60 replies to this topic

[NDame616]

So, I don't know if you heard, but apparently some third baseman for some team in New York has tested positive for two steroids in 2003. Apparently, there's 104 names on the list saying who failed these tests....which were supposed to be destroyed, never made public, etc.

So, SOSH...do YOU want to know these names? Why or why not? While it's easy to bask in the glory of "another Yankee cheater" like PettiTTe, Clemens and Giambi...can we be sure that OUR hometown favorites aren't on the list?

The serious flaw with the Mitchell Report was it only got it's information from two teams and those linked to those teams. I think if we had an insider informant in ever clubhouse the numbers and names would've done serious damage to the sport. So, the report was sort of biased in the way it portrayed only a handful of those linked to Yankees and Mets. Now, the names on THIS list is league-wide.

Do you want to know if Ortiz REALLY came from nowhere on sort of a fluke? Do you want the Nomar rumors confirmed? What about Manny?

Answer me this:
1) Will we find out the names on the list?
2) Do you WANT to know who’s names are on the list?

Me? No and no. I’m in the camp that thinks almost everyone who put on the uniform that era was on SOMETHING. I don’t want to look at 104 players differently, regardless of the laundry.

While we all hate A-Roid, hearing that the supposedly cleanest player who was going to break every record imaginable was juicing…is bad news for those who love the sport…..regardless of your zip code.

[jthursto]

If you believe that almost everyone of that era was juicing, how could the revelation of those names cause you to look at them any differently? You've already made the assumption that they're dirty. Your point of view, which has a certain pragmatic appeal, is most often voiced by PED-apologists who want to avoid casting judgement on those who've been caught to this point. In the process, you end of painting a lot of clean guys with the broad-brush of your PED suspicions. While I believe many players were using, I'm sceptical that most of them were. So my own view is; if a player was playing the game dishonestly and wound up on that list, I'd chalk it up to karma if someone dishonestly leaked their name. That said, I don't believe we'll ever learn all 104 names, nor do I believe we're entitled to them. But I would like to know.

[sfip]

No, for completely biased reasons. Call me immature, but I'm enjoying the schadenfreude from hearing about A-Rod, Clemens' DNA, etc.. It's great ammo when a Yankee fan starts things up. Yeah I know it's not the only ammo, but it's something to keep in our back pockets nonetheless. If we hear the remaining 103 names, we're a lot more likely to hear names of at least one player who played a significant role in '04 and/or '07 than not. The risk of that compared to the chances of that not happening and hearing that Posada has 'roided up too isn't worth it to me. I'm sure that growing up in an area that had a ton of Yankee fans has an effect on my decision.

We already know that many players have 'roided up over the years. Anyone who thinks one team is an exception has his/her head in the sand.

Edited by sfip, 08 February 2009 - 10:22 AM.

[Buckner's Boots]

I don't want to know, simply because I was never meant to know. It frustrates me when an agreement is made and then broken. I have no problem going forward with full disclosure, but the original list was supposed to be destroyed, whether that was right or wrong. It should be destroyed now.

[BigMike]

I'm torn. legally this is a cluster F*** and the players should not be dragged through the mud on tests that were supposed to be untracable,.

On the other hand, the more we know the more it helps those who were targeted, basically Bonds. Barry is much better off the more names (and big names) that are outed.

One of my problems with releasing the 103, is that it will give people another chance to then say, ok that is the final list and everyone else is clean. In truth, I think no matter how many of these small bursts we get we are still only going to get a list of a small percentage of those who used.

[cmac24]

I don't want to know, simply because I was never meant to know. It frustrates me when an agreement is made and then broken. I have no problem going forward with full disclosure, but the original list was supposed to be destroyed, whether that was right or wrong. It should be destroyed now.

