There's a growing sentiment out there -- joined by everyone from crooked guys like Victor Conte to dumb guys like Ozzie Guillen to smart guys like Maury Brown -- that baseball or the union or the courts or whoever should just release all the names on the list of the 2003 positive tests. Setting aside the fact that such a thing is practically impossible -- actually releasing it all would require a court order itself, and no one else involved in the case has any incentive for it to be lifted -- it's also a horrible idea.
The list, as everyone seems to be forgetting, would not have existed if the people whose names appear on it (and about a thousand others) hadn't been promised that it would remain confidential while it existed and would be destroyed soon after it was created. Those promises were broken, first by the players' own union, who violated the players' trust, and then by the federal government, who, in the opinion of many, overstepped previously-established legal grounds to seize the information in the course of their BALCO investigation. An investigation, mind you, that had nothing to do with the vast majority of the players on the list.
The listed players have had at least two legal duties owed to them breached and two legal rights entitled to them violated: the fiduciary duties owed to them by their union, the contractual duties owed to them by baseball and the testing lab, their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, supposedly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and the right to have their medical information kept private, guaranteed by HIPAA. It's too late for Manny, Papi, A-Rod, and Sosa, but around 100 other of these guys still have not been damaged by these egregious acts, though they will be if their names are released as everyone is so blithely demanding.
And what is to be gained by such a release? The satisfaction of the media, who would love to report and opine on this some more, and the satisfaction of the general public who either gets off on the salaciousness of it or, more commonly, simply wants this all to go away and thinks the quicker the names are out the more likely that is to happen. Call me crazy, but I don't think my rights to privacy and to the security of my personal medical information are something to be preserved or denied based on how good a story this makes for someone.
If you're one of those people, however, who simply insist that these guys are cheaters and cheaters are ruining baseball, think about it this way: what if you were involved in a nasty divorce case, and some of the confidential court records -- say, a hearing transcript where people were talking about your personal failings, like say, an extramarital affair -- were suddenly thrown out to the media? How would you feel if people clamored for "the rest of the records to be released?" What if the drug tests many of you out there have to take as a condition of your employment suddenly showed up on the evening news ("200 Microsoft employees test positive for drugs!")? Would you be part of the crowd demanding that the names be named?
Of course you wouldn't, and to the extent people are demanding it of the famous 104 now, they're only doing so to satisfy their curiosity and/or fill some column inches in their newspaper. Against a backdrop of serial violations of the victims' rights -- and they are victims -- such a demand is offensive in the extreme.
Don't release the rest of the names. And investigate and prosecute the person who has been doing the leaking.
Leave a Comment:
Saving...
Well reasoned as always, Craig.
Craig is an idiot. These guys are in the public eye and are being paid un-Godly amounts to be there, as such they are open to the same "open book" criticism and evaluation as all public figures. Note his example of divorce and extra-marital affairs when discussing A-Rod or how about a certain Governor from S.C. These are not private citizens, just ask Steve Jobs, who everyone knows when and where he had a liver transplant, or Senator Kennedy whose medical ailments are updated weekly.
I find it hard to believe that it's "unreasonable search and seizure" when it's made public there exists a list of failed drug tests, who is in possession of said list, which as it turns out is a lot more people than should have possession of it, and is highly likely linked to a Federal case, you can't tell me none of the guys on the list were BALCO customers. As far as HIPAA is concerned, this doesn't even qualify, it wasn't medically related, it was an independent test done through an agreement between MLB and the Players' Union and what are the players going to do, file suit against themselves? Let's not forget that it's only 104 guys, there are a lot more than that in the Players' Union who aren't on the list.
No one is out for any kind of satisfaction from knowing the other 100 or so names but a lot can be gained from clearing the air and ending the suspicion of every player who puts up good numbers, for the players themselves especially. You don't think, assuming he's not on the list, that Raul Ibanez would like the list to be released to end the speculation over the year he's having? What about Albert Pujols, though I think it's highly likely he is on the list, wouldn't he like an end to the speculation? Baseball can't move forward and get beyond all of this without first clearing the air about the past and the Mitchell Report was a sorry attempt at that.
