Yeah, I’d guess that Fehr is pretty P.O’d and that the way this was handled will really complicate the process of actually solving the problem. The Player’s Union is the key – they have to sign on to any real testing program and punishment schedule. If I were representing the player’s (and realized something was inevitable given the scrutiny), I would want to negotiate for three main things: amnesty, confidentiality, and a combination due process/benefit of the doubt.

Amnesty – what happened years ago happened years ago, and lots of people are responsible, so nothing good would come from punishing guys who juiced years ago.

Confidentiality – No one should have his name officially associated with PEDs except when absolutely necessary. E.g., if he tests positive, appeals and wins the appeal, no one ever knows (call this the Travis Henry rule if you want). The only time the public hears someone’s name is when they have exhausted the appeals process and begin their suspension/penalty, etc. Otherwise, it’s treated like medical information and treated like HIPPA.

Due process/benefit of the doubt – hearsay, speculation and one-off test results are not sufficient to punish a player.

This report spectacularly violates every single one of those points. Okay, enough. I’m all done bagging on Mitchell and Selig and this stupid fiasco.

http://www.gocomics.com/tomtoles/2007/12/14/

Derek had a pretty good take on this over at his Cheater’s Guide site:

-there was a home run surge at the same time as steroids started to come into the game, but the surge in large part was not due to steroids
- it’s possible that the huge surge in home runs actually drew attention away from the spread of steroids: after all, if the most prominent players having power surges were clean (and not at all the classic bulky muscle-bound guy we think of as suspects), then it’s hard to look at any specific cases, or team, and see a new factor
- because baseball had seen corked bats, rabbit balls, and the other causes before, those were the causes they speculated about.

He also notes, via comments from Bobby Valentine, that at least some smart people in the game didn’t immediately realize what was going on.

Hey, and guess what – steroids also help improve visual acuity and are a treatment for an array of eye ailments. I’m guessing no one has done a study on healthy people (would be pretty unethical to say the least given the long-term complications) but there’s some anecdotal evidence:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/060512

OK, now THAT is what I was asking for (and thank you!). That articles details how, why, where steroids could help and estimates (and in a way where we can see where the fiddle marks are) what the effects were.

Hey, and guess what – steroids also help improve visual acuity and are a treatment for an array of eye ailments. I’m guessing no one has done a study on healthy people (would be pretty unethical to say the least given the long-term complications) but there’s some anecdotal evidence:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/060512

“More on confidence: “Game of Shadows” reports that performance enhancers improved Bonds’ eyesight, helping him track pitches. Coincidence? Not necessarily. Extra bat speed means extra time to differentiate between a fastball and a slider.”

But in his age 39 year, Bonds had 120 intentional walks. Aaron had 13. Intentional walks tell you nothing quantitative or qualitative about a hitter’s power, except inferentially that the recipient of the IBB(Bonds is that all time leader) has substantial power (in his age 39 season). Take out the IBB’s and the difference between the Bonds and Aaron even with respect to PA’s is even more stark.