Obviously the story of the day is Sammy Sosa. Earlier, Bob cataloged the non-surprise to the Sosa news. At NBC Sports proper, Mike Celzic writes that rather than burn Sosa at the stake, our focus should be on Bud Selig and Don Fehr.
My view: I share the lack of surprise Bob mentions and the lack of ire at Sammy Sosa for many of the reasons Mike mentions. But to me, the real issue here is the fact that list of the 2003 test results -- which was intended to be first confidential and then was supposed to be destroyed -- is being leaked. The MLBPA and/or Major League Baseball screwed up royal in allowing that list to survive when they had agreed that it would not. The people who subjected themselves to the drug testing that formed its basis (a) did so in order to move the ball forward on drug testing in baseball; and (b) had an expectation that their identities would remain confidential. That expectation has now been spectacularly confounded, and the practical result of it is that anyone who cares about their privacy is now being sent the message that they should not, under any circumstances, participate in their employers' drug testing program, however confidential it is supposed to be. You never know: your name could wind up in the newspapers! Your mileage may vary, but I don't think the avoidance of workplace drug testing is something anyone wants to encourage. As a result of all of this, it's my view that the list should be ordered destroyed, though I suspect that in the Internet age, such an order would be meaningless. Information wants to be free, and enough people have it now that I suspect it all will be some day.
The greater wrong in my mind is the fact of the leaks themselves. I'm a lawyer by trade, and it shocks me that fellow officers of the court are divulging this sort of information to the media. This is evidence that was seized in an ongoing criminal case that is subject to court order putatively preventing its release. The act of leaking this stuff is, at the very least, a violation of that court order and a violation of legal ethics. Depending on the exact language of the order, it could be a criminal act. I don't know about you, but that causes me far more concern than whether Sammy Sosa took steroids six years ago.
Leave a Comment:
Saving...
Bingo. There's got to be some sort of consequence for these people.
That's what I've been saying too.
As far as the sports-talk-radio-groomed hordes who keep repeating "dirty rotten cheater, should go to jail" - again, the fact (which is still not proven, only hearsay from someone who says they have the list) that Sosa tested positive doesn't mean he shot up with illegal steroids. Depending on the test, a store-bought (and therefore legal) androgen booster could have caused a positive.
But the anonymous cowards who, if they really do have the list, are the only ones proven to be breaking the law, can't tell us that. They can only "volunteer" that Sosa failed a test of some sort.
We also do not know where he allegedly used steroids. They are perfectly legal to use in the Dominican Republic, his home country. He could use all the steroids he wanted there and then come back to the US and it would be perfectly legal.
Sammy Sosa was given the opprotunity to tell the truth in front of the court. He chose to lie. Breaking yet another law in the process. Cry me a river if the court leaked info about him. The court leaked this only after he looked them right in the eye and told a bold faced lie. Don't speak english Sosa? Here, the court help you out!
You don't have to feel sorry for Sosa to realize how incredibly wrong this is. The tests were administered only because they were anonymous, *and* they're subject to a court order prohibiting their release. This is seriously messed up junk.
hhscarletgray: you're so wrong about the facts related to Sosa, the place where he testified, the nature of his testimony, who did the leaking, the consequences of such leaks, and the timing of it all that I don't know where to begin.
You would have done better for yourself by just being honest and saying that you don't care about the legalities of it: Sosa is a dirty cheater and you hate him.
Who says he lied? Wasn't his statement that he "didn't inject himself with illegal performance enhancing drugs" (or words to that effect)?
Technically, that could be true and he could test positive for steroids, depending on what caused the positive and how he took them. Since it appears that a majority of the reported positives in the past couple of years have been Dominican it's certainly possible that there are supplements in the DR that are causing them to fail drug tests without taking actual steroids.
The court? What court?
The court of public opinion?
It is really funny to compare how passionate some posters are about punishing Sosa with how much they know about what actually is going on.
Sosa has yet to be charged with a crime, and has not testified in front of any court. He did have a nice conversation with Congress in which he stated that he did not violate the laws of the US and the Dominican Republic. He never said he didn't take PEDs.
