ESPN is reporting...

[66-70-83-??]

My point is that nobody is getting suspended over this, so it really doesn't matter at all.

It doesn't to you.

But, it does to many fans/ex fans who are ticked about steroids and want to know to what extent the records may be tainted.

Shouldn't they try to uncover as much as possible for an accurate historical record ?

[Mackus]

It doesn't to you.

But, it does to many fans/ex fans who are ticked about steroids and want to know to what extent the records may be tainted.

Shouldn't they try to uncover as much as possible for an accurate historical record ?

I really don't care. And Mitchell uncovering that somebody received hGH won't reveal anything about when the player was using, how it affected them, and it most certainly won't be anywhere near an exhaustive list.

I think MLB would be much better off creating tougher testing and expanding the substances that are tested for than going on a retrospective wild goose chase.

[geschinger]

I really don't care. And Mitchell uncovering that somebody received hGH won't reveal anything about when the player was using, how it affected them, and it most certainly won't be anywhere near an exhaustive list.

I think MLB would be much better off creating tougher testing and expanding the substances that are tested for than going on a retrospective wild goose chase.

The Mitchell report could potentially making tougher testing more likely. MLB can't craete a tougher testing policy and increase the substances tested for - the MLBPA will fight them tooth and nail and prevent it. A damning Mitchell report may provide the leverage to get what everyone should want - an actual comprehensive testing program without huge loopholes.

[Why Not?]

I really don't care. And Mitchell uncovering that somebody received hGH won't reveal anything about when the player was using, how it affected them, and it most certainly won't be anywhere near an exhaustive list.

I think MLB would be much better off creating tougher testing and expanding the substances that are tested for than going on a retrospective wild goose chase.

They can do both. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

There are always going to be undetectable drugs and ways to beat the tests. Possibly having your named sullied via this sort of investigation is another deterent to cheating.

[Sports Guy]

It doesn't to you.

But, it does to many fans/ex fans who are ticked about steroids and want to know to what extent the records may be tainted.

Shouldn't they try to uncover as much as possible for an accurate historical record ?

They haven't done it in other eras, why start with this one?

Naming names does nothing good.

[Why Not?]

They haven't done it in other eras, why start with this one?

Naming names does nothing good.

It's a deterent for those who may use steroids in the future. It serves to fill in some of the holes in testing.

[Sports Guy]

It's a deterent for those who may use steroids in the future. It serves to fill in some of the holes in testing.

Announcing the names doesn't do any of this IMO.

All announcing the names does is appease a few fans and the media who are obsessed with this.

[24fps]

It's beyond question that being outed as a PED user carries a large stigma. Well at least I though it would be beyond question.

I can't believe there's anyone here that would dispute the fact that having to own that stigma would negatively impact a player in just about every way imaginable -- peer reputation, fan popularity, endorsement opps, and yes, trade value in the eyes of GMs too.

The relevant question is not whether collateral damage will be attendant to having one's name show up on "the list" or not, but rather how much.

You know, candor is going to go a long way to help those who are named in the Mitchell Report when it does finally come out. I've spent many years in the entertainment business and if I've learned anything, it's that the American public can be remarkably forgiving when you don't try to snow them. It still surprises me sometimes how powerful this tendency is in us.

As a general rule, our culture hates cheating but we universally understand struggling to keep up, because most of us have to do it every day. Also as a general rule, we’re trusting; willing to accept things at face value until given a reason to reconsider. To our credit, when our trust is betrayed our first instinct is not to seek punishment, but to look for understanding.

In my opinion, the players who are going to fare best after release of this long-awaited report will be be those whose first instinct is to reestablish their fan’s trust instead of trying to preserve what they perceive to be their self-interest.

As a long-ago paraticipant in the news business, it is my feeling that the mainstream news media - specifically broadcast jounalism - has become remarkably and disturbingly unprincipled since the mid-80’s. The mileage derived from a story has become too large an influence in determining what airs, how long it airs, and, most importantly, in what context it’s presented. I’m not saying there aren’t honorable journalists out there - there are - but, ironically, nowadays virtually all journalists are dealing with the same pressures as the baseball player who felt it was necessary to augment his vitamin intake to maintain his competitive edge.

Consider Rafael Palmiero. Unless it is conclusively proved that he was wrongly accused, then I will have nothing but contempt for him. I single him out because to me he serves as comprehensive example of what not to do if a player finds himself named in the Mitchell report. He didn't make one wrong choice, he made a series of them.

Media outlets like ESPN are always looking for an easy meal. I predict all the players implicated will have their 15 minutes of shame, but ESPN and it’s ilk are much more interested in a meal rich in calories.

God help the player who dissembles, equivocates or transparently puts his self-interest over the trust we fans generously gave him, because that will indeed cause a media feeding frenzy with him as the guest of honor. Lying and betrayal are powerful and interesting themes, much more so than merely straying from the reservation looking for a slight edge. Just ask Shakespeare or the Greek playwrights. Heck, even ESPN gets that.

[Why Not?]

Announcing the names doesn't do any of this IMO.

