Friday, July 31st, 2009 11:03 am
Aside from the trade deadline (will be seeing you, Nick!) the big news in baseball was the leaked report that David Ortiz (aka Big Papi) tested positive for Performance Enhancing Drugs in 2003. The testing was supposed to be anonymous - if 6% of the players tested positive, this would trigger a new set of testing rules. Shockingly, despite knowing the tests were coming and the real need to skate them, 103 players failed. As of yet, very few names have ever been released off this list: Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, and now Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz.

As luck would have it, I've seen a leaked copy of the list. I won't comment how, why or where. But I deem my source credible.

And one thing that's been impressed upon me is the stunning diversity of players on the list: Infielders and outfielders; journeymen and all stars; rookie, established, and aging vet; white, black, hispanic; domestic and international. And players from all but six teams (and covering all 30 once you notice player movement from the seasons prior to and after the test).

If your team has made the playoffs in the last ten years, you've had a player on this list and they probably played a significant role. If your team has consistently stunk - no excuses - , you've still had players on the list.

It makes you wonder how to handle records, when these juiced up hitters, were batting off juiced up pitchers, who were defended by juiced up fielders. Even the records of a clean pitcher is tainted if they benefit from a juiced lineup raising their run support.

And yes, in my darkest heart, I'm somewhat disappointed by the absence of some of the players I dislike the most. Actually, more disappointed by that than the presence of any players I rooted for.

The other interesting aspect was Bill James comment on the subject. Noting that, in particular, the effect of the drugs are to prolong playing time by allowing players to stay on the field and counter-act the affects of aging. Which is why they would be used, regardless of side-effects including what we already know but also soft tissue injuries.

It seems to me that, with the passage of time, more people will come to understand that the commissioner's periodic spasms of self-righteousness do not constitute baseball law. It seems to me that the argument that it is cheating must ultimately collapse under the weight of carrying this great contradiction-that 80% of the players are cheating against the other 20% by violating some "rule" to which they never consented, which was never included in the rule books, and which for which there was no enforcement procedure. History is simply not going to see it that way.
Tags:
Friday, July 31st, 2009 15:58 (UTC)
The usual justification not relying on "cheating" is that performance-enhancing drugs have unpleasant side-effects that athletes should not be forced to risk through drug use becoming necessary to reach the top flight. Although this argument suffers due to the health problems that elite athletes tend to suffer in later life anyway due to accelerated wear and tear.
Friday, July 31st, 2009 16:03 (UTC)
Dave, that's such a tease!

I understand your reasons for being vague and I won't attempt to pry more out of you. I am fascinated by the depth and breadth of the positive results. All we've heard about to date is the power hitters, and while I never doubted that the problem was widespread, I'm surprised that so many positions were accounted for.

As a Red Sox fan, I was disappointed, though not even remotely surprised, by yesterday's announcement. The signs were there, and as much pleasure as it gave me when the news about A-Rod hit, I knew it was foolish of any Sox fan to feel superior, knowing full well the extreme unlikelihood that the Sox roster of the last few years was clean. And now we know for certain.

I read some of Bill James' essay, and tbh, I'm not sure what to think. A very interesting read that I'm going to have more time to ponder.

Thanks for the post.
Friday, July 31st, 2009 16:32 (UTC)
Dave, that's such a tease!

Send me an email.

I am fascinated by the depth and breadth of the positive results. All we've heard about to date is the power hitters, and while I never doubted that the problem was widespread, I'm surprised that so many positions were accounted for.

When Nook Logan - who could barely hit the ball out of the infield - got busted for PED's, my ability to be surprised disappeared. And honestly, I think the 'real' list would be much longer than those players who've been suspended since, or the ones on the list I saw.

It's become notable once we saw that the drugs weren't just for hitting homeruns, which is really just the least subtle part of it. I mean, we've been suspicious of players for a long time (remember Brady Anderson) but this was pretty notable.
Friday, July 31st, 2009 16:38 (UTC)
Baseball was also a bit different, because it was assumed for a long time that the PEDs would make you stronger but wouldn't necessarily help with the specific skills that allow baseball players to differentiate themselves from one another. As it turned out, the ability to tolerate heavier workouts and recover faster from daily wear and tear proved to be tremendously alluring to baseball player. Who, lets note, spent the 1960s downing amphetamines like M&Ms.