I think it was inevitable that the list would come out at some point, whether it's now or 10 years from now. I also think it's impossible to destroy the list. Someone's going to keep a copy. I want to know, but at the same time I realize that it's unfair to indict the players who tested positive and to exonerate those that used steroids and didn't get caught. What if Ortiz or manny or pedro aren't on the list but they used? How will we ever know the full truth. Baseball is a game that prides itself on its history and records. The more we know, the more we can better judge the players.

[NDame616]

Well, I think MLB and the players union could've done a better job to make sure no one's name was released. It's not a matter of destroying a list of names, it's a matter of never linking a number to a player.

Player #252: Pass
Player #642: Fail
Player #723: Fail

etc.

If they never linked a name to a number, and cutting it off at the source, it would've never been an issue. A-Rod would've simply been player #621 who happened to fail the test.

I also think the more names we find out, the less of "a big deal" it will be. Right now, Clemens and Bonds are the face of the steroid era. However, will our outlook on the steroid era change when it's Clemens, Bonds, ARod, Manny, Ortiz, Pujols, Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine, etc?

My argument is, that as we find out WHO these guys are...it'll almost water down the "OH MY GOD!" factor and it'll be chaulked up to "well, everyone did it, so....."

[DJnVa]

I want to know.

And I'm not naive enough to think that the 104 on the list are the only 104 that used or that no Red Sox are on the list. But a full accounting is needed. Yes it sucks that a supposedly anonymous list is out there but let's not pretend that these MLB players are the first to be fucked over in a similar fashion. And, yeah, 2 wrongs don't make a right, but the fact is that if you didn't use this wouldn't be an issue. Simplistic? Sure, but there it is.

[genivive]

Is is at all worthwhile to point out that there have been many, many tests since then that indicate players are clean? This survey was done in 2003, not 2004 or 2007. I recall Mike Lowell commenting on how many times he had to "pee in a cup" in 2007.

I think the real issue is Orza possibly tipping off players. He needs to be gone tomorrow.

[InsideTheParker]

While I share the opinion that it is awful that what was supposed to be confidential is made public, I think it is only fair that the entire 2003 list be made public. NYYfans hysteria aside, it's only fair.

And yes, I dread finding out that any of our lads were users. What bothers me tangentially, is that one might test positive while using a supplement sold outside the US that contained trace amounts of steroids the player didn't know about. But again, it's the only fair thing to do now.

[Doctuh]

Yes, I'll have jerseys to burn.

[ShipBOsox]

I don't want to know, simply because I was never meant to know. It frustrates me when an agreement is made and then broken. I have no problem going forward with full disclosure, but the original list was supposed to be destroyed, whether that was right or wrong. It should be destroyed now.

I understand what you mean by an agreement being broke, but if say Bonds, Clemens, ect..... are not going to be elected into the HOF because of PROVEN steroid use, how can the 104 players that are on that list get a free pass? That facts are if you got caught in any way shape or form you should be held accountable.

[Ananti]

Yes, I want to know, the more cheaters are exposed, the greater those who are considering cheating will opt to not cheat.

And no, it doesn't hurt baseball. What hurt baseball were the dishonorable actions in cheating and covering up the cheating that took place in the past.

[bernardsamuel]

I don't want to know, simply because I was never meant to know. It frustrates me when an agreement is made and then broken. I have no problem going forward with full disclosure, but the original list was supposed to be destroyed, whether that was right or wrong. It should be destroyed now.

You are of better character than I. I agree with you that the list should be destroyed, because that was the agreement. I would also believe that like the TV courtroom dramas in which the judge tells the jury to disregard something which was said, we should all be admonished to disregard what we have read. ...and indeed we should disregard what we have read, if we only could. Most of all, we really shouldn't gloat excessively about A-Fraid being on the list unless and until we would be sure that none of ours of any significance to at least 2004 is on the list. But as I wrote at the outset, you are of better character than I, because I still want to know even if I shouldn't. I've got an inquiring mind.

[Buckner's Boots]

You are of better character than I.

That's quite a leap...

I don't know if my thoughts really have anything to do with character; it's more about the purported reason for testing in the first place, which, I thought, was to establish a baseline. That could have been done without disclosure, but with the understanding that from that point forward, positive tests would be made public.

