Even as a coach/instructor, I wouldn’t want either of them anywhere near my team. They are extremely poor role models. Period. The Astros should be ashamed of themselves. And I bet many Astros fans are horrified at Clemens’ presence. They now have both Clemens and Tejada in camp. Nice. The Astros owner is an idiot.

Sorry, but I don’t know anyone remotely like that. The people I know are as duly outraged by DUIs as they are about PEDs. And if you know someone who is not, then I don’t know how that excuses PEDs cheaters anyway.

You deny you’re saying it is an either/or situation but then you go right ahead and describe basically just such a scenario. I’m saying your scenario is wrong. That you are falsely describing how most fans feel/behave.

PEDs usage should be judged on its on. Not in relation to any other behavior.

My comment about the “better chemists” and “better PEDs suppliers” was as much a theoretical statement in reply to those who try to casually dismiss the usage of PEDs in the game as it was about actual usage today. Read the whole paragraph it was in and you can see that. But it’s eerily true when you look at the single season HR record. Because it wasn’t about who the better athlete was—Sosa, McGuire, or Bonds—but who had the better chemists and steroids suppliers. BALCO and their state-of-the-art PEDs ended up to be the magic elixir Bonds needed to achieve that record. As such, both the single-season HR record and the all-time HR record are disgraceful shams.

I suggest you read the Mitchell Report. Radomski was not just a supplier to NY teams, He was a nationwide supplier. He was also allegedly the biggest supplier in the game at the time, especially after they shut down BALCO. So it stands to reason there were not Radomskis in every city. If someone on the West Coast wanted to juice, they called Radomski. Of course the Mitchell report didn’t catch everyone. But that doesn’t mean the majority of players didn’t play the game clean.

Steroids may not improve pitch recognition, but it can help a batter hit the ball further. For this very fact, Bonds’ records are a sham.

**”You really need to get a job in Hollywood, because you sir, are quite dramatic.”**

While metaphorical, my reference to the syringe is totally appropriate. I cannot look at Bonds, and now Clemens, for one second without seeing a big juiced up cheater. If the Mets were to sign either one of them, it would be sickening.

Don’t put words in my mouth because that’s not what I am saying. My point is that people hear about something like a DUI, are outraged for like 5 seconds, and then move on and forget about it. Leonard Little killed someone. KILLED SOMEONE while driving drunk. He then proceeded to get arrested for DUI AGAIN. I don’t remember story upon story about this. However, people will moan and groan about the “sanctity of the game” being irreparably violated. Give me a break.

“My comment about the “better chemists” and “PEDs suppliers” may be dramatic, but it’s true.”

How is it true? And doesn’t this contradict your theory that steroid use was not rampant? Did you see all the names on the MR? That was from TWO clubhouse attendant/trainers. Don’t you think every clubhouse had a guy like this? How about the San Diego players who are a hop skip and a jump from Tijuana?

What Bonds did was remarkable, steroids or no steroids. He walked all the time. He would get one good pitch to hit per game, IF THAT. For him to take that one pitch and park it in the ocean is remarkable. There is so much that goes into a swing and hitting a ball square. That’s not all steroids. Steroids does not improve pitch recognition.

“And instead of a bat in his hands, I see a syringe.”

You really need to get a job in Hollywood, because you sir, are quite dramatic.

My comment about the “better chemists” and “PEDs suppliers” may be dramatic, but it’s true. Sure Bonds was a great hitter before he cheated, but the PEDs helped him hit the ball with more power and further. They 1) extended his career and 2) inflated his stats 3) and created an uneven playing field. I’m sorry, but PEDs can turn a player into superman, and Bonds is the perfect example.

