THE MITCHELL REPORT IS ON THE CLOCK

You know this is big when CNBC's business channel has a countdown clock for the announcement. This is normally reserved for Federal Reserve announcements or other important business news.

After years of investigation, and up to $20 million in expenses, we finally get the names and the finger pointing we've all been waiting for.

Baseball's problem at this point is to somehow find a way to ensure that the financial goose keeps laying golden eggs while trying to persuade the fans, the media and Congress that the goose is not being fed performance enhancing substances to get the results.

According to an October 7th Phil Rogers piece in the Chicago Tribune titled "MLB cash cow breaking away' baseball is poised to meet or surpass the NFL in terms of total revenue generated.

"I probably shouldn't say this," one highly placed MLB executive said
last week. "There was a time when I wouldn't even think it. But I think
we're going to see a time in the future, the near future, when we are
going to pass the NFL in producing revenue."

Commissioner Selig was quoted as saying:
"By any measure you want to look at, our sport is more popular now than
it has ever been," Selig said. "The country really is baseball-crazy
today, no question."

The 30 major-league franchises combined to draw 79.5 million fans,
averaging 32,785 per game. The overall attendance increased 4.5 percent
over the record 2006 totals. Local, cable and network ratings are also on
the rise.

So in spite of the recent steroid mess, or maybe in some ways because of it, the sport is enjoying unprecedented popularity. In no other business could you have the same level of abuse of the product by those in charge of enhancing the value of it, and still produce the kind of results baseball has been getting recently.

The fans clearly love the style of game as it is being played today.

Let's face it, as much as purists may decry the lack of such old-school fundamentals as the lost art of laying down the sacrifice bunt, or the majestic artistry of the well-timed hit and run play, at the prices it costs to attend a major league game, fans will continue to demand the long ball and increased scoring.

Every other sport, with the possible exception of soccer, has recognized this and adjusted the rules of the game and/or style of play to accommodate the demand of the fans. And the exception proves my point. Soccer will never catch on in this country, number 1 because it's a communist sport and communism is dead, and number 2 there is no scoring. It's like watching paint dry. And while yes, I can still attend a professional soccer game in this country at bargain prices (as long as it is not a game where Beckham rides the pine) you couldn't pay me to watch it.

So, yes, I will certainly be interested in the names linked officially and forever to infamy by the esteemed former Senator. And yes, I will listen to the predictable 180 degree turn the media spin takes now that some of their butt-boys get dragged down into the mud as well. Don't kill the messenger now.

It was all fun and games when it was Barry, BALCO and Greg Anderson.

Now that the Yankees former trainer looks every bit as sleazy as Greg Anderson, lets see the scathing articles you Nobel prize wannabes write about Clemens, et. al. Lets hear the pundits rage on the air about how a multiple Cy Young award winner should be denied entrance into the hallowed, but increasingly irrelevant Hall of Fame.

If the KC Royals trainer with background and behavior that sounds Greg Anderson-esque gets fingered, maybe some of Cardinals and Royals players of recent note should be held accountable for their Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio-like early career numbers.

You see, here's the problem I have with this:

The media (the supposed guardians of the game), the owners, the GM's are all falling over themselves NOW and saying:

We're sorry, we didn't know what was going on.
We didn't know then what we know now.
We didn't see know the signs then, we do now.
Give us another chance.
We'll clean up the game this time.
WE PROMISE.

To that I say, BULLSHIT. People want to give Jose Canseco credit for what he said in his book, and the big names he called out, but they only want to credit him selectively, like his story is some sort of Chinese Buffet where you can take some of this, and a little of that, but pass on whatever part of his story you don't like.

Sorry, my BULLSHIT meter just went off. One of the things Mr. Canseco made fairly clear was that everybody knew what was going on. Players , management, fans, everyone. So why would anyone trust the same people, the same entities who couldn't prevent this from occurring the first time, to get it right this time?

Fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice, shame on me. A similar ignorance that was prevalent back in the 90's is with us today. Today, the main difference is we have people who think they can become knowledgeable about an issue lickety-split through Google searching. The Wikipedia-experts. Hot damn, ain't we lucky now?

Former Commissioner Faye Vincent makes the occasional rounds of the talk-shows and the evening news because he can be sure to bash Selig, bash Bonds, bash everyone involved. But NOBODY, and I mean nobody asked Mr. Vincent the most pertinent question, which is this:

Mr. Vincent, we are all now aware that you sent a now famous memo to all teams in 1991 (19 freaking 91) regarding steroid use. Obviously to send a memo regarding this subject you had to have valid, concrete reasons to send a memo regarding this particular subject as opposed to say any other topic of the day (gambling, recreational drug use, child abuse, etc.) and that is that you had to know this was a growing problem within the sport. So having identified it as an important issue, such that you were compelled to issue the memo, where was the follow-up as you observed the problem continue to get out of control?

