Thoughts On The Juice! (No, not OJ...)

Okay, so the steroid report came out and highlighted the names of several current and former players as users. The big names? Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada, Barry Bonds (big surprise there), Andy Pettitte, Gary Sheffield, and Eric Gagne. I think most people will accept the findings in the report and believe that the people named did take steroids. Although the evidence from one name to another does vary to some degree. For example, some of the players left actual paper trails - cashed checks, receipts, etc. While others were fingered by verbal testimony of a single person. It was pretty detailed and convincing verbal testimony (ie, "I injected Roger Clemens in the butt with steroids cause he asked me to."), but the difference should be noted. Especially since if this were an actual trial, the word of a single person probably wouldn't be nearly enough to convict a person.

Anyways, differences in just how convincing the evidence is on a case-by-case basis, lets look at a few different things...

First of all, I know and you know that there are TONS of other players out there who used steroids who are NOT named in the report. The Player's Association totally hand-cuffed the investigation by telling the players not to cooperate at all. Only one player cooperated (Jason Giambi) and that was because the moron pretty much had admitted he used steroids, and the commissioner threatened to suspend him if he didn't answer their questions. That means the only sources they had were trainers and suppliers... Who were only squealing if they had already been busted themselves and could save their own ass.

Someone called into the Mike and the Mad Dog the other day and claimed to know one of the big-name trainer guys who was supplying information for the report. He basically said that the guy never would have named names if he hadn't been ratted out first. The way the caller explained it (and it sounded legitimate - it almost sounded like Mike and Russo had spoken to this guy before, cause they didn't question him one bit), he said that one of the players got busted by the Feds for possession and ratted out the trainer as the supplier. Once the trainer was ratted out, he was like "Eff this. If these bastards ratted me out, I'm not going to protect them," and proceeded to name names. That sort of odd "Who's willing to rat out who" merry-go-round seems to have been the source for most of the names.

Which leads me back to my first point - there's a ton of people out there who realize that you don't rat people out, no matter what the legal consequences may be. (Hell, the BALCO guy spent several months in prison because he refused to testify against Bonds.) For the dozen or so recognizable names in the report because some people decided to sing like a canary, there are dozens more who haven't been exposed because people have refused to rat them out.

It'll be interesting to see if more arrests, busts, paper trails, investigations or whatever will eventually reveal some more names. Because we know they're out there.

So now my next question.. how does this effect the Hall of Fame status of these players? I think it's pretty safe to assume that anybody who knows anything about sports would say Bonds and Clemens have had Hall of Fame careers. Tejada and Pettitte are probably borderline, but leaning more on the outside looking in at this point I think. But what about former players Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire? (Palmeiro's name appears in the report. McGwire's does not.)

Some moron writer who actually has a Hall of Fame vote called in to Mike and the Mad Dog yesterday. He said that he'd still vote for Clemens and Bonds, but wouldn't vote for McGwire and Palmeiro. His explanation wasn't that he thought McGwire and Palmeiro weren't worthy based on their careers. But he said that McGwire and Palmeiro "needed the steroids more" than Clemens and Bonds. What the hell does that mean? That makes no sense. That's like he's almost trying to measure just what kind of impact the steroids had for each player, which is completely impossible. There's no way in hell you can say that McGwire hit all those home runs because of the steroids, but Bonds would have done it even without them. I can't believe he didn't get reamed for saying that. The fact of the matter is that if a baseball player used steroids, they cheated. Period. Case closed. You cannot measure how much the steroids helped them. You cannot say it helped one person more than another. That's ludicrous.

So now, what does baseball do? While the Mitchell guy recommended no punishment be taken against those named in the report, Selig said that'll be decided by him on a case-by-case basis. I don't see him suspending anybody based on this. The bottom line is that there are no failed drug tests. (Of course, that's mostly because drug tests weren't given during the period in question.) What will the Hall of Fame voters do? They punished McGwire last year by not voting him in, though there was some speculation it was just to prove a point, and he'd get in the following year. If they take the hard stance and not vote in anybody that's been linked to steroids, does that mean Bonds and Clemens never get in? Well, then what happens if someone gets in... let’s say Sammy Sosa, just to pick a random player who should get in... What happens if Sammy Sosa makes it to Cooperstown, and then 5 years later, another drug company gets raided and busted, and suddenly the feds have a stack of papers linking Sosa to steroids. Can they boot someone out of the Hall of Fame who are already in? Has that ever happened? And if not, then how can you possibly still keep Bonds and Clemens out?

The fact of the matter is we don't truly know who used steroids and who didn't. The whole era has been tainted. It needs to be recorded as such. Individual players who got unlucky enough to have their trainers snitch on them shouldn't be singled out as the only guilty parties. And, like it or not, the Hall of Fame voters need to treat everyone the same - either they all get in, or they all stay out.