according to an ap story which appeared on boston.com today, more than 5% of major league baseball players tested positive for steroids. the players were tested anonymously this year per the last collective bargaining agreement. if more than 5% of players test positive, steroid testing becomes mandatory next year; and so it will.

let's see.... i guess this means no 70 home run seasons next year, maybe barry's pace will slow down some, shortstops will again be known for their glove and not their bat....

oh, what is happening to my beloved baseball?

From a Yahoo article:

It doesn't specify how they'll decide who is tested...or is every player automatically tested at some point?

From what I've heard, it's still random testing. And I haven't seen any explanation of how the randomness is determined. I also haven't seen anything concerning every player eventually being tested. MLB is leaving everybody in the dark about it so far.

I think that 5% number sounds very low.

I'll believe 5-7% on steroids at the time of testing. Most people who use them don't use them continuously, and I'll bet a lot of the steroid use is during the off season. So there could easily be 25 or even 50% having used them, but only 5-7% actively on them.

Despite the fact that there's definitely steroids in baseball, I still think their impact on the home run surge is overrated. Weight training would still have an effect on the game without steroids and the number of home runs in the AL is not that far off historic records (less than 20% higher than in the early 60's). Maris still holds the AL record. I think the ballparks in the NL have been the biggest change--Wrigley, once the best hitters park in baseball is now an AVERAGE national league park.

5-7% of those tested came out positive for steroids. How could they have been so stupid??? They had weeks (months?) notice of when the tests were going to be administered and still didn't get off the juice--even for the period leading up to the tests. "What eskimo pie-heads...what maroons!"

~Adam

[ November 14, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

World Anti-Doping Agency head: Baseball policy \"a complete joke\".
JC, while it's true that weight training and the ballparks have had an effect, when someone shows up in spring training with 15-20 lbs. of added muscle, there's only one explanation: he's juicing. From everything I've read, just working out will not accomplish that. I mean, Brady Anderson averaged about 15 HR's a year until he hit 50 in 1996. Maybe he suddenly learned to hit for power, but somehow I doubt it.

The article points out that a .220 hitter isn't going to win the batting title [paraphrase] but that's not the point; it's the .260 hitter, on the fringes of a team, that by juicing, assures his job.

Well, Maris never hit 40 home runs before or after his big season. As far as Anderson goes, he had hit 21 once before, and only had one more 20 HR season afterward. I don't recall his muscles suddenly disappearing after the '96 season. I think it was just a fluke year, which he might have had with or without steroids.

Look--OBVIOUSLY there are players on steroids.
I'm not saying steroids have no impact, but I'm not convinced that simply being bigger makes you hit that many more home runs. McGwire hit 49 HRs when he was 23 and not that bulky, so he was a phenomenal slugger with or without giant muscles. Tall players who aren't hugely muscled have always hit lots of home runs--think of Eric Davis and Darryl Strawberry. Given that most players prior to the '80's did little or no weight training, you've got to figure players would be noticeably more muscular today, even without steroids.Where they may be having an impact is on older players...but again, how much of that is improved training.

Perspective on steroids hysteria:

'Roids not as dangerous to health or \"integrity\" as hyped claims (Reason.com)


Steroid use is bad, but not tragic (Rob Neyer)