Yes, I know, I know, the owners threw him out and put in the puppet named Bud. But in my opinion, being an ex-Commissioner offers an even better forum to be an advocate for change on this issue. An issue that his office clearly identified as a problem as far back as 1991.

And so I would ask Mr. Vincent again, since you clearly identified the issue at the time as a source of concern, what concrete, tangible steps did you take to keep the problem from escalating? Being that you love the game and all and had this intimate knowledge of the situation as it developed. I'm not real sure I want to hear much more of your carping and finger-pointing, and posturing and passing the buck. I've really heard enough of that. WHAT DID YOU ACTUALLY DO, MR. VINCENT?

So the finger-pointing we know can go at least as high as the Commissioner's office. How about the Oval Office? Sure, we know that President Bush picked up the issue in his State of the Union address, but I'm not sure we're getting full disclosure from the President regarding this issue. Instead of continuing to commit perjury in the court of public opinion by saying "I didn't know what was going on in my clubhouse". You're either being intentionally deceptive or were criminally stupid at the time.

You could see WMD half a world away, but couldn't see steroid use in your own (club)house. AMAZING. Good Luck in retirement Mr. Prez. don't forget to keep in touch.

If the President is really that concerned about the issue, maybe he would like to donate the proceeds of the huge gain he made on the sale of his piece of the Texas Rangers to fight steroid abuse at the youth level or further research for better testing. Do something tangible rather than just more rhetoric. It's not as if he didn't capitalize on his time in baseball to move into something that has clearly set him up for life, right?

You'll remember, that deal was held up as an example of the President's business acumen and overall intelligence during his initial campaign (an example he clearly needed then, and probably needs more now).


So give something back to the community, Mr. President. Put your money where your mouth is. You know, a little something for the effort?

In my opinion, if Mitchell's report doesn't at least give a nodding acknowledgment
that the 'don't-ask, don't-tell' philosophy, that permeated both the locker room as well as the boardroom, allowed this problem to get out of hand. Sure, everybody wants to see their favorite whipping boys(s) get whipped, but you almost have to play "whack a mole" and make sure you pound every corner of the industry over the head equally for this. Even though, that is exactly what Jason Giambi said once and got both roundly criticized and eventually muzzled (via economic extortion of threat of terminating his contract) for saying it.

And please, I propose a law, that says the next person who uses Jason Giambi as an example of someone who told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth be incarcerated for criminal stupidity. He told as little as he had to tell regarding his history with PED as he had to in order to keep his lucrative contract. Just Google an image of his Team USA baseball card and if you even recognize him, come back and we can talk, OK?

Anyway, it's almost time to read the report. Merry Christmas Baseball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: After watching the Mitchell Press Conference

WOW. A very comprehensive 400+ page report. I was amazed at how often Mitchell in assessing where we have been, where we are and where we are going with regards to this issue spoke words eerily reminiscent of Mark McGwire's "I'm not here to talk about the past" theme.

He recommended, and rightly so, that the Commissioner not punish anyone retroactively for behavior committed prior to or for deeds that were in violation of a policy that was not in place at the time. The punishment will be the public stain on the players reputation, which should be damaging enough in most cases.

Not very surprising is that the names run from superstars to mere hangers-on. But that doesn't surprise me much at all. I have speculated for years that the number of players from the bottom of the roster would outweigh the number from the superstar strata. The superstars names sell newspapers however.

The detail behind the inclusion of Mr. Clemens and Mr. Pettite are sure to cause some to change their viewpoints regarding these two players. Not surprising to me that they were included, but the details from the trainer were very, very damaging.
I'm really not sure after first read, how they, or their cronies in the media, spin their way out of this one.

Let's see what say you now, oh sanctimonious protectors of the sanctity of the Hall of Fame, nay, of the very Game of Baseball itself. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Also interesting was his focus on pointing out that baseballs inactivity on this issue "while they were tending to economic issues" caused the problem to mushroom. No duh!