I also disagree with you that no one makes a big deal about other types of drug abuse and things like DUIs. As I said, people can care about all those things at the same time. It’s not an either/or situation, and why you try to make it out be one makes no sense. It may be that way for you, but that’s not the case for other people.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on how widespread steroids usage was. As I said, I believe it was significantly less than half and that most players were clean. I’m not surprised that you can watch video of Bonds when he juiced and just see a great player. Unfortunately, when I see the same video, the thing that sticks out at me the most is not his natural talent. That’s been totally obliterated by his bloated face and popeye physique. And instead of a bat in his hands, I see a syringe. It may stink that many view him this way, but he brought it upon himself. He’s the one that wrote his tarnished legacy. Not the fans.

“Instead of whose team is better and more gifted, it’s whose team has the better chemists and PEDs suppliers. It turns the game into a sham.”

I think this is a little dramatic. Bonds is a ridiculous hitter. FP Santangelo, not so much. Taking PEDs doesn’t help you square up a baseball. I’m sure PEDs helped Bonds, but I personally feel they helped him stay strong over the course of the season and not get worn down, rather than adding extra feet onto his fly balls. The dude was always a power hitter. He always had a super quick bat and a ridiculous eye at the plate. There were times when he would get one good pitch to hit in an entire game and he would just crush it. I’m sorry, but steroids do not turn you into Superman. It is incredibly hard to square up a baseball the way Bonds does.

And my general point about steroid users and drug abusers was not that people had make a choice, but that no one seems to make a big deal about those kind of issues. I actually have a bigger problem with athletes who do drugs and get DUIs or any other kind of criminal issue because then it affects society. Whether Barry Bonds takes steroids or not doesn’t really affect me, but if a Cincinnati Bengal is driving under the influence, well, that could seriously harm someone.

But hey, you’re entitled to your opinion, and I totally understand where you’re coming from. I just feel like steroids is sensationalized a bit by the media and even MLB. I also believe PEDs were a more widespread problem than you’ve stated. Plus, it happened. Nothing is going to change that. Like I said above, I can watch video from Bonds during his monster seasons and still appreciate it for the stuff that had nothing to do with steroids. His eye at the plate, his pitch selection, the way he always seemed to square the ball up. That’s just a great hitter at work. And it stinks that he’ll now be remembered for taking steroids instead of him being an incredible 5 tool player who could do it all in his prime.

Life is all about picking and choosing moral judgments. That’s part of what separates humans from other animals.

People can make moral judgments about both cheaters and those with other problems. Why can’t someone not want both Bonds and Dukes off their team?? It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

And while I don’t approve of either PEDs cheaters or drug abusers, I’ve made a moral judgment that drug abusers in baseball are less objectionable. Why? Because drug abuse is an addiction, a personal weakness that many can’t overcome. The person who is addicted only cheats himself or his teammates. But PEDs are an overt attempt to cheat the game and and make the playing field uneven. It undermines the whole integrity of the game. Instead of whose team is better and more gifted, it’s whose team has the better chemists and PEDs suppliers. It turns the game into a sham.

Umm… yes. It’s the same reason why Britney Spears being rushed to the hospital is covered on freaking CNN in the middle of primary season.

I’m just not a big fan of picking and choosing our moral judgments. And this isn’t picking on you, just a general statement. People love to act holier than thou and take a moral stand on steroids, meanwhile the team they root for could be filled with degenerates. Personally, I’ll take a guy like Pettitte over a guy like Elijah Dukes, even though Pettitte may have taken PEDs (obviously contingent on him being clean.)

A great example is Josh Hamilton. Everyone was rooting this guy one in his battle against substance abuse, yet someone like Bonds is ostracized for doing something MLB had no inclination to punish until Congress called them into the principal’s office.

Olney has no better idea how much baseball was affected by PEDs than you or I. I believe he’s grossly inaccurate. He’s also been an apologist for Clemens so anything he says regarding PEDs has to be viewed in that light.

“Retroactive punishment” in the narrow sense is what Selig may or may not impose on transgressors after the fact. This is not really the issue here. What I’m talking about is to not reward the cheaters with jobs, contracts, awards and special honors. Not giving Bonds a job this year is not retroactive punishment, it’s making a moral judgment, and I’m glad teams like the Devil Rays and Cardinals finally came to their senses on that. Not voting Bonds or Clemens into the HOF is not retroactive punishment, it’s correcting history as well as taking a moral stand.

