With Alex Rodriguez's reputation in tatters, other players who might be on the infamous list of 104 likely are worried whether their names will be made public.
The fate of "the list" will be determined next by 11 appeals court judges in California.
If prosecutors are allowed to use the list and bring players before grand juries and trial courts, additional stars might be forced to admit they used steroids.
"It's definitely not fair to just pinpoint one guy," Boston's Kevin Youkilis said of his Yankees rival. "I don't know if somebody had it in for him. I don't know what because it seems like just to take one name out of that whole group is a little odd to me. If he was named with 10 other players, would that have been fair? I don't know? If they'd have listed all 104?"
Hall of Famer Goose Gossage hopes the list becomes public.
"I want to know who these other 100 guys are," he said. "Let's get it all out in the open. It certainly is not fair to A-Rod or to Bonds. They're dragging A-Rod down."
I understand the privacy issues here, but I'm one of the people who want to know the other names on that list. I think it will do more for baseball moving past these steroid problems than it will do to hurt the game. The game has already been hurt beyond repair, at least in the short-term. This is, and forever will be "The Steroid Era," what's important now is not protecting the cheaters; it's restoring the integrity of the game for the future.The list was a spreadsheet seized by federal agents from Comprehensive Drug Testing in Long Beach, Calif., in April 2004. The agents had a search warrant for the testing records of 10 players involved with BALCO. When they saw the spreadsheet, agents obtained additional search warrants, copied the entire computer directory and took the records of all the player.
Test samples and records were to remain anonymous and be destroyed, but MLB and the players' association couldn't arrange for the destruction with the test companies between Nov. 13, 2003 -- when the results were finalized -- and that Nov. 19, when the union because aware of the subpoena.
The players' association filed motions to get the records back and won in three U.S. District Courts. But a 9th circuit panel reversed in a 2-1 vote in December 2006, a decision the panel mostly reaffirmed its decision in January 2008.
The full 9th Circuit then threw out that panel decision and decided to have an 11-judge en banc panel hear the matter. It included five judges appointed by Bill Clinton, four by George W. Bush and one each by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Oral arguments were heard in December, and it's uncertain when a decision will be issued.
"I think it's too close to call. These are very hard issues and they're new issues. It's really hard to predict," said Orin S. Kerr, professor of law at The George Washington University Law School. "This is a lawyers' battle for people that can hire very good lawyers, and that's not true in most criminal cases."
Prosecutors want to ask the wider group of players where they obtained steroids, which might advance investigations. The players' association, citing privacy rights, claims the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
The case, which could wind up before the Supreme Court, might define what "plain view" means in the digital age. Or the 9th Circuit could decide it on procedural grounds.
"It really depends on how they write it. So this could be an extremely important case, and it could be a very narrow case," Kerr said. "It's an unusual case in that the information has value outside the criminal case, which is not normally the case."
It will be very interesting to see how this whole thing plays out.
What do you think should happen? Vote in the new poll added to the right toolbar. Thanks!
18 Comments:
You know, if other fans are anything like me, then they are sick of steroid talk. Major League Baseball has done a great job banning all of these substances and doing random testing. With the way baseball is now, steroids are pretty much done with, however, when a name comes out from 2003, most people take is as NOW instead of back then. Although it may hurt the sport by releasing all the names, perhaps some great names, it will be best for the long run. The reason I say that is because once these names are released, its over, baseball can get back to where it needs to be. But, if they do not release these names, sure enough they will leak out over years down the line, a couple of names next year, a few more the next, and so on, and the steroid talk will never end. These names have to be released, in my opinion.
the healthiest thing for baseball would be for this list to go public, and if mlb were really lucky this would then trigger a wave of more disclosures where many of these players would talk about the culture more - if the traners were pushing, if whole teams were using, more players named, coaches named, a waterfall. mlb really needs to have the whole house of cards collapse. then that whole decade will be written off as one giant fraud and mlb can be done with that part. MLB tried to put a cieling on home much of the steroid story would be told, but when you try to control the market you create pent up demand. So each time a new story slips out the market goes insane and mlb takes another hit - this has been bad for baseball because they keep trying to hide the reality.
