In case you haven't heard... Here's Will Carroll on the Baseball Prospectus site:

and as no surprise, shortly after this was announced, the Diamondbacks released Grimsley. Since I doubt that because of this he will have any other team interested in signing him, I wonder if Jason will start naming names...

josh

Jayson Stark's column on ESPN.com.

Do people ever read more than the first sentence of posts preceding theirs? That he named names is the story.

The feeding frenzy on scraps of allegations is getting very McCarthyist.

naming names in blacked out magic marker is a lot different than naming names in an interview so the rest of the world can know what's going on....

that's what i was talking about...

josh

Jason Grimsley listed approximately 30 different names, which were redacted in the transcripts. Does anyone really think those names will remain unknown--grand jusy testimony by Jason Giambi, et al was leaked, after all. With the legal problems Grimsley will be facing--even the IRS is investigating whether he ever distributed HGH--he may cut a deal to avoid (or lessen) jail time and whatever deal he makes will be made public, eventually.

Additionally, the George Mitchell-led investigation continues. It was given great latitude by Bud Selig (who couldn't possibly have had his head in the sand over this) and its final report will have to be public. And let's not overlook the possibility of Congress holding another hearing (was there anything funnier than Mark McGwire not answering questions last time?) into the use of banned substances in baseball.

What most troubles me is the collective silence of players during the "steroid era." Many knew of the HGH and steroid use and chose not to clean up their own sport. They could have gone to the players' union, demanded testing, spoken to the press, or in some other way made cleaning up their game an issue but instead looked the other way. Pity.

~Adam

Good points Adam. I have a sense generally that the steroid issue just doesn't have the "legs" once thought. Every revelation seems to be met with a lot of fanfare in the press followed by indifference. I wonder why this is the case.

I think many people have long thought most players have used some substance. Thus, what's happening now has the feel of old news or merely confirming what we've already known in our bones. Couple that with the players' union indifference and the fans' lack of interest in understandable. If the players themselves don't care about their health or the game's integrity, why should we?

~Adam

Why do I keep hearing that the IRS is leading the investigation, shouldn't it be the FBI regarding the use of illegal substances and interstate transport? The function of the IRS is to collect taxes on the sale of goods, not to determine whether the use or sale of said substances are illegal. Does the IRS get invovled in every drug dealing case that comes about? What am I missing here?

[ June 08, 2006, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: phillyrunner ]

What I don't understand is why Congress is involved with steroid use in baseball. What a stupid waste of taxpayer's time and money, and what does the US government have to do with a private enterprise like Major League Baseball. I certainly didn't vote for Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein so they they could investigate steroid use among baseball players.

Whether it's the IRS or the FBI is just a moot point. Government shouldn't be involved period. It's just a high-profile issue to get them in front of TV cameras and in the newspaper. Free publicity.

according to deadspin.com, it looks like albert pujols may come under some fire when all is said and done...

phillyrunner, from what I understand, the IRS is looking into the possibility that Grimsley distributed HGH--in addiiton to his personal use--and evaded paying taxes on whatever profits he made.

~Adam

Perhaps because, talk-radio yapping and TV sign-carrying aside, most fans don't care? And maybe some actually know that 'cheating' / seeking an edge is as old as the sport's history?

Here's the Deadspin report alluded to above: Albert Pujols' personal trainer was reportedly named by Grimsley.

I honestly don't think most baseball fans give a rat's posterior if players dope up...unless someone from "the other team" doped up, thus granting them an "unfair advantage".

LXN

A few questions:
1) Exactly how credible is Deadspin? To me, they appear nothing more than a glorified tabloid. This appears to be an example of wanna-be journalists who have nothing better to do with their time. Their sources are unconfirmed. And here we have supposedly intelligent adults buying into this garbage. This is journalism at its' finest.

2) Has Albert Pujols actually been convicted of anything? To reiterate an eariler point, do we not believe in the basic tenet of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"? If he has, then by all means, mock and torture him. If he hasn't, stop implicating his name until he's found guilty. This sounds like Mr. Grimsley is trying to shift the focus off his own cheating ass. Disgusting case of opportunism, if you ask me.

If I become a journalist, and I EVER lower myself to the level of doing something this underhanded to make a name for myself, I want someone to bitchslap me into next Tuesday. Thanks.

I guess I'm the lone wolf here, but I don't think anyone, athlete or not (e.g., baseball players, in this case), is above the law. If we think that an existing law is unfair, unjust, or no longer serves a good purpose, then we should use every legal and democratic means at our disposal to have them overturned. But as long as these laws are on the books, it remains a crime to possess PEDs, amphetamines, etc.. So, the enforcement wings of the FBI, IRS, and United States Congress are behaving in a manner consistent with upholding existing law; notwithstanding Baseball's drug testing and rehabilitation policies.