Also, interesting that he points out, rightly so, that at it's core the victims are the players who had to face the dilemma of either losing their jobs to players who used or joining them in order to compete. And this was where he was chiding baseball for being slow to act on the issue, because even though nobody will give him this type of out, if we are to believe that everything written in the book "Game of Shadows" is correct, this was the same dilemma, the same choices that Mr. Bonds must have felt. He was jealous of the attention Sosa and McGwire were receiving. He was losing his status in the game to players he felt were not his equals on a level playing field. You had an industry that was turning a blind eye to the problem and a Justice system that, given the penalties levied against users, didn't really care about the issue either. What to do, what to do?

But now, retroactively, because he first took McGwire seasonal HR record, and later Aaron's career HR record, we want to hang him from the highest tree. AMAZING.

We'll see how many folks take Mitchell's recommendations to heart, and I thought he made a great case for focusing on the recommendations the report outlines, and moving the issue forward, and improving the game. Or if they continue pushing old agendas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE #2

Typical reaction from the "Oh no, not Roger Clemens, crowd". Let's see if I have this correct. The trainer is lying to avoid the crushing weight of the feds charging him with one thing or another. Even though he was accompanied by personal lawyers when he testified before Mitchell. And we can believe that line but......we also have to believe that Greg Anderson doesn't act in quite the same way. He doesn't act to save his own ass and give up Bonds, but if and when he does, we would willingly believe his story even though it was in fact also coerced.

Listen, we now have MORE direct, not indirect, evidence tied to Clemens then we do against Bonds. But the media picks up the gauntlet and foolishly calls it hearsay evidence. The link to Brian Roberts sounds like flimsy, hearsay evidence. The testimony against Clemens sounds damning. And he has apparently committed perjury in the court of public opinion, what's that worth?

So now we will hear that Clemens and Pettite are the victims of a disgruntled employee and are entitled to due process and to face and confront their accusers.

These comments are all valid and and true, but most of the media folks who use this logic appear to forget (but I don't) that this was not a courtesy they readily extended to Mr. Bonds. And yes I'm talking about Hall of Fame talking head Gammons and empty head John Kruk. They don't want to believe it now that one of their pet players is dragged down into the mud.

Remember, the consensus wisdom from the bizarro-world, jackals in the media was that if the charges levied against Barry Bonds were not true, then he would sue. To protect his reputation and prove his innocence. Of course, this ignores the fact that our entire justice system is founded on the presumption of innocence and the principle that the government has to PROVE YOUR GUILT, not the other way around. Interesting that yesterday, even ESPN's resident legal expert Roger Cossack seemed to be able to finally articulate these legal concepts on behalf of Mr. Clemens. HALLELUJAH, THEY'VE SEEN THE LIGHT.

I do seem to recall that Clemens has in the past threatened to sue anyone who damaged his reputation or cost him endorsements or damaged his opportunity to continue to generate revenues based on his career. That day has come Rocket, time to put your money and your legal team where your mouth is.

Regardless of the fallout, I say welcome to the party that recognizes that EVERYONE is entitled to due process and has constitutional rights that some of the more irresponsible members of the media would so willingly trample in order to sell papers, push agendas and further careers. Fellas, you're a bit late, but welcome, there is room for all. And you'll find, if you care to read the Constitution, that it doesn't stop after the First Amendment you hold so dear. Maybe now you'll stop using the rest of the Constitution as mere shards of paper not worthy of wiping your buttocks on.

To conclude, it seems like the report was delivered like a flaming bag of shit on the porch of the players union and some individual players. And now they are laughing and letting the media and Congress do their PR work for them to tarnish (devalue) the players and gain the high ground to push further drug testing issues forward.

As far as Senator Mitchell and the $20 million dollars spent on this report, I would say this: It's not my money or taxpayer money being spent, so you can spend or waste it as you like, but it seems like most of the names mentioned in your report have long been listed on the site Baseball's Steroid Era, that we've had on our favorites for some time.

http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/

I haven't done a one-for-one checkoff of the two lists, but to be honest, off the top of my head, the websites list is more comprehensive and would probably have cost a lot less than the $20 million. But it doesn't have a former federal judge and U.S. Senator's stamp of approval. So I guess you get what you pay for.

Baseball now faces the prospect of having the greatest power hitter of all-time, the greatest power pitcher of all-time and the greatest singles hitter of all-time
publicly vilified and persona non-grata in the Hall of Fame. BEAUTIFUL WORK.

Finally, I feel vindicated on my long time assertion that once a popular player either tested positive, or even better was thrown under the bus by the court of public opinion in this manner, that there would be a stunning reversal in the tone of the debate.

So thanks Senator Mitchell for that, but it was fairly obvious all along that this would happen.