Great article. It's sad how many articles there are out there clammoring for the list to be revealed, and so few like this that acknowledge the legal ramifications of doing so. The removing of civic liberties because of the "public's right to know" is disgusting, especially since such laws are put in place to protect individuals FROM that type of mob mentatilty. And most of all, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BASEBALL PLAYERS!!! Is exposing a few "cheaters" at a KID'S GAME really worth undermining the justice system on which the country is built? I don't believe it is.
Ahhhh. I guess if you make a lot of money, you no longer have legal rights? Hmmm.
Diamond -- your legal cunning is staggering. Tell me, where did you study?
No, Craig has in fact shown once again that he's smarter than even most of his readers. I wish most sportswriters could be that way.
The argument that even Constitutional rights are trumped by "but it's STEROIDS!!!" or some need to "clear the air" is ridiculous and shows up the sports-talk-radio-trained herd for what it is.
Making your argument a personal attack on Craig just makes your argument that much more idiotic.
Craig, you don't need to be a lawyer to figure out that illegal search and seizure doesn't apply here. They had more than probably cause and where was the searching, let alone illegal searching? They knew who had the list and there's nothing unconstitutional about obtaining said list in connection with an ongoing investigation.
Applying the law differently to different classes of citizens, on the other hand, is very constitutional.
You either didn't take CrimPro and ConLaw or you were playing World of Warcraft on your laptop during lectures, Diamond. As to your first comment, even the most diehard, over the edge law and economics people would find it abhorrent. As to your second comment, I hope that "probably cause" was a typo.
Craig, for the second straight blog topic you missed the point. Ozzie Guillen is right, for once here. He says just release it all and be done with it. He didn't say that for any reason you quoted above. He is simply stating, and it seemed obvious to me, that the names will continue to leak slowly no matter what, so lets not waste time with shock and outrage and hamper players and managers and teams alike. Just release the names and be done with it once and for all. Thats what he is saying, and I 100% agree with that. It is logical to deduce more names with come out. Maybe all of them eventually, but does the public, do the players and managers, do the teams and fans and writers really want to wait years and years to slowly get mad at the few names that come out at a time. That is truly what isnt fair. And that point basically makes every comment you made after the first paragraph pointless...
Not if the person or people who have been releasing the names to this point are put in jail where they belong. That'll seal off the trickle pretty quickly.
True, but thats not going to happen. I am not arguing that the point is wrong. I was saying it doesn't take into fact the most likely course when it comes to the names release. Plus, why should only the big names be released. With 1 name should come all 104. And it will, eventually, slowly. Unfortunately, no ones going to jail. You can count on that.
Well, as Craig points out, for legal reasons, the names aren't going to be released all at once either. So if all we're doing is talking about things that should be done but won't be, I think prosecuting these spineless morons who keep releasing names has to win out.
Just because something illegal/unethical seems likely to happen does not mean we should hasten its occurrence. Let the feds investigate the person(s) responsible and make them pay for their crimes. Perhaps the threat of criminal proceedings will deter them from further leaks, though that seems unlikely. But it's worth trying.
you're arguing this from an emotional standpoint, when the proper standpoint is a legal (and to a lesser extent ethical) one.
No, you are missing the point. What these lawyers/person(s) involved are doing is illegal. Just because it's happened before, or it may happen again, doesn't mean we should look the other way as he/she/they break the law another 96 times (i think that's the remaining number).
Ozzie may feel it'll be better for the game if all the remaining names get released. But what does this do to our judicial system? Craig made a great point when he said:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/shysterball/article/manny-ortiz-on-the-2003-steroid-positive-list/P20/
Yes, its illegal, yes its disgusting. But my point boils down to a simple question. Since we may all agree more names will come out almost no matter what, don't we just want to see it all at once and have that week of shock and finally, oh so finally, be done with it for good. Thats the hope isn't it. Its all ugly, but i want it done. Hate not knowing.