All announcing the names does is appease a few fans and the media who are obsessed with this.

Exposing wrongs is the media's purpose. It's part of the fabric of our country. Granted, this isn't Watergate, but steroid use in sports is something that needed to be exposed. Without the media's "obsession" with it, everyone would be still be walking around with their hands in their pockets, looking in the air and whistling.

Exposing those who have cheated is clearly a deterrent to those who might do it in the future....especially when testing isn't getting the job done.

The better question is why SHOULDN'T the names be named? Why should those who cheated be allowed to skate? After years of ignoring the problem, shouldn't everything possible be done to fix the situation?

[geschinger]

Announcing the names doesn't do any of this IMO.

All announcing the names does is appease a few fans and the media who are obsessed with this.

If there are big name players that get named announcing the names generates pressure and the MLBPA might be more willing to work w/MLB on a more comprehensive testing regime. Unquestionably it does a heck of a lot more than just appeasing a few fans and the media.

[Sports Guy]

Exposing wrongs is the media's purpose. It's part of the fabric of our country. Granted, this isn't Watergate, but steroid use in sports is something that needed to be exposed. Without the media's "obsession" with it, everyone would be still be walking around with their hands in their pockets, looking in the air and whistling.

Exposing those who have cheated is clearly a deterrent to those who might do it in the future....especially when testing isn't getting the job done.

The better question is why SHOULDN'T the names be named? Why should those who cheated be allowed to skate? After years of ignoring the problem, shouldn't everything possible be done to fix the situation?

I just don't see what good it does to run these guys through the mud.

I am all for better testing and whatnot but i think that can happen whether names are announced or not.

[davearm]

If there are big name players that get named announcing the names generates pressure and the MLBPA might be more willing to work w/MLB on a more comprehensive testing regime. Unquestionably it does a heck of a lot more than just appeasing a few fans and the media.

MLBPA already has worked w/MLB on a comprehensive testing regime. The Union reversed their course on this issue years ago (although really, Congress left little choice in the matter).

To hear them say it, MLB's program is state of the art for American team sports now. Believe that or not, but it's at least been toughened up enough to appease Congress.

As I see it, the next meaningful change will be either a) blood testing, or b) the development of a reliable urine test for HGH. (And really, that statement applies to the NFL, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, PGA, etc. just as much.) Every union everywhere is resisting the former, and they obviously have zero influence over the latter.

If the Mitchell Report had some sort of positive impact on baseball from today forward; if there was some way it will help to keep PEDs out of the game in the future, then I can see value in it. I just think that's a pretty dubious prospect. I don't buy that the report is going to generate pressure for tougher testing, and I don't buy the deterrent effect either. Hopefully I'm wrong.

To me this thing is all about creating the impression that MLB is doing something meaningful, when really all they're doing is satisfying the media and fans' bloodlust.

[geschinger]

I just don't see what good it does to run these guys through the mud.

I am all for better testing and whatnot but i think that can happen whether names are announced or not.

How so? The pressure from all the hoopla around the time of the congressional hearings led to the MLBPA being more flexible than they had been in the past to get the flawed and limited testing regime we have now. Before that they were squarely against anything. Without naming names and generating more pressure on the players how do you suppose we'd get the MLBPA to agree to a more comprehensive testing program?

[davearm]

How so? The pressure from all the hoopla around the time of the congressional hearings led to the MLBPA being more flexible than they had been in the past to get the flawed and limited testing regime we have now. Before that they were squarely against anything. Without naming names and generating more pressure on the players how do you suppose we'd get the MLBPA to agree to a more comprehensive testing program?

What is the MLB's PED program lacking, IYO?

The banned substance list is exhaustive.

The testing is random, and IIRC yearlong.

The punishments are severe.

Aside from blood testing for HGH, what changes do you think are needed?

[geschinger]

MLBPA already has worked w/MLB on a comprehensive testing regime. The Union reversed their course on this issue years ago (although really, Congress left little choice in the matter).

To hear them say it, MLB's program is state of the art for American team sports now. Believe that or not, but it's at least been toughened up enough to appease Congress.

As I see it, the next meaningful change will be either a) blood testing, or b) the development of a reliable urine test for HGH. (And really, that statement applies to the NFL, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, PGA, etc. just as much.) Every union everywhere is resisting the former, and they obviously have zero influence over the latter.

If the Mitchell report bring HGH to the forefront in a huge way I can pretty much guarantee that Congress will jump back in and out the pressure on to try to come up with a solution.

If the Mitchell Report had some sort of positive impact on baseball from today forward; if there was some way it will help to keep PEDs out of the game in the future, then I can see value in it. I just think that's a pretty dubious prospect. I don't buy that the report is going to generate pressure for tougher testing, and I don't buy the deterrent effect either. Hopefully I'm wrong.

To me this thing is all about satisfying the media and fans' bloodlust.

If there was no Mitchell report and there would be no incentive for anyone to even work on ridding the game of HGH abuse. There would be nothing players would need to fear about taking HGH. Shining the light and exposing problems is always a good thing IMO.