Also, the lack of testing and punishment guidelines despite a policy is as much an issue of union intransigence as it is anything else. MLB never had the power to implement testing and punishment unilaterally and therefore the absence of it cannot be easily attributed to lack of desire to enforce the rules. The union would have continued to throw up roadblocks to this day if not for the intervention of Congress.

I believe it is Buster Olney who is on record as believing something like 85% of the major awards that have been won were aided by PEDs.

And your statement about not letting cheaters off the hook goes back to retroactive punishment. I still believe that steroids were on the books just for appearances and that MLB had no interest in enforcing their policy (which is obvious because there was no testing policy or punishment guidelines in place.)

A toothless law does not mitigate against the act of breaking it. If the U.S. had a toothless law against pedophilia, does that make the activity right?

I think it’s incorrect to say a “majority” of players did steroids-HGH. The exact number will never be known and will forever be in dispute. But I and many others feel that it was far less than half. That the majority played cleanly. That’s why you don’t let the cheaters off the hook. Because it’s simply not true that “everyone” did it as the apologists are so fond of saying.

Some players may deserve redemption. But certainly not those like Bonds and Clemens who not only cheated extensively, but never admitted it nor apologized for it. How can they be redeemed when they are not even admitting their sins?

The Mitchell Report was a great day for baseball as only now can we begin to put the tarnished era behind us. Relying on leaks and sordid books from the likes of Canseco (who in recent months has flip-flopped his story) is not the right way to write the history books. The only thing worse than a tainted history is one that’s both tainted and inaccurate.

And if anyone doubts that the Mitchell Report was not highly anticipated, consider the false reports of the list of players that spread around the internet like wildfire shortly before the report was released. Even the mainstream media picked up these reports as fact. All of baseball was waiting for the report’s official release with bated breath.

The Bonds situation is really different though. Balco got caught by the Feds and Bonds lied to a grand jury. It really had nothing to do with baseball being called to Congress. But your ultimate point survives, if he had told the truth, he wouldn’t be in this mess.

So years after action should have been taken they decided on the Mitchel report. This is all compounded by the players taking bad advice or just stupidity on their part deciding that it is ok to lie to Congress.

The guilty players should have fessed up before Congress and a policy should have been instituted years ago. It would not have saved Maris or Aaron but it would be over by now.

Bonds would be lauded as the best player ever even after confessing. Now he may go to jail and may not make it to his beloved HOF.

I just look at someone like Bonds differently. While you submit there was a “policy” against PEDs, I say it was a toothless policy that obviously wasn’t followed. How strong of a policy was it if they didn’t even test for it?

This is why I believe in giving these guys a shot at redemption. Do you really want to take a hard line stance against these guys when the majority of players did PEDs while owners, managers, coaches, the media, AND the public turned a blind eye to it? I sure as hell am not going to be judge, jury, and executioner on this issue.

Is what they did wrong? Without a doubt. But given the context, is it worth excommunicating all involved? No, because you could never legislate it fairly and because there a ton of people who have a share of the culpability.

I still think making the MR public was a dumb PR move. MLB basically created bad press for itself. They dragged the game and its player through the mud. There would have been enough “leaks” and books devoted to the era, with more info coming out as a trickle over the years. The era would be a black eye for baseball and be viewed as such by historians. I still feel, and always will feel that it was unnecessary. I could not tell you one person who was foaming at the mouth in anticipation, waiting to find out who the steroid users were. A simple “this was a dark time for MLB and we are taking steps, along with the MLBPA, to ensure we do not make the same mistakes twice.”

The issue as I see it is that because of Canseco everyone knows about them and how widespread they are. The issue as I see it is one of records as this is fundamental to baseball more so than most other sports. There are those who believe action must be taken with regard to records and to players who use these things and those who do not care.

