. Its paid out over six months, which is 1.3 million dollars a month. You don't think a player will pay attention to that hit?

I guarantee they'll feel that hit a heckuva lot worse than the slap on the wrist $50,000 fines MLB gives out for a little brawl.

[chandra]

Its paid out over six months, which is 1.3 million dollars a month. You don't think a player will pay attention to that hit?

Agreed that even for a rich player 1.3 million is a hit. But the part we have not gotten into here yet is: What is the probability of getting caught in the new process they have negotiated? Are there surprise, unannounced and random checks by a third party?

Edited March 8, 2005 by chandra

[Dan Gould]

The probability is fairly high.

To the second question,

Yes, yes and yes.

[Soulstation1]

[chandra]

I have expressed my scepticism about baseball players union agreeing to meaningful drug testing and deterrent methods.I gave some ground to Dan since he was fairly aggressive in his opinion that this may actually work. But look at this story today... And we all believed just last week that the suspension was mandatory... I should have stuck with my scepticism...Now I am even more so. ( What other player friendly terms are in there? )

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...nm/mlb_drugs_dc

Loophole in Drugs Policy to Be Closed, Says Selig

RALEIGH, N.C. (Reuters) - Major League Baseball and the players union have agreed to close a loophole in their new drugs policy that would have allowed for players to be fined rather than suspended for steroid use, commissioner Bud Selig said

The loophole had angered U.S. congressmen during a highly publicized hearing on steroid use.

"The language in the contract is back to where I thought it was in the beginning," Selig told reporters on Sunday.

"A player will be suspended after the first positive test and that's it. There are no longer any 'ands' or 'ifs' or 'ors.' They're all gone."

The move will still need to be approved by every Major League club's union representative.

"The agreement still needs to be ratified by the players, but there is an agreement by the negotiators to drop that language," Michael Weiner, general counsel for the players union, told the New York Times.

A U.S. congressional panel held hearings last week to examine baseball's drug testing and disciplinary program.

Retired player, Jose Canseco, who testified at the hearing, said in a controversial book published earlier this year that he witnessed several players using steroids during his playing days.

Edited March 22, 2005 by chandra

[PHILLYQ]

Maybe MLB is starting to deal with steroids effectively- I hope so, but MLB has spent 10 years deying any problems while some players have become, uh, 'inflated'. They should also test for Human Growth Hormone- some of those denying steroid use may have been using HGH.

Chandra is on the right track to be skeptical, MLB has been busy denying the presence of the elephant in the room.

[Brownian Motion]

Here's all you need to know. The Babe hit 60 in 1927. It took 34 years for Roger Maris to hit 61 in '61 and then 37 years before McQwire broke his record in '98. Then, in the three year period between 1998 and 2001, the 60 home run barrier was broken six different times by three different ballplayers. That just doesn't make any sense unless steriods are part of the picture.

Up over and out.

Amen.

[chandra]

My skepticism went up another level today. I heard that what they agreed to has another loophole. When a person is injured and not playing, they can't be tested. At one level, it sounded reasonable but then on second thought 'Hmmm.. there is a nice escape route, get on the injured reserve until body sheds the drug'..

And then, here is a story today about Bonds.

Bonds Fears He May Miss Entire 2005 Season..

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._nm/nl_bonds_dc

""I'm just going to try to rehab myself back to, I don't know, hopefully next season, hopefully middle of the season, I don't know," Bonds told reporters at the Giants' spring training camp in Scottsdale, Arizona on Tuesday"

May be there are legitimate reasons for him to say this, but the little bit of consipiracy theorist in me suggests that he may never come back...

[Dan Gould]

If Bonds doesn't come back because of the testing regimen, what does that say about your objections and suspicions?????

And furthermore, if he never comes back for whatever reason, good riddance.

There are, if I recall correctly, 15, 30 and 60 day DISABLED LISTS - injured reserve is NFL. Players do NOT go on the DL at their own decision. Disabling a player - especially if he is an important member of the team - is not something any team does lightly, and its nothing they would do on the players say-so. The player would have to convince the medical staff that he is legitimately injured and cannot help the team for a minimum of 15 days from the last day he played. NO TEAM is going to use the DL to help players get 'clean' and furthermore there is another reason that your objections are misplaced and misguided:

Drug tests are RANDOM.

HOW does a player know he needs to get himself on the DL then? He DOESN'T KNOW when he will be tested. If he's using drugs, cycling on and off, what is he going to do? Every three weeks say he has a hangnail and get himself on the DL? What if he gets tested in the interim period?

