February 13, 200917 yr This has been a source of a lot of discussion on MLB radio on XM, at least. It seems like everyone has a different opinion on this. But basically, the question is, 'Should MLB and the MLBPA just go ahead and release the names of the 103 players who tested positive for banned substances in 2003 and get it out of the way, or try and keep the names secret?' My view is, it is time for baseball to come as clean as they can. All of the names should be released, especially since A-Rod's name is out already. I don't think you can stop the rest of the names from coming out at this point, since reporters are doing everything they can to get a hold of the names, and a California court is looking into whether the names should be made public or not. My fear is that MLB will try and keep them under wraps, but the names will leak out very slowly, like 2-3 every 3 months, and every time it will be a PR hit to the game. If they just give out the names now, they can get it over with, and make this a non-issue in a month. Your thoughts?
February 13, 200917 yr No The union agreed to it because it granted players anonymity. Why in God's name should they be released? Absolutely bulls***.
February 13, 200917 yr Yes If they release ARod's name...release the other 103. And treat the other 103 the same way. Enough with the double standard bulls***. C'mon...treat them the same way you would a great ballplayer.
February 13, 200917 yr This is a really hard question to answer. Either way, someone is going to be treated unfairly. If you don't release the other 103 names, it is not fair to A-Rod because he is singled out. If you do release the 103 names, it is not fair to them because, as Nny said, they were supposed to be guaranteed anonymity, and any player on the list would surely see their careers become tainted over night. I do kind of agree with FGM, though. If they can get all the names out at once, it would definitely 'heal the scar' faster than if a couple names at a time were leaked out little by little. I really don't know. I'll have to think about it some more
February 13, 200917 yr I belive they should only because they released Arod's. That's really not fair to taint 1 mans career just because he's better then most and leave the rest out. It dosen't matter if there no names or the Home Run king cheating is cheating and everyone should be punished equally.
February 13, 200917 yr Yes If they release ARod's name...release the other 103. And treat the other 103 the same way. Enough with the double standard bulls***. C'mon...treat them the same way you would a great ballplayer. Exactly. They shouldn't even have mentioned there was a list with 103 other people for that matter.
February 13, 200917 yr Absolutely. A-Rod, arguably the greatest player to play the game, has been tainted by it dispite the fact it should have never been released. If he has to go down, so should everyone else. ESPECIALLY if there is action taken by Selig and the league/ If that happens, and they don't release the other names and treat them with the same punishment, there is something very wrong.
February 13, 200917 yr Absolutely not. Just because you make one mistake, that doesn't mean you should make 103 more.
February 13, 200917 yr Absolutely not. Just because you make one mistake, that doesn't mean you should make 103 more. Exactly. If you accidentally release an inmate from jail, should you release all the other inmates to be "fair?"
February 13, 200917 yr Author Absolutely not. Just because you make one mistake, that doesn't mean you should make 103 more. Exactly. If you accidentally release an inmate from jail, should you release all the other inmates to be "fair?" Uh, that's a bit of an extreme example, don't you think? Considering how many billions of dollars the public spends on MLB tickets, merchandise, etc., I think we should be allowed to know the truth about who is cheating or not. Granted some of the time it is pretty easy to notice who is juicing, but then there are cases like Alex Sanchez, who no one would ever suspect. I also do not know for a fact if the agreement was legally binding between the MLB and the MLBPA. My guess is no, otherwise we would be hearing about an impending lawsuit. I do know that the firm hired to conduct the testing in 2003 has lost all of their business, even though it looks like someone working at the MLBPA forgot to send in the paperwork telling the lab to destroy the samples. Now they legally can't destroy them, because they are being held as evidence in both the Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds impending perjury trials. I would also like MLB to investigate the reports that Gene Orza of the MLBPA tipped off the players as to the test date in 2003 with 3-4 months notice, which would have given many of them enough time to clean up before the exams. If it is true that A-Rod was tipped off (as reported), and still tested positive anyway, this guy has some balls on him.
February 13, 200917 yr Personally I would love to know the other 103 names. I believe we as fans have the RIGHT to know.
February 13, 200917 yr Personally I would love to know the other 103 names. So would I but it's not about that. It's about whether or not it's ethically right to release the names, and the answer to that is no.
February 13, 200917 yr 100% yes.... Why should ARod be the only one....Lets get it on the open... The main reason why i think they should be released is because there are guys on that list that are going to be HOFer's.. How fair would that be if they get in and Arod doesnt.... Think about it....
February 13, 200917 yr From what i hear, Kirk Radomski(SP) says Arod was outed by 4 players. So its not like his name was leaked.
February 14, 200917 yr Author From what i hear, Kirk Radomski(SP) says Arod was outed by 4 players. So its not like his name was leaked. I listened to him do an interview on MLB Home Plate on XM earlier this week, and he never said anything about this... Although he just released a new book.