It's just so cool to hear ALL THE IDIOTS I'VE MENTIONED OVER THE YEARS (too numerous to mention, but y'all know who you are) TALK OUT OF THE OTHER SIDES OF THEIR MOUTHS.

As I've said before as well, the contortions some of these fools are engaging in today in reconstructing their arguments regarding this issue makes it abundantly clear that these guys are eminently qualified and have the the requisite flexibility to go fornicate themselves.

Merry Christmas to baseball and baseball fans everywhere.

BONDS INDICTED...AND IT ONLY TOOK FOUR YEARS

So after all these years the Feds feel they have a case? Or maybe now they have a Department of (selective) Justice leader more in the style of the former Grand Wizard, er Attorney General Ashcroft, the Mark McGwire apologist, who initiated the whole BALCO investigation because he was jealous that his local hero was surpassed in the record books by Big Bad Black Barry. My own personal theory using the same logic that others have used. You know the whole Barry was jealous of Sammy and Mark thing.

Where was Ashcroft when the FBI was investigating McGwire during Operation Equine. Maybe things would have been a lot different. Right!! For those who don't believe race plays a factor in this look up Operation Equine and see what you find. And see if you understand where selective prosecution plays a huge factor in all of this.

Operation Equine:
http://www.ergogenics.org/canseco2.html

http://www.ergogenics.org/fbi2.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=5

This is the same Department of Justice, the same Administration and virtually the same Congress that watched Rafael Palmeiro wag his finger in front of their faces and chastise them for accusing him of steroid use, then fails a test shortly thereafter, and they can't put a perjury case together against him? Apparently now they've figured it out.

The argument goes something along the lines of, "Well, just because he failed a test shortly a testifying doesn't mean we can prove he was doing steroids when he testified before Congress. Therefore, we can't prove he lied to us enough to charge him with perjury". Are you freaking kidding me?

And we're to hear that the Feds really take this lying under oath stuff seriously?
Every day, they make themselves into more and more of a running joke. And the problem is, they are in charge making decisions that effect the economy, national security and the future of this country.

Now, we have a newly minted Attorney General in Mike Mukasey, who apparently is the only person in the free world who does not seem to realize that water boarding is considered torture. He fits right in with a Bush Administration whose lasting legacy is going to be of an administration of hooligans that throughout it's eight years consistently and systematically treated the Constitution as if it was a piece of toilet paper. Illegal wire tapping of citizens, KGB style secret prisons, selective disregard for due process and on and on.

Even if Greg Anderson flipped after all these years of incarceration and the duress of feeling the full might of the Department of Justice and the IRS on his back threatening to ruin his life, how effective a witness can he be?

If he turns and testifies, I would assume Michael Rains would have a field day with his testimony. We have only a history of either vague, contradictory statements or no statements at all regarding his dealings with Bonds and Balco.

All you have to do is think back to Patti Hearst and how she went from sweet little rich girl to machine gun toting bank robber after being held for a short while by the Symbionese Liberation Army. It's called the Stockholm Syndrome. Of course, the defense didn't work out to well for Hearst because the jury felt she had chances to escape her captors or not actively participate in criminal activity, but the underlying theory applies even more to Anderson flipping to the government side, if indeed he did so. I would think most would understand he was coerced to testify. And I do not think Anderson had the same opportunity to escape the clutches of Uncle Sammie as Patti Hearst had to escape from the SLA.

Victor Conte has already questioned the chain of custody for any positive drug sample that may have been provided. Balco was not a certified drug testing facility, they farmed out the work. So the protocol followed for verifying any samples or records that the DOJ may have found in their dumpster dive at Balco would seem to be evidence that would also get shredded fairly easily.

And even if a positive sample is produced, I'm not sure if that pierces the "unknowingly" defense strategy Bonds and his team will pursue.

The good news is this is finally out of the court of public opinion. The court of public opinion is the court favored by those who turn a blind eye to instances like the Jena 6, the Ku Klux Klan and the selective violation of peoples civil rights all over this country. Remember it was the Court of Public Opinion that would have kept Rosa Parks on the back of the bus - the Court of Law changed that. The Court of Public Opinion was for segregation - the Court of Law gave us Brown vs. Board of Education. The Court of Public Opinion is the court of choice for lynch mobs and Klansmen. The Court of Public Opinion is for talk show hosts and backyard gossips and magpies - the Court of Law is where civilized people decide matters of law.

