Sammy Sosa....POSITIVE

[Migrant Redbird]

... But you walked right into this one. C'mon... the board's designated Cardinal Guy giving a 3,000 word dissertation on the innocence of the most muscle-bound, one-dimensional Cardinal slugger in history? You had to know the reaction would be similar to Rush defending Cheney or Olberman defending a Clinton.

If you've paid attention, I've also defended Rafael Palmeiro on this board (and elsewhere). In addition, I've pointed out that extra suspicion of Albert Pujols is understandable because he comes from the Dominican Republic, which has been identified in the past as a hotbed of PEDs usage among teenage boys. That doesn't mean that Pujols is using steroids and I think I'm justified in taking strong exception to assertions that he has when they're not based upon any evidence.

I voiced suspicions myself of Roger Clemens prior to the McNamee revelations, simply because no other pitcher in the history of the game has elevated his performance after the age of 40 to the degree that Clemens did. The closest parallel among baseball players is Barry Bonds. However, I was careful not to assert that Clemens was using PEDs, just that his performance raised reasonable suspicions. There is a difference.

McGwire was "muscle-bound" for a reason. He's famous (or notorious if you prefer) for the intensity of his workouts. He was a big strong kid when he entered professional baseball and there's plenty of evidence that working out the way he did does develop muscles. Lazy players like Canseco may have needed steroids to develop their home run power, but there have been plenty of muscle-bound sluggers in baseball before the advent of widespread steroids usage. Assuming that McGwire's muscles are primarily the result of steroids ignores the available evidence that he's worked hard enough to build them without chemical help.

If we assume that anyone who challenges Ruth's 60 home runs mark must have been using steroids, then we also ought to assume that Ruth must have had some chemical help when he hit that many. And it's possible he did, except the efficacy of the animal testes extracts which were available in Ruth's day is highly questionable.

I continue to insist that we should have legitimate evidence of steroids use before we convict players in the forum of public opinion. To me, legitimate evidence is either a positive urinalysis by a reputable laboratory, documented evidence of PEDs purchases, or corroborated, credible testimony. Brian McNamee may not be the most credible witness in the world but, unfortunately for Roger Clemens, McNamee's testimony is buttressed by documentary evidence collected by federal investigators of his steroid purchases, and by the statement of Andy Petitte (whom Clemens claims is mistaken).

There is no such credible evidence in the case of McGwire. The allegations of Jose Canseco and Jay McGwire are mutually repudiating, and the credibility of both is in serious question. The rumors that an Oakland trafficker provided steroids to Canseco and McGwire are not corroborated by that trafficker's public statements or by his sworn testimony to federal investigators that accompanied his plea agreement. The case against McGwire is based primarily upon assumptions that his musculature had to have been produced by steroids and that his refusal to testify before Congress amounts to a confession of guilt. Neither assumption is necessarily valid.

So, there's plenty of reason for suspicion in the case of McGwire, but zero justification for conviction. What's so difficult to understand about that? Why is it "man love" for McGwire to simply point out the truth?

****************************************************

Back to Palmeiro briefly. I have no doubt that his positive test for stanazol was valid. However, Raffie's initial explanation for how that might have occurred without his knowledge is at least plausible, if not completely credible. Tejada has acknowledged giving Palmeiro an injection of "Vitamin B-12". Tejada's supply of B-12 came from the Dominican Republic, where controls over the sale of pharmaceuticals are much laxer than they are in the U.S. At the time, there was a least one company advertising vials of stanazol combined with B-12 over the internet, and pills containing stanazol and B-12 are still available over the internet today -- or were the last time I looked a few months ago.

Palmeiro didn't persist with his explanation of how he took stanazol because it wouldn't have made any difference, even if anyone would have believed him. MLB takes the position that players are still responsible for what goes into their bodies, even if they didn't know that it was prohibited.

[Migrant Redbird]

Ok MB, I have a strong suspicion that McGwire used steroids. On a scale of 1-10, my suspicion is a 9.5 that McGwire used steroids. Do you have a level of suspicion on the subject?

Not one that I'd care to put a number to.

