Investigators entitled to 2003 test results
Link.
SAN FRANCISCO -- Government investigators are entitled to the names and urine samples of about 100 Major League Baseball players who tested positive for illegal drug use in 2003, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
Just saw this on ESPNews, very interesting to say the least. I know this isn't specifically about the Cubs but it might be a huge story if some names are leaked.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
0 recs |
18 comments
Comments
Well.
100 is a big number. I know that shouldn't surprise me, and it kind of doesn't. But still. 100.
by sparkles721 on Dec 27, 2006 2:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Is it just me...
I don't know, it just seems like they were very stern and passionate when they (MLB) were TALKING about it, but we really haven't seen much action taking place; at least I haven't.
I'm just very dissapointed that we can't weed these people out of the game more quickly. If this was a high school track team, they'd take samples, identify, and hand out punishments within DAYS, right? This is just taking WAY too long- all of it.
by raalic17 on Dec 27, 2006 4:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Sorry but this sucks
done with an IRON CLAD COMMITTMENT that results
would be confidental or the players would never have agreed
The point was to see how bad the problem was ( pretty bad)
and start working on it. For the record I also think the leaking
of the Bonds Grand Jury testimony was wrong as well. I
don't think we are talking Watergate or something that
the public had such a vital right to know that it overides either
the law or in this case the player's contracts and trust.
by jessica on Dec 27, 2006 4:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
This is a ploy
That's my take on it, anyway.
by cubbiejulie on Dec 27, 2006 9:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't matter...
First and foremost, while MLB will make us all think that progress has been made, it really hasn't. MLB's current testing policy allows for urine tests, looking for steroids, ect. Unfortunately, things like HGH (Human Growth Hormones) cannot be detected with current urine tests. They require blood tests, which MLB's steroid policy does not allow for.
More importantly, the steroid/illegal growth industry is well ahead of the testing industry. Players are constantly getting away with what they are doing because they are several steps ahead of professional sports and the testing agencies. By the time sports discovers a trend and/or substance that players are using, the players have moved on to something new.
I don't care what we find out about from 2003. MLB's current policy has no teeth and any belief that the sport is making progress in this area really is nieve.
DmL
by dmlichte on Dec 28, 2006 2:05 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
To steal a phrase from Al...
Drug testing in MLB is a sick joke. Any attempt to spin it otherwise is merely kowtowing to the public's desire to have SOME sort of testing policy...regardless of whether or not that policy has ANY teeth whatsoever.
by Santos L Halper on Dec 28, 2006 11:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Counterpoint
Remember they must have any such deal approved by the union, and obviously, the union isn't going to go for any really heavy-handed regulations.
The revelations of these names -- and they WILL leak out at some point -- may raise public anger to the point where a real tough policy can be implemented.
I won't hold my breath, but it's at least possible.
by Al on Dec 28, 2006 2:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
C'mon Al
If MLB cared they'd pour millions of dollars into developing urine tests that detect HGH. They'd do their due dilligence to stay ahead of the curve.
The lack of action on MLB's part makes me thing that they don't care or love the balls flying out of the park.
DmL
by dmlichte on Dec 28, 2006 3:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Remember...
If it does, watch Selig & Co. try to pressure the union into an agreement. IIRC the last agreement on drug testing was agreed to, and its expiration date was, independent of the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement.
by Al on Dec 28, 2006 3:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not my point
No Bud, you jackass, players are using more sophistocated substances that you aren't testing for. Everyone touts Ryan Howard and how he did all of this post steroids and it was nice to see someone do it on the level. I'm not saying Ryan Howard used or is using growth hormones, etc, but the sport is far from clean.
DmL
by dmlichte on Dec 28, 2006 4:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
From the Tribune
I wonder if that means our good friend. . .
by cubbiejulie on Dec 28, 2006 3:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Why?
Why would you hope Sammy tested positive?
Wouldn't you rather hope he tested negative? As toothless as it may be, a negative test by Sammy Sosa would be absolute vindication for me. I might go punch every Cardinals and White Sox fan in the gut, just out of emphasis.
Seriously, even if they want to say one negative test by Sammy doesn't mean anything, to me it does. it turns him into a legitimate first-balloter HOF'er. Something the Cubs haven't had since............................................................................................... ...........................................
by tyger1147 on Dec 28, 2006 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I assumed....
I wasn't thinking about Sammy, but about a certain Giants player. I think you can guess who.
by Al on Dec 28, 2006 4:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Gotcha...
I couldn't care less whether Bonds tests positive or negative. He nor his team is a direct threat to the Cubs right now. To me, it's meaningless.
by tyger1147 on Dec 28, 2006 4:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand...
About Bonds, it IS significant because if he's revealed to be one of the positive tests, then he will probably almost immediately be indicted for perjury.
I cannot recall any time when an active player, much less a player of Bonds' magnitude, was indicted. I suspect it would result in an immediate "best interests of baseball" suspension by Selig.
That's big news in any event.
by Al on Dec 28, 2006 5:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I wish I could "re-recommend" this diary
dozens of names will come out despite the efforts of MLB. Subpoenas will be issued and will be leaked to the public, with many so-called heroes being exposed. Many of use know there are that many players involved but the casual fan will be shocked. There will be a huge cloud over baseball in the coming year.
by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Dec 29, 2006 8:31 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 




