Based on the arod news alone mlb should be opening an investigation into the texas rangers. But selig is as corrupt as turbo tax timmy geithner. And so is the players union.
Mlb also needs far stricter rules (unless I understand incorrectly). 10, 20, 30 game suspensions are silly. The rule should be one strike and you're out for life. The rule needs to be so draconian so as completely disuade anyone from even considering the idea. This would be very good for high school kids and minor leaguers who generally are too young to take any consequences except maybe death as serious.
Lastly, mlb should mandate all player contracts a contain a standard clause that all prior bonuses paid a play who tests positive for steroids are subject to clawback by the clubs who paid them. The players union shall stuff any objections they are even thinking of raising. Where the fear of a carrer termination won't work, financial incentive hoepfully will.
There is zero reason for mlb to extend any second chances.
There should also be mandatory testing probably of all players once a month. The list of drugs will be subject to expansion as mlb sees fit and as phapmacists try to get around the tests. Tests shall be conducted by at least three different independent testing companies, and player blood samples will be sent randomly to these different testing companies - monthly. E.g. you don't know which company will be doing the toxicology each month. All test results will be posted to a public website because the player or team is informed of the results. Again the players union can shove its objections.
This is where I would start. Too bad I can't even afford seasonn tickets much less make up rules. :P
Corx posted to a public website BEFORE the player or team is informed
I agree with pretty much everything both of you said.
But Will, what are you talking about in the second comment?
I can't believe I'm actually applauding for Kevin Youkilis...
First Schilling, now Youk the Ugly?
What's next?
An irresistible impulse to hug Josh Beckett???
This is not fundamentally just about "privacy". It is about integrity of contract, and faith that cooperation can be kept in confidence. (and it's about the 4th Amendment and due process, but who really gives a shit about the Constitution and individual rights anymore?) That faith and the presupposition that contracts were binding led to directly to the advances in testing and accountability we have now. The fact that so many people want to be privy to everything under the sun, that they are infected with the gossip-mongering gene - no matter how much they couch it high-sounding euphemisms like "for the good of the game" - doesn't make it right in principle or or good in practice. Why would anyone care to cooperate with anyone if confidence can be so easily broken and contracts voided willy-nilly by busybody third parties?
"The reason I say that is because once these names are released, its over, baseball can get back to where it needs to be."
The hell it is. This sentiment is naive in the extreme. First, everybody concedes that there is no way those 104 names were the only guilty parties back then; heck, the fact they got those many positives is amazing since everyone knew the test was coming. Second, false positives do happen - often. Some will be unjustly hurt by this. Third, it will do nothing to relieve suspicion on everyone else, since HGH is currently undetectible and, again, lots of players likley passed that test (or were not tested at all) who were in fact using. Fourth, as I said above and on another thread, violating the integrity of contract and confidentiality agreement will put a pall of distrust over everyone. Who will cooperate with future "survey's" and investigations. Future progress on testing and "cleaning up the game" will come to a halt as a result.
Those names get released and nothing positive gets accomplished, except perhaps the mob's bloodlust gets satisfied - for a moment. But some may have their reputations unjustly destroyed. And, in the long-term, much harm is done.
I acknowledge that there may be some benefit to releasing the other 103 names, but I'm against it. The test was negotiated and intended to provide anonymity, wit the purpose of assessing the extent of banned substance usage--not to target players. Players, the MLBPA, and baseball agreed to this format. The leaks are quite frankly illegal and unethical, especially since the information contained on that spreadsheet and released was pending in a legal case to determine whether or not the federal government had any right to it. It flat-out stinks to me.
