There was no punishment for use of steroids in 2003. They did not allow the use of steroids since 1991 without prescription, but there was no punishment to go with it.

That's actually not true. There was no system of testing but as with other illegal drugs you could be suspended by the Commish if found to be connected to the stuff. The common misconception is that they weren't against baseball rules at the time. They have been for quite some time. Just no system for testing was implemented b/c Donald Fehr and the Union, who AROD should sue big time btw.

What standard do you require for proof? I think the biggest myth of all is that the steroid era started in the '90s. We've known about steroids since the 1930's and they have been used for doping in other sports since the 1940's. I don't think it's a stretch to say that baseball players in the 60's, 70's or 80's were also doping.

If your standard of proof is doping test only, then that is a bit unfair to modern players since they were the only players ever tested to begin with.

One of the easiest ways to determine steroid use is body and weight changes. Almost none or very few players prior to the late 80s had much of a shift in weight from rookie year to end of career, often 15lbs or less. Players today go from 175lbs to 235lbs and more within a year or two. This info is available and i looked at player after player and this rapid and huge weight gain did'nt start until the late 80s. As Calvin says it does'nt matter anyway, cheating is cheating. The main reason peolple knew of the steroid use in other sports in decades past is because they could see a very noticiable change physically in the person as they can today. Keep in mind the steroids of the past were very unsophisticated. Women athletes in communist bloc countries looked like men which is what started the whole steroid investigations in the first place . Suddenly communist bloc countries weight lifters in particular averaged 40 to 50 lbs heavier and inches larger muscle size then any other countries. The baseball players prior to the 80s exhibited none of these characteristics which makes it highly unlikely they were using steroids.................

Almost none or very few players prior to the late 80s had much of a shift in weight from rookie year to end of career, often 15lbs or less. Players today go from 175lbs to 235lbs and more within a year or two.

The problem with that is that prior to the late '80s, strength and conditioning was almost non-existent in baseball to begin with. With legal and legitimate strength and conditioning it is perfectly reasonable for a player to gain 20-30 pounds of muscle over a few years, especially if they never properly trained before.

It's easy to justify paying him that much money, that's how much money he generates for the owners. Would you rather the billionaire owners pocket even more of the profits that the athletes earn for them?

It's weird that sports is probably the only industry where the majority of the public support the billionaire owners over their employees.

Hobson, that is a very poor reason to say it's ok to cheat. People are turned off by guys playing a kids game making millions of bucks a year and then cheating on top of that. Like a lot of people, i place integrity above class warfare.................

How many profitable teams are there in MLB?

All 30 of them are profitable. MLB is a 6 billion dollar industry. Oh some teams may use "creative accounting" to claim they aren't profitable, but that's mainly an excuse used to pay their players less.

Hobson, that is a very poor reason to say it's ok to cheat.

Where exactly did I say that this was a good reason to cheat? I was merely arguing against R.S. Trujillo notion that athletes like A-Rod aren't worth the money they are paid because they didn't cure cancer or something.

People are turned off by guys playing a kids game making millions of bucks a year and then cheating on top of that.

What people? People will say that they don't like steroids, and yet baseball has had a public steroid issue for at least the past half decade and yet attendance and ratings continue to climb. Hell, just look at how popular these polls and stories about athletes and steroids are.

And that's exactly why baseball had a steroid issue to begin with. All this outrage is completely false. People are making all this noise about steroids, yet except for a very few people, it doesn't change the way they support the game at all. We want athletes playing at the top of their game or even above that.

Hell if you look at the reasons most of the players took steroids in the Mitchell report it wasn't even for strength or performance enhancement but for endurance or to heal from injuries faster. When players keep going on the disabled list we label them weak and frail. So instead they take steroids to heal faster and get out there and perform at the top of their game for us.

It just came out that Ben Rothelisberger played in the Super Bowl with broken ribs. I bet he was on some nice painkillers, probably at levels that exceed their FDA recommendations. However, if he didn't take those drugs and instead sat on the sidelines during the Super Bowl injured he would have been raped by both the media and the fans.

