Jump to content

Sammy Sosa....POSITIVE

Moose Milligan

By Moose Milligan
in MLB

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply
JamesI Major Leaguer Cup of Coffee

JamesI

Posted
Posted
You know me, always up for a good steroid discussion. Nice job by whomever's job it was to keep these 2003 tests confidential. Well done!

Considering what the tests were for, the fact that names were recorded at all for those tests is just wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FollyFollyToo AAA

FollyFollyToo

Posted
Posted
Considering what the tests were for, the fact that names were recorded at all for those tests is just wrong.

Yeah, I've yet to hear a good reason why any names were given in the first place, and/or why the samples weren't put into a lottery ball type machine after they were taken and before they were tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Migrant Redbird All-Star

Migrant Redbird

Posted
Posted
Awesome, another steroids story that's 6 years old!!!

You knew it was coming Moose.

Just 102 names to go!

The big advantage for baseball fans of knowing all 104 names is that we'd be better able to make an assessment of how much steroids (not HGH) affected the game. The majority of the players getting busted now that penalties are being applied have been minor league players and marginal major league players. If that's also true of the 2003 tests, then perhaps we ought to conclude that the "steroids era" didn't make as much of a difference as we thought it did.

As for the argument that those 104 players are entitled to confidentiality, I totally reject it. MLB and the Players Association entered into a Faustian bargain to conceal evidence of criminal behavior. Those players have absolutely zero right to confidentiality. You can argue that whomever was responsible for carrying out that agreement between MLB and the PA screwed it up, but that's like arguing that a bank robber deserved to get away because his get away driver stalled the car and couldn't get it started again.

The one thing of which we can be certain? McGwire's name wasn't among the 104 players who tested positive. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beaner Veteran All-Star

beaner

Posted
Posted
Just 102 names to go!

The big advantage for baseball fans of knowing all 104 names is that we'd be better able to make an assessment of how much steroids (not HGH) affected the game. The majority of the players getting busted now that penalties are being applied have been minor league players and marginal major league players. If that's also true of the 2003 tests, then perhaps we ought to conclude that the "steroids era" didn't make as much of a difference as we thought it did.

As for the argument that those 104 players are entitled to confidentiality, I totally reject it. MLB and the Players Association entered into a Faustian bargain to conceal evidence of criminal behavior. Those players have absolutely zero right to confidentiality. You can argue that whomever was responsible for carrying out that agreement between MLB and the PA screwed it up, but that's like arguing that a bank robber deserved to get away because his get away driver stalled the car and couldn't get it started again.

The one thing of which we can be certain? McGwire's name wasn't among the 104 players who tested positive. :)

Agreed 100%. And McGwire knew exactly what he was doing, he got out just in time. Brilliant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Migrant Redbird All-Star

Migrant Redbird

Posted
Posted
... McGwire knew exactly what he was doing, he got out just in time. Brilliant!

McGwire had a contract offer in hand from the Cardinals to pay him $11M-$12M for the 2002 season (I forget the exact amount) and he returned it unsigned because his knees just weren't in good enough shape to play anywhere near every day. The Cardinals knew that, but figured his ability to draw fans into the ballpark -- especially selling season tickets -- was worth more than they were offering him.

I don't think that McGwire's retirement had anything at all with getting out of baseball before the steroid testing began in 2003; he just wasn't willing to accept money for playing every day (or nearly so) when he knew his body wouldn't allow him to do it. In that sense, McGwire had more integrity than most ball players, who would gladly have taken the money even though they knew they wouldn't earn it.

That's why I think there might have been more behind McGwire's refusal to testify about steroids before Congress than most fans assume. Since McGwire was no longer playing and was never tested for steroids, he would have been at a lot less risk for adamantly denying steroids use than Palmeiro or Sosa were. The Feds had already investigated allegations that an Oakland dealer had supplied McGwire and Canseco with steroids and apparently hadn't turned up anything beyond rumor. (If they had, it would have been in the Mitchell Report.)

The stock reasoning is that any illegal behavior by McGwire while he was playing was already past its statute of limitation, but that his lawyers advised him not to testify because any perjury he committed before Congress would have opened up a new, five year window during which he could have been indicted and prosecuted. I readily concede that's a possible explanation, and it's certainly the easiest one, but it's really no more than a hypothesis. There could be any number of other reasons why McGwire refused to testify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...