What we do have is more fodder for the lackeys in the media to come out of their holes, iron their finest sheets and robes and come out and Barry-bash one more time. All this after baseball has finished ringing the cash register, albeit while acting as if they were holding their noses through it all. Do you think they are going to give the money back? Are any of the teams that charged a Barry Bonds premium to their ticket prices going to refund money back to their patrons I think not. Will they donate the excess cash generated by the traveling Bonds show from last year? My estimate of the excess generated by the show would be anywhere from $100-150 million dollars across the league. And now they want to do something. Shameless.

One of the local wags was screeching about how it has been documented that Bonds lied 19 times to the Grand Jury (I assume the source is the medias bible on the subject, Game of Shadows). So the book documents 19 lies - but the prosecutors, who actually have to prove (document) the lies conclusively only bring five charges. Did they miss something in the other 14 instances that the learned eyes, ears and minds of the journalistic community were more capable of finding? Or is this a case study for the percentage of garbage you hear in the media that is actually closer to fiction than truth.

Lets' do the math shall we? Five for nineteen equals 26.3% or a .263 batting average, to put it in baseball terms. Now, while that may get you a cushy mega-dollars free agent contract if your agent is Scott Boras, it's not a particularly good average if your discussing the ethics of good journalism. Especially if the example cited is one that was held up as Nobel Prize winning journalism.

Now finally, the rules of the game will change somewhat. No longer will the government hold the Bonds camps hands behind their back, strung up like a human pinada for the media to take swings at with impunity. Now the other side gets to swing back. Now the selective leaks of information, and this is the only steroid case, of the many out there (Operation Equine, Grimsley, Radomski et. al.) that sprung selective leaks of information, are over. The case finally is in the shining light of the public domain. Hallelujah!!!

It's time to put up or shut up now, for everyone. For the Feds, for Michael Rains and lastly for the media. Although, given the ethics of the mainstream media, I doubt very much they will be willing to accept whatever decision the courts bring down.

Like the Bush Administration's handling of the Constitution, if the media doesn't like the decision, they'll just make up one that suits their agenda. In that regard, they are two parties who are made for each other and deserve the lasting contempt of fair minded Americans.

BOB COSTAS IS A SIMPLE MINDED IDIOT

Regarding the issues brought up by the factually challenged Curt Schilling (ie: Why Didn't Barry Sue?) on the vertically challenged Bob Costas HBO show recently. I have to believe Costas himself accepts the sentiments expressed by Schilling and the legal logic expressed therein, since he certainly didn't challenge the statements and they appeared on the show that bears his name.



As counter evidence I would cite the position of Howard Wasserman, whose credentials are as follows:



Howard Wasserman is Associate Professor of Law, having joined the College of Law faculty in 2003. He graduated magna cum laude from the Northwestern University School of Law, where he was an associate articles editor of the Law Review and was named to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, he clerked for Chief Judge James T. Giles of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Judge Jane R. Roth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Prior to coming to FIU, he spent two years as a Visiting Assistant Professor at Florida State University College of Law. Professor Wasserman teaches civil procedure, evidence, federal courts, civil rights, and First Amendment; his scholarship focuses on the freedom of speech and procedure in public-law civil litigation. His recent work has examined the conflation and distinctions between judicial jurisdiction and substantive rights in federal litigation. He also is writing on the intersection between sports and free expression; he has presented on this subject at the Cooperstown Symposium on Baseball and American Culture at the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Professor Wasserman is a loyal Chicago Cubs fan.



Mr. Wasserman appears to have a strong background in both law and baseball.



I summarize the key points noted by Mr. Wasserman at the end of the page.

However, I would like to note special emphasis on the following quotes because they speak to one of the few remaining arguments the sanctimonious media "mental midgets" like Mr. Costas have left. We still hear the media bird-brains continue to chirp on incessantly "Why Didn't Barry Sue the Authors?- Why Didn't Barry Sue the Authors?".



A separate question is why Bonds has not sued the authors and publisher for defamation. Some have claimed that this failure is tantamount to an admission that the book is accurate. But this is too simplistic.



This is an extremely difficult standard for a plaintiff to satisfy. But the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment demands it--to allow "breathing space" for discussion of public issues in which some error is inevitable and to avoid the risk of media self-censorship. Thus, even if he could prove falsity, Bonds would have a difficult time prevailing on a defamation claim, such that the lawsuit may not be worth the cost and effort.



So let's review. First off, he did sue. In the only manner he and his attorney felt they were best likely to prevail. And apparently Wasserman agrees.