If you care about what the records mean and how it affects the game – from how it is played to how players are compensated and viewed – then the logical next step is ‘to do something about it’. If that doesn’t matter than this is all a silly argument by self righteous people.

And the issue here (as you originally posed it) isn’t retroactive punishment on the part of MLB. The issue here is whether you reward obvious and frequent steroids abusers and cheaters such as Bonds. The issue is whether you sign them up. I say you don’t. That’s my standard and if you think your standard is tougher, I’d like to know what it is? The gallows?

On “innocent until proven guilty” you are right that it is a broader tenet used throughout society, but it is still a legal term. Regardless, the evidence that arose out of the Mitchell report, Balco, and Game of Shadows, has been enough to prove the guilt of both Bonds and Clemens in the court of public opinion. Both are guilty say the people. They should be treated as such.

Baseball did need to make the MR public. Why have an investigation/report only to keep its results secret? The whole point of the report was to chronicle and uncover the depth of cheating in the past so the public would have more confidence in the future. If the results were kept secret, the public would only wonder what MLB was trying to cover up. MLB cannot be relied upon to police itself without the scrutiny of Congress and the public.

Innocent until proven guilty is not a legal term. It is an American term, one of the tenets of our society. Now, perhaps baseball and the “court of public opinion” do not require the evidence to prove one’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, however that doesn’t mean you should be able to retroactively punish based on the testimony of some guys who were pinched by the Feds.

Baseball did not need to make the Mitchell Report public. You don’t need to swim in the past to learn from it either. All they had to do was move forward with stricter testing/punishment policies and that would have been fine.

“Beginning in 1971 and continuing today, Major League Baseball’s drug policy has prohibited the use of any prescription medication without a valid prescription. By implication,this prohibition applied to steroids even before 1991, when Commissioner Fay Vincent first expressly included steroids in baseball’s drug policy. Steroids have been listed as a prohibited substance under the Major League Baseball drug policy since then, although no player was
disciplined for steroid use before the prohibition was added to the collective bargaining agreement in 2002.”

So not only did baseball have a policy specifically against steroids since 1991, but it was covered under other rules of the game since 1971.

As for greenies, yes I know they are a PED. But they are so minor in relation to steroids and HGH that they are barely worth mentioning. The Mitchell report didn’t even look into them.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term. It is not applicable to the court of public opinion or to baseball. And the commissioners office certainly has the power to punish retroactively. And Selig has done so already in a few cases.

Why was there a Mitchell report? Because Congress pushed for one. The idea that it was to deflect attention from the owners or the commissioner’s office is ludicrous. Anyone who read the report would know that.

Did you even read the Mitchell report? Did you not see the recommendations in it along with the naming of the players? Are you aware that MLB has already acted on some of these recommendations where it could do so without the consent of the union? I don’t see how anyone who answered yes to these questions could say they don’t know what the point of the report is.

Those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it. You don’t need to live in the past to acknowledge it.

And talking about requirements in this country, how about innocent until proven guilty? Further, it is quite rare to punish retroactively. There were no rules or testing policy for steroids. You can’t punish guys because all of a sudden there is a new standard.

Ghost summed up my point nicely. There is so much hand wringing over steroids by people who turned a blind eye during the Sosa, McGuire, and Bonds home run chases that it’s become absurd. The players are not the only ones culpable for the steroid era, a lot of the blame should fall on the owners the commissioner. I know, I know… the players are the ones who ultimately took them, but do you ever wonder WHY there was a Mitchell Report? The most likely reason was to deflect attention from the owners’ turning a blind eye to steroids while their attendance numbers skyrocketed.

I do have fairly high standards regarding steroids, and I would even bet my standards for steroids are higher than most, perhaps even yours. However, I do not see what the point of the Mitchell Report was, nor do I think it fair to punish retroactively. Living in the past does not allow one to move forward, and right now, there is too much ink being spilled over Bonds, Clemens, and the steroid era for my liking.