Baseball players must abide by the law just like the rest of us; look at the recent legal problems that several NHL players faced as a result of intentional injuries that left an opposing player maimed for life. The NHL has rules in place for dealing with these on-the-ice transgressions, but those rules relate only to disciplinary action imposed by the league itself. The offended party can still seek civil or criminal judgement in a court of law, and the NHL can't do anything about it. One set of punishments is determined by League disciplinarians (e.g.; for high sticking or fighting); the other punishment is determine by a judge and/or jury (for assault). Sports rules dictate player behavior in connection with their team or league, but federal law dictates players behavior in all facets of their lives. This is why investigating agencies like the IRS, FBI, etc, have every right to investigate illegal or suspected illegal activity in baseball. That's their mission.

Although I agree with everybody who thinks that some of the players whose names have surfaced recently are being treated unfairly (rumors and inuendo; e.g. Pujols) without any proof, others basbeall players (we all know who they are) have admitted to using illegal drugs. So, for these guys, getting caught and threatened with dismissal from baseball or time behind bars is the price they pay for using.

I don't think that using amphetamines or PEDs make them bad people; every one makes mistakes. The important thing is that they admit bad judgement, admit their illegal activity (If applicable), perform some kind of restitution, ask for forgiveness, and quit using. We, the fans, always forgive our heroes.

At ths point, I wouldn't be shocked no matter who is proven to be a user; not even Pujols. I know that amphetamines (but not HGHs) are fairly common among collegiate and minor league players, so it's logical that they would continue using in the majors.

[ June 09, 2006, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Thomas ]

I read an interesting opinion. Essentially, the article said that most people don't care about the drug issues enough to stop going to games, watching on TV, etc. because they don't deeply care about baseball any more, not after the 1994 strike. Between the money issues and the cheaters, people don't expect teams and players to be honest, fair competitors. So to most people baseball is now just another form of entertainment.

I would agree. I think people are indifferent to the drug issue as a whole.

Because it's not like players have never used drugs in the past...We were friends with some major leaguers when I was growing up in the early 70s and they were using back then...This is nothing new. What is new is that MLB is not looking the other way like they used to. It's all for PR's sake right now...

Well, if that's true that people don't care about cheating, lying and use of illegal substances, then that is very sad. I guess we get what we deserve.

This may only be baseball, but it reflects on people in everyday life. Cheat on your exams at school so you can get a degree. Use your bogus degree to get a job that you're not competent in. And then, because your work is second-rate, sell your product illegally. Who cares if your malfunctioning product kills somebody. Cheating, lying and illegal activity: people have been doing it since the beginning of time.

But I say, just because it's been going on forever, doesn't mean it's good. And it doesn't mean that we shouldn't care.

Jim Leyritz admits to amphetamine use.

If the last part is true, I don't see how MLB, management and ownership, coaches, and even media (who were in locker rooms), I don't see how they can claim that they didn't know what was going on for all those years.

That's my point. They all looked the other way, which makes this whole thing now pretty hypicritical. Do I like cheating? No. But this has been going on in one way, shape or form for 30 plus years.

Every so often, we get a grand example of chutzpah . This time, we can thank Jason Grimsley, who has decided to fight the Diamnondbacks for the rest of his salary!! He was released the day after federal agents seasrched his home and he admitted to having used banned substances (steroids and HGH.) His agent says that the players' association supports Grimsley in his attempt to receive his full salary.

It is to laugh.

~Adam

Of course. What else would you expect?

Oh dear Lord! How can they take such a blatantly idiotic position? And we fans wonder just how we have gotten to the point where Barry Bonds is more juiced up than the local Jamba Juice. It starts with the things like this. UGH!

HMMM... I really don't believe these drugs are illegal. If a doctor prescribes a steroid, which is how most people get them (underhanded or not), there's no illegal activity. So the argument for government involvement falls apart. At least this is true for the periods before MLB's ban on the use of the PED's. Any activity before the ban can't be viewed as illegal, because it simply wasn't.

Well in a case of who's dummer Grimsley or MLB, I would say MLB is right up there with their turning a blind eye to substance abuse all these years. But their idiocy is even more apparent now that they suspended Grimsley for 50 days for violating the substance abuse policy.

Hello MLB; "Grimsley basically quit MLB when he asked for his release. You should have done something while he was playing and it mattered". Giving him a 50 day suspension now is like giving a speeding ticket to a man who was killed in an accident for speeding.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you that the Players Association is wrong to defend Grimsley's attempt to obtain the remainder of his salary (what's he owed anyway; $800,000 or $400,000?). But not in this case. I think Grimsley, as a repeat offender, deserved the 50 game suspension he received from the league, but traditionally, when a player is unconditionally released, he is contractually guaranteed the balance of his current year's salary (at least, that's the way the league used to interpret a standard player contract).