Second, Wasserman states that the nexus of the argument on the surface is "too simplistic". I find this ironic because Mr. Costas chastised Rob Parker, a Detroit reporter who dared to suggest to Bob that he was making too big a deal of the steroids issue on the surface given that fans are voting with their wallets and telling MLB that they really don't care (at least not as much as Bob Costa does about the issue).



Costas diverted the argument by making a ridiculous comparison to baseball's "growth" in popularity after WWII but prior to integration by Jackie Robinson and the Dodgers. In other words, baseball was popular then, but still flawed due to the stain of segregation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://thestartingfive.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/sports-journalism-and-perspective/

Sports Journalism and Perspective

Posted by jweiler on August 9th, 2007



Costas strongly challenged the premise of Parker’s claim with the following history lesson:



After World War II, baseball had a tremendous surge in attendance. Baseball was essentially segregated then. A few teams had a few Black players but no one in their right mind would say, ‘well, baseball remained popular so we don’t have to move with greater speed toward justice when it comes to integration of the game.’ I loved baseball in the fifties and sixties growing up; that doesn’t mean that Curt Flood and Marvin Miller weren’t on the side of justice and didn’t have principle on their side because something in the game needed to be corrected and I was able to separate those two things. Baseball was flawed and it was unjust and it needed to be reformed in terms of players rights, but at the same time I loved the game.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What little Bobby failed to mention is, any increase in attendance at the point he references was measured against deflated numbers in prior years due to the troops being overseas fighting the actual war. Even those that remained on the mainland had to have their attentions somewhat diverted by more pressing issues than baseball.



Second, the integration train had clearly already left the station. Baseball owners knew at that point that they had to integrate to expand their audience and they did it. Some parts social justice, some parts economic reality and survival. It may be a rewriting of history, but I understand the Negro Leagues were actually outdrawing the Major Leagues during the war, so it may have been more of an economic decision than anything else. MONEY TALKS.



To compare this current made-up "social issue" (steroids) to segregation would be laughable if it weren't so demeaning. Maybe Mr. Moral Compass needs a check-up from the neck up. Shouldn't take too long.



YEAR GAMES TOT ATT AVG

MLB 1930 1,234 10,132,262 8,211

MLB 1931 1,236 8,467,107 6,850

MLB 1932 1,233 6,974,566 5,657

MLB 1933 1,226 6,089,031 4,967

MLB 1934 1,223 6,963,711 5,694

MLB 1935 1,228 7,345,316 5,982

MLB 1936 1,238 8,082,613 6,529

MLB 1937 1,239 8,940,063 7,216

MLB 1938 1,223 9,006,511 7,364

MLB 1939 1,231 8,977,779 7,293



MLB 1940 1,236 9,823,484 7,948

MLB 1941 1,244 9,689,603 7,789

MLB 1942 1,224 8,553,569 6,988

MLB 1943 1,238 7,465,911 6,031

MLB 1944 1,242 8,772,746 7,063

MLB 1945 1,230 10,841,123 8,814

MLB 1946 1,242 18,523,289 14,914

MLB 1947 1,243 19,874,539 15,989

MLB 1948 1,237 20,920,842 16,913

MLB 1949 1,240 20,215,365 16,303

http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/hist490/mlbattendance.htm



Let's see 1942, we enter WWII and attendance goes down 10%. By comparison,after the 1994 World Series cancellation, attendance fell almost 30%. So baseball did three times the self-inflicted damage as a major World War.



In 1945, the war ends and in 1946 attendance does jump, however most historians would attribute this jump in attendance to the return of the troops, the euphoria of the ending of the war and increased leisure time and purchasing power. Also, 1946 is the year the Dodgers signed Jackie Robinson.



So in reality, baseball jumps back to almost pre-war attendance levels and then segregates. It was hardly "popular" on a relative basis if the Negro Leagues were outdrawing them from a smaller population base.



Again, HISTORY REPEATS. FOLLOW THE MONEY. In spite of occasional bouts or moral indignation and selective recall/faulty reciting of history.



BASEBALL BECAME MORE POPULAR AFTER WWII BECAUSE OF INTEGRATION. THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE LIKED THE BLACK SO MUCH AT THE TIME, THEY MAY HAVE HAD TO BE DRAGGED KICKING AND SCREAMING INTO INTEGRATION (Not so much leading, as baseball historians would romantically like you to believe, but following the military) BUT THEY SURE LOVED THE GREEN.