These aren't excuses for players to take drugs, whether legal or illegal, but these are very real reasons that they do. We place the pressure on the players, and they respond. They are giving us exactly what we want.

I totally agree with you. Sports figures are over-rated as contributing to society. Yes, they are entertainers, but not role-models, heroes or innovators.

Steroids were first used in professional sports in the 1952 Olympics by Russian weight-lifters and wrestlers. It is very unlikely they were in wide use in major league baseball before the 1970s since their production was still limited to a narrow range of medical interventions at that time and offense in MLB was quite contained throughout the 1970s, 1980s (except for 1987) and the early 1990s. On the other hand, cocaine, pot, and amphetamines were used rather widely by 1980. Most probably steroids surged in MLB around the mid-1990s, which is when we see the beginning of the upward spike in offensive numbers.

Truthinator

and offense in MLB was quite contained throughout the 1970s, 1980s (except for 1987) and the early 1990s

But haven't we learned through the Mitchell Report (Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte) that pitchers were just as likely to use steroids as hitters? I think we've also seen quite a few skinny fast players caught in the steroid usage as well. I think when all is said and done steroids have a lot less to do with power and home runs as they do recovering from injuries and physical endurance and that helps pitchers and contact hitters just as much as sluggers.

So many people ready to call Alex names and point fingers. Any of you ever do drugs? Marijuana? Ever take a no-doze to keep awake so you could do your job? Ever drive under the influence? What A-Rod did was wrong, but it did not endanger anyone else. What you do when you get behind the wheel while impaired is far, far worse than anything these players did. Still, I think there should be a date set, like Game 1 of this season, and the rule be that ANY use beyond that date will make a player ineligible for any award, the Hall, or whatever else you want. But to make something like this retroactive to 4, 5, 6 years or more ago is ridiculous. Let's move on. Besides, most of you A-Rod bangers are just upset and making these anti-A-Rod comments because he doesn't play for your team.

give me the stone!!!

Absolutely !!!

I agree that we shouldn't pile this all on A-Rod, but why should the other names be released? These were supposed to be anonymous tests. These results were confiscated by the @!$%#ing government even though they weren't even investigating most of these players. These players have civil rights to. I think whoever was the prosecutor on this BALCO case should be fired immediately and probably have some civil suits brought against him on Bill of Rights grounds.

I think the "I was young and stupid" explanation is out of reach for Bonds and Clemens.

Truthinator

There are "103" other names on that list, publish all the names, and let get over this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you not believe in privacy then? How about we publish all of your medical records???

go ahead and publish them, i have nothing to hide.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

You’re right JB. Sometimes, one must get the impression that the critics are talking about Stanley Beamish athletes who become Mister Terrific because they utilize (not abuse!) progressive performance enhancing medicines and chemicals created and prescribed by educated medical doctors and science technicians. But what is wrong with that? Why are they being condemned? And why is it, that the greatness of these athletes is reduced to the alleged physical advantages that these medicines produce? Anyone who has ever competed in any sport at any level, knows that the difference between being good and great, are the intelligence, mental toughness and passion that embodies the character of each athlete. That’s the difference, something which no drug can influence. It’s a shame that so much negative emphasis is given on the use of these so called drugs (a word that has negative connotations). It is a vilification of the blood, sweat and tears that the athletes have given to their sport, and an insult to the achievements of modern sports medicine.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

You’re right JB. Sometimes, one must get the impression that the critics are talking about Stanley Beamish athletes who become Mister Terrific because they utilize (not abuse!) progressive performance enhancing medicines and chemicals created and prescribed by educated medical doctors and science technicians. But what is wrong with that? Why are they being condemned? And why is it, that the greatness of these athletes is reduced to the alleged physical advantages that these medicines produce? Anyone who has ever competed in any sport at any level, knows that the difference between being good and great, are the intelligence, mental toughness and passion that embodies the character of each athlete. That’s the difference, something which no drug can influence. It’s a shame that so much negative emphasis is given on the use of these so called drugs (a word that has negative connotations). It is a vilification of the blood, sweat and tears that the athletes have given to their sport, and an insult to the achievements of modern sports medicine.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