Is it a need to genuflect when they hear the name "Babe Ruth"? Is is jealously over money and the privileges associated with it? I don't understand why people have this overwhelming "need to know" or feel they have the "right to know". (BTW This point of view extends beyond athletes. I truly don't understand how tabloids stay in business.)
Whether or not a player took a substance that could have been available at a local health store and on the list of banned substances will have no impact to their daily lives.
However, the consequences of disregarding the legal system and the safeguards in place for privacy, violating contracts, etc. can potentially impact an ordinary citizen.
It may be hard to imagine the circumstances but you don't have to be guilty of anything to be convicted by rumor, innuendo, and unfounded gossip by the press.
As Craig has pointed out, the focus should be the persons responsible for the leaks. I look forward to a prosecution and conviction.
If I repeatedly told everyone on the planet that my marriage was honest and clean and worthy of believing in, and if I led a life full of accolades and unfathomable wealth and priviledge because of that marriage, and I looked people in the eye and repeatedly lied to leverage those benefits, and if I had a "marriage commissioner" that looked the other way because it benefited everyone in the marriage, and if my greediness and self-serving ego-driven actions came at the expense of my fans paying hundreds of dollars to experience the farce I had been perpetrating under the guise of legitimate Americana competition, then sure. Air all the freaking dirty laundry about my actions you like. I've earned it.
I feel that those who perpetrated this mess and benefited from the ruse deserve exactly what they are getting. It may not be fair to the players who were tested under the notion the results were to be anonymous and destroyed, but maybe it's time we stopped worrying about them and started thinking about those affected by their actions.
This is exactly, exactly right. This is exactly the post I would've written for today if I had thought I could write it anywhere near this well (though perhaps with more emphasis on the fact that these slimeballs who keep releasing the info need to burn).
Bravo, sir.
If people would quit breaking the law, then we would not have to "slowly get mad at the few names that come out at a time", this is the point of the post. I understand the way people like Ozzie feel about the subject and part of me wishes that we could just 'rip the band-aid off', but legally it can't and should not be done - which is the point of the post. If you are willing to give up your rights, then so be it, but I'm not. Maybe the union should notify each player and let each player chose if he would like to have his named released and when. you have to think that if indeed the names are going to get out there, the players would like to have the opportunity to know what they tested positive for and have a chance to ready their response, or if not, they could just hope thier name somehow never gets out.
The 104 are not victims. The victims are all the clean players of the era whose careers will be unfairly tainted with doubt because of the actions of these 104 players.
This isn't black-and-white. The 104 are indeed victims. Just because some of them may have committed crimes and/or violated some sort of labor agreement does not mean they aren't also victims. Violating a law does not mean you forfeit all of your rights as a citizen, especially if you aren't convicted of a crime.
Let's be honest with ourselves, the 104 is just the tip of the iceberg. NYYfansince'72, the clean players are the victims but releasing the names isn't going to give them a pass, unfortunately. Just because they may not be on "the list" doesn't mean they weren't or haven't taken HGH, which there is no urine test for to date, or taken anything since 2003. The whole era is tainted regardless of the release of names but someone has the list outside of the law offices and government offices. Someone involved, in some way, made a copy and has it in a safe place and it will be released eventually, we can only hope.
What's more interesting though is the "Hall of Fame player on the list" according to Jose Canceco. That just throws a huge monkey wrench in the writers' plans to not vote for any suspected PED users. But it shouldn't be too hard to figure out, I'm guessing Rickey Henderson, because they've had to be out of the game 5 years to get inducted and if the tests were in 2003 that means this year's induction class, not to mention they played together as has McGwire, Palmeiro, Juan Gonzalez, A-Rod, etc.
