@ bigcat - Yes, Canseco is a buffoon but that doesn’t mean he was lying.  In fact, knowing that MLB was done with him (no way he was gonna become a coach) gave him the freedom to tell the truth.

Pete,

Yeah, 8.5% is low but that number would be highly dependent on the quality of the testing procedure. I’d say you can assume a significant number more were taking drugs but weren’t positive at the point they where tested (having used drugs during the offseason but not the season). Moreover, plenty of drugs wouldn’t have shown up (a la Bonds) in the testing process and there are rumors floating around that players knew in advance they would be tested. This would have allowed them to quit using for a short period or use a masking agent, significantly reducing the number of positives. 8.5% is likely nowhere near an accurate figure. I’d estimate maybe 40% used to some degree, could be higher.

To me, baseball is going down a path similar to the one cycling went down two to three years ago at the moment (although drug taking is not nearly as systematic or extensive). Fans may still hold out hope that their favourite players were clean, but that is a rather naive view.

I hope, like Craig, that more of this information comes out. Better for as many names to be out there as possible allowing everyone a full view of what happened than only a few names, which will only result in those unlucky players being made into pariahs.

@ Vander.  YOu and I are on the same page.  When you speak of masking and cycling ( my term, not yours but same point ) it is the same as me speaking of the cheaters staying ahead of the regulators.

As for players being tipped, this is an aspect of the story that is gonna get a lot more play now.  GM reported that the PA ( Orza ) had tipped a player that they had tested positive but didn’t name the player.  Manfred’s statement today alludes to that ( I think ) and the media is reporting that Orza tipped off A Rod. 

Back to the cheaters staying ahead of the regulators.  Bonds didn’t test positive in the “anonymous” testing but his urine from that testing subsequently tested positive after the feds got their hands on it.  The reason, in 03 the regulators didn’t know to look for what he was taking, years later the feds did.  (Will Carrol, the eminence grise on steroid testing writes about this )

As for the players knowing that they were to be tested.  I think yes and no.  There was scheduled testing and then subsequent random testing but on a smaller scale.

Anyway, you and I agree that 8% is WAY too low.  I think your figure of 40% is too low.  Look at video of MLB in the 80’s and compare it…players across the board are BIGGER…it’s weight training combined with the juice

Can we just take a cue from Grant (2nd poster) and just concentrate on the game on the field.

Spring training starts in 10 days. I don’t care about contracts, steroids, collusion, stadium financing, naming rights or any of that.

I’m just jonesing for baseball. The game on the field.

Like Buffalo Springfield so adroitly sang, “Nobodys right when everybody’s wrong”.

Since everybody is wrong, can’t we just play baseball.

I agree that 8.5% or so (of players testing positive in 2003) sounds low.  We already know that Bonds did NOT test positive at the time—not until they went back and tested the sample for substances they couldn’t have found in 2003.  Between players being aware they would be tested and players who were taking undetectable supplements, even a full release of the list (don’t hold your breath) wouldn’t come close to a full accounting of the steroid problem.  Of course, the league missed whatever chance they had at that when they decided to go the route of punishment rather than information-gathering (which I really think most fans would have preferred).  Sad.

@ Chris - A Rod did more than remain silent.  He denied taking steroids to 60 Minutes ( didn’t see it but it’s in all the reports today ) 3 days (IIRC) after the MR was released.

Tad—

Costas and the SI writer made a similar point on MLB Network today, but cast blame in a different direction; they basically said that this was a grand failing of the player’s union, who should have ensured that the “anonymous” samples (and all related info) were destroyed, rather than assuming that would happen or take MLB’s word for it.  They were implying this was a huge black mark against union leadership, and how could the players trust them again, etc.

Regardless of the blame (there seems to be plenty to go around), these sorts of continued leaks would make me seriously reconsider (as a high-level player) taking any sort of “designer” steroid or anything for which a test hasn’t yet been developed.  Those tests may eventually catch up with what is being taken today, and who’s to say there won’t be “anonymous” samples that could be back-tested for these designer substances. It’s a “scared straight” program, writ large.

Good points, Craig, and I haven’t really seen the first two addressed elsewhere so far. Kudos for bringing something new to the table.

The fact that these names are in the process of being leaked is an outrage, but the die was cast when our wonderful federal government decided to seize the results of the tests. It’s a shame that those of us who can understand the incredibly unjust means by which this information was obtained are put in the position of defending a steroid user, but here we are.

Pete,

I’m not sure about the nature of MLB’s ‘anonymous’ testing program, but my guess is that it was solely ‘in competition’ testing. ie tests were only conducted once players had at least started spring training.

Of course, that sort of defeats the purpose of the system, as most of the big gains in muscle mass would have been made during the off-seasons, and players could have tapered off their steroid use to avoid a positive.

Also, it depends what substances they were testing for. There was a big issue in the NFL regarding finasteride (used in propecia and other hairloss drugs), which is a very effective masking agent but wasn’t on their banned substance list. Team doctors were writing huge numbers of prescriptions, basically allowing players to use steroids without detection.

By the way, before we trust Canseco too much, don’t forget he told a whopper in his book - that after doubling in a Spring Training game against the Mariners, Canseco asked Bret Boone how he got so big, and Boone supposedly as good as admitted to taking steroids.  Only problem with the story was that Canseco never doubled against the Mariners in Spring Training that year, or even got to second base when Boone was in the game.  Now, Boone may have been juicing, but I think it’s pretty clear that Canseco was and is just out to sell books, and he’s not particularly concerned with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (and even if he were, I’m not sure how much I’d trust his memory - he’s not exactly the brightest bulb in the box).