I'm in agreement that Orza's head should roll, along with anyone at the players' union that was responsible for letting this leak. That said, I can't blame any reporter who digs and finds the information. To me that's just good journalism.

[NDame616]

Is is at all worthwhile to point out that there have been many, many tests since then that indicate players are clean? This survey was done in 2003, not 2004 or 2007. I recall Mike Lowell commenting on how many times he had to "pee in a cup" in 2007.

I think the real issue is Orza possibly tipping off players. He needs to be gone tomorrow.

Take it from someone who knows a lot about PEDs/HGH/steroids/etc that there are chemists making a fortune on stuff that won't be detectable for 5 or so years. Some of the stuff that was tested on Bonds, they had a test for it recently, but not 5 or so years ago when he passed the tests.

Just because people are passing the tests, doesn't mean they are clean. Steroid using and dealing is a multi, multi million dollar business. A lot of these athletes can make tens of millions of dollars more if they hit 12-15 more HRs a season, recover from injury faster, etc. and are willing to pay tons for the ability to do so.

[Dummy Hoy]

Yes, I want to know, the more cheaters are exposed, the greater those who are considering cheating will opt to not cheat.

And no, it doesn't hurt baseball. What hurt baseball were the dishonorable actions in cheating and covering up the cheating that took place in the past.

Perfect. Thank you.

The only thing that can hurt the players who cheated is the public scorn that will come with being recognized as a cheater. Of course this doesn't mean that all cheaters were caught by any means, but the focus now should be on preventing more cheating in the future, and perhaps the fear of exposure could help to slow down the use of PED's.

[YTF]

Get it out there, all of it. The sooner the better and hopefully the game will learn from all of this and move forward. All of this leaking of names in bits and pieces is more harmful to the game than full disclosure. It's to the point where this now needs to be addressed so things can move ahead.

Edited by YTF, 08 February 2009 - 04:26 PM.

[Average Reds]

Given the purpose and the "guarantee" of confidentiality, the test should have conducted in a fashion that names and test results could never be matched or the information should have been destroyed immediately following the testing. When this didn't happen and the results were seized by the Feds, the names were almost guaranteed to come out at some point.

MLB will never be able to move on until all the information is made public. So get it all out there now and move on.

[samuelLsamson]

Is is at all worthwhile to point out that there have been many, many tests since then that indicate players are clean? This survey was done in 2003, not 2004 or 2007. I recall Mike Lowell commenting on how many times he had to "pee in a cup" in 2007.

I think the real issue is Orza possibly tipping off players. He needs to be gone tomorrow.

It's worthwhile pointing it out - but also worthwhile pointing out that tests for performance enhancing drugs are almost always several months - even years - behind the labs creating the PEDs they're trying to detect. Negative tests don't prove innocence - they just fail to prove guilt. I agree they need to look very closely at the actions of Gene Orza though.

[Buckner's Boots]

Get it out therre, all of it. The sooner the better and hopefully the game and learn from all of this and move foreward. All of this leaking of names in bits and peices is more harmful to the game than full disclosure. It's to the point where this now needs to be addressed so things can move forward

What do we do with it once we know? What can really be done about ARod? At this point it seems there can be recourse is to boo those players and scorn them publicly. Is that enough?

And since there seems to be fairly reliable evidence that there are MANY more who are or have been users, isn't it unfair to disclose just the 104 who tested positive in that one group of tests in 2003? I'm not claiming to know the answer to the problem; I'm just wondering if releasing the list of 104 is going to fix anything, when in all reality, the chances are that there is a much higher number of players who did it but were able to elude the law.

[NDame616]

And since there seems to be fairly reliable evidence that there are MANY more who are or have been users, isn't it unfair to disclose just the 104 who tested positive in that one group of tests in 2003? I'm not claiming to know the answer to the problem; I'm just wondering if releasing the list of 104 is going to fix anything, when in all reality, the chances are that there is a much higher number of players who did it but were able to elude the law.