You’re right JB. Sometimes, one must get the impression that the critics are talking about Stanley Beamish athletes who become Mister Terrific because they utilize (not abuse!) progressive performance enhancing medicines and chemicals created and prescribed by educated medical doctors and science technicians. But what is wrong with that? Why are they being condemned? And why is it, that the greatness of these athletes is reduced to the alleged physical advantages that these medicines produce? Anyone who has ever competed in any sport at any level, knows that the difference between being good and great, are the intelligence, mental toughness and passion that embodies the character of each athlete. That’s the difference, something which no drug can influence. It’s a shame that so much negative emphasis is given on the use of these so called drugs (a word that has negative connotations). It is a vilification of the blood, sweat and tears that the athletes have given to their sport, and an insult to the achievements of modern sports medicine.

Geez, would you rather we as a society have millions of depressed, and possibly homicidal or suicidal individuals running around (and maybe killing you in the process?)

Calvin, let me ask you this, as an employee of MSNBC, would you consent to the exact same terms? Random tests for illegal drugs, then if you are ever caught, you get suspended for a year without pay, and upon reinstatement you have to work at minimum wage for three years?

If we don't expect this kind of breach of privacy in OUR workplaces, why should we expect it in theirs?

I think you are also underestimating how often a false positive shows up. Hell, the NFL just had a controversy where they detected masking agents in a bunch of players samples, however the masking agents could have come from a variety of LEGAL substances as well.

I seriously doubt that any of them would be performance enhancing

You know, with everyone calling steroids performance enhancing drugs, there's ZERO scientific evidence that they actually enhance the performance of baseball players.

If you look at A-Rods career numbers in non-steroid seasons compared to steroid seasons and then remember to adjust for park effects (Arlington is the Coors field of the AL) and age, those numbers are almost exactly in line with the rest of his career.

Alex Rodriguez has been hitting home runs his entire career, including recent years with much stricter testing (not to mention a home ball park that suppresses right handed power). Mark McGwire hit 49 home runs his rookie season way back in 1987. Barry Bonds hit 445 home runs before even his biggest detractors suspected him of taking steroids.

It's not like steroids was helping guys like Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens hit home runs. It certainly didn't help guys like Manny Alexander, Chad Allen or Alex Cabrera. Read the Mitchell Report. Most of the guys listed were scrubs. Not only were they scrubs, but when most even made the majors they made it for reasons other than home runs, such as pitching, fielding, speed or contact.

Well, just because there is no scientific evidence that they enhance performance certainly doesn't mean that there isn't anecdotal evidence. When players see guys like A-Rod, Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire using, then they figure the steroids got them where they are while disregarding things like natural talent and actual work, plus the plethora of crappy players who's taking of steroids did nothing for their game.

Besides, even if we ever determine for a fact that steroids don't increase performance, we also know that they DO increase healing times from certain injuries, help with muscle endurance, and make you look ripped (which can't hurt from a marketing perspective).

So I guess they do enhance performance, it's just that the performance that they enhance isn't power but the ability to stay healthy and play the game.

There's certainly an argument to be made that without steroids, neither Barry Bonds nor Roger Clemens would have been able to play into their mid-forties, Andy Pettitte may have required any extra DL stint or two, and A-Rod may have missed an extra five games per season while in Texas for rest and recuperation rather than missing only one game over three years. And those fifteen games missed would have been worth 15 hits, five home runs, and about 10 runs and RBI.

I admit nothing! I don't want Congress charging me for perjury now ;-)

If murder was not a crime before it became law, then anyone who committed murder should not be punished???

That's actually how our legal system works. We don't allow ex post facto laws, or laws that are applied retroactively. They are banned in Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and in state law by section 10.