Saturday, February 7, 2009

A-Rod ain't an Astro, but it's still a story

Surely - surely - you know by now that A-Rod has reportedly tested positive for two types of steroids. And I know that A-Rod is not an Astro, but today's reports are troubling for a variety of reasons.

There was just a lot made about A-Rod's softball interview with Katie Couric last December where he flat denied taking steroids. How could he say that, when he may have taken steroids? Maybe because nobody was supposed to know the results of those tests in 2003.

That's right, those tests were supposed to be anonymous. And there's something going on with Blogger right now that I can't link to it, but the address is http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/baseball/mlb/11/13/mlb.steroids.ap.index.html

The reason the tests took place in 2003 was to determine if steroid use was rampant enough to warrant mandatory testing. So 1438 "anonymous tests" took place in 2003, and between 5%-7% tested positive. What's troubling - and what should be troubling to those 1438 players - is that, all of a sudden, names have been put to numbers.

So when Katie Couric lobs questions underhand to A-Rod, he thinks he can say - without fear of reprisal - that no, he did not take steroids. Because who's going to put it together? It's anonymous.

1438 players to be tested is a lot. Especially when you consider that there are 750 Major League roster spots (25 x 30). Apparently there were 104 of those players who tested positive. So what it looks like may happen is that we'll have 103 (counting the BALCO guys) more Special Reports on the MLB Network.

I welcome this, and I dread this.

So the question, Dear Citizen, is this: Which player's positive report would destroy your faith in baseball?

3 comments:

Aaron said...

Lance Berkman. No question. Or someone like Greg Maddux.

This report shocks me a little. I was convinced A-rod was going to be baseball's HR savior. That was all the talk when Bonds was taking the reigns. The media were just praying that A-rod didn't miss a couple of seasons since he was going to "easily" break Bonds' record if he stayed healthy. Then they could just forget the steroid era ever existed. This throws all that in the crapper.

I honestly don't think we'll hear many more names from that 03 test. My guess is that someone took special interest in hunting for a few names or got a nice little check to release a high profile player. We'll see.

It's 72 degrees at my house today. Can baseball get here already

The Constable. said...

I feel the same about Berkman, but that's a good call on Greg Maddux. Maybe someone like David Eckstein, who I largely look at as a baseball player out of the 1950s, what with his 4'7", 85 lb frame...

Ty said...

It wouldn't destroy my faith, but confirm my suspicions...Luis Gonzalez. Anyone? 110lbs soaking wet to 170lbs like a normal person and suddenly, dude's one of the premiere homerun hitters in the game? Seriously? No chance. It's like the year Brady Anderson up and hit 50 bombs, never to be seen nor heard from again...'Roid aided bombs. As Wikipedia so aptly puts it:
"Fifteen of the 24 club members have hit 50+ homers only once in their careers. Of them, Brady Anderson's 1996 performance was the greatest statistical deviation from his career numbers; `96 season was the only time in his career that he hit even 25 homers, and was one of only three seasons in which he hit as many as 20. Anderson's career home run total of 210 is the lowest of all retired members of the 50-homer club." And, "Luis Gonzalez with 57 homers in 2001 had never come as close to 50 as 31 previously and never came as close as 30 to 50 again."