I think it's even more unfair to just point out one name (ARod) and leave 103 for us to guess.

The chemists MAKING the stuff will always be years ahead of those DETECTING the stuff. Piss test everyone a few times a year, store it, and keep finding new tests. Implement a policy where you can be held accountable after the fact (suspension, HoF, etc)

Edited by NDame616, 08 February 2009 - 01:15 PM.

[Rocco Graziosa]

Take it from someone who knows a lot about PEDs/HGH/steroids/etc that there are chemists making a fortune on stuff that won't be detectable for 5 or so years. Some of the stuff that was tested on Bonds, they had a test for it recently, but not 5 or so years ago when he passed the tests.

Just because people are passing the tests, doesn't mean they are clean. Steroid using and dealing is a multi, multi million dollar business. A lot of these athletes can make tens of millions of dollars more if they hit 12-15 more HRs a season, recover from injury faster, etc. and are willing to pay tons for the ability to do so.

Ding ding ding ding ding. We have a winner!!

The more digging (and testing) you do the more your gonna realize that all these guys are doing something. There is just too much money at stake. Ask yourself what you might be willing to do for 11 million dollars..........you think you might be willing to drink the clear and smear the cream on your muscles before a workout? Or how about this......if you thought the only way to gain employment in the game of baseball (the only "skill" you have) was to take a performance enhancer, how willing might you be? These motivations aren't going anywhere and never will. If baseball is to take the cycling route and test ever living shit out of everyone for everything.........they will probably come to the same conclusion they did......no one is clean.

Another factor to consider with "outing" a bunch of guys. The more guys that are outed the less outrage and handwrining there is gonna be, which will probably make guys MORE likely to engage in this behavior and not less.

Edited by Rocco Graziosa, 08 February 2009 - 01:18 PM.

[Average Reds]

What do we do with it once we know? What can really be done about ARod? At this point it seems there can be recourse is to boo those players and scorn them publicly. Is that enough?

And since there seems to be fairly reliable evidence that there are MANY more who are or have been users, isn't it unfair to disclose just the 104 who tested positive in that one group of tests in 2003? I'm not claiming to know the answer to the problem; I'm just wondering if releasing the list of 104 is going to fix anything, when in all reality, the chances are that there is a much higher number of players who did it but were able to elude the law.

Releasing the names is not about fixing the problem - it's about allowing MLB to move on.

The first rule of scandal management is get all the information out as soon as you can. Take your lumps and move on. Holding info back just makes it even more noteworthy when it inevitably comes out.

These test were conducted six seasons ago. Six seasons ago. And yet they still have the power to make the national sports media grind to a stop when a single name is released. Do we really want to see this pattern repeated again and again over the next few years while MLB tries to keep the genie in the bottle?

[Spacemans Bong]

I'd love to see valued players from all 30 teams outed, just so the chicken littles can confront themselves and either stop watching baseball in their moral disgust or shut up. Every team's fans except the Giants take this crap so seriously yet never seem to be able to reflect on whether their own guys are guilty.

[Redkluzu]

Yes, I want to know. But I want to know in the same dreaded way I want to look at my 401K statements when they come in for last year, or at that dangerous corner in our roof where icicles are about to crash to the ground.

Preventative measures? Maybe not so much. There will always be a "new best thing." When so much is on the line in terms of money, power and prestige, it will be unsurprising to find many I admire on that list.

Prurient interest, yeah.

Edited by Redkluzu, 08 February 2009 - 02:16 PM.

[Ananti]

This idea we should put up with cheating simply because a lot of people are doing it is absurd. It's precisely the same mentality that got us into this economic mess, people playing games with the financial system to get millions for themselves. In that way I guess baseball is a reflection of society.

Just because you can't catch everyone doesn't mean you shouldn't try to catch anyone, and it certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't punish those that you do catch.

