Other 104 names might be leaked...

[OleMissCub]

here we go again...


ESPN's Peter Gammons said there's a "very good chance" the rest of the 104 names of players to test positive for PEDs in 2003 will be revealed within the next month.
Gammons expects the leak to come at the federal level. If he's right, it could cast a huge shadow over the upcoming World Baseball Classic.

[Ace Venom]

Out of the 104 names, it surprises me that only A-Rod's name was leaked to the press. Was he really the only big name in that bunch? I would think any dirt on Sosa, Bonds or Clemens would be big news and if they were in that list, we would have known it whenever we found out about A-Rod. I'd gamble to say the other 103 names are made up of players we already knew used or players that weren't big names.

Despite all that, it's not good for the rest of the names to be leaked. Those tests were supposed to be confidential and they should remain that way. At this point, the steroid era has become a bad joke. Some people out there are ready to continue the witch hunt, but I think the vast majority of us would rather just move on and continue to enjoy the sport in the present.

[DGDGBD]

If they're going to come out, I think it would be better to spill the whole mess out at once instead of in drips and drabs.

[Paulypal]

I hope it all happens now before the season starts. Maybe most of the junk blows over by the time it starts if it comes out now.

[Brad Harris]

Leaking the information is both illegal and immoral. That said, the sooner the public knows the full list of names, the better off the game will be. Sooner or later people are going to have to accept that PED usage has been widespread and implicitly condoned in baseball for the past twenty years. While it is perhaps an unfortunate fact, it is a fact nevertheless and the quicker people can adopt the mindset that prior to 2004 it was just another factor which produced the baseball of the era, the less any one individual is going to be punished in people's minds for being a part of it.

[spark240]

Leaking the information is both illegal and immoral. That said, the sooner the public knows the full list of names, the better off the game will be.

Ironic, but very true. And if anyone has any other evidence, we'd be better off getting that too, and sooner rather than later. Thanks.


the quicker people can adopt the mindset that prior to 2004 it was just another factor which produced the baseball of the era, the less any one individual is going to be punished in people's minds for being a part of it.

Hmm. I'm not sure it's right to call it "just another factor." PED use may have been widespread, but it wasn't universal.

Won't sabermetricians want to know whose and which seasons to asterisk? They won't get it complete or precise, of course--everybody knows that--but as with any number of other aspects of the game, that's no reason not to tackle it.

[highpockets]

Won't sabermetricians want to know whose and which seasons to asterisk? They won't get it complete or precise, of course--everybody knows that--but as with any number of other aspects of the game, that's no reason not to tackle it.
Well, this is the whole point, to know how to evaluate the accomplishments of players in this and the previous decade. I don't know about asterisks, but but it's as important to know who was using what as it is to know what park or what era a player competed in. Without this knowledge, it's impossible to formulate a realistic appraisal of just how much PED's contributed to the rise in offense and how much was due to other causes.

But this would entail full disclosure and therefore full amnesty, which have no chance of occurring. I'm confident that the history of this era will eventually emerge, but it will be a messy and incomplete one for a long time. Certainly not one that would justify casual rewriting of the record books.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Well, this is the whole point, to know how to evaluate the accomplishments of players in this and the previous decade. I don't know about asterisks, but but it's as important to know who was using what as it is to know what park or what era a player competed in. Without this knowledge, it's impossible to formulate a realistic appraisal of just how much PED's contributed to the rise in offense and how much was due to other causes.

But this would entail full disclosure and therefore full amnesty, which have no chance of occurring. I'm confident that the history of this era will eventually emerge, but it will be a messy and incomplete one for a long time. Certainly not one that would justify casual rewriting of the record books.

I'm feeling the same way, no asterisks but I do want to know.
I know the deal was they were not to be revealed and it would be wrong but I can't believe with the number of those in the know, that many more will not be revealed. It's going to happen and I am in agreement with some others, make it sooner, before the season opens.

I'm not buying the notion of some others on the board, saying so we know about those that were caught in the net, what about the others who used and slipped through.
Thats a weak point some try to make, I'm not going to just think, "what about player A or B, they are suspect, should we reevaluate some who are thought to be users. Makes no sense at all, not to mention unfair, what happened to proof being needed.

I will judge on what we know to be fact, not what we think might be.

[rudy]

Once you know who used (and there is no way we'll ever really the extent to which they used), how will you "adjust" their numbers to reflect what impact steroids had on their use? Do you give them 3/4 of their numbers?? Do you just delete those seasons in which they used from their totals? Do you substitute the statistics from those seasons in which they used for that player's average numbers in seasons they didn't use? My point is, I think, that it is impossible to evaluate what the player would have done absent steroids. Sure, a best guess can be made - but that's it.