The point is you can't have shirts interpreting player contracts AND moral trangressions. Why? Because baseball owners view moral transgressions just like the rest of us; from their own set of personal beliefs and values. Once you give shirts like the Diamondbacks manager Kendricks the power to act as a morality monitor and judge and jury for each player on his team, the integrity of the player contract itself becomes meaningless because Kendrick could void it any time he wants just by invoking some convenient language reflecting a morals violation. That's way too much power to give an owner. Some owners are unscrupulous and wouldn't hesitate to threaten a player with exposure if he didn't give in to their demands (e.g.; the right to trade, option, or sign a financially unfriendly contract). I don't blame the Players Association one bit for stepping in to fight this.

Kendricks, from what I understandd, is a good man of high moral fiber, but he's unknowingly using the Jason Grimsley situation to stage a coup for basbeall's autocratic old farts to scream "moral transgression" as a means of leveraging financial disputes in their favor. The problem with allowing managers to do this is that it implies they have the moral integrity to make such a call, and I'm not convinced they do.

[ June 12, 2006, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Thomas ]

Bill, my man, you got a one track mind. Whether a doctor prescribed the PEDs or not, it's an unfair advantage unless all players get to use them, or, none use them. I understand your position on amphetamines because all of them use them (that's what I believe) and they don't increase muscle mass anyway, but HGH does. The only question is: did Grimsley use HGH? He's already admitted doing this, whether baseball's newly instituted drug enforcement policy caught the cheating or not. Bud Selig has the power to fine or even dismiss him from baseball, and I think he acted properly by giving out a 50 game suspension, but the D'backs management sure as hell do not possess the right to refuse to pay Grimsley the money he's owed.

I don't agree with your position on Barry Bonds and PEDs, but, at least there you had an sustainable argument. Everything happened before the ban. But wasn't Grimsley admission of PED use made after baseball initiated its ban on PEDS? If so, the Barry Bonds argument does not apply to Grimsley. He's toast.

[ June 12, 2006, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Thomas ]

The major point I'm making is that the government should not at all be involved in this investigation. It's a Major League Baseball issue, period. The government has no jurisdiction in this area. Capice?

Do you really think he had a prescription?
No prescription and it does become the government's business.

If you're talking about Barry Bonds, he has stated that he was told he was being given flax seed pills and an anti-arthritic ointment (or something like that). So, he didn't need a prescription. And there's never going to be any proof that his story is false.

...except there's still that little matter of a perjury investigation. Maybe you trust Bonds but it's clearly a misguided trust.

And just how long DID his nose get while he offered this convenient excuse?

But, I have a prescription! David Segui admist he used HGH.

pretty long.....but no one ever noticed because his head was expanding at roughly the same rate.....

Kind of like OJ Simpson.

Of course, some people believe him, too.

The San Francisco Giants confirmed that some of their coaching staff have been been asked to testify before the George Mitchell-led commission looking into steroid use. Felipe Alou says he hasn't been asked to testify but expects that he will be called.

~Adam

Whereas the government should not HAVE to get involved in steroids and baseball, they have had to get involved because of an inability for MLB and the players union to do anything about it--those two organizations have had to answer to no one and continue to act supremely above scrutiny. If that's the case, then the government is called to get involved, sort of like it's investigation of Enron or gas gauging or whatever.

Now is Segui can get a prescription for HGH, then I too should be able to also. I mean, I've never been able to add 15 or 20 pounds of muscle although I have tried to gain weight through eating and working out. Isn't that a legitimate excuse? Give me my HGH. But of course my doctor would never do that just so that I might get bigger because he's looking out for my better interests in the long run, and I'm not handing him wads of cash incentives to help me get where I want to be.

Jose Canseco has been asked to speak to investigators from the George Mitchell-led commission (what's left for Canseco to say??) and members of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays coaching staff have also been asked to speak with investigators.

I know that Mitchell was given wide latitude by Selig and can take the investigation into any direction he sees fit, but wonder what he--and baseball executives--sees as the end date for the investigation.

~Adam

As the reliably BS-free Joe Sheehan writes at Baseball Prospectus:

>>>Mitchell really should think about chasing down every ex-mistress out there, because there are few sources more reliable than a scorned lover.

An investigation without end. How many ex-mistresses are there out there? Thousands? And how many of them are bitter? Thousands?

And I still believe this is a tempest in a teapot. What will be shocking about the names on the list? If the list is ten names, fifty names, three hundred names long, it'll be like the announcement that Liberace was gay - their diehard fans will be shocked, SHOCKED, whereas the rest of the public will say, "Who cares? Get back to the game already."

LXN

Another pitcher admits to steroid use. USAToday/AP article.

There are reports that Jason Grimsley and the D'Backs are close to an agreement in his compensation dispute, with both sides agreeing the remainder of Grimsley's salary should be donated to a charity--perhaps, in honor of Grimsley, the Arizona Home for Wayward Morons... wink

~Adam