Those Darn Bloggers!

Albert Pujols hit 2 home runs, and the Cardinals beat Cleveland 3-1 Saturday. Amazingly, or perhaps because Milwaukee's achilles heel (starting pitching) has returned to haunt them, St Louis finds itself only a half game out of first in the division.

The Redbirds are also only a half game out of the wild card (behind the Giants of all teams), even though its still too early to start tracking their position relative to the wild card. I typically don't start paying attention there until August 1.

We get to watch them play tonight in the nationally televised game against Cleveland. Carpenter vs Lee. Should be a good one.

Let's talk about blogging for a minute, as it was thrust into the national limelight this past week. I'm referring to the article speculating about Raul Ibanez steroid use, immediate reaction, the 'Outside the Lines' appearance by the author, and the subsequent fall out.

First, the fact that something written in a blog became a national story in less than 24 hours is exciting for all those who toil online (even this author, although I don't live with my mother and I don't have a basement). Much like the actress yearning to be discovered, or Roy Hobbs, this incident points out there is still a chance other people outside our immediate families and friend circles are reading what we write, and who knows where that will lead.

Second, the position that one should be very careful about accusing someone else in a concrete way (either on the air or in print) is valid, and correct. Hard evidence better be what I have before I make a statement like "Albert Pujols uses steroids", because if I can't back that up once the spotlight hits me, my credibility is gone forever - not to mention the punitive costs I will have to pay.

However, the prevailing opinion of the mainstream media that bloggers should be held to the same journalistic standards as they are is ridiculous. I am not compensated in any way for what I publish here. I don't get to sit in the press box game after game inhaling hot dogs and soda. I don't get to prowl the sidelines or dugouts of professional games, looking for snippets of information and getting 30 second sound bites every few innings. I don't have the funding to get tan sprayed on a regular basis and buy John Phillips suits.

I do this because I want to, and when I can fit it in around family and work responsibilities.

And, because the First Amendment guarantees me the right to free speech.

What was expressed by Jerrod Morris, and what you find in spades on this site, and on thousands of sites around the blog-o-sphere, is opinion. That's all it is. And I am entitled to my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, that's fine - read something else. But don't get 'holier than thou' about journalistic standards and responsibility. And don't tell me I have to attend courses on journalism before I can start posting, as if that would guarantee I'll follow moral and ethical codes of conduct. I'm sure most of the political correspondents on the New York Times staff went to journalism school, but they sure conveniently ignored those guidelines while repeatedly compromising national security with articles during the Bush Adminstration.

Specifically on steriod use. Did you know allegations of steroid use surfaced as early as 1988? Yep, surrounding Jose Canseco (see Rob Rains' book Tony LaRussa: Man On A Mission). Someone asked the question, then it was ignored by the mainstream media for 10 years, until someone saw a can of andro in Mark McGwire's locker and asked "Hmm, is that legal?". If the media in 1988 had the same courage that Jerrod Morris had this week, to at least put some thought into the question, the history of the last 21 years might have been different.

Oops, someone will probably take the preceeding paragraph and extrapolate I'm accusing Raul Ibanez of steroid use. I'm not. I'm pointing out those who seek to muzzle the blogger community do so not because they believe they do the job better, but because they're worried about job security and the status quo. That's it.

Ibanez's reaction to the story makes more sense if you understand his experience with the blogger community in Seattle. USS Mariner made no secret of their opinions regarding Ibanez's defense, which they backed up with defensive metrics (UZR, for example) widely accepted by the baseball community. Ibanez's '42-year old blogging in his mother's basement' comment is something he had said before about that website's authors. I think Raul is really sensitive to criticism from bloggers, which he believes is unjustified. For the record, USS Mariner had high opinions of Ibanez's hitting skill.

In short: we're here, and we're staying. If Ken Rosenthal, Geoff Baker, or any other writer doesn't like it, too bad. And if players like Raul Ibanez don't like the innuendo they could be using steroids when their offensive numbers show drastic improvement from one year to the next, then start demanding the Player's Union stop stonewalling on drug testing and make it more open - and public. Something that would go a long way to restoring the public's trust would be publishing the names of the 103 players who popped positive with Alex Rodriguez, then publicly testing every player in MLB - and releasing the results. At least then we would have a better feel for who used, and who is currently using, in MLB.

What Kind of Leader Are You?

