From Jayson Stark's latest column......

 

Drug-Testing Rumblings

Everybody remembers the biggest complaint about last year's debut round of steroid testing (aside, that is, from the fact that there were no repercussions on players who tested positive):

Players knew that test was coming -- and also knew approximately when it was coming.

 

But this year, it appears, nobody will know when the testing crew is showing up. Which ought to mean a far truer read on the problem -- and a cleaner sport.

 

Details of this year's testing haven't been finalized yet, and there's a good reason for that: The commissioner's office and the union are still negotiating on them.

 

But indications are that there will be one significant difference from last year:

 

Every player on a 40-man roster will still be tested at least once. But unlike last year, when the first round of testing was conducted almost exclusively during spring training, this year's initial tests almost certainly will be spread out over a larger, and less specific, period of time.

 

So theoretically, it will be tougher for players to beat the test by stopping in January, waiting until they're tested and then resuming afterward. Only about eight players per team are randomly selected for a second round of testing, so the odds last summer were with players who risked a resumption of taking whatever it was they were taking.

 

The Basic Agreement gives management the right to do the testing any time from the first day of spring training to the last day of the season. The fact that the two sides most likely will agree to take advantage of that leeway and make the test dates more uncertain is a clear indication that there's mutual desire for this year's testing to be more accurate and more impactful.

If the present trend of fewer home runs should continue over the next couple of seasons, in the face of increased drug testing, many will ascribe the high HR totals of the recent era to steroids. Evidence being that when testing came into play, the statistics returned to normal. Over the next few years Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa will go up for HOF voting. I speculate that a different standard will be applied to the steroid era. I think some of the achievements will be discounted and the old standards, like 500 home runs will be disregarded.

 

But a sub-current of the debate might be whether or not steroids and the resultant rise in offense were good or bad for the game. The game took a terrible hit in the '94 strike. It came back partially when Cal Ripken broke the consecutive game record, and fully during the McGuire / Sosa home run chase. One can argue that despite the damage to the individuals, the depreciation of previous records, and the unlevel playing field for non-users, this was exactly what baseball needed at the time. This is pure speculation on my part.

Question on this.

 

My dad was telling me that when the police went into Bond's trainers house they found all these steroid schedules and it had listed on it the players that were taking them and such and said Bonds name was on the list and when confronted about it he denied it saying he had no clue why his name was on the list and that he told his trainer he didn't want any of the stuff when his trainer offered it.

 

If this happened, how come its not getting more play?

Because baseball would be in a s***load of trouble if the "Greatest player of this generation" is known to use performance enhancers and is a liar to boot. I am sure they will do all they can to cover it up.

Question on this.

 

My dad was telling me that when the police went into Bond's trainers house they found all these steroid schedules and it had listed on it the players that were taking them and such and said Bonds name was on the list and when confronted about it he denied it saying he had no clue why his name was on the list and that he told his trainer he didn't want any of the stuff when his trainer offered it.

 

If this happened, how come its not getting more play?

How did your dad hear about it?

 

Generally, details of such an investigation are not released, especially when it involves potentially damaging information. I have not seen ANY reports about any evidence that was found or anything specifically related to baseball players in the Grand Jury proceedings.

 

Sounds like the rumor mill, Jason....

I know Bonds trainer admitted to dropping off illegal performance enhancing drugs to "baseball players" Dan and Terry on the Score have reported this a few times

I know Bonds trainer admitted to dropping off illegal performance enhancing drugs to "baseball players"  Dan and Terry on the Score have reported this a few times

Right, but no names were released or it is not know if specific names were mentioned.

 

Not all information from court proceedings are released to the media.

i think this testing will keep the sport cleaner this year because players wont know when they are gonna be tested. maybe sosa will use more corked bats this year and stop taking so much steriods.

I won't accuse Bonds of "juicing it" because I have no proof, but I think that he will be lucky to hit 35 HR this year, and he'll blame it on his age, and how aging diminished his skills. How convenient.

 

He's using something, IMO. Whether it's illegal steroids, growth hormones, or whatever, he's using something. Good for him. I don't care.

 

I won't accuse Bonds of "juicing it" because I have no proof, but I think that he will be lucky to hit 35 HR this year, and he'll blame it on his age, and how aging diminished his skills.  How convenient. 

 

He's using something, IMO.  Whether it's illegal steroids, growth hormones, or whatever, he's using something.  Good for him.  I don't care. 

 

Agreed. It's going to be quite interesting to see what a smaller Bonds and Giambi do this season.