Yeah, Sosa did testify under oath to Congress.
If my understanding is correct, lying to Congress under oath is a crminial offense...
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html
If it's found that Sosa did lie, then he may be in some trouble...
It's interesting how you completely ignored the part where I mention the small fact that... wait for it.... nobody can prove that Sosa actually perjured himself in front of Congress.
Steroids are legal in the Dominican Republic. Sosa claimed to have not broken any laws in the US and the Dominican Republic. Even if he did take drugs that are illegal in the US, as long as he took them in the Dominican Republic he didn't lie.
Actually that's being looked into now, One point that I think that's being looked into where Sosa specificially stated: "I have been tested as recently as 2004, and I am clean.” ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=aUuSrMUMdGXw ) and, as I've stated: "If it's found that Sosa did lie", then he may be in some trouble...
As a lifelong baseball and Chicago Cub fan - I saddened but I am not surprised. Anyone with half a brain suspected Sammy was gooped up. I remember when he first came to the Cubs he was a skinny guy - maybe 180 lbs. Next season he ripping mucles everywhere well over 200lbs.
Not impossible to put on that kind of weight and muscle naturally - but I learned a long time ago: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a freaking duck! I remember him once saying that he credited his strength to: Flintstone Vitamins (you know the ones that kids take)....he actually said that!
He can kiss the Hall of Fame goodbye! Frankly, I think they should just release the entire list and get it over with. This drip drip is doing no good for the game!
I am appalled at this comment! These people BROKE a federal law prohibiting the use of steroids illegally. All 104 names should be made public immediately. Why would you side with criminals? Let the truth be told. These people make a living off of our money. As public figures they are not immune to the laws that you and I have to live under. We demand justice! Out them all, NOW!
You said "illegally" Do you know he took them "illegally"? No, you don't. The person leaking this information is however, breaking the law and this is the person who should be punished. I don't condone steroid use but, got a script, no laws broken, just went against MLB policy, which by the way wasn't being inforced. Do you have a beer then drive home? You know you shouldn't but you do anyway, at least until you get caught (that's the word - caught). So until you do you will do it even though it is against the law. So what did Sammy (or anyone else for that matter) do that was any different than ( I don't know) millions of people, even those who are going after the players, do all the time, HUH?????????"
convict: do you propose that all employers be required to turn over the results of their employees' drug tests too so that they can be prosecuted? If so, we have nothing to really talk about.
Beyond that, what Little Nobody said: just because you tested positive pursuant to MLB rules doesn't mean you broke the law. There are things I can buy at GNC today that will violate MLB rules. Does that make me a criminal?
Sorry boys, PED are illegal in the US without a prescription. It is a felony here boys to posses or use them. We aren't talking about fish oil either. Grow up and accept the consequences of your actions. (PS I dont drink bro, so I dont break the law, as you apparently do)
PED's are illegal? What are you talking about? Blood transfusions, EPO, caffeine pills, etc. are all PED's but none of them are illegal. Androstenedione wasn't classified as a steroid by the government until January 2005 -- so during the time frame we are talking about it wasn't illegal. There are plenty of other legal supplements that could produce positive drug tests for steroids as well.
Convict- Your thrilling combination of condescension, poor grammar and willful ignorance of actual facts wins you the award for most internet-y internet commenter of the day. Congratulations.
Craig- I think there's a big difference between testing for performance enhancing drugs (which I'm for) and testing for recreational drugs (which I'm against), but I want to let my thoughts percolate a bit more before I launch into some half-baked polemic.
If you're referring to the comment about disocuraging employer drug tests, Nick, this may save you some trouble: I'm rather against testing for recreational drugs in workplaces, at least for people who aren't responsible for drivers, operators of heavy machinery, etc. The guy at the office furniture dealer who faxes work orders? Eh, I don't care if he's smoking a dime bag a day.
I raised the issue, however, because I suspect that those who favor releasing all of the names are either for such testing or at least haven't considered the implications of it.
I honestly haven't decided whether I'm in favor of releasing the list or not.