I am with a poster above. Preserve sample so you can do test retroactively, and if caught I want harsh penalties, lifetime ban from the HOF for sure, forfeiture of MLB retirement pensions, immediately one year suspension without pay, life ban if necessary. Whatever it takes to make the risk of being caught great enough to offset the incentive of cheating.

[Ananti]

I'd love to see valued players from all 30 teams outed, just so the chicken littles can confront themselves and either stop watching baseball in their moral disgust or shut up. Every team's fans except the Giants take this crap so seriously yet never seem to be able to reflect on whether their own guys are guilty.

Sadly for you, even if/when all the names are released, it still doesn't make Barry Bonds and his actions any more legitimate. Live with it.

[Fred not Lynn]

The thing to remember is that those 104 positives, because of their anonymity, were probably not subject to the same scrutiny as full out know-their-names-and-penalize-them tests. I'm going to guess that the same protocols were not followed on these tests, for instance, I doubt there were B-Samples tested after the A-Samples were positive. Also, if these results are disclosed, where it the right of each named athlete to appeal?

False positives DO occur. Cross contamination does happen...you can't just crucify a guy without some context, and without the weight of a strictly followed protocol. Sure, the majority of athletes caught on the A-Sample go on to fail the B-Sample and subsequently lose what are often preposterous appeals, but if you're going to have an anti-doping program with any real legitimacy, you have to have a tight protocol, and you have to follow it. These particular tests, to my knowledge, lack the legitimacy of protocol, and thusly do not bear the same weight as "real" non-anonymous tests.

I do agree that sample-retention is the way to go; State a clear definition of the principles of doping (because obviously you may be dealing with substances that do not yet exsit, so you can't add them to your list), and save samples. There's not a better deterrent than that. Take away the wiggle room of "its not on any list" and let principle prevail.

Edited by Fred not Lynn, 08 February 2009 - 02:37 PM.

[E5 Yaz]

Since I'm one who believes that the 104 are only the ones who failed that round of testing, I'm not sure what good it will do. The inquiring mind wants to know the names, and the optimist wants somehow to believe that exposure will be a preventative measure for current and future players.

The realist knows, as URI mentioned in the ARod thread, that as long as there's competetive sports, there will be players and teams who will bend and break the rules in order to gain an advantage ... whether it's drug-enhancement, videotaping practices or doctoring equipment.

Frankly, I'd be much more interested in the list of players who were randomly tested multiple times who turned up clean. They'll still be tainted by the era inwhich they played, but even removing 99% of the suspicion would be worthwhile.

[Rocco Graziosa]

Frankly, I'd be much more interested in the list of players who were randomly tested multiple times who turned up clean. They'll still be tainted by the era inwhich they played, but even removing 99% of the suspicion would be worthwhile.

Or it could mean they took state of the art drugs (or drugs that were not tested for........whats that, a billion drugs?) or doctored the tests. Its impossible to disipher who could possibly be "clean". Performance enhancing drugs will ALWAYS be one step ahead of testing, simply because to test for a drug you have to identify it first. Those testing aren't making the drugs, they're merely looking to detect them.

Edited by Rocco Graziosa, 08 February 2009 - 03:14 PM.

[Ananti]

It's already been addressed in this thread, preserve samples for future testing.

[YTF]

What do we do with it once we know? What can really be done about ARod? At this point it seems there can be recourse is to boo those players and scorn them publicly. Is that enough?

And since there seems to be fairly reliable evidence that there are MANY more who are or have been users, isn't it unfair to disclose just the 104 who tested positive in that one group of tests in 2003? I'm not claiming to know the answer to the problem. I'm just wondering if releasing the list of 104 is going to fix anything, when in all reality, the chances are that there is a much higher number of players who did it but were able to elude the law.

