Because of statements made by both MLB and the MLBPA here, including:
"The number of players on the so-called 'government list' meaningfully exceeds the number of players agreed by the bargaining parties to have tested positive in 2003," said Michael Weiner, the incoming executive director of the union, who was to be at the media conference with Ortiz. "Accordingly, the presence of a player's name on any such list does not necessarily mean that the player used a prohibited substance or that the player tested positive under our collectively bargained program."
MLB reiterated that position, as follows:
"It should be pointed out that the names on the list, which was prepared by the federal government and not by anyone associated with our Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program, are subject to uncertainties with regard to the test results. There are more names on the government list (104) than the maximum number of positives that were recorded under the 2003 program (96). And, as the Mitchell Report made clear, some of the 96 positives were contested by the union.
"Given the uncertainties inherent in the list, we urge the press and the public to use caution in reaching conclusions based on leaks of names, particularly from sources whose identities are not revealed."
I'm always willing to change my mind based on a reasonable argument. In this case, since both management and the union agree about the contents of this list and the uncertainties about some of the names, I would hope that the remaining names will remain private.
The problem remains, and I hope MLB and the players union will continue to work toward a solution that satisfies everyone.