ESPN is reporting...

[Sports Guy]

And I'd like to say that I have a hard time believing that simply because of the effects that garbage could have on his heart condition. Maybe that's naive of me but I always wonder about that, especially since I have a friend who had a similar condition and surgery when she was young and who had to have heart surgery back in August to fix it all over again. Maybe that's a discussion for another thread though, the effects of that stuff on his heart condition.

It may effect it but that doesn't mean he wasn't willing to risk it.

Steroids are known to have major complications and have killed people but people still do it.

People do all sorts of stupid things they know can harm them but it doesn't stop them especially when it means you may net yourself 10+ million dollars.

[davearm]

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.

[Moose Milligan]

MM, why are you obsessed with everything i say?

Why do i somehow come up in most of your posts?

And why do you routinely make the dumbest and stupidest jokes?

This is a freaking discussion board and if i choose to get involved in a conversation, i will do it.

Now there's a typical SG response when you have nothing better to say, when someone puts the screws to you and makes you feel a bit uncomfortable. Somehow everyone obsesses over you and you belittle everyone else and whatever they bring or don't bring to the board.

Contrary to popular belief, no ones obsessed with you. Trust me.

I'll even borrow one of your signature trademark lines. "If you don't like me, put me on ignore."

My questions weren't intended to get you heated, I was genuienly curious. So go build a bridge, get over yourself and reply to them when you've gotten off your high horse.

[HeatherC12]

It may effect it but that doesn't mean he wasn't willing to risk it.

Steroids are known to have major complications and have killed people but people still do it.

People do all sorts of stupid things they know can harm them but it doesn't stop them especially when it means you may net yourself 10+ million dollars.

That may be true but I still have a hard time believing Brian would do that. He's not a stupid guy, he doesn't strike me as one to be all that concerned with money, and with everything he's done for the sick children in the Baltimore area hospitals, I just can't wrap my mind around him putting himself in danger that way. I guess I'll live in my little naive world until that report is released though, LOL

[mweb]

Not really...I already said that they may think he isn't as good as he was a few years ago but that he is still very good(assuming you mean Tejada here).

The bad PR would be meaningless and would certainly not deter anyone from bettering the team. There would be scattered fans and some members of the media who would care....Big deal.

Do you think the Indians fans are watching Betancourt mow down Red Sox hitters and are saying, gee, i don't want that known steroid user out there right now...Get him off the field!

As soon as Bonds retires or gets caught or whatever, most of this starts to go away.

If you ask fans about the steroid stuff, inevitably the name Bonds comes up...That is all that matters and really, they only care because he isn't nice.

I was talking about ARod coming here. Wouldn't that be a concern of yours if we knew he was using until now, but was stopping from this point on? His production would likely go down.

You're right about Betancourt, most only care about the stars who have been caught, and most care about Bonds the most due to his numbers and his attitude. It's also different to many when the guy gets caught when he's already on your team opposed to the team bringing in a known user.

I somewhat agree with what you say about Bonds, although I think you're overstating it, which is why I always defend him when people attack him so much while not caring much about others. But most did/do care about McGwire, Sosa, Raffy, and Giambi. Those were huge stories, and Arod would be an even bigger story, he's already a lighting rod for the press and fans, and many dislike him almost as much as Bonds, so yes, there would be a good deal of negative PR imo.

[Sports Guy]

Now there's a typical SG response when you have nothing better to say, when someone puts the screws to you and makes you feel a bit uncomfortable. Somehow everyone obsesses over you and you belittle everyone else and whatever they bring or don't bring to the board.

Contrary to popular belief, no ones obsessed with you. Trust me.

I'll even borrow one of your signature trademark lines. "If you don't like me, put me on ignore."

My questions weren't intended to get you heated, I was genuienly curious. So go build a bridge, get over yourself and reply to them when you've gotten off your high horse.

Well ask me a question that actually has a point to it and maybe i will answer you.

BTW, i heart mIggy called you out on what i was saying last week.

[Sports Guy]

I was talking about ARod coming here. Wouldn't that be a concern of yours if we knew he was using until now, but was stopping from this point on? His production would likely go down.

No...He is great..Plain and simple. I would be worried about his production as a player going into his mid to late 30s, as i would anyone but not because of steroids.

I somewhat agree with what you say about Bonds, although I think you're overstating it, which is why I always defend him when people attack him so much while not caring much about others. But most did/do care about McGwire, Sosa, Raffy, and Giambi. Those were huge stories, and Arod would be an even bigger story, he's already a lighting rod for the press and fans, and many dislike him almost as much as Bonds, so yes, there would be a good deal of negative PR imo.

They were so big that no one even talks about them anymore for the most part and that is with Giambi still in the game.

[Moose Milligan]

Well ask me a question that actually has a point to it and maybe i will answer you.

BTW, i heart mIggy called you out on what i was saying last week.