What do WE do with it? Do with it what you will. As far as I'm concerned, either we know none of the names or ALL of the names. This bullshit with leaking things out in dribs and drabs just prolongs everything that is negative about this scandal. I would like to see EVERY name on that list and any others like it. Baseball can clean the mess up as it sees fit, but it can not truly begin to do so if names keep periodically dropping into the news. The all time Home Run leader, one of the most dominate pitchers in the modern era and now perhaps the best all player of his generation. Surely there are more guppies than big fish, but every time a big name is disclosed it's "Oh no, here we go again!!!" MLB can take one giant step forward by addressing this in a VERY public way.

As for the last sentence of your post..........Lets suppose you own a company and you have proof of several employees stealing from you, mistreating customers or any other scenario that you may think of that hurts your business. Do you give them a pass? Perhaps turn a blind eye because dealing it might not be fair to those that have been caught since you think there may be others that you don't know about? Is that the message that you want to send to the rest of your employees? I say for the sake of the business (YOUR BUSINESS) you out them in front of the others, deal with them in a swift and decisive manner, hope that notice has been served and then stay on top of the situation in the very best way that you know how.

Edited by YTF, 08 February 2009 - 05:03 PM.

[Resonance Wright]

I believe the problem is pretty widespread, but I don't believe that everyone, or even nearly everyone, was dirty. I also don't think the process has to be perfect to be useful.

People are going to break the speed limit, some a little, some a lot. If there's no cop around to catch them they won't be caught, and the overwhelming majority of the time, there's no cop around. Does that mean you never enforce speeding laws? No. You still enforce them. And if you have a systemic problem with speeding, some days you send a bunch of guys out to the interstate to crack down on it. Is it fair that you get caught in this dragnet and some other guy yesterday who was going 120 in a school zone didn't get caught? Not really, but you were still breaking the law, right? And the end result of crackdowns like this is that people don't speed as much, which might not seem as important to you until you realize that it saved lives. So it's an imperfect process that doesn't necessarily nail the worst offenders and seems pretty arbitrary, but the net effect -- discouraging speeding in targeted high-risk areas, and by extension discouraging it elsewhere to a lesser degree -- is a good one as far as you're concerned.

Yes, I want to see the names. Part of me says at this point it's impossible for them not to come out, but I also think people are assuming that the feds really have a list somewhere of everyone's name, and honestly I don't know that that's the case. It seems equally possible to me that they have a coded list and haven't cracked the code generally speaking, but also have ancillary evidence for at least one player -- say, an email to Gene Orza going 'oh shit, your boy A*Rod just tested positive, here's the sample results' -- that they've used to at least partially break the findings down. Maybe I'm wrong, but my past experience with double-blinds where there was a reasonable security procedure in place to preserve anonymity suggests to me that it's quite plausible that the FBI have a list of names and a list of codes but no master key to either, and A*Rod is one of the 'cribs' they're trying to use to crack the system, because they have other associated evidence that implicated him.

[YTF]

Releasing the names is not about fixing the problem - it's about allowing MLB to move on.

The first rule of scandal management is get all the information out as soon as you can. Take your lumps and move on. Holding info back just makes it even more noteworthy when it inevitably comes out.

These test were conducted six seasons ago. Six seasons ago. And yet they still have the power to make the national sports media grind to a stop when a single name is released. Do we really want to see this pattern repeated again and again over the next few years while MLB tries to keep the genie in the bottle?

Simply said and well said. A week away from pitchers and catchers, a couple of weeks away from all 30 MLB camps being in full swing and what are we focusing on? Something that quite honestly should have been yesterday's news. MLB has allowed this to be the never ending story.

[tmorgan]

I want to see the names, but I don't want it to come out during the WBC, the season, the all-star break, or the post-season. This is real information rather than hearsay or suspicion and if it is around we should hear about the rest of it all at once rather than leaving 10 times the number of names subject to rumors as they get parsed out one by one. Either get the whole list in the next week or hold onto it until Thanksgiving, I don't want to hear anything about it in between.