Diamond -- if you admit that the 104 are the tip of the iceberg, how can you say that releasing the names will clear any air or get anything behind anyone. as you argue above?
Another cue to Diamond: Canseco didn't say there's a Hall-of-Famer on the infamous list. He said a Hall-of-Famer used PEDs.
First of all, it will "clear the air" of all the speculation of the players on "the list" which will be a huge relief to the overwhelming majority of players not on "the list" and will get this silly non-sense about "when will the next name come out and who will it be" behind us, this is baseball, not a soap opera. It certainly won't put the entire era behind us but it's a start. The steroid era didn't show up overnight and it's not going to be gone overnight but not dealing with it and hiding things is what got baseball in this mess to begin with.
RJE, thanks for the correction, that was an oversight on my part as his claim came during a discussion about Manny and Ortiz's names being released from "the list" but that just makes this game a little more fun doesn't it?
diamond, not being on the list != not taking drugs. All that airing the list will do is tell us who the 104 are, not everyone who was taking drugs. Should those who got away with it be forgotten?
Should we empty the jails full of criminals because some get away? I don't know, that seems to be your contention MJ. I guess, from the responses on this post and the article itself, the saying it true "ignorance is bliss".
And your ability to draw conclusions is as good as your understanding of our legal system. You say we should just "clear the air" and get all the names out. Many commentors have said how wrong this is, both from a legal standpoint, and also b/c the list isn't all encompassing. Just because you didn't fail a test didn't mean you weren't taking PED's.
I said nothing akin to letting people off for crimes they committed merely because crime is going to continue.
NYYfansince72
Best post here and TRUE.........
The ONLY people who should worry are the users ....................
why protect them ??
Craig,
Let's accept reality. Until MLB is going to summarily put an asterisk next to every record from this time period a full disclosure will need to be made before we can move on. It is not justice to purposely withhold compelling and damning evidence. And justice will always more heavily on public opinion than the finer technicalities of the law.
There are victims to this crime that only a full disclosure of this list can atone them.
* Roger Maris, Hank Aaron, Willy Mays and all members of the once venerable 500 club this list needs to be published for you.
* For all number loving baseball enthusiasts this needs to be done for you.
* For all of the hard working minor league players who didn't get "the call" because they chose to follow the rules this needs to be done for you.
Baseball, in order to move past this you will need to revisit it in a more complete fashion. Wishing it away will only be a dream. Baseball, let's publish the full list already. It should come from you.
Regards,
Jerry
Jerry,
The idea of justice is that it does NOT bend to the whims of public opinion. Not to say that it is immutable, but that it has a strong commitment to the truth and protection of "certain inalienable rights." Now, a cynic may say--not incorrectly--that prevailing winds of public opinion do indeed blow "justice" one way or the other. Certainly, 200 years ago there were many people in this country who felt that owning a human being as property was acceptable, and the Supreme Court backed this up. But if we know for certain, as we do in this case, that justice is being trampled, then why should we glibly allow it to happen, or even speed it along?
Your further point about outing the cheaters for the sake of everyone else is, in the end, a moot one. There is no way we will ever find out the names of everybody who ever did PEDs in the history of baseball, so everyone will remain tainted. But cheating has always been a part of baseball (and all competitive areas of human existence) and always will be.
Roger Maris, Hank Aaron, and Willy Mays all played in an era when players were given amphetamines (greenies) to help them stay sharp--these greenies are no longer allowed. Pitchers have always tried to doctor balls to make them have more break, and yet some of these pitchers are in the Hall of Fame.
And, in the end, if steroided records have asterisks, then many other records should have asterisks, too, just like Roger Maris' 61 home runs (because they were achieved in 8 more games than Babe Ruth's 60). Or how about the fact that hitters post-1968 got the benefit of a lower mound? Or that pre-Jackie Robinson players played against more watered-down competition?