 

BTW, I love the avatar! "We need more cowbell!!"

How did your dad hear about it? 

 

Generally, details of such an investigation are not released, especially when it involves potentially damaging information.  I have not seen ANY reports about any evidence that was found or anything specifically related to baseball players in the Grand Jury proceedings.

 

Sounds like the rumor mill, Jason....

My guess is he heard it on one of the sports radio shows, but according to the show they went to Bonds about it and he said he had no idea his name was on the list.

If the present trend of fewer home runs should continue over the next couple of seasons, in the face of increased drug testing, many will ascribe the high HR totals of the recent era to steroids.

This makes me wonder about the whole "juiced baeball" theory. All these people came out to say that the balls were juiced, yet tests showed that they werent. However, the claims continued. I think it is now pretty evident that the baseballs werent juiced, the players are.

This is a related question, but with the more widespread testing now, what will the penalty be if the test comes back positive?

If the present trend of fewer home runs should continue over the next couple of seasons, in the face of increased drug testing, many will ascribe the high HR totals of the recent era to steroids.  Evidence being that when testing came into play, the statistics returned to normal.  Over the next few years Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa will go up for HOF voting.  I speculate that a different standard will be applied to the steroid era.  I think some of the achievements will be discounted and the old standards, like 500 home runs will be disregarded.

 

But a sub-current of the debate might be whether or not steroids and the resultant rise in offense were good or bad for the game.  The game took a terrible hit in the '94 strike.  It came back partially when Cal Ripken broke the consecutive game record, and fully during the McGuire / Sosa home run chase.  One can argue that despite the damage to the individuals, the depreciation of previous records, and the unlevel playing field for non-users, this was exactly what baseball needed at the time.  This is pure speculation on my part.

I think they need to break out the asterisk and slap it on all the homerun records that were recently set if this steroid thing proves to be what people are making it out to be, especially with Bonds.

 

Wait, I take that back. Instead of an asterisk how 'bout we use a dripping hypodermic needle instead?

This is a related question, but with the more widespread testing now, what will the penalty be if the test comes back positive?

They should ban them from baseball and if they set any kind of record then their name should be wiped from the books.

This is a related question, but with the more widespread testing now, what will the penalty be if the test comes back positive?

This is a piece from a current ESPN article where John Smoltz is calling for more stringent testing...... Pretty pathetic, if you ask me......

 

Under baseball's plan, the first positive test for steroid use would result in treatment only. A second positive would bring a fine or suspension, but a player would have to test positive five times to get a one-year suspension.

 

Smoltz Says Current Policies "not good for the game"

They should ban them from baseball and if they set any kind of record then their name should be wiped from the books.

The McGwire should have his records erased because of andro then.

The McGwire should have his records erased because of andro then.

Trouble with that is that Andro is not a banned substance.

Trouble with that is that Andro is not a banned substance.

I thought that they banned it since then.

I thought that they banned it since then.

That doesn't matter. When McGwire was using andro is was available over the counter at GNC and legal. You can't retroactively punish someone...

 

Just as they can never put an asterisk by anything Bonds has done, even if he tested positive for steroids. There is no way they could prove he was using them then. Even if they catch him now, which I don't think they will.

That doesn't matter.  When McGwire was using andro is was available over the counter at GNC and legal.  You can't retroactively punish someone...

 

Just as they can never put an asterisk by anything Bonds has done, even if he tested positive for steroids.  There is no way they could prove he was using them then.  Even if they catch him now, which I don't think they will.

That was kind of my point.

There needs to be some type of asterik next to any player that's been on the juice. While other players did it with natural ability and hard work, some resorted to bulking themselves up with illegal substances. That's not fair to those who persevered with hard work.

There needs to be some type of asterik next to any player that's been on the juice.  While other players did it with natural ability and hard work, some resorted to bulking themselves up with illegal substances.  That's not fair to those who persevered with hard work.

My point exactly, except they need to use a picture of a dripping hypodermic needle instead of an asterisk.

My point exactly, except they need to use a picture of a dripping hypodermic needle instead of an asterisk.

 

HA! That's great!

 

Did Jeff Kent mean that alcohol was illegal in the US from 1920-1933, and obviously Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig had their access to it - so therefore, they were using a "banned" or "illegal" substance? He couldn't have honestly thought Gehrig and Ruth were juicing up - that's just moronic.

 

I don't know what Kent was trying to say.

Kent did a follow up interview where he explained what he was saying. He said he didn't really think Babe was on steroids, but was just trying to make a point that we don't know happened in the past and what advantages players were trying to find.