On the one hand, I think a real injustice has been done to Sammy Sosa and Alex Rodriguez. And frankly, at this rate the entire list is going to come out sometime anyway, so you might as well just get it over with so the leakers can't just cherry-pick names for their own nebulous reasons. A quick clean break might be for the best overall.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how much of that sentiment is due to my selfish desire to know who else is on the list. As a baseball fan, I can't help but hold the irrational position that I deserve to know. After all the speculation, the terrible journalism, and especially the waste of time that was the Mitchell Report (I might give a year off my life to never have to listen to one more idiot conspiracy theorist Yankee fan. Thanks, George Mitchell), the fact that there is an extensive list of PED users out there that isn't being released just gets under my skin. I can't help it. But despite the leaks, it was supposed to be confidential.
So I'm not sure. I think releasing the list might be the best thing to do overall, but not necessarily the right thing to do, if that makes any sense.
Nick,
The biggest problem I have is that the list was supposed to have been destroyed. There just shouldn't be a list to leak right now. I think Sosa and A-Rod probably need to explore possible legal avenues they can take, as these leaks are going to affect their careers for the rest of their lives.
There needs to be, at the very least, an investigation to see who is illegally leaking these names.
And, Convict,
You have absolutely no evidence that anyone on that list has broken a single US law. It has already been mentioned that there are several banned substances in baseball that are completely legal to use in the US, but I also need to mention the fact that even more PEDs are completely legal to use in the Dominican Republic. If Sosa used substances that are legal there (but illegal here) then he still hasn't broken any US laws.
I agree with STatWar, and the author of this article, that the leak of this list was major violation of the players' privacy rights, and that legal action by the players may be warranted. Where I STRONGLY disagree with the author of this article (and with a large of number of the posters on this blog) is the implication that this is somehow a WORSE offense than using PED, or that the leakage of this list somehow makes the usage of PED a non-issue. Sorry folks, it doesn't. These players are adults who should be held to the same standards as everyone else. If my boss found out I was using drugs, I'd get fired, pure and simple. Why should these players be held to a different standard? Because they're famous? Because they get paid a lot of money? Because they can hit a ball with a stick? Please! All of you who are quick to point out that PED's were not against MLB regulations back then, if not against the law, are forgetting about a very important point; INTENT. These players were using these drugs to give themselves an unfair advantage over their opponents. Whether or not it is illegal is for the lawyers to decide; it certainly was immoral and wrong as surely as if they had used corked bats or pine tar. It was cheating, pure and simple. And I don't have any sympathy for cheaters, even if they are on the team I root for. If these players are not thrown in jail for using an illegal substance (because the PED in question was not illegal back then, even if it is illegal now) at the very least these clowns should be fired. No, not suspended. FIRED. We as a society should not reward cheaters, and I for one feel that these people should not be allowed to gain entrance to the Hall of Fame if it can be shown that they EVER used PED's.
If your boss found out you were using illegal drugs you'd be fired. If you were found out to have violated a court order, you'd be jailed. If you did it and you were a lawyer, you'd be jailed, fired, and you'd have your license taken away, which would prevent you from getting any other job.
So tell me, how are PEDs worse than violating the court order regarding these tests again?
They aren't, as far as I'm concerned. I think leaking information that is legally sealed is far worse.
However, I would argue that any drug use that doesn't have an impact on job performance has zero relation to the use of PEDs in Major League Baseball. I think that employers testing employees for recreational drugs is a scuzzy, borderline-fascistic practice that should probably be illegal.
Should the owner of a baseball team be concerned that a player's production might be inflated by PEDs and want to know if that is so? Absolutely, as far as I'm concerned. That information might be important to gauging future production and the amount of money the team should spend on that player in years to come. That's an entirely different issue than an employer wanting to know if his workers hit the bong on the weekends and hiring and firing based on that. The former is smart business, the latter is an invasion of privacy.
ronathan-78
Let me ask you....
Does the "fire" everybody who's "cheating" idea extend past PED users to other forms of cheating?
You mention pine tar & corked bats...what about players who doctor balls or bats, or uniforms or cleats? What about coaches/players who steal signs? How about players/coaches who fix games? Should all these forms of cheating subject to termination as well? If you say no, why not?