Someone also wrote (here? Posnanski? I'm not sure) that we don't know exactly how many total tests there were in 2003 and I would hope that when we get the list of names we also hear that total number so we can at least know how many people passed that particular test. There are two names that would really hurt- Pedro and Papi, and one that would damage my faith in the possibility of good, clean players - Pujols. Other than that nothing that seems remotely possible would really shock me.

[brs3]

No. I don't want to find out (for example) Tim Wakefield or Pedro Martinez or Doug Mirabelli or any other Sox player that I have/had a great time watching as a fan turn out to be someone who tried to get an edge in anyway. Same with Jamie Moyer and other non-Sox that have been fun to watch. Any of them could be on that list. It would suck tremendously.

[Rocco Graziosa]

Ya know I was just thinking.......you want to find out who the hell has been using steroids? Ask Jose Canseco. He appears to be the only guy out there with a shred of credibility on the issue. Hell if you really wanted to make a dent in this problem you'd be well served to name him Steroid CZar. And I'm only half kidding. The players would be shitting in their pants cause this guy is literally an expert on how and why major league ballplayers use PED's.

[Manramsclan]

I do want to know, and here's why:

I want to know who didn't use, and I want them to be exonerated.

Then again, it's not that simple. HGH, and being tipped off, masking etc. are all possibilities. That being said, I am sick of hearing "Ken Griffey is the best because he is clean" without really knowing that to be true.

Finding out who the 104 were that tested positive would at least shed some more light on what is a dark corner of Baseball's past.

I don't want these names to leak out slowly over time. Just out with the list already. Let us know who is truly country strong, and who is store-bought.

[Morning Dewey]

The experts in the lab will always be two steps ahead of the testers and sure, MLB can preserve tests for the future when they catch up, but why? As long as these players are getting guarenteed millions, too many guys will do everything they can to do as well as they can and stay in the show as long as possible. Like Deep Throat said to the Washington Post reporters, "Follow the money." Pay 'em millions, give the best ones lucrative endorsement deals, showcase the Homerun Derby during All Star week, put fannies in the seats. Speed use was rampant from the 60s and through the 90s...how come nobody talks about that? You know, "leaded" vs "unleaded" coffee in every clubhouse. Like Rocco said, do what Cycling did and we'll find everybody's on the juice. Like the US and the war on drugs...MLB can't win this one.

[paulftodd]

The funny thing is, Barry Bonds probably tested negative because he was using steroids that were masked to prevent a positive test result.

Knowing the 104 names that tested positive in 2003 does not do much in telling you who used steroids in the era between 1993 and 2003, or even in 2003 (if they were able to mask the drugs). Some players likely stop using the drugs after contract years due to the side effects, so if 2003 was not such a year, they might test negative for that year.

That said, 104 players represents only 7%-10 %of the total players, a stat the players and mlb all vouch for, unlike some who say it is between 30-50%. So why do those 90 % + who tested negative allow their names to be tarnished by those who will suspect they are among one of the 104 for putting up good numbers or suffering strange injuries, just to protect the "cheaters" who took money out of their pockets?. My answer is that maybe the number of players who used steroids or other PED's is far higher than the 104.

I just asterisk everyone who played in this area. I recognize other factors besides steroids that contribute to HR and power numbers going up, juiced ball, strike zone, smaller parks, increased weight training, global warming , etc. I also do not look down on any player who used, assuming the usage was around 30% or more. Being honest is stupid when you are competing in a game that rewards cheaters.

But yeah, I would like to see the names of all 104 so as to eliminate speculation on who they might be. As much as I dislike A-Rod for being a MFY, something about only 1 name being reported smells.

If I were Manny and were on that list (not saying he is), I might hurry up and sign a contract, and that makes me wonder about motive here. A-Rod has his money locked up, a 2003 positive result being leaked does nothing to him financially, but Manny and others are looking for a job with the price of gas down. Players known to be juiced and going off the juice (which they tend to do if signed to a multi-year contract), tend not to be offered big bucks for multiple years. Might it not be a message to those unsigned players, sign a deal for whats on the table and stop and talk about collusion, or else. It's a thought.