I took a week off, as previously mentioned, due to illness (mine and the family's).

In the interim, we learned:

- Selig doesn't want us to blame him for the steriods debacle;
- MLBPA former head Marvin Miller stated steroids never hurt or killed anyone, so what's the big deal;
- A-Roid held a press conference, at which he described taking a steroid he bought in the Dominican Republic;
- A-Roid was linked to a known steroids-tainted trainer;
- A-Roid was caught in a lie when the steroid he 'bought' in the DR wasn't available in the DR between 2001-03, with or without a prescription;
- BBWAA decided not to revoke A-Roid's 2003 MVP award; AND
- Lots of evidence got thrown out in the Barry Bonds trial unless the wife of his trainer testifies at the trial (trial begins a week from today).

Most of this stuff didn't surprise me (Selig's weaseling, A-Roid's caught in another lie, a liberal San Fran judge throwing out key evidence in a case against a favored adopted son). What did was the depth of the involvement, and lack of consciousness, the MLBPA had in this whole affair.

For years I believed the real evil in MLB was the owners. Greedy owners. Architects of the reserve clause. Constantly raising ticket prices. It's only since the steroids story broke this time around that I've realized the MLBPA are just as culpable, if not more so, than the owners.

They fought against testing.

They fought against punishment for positive steroids tests.

They allegedly warned players of upcoming tests so they could hide their drug use.

They only cared about how much money they could rake in and very little about the well-being of their players physically.

The whole thing stinks.

Steroid abuse had been long rumored at the MLB level, but back in 1998, when the first 'concrete' evidence of that abuse turned up (McGwire's can of creatine), baseball consistently refused to believe there was a problem, much less do anything about it. This continued for 4 more years before the Commissioner's office was finally, with pressure applied by CONGRESS, able to force testing of players, and ultimately to institute the steriod testing program as we know it today.

The blame for that lack of action rightly belongs to Selig. But not him alone. Donald Fehr and the rest of the union leadership are just a cupable and should be held in just as much contempt for what's happened to the game.

Selig had a singular chance to do something positive for baseball when this all appeared back in 1998. He did nothing.

Selig has gotten a do-over thanks to the leaking of A-Roid's positive test result. He, again, has a singular opportunity to do something positive for baseball.

He could make a stand.
He could suspend A-Roid, invoking the 1971 Commissioner decree that no drug use without a prescription is allowed.
He could release the rest of the 103 names into the public record.
He could revoke any post-season awards for any players who test positive for illegal substances.
He could ban for life all those with positive tests.

Public support would back him; the union would fight, but once exposed as the Machiavellian men they are, they would have to back down and accept what the Commissioner did.

And the Commissioner's office would wrest back some control over the game, control that has been slowly ceded to the players union over the last 40 years until now they are the ones running the league.

But he won't do a thing.

And Major League Baseball will continue to lose credibility, and with it will go the fans.

Update to latest steriods debacle

Curt Schilling is recommending the remaining 103 players from the 2003 testing be identified publicly sooner rather than later.

I couldn't agree more. It isn't fair to make A-Rod twist in the wind, and it is better for all to have the names come out as a group rather then one at a time over the next - well, who knows how many months.

I'm sure the MLBPA and Commissioner's office will fight this, based on their confidentiality agreement; but since neither organization destroyed the test results, allowing themselves to get into this predicament, it seems to me to be too late to cry foul.

That's a lot of 'to' at the end of that last sentence, isn't it?

Some admin notes, then A-Roid

A couple of things:

- I've changed the email address associated with this site to the much more obvious 'stanmusialsstance@yahoo.com'. I can still be reached at the previousl email address, at least for a while.

- I've joined the 21st century and entered the unfettered world of facebook. It's been an interesting weekend poking around on the site. I've managed to find some folks I'd lost track of, not to mention some interesting people who spell their names phonetically.

- I've also re-organized the Cardinals links to the right. I've gotten all the UCB links I could remember (and find while sifting through email) onto that list, as well as a few others, and purged the deadwood. If I've left anyone off, let me know soonest and I'll rectify the situation; if I've inadvertently deleted someone, let me know that too and I'll add you back on.

*******************************

On to the fun.

Alex Rodriguez popped positive for steroids during the 2003 testing. This revelation was all over the news this weekend. Apparently someone leaked his name to the press. What I find mind boggling about this whole situation is the arrogance of the players union.