I would think that someone who was as knowledgeable as Costas tries to make himself appear wouldn't be aware of the confluence of all these events and not distort history to support his current point of view. Or would he?



I don't know, my take on the thing was he was upset almost to the point of whining and crying that Parker would dare challenge his pearly wisdom. I thought he made a poor response and I was surprised Mr. Parker didn't jump right down his throat.



And this guy wanted to be Commissioner? Don't let your hatred get in the way of the facts, Bobby-boy. Maybe everyone else's heroes should be as flawless as the Mick. Yeah, right.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20060407_wasserman.html

Baseball, the Law, and the Rules, Part III: Barry Bonds Takes on the First Amendment,

Attempting to Use Grand Jury Secrecy Rules to Attack the New, Controversial Book Alleging His Steroid Use

By HOWARD WASSERMAN



Bonds has responded with a legal assault against Game of Shadows. But the First Amendment is likely to prove a more-than-worthy adversary for the baseball star.



Bonds launched his legal offensive on two fronts. First, he filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against Fainaru-Wada, Williams, and their publisher, Gotham Books. He also named as defendants the San Francisco Chronicle, which published Fainaru-Wada and Williams' stories on Bonds' grand jury testimony, and Sports Illustrated. which published excerpts of Game of Shadows prior to publication. Bonds sued under California's Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professional Code § 17200), which prohibits "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice."



Second, he sent a letter to United States District Judge Susan Illston, who is presiding over the BALCO grand jury proceedings. The letter requests that she initiate contempt-of-court proceedings against the authors and publishers violating rules requiring secrecy in grand jury proceedings. Judge Illston already has conducted one hearing regarding leaks in this case.



In both cases, Bonds claims that Game of Shadows is based on sealed and secret grand-jury testimony and evidence. He argues that, as a witness before the grand jury, he received guarantees that his testimony and all other evidence would be confidential. And he says that Fainaru-Wada and Williams' use of this information as the basis for their book deprived him of these guarantees, and deprived the public of its faith and confidence in the confidentiality and integrity of the grand jury system. As a result, the book is both an unfair or unlawful business act under state law and contemptuous of the federal court overseeing the grand jury proceedings.



Going After Profits Alone Does Not Obviate the First Amendment Problem Here



Bonds and his attorneys, seeking to avoid First Amendment problems, focus not on publication of the book, but on the profits that the authors and publisher stand to earn from sales of the book.



The letter to Judge Illston requests a narrow contempt order requiring disgorgement of profits derived from the use of the sealed and leaked grand jury evidence (as opposed to, for example, an order jailing the journalists for their misconduct). Bonds and his lawyers insist that "we do not wish to stifle public debate about steroid use by professional and amateur athletes."



Similarly, the Unfair Competition lawsuit seeks an injunction preventing the defendants from retaining any profits from the book, but does not in any way seek to restrain publication or sale. As one lawyer told the California Superior Court, "They can speak as much as they like on this topic. They just can't make a profit."



Courts recognize that placing a financial burden on a speaker functions as a disincentive to speak--or, in this case, to write or agree to publish a book--that would, if permitted, threaten to reduce the sum total of available reporting on what even Bonds concedes is a matter of great public concern worthy of discussion and debate.

The First Amendment thus subjects laws that financially burden speech to the same rigorous scrutiny as laws that directly prohibit or restrain speech.



Morever, even if Fainaru-Wadu and Williams did not break the law in obtaining the grand jury evidence, the First Amendment does not automatically protect publication. The Supreme Court has explicitly refused to hold that the publication of truthful, lawfully obtained information on a matter of public import never can be punished. Of course, the Court never has found any interest of a sufficiently high order to outweigh free-expression interests, meaning Game of Shadows likely will be protected, as well.



The Legal Path Not Taken: Defamation



A separate question is why Bonds has not sued the authors and publisher for defamation. Some have claimed that this failure is tantamount to an admission that the book is accurate. But this is too simplistic.





In order to prevail on a defamation claim, Bonds must do more than prove the statements in the book were false (a substantial burden in itself). Under the First Amendment, a public figure (which Bonds surely is) also must prove (by the elevated standard of "clear and convincing evidence") that the false statements in question were published with actual malice--that is, with knowledge that they were false, or with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false.



This is an extremely difficult standard for a plaintiff to satisfy. But the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment demands it--to allow "breathing space" for discussion of public issues in which some error is inevitable and to avoid the risk of media self-censorship. Thus, even if he could prove falsity, Bonds would have a difficult time prevailing on a defamation claim, such that the lawsuit may not be worth the cost and effort.



