Who Else?

A question from me is, "Why don't they?" I know, baseball wants to change, but I think baseball owes it to the fans about who is on that list... whether they have taken them a long time ago or are still taking them today.

But wasn't the list supposed to be sealed? It was testing done to see how necessary public testing with a system of punishment would be.

It is amazing that Canseco is the most reliable voice in this whole sorry affair. I wonder if folks will stop listening when MLB and their bedfellow ESPN bad mouth Canseco now? It seems to me that Jose is a guy we should be listening to...

According to this list, it isn't close to 85%. More like 15 or 20 percent. 100 players out of 700-800. Not as many as Jose said. But we'll never really know...

The players knew they would be tested in 2003, so it would be logical that it would be a significant drop from previous years. Just because they got positives on 104 doesn't prove Canseco's 85% figure wrong.
Given all the attention this was getting at the time and that they knew they would be tested, I was surprised they got 104 positives. In my book, those have got to be some of the dumbest people in the world, which would certainly describe A-Rod.

I'm not saying his number is wrong. Even if the players knew they were being tested, those who did it would still have it in their system. It doesn't just go away the day you stop taking it, and it was highly unlikely that players found out a year earlier that there would be testing. I'm not saying Jose is wrong, but I still think it's a little high...

85% is far too high. The 104 number doesn't disprove Conseco, but Conseco has absolutely nothing to support his number. I'd say 50% maximum, but probably more like 20 to 30.

The survey testing program for the 2003 season was announced on August 30, 2002. Plenty of time for a player with half a brain to get clean. MLB didn't want anyone to fail. They gave them that much time so they wouldn't have to deal with this any more.
I'm not arguing Canseco's figure is right--I agree that it is probably an overestimate. I'm just refuting Falcon's claim that 104 positives (5-7% of those tested, by the way, not your 15-20 percent) is evidence that he was wrong.

Bonds and Clemens are like those guys you see like this guy on the Steve Wilkos show... the guys who don't pass the test and that happens...

"If you have enough guts to come out and say you took them then I don't believe he has anything else to hide."

Ben, he didn't confess until the news was already leaked. All he did is confirm the story. A true, honest confession would have been if he came forward when no one suspected him. That is honesty.

I don't see much guts in someone admitting they did something everyone already knew they did. It's like a husband getting caught in bed with another woman, then telling his wife "Honey, I've been cheating on you."

A-Rod doesn't deserve any honor or acclaim for his "confession."

Agreed, A-Roid had to say it or else he'd look like a giant jackass, implying that he learned nothing from the Clemens or Bonds saga.

I knew Manny was on the juice.

I see a difference...

Do we know A-Rod has been completely honest? When Peter Gammons asked him if he only used from 2001 to 2003, A-Rod said that was "pretty accurate". What does that mean?!?

I completely agree with Sj. It didn't take guts for A-Rod to admit that he took steroids. Just like Giambi and a couple others who were cornered into saying it; if you don't admit it, then you're a complete fool for trying to make everyone look like a bunch of idiots.

"That was pretty accurate." You're right Taytay: WTF does that mean? He might as well say that he took them somewhere in the 20th-21st centuries... that's pretty accurate too, don't you think?

Just gonna toss this out there...but people grow after the age of 18...so sometimes those pictures really don't mean squat...

I didn't realize that that specific picture was when he was in the minors. I thought that it was his first year in the Big Leagues and that he was 21. He looked like a skinny guy there. Just goes to show that in life, you can't really assume things. (Just to let everyone know, in his first year in the Bigs, Manny weighed 190 lbs; he weighs about 200 now.)

Manny doesn't actually look much bigger in the second picture. His clothes got bigger for sure, but look at his arms and how skinny his legs appear in those baggy pants. His face appears to have gotten fatter over the years, but so has mine. And, do you really think manny cares enough or could even figure out how to do steroids?

I've had doubts in my mind about whether Manny took steroids or not. However, out loud, I have never said and will never say that Manny took/takes steroids (in fact, I've defended him). I may hate the guy now, but I just think he's just a natural to the game. He has one of the best swings in baseball and is considered to be one of the greatest power hitters in the game today ever since stepping on that field.

I'm gonna have to disagree on Chipper Jones taking them. Chipper, Griffey Junior, and Maddux are the three guys I'd put money down on being clean... If I'm wrong, I don't think I'd ever want to watch Major League Baseball ever again...

People can put on muscle. If those pictures were 1 or 2 years apart, then there'd be a case. But those are how many years apart? 10? 12?

I'd like to extend to both ends of your timeline there, Romi. A-Rod hit 36 HRs in his first full season with the Mariners at age 20. That's remarkable enough to be questioned. As for his fresh start in NY: it could be equally argued that he would be compelled to continue using to keep his production up under the NY scrutiny. Certainly his production didn't drop off from his confirmed enhanced years in Texas--and that despite the move from a hitter's park no less.

That's definitely true, Taytay. 36 homers at that age is still a pretty substantial amount. However, A-Rod hit 42 homers in only 129 games in 1999. If he would've hit 52 homers in 162 games, which is quite a lot for anyone... and it's a quite a change from the 36 homers he hit in his second season; plus he hit 23 homers in 141 games in '97. I don't know... maybe you're right, but it just seems like a big boost in my opinion. Maybe he even started in '98 when he hit 42.