As you remember, the 2003 testing was done as a trial, under agreement between the Commissioner's Office and the MLBPA, to see how prevalent the steroid problem was in baseball. Individuals would be tested with complete confidentiality, their names never to be revealed. 104 people tested positive for banned substances; as a result, MLB instituted a mandatory drug testing program in 2004 which has gotten progressively more stringent since.

Why hold onto those samples? What was the reason, seeing as they had served their real purpose?

As has been pointed out in other stories, these samples (and the documentation linking them to individual players) would have never seen the light of day had it not been for Barry Bonds and BALCO. That gave the federal government the pretext to supoena those tests, results, and samples under their ongoing investigation against Bonds. However, the union screwed up; and instead of just getting their hands on the stuff pertaining to Bonds, the Feds got their hands on EVERYTHING.

Cue the panic in locker rooms everywhere. Especially now that A-Rod has been outed.

This is going to turn into the Salem Witch Trials and the blacklisting of Hollywood types during the Cold War. Players will be surmised to be guilty just because their name comes up in conversation about steroids. Remember how overblown the mere allegation of Albert Pujols doping was 3 years ago? He managed to fight that off. Players implicated in this round of innuendo will be guilty forever in the court of public opinion, even if they manage to prove their innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Back to A-Rod. He's never been the most beloved Yankee, and he's reviled in several sectors of the league (most notably Boston). You think he's dreading his first trip to Fenway this season? You think those tickets just became the hottest ticket in Boston? Can you imagine the vitriol that will spew from the Fenway Faithful whenever he takes the field, in that and all successive games against the Red Sox?

I hope ESPN, or FOX, or ABC, or Lifetime, or the Spice Channel, or someone televises that first game. I can't wait to see what the notoriously pithy Red Sox fan comes up with to taunt A-Rod. A-Roid will probably be the tamest thing we see.

The 103 sleep in a cold sweat, fearing their names will come up eventually. On a personal note, God forbid Albert Pujols is one of the 103. I'm not sure my fan-dom for the great game of baseball could survive that nuclear detonation.

The Tell-Tale Heart

Not much Cardinal news to speak of. Dan over at C70 at the bat pretty well covered the salient points from Dave Duncan's interview (published in the post-dispatch yesterday).

The big news is two fold: Manny rejecting a 1-year, $25M offer from the Dodgers, and the ongoing Barry Bonds saga.

Some people are all up in arms about Manny's contract demands. I'm not. Yes, the money these guys get to play a kid's game (or what once was the kid's game) is ridiculous, but it has been so for years; this is not new. It was ridiculous when Kevin Brown got $15M a year from the Dodgers; it was ridiculous when Dave Winfield got $2.3M a year from the Yankees; hell, it was ridiculous when Mike Schmidt got paid $1M a year.

And this skewing of how much compensation one should get to play a sport isn't unique to baseball players. Remember when Latrell Sprewell famously said, "I've got a family to feed" regarding the NBA strike? I believe he was making upwards of $15M a season at that time. Makes you wonder who the family was he needed to feed - the greater St Louis area?

Although I agree Scott Boras feeds on the souls of the damned, this isn't something to get fired up over. The market will correct; Manny will accept some more reasonable terms (I can't believe I'd think $20M is more reasonable; that's still outrageous), or he won't play in 2009.

The more interesting story, to me, is the Barry Bonds saga. The judge presiding over his perjury trial has unsealed some documents (the trial starts 2 March). Here's what they said:

- Bonds tested positive for steroids in 2000 and 2001, his two highest HR years.
- Samples collected in 2003 were re-tested; steroids were found in those, too. Not surprisingly, this sample was tested by MLB in 2004, and passed; that should tell you all you need know regarding the standards MLB had for doping back then.
- Other ancillary evidence regarding taped conversations, etc.

All of it makes the government's case look far, far stronger than it did. All if it makes the argument Bonds is being persecuted because he's black much weaker. It makes me wonder what, if anything, MLB will do if the courts find Bonds guilty of perjury - will they place an asterisk next to his records? Will they expunge them entirely from the record books? And will this influence voters when he is eligible for the Hall in 2012?

The title of this post refers to a pretty good short story by Edgar Allen Poe. I wonder if Barry hears it beating whenever he walks into a room with baseball 'stuff' in it.