And, if you say yes...what offenses should we include...and how far back do we go? Should we develop some type of retroactive termination for players from previous eras that cheated?
Like the multitude of players (Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Gibson, Williams, DiMaggio, etc) who used "red-juice", "greenies", or "leaded-coffee"...AKA amphetamines, to gain "an unfair advantage over their opponents"!! So should they be fired retroactively...right?
Drinking alcohol was illegal during prohibition...so should MLB greats of that era (Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, etc) be retroactively fired for breaking federal laws???
And, since you brought up the HOF....
If it's appropriate to deny today's "cheaters" HOF enshrinement...shouldn't we start by removing people like Ty Cobb, Gaylord Perry, Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford, Don Sutton, John McGraw, Rogers Hornsby, Cap Anson, and Don Drysedale from the HOF?? All have either admitted or got caught cheating at one time or another, so they should be fired, and removed from the HOF as well...right??
If you truly want to hold today's MLB players to a zero-tolerance standard...it's only fair to apply that same standard, retroactively, to the legends of the game...RIGHT???
Actually convict is correct as per the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:H.R.4658: ) and, more recently,the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004( http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ358.108.pdf )
Sorry, this is the correct URL for the 1990 act...
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:H.R.4658:
To think the players who participated did so to "move the ball forward on drug testing in baseball" is laughable. The collective mindset of MLB under Selig/Fehr has always been to exploit the popularity of this lucrative sport at the expense of the fans, and at any cost to the fans. To now suggest any hint of integrity is despicable.
It seems to me like the leaks are premeditated, in terms of which player is next to be outed and in what time frame. Steroids talk died down during the winter, so BAM! A-Rod's name comes out. If Manny hadn't tested positive, I believe Sosa's name would have come out sooner (or perhaps it was the recent news about his interview a couple weeks ago that caused someone to say, "Oh yeah, Sammy? We'll see how you do with this information made public!"). Someone has an ax to grind with MLB, or just likes football more, or whatever. But whenever the chatter about steroids dies down, you can bet another name will come out to keep it in the public consciousness.
I agree with your take, Craig. An athlete using PED's is not nearly as concerning as an officer of the court directly violating an order of the court!
And, from my perspective, that concerning lack of ethics also extends to the alleged "journalists" who've knowingly...and repeatedly... used this type of tainted information to advance their own careers!
I like baseball, but I'm not a dedicated fan, and maybe that's my problem. I just don't understand this whole 2003 steroid-list mess. Steroids weren't banned in 2003. As I understand it, this random testing was done solely to gauge the scope of steroids. At that point - at least by the rules of baseball - steroids were perfectly acceptable.
Professional athletes - or, for that matter, professional anythings - are always on the lookout for an edge that will benefit their careers. This is true all over the place - not just in baseball. That's true of the team managers - a 'roided player gives the team an edge. It's true of the team owners - 'roided players win more games and put more money in their pockets. As to the commissioner, with his entire industry in tacit approval of steroids, where's his justification in cracking down?
If you can get an edge, there's no requirement, moral or otherwise, that you have to go public with it.
Now, I'm not saying the use of PED's are right, or moral, or even smart. They're none of these things. What I am saying is PED's, regardless of how you feel about them, were legal in 2003 and where's there's an edge, there's gonna be people who'll grab it up. It's human, it's natural.
In my mind, crucifying these players retroactively just ain't right. And I just don't understand why the mob is at their doors with torches and ropes.
Steriods were banned in 1993. There wasn't a policy in place (thank you Don Fehr and the Major League Baseball Players Association) to test and catch cheaters until after this infamous 2003 "anonymous" test. You can also thank the Major League Baseball Players Association for not destroying the evidence - as it was in their possession - and letting it be leaked to the general public. I'd love to see all 104 names of the players testing positive. Maybe that would end this on-going saga of cheaters being named
As for Sosa and his brethren cheaters, I do not feel one iota of sympathy for them. They made millions of dollars while cheating. They can cry all they want about their names being released, but the fact is, they (A-Rod, Sosa, Clemens, etc., etc., etc.) cheated and every player during this era is tainted by association.