Let's see. You're a very bright individual, as evidenced by the majority of your posts here. A large number of intelligent -- as opposed to "wise" -- individuals cheat on their tax returns, e.g., Tim Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury. Would you appreciate me putting a number on my suspicion that you might have filed fraudulent tax returns, without any credible evidence to support that suspicion?

Why is it so reprehensible for me to say simply that "I don't know!" (Not that I've ever said anything "simply".)

[Lucky Jim]

Not one that I'd care to put a number to.

Let's see. You're a very bright individual, as evidenced by the majority of your posts here. A large number of intelligent -- as opposed to "wise" -- individuals cheat on their tax returns, e.g., Tim Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury. Would you appreciate me putting a number on my suspicion that you might have filed fraudulent tax returns, without any credible evidence to support that suspicion?

Why is it so reprehensible for me to say simply that "I don't know!" (Not that I've ever said anything "simply".)

This is a weak analogy.

[Boy Howdy]

I just want to say that I saw a pedestrian friendly street sign this morning that made me crack a smile:

"YIELD TO PEDS" it said.

[Migrant Redbird]

This is a weak analogy.

The only thing "weak" about it is that RZNJ hasn't been tried and convicted by the vast majority of baseball fans. However, that's offset by the value of providing a personal example to which he can easily relate.

By the way, are you a member of the Flat Earth Society? Yes, I know it has very few members nowadays, but the attitudes of the McGwire bashers would have been right at home in the middle ages when virtually everyone agreed the Earth was flat.

[Lucky Jim]

The only thing "weak" about it is that RZNJ hasn't been tried and convicted by the vast majority of baseball fans. However, that's offset by the value of providing a personal example to which he can easily relate.

By the way, are you a member of the Flat Earth Society? Yes, I know it has very few members nowadays, but the attitudes of the McGwire bashers would have been right at home in the middle ages when virtually everyone agreed the Earth was flat.

I haven't come down in any way on the McGwire issue, so it seems odd that one who is so vociferously opposed to a "rush to judgment" would seemingly throw his own principles out the window and assume that I had. Of course principles are slippery, and win you cling so tightly to them they're likely to slip out like a bar of soap.

It's a remarkably weak analogy, and if you let yourself be dispassionate and objective about it, you'd find that to be the case.

Major League Baseball is a closed network, a tiny subsection of the general population, with a very particularized - and often exaggerated - kind of cost-benefit analysis that goes with it. The incentives shared by baseball players are similar in a way that incentives spread across the greater population are not.

Further, this closed network has been shown to be riddled with a certain kind of behavior. It's more like fighting corruption in government than it is tax evasion in the general public.

If you know that city hall is corrupt, and that there's a guy working in city hall who - while he hasn't confessed to corruption or been ratted out - lives in a giant house with fancy cars and a lavish lifestyle (a lifestyle that is anomalous in its opulence relative to other public servants who aren't corrupt), then it's not surprising that suspicion will fall on that person's shoulders. When that person refuses to talk about how he made his money and refuses to deny his involvement under oath, then that suspicion will gain traction with many. When people close to that person (say, his brother) offer evidence of that corruption, folks will feel confirmed (even if that corroboration of their suspicion comes from questionable quarters.)

None of this is enough to send someone to jail.

But it hardly makes those who have suspicions "Flat Earth" devotees.

What's ironic - in the true sense of the world - is that you've got the Flat Earth Society all wrong.

Yes, the original flat earth ideas were crude, and were rebutted by years of science. The Flat Earth Society, though, are those who today, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, believe that the Earth is flat. Just like those who've sent their objectivity downriver and cling desperately to some naive and resolute belief that their heroes remain heroic. You're the Flat Earth Society.

And if you're not quite that bad, then you're at least like those who - when confronted with the first evidence that the Earth was, in fact, round - clung to their age-old preconceptions pointing to a failure of "conclusive" evidence. (I mean, who's going to rely on the testimony of those sea-faring explorers? How reputable are they?)

Please rebut me with more Tony Atlas analogies.