And you're right. Compelling arguments can be made for both sides about whether or not he took steroids with the Yankees. From my point of view though, I don't think he would. It's just too big of a risk.

I'm not sure if using would have been seen as a risk to him. If he was using, it makes sense that he would keep doing so. He's like many of his peers - egotistical. I'm sure he would have wanted something to offset the Jeterfest that existed in NY. What beeter than to hit a bunch of (regular season) homers?

Another thing to consider - why does Canseco sit at home and juice? I'm sure it's tough to come down from roids. I have no knowledge of the after effects, but I would speculate that there is at least an element of addiction. Even if it presents itself in the users mental state. A-Rod was a better player on the juice, he hadn't been caught (despite Katie Couric's hard-hitting grilling), so why stop? I, too, am skeptical about the timeframe. It's just too neat to say 2001-2003.

I am also amused by the talking heads dealing with this. Oh, dear - A-Rod was going to save the game! He was going to wipe out the tainted Bonds home run record and be hailed a hero! I think that ESPN must have added something to the coffee. These guys are pathetic...moreso if they actually believed that crap.

The home run record is forever tainted because the custodians of baseball left the building. Nothing anybody does now can restore what was once a great great game. And I am probably overstating it by using the word tainted. It's just...different. I feel betrayed. By the players, the league and even the fans. Although I give the fans a pass because they tend to believe whatever the baseball writers/TV folks tell them. And it's easy to see why. Baseball was/is a great game. It's just a shame that it had to evolve into what it is today.

At it's root, it's still a great game. It's just time to take out the trash.

The real thing that gets me is that Alex played more on the Rangers. Maybe the roids helped him stay on the field longer? But He only hand a handful more home runs and a hell of a lot more at bats than he did on the Mariners or Yankees...

OH! And Kevin Mench... just because he has the biggest head in MLB today!

I think there are going to be some surprising names coming out, and it's a shame. Probably some names we'd never suspect. You'd have to think that the A's, Rangers, Mariners, Yankees, Giants and Astros are all potential teams to have lots of associated names just due to the players that have passed through these organizations. Maybe even the Padres - who knows how far-reaching Ken Caminiti's involvement/influence was?

I totally agree. When talking about 2003 in the MLB, you're guilty until you're proven innocent in my book until that list is read...

And it happened in 2003 as well. The year in question...

I don't want to see anybody's piss test.

It would have been nice if Douche Selig and his cronies would have LISTENED to the advice prescribed by former Senator Mitchell after he presented his findings in December 2007:

"Move on, move forward and leave the past where it belongs."

As is par for the course for the idiot that is the face of baseball, Selig did the wrong thing and continues to desecrate the wonderful game. Shame on the schmucks who have to ruin now trying to make up for THEIR OWN mistakes of the past.

Everytime on of these stories breaks about events that happened YEARS AGO, it ruins the present for many people who are more emotionally involved than logically inclined.

To FIX something, you can't CONSTANTLY point out all of the things that used to be broken...

Areed whole-heartedly with your second comment. We need to wipe the slate clean and move forward. But, that won't happen because it won't sell ad space in newspapers and on the Entertainment network. With your first comment I agree and disagree. I think the Greenies epidemic was far more widespread than steroids are today (I could be wrong). I think the players get a pass for several reasons on that one. One being that information was not nearly as accessable then than it is now. So, basically it was easy to be ignorant to the issue. Secondly, I think lots of people can relate to taking "uppers" in order to raise their energy levels. How many people do you know that drink too much coffee. You see energy drinks and supplements in every grocery and convenience store in America. It is a lot harder to relate to "I need to bulk up to be better at my job". Where I have to disagree is when you say "Being strong doesn't help you play better". My first reaction is to say, "if it doesn't make you better then why do they do it?" Now, I know it won't make just anyone better at baseball as a whole. But, I do think it can make a good player better at some aspects of the game. I would think that being stonger would help you throw harder. I also think that being strong will help increase bat speed or perhaps allow you to swing a bigger bat at the same speed. I didn't play a lot of organized baseball growing up. Frankly, I stunk (my sister got the baseball genes in my family). But, I did play a number of other sports through out my life. It has been my experience that being stronger always helped (please note that I am not referring to huge amounts of mass that would obviously slow an athlete down). Now, that being said, I also noticed that being stronger alone, really wasn't much help at all. Good reflexes, technique, foresight, and knowledge of the sport,along with, let say "a required amount of strength" were all necessary to be excel at a sport. So what I am getting at is that increased strength will help an athlete who already possesses the rest of the ingredients necessary to excel.

Did I miss something? Didn't Selig and MLB withhold this list from 2003?

I hope you're joking about Pedro Martinez because I've seen next to nothing to suggest steroid use. Not only was he far from muscular, he couldn't recover from injuries. He gradually became a 7 inning pitcher and muscle injuries continue to plague him. Roids and HGH help you recover from injuries quickly, and that's one thing Pedro's never done.