[amh03]

For what it's worth, Schilling's calling for the list to be made public:

I’d be all for the 104 positives being named, and the game moving on if that is at all possible. In my opinion, if you don’t do that, then the other 600-700 players are going to be guilty by association, forever. It’s not about good and bad people, because Mark McGwire and Jason Giambi are two of the kindest human beings ever. Andy PettiTTe is a fantastic person. That’s seemingly got nothing to do with anything. One hundred and four players made the wrong decision, and it appears that not only was it 104, but three of the greatest of our, or any, generation appear to be on top of this list.

http://38pitches.weei.com/

[dolfanmark]

The funny thing is, Barry Bonds probably tested negative because he was using steroids that were masked to prevent a positive test result.

In some of the recent stories about Bonds' positive tests, it included the 2003 MLB tests. Allegedly, he tested positive for THG, clomiphene, and testosterone on June 4, 2003. I believe the THG positive was just discovered when the samples were re-tested, because I don't believe there was a test for it in 2003.

[bosockboy]

For what it's worth, Schilling's calling for the list to be made public:
http://38pitches.weei.com/

This is a bit of a reach, but you wonder if Schilling would say this if he had a pretty good idea that prominent Sox members could be on it. This made me feel a touch better, maybe foolishly.

[Myt1]

Yes and yes.

Sunlight is cleansing.

[Rainey Day]

We should not have learned about A'roid, so the purist in me does not want to know the remaining names.

However..

We have learned about A'roid. So fairness demands that we learn the remaining names.

So yes, unfortunately, I do want to know.

[CoolPapaBellhorn]

Yes, the names will come out eventually, and yes, I want to see them.

Yeah, it was supposed to be confidential, but if you don't want to get caught, don't cheat. It's that simple. Keeping the names hidden and just assuming that everyone was on something is a huge disservice to the few great, clean players. I want to know everything, and I think the Frank Thomases of the world deserve to know, too.

[JMDurron]

Yes, I want to know all of the names, mostly because I am a big fan of keeping context in mind as much as possible when looking over a baseball player's accomplishments. Naturally, I will view those who are not named somewhat differently than those who are, but it's not a moral issue at all, it's a "measuring that player's accomplishments in context" thing. I think it matters that Pedro Martinez did what he did without Koufax's higher mound and spacious ballpark. I think it matters that Honus Wagner and Ty Cobb hit as well as they did back when pitchers were allowed (and even encouraged) to do anything and everything to the baseball to make it harder to hit, as opposed to the advantages that Wade Boggs and Tony Gwynn had. I also think it matters that, as far as we know to date, Greg Maddux accomplished as much as he did without chemical enhancement in an era of chemical enhancement, as opposed to Roger Clemens. To me, it isn't all about condemning guys who have "cheated" vs those who haven't, it's about having a greater appreciation of what those who have *apparently* not cheated have accomplished in this era, and being able to more properly evaluate them in context between eras. That's part of the fun of baseball history and being a baseball fan, at least to me. So bring it on, I say, I want all those names. Even if some of my favorite players are named, more knowledge is better than less.

[xjack]

Yes I want to see the names come out. Fans who bought tickets have a right to know what they were actually watching.

That said, I wouldn't want to see any retroactive push for punishment, even if A-Rod or another player on the list were to admit that he used PEDs in 2004 or later. What baseball needs is something like South Africa's old truth and reconciliation commission, because we'll never learn the complete truth if telling the truth is going to cost these players a long suspension.

[BCsMightyJoeYoung]

I would say no. I would agree with Boswell (cited upthread) in that there's nothing really to be gained here.

The problem is that revealing the names will not tell us who is cheating. It will simply tells us who was dumb enough to get caught. One cannot assume that , if they're not on the list, then they are clean. In fact, it could be completely counter-productive in that cheating players who didn't test positive will be encouraged to continue their behaviour.

I mean - the existence of this List has been known for years. Why the great Hue and Cry to have it published now?