Your objections on this are flat out silly.

As for your suspicions over the wording of the penalties, fine. If you believe with all your heart that baseball isn't serious about drug tests and the union doesn't want them, then that fits right in with your beliefs.

But the fact is that NO ONE on the union side said that this was what was negotiated. NO ONE on the Union side objected to changing the wording to reflect what was negotiated in the first place. The holier-than-thou congressman can huff and puff all they want, but there was no evidence ever presented that indicated this was anything other than what baseball and the union said it was: An incorrect copy of the agreement being sent to Congress. Are you aware that there were PLAYERS saying that this is not what was negotiated? PLAYERS saying that they understood that the penalty was suspension, period.

Its a non-issue unless you actually think that Congress did a great job last week in their "investigation".

Furthermore, the fact is that this is the ONLY thing that Congress hammered the commish and the union on. Its the only thing they found wrong with the testing agreement, and it was a false issue all along.

I know I am not going to convince you otherwise and I don't intend to continue to try. But try to remember at least one thing:

In the first year of testing, positive steroid tests were 5-7%. In the second year, it was 1-2%. What do you think it will be this year? Yes, I suspect that dedicated cheaters will continue to use steroids and masking agents to try to cheat the system. But as players get caught, ARE SUSPENDED and publicly identified, the number of players who continue to cheat will continue to decline.

Someone mentioned Human Growth Hormone: yeah, its a serious problem, and its something that there aren't very good tests on, as I understand it. But tests keep getting developed and evaluated, and baseball is supporting those efforts. At some point in the relatively near future, HGH will be something that can be tested on, and according to this agreement, it WILL be tested on, without further agreement or discussion with the player's Union.

Yeah, it is a crappy drug testing program ....

[chandra]

Your objections on this are flat out silly.As for your suspicions over the wording of the penalties, fine. If you believe with all your heart that baseball isn't serious about drug tests and the union doesn't want them, then that fits right in with your beliefs.

Silly? May be so, ( and I would rather you not belittle it that way ) but it is borne out of the prior history with how baseball has dealt it. I am even surprised that you defend them to this extent, given that history. They have been brought to this current state, kicking and screaming. It is their turn to go out of their way to convince people like me that there are no suspicious clauses or loopholes.

But the fact is that NO ONE on the union side said that this was what was negotiated. NO ONE on the Union side objected to changing the wording to reflect what was negotiated in the first place

This is not consistent with this...

"The agreement still needs to be ratified by the players, but there is an agreement by the negotiators to drop that language," Michael Weiner, general counsel for the players union, told the New York Times.

An incorrect copy of the agreement being sent to Congress.

No one told Mr. Weiner about this, I guess.

Its a non-issue

To me it is. It is a question of credibility.

I grant you that the % of positive tests is going to drop. Given this, why not toughen up the penalties since it is going to affect only such a minute fraction of players. That would be good PR, wouldn't it?

I also grant you that using the disabled list seems a bit of a stretch ( but only a bit ). But why leave that loophole in there?

Edited March 23, 2005 by chandra

[slide_advantage_redoux]

Questions for the great philosophers....

How do you measure what part of a home run is natural power and what part is steroid power????

It is my understanding that steroids don't have any impact on one's ability at the plate (meaning the eye for the ball, bat speed) aside from power.

The biggest impact that 'roids have is on the body's ability to heal quicker, hence users can play more...(ie sit out less), and the more times at bat equal more chances to pad stats.

That is still cheating.

[slide_advantage_redoux]

My skepticism went up another level today. I heard that what they agreed to has another loophole. When a person is injured and not playing, they can't be tested. At one level, it sounded reasonable but then on second thought 'Hmmm.. there is a nice escape route, get on the injured reserve until body sheds the drug'..

And then, here is a story today about Bonds.

Bonds Fears He May Miss Entire 2005 Season..

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._nm/nl_bonds_dc

""I'm just going to try to rehab myself back to, I don't know, hopefully next season, hopefully middle of the season, I don't know," Bonds told reporters at the Giants' spring training camp in Scottsdale, Arizona on Tuesday"

May be there are legitimate reasons for him to say this, but the little bit of consipiracy theorist in me suggests that he may never come back...

and if he doesn't return, the better off baseball is.

[Jazzmoose]

The biggest impact that 'roids have is on the body's ability to heal quicker, hence users can play more...(ie sit out less), and the more times at bat equal more chances to pad stats.

That is still cheating.

Well...that goes against what has happened in baseball, hasn't it? The big juicers end up on the DL more often, don't they?