Steroids will certainly cast doubt on the legitimacy of people's numbers - but how can their numbers be scrutinized to guess what kind of numbers, if any, they would have put up without them? I say "if any" because steroids, after all, don't just make a player a better player (if they even do so), but they also help players recover from injury, don't they?

[spark240]

For the record, I wasn't referring to literal asterisks. I was using "asterisk" as a verb meaning, to apply a statistical modifier to a player-season because of PED use.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

For the record, I wasn't referring to literal asterisks. I was using "asterisk" as a verb meaning, to apply a statistical modifier to a player-season because of PED use.

OK SPARKS, got that.

[highpockets]

Once you know who used (and there is no way we'll ever really the extent to which they used), how will you "adjust" their numbers to reflect what impact steroids had on their use? Do you give them 3/4 of their numbers?? Do you just delete those seasons in which they used from their totals? Do you substitute the statistics from those seasons in which they used for that player's average numbers in seasons they didn't use? My point is, I think, that it is impossible to evaluate what the player would have done absent steroids. Sure, a best guess can be made - but that's it.

Steroids will certainly cast doubt on the legitimacy of people's numbers - but how can their numbers be scrutinized to guess what kind of numbers, if any, they would have put up without them? I say "if any" because steroids, after all, don't just make a player a better player (if they even do so), but they also help players recover from injury, don't they?
As Aristotle--the only pundit not yet to voice an opinion on PED--remarks, "We must not expect more precision than the subject-matter admits."

Park effects on the offensive environment, for example, are much harder to pin down than baseball-reference's bland "OPS+ = 112" would suggest. I know that SabreMatt for one strenuously objected to the way they're handled. But that doesn't mean we'd be wiser to ignore them.

As the sense of betrayal and craving for retribution diminish--and the statute of limitations on perjury expires--I expect that more and more will come to be known--imperfectly, and with controversy, and over a very long time.

And as data emerge, people will study them very carefully, trying to isolate PED effects. I think the answer to your rhetorical questions is, "No, baseball-reference will not add an OPS+S- column." But the understanding of what happened will increase, and we will have a clearer picture of how to evaluate the accomplishments of players who used and players who did not. Establishing legitimacy is not really the goal for me so much as getting better understanding.

In the context of this thread, it's fair to ask, "Is this quest for knowledge so exalted that it justifies breaching promised confidentiality by outing the 104?" Of course not. A greater benefit would be if it dispelled some of the illusions about steroid users--that they are a small group of easily identifiable rotten apples, for example. But I don't think that would be the result.

[baseball junkie]

I have conflicting feelings about the remaining list of 104 players who failed the banned substances test.

I can see the point of the members of the player's association, namely that they were told that the list was to be kept secret and never leaked to the public. Is this a violation of player's privacy? Did the players, all professional athletes and hence public figures, actually have an expectation of privacy when they took the test? I don't know.

I am curious to see exactly who else tested positive on this particular test and think making the list public may have some value in that regard. But and this is a big but, to my recollection the players had around a year's notice of exactly when the test was to be administered. As we know, well over 100 players were so indifferent they kept right on using banned substances right up to and some after the testing.

This list essentially only gives us a snapshot of who was on PEDs at that particular moment.

What about the players who saw the writing on the wall and knew the list would some day become public and stopped using PEDs before the test? We'll never know if they used, just that they didn't test positive at that particular time. Ergo, it in no way exonerates players not on the list!

So even if the entire list became public we could never really know exactly who juiced and who didn't -- just who was indifferent enough to fail a test they knew there were going to have to take but thought was going to be kept private.

[Extra Innings]

I hope it all happens now before the season starts. Maybe most of the junk blows over by the time it starts if it comes out now.

I think its only a matter of time before the other names are released. Yea, lately it seems there is a swirling wind of bad news that breaks right before the season starts.

[Domenic]

This situation is entirely black and white, in my mind. Either the documents should be unsealed, and the names released by the Federal Government, or the names should be protected and the documents destroyed.

While the players were promised protection and the like, the government has played a vital role in the attempt to clean up the game, and I am willing to trust a Federal Court's judgment - perhaps it is the lawyer in me, but I believe a legal release of the names could be beneficial, particularly as opposed to trickle-out revelations. It is entirely unfair to the players to release the names as a money-hungry journalist deems it fit, and I cannot help but feel that Rodriguez's public crucifiction is appalling, at best.

[flota89]

Does anyone think any of the big stars such as Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez, CC Sabathia, or any other of those stars used steroids? I personally believe those three to be clean. How about everyone else?

[STLCards2]

Does anyone think any of the big stars such as Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez, CC Sabathia, or any other of those stars used steroids? I personally believe those three to be clean. How about everyone else?

As of now, there is no way of knowing, so baseless speculation or assumption is both useless and somewhat irresponsible.