I think it's fine that they're releasing the names. These guys cheated and should be exposed. Especially guys like Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, and Palmerio who snubbed their noses at the congressional hearing and appeared offended that they were even being questioned about it. I also think the Mitchell report was an all-out joke. How can you have someone associated with a team (Mitchell and the Red Sox)- undertake the investigation? Amazingly enough- not one Red Sox player was even mentioned in the report- except for guys like Mo Vaughn and Roger Clemens who left Boston for greener pastures. Now suddenly, David Ortiz's fly balls are going, on average, 50 ft shorter than they did two seasons ago, but no questions are being asked...
Personally, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that a lawyer would do anything illegal!
My views on this list of people who were tested for drugs and came up positive should be exposed to the league, the sports writers, and the fans. Those people should have to serve the 50-game suspension just like Manny Ramirez is doing. These people who have lied to a Grand Jury should be prosecuted for perjury just like Barry Bonds. I imagine Roger Clemens will be prosecuted eventually. I wish there was a way to move these peoples records (Barry Bonds' home run record) into a category of using performance-enhancing drugs, but the Major League Baseball people either don't think that is necessary or they haven't come up with a way to do it. The fans are about fed up with these athletes who try to beat the system and there's alot of them who refuse to go to the events because of that.
The real question is why are the reports confidential in the first place. Seems to me that we should assume the reports should all be made public. Wouldn't it be a positive to see ten years of successful "passed" drug tests.
Because they are evidence that was obtained in the course of a criminal investigation pursuant to a search warrant -- quite possibly an illegal search warrant -- and contain the private medical information of people not party to the case itself. Oh, and the only reason the information exists is because the people named in it were screwed over by people who promised to destroy it before it could be seized.
This gets right to the problem. Convict the person who's leaking the information. They were promised confidentiality and didn't get it. Whether what they did was right or wrong, we don't know. We only know parts of the stories. Why are some athletes gettings smeared anyway? Release the entire list or none of it. Why hasn't the person gotten in trouble?? And anyway, it should be Bud Selig's butt anyway, he's allowed this to happen, encouraged it and never did anything about it. Why shouldn't athletes juice? And quit calling them "criminals". That's ridiculous.
Craig, this might be a stupid question, but I would like your opinion. Since the leak has been highly selective (only leaking 2 of 104 names) is it possible that Sosa or A-Rod could petition the court FOR the release of the document, contending that the defamation invovled in this clearly illegal leak would be lessened if the full list were made public. From a legal standpoint, does the idea of dilluting the damage done maek any sense.
It is difficult to guess at the PR implications that would have, but I would think that judging from the general outrage at PED use expressed above, such an action might be a good for Sosa, at least (as he is retired and would not have to contend with the resentment as much). It would be especially effective if he had reason to believe other high profile players would be revealed. Just curious.
I am an avid fan and have never understood the steroid drama. I vaguely recall 94 (I was a teenager and thought I had better things to do than follow baseball). I also remember 98, when I rekindled my relationship with baseball. There are those of us who can watch a pitcher's dual that finishes 2-1 and be fully entertained for 3 hours. Given today's alternative options for entertainment, too many people would tune out after 15 minutes. I think that most baseball fans who berate "cheaters" and "criminals" might take a different tune if and when PEDs are eliminated completely. A fantastic season would be when a guy goes yard 30 times and hits .315. As much as we avid fans can say, "Oh, I would love to see that!", the general public would lose interest. Sammy and McGwire brought the game back, pure and simple. The fan-base made up of "true fans", the ones who can be entertained without HRs, is not enough of a fan base to support the baseball industry. MLB must make money to survive, and without HRs and .360 averages, they will not make enough money. Period. So make a choice: (a) I hate cheaters and want them all to suffer, or (b) I love baseball enough to let this crap go and just enjoy a game for cryin out loud.
Baseball is BETTER with STEROIDS ..........
Imagine you get ALL the STEROID USERS AND let them HIT IN YANKEE STADIUM
Sosa,McGwire,Clemens,Palmerio,etc,etc.... are all a disgrace to baseball and should never get into the HOF. Lying bastards they are