Worse, and I certainly acknowledge that players are primarily to blame for putting such things in their bodies in the first place, all this focus on the 104 names and leaks yet again overlooks the fact that baseball's owners, executives, and managers AT BEST turned a blind eye to the steroids problem, if not actively abetted it. The Mitchell Report is literally littered with testimonies that managers and executives were alerted to physical or anecdotal evidence of players using banned substances, but found excuses to look the other way time and time again. Clubhouse employees went into Mexico for such substances that they then disseminated throughout the league. Hell, MLB and MLBPA lead physicians were touting the possible BENEFITS of steroids at the Winter Meetings in December 1998, according to the Dodgers' former GM and the former Indians team doctor. If anonymous sources can be the basis of magazine stories deemed credible, so can people's testimonies in The Mitchell Report. Owners, executives, and personnel continue to hide in plain sight while players are solely targeted.
Until there is a deep, detailed investigation that targets others who ignored, aided or abetted a cultural cesspool of steroids in baseball--and that can occur without releasing the other 103 names--then I'm against releasing that confidential information.
The only reason I would see it should be made public for the 1,000 players that don't include the 103. I could see how those guys would maybe want that list to be published so there isn't a shadow of a doubt of their past performance.
Are all of those ~1000 players not on the list clean? See my comments above.
Releasing the 103 remaining names does nothing to absolve the rest of the players in MLB.
With the public not knowing who these 103 are, this will a rock in baseball's show for a long time. When the talk of ARod calms down, then player 103 will appear and so on. The trouble is, of the 103, it is very possible baseball's top 25 players (and legends) might be included. So what does that mean, no HOF for the next 10 years?
If they do not release the names, they will be leaked regardless. Release the names and let's move on. I would not be shocked by anyone on that list except Jeter (G*d forbid). But would you be shocked that Pujols would be on there? I think not
I've made my point for integrity re: confidentiality agreements, so I will briefly address here the issue of HoF...
The best from every era should be in the Hall. The wise will take into consideration the context of the times in determining Hall-worthiness and where players rank against those of other eras. For instance, the rampant amphetamine use ("greenies" - why the double-standard, world?) of Willie Mays, Mike Schmidt and others in their eras, the lack of blacks in Ruth's era, dead ball eras, live ball eras, spit-balling shenanigans of Gaylord Perry and the like, etc.
Even without steroids, it is impossible to really compare numbers across eras. Context always comes into play. So let's give up the ghost, stop pretending that the HoF should be a Boy Scout museum, admit the best from every era, and let people debate, e.g. who the true HR king was given the merits of context?: Ruth repeatedly out slugging the rest of the league combined but in era with no blacks and no all-year training and nutritional knowledge, or Hank with his steadily awesome production but rarely season leader but in era with rampant abuse of "greenies", Ted Williams who lost many prime years to service in two wars or Bonds in primarily pitchers parks all career but likely boost in later years due to PEDs, etc. Same with other elite players at other positions, tempered by consideration of their times, home ballparks, etc.
To follow up on my earlier comment and add to what Eric said, that releasing the 103 names would not absolve others since many could have used at some point then stopped before testing or just never being caught, it would also not bring anything close to closure regarding the steroids era of baseball and sports. It's also grossly one-sided, doing nothing to address the broader culture of steroids in baseball that has proliferated far beyond the players. This is far from a players-only problem, yet they are the sole focus of all this.
http://heartlandpinstripes.wordpress.com/
"This is, and forever will be "The Steroid Era," what's important now is not protecting the cheaters; it's restoring the integrity of the game for the future."
What is "this", here? Because steroids have been used in baseball since at least the 1960s, and probably before that. Should I dig up the story about Babe Ruth dosing himself with an extract from sheep's testicles?
Steroids are not new, steroids are not something that suddenly appeared in the 90s - they are something that's been a part of baseball (and all sports, really) since they've been available.
The steroid era will be considered to be the years between 1985-2003.
That's what "this" will be in historical terms.
Canseco admitted using steroids for the first time in '85 or '86 and testing began in '04.
Steroids might have been used in the 60's but there is no proof of that, nor are we going to find any.
Wow, very surprised by the voting. 41-1 in favor of releasing the list so far.
No wonder liberty is fast slipping away in this country.
Post a Comment