Bravo, Craig! This piece won’t be the last word on the subject, but it should be.

“So many, I’d guess, that at some point a blanket presumption of PED use—as long as it’s not accompanied by a blackballing and an excess of moralizing—should be in order for the players of our age.”

Yes.  Guilt by association should be the conclusion that ALL players used PEDS from sometime in ‘90s into 2004 and beyond.  We can wrap it all up in such a pretty little package for our consumption and all feel…, uh,... somewhat better about it?  I’ll bet ballplayers- Frank Thomas, Schilling (his personal views and quest for attention set aside), Mussina, Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz- who did not resort to chemical enhancement to improve performance will certainly embrace this.  Do I know they haven’t used?  No.  Do I suspect this group used. No, that’s my opinion.  If news breaks in the future they did indulge, then I mentally place them into the catagory of ballplayers in the next paragraph.

As you, Craig, are aware, Bonds, Rodriguez, Sosa, Clemens, McGwire, etc., were virtual locks for HOF election without the need for PEDs.  The ability to perform at a higher level due to PED
use certaily helped these guys perform better, not only against guys who used like them, but against premier non-users, like those in the preceeding paragraph.  You’ve probably figured where I’m going with this-  how much did the performance of non-users suffer at the bats, arms and legs of those who did use?  Isn’t it plausible to state the records of Thomas, Schilling , Mussina, Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz may certainly be better had they not had compete against men on drugs? 

Assuming blanket use for the era is wrong in my mind- it takes too much away from those who didn’t use, not only as ballplayers, but as human beings.  These men have had an honest on field effort taken from them by those who used.  Lumping them in the same catagory, “assuming” (and with a lawyerly back ground you know how dangerous assumptions can be) blanket use, is not fair to these men and I’m certain they would agree.

If the guilty ones don’t surface, hand ‘em all.  Let’s cut off the nose to spite the face.

I’m struggling with how it’s necessarily the union’s fault that the test results weren’t kept confidential. From the MFW story:

“But, for some reason, neither the owners nor the union filed the necessary paperwork ordering CDT and Quest to destroy all the records and samples.”

I’m no lawyer—but Craig, you are (heh heh)—but is there any reason why the players’ agents didn’t file said paperwork? In other words, were they prevented from doing so?

I still think the government piece is worth more attention. Is their plan to leak a name a week? Month? Leaking names from a confidential test in 2003 is pretty distrustful.

I’m not sure why this angle does not get more media coverage. Does the mainstream press not get it?

If the government wants to prosecute Bonds, then they should prosecute Bonds and leave it at that. If their case is weak then they should stop dumping thousands in tax payer dollars into it.

About the players’ union:
If the players’ union never moved to destroy those samples and records, then I think they bear the largest portion of the blame. It doesn’t really matter why they didn’t make the request. As the one clown in this circus that is supposed to protect the players, the union should have acted sooner.

And on a tangential note:
For some reason that I can’t quite describe, this story from SI.com really bothers me:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/tom_verducci/02/08/arod.qa/index.html?eref=T1

Isn’t it the height of bad form for a newspaper (or whatever SI.com is) to write stories about its own influence? Especially so soon after the report that there’s no way to accurately gauge that influence? It feels a lot more like advertising than actual reporting.

Seeing the headline on the SI.com front page is making it hard for me to read anything else on their site. I think the continuing steroid follies have finally driven me crazy.

What to do?  Say that everyone kind of juiced, adjust offense down a bit and understand that this is an era just like the deadball era and the 1930s an the 1960s.

Why adjust just offense?  We seen from the names released in Mitchell and other sources that pitchers are just as likely to have used PEDs.  It seems to me that there are so many potential drug related factors involved (fastball speed is up, recovery between outings may be improved, bat speed is up, larger hitters less able to play quality defense ...) then throw them into a pot with a bunch of unrelated non-drug factors (smaller parks, new ball construction, double lacquered maple bats, changing strike zone ...) that it becomes a fools errand to suggest a steroids discount, particularly one that only impacts one side of the ledger.

The spitballs, dead balls, lively balls, the introduction of shin guards by Mr. Bresnahan, pitcher dominance for much of the ‘60s, etc., occured due to rule and equipment changes, and influenced how the game was played. Changes due to drug enhanced performance do not, in my book, fit in this same catagory. 

I understand one’s need to weight and adjust, to neutralize parks for the sake of sabremetrics.  The “steroid era” goes beyond other “eras”.  Even when one adjusts and weights, there is fundamental difference, a nagging thought in the back of my mind, that says this ain’t right.  That thought doesn’t occur with other “eras” come to mind.  Some ballplayers got screwed in this era due to illegal or ethically and morally shakey practices of others.  Something has been taken away from from those who played with PEDs.  Adjustments and weights do nothing but diminish the clean accomplishments of these guys, they continue getting screwed.  Until I’m shown Maddux, et al, used they stay on the pedestal.

