MLB- The sh!t is about to hit the fan.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

I also owe you 50 dollars, tell me how you want it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remembered the wager, but I couldn't remember *who* it was with....you're an honorable man for reminding me.

Donate it to the United Way, care of "The Barry Bonds Family Foundation". I believe you can give online, mail a check, or even in person at your local chapter.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think Andy Pettite is on steriods. Hes 35 yrs old, its not like hes 42, I don't understand what hes done to have multiple people be suspicious of him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fun fact:

Number of MLB players who have testified under oath that Bonds took steroids: 0
Number of MLB players who have testified under oath that Pettite took steroids: 1

[/ QUOTE ]

who said pettite?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason Grimsley.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think Andy Pettite is on steriods. Hes 35 yrs old, its not like hes 42, I don't understand what hes done to have multiple people be suspicious of him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fun fact:

Number of people who have testified or who have went to jail instead of testifying under oath that Bonds took steroids: at least 4 (including Bonds himself), probably more.

Number of MLB players signing affidativits claiming that Pettite took steroids to save his own butt: 1

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[ClarkNasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Reminder that all Bonds specific debate goes in the RedBean Official Troll Each Other About Barry Bonds thread.



[/ QUOTE ]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Number of people who have testified or who have went to jail instead of testifying under oath that Bonds took steroids: at least 4 (including Bonds himself), probably more.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a myth that Bonds admitted taking steroids in his testimony, that has been well discussed.

Additionally, Greg testified under oath previously that he did NOT give steroids to Bonds, and Conte is on record as testifying that he gave steroids to Marion Jones, but not Barry Bonds.

But don't let those facts get in the way of your assumptions. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reminder that all Bonds specific debate goes in the RedBean Official Troll Each Other About Barry Bonds thread.



[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ClarkNasty]

Thanks.

I don't know that anyone cares much about this without arguing about Bonds specifically, which kind of goes to your overall point. But I think we can easily discuss the topic (and maybe even mention Bonds) without totally hijacking the thread which is where this is rapidly heading.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks.

I don't know that anyone cares much about this without arguing about Bonds specifically, which kind of goes to your overall point. But I think we can easily discuss the topic (and maybe even mention Bonds) without totally hijacking the thread which is where this is rapidly heading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, it would be a welcome break to discuss baseball, steroids, and the Mitchell Report...without it having to center around Bonds.

That said, I'll certainly abide that and leave any mention of the big man out of the thread, and welcome anyone who wants to spout off baseless allegation regarding him to do so in the other thread. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Back on topic, though...

I have a hard time believing that the Mitchell Report is going to name names, at least without it being redacted before being made public.

Once the union gets the final draft, I can see them fighting tooth and nail to prevent the names from being mentioned, as the CBA expressly mentions public disclosure of player names as it relates to MLB Steroid Policy violations....and it only pertains to members who have violated the policy.

An MLB sanctioned report just cannot list specific names in the process of speculation without evidence of a clear violation.

I think, if anything, what they may "name" are the players who they interviewed and who they contacted, and along with that could be the assumption of guilt by the court of public opinion, I suppose, but I just can't see Mitchell "naming" a group of guys in public as alleging they used steroids without being able to square that up with the burden of proof as outlined in the CBA.

I just think we're in for a series of similar "leaks" from anonymous GM's and other personnel who are privy to the report prior to it being scrubbed of names for public consumption.

Of course, that is why I think we are seeing so many "leaks" now, it leads me to believe that the full list of names suspected names will nto be disclosed officially......although I guess we could all be surprised if it does in fact end up being released with a hundred or so names and 20 or so prominent players.

If the names are made public, though, I'm more interested in the public reaction in that case, as I think it will be a muted one with an obvious double standard as they rationalize the presence of "likable" players on the list....and I'm also interested in seeing how much flak Mitchell catches if no Red Sox are mentioned, yet if Yankees are named, considering Mitchell's ties to Boston, etc. It could easily turn into a circus.

[ClarkNasty]

The thing I always remember when this topic comes up is Canseco and Caminiti, about 6 years ago, each independently estimating that 40-50% of players used PEDs. Everyone laughed at them it seemed, and now, if anything, their estimates seem conservative.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing I always remember when this topic comes up is Canseco and Caminiti, about 6 years ago, each independently estimating that 40-50% of players used PEDs. Everyone laughed at them it seemed, and now, if anything, their estimates seem conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their estimates were for steroids explicitly, which based on test results, does seem high.

If you include greenies, however, as Tony Gwynn estimated their use to be at 50%, several former players have said that estimate was to be low.

As for what we know, though, in the 2003 survey testing, 6.7% of players failed tests.

In 2004 and beyond when the program fully kicked in, positive results have been 1% or less each year.

Of course, one could speculate that prior to the 2003 survey, the use was much higher, and many quit using in anticipation of the testing, lowering it to 6.7%, and then the additional penalty phase added in 2004 and beyond lowered it even more to 1%.

Any which way you look at it though, for something that 1% or less of the population in the sport is testing positive for, it sure seems to be drawing an disproportional amount of attention and headlines.