In the end, all these records are either valid or invalid... you can't pick and choose, throwing away the ones that upset you today, for the ones that have greater sentimental value. The only way to move past it is to accept this, not to release the names on a list that should rightfully have been destroyed years ago.
Players will always seek a competitive edge. Gloves developed to make fielding better, diet and training developed for better endurance, rules tinkered with to favor hitters or pitchers, etc. Just because the PEDs are now illegal and against the rules, in my opinion, it does not invalidate the performances. Were performances in the past fueled by 'greenies?" Why is there no hue and cry to illegitimize accomplishments from that era? What if doctors and trainers develop methods to increase arm durability to allow pitchers to throw 125 mph. Would this kind of surgery be banned by baseball? The genie is out of the bottle. Baseball has put the cork back in the bottle, but the genie has performed his mischief. We have to accept the world as it is and not the way we would like it to be
Yeah, Jerry, two wrongs DO make a right, huh?
Because that's what releasing the whole list would be.
Idiotic sportswriter and sports-talk host crap that ignores basic facts parroted by their readers and listeners. Next...
Roger Maris had 275 HR's in his career, and had one monster season compared to his career average when he hit 61 HR's (hmm, steroids perhaps, j/k obviously)
jerry_brown writes "...And justice will always more heavily on public opinion than the finer technicalities of the law." The entire legal system is designed to prevent exactly what you are saying. You couldn't be more wrong. It will be interesting to see if the Branson Arroyo story changes any minds on this. Well written Craig and well reasoned.
Let's try a novel approach. It's a good bet most, if not all, of the players who tested positive before 2004 know who they are. Let's try plain honesty. Every newspaper , radio and TV outlet should make a mass appeal for them to step forward and identify themself, thus negating the legal ramifications surrounding the release of the names. Once that is done, the public would be more willing to forgive them all, and we can move on to the business of enjoying baseball. What do you all think?
David Ortiz has said this is the first he's heard of the failed test. So I wouldn't say that everyone knows which makes your point moot.
Also, whether the players already know or not doesn't eliminate the need for all those involved to follow the judge(s) orders regarding keeping the information sealed.
Craig, you said:
"How would you feel if people clamored for "the rest of the records to be released?" What if the drug tests many of you out there have to take as a condition of your employment suddenly showed up on the evening news ("200 Microsoft employees test positive for drugs!")? Would you be part of the crowd demanding that the names be named?"
The one thing I would point out that simply by the nature of their jobs MLB players are public figures. As such they have less of a privacy right then the typical person as it relates to their public persona. Were we discussing a MLB players private life that had nothing to do with his public persona, such as that nasty divorce case, then I would totally agree. However these people knowingly place themselves in the public eye by the nature of their jobs. Most of the time it works out well for them with the increased public attention, income opportunities, etc. But it comes at a price and they can't be public figures part of the time and private people part of the time while in the same context.
Please show me where in the Constitution, or anywhere else, being a public figure means you forfeit your right to privacy, your right to your contracts being honored, your rights under the Fourth Amendment, your rights to expect people to abide by court orders, and your rights to have your union do what it says it's going to do. The only difference being a public figure makes in the law is for libel and slander, and this isn't that.
Your belief that public figures have no rights is truly frightening if taken to its logical conclusion.
No, but case law provides that they indeed do forfeit some expectations of privacy when they become public figures.
Nothing at all like what you're saying, though. They have a little less control over the use of their image and what is said about them. However far all that extends, it falls miles short of losing control over their rights in contracts and their right to expect people to abide by court orders.
Release the names now! They broke federal laws and should be held accountable. Foolish are those who hide behind promises. We pay their salaries. They live off of our hard work. We demand the truth.
get real folks.
Actually, the only people we know for sure broke federal laws are the people leaking the names in violation of the federal judge's court orders.
Or are you a fan of guilty-before-innocent reasoning?