Don't hold your breath dude, I'm not anxiously awaiting your opinion over here.

[mweb]

No...He is great..Plain and simple.

They were so big that no one even talks about them anymore for the most part and that is with Giambi still in the game.

So are you saying steroids have no impact on performance?

I'm not saying it would remain a huge story for that long, with Arod, I think it would be talked about for a long time, but obvioulsy not as much as time goes on, with Tejada, it wouldn't have that much staying power. That's not the point though, we're talking about the immdiate future here.

[Gurgi]

It would be a major story with Clemens or Pettitte. If it hit big with the Yankees or Boston it would be MEGA news. Manny Rameriz or Ortiz. The media would fan the story for months and months. The congress would have more hearings. Likely threaten more intervention or laws. The Union will have to give up more power.

If the story gets big enough. Congress might just take it into all athletics. And start instituting Federal rules, fines, laws, prison sentences. This could be a Tsunami if the media and Congress want it to be. And guess what. It is an election year. So both parties can look good while having hearings, calling more witnesses and getting face time for the cameras.

[scOtt]

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.

Sadly, I think it boils down to the "Steve Howe Effect". If said player isn't suspended for a long time, or banned, teams will turn more and more of a blind eye to it, directly proportional to said player's talent.

[Mackus]

I've only glanced through this thread, but why would a player be suspended for being "named" in the Mitchell report? As far as the CBA is concerned, the Mitchell report is about as meaningful as anyone on this board saying "Jay Payton is on steroids". Unless a player fails a drug test, they can't be suspended.

The fact that Mitchell's report is going to be naming names is pretty shady to me actually. MLB shouldn't be allowed to out the names of players some senator thinks were on steroids. If I was a player named in this case, I'd probably consider legal action against the league. The players union and the owners have a very well-defined agreement in regards to steroid testing and the suspensions associated with it, anything outside of those regulations is meaningless.

[Why Not?]

I've only glanced through this thread, but why would a player be suspended for being "named" in the Mitchell report? As far as the CBA is concerned, the Mitchell report is about as meaningful as anyone on this board saying "Jay Payton is on steroids". Unless a player fails a drug test, they can't be suspended.

The fact that Mitchell's report is going to be naming names is pretty shady to me actually. MLB shouldn't be allowed to out the names of players some senator thinks were on steroids. If I was a player named in this case, I'd probably consider legal action against the league. The players union and the owners have a very well-defined agreement in regards to steroid testing and the suspensions associated with it, anything outside of those regulations is meaningless.

If Mitchell wrongly accuses a player, that player has the option of proving that Mitchell is wrong.

Of all the players linked to steroids, nobody has ever sued a media outlet. If, for example, Jay Gibbons was totally innocent and never received steroid shipments, wouldn't he be in his attorney's office in 30 seconds to file suit against si.com?

Seems like somebody falsely accused by the media of a crime would attempt to clear his name immediately. But they don't, because the reports are almost certainly true. I suspect whatever Mitchell exposes will be true as well.

[66-70-83-??]

I've only glanced through this thread, but why would a player be suspended for being "named" in the Mitchell report? As far as the CBA is concerned, the Mitchell report is about as meaningful as anyone on this board saying "Jay Payton is on steroids". Unless a player fails a drug test, they can't be suspended.

The fact that Mitchell's report is going to be naming names is pretty shady to me actually. MLB shouldn't be allowed to out the names of players some senator thinks were on steroids. If I was a player named in this case, I'd probably consider legal action against the league. The players union and the owners have a very well-defined agreement in regards to steroid testing and the suspensions associated with it, anything outside of those regulations is meaningless.

That was your first mistake.......... you missed good info.

The Mitchell report is a necessary step in putting some closure on this scandal. They have to show the masses and the media that they have made some effort to get to the bottom of the issue and rectify it. Whether or not they are sincere or do a good job at it can be debated, but at least they have made an effort to do something.

It is ironic how Bud/MLB have been blasted by many for years about doing nothing (nevermind they can't do much without MLBPA cooperation). Now, they are trying to do something and they still get blasted- probably by the same crowd who will always be on the other side as Bud, just for the sake of being on the other side as Bud.

The last thing MLB should do is sweep it under the rug. Although, MLBPA wants exactly that to happen and has/is doing EVERYTHING in their power to stonewall any talk about roids since day 1.

Mitchell will not just name names for the sake of it. You can bet he will do his due diligence before putting names down. Besides public records, he has interviewed many others from doctors to team trainers.

Legal action against the league ? LOL. MLB has every right to hold thier own internal investigations into their own business/league. This is a private investigation, not a criminal one.

The first question a judge would have (before throwing the player out of court) is "Did you discuss this with the league first ?"- Mitchell gave every player the opportunity to discuss their own situation (ie explain and clear up).

And virtually none have cooperated.

[Mackus]

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