The one discouraging note, has been the changing nature of injuries among PED users. Notably connective tissue injuries that are particularly devastating to one's pitching arm.
Friday, July 31st, 2009 16:55 (UTC)
I don't really follow baseball news and I could probably google this, but since you're knowledgeable I'll ask you this really stupid question: Has steroid use been banned in baseball?

If it hasn't, there's not much that can be done legally. Even if it has or will be because of these reports, how will MLB deal with years of tainted records? Every team is affected, every team has players that have doped. Banning players isn't going to work. It's a big mess that should have been handled years ago when the news started popping about possible steroid use.

The 35 year long Royals fan in me (who has been waiting patiently for some return to the brilliance of the 1970s-1985) wants to know where we can get some of these juiced players but I'm slapping her down. *g*
Friday, July 31st, 2009 17:05 (UTC)
Steroids are banned, but there was no real policy in place before 2005. It's generally understood that use goes back to the late 1980s, but the League and Owners pretty much turned a blind eye as long as they could. They've got a policy and testing now, but there's not much anybody can do about the earlier era.

Heh - your Royals team needs a whole lot, starting with a much better front office. Which is kind of ironic, since three of the SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) big names grew up Kansas City fans. (Bill James, Rany Jayazerli, Rob Neyer)
Friday, July 31st, 2009 17:28 (UTC)
We just don't have the money to compete with the coastal teams. If you look at some of the players we've traded away or lost in the last decade, god, if we still had them we'd win the Series! But we can't afford to pay them the zillion dollar contracts that places like NY and Boston can. :(

I thought they'd been banned, but, yeah, there's not much that can be done with earlier problems.
Friday, July 31st, 2009 18:23 (UTC)
I don't think for a minute that sports reporters knew any less about steroid use in the late 1990s than they did about the players' cocaine use in the 1980s. They are no less guilty of perpetrating this mess than the commissioner. All James is suggesting is that because sports writers didn't say what they knew at the time and they can write whatever they feel like now which will make themselves look innocent, eventually they can cover it all up. Maybe he's right.
Friday, July 31st, 2009 21:30 (UTC)
We just don't have the money to compete with the coastal teams. If you look at some of the players we've traded away or lost in the last decade, god, if we still had them we'd win the Series! But we can't afford to pay them the zillion dollar contracts that places like NY and Boston can. :(

Sad news for you. This is an excuse that your ownership likes to use. Life is harder if you are Pittsburgh or KC, but small market teams can compete if they make very smart decisions with the money they do have. Teams like Minnesota and Oakland have managed several playoff runs even with lower payrolls. Oakland, in particular, had a notable stretch of making the playoffs and then trading off star players they couldn't play, and using the returned prospects for new playoff runs. On the other hand, Oakland's last few trades/free agent signings haven't worked, and they're back in the cellar.
Saturday, August 1st, 2009 13:24 (UTC)
you've seen the list? I don't want to. ever. and I can honestly say that's the first thing that went through my head as I read your post. even though I admittedly got a brief laugh out of mocking the sanctimonious Red Sox fans who thought their team was above this mess, that's about as much as I care about hearing about Ortiz or anyone else from the list. mostly I just wish people would stop deluding themselves into thinking that steroids (or if you want to cop out on language, performance enhancing drugs) weren't used by players on their teams. they were everywhere. everyone used them. accept this and move on. I'm over it. then again I also don't care enough about baseball to really give that much of anything about the Mitchell Report, steroids or anything else related to this mess.
Edited 2009-08-01 13:25 (UTC)
Saturday, August 1st, 2009 15:01 (UTC)
I don't use PEDs because it's a cop-out. I do so because "steroids" are an imprecise/inaccurate term, and because as someone who works in government I have a daily acronym quota to meet.
Saturday, August 1st, 2009 20:11 (UTC)
*grin* I should've added an "IMO" to the part where I call the term PED a cop-out. also, to me that expression is like "weapons of mass destruction." after a while, I would just prefer someone to say "nukes" even if that's not exactly what they're talking about. there is something about the words "steroids" and "nukes" that sound so much more imposing than "performance enhancing drugs" or "weapons of mass destruction." but like I say, that's just my lame opinion. ;)
Saturday, August 1st, 2009 21:19 (UTC)
Heh. Again, you fail to note the alluring nature of Acronyms. Steroids clearly sound 'dirtier' than PEDs.