"...dumb guys like Ozzie Guillen"
Wtf is that? A little harsh.
@ convict_the_cheaters: $5
Left the way it is, it's going to be a mess...I guarantee you Boston journalists are digging deep now to find out the Yankee players on the list after the NYT spilled the beans on the Boston players...can LA journalist looking for Giant players and vice-versa be far behind????
You do realize that the Boston Globe is owned by the NYT, and the NYT first released Sosa's name before Ortiz/Manny. This isn't some vendetta by the paper, it's strictly by the lawyers/parties involved.
1) Disbar the lawyers who are leaking the info
2) Media - stop reporting "unnamed source" reveals xyz took steriods. Either name the source so their story can be cooraborated or leave it alone. You are losing more credibility each day as you write stories (that make you money by the way) without naming your source so it can be proven to be fact based.
3) MLB - You reap what you sew. You let it happen; deal with the consequences of being shady and letting people kill themsleves for money over time
I say release the remainder of the list because how fair is it to the players that have been exposed? It is clearly time to move on from this. Let everyone know all the names and let's move forward. All this talk about "tainted" championships and all that is ludicrous. Obviously, except for HGH, the "system" seems to be working as is, because they caught Manny this year, didn't they? So now we know he was using then. Well, let's have done with it so we won't get this trickle effect, with people digging (as suggested by other responders) as a way to get back at other people because their player has been exposed. I am a Red Sox fan who was NOT overjoyed when Alex Rodriguez was named; I, like many hoped he would be the one above the fray who would take back the record book. Indeed, I felt like he was the victim of a smear attack, as I feel now about David Ortiz. (Mr. Ramirez, however, is a snake of a different skin). That's why I feel that all the names should be brought out. Why should the few who have been named bear all the burden for the rest of the users? Get it over with and let's get back to talking about baseball.
Too much hiding behind "legalities", too many players saying "I'm surprised". The game was/is dirty, and the quicker the list is made public the quicker the game can start to move beyond this. It seemed like a great idea at the start to keep this list secret, but the situation is changed. I have been a baseball fan for nearly 40 years, and I'm starting to get tired of this crap. Releasing the list will at least allow me to think that at least there is a little openness. Right now I think everyone involved is trying to hide.
As for the folks who are releasing the names, you can think what you will, and it is probable they are breaking the law. But they are doing a service to the game by putting liars on the spot. To call the players on the list "victims" is sickening. NYYFanSince'72 is absolutely right - the real victims are the many unknown players who might have had a chance to make the majors but didn't because they were clean and the 'roiders got the roster spots and the big money.
And the big money has made us fans victims too - higher costs driven by huge contracts to the Ramirez' and Clemens and Rodiguez' in this mess have driven up th prices we pay, and caused a HUGE disparity between certain markets. So don't give me any legalese - these players who used have damaged the game, and I feel at least knowing that little bit will be better than the drip drip drip of the leaks, and the overhanging suspicion of EVERYONE in the game.
Ew. So wrong I feel kind of dirty for reading it.
"Don't give me all these legal facts about right and wrong, they get in the way of my rambling"
Should have said that, would have been a much easier read.
Nothing is pure/clean in this world. The fact that you've lived this long and honestly believe that is a little naive don't you think? Mantle sat out a game due to an abcess reaction from a steroid injection. Greenies (Amphetamines) were rampant in the 60's/70's. Steroids have been in football since the '60s (great espn article on the 60's charges). Track and Cycling are well noted.
And what do you mean by saying steroids and clemens/arod drive up prices? Where does that logic come from? Great players (possibly) took drugs to (most likely) become better players. How is this a bad thing? No one is forcing you to go to games. No one is forcing you to even watch the games.
Perhaps the worst thing about the list is 2 or 3 guys who tested postive were false positives (assuming about 98% accurancy rate on the test). There are no "B" samples that can be tested to see if the first test was a false postive. That's just basic fairness.