[flota89]

As of now, there is no way of knowing, so baseless speculation or assumption is both useless and somewhat irresponsible.

I wasnt speculating or assuming. I was just asking for opinions. :D

[STLCards2]

I wasnt speculating or assuming. I was just asking for opinions. :D

True, but the second somebody answers your question, it becomes specualtion.

[flota89]

True, but the second somebody answers your question, it becomes specualtion.

True. I guess I am also just hoping that those guys didn't. I look at Pujols as the savior of baseball in a way. By the time he is done he could be the best ever. If he was clean through all that it would really mean he could be the best or one of the best ever.

[STLCards2]

True. I guess I am also just hoping that those guys didn't. I look at Pujols as the savior of baseball in a way. By the time he is done he could be the best ever. If he was clean through all that it would really mean he could be the best or one of the best ever.

I hope he is clean; it would be pretty tough in STL for awhile if he is busted. Best ever? Tall order to move past Foxx and Gehrig, but he should be a top 2-4 all-time firstbaseman barring injury or controversy.

[flota89]

I hope he is clean; it would be pretty tough in STL for awhile if he is busted. Best ever? Tall order to move past Foxx and Gehrig, but he should be a top 2-4 all-time firstbaseman barring injury or controversy.

Baring injury or controversy and a normal decrease based on age he will not only be the best first baseman ever but he will also be one of the best ever period. Foxx and Gehrig played when pitching was not near as good as it is today. Plus, only one player in all history has had a better first 8 years than Pujols and that is Dimaggio. I think he has a fair shot at being the best first baseman ever.

[STLCards2]

Plus, only one player in all history has had a better first 8 years than Pujols and that is Dimaggio.

Not a big fan of Ted Williams? Or OB%?

[flota89]

Not a big fan of Ted Williams? Or OB%?

I know the stats. Pujols has had the second best first 8 years. Better than Ted Williams. That does not mean Pujols is better than Williams, maybe when he is done though.

[STLCards2]

I know the stats. Pujols has had the second best first 8 years. Better than Ted Williams. That does not mean Pujols is better than Williams, maybe when he is done though.

.334/.425/.634/ 170

.353/.488/.642/ 195

I know some of Williams time came pre-segregation, but that is a massive gap for Pujols to make up. I don't see how Pujols win this one.

[STLCards2]

I am not even sure Albert tops Thomas' first 8 seasons:

.330/.452/.600/ 182

[flota89]

.334/.425/.634/ 170

.353/.488/.642/ 195

I know some of Williams time came pre-segregation, but that is a massive gap for Pujols to make up. I don't see how Pujols win this one.

Williams played in a completely different time. The pitchers were not near as good as they did not have the routines they go through today. I believe Pujols is the better all around player. We may just be seeing the beginning of Pujols. With his surgery he could get much better. Whos to say that he cant hit 50 home runs and 140 RBS's with a .350 average and win a gold glove. It just depends on how good that elbow is feeling.

[flota89]

I am not even sure Albert tops Thomas' first 8 seasons:

.330/.452/.600/ 182

Yes Pujols tops Thomas.

[STLCards2]

Yes Pujols tops Thomas.

Considering defense and baserunning, you may be right (which is why I said "I am not sure"). However, instead of offering a just a statement, would you care to offer your reasoning as to why Pujols was better than Thomas?

[flota89]

Considering defense and baserunning, you may be right (which is why I said "I am not sure"). However, instead of offering a just a statement, would you care to offer your reasoning as to why Pujols was better than Thomas?

Yes i would. :nod:

Pujols in his first 8 years had more rbi's, home runs, tb, runs, hits, 2b, 3b. Pujols also had fewer strikeouts, a better fielding percentage, a rookie of the year, and a world series ring. Like Thomas, he has 2 MVP's.

[Paulypal]

Considering defense and baserunning, you may be right (which is why I said "I am not sure"). However, instead of offering a just a statement, would you care to offer your reasoning as to why Pujols was better than Thomas?

Because if Thomas topped Pujols he would have to change his avatar. The first full 8 seasons would include Thomas' 1998 season which was sub par, so the first 8 I would go Pujols. The first 7 then we can argue.

In my opinion the best single season between the two was Thomas' 1994 season. Strike shortened yes but look at those numbers...he slugged .729.

[Paulypal]

Yes i would. :nod:

Pujols in his first 8 years had more rbi's, home runs, tb, runs, hits, 2b, 3b. Pujols also had fewer strikeouts, a better fielding percentage, a rookie of the year, and a world series ring. Like Thomas, he has 2 MVP's.

I am not saying Thomas is or was better than Pujols, but I think you may find that Thomas has the better OPS+ over their first 7-8 seasons. I would take Pujols over Thomas no doubt, but after the first 7-8 seasons its not a no brainer.