February 14, 200917 yr From what i hear, Kirk Radomski(SP) says Arod was outed by 4 players. So its not like his name was leaked. I listened to him do an interview on MLB Home Plate on XM earlier this week, and he never said anything about this... Although he just released a new book. HEard it from ESPN. He did an interview in NY yesterday i think and thats when he sais Arod was outed by 4 players and he knows who they are.
February 14, 200917 yr Personally I would love to know the other 103 names. So would I but it's not about that. It's about whether or not it's ethically right to release the names, and the answer to that is no. I would keep it a secret though.
February 14, 200917 yr No. A-rod's name should have never been released. the test was done under the belief that the players would be anonymous. released the other 103 names would not only be unethical but it will look bad on MLB and cause the players to lose trust in them. Steroid rules were not enforced by MLB. they did the test to see if they had a problem, which they did. they took care of it in '04. what happened in '03 does not matter now.
February 14, 200917 yr Uh, that's a bit of an extreme example, don't you think? The fact that it is extreme is irrelevant. The principles are exactly the same - the question of what is a more appropriate course of action - to do what is right as far as honoring agreements and responsibilities, or to disregard them in the interests of fairness because of one case where it didn't happen. To me, it's a no brainer - it was wrong to release the Alex Rodriguez's results, and if 2 wrongs don't make a right, then 104 wrongs don't make a right. Considering how many billions of dollars the public spends on MLB tickets, merchandise, etc., I think we should be allowed to know the truth about who is cheating or not. Granted some of the time it is pretty easy to notice who is juicing, but then there are cases like Alex Sanchez, who no one would ever suspect. No, you don't. Steroid use in baseball was obvious a long time ago, and if you took issue with it you have the option to not spend money on baseball. There is no agreement in you buying tickets or merchandise than entitles you to anything other than seeing a game or owning said merchandise. And cases like Alex Sanchez are irrelevant, because he was a scrub. I also do not know for a fact if the agreement was legally binding between the MLB and the MLBPA. My guess is no, otherwise we would be hearing about an impending lawsuit. I do know that the firm hired to conduct the testing in 2003 has lost all of their business, even though it looks like someone working at the MLBPA forgot to send in the paperwork telling the lab to destroy the samples. Now they legally can't destroy them, because they are being held as evidence in both the Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds impending perjury trials. The amount of money being spent to prosecute these guys is just embarassing. This whole idea of having the government involved in policing baseball has been a waste of time and money that (at least now) I hope we can all see was very unnecessary. I would also like MLB to investigate the reports that Gene Orza of the MLBPA tipped off the players as to the test date in 2003 with 3-4 months notice, which would have given many of them enough time to clean up before the exams. If it is true that A-Rod was tipped off (as reported), and still tested positive anyway, this guy has some balls on him. Why? From a legal standpoint, why would he not be entitled to tell anyone he wanted to ahead of time?
February 15, 200917 yr Author I have not heard any evidence yet that prosecuting Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens is costing more than it would for another high-profile non-sports figure. I'm sorry, but the fans of baseball make the whole game. Without any fans, MLB can't afford to pay out larger salaries. One thing I do like about this offseason is the fact that the exploding free agent values have declined, and many free agents this season have either had to take a pay cut or will be sitting at home during Spring Training. I have never seen this many name players unsigned as Spring Training is starting.
February 16, 200917 yr I have not heard any evidence yet that prosecuting Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens is costing more than it would for another high-profile non-sports figure. I have not heard evidence that Barry Bonds harmed anyone by taking steroids to become an unnaturally good baseball player, so I think it's a waste of time and money to prosecute him. If MLB honestly had a problem with it, they could have tested players and banned users on their own. But MLB had no problem with him, the MLBPA had no problem with him, and the fans had no problem with him. So lets stop pretending thet Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens actually did something akin to rape or robbery. So if I'm being unclear, I think that spending ANY MONEY (as in more than $0.00) to prosecute these guys is waste of money that will do nothing for the tax-payer. Nevermind the cost we may have to bear if any of them go to jail. I'm sorry, but the fans of baseball make the whole game. Without any fans, MLB can't afford to pay out larger salaries. I agree. But if the fans really had a problem with all this then they wouldn't have been packing in stadiums and buying merchandise throughout the "steroid era". But the reality is that no one cared when you had these guys hitting 60-70 HRs a year, everyone enjoyed, and there's nothing wrong with people enjoying it. If a player is willing to destroy their body for the performance gains they can get here, I certainly feel no need to stand in the way. One thing I do like about this offseason is the fact that the exploding free agent values have declined, and many free agents this season have either had to take a pay cut or will be sitting at home during Spring Training. I have never seen this many name players unsigned as Spring Training is starting. This is irrelevant.
February 17, 200917 yr Yes If they release ARod's name...release the other 103. And treat the other 103 the same way. Enough with the double standard bulls***. C'mon...treat them the same way you would a great ballplayer. This. Then fire Donald Fehr and Gene Orza as inept union managers.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.