Ortiz said he was surprised. Is he a false postive? Who knows. And that is the point.
Question. Why aren't some lawyers in jail for contempt or an the very least a reporter or two?
It's not just the media - everyone wants to know who WAS using this stuff. It might not be smart, it might not be fair or legal but if I were in charge I'd be looking to get consent from the guys on the list and asking them to release their name themselves or agree to have the list released. As a player - if you get caught today you could not be "more stupid". But legitimately I think this slow release is way worse.
Here is the answer. Pro sports, in conjunction with the federal government, declare that there will never be another drug test for anything. That all players can use any substance they want to improve, or enhance, their performance. Steroids, blood doping, growth hormones, speed, crack, heroin, etc. or anything else they choose. The governments end of this will be to pass legislation that will not allow the parents of any children that die, or suffer in any way, from the use of any of the aforementioned drugs, in their quest to become professional athletes, from filing any lawsuits. As far as sports records ... who cares. There really isn't any sports anymore. All of this has just become a sickening money grab of the most hideous proportions. Anyone that is cheering for these spoiled, overpaid cheaters, is delusional. And anyone that is buying the overpriced tickets, and all of the ridiculous "sports" apparel, needs to stop ... and get a life, and spend your money on things that matter .. like utility bills, or maybe tuition.
Craig, get real, are you a red sox fan? Mitchell was for sure
Are you kidding me Craig? Last time I checked Baseball exists as a form of entertainment paid for by the public. It serves no other purpose than to bring people out en mass to dump down a couple of hundred bucks to watch these entertainers perform for 2-4 hours in order to distract the true "Working" man from their day to day grind. We, as the paying public, have just as much right to those tests as an employer would to their own employees. Trying to compare this situation to Microsoft is comparing apples and oranges.
You are truly idiotic Mariner fan. You are not the employer of any MLB players. You don't pay their salary. Your retarded analogy is like me claiming I have the right to any Microsoft employee's drug test because I bought Windows XP. Please stop being so stupid.
It's not a question of whether the remaining names are going to be revealed; it's a question of when (periodically) and how (by leaks). MLB should do what it can to get this water-torture-type approach to disclosure over with and release the names. Until then, the speculation will be rampant, putting the legitimacy of all good-to-great accomplishments under a cloud.
Buehre tosses a perfect game and is a consistent winner. Pujols continues to amaze. Ichiro is going where no hitter has gone before. Is it fair to even suspect that one or more of today's bright stars might just be having a little help? Of course not, but who's to judge? Until the speculation is lifted by fact, the speculation will continue.
Sorry folks, without the so-called protections against the leaking that is occurring now, this llist would not exist. Many people think they have a right to know whatever their curiosity demands. This is not the case. Do not confuse ability with necessity. As reprehensible as some may find the use of performance enhancing drugs, the sun still shines. Get over it. Stop worshipping at the shrine of the perfect game, and save your outrage for something that truly matters in your day to day life. And if the machinations of society's athletic mercenaries is that important to you, do yourself a favor; get a life.
What is unfair, if the list is not released, is that all players are now under suspision. If the list were released then the cheaters are punished and the players who did the right thing will have the suspisions of others at least lifted a bit. I do agree that the list should never have seen the light of day as that was the premise under which the samples were given, but now that some have been identified, I don't think it is fair for the so called sports journalists, not to have to work to get a story. All they have to do is indicate that some player is on the list and then sit back and watch the reaction. Once they start naming players that were not on the list, I think you will see the clean players asking for it to be released.
Can't say this enough, we really have no reason to believe that it was ONLY 104 people who were cheating in '03. HGH cannot be detected in urine. THG, the drug Bonds took, was undetectable at the time via a urine test (Feds later tested his sample and found he was using).
So simply releasing the list won't absolve the remainder because we have no idea how many of them were guilty of "cheating". The only thing the list does is give us 96(?) more names who've failed a drug test, not all the names.