Henry Aaron’s accomplishments mean much more to me than those of Bonds (and in the future Rodriguez) ever could.  Simply because I can hold to trust the accomplishments of Aaron.  Those of the users I cannot.

I tend to focus on the failure of the union here.  A few years ago, I heard Marvin Miller on the radio, defending the rights of players to NOT take drug tests.  He cited the right to privacy and ultimately, the slippery slope players would find themselves if they gave up their privacy, even in a matter like PED’s. 
He was blasted by the talk show host as being out of touch, and wrong on the matter.

Now, tests that should have been destroyed are seized by the government, and then leaked to the press.  So much for privacy.  Whoever at the MLBPA failed to make sure those tests should be destroyed should be fired if they don’t have the brains/class to resign first.
Whoever leaked that information to the press should face legal ramifications as well.

And to top it all off, Reggie Jackson and Curt Schilling want have the other 103 (or 104) positive tests released, you know, for the betterment of the “clean” guys.  All that would prove is that the clean guys didn’t test positive for what they were testing for.  Maybe a bunch of guys hopped up on steroids stopped, or were taking substances that couldn’t be tested for at the time.  A negative steroid test could mean nothing.

What happened to Fehr and Orza and the union?  They went from competent to idiots overnight, and every one blames the players, and no one looks at owners as culpable in this matter.

Amen. 

Re: Jason Stark and ilk.  I believe that they don’t really believe in what they spew—it sells newspapers (or webhits), so they go with it. 

Re: Cheating in baseball in general.  Look, the whole argument is really simple and silly.  Read Bill James’ Historical Abstract.  Some have been cheating from the get go.  There could be as many cheaters in the MLB population as in the investment banker, lawyer, doctor, plumber, or whatever population you want to sample, maybe more, maybe less, who knows.  But they have been doing it forever.  You want to keep Bonds and McGuire out of the Hall of Fame, or the “record books”?  Fine.  Take out Mays for taking greenies (and who knows, steroids - do you see his numbers from when he was over 30??? Re-DIC-ulous—and steroids were around in the form we’ve come to know and love since the ‘60s and ‘70s, let’s not kid ourselves—see the Steelers of the era).  Take out Ruth for using horse semen (the HGH of the 1920s, apparently).  Take out those who violated the morals clause, or the “good of the game clause,” take out EVERYONE.  That’s where this line of whole moral indignation goes . . .

Finally, this is GREAT for the sabermetrics side of the baseball argument.  Because now, perhaps, the MSM will have to embrace metrics like OPS+ or VORP or whatever, to determine the true VALUE of a player.  New metrics to neutralize steroids will be developed, and then we can REALLY determine (if) A-Rod really was the best or not, and not just speculate.  I say, the more steroid news, the better for the metric side of the baseball world . . .

Randomly.

@ Guido: “horrifying”.  Come on man, it’s only baseball.

The baseball writers (whom I’ve defended before during the annual blogger jihad over HOF voting) were complete incompetents on this subject.  On Friday I was watching a Toronto sports talk show and a long time Jays beat writer - Bob Elliott - was one of the participants.  The subject got round to steroids in baseball (remember, this is the day before A Roid) and in particular Clemens’ years with the Jays.  Elliott towed the baseball writers’ party line, “well, there were rumors about guys but we didn’t have any evidence and well, we didn’t really know”.  How, could a baseball beat writer NOT know?  The increased size of the players across the board, Caminiti and Canseco, guys like Anderson, Radomski and McNamee hanging around clubhouses, the ANDRO IN MCGWIRE’S LOCKER.  They revealed themselves to be a bunch of ingratiating jock sniffers, too scared to ask the tough questions and be blackballed.  I see a lot of SI bashing - and I don’t read SI - but I did read Verducci’s 2002 piece on roids in baseball this weekend and he is the one baseball writer who got it right.

Tipping.  The PA has admitted to speaking with all 104 during the 04 season to advise them…and then it gets gray….that the feds had their tests but they (the PA) don’t admit to telling these players that they were positive tests…the PA also admits that the 04 testing was delayed due to logistics and that when meeting with the aforementioned 104 during 04, advising/tipping? (semantics?) them that they were to be tested before season’s end.  (The PA goes to great lengths to explain that the players knew that anyway).  Anyway, go to Maury’s and read the 10 page letter that Fehr sent to Waxman and you’ll understand what I’m on about and where all these “tipping” allegations stem from.

I haven’t been to BP today but perhaps Will Carroll will explain this….did Orza need the test results - both the pee and the identities - to prove “false positives”...or was he and the PA just massively incompetent?

The important question in all of this, much more important than silly old baseball is employee drug testing and Fourth Amendment Rights.  I’m way in over my head here but I’m opposed to employee drug testing, I think it’s an invasion of privacy….and if the federal government can seize your results when your not even under investigation….