Investigators entitled to 2003 test results

by VS on Dec 27, 2006 2:05 PM CST Comment 18 comments

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 | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well.

I guess now we wait and see.

100 is a big number. I know that shouldn't surprise me, and it kind of doesn't. But still. 100.

"I don't talk. I just let what I do talk for myself." -Johan Santana

by sparkles721 on Dec 27, 2006 2:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Is it just me...

Or are they totally botching this whole steroid thing? I mean, seriously; 2003? And we're just NOW gonna find out who these people are? What about the people using now, and what about these 100 people who've probably been playing full seasons since they tested positive?

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

I am not defending steriod use but these tests were
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.

I love the ballpark. I love the city. I love the fans. Aside from how we've played this year, there's nothing not to like about Chicago." Greg Maddux 7/29/06

by jessica on Dec 27, 2006 4:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

This is a ploy

to lean on Bonds and the other BALCO guys, I think. There is no way the government could prosecute anyone for possession based on a positive drug test. The only thing I can figure is that they want the names so that they can get some guys to talk and bring down some big fish.

That's my take on it, anyway.

HENDRY!

by cubbiejulie on Dec 27, 2006 9:00 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't matter...

... for several reasons.

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...

....LOUD, SUSTAINED APPLAUSE!!!

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

At least they understand how serious this problem is and they have taken at least some steps to do something about it, regardless of how toothless the testing is.

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

MLB didn't even try to do anything additional for the new MLB collective bargaining agreement. They just wanted five more years of labor peace and they are counting on the fact that most fans are ignorant to the real issues. Had MLB wanted something, they would have insisted blood testing for HGH and other growth agents. It is a PR battle that MLB would have easily won and the MLB Players Association would have been stupid to fight.

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...

... the last agreement was made NOT during a time of collective bargaining. The current revelations may put public pressure on both sides to "do something", just as it did two years ago.

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

Al, MLB will come out and tout the dramatic drop in positive tests, saying that MLB took action and has done what must be done to rid the sport of steroids and other illegal substances. Ya, there are next to no positive tests because no one is using what they're testing for. So when these 100 names come out, MLB will simply say that "that was then" and now no one is testing positive, so the problem is fixed.

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

"The San Francisco Chronicle has reported that eight of the 10 players whose tests originally were subpoenaed had positive tests in the 2003 survey."

I wonder if that means our good friend. . .

HENDRY!

by cubbiejulie on Dec 28, 2006 3:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

We can only hope.

n/t

by Al on Dec 28, 2006 3:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why?

Are you talking about Sammy?

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............................................................................................... ...........................................

TOWEL DRILL!

by tyger1147 on Dec 28, 2006 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I assumed....

... that since the comment referenced something in the SF Chronicle, that it was about Giants players.

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...

certainly makes sense. I've never thought Bonds a friend of the Cubs--even in a joking manner. I thought you might think that, too, but being as the trial was in San Fran and the Chronicle seems to be the one to break a lot of these stories, I didn't see the connection. I assumed Julie meant Sammy.

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.

TOWEL DRILL!

by tyger1147 on Dec 28, 2006 4:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I understand...

... I think Julie was being facetious when she said "our good friend".

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

True...

I personally, just don't care. I'm not saying you shouldn't comment on it, or it wouldn't matter in the baseball world. Just that it doesn't really bother me, one way or the other.

TOWEL DRILL!

by tyger1147 on Dec 28, 2006 5:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wish I could "re-recommend" this diary

because it's being lost in discussion and will be a huge story in 2007.

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