50 Major League Baseball Players to Be Named Using Steroids

**alaskaguy** · 12-12-2007, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by wesley_w

Since it is 50 players and former players, what do you want to bet it's 48 former players nobody has heard of, and 2 current players nobody cares about.

The Boston Globe is reporting that 11 of the players that will be identified by the Mitchell Report are currently free agents.

I assume that reduces their marketability as a free agent.

**cybsball20** · 12-12-2007, 11:41 AM

I think they are going to be pretty carefull with this whole situation. They won't name a name unless they have ALOT of proof for fear of a lawsuit. I am guessing players will be omitted and treated like those whose names came up (Glaus, Matthews, etc) but had little proof. The only ones being suspended will be the ones that have a great deal of proof.

**superdorf** · 12-12-2007, 11:42 AM

the nfl already has a very strict drug policy.

**CloneCubbie** · 12-12-2007, 11:47 AM

Ultimatly baseball is a business and i believe whole heartedly that Selig will not infact do what is best for baseball as a sport (ban, ban, & ban), but will do what is best for baseball as a business (slap on the write suspensions). Frankly, It pisses me off.

Is using steroids cheating? That's the question... some say yes. Some make the argument that it's just using technology. I personally think that it's cheating.

If you cork a bat, you are suspended a few games.
Bet on baseball, you're kicked out for life.

I just don't know where steroid use falls in line. I think it's got be a little closer to the latter of the two. So you suspend the steroid user for fifteen games... do you think that magically the steroids have cleared their system and they're back to their pre-roid state?!? Really?!? WTF is a fifteen game suspension going to do?

How about if you're caught, take a year out to think about what your priorities are. Then, if/when, you come back, you're on a regimented program of tests to make sure that you don't continue to cheat.

Okay, this post got out of hand. I apologize and I need to get back to work... arg!

**cybsball20** · 12-12-2007, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by superdorf

the nfl already has a very strict drug policy.

The NFL doesn't test against HGH and there are always doctors out there trying to develop 'undetectable' steroids. I think a similar investigation into drug use in the NFL would be just as scary...

**ISUFan22** · 12-12-2007, 11:52 AM

I agree that putting a microscope on the NFL could be frightening.

I do think the NFL handles substance abuse better than any other league - but thinking the NFL is void of these problems is naive.

**jdoggivjc** · 12-12-2007, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by ISUFan22

I agree that putting a microscope on the NFL could be frightening.

I do think the NFL handles substance abuse better than any other league - but thinking the NFL is void of these problems is naive.

Exactly. If you've ever saw the ESPN series PlayMakers, if that series is to be believed at all it's quite frightening what some players will due to circumvent the drug tests...

**sodakjoe** · 12-12-2007, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by superdorf

the nfl already has a very strict drug policy.

Are you serious?

I need only remind you of this:

**jumbopackage** · 12-12-2007, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

I suspect the Mets will get hammered since a former Mets bat boy cooperated with the Mitchell investigation.

The NYT states that a 50 day suspension is currently in place for those failing steroid drug tests. However, the evidence that Mitchell will use to cite players is expected to be documentary in nature — canceled checks, shipping slips, phone records — and not based on positive drug tests.

I just heard on ESPN that the report will recommend, amongst other things, that even circumstantial evidence should be used in handing out suspensions.

Quite interesting.

**kingcy** · 12-12-2007, 10:12 PM

Only 50 players. All that time and money are we only get 50 names. I was thinking it would be in the 150 player range, that would be about 5 per team, or about 20% of baseball. Heck 50 players is just over 5% of the sport.

**cybsball20** · 12-12-2007, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by jumbopackage

I just heard on ESPN that the report will recommend, amongst other things, that even circumstantial evidence should be used in handing out suspensions.

Quite interesting.

We saw with guys like Glaus and Matthews that it will take alot of evidence to suspend without a test. I imagine they won't name guys unless they have enough ammo to suspend. You don't want 50 defamation suits on your hands...

**Wesley** · 12-12-2007, 11:12 PM

Who are the heroes in baseball?

First, Pete Rose with the most hits and gambling. Then Barry Bonds with the most homeruns and the clear/roids. At this rate next it will be Roger Clemons with hundreds of pitching victories and HGH.

**superdorf** · 12-12-2007, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

Exactly. If you've ever saw the ESPN series PlayMakers, if that series is to be believed at all it's quite frightening what some players will due to circumvent the drug tests...

I was just pointing out that they DO have a drug policy. In fact they had one LONG before the MLB did. If the MLB adopted the NFL policy they wouldn't be facing the release of a report that names players tomorrow.

I am not naive... I realize that the NFL has its own drug problems, but they are much more manageable with a strict substance abuse policy.

**Erik4Cy** · 12-13-2007, 12:07 AM

I heard 80 people on ESPN's bottom line...apparently there are a lot of BIG names too, Cy young winners, MVP winners, etc.

**CYKOFAN** · 12-13-2007, 12:26 AM

Cracking down on steroid use is good and long overdue, but I think naming names is a joke as there is likely another several hundred players that used in the last 15 plus years and won't be named. I'm sure it would be the same in pro and d-1 college football, and I don't think a lot of us would want to know the names. A lot of owners, athletic directors and coaches have looked the other way until recently, but I'm sure we won't hear any of their names.