[tvz1997]

To Redbird: Outstanding intensity and frequency of muscle-building exercise is being seen more and more as an indicator of PED use, rather than a contraindicator. That was the most cogent point made by Radomski (and Canseco) over the past year. Muscle can naturally take only so much tearing and mending. We used to say of Gibbons and Sosa that they worked too hard to achieve their mass for anyone to suspect them of steroid use, but it was their ability to put that high a workload on their bodies and still be loose and agile enough to be a ML OFer that should have been suspicious.

I don't mean to say that all baseball gymrats are on the juice. Many of the very best clean athletes spend countless hours building and training muscles that a normal universal gym can't tax at all. Kudos to them. It's just that we cannot use a muscle-bound sluggers work-ethic as a defense against PED allegations anymore.

[SrMeowMeow]

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.

My disagreement with you on this issue is total. You cannot reveal confidential information because you want to know, or because you think those implicated are slimy, or whatever. You simply cannot do that. It is immoral and short-sighted.

I'm not even going to touch McGwire since your mind is made up, but I think you should take a step back and re-evaluate.

[Migrant Redbird]

To Redbird: Outstanding intensity and frequency of muscle-building exercise is being seen more and more as an indicator of PED use, rather than a contraindicator.

Change that to "possible indicator" and I would agree with you. There are lots of "possible indicators" for steroid use, some of which are somewhat contradictory, such as the belief that injuries are an indicator of PED use and the belief that rapid recovery or avoidance of injuries is also an indicator.

I recall my dentist a couple of years ago pontificating that -- according to his pharmaceutical professor -- the increase in Barry Bonds' hat size was proof of steroid use because there are only two known causes of increased head size like that and the other one is a rare genetic disease. While I accept that this pharmacist probably knows what he's talking about, I still don't regard that as proof positive that Barry was using steroids. (Of course, we now know he admitted it -- while denying he knew the "clear" contained steroids -- and that he tested positive on tests arranged by BALCO.)

That was the most cogent point made by Radomski (and Canseco) over the past year. Muscle can naturally take only so much tearing and mending. We used to say of Gibbons and Sosa that they worked too hard to achieve their mass for anyone to suspect them of steroid use, but it was their ability to put that high a workload on their bodies and still be loose and agile enough to be a ML OFer that should have been suspicious.

As I've pointed out before, weight lifters have worked out intensely and built up very powerful physiques for a long time before synthetic steroids became available. Yes, steroids do make it easier, but that doesn't mean another athlete can't achieve similar results without using steroids.

I don't mean to say that all baseball gymrats are on the juice. Many of the very best clean athletes spend countless hours building and training muscles that a normal universal gym can't tax at all. Kudos to them. It's just that we cannot use a muscle-bound sluggers work-ethic as a defense against PED allegations anymore.

We can if their "muscle-bound" physique is assumed to be the product of steroids without any other legitimate evidence. Proof is a positive steroid test by a reputable laboratory or credible, corroborated testimony from someone with personal knowledge of that use.

[Migrant Redbird]

My disagreement with you on this issue is total. You cannot reveal confidential information because you want to know, or because you think those implicated are slimy, or whatever. You simply cannot do that. It is immoral and short-sighted.

You're confused. What's "immoral" is to enter into a confidential agreement to suppress evidence of criminal activity, which is what the agreement between MLB and the PA for the 2003 testing was. The use of steroids is illegal. You can not enter into a legal agreement to conceal evidence of illegal activity. That's criminal conspiracy, which is why federal agents are justified to subpoena the evidence of those 2003 tests -- assuming it still exists -- regardless of any confidentiality agreements.

Now leaking that information to the media is a different issue. If you want to call that "slimy", I won't dispute you. However, I do believe that fans have a right to know the information and I do not believe that any of the ballplayers who tested positive have any right to keep the evidence of their criminal activities private, regardless of what the PA and MLB promised them back in 2003 when they were directed to provide those urine samples.

I'm not even going to touch McGwire since your mind is made up, but I think you should take a step back and re-evaluate.

I don't need to "re-evaluate". Whether McGwire used steroids or not, the fact is that neither you nor any of the others on this forum know that he did. You may suspect that he did. You may even strongly believe that he did, but you will never know that he did unless he comes forth and admits it or someone else produces credible evidence to support the allegations. Humans have a tendency to rush to judgment when it's unnecessary.