Ultimately, Bonds likely will find, in both the lawsuits and legal challenges he has brought and those he has chosen not to bring, that the First Amendment is a tougher opponent than most major league pitchers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if 73 HR'S Never Happened?

(CLICK TO ENLARGE)

What if Bonds 2001 season was a "normal" Bonds season instead of the statistical outlier that is was?

What if he just hit HR's at the same rate had been in prior seasons?

I used these assumptions and added one other adjustment. The number of walks received by Bonds in 2001 and in subsequent years would then be adjusted back down to the preceeding five year average.

From 2001-2005 I left Bond's HR rate to 1 HR per 10 AB and then increased the rate to 12.5 AB in 2006 and 15 AB in 2007 to account for aging.

And what do you know, the Adjusted HR's come out to 752 instead of the 754 he had when I downloaded the career statistics.

So we presumably would not be talking about the jealousy of McGwire and Sosa's HR totals. We wouldn't have the media protection of the McGwire legacy for breaking the season home-run record, because he would have never touched that record or McGwire's legacy, which at that time was still pristine.

How much would have changed in terms of perception? How much would have changed in terms of the message regarding Bonds? Would the BALCO mess been a priority in a rogue IRS agents mind if 73 had not happened? All of that began shortly after 2001, the year Bonds dared to push McGwire off the mountain top. Aaron was not a reasonable target at that point. So what would have happened? I guess we'll never know.

L'Affaire Vick, ESPN and the Giants

ESPN weighs in on Michael Vick, and as usual links to Barry Bonds:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=kreidler_mark&id=2940791

WTF!!! No matter what the story, ESPN finds a link to Bonds. Wrestler dies, kills his family, link it to Bonds. Vick runs his dog killing operation, link a story theme to Bonds. Global Warming, I bet the knuckleheads at the WWLIS find a way to lay it at Bonds doorstep. And I love how every weasel talking head now wants to caution everyone that an indictment doesn't mean anything happened. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE AN INDICTMENT OF BONDS YET AND YOU'VE ALREADY CONVICTED HIM IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. You'd have to be contortionist to reconcile your arguments now folks. Athletes are supposed to know exactly what they put into their bodies when they test positive for steroids, well the same argument should go for Vick and his property. He should have (and very likely did) known what was going on. Why does Vick get the benefit of the doubt for something that is much more of a disgusting act against society? And please don't give me your nonsensical drivel about Vick not chasing a "hallowed" record. THAT ONE IS OLD. ESPN writers and talking heads are one-trick ponies and when the BALCO grand jury goes bye-bye after pitching a three-year shutout, what say you then?

Note: judging by the other comments posted, it seems as if many others are catching on to the WWLIS's act. My faith in the collective intelligence of my fellow man is being restored.
=====================================================================================



It's difficult to put the Michael Vick situation into perspective, because the details of the indictment paint a picture of a sick, disturbed individual. And it's not as if he hasn't flashed signs of becoming a bit of a jackass before.

He makes the Bonds affair look like child's play. This very likely sinks lower than Pete Rose, lower than Barry Bonds, lower than Ray Lewis and perhaps due to the he said/she said, "was it rape or simply adultery?" nature of the offense, lower than Kobe.

It's absolutely insane that we are at a place where we are searching for the bottom of the barrel of behavior in sports. Let's see, what's worse? Steroids? Rape? Active participation in a homicide? Running a dog killing operation? Pedophilia? Good Luck sorting the chips here NFL. And your dumb-ass sponsors. You all deserve each other.

And now we'll see if the Ayatollah Goodell is serious about his brandy-new personal conduct policy or not. It's different now that we;re talking about a marquee player rather then Pac-Man or Chris Henry or some other replaceable part. Be careful what you wish for, huh Roger-Dodger?

If the details I'm hearing are correct, that Vick purchased raw land and this "enterprise" was built on said land without his knowledge, then you can toss out the rogue relative, I didn't know what was happening on my property defense.

This will get very ugly, very quickly. Because these guys will turn on each other quicker and in a more ferocious fashion then the dogs they bred. And guess who has the most cash on hand to hire the most ferocious pit-bull legal team? And guess who has the publicity generating machine of both the NFL and corporate scumbag Nike on his side?

Right now, I feel sorry for Vick's accusers, they are going to be attacked with a ferocity we haven't seen, well since the last Presidential election.

As for Nike, they've already proven themselves to be a fairly rotten corporate citizen, so it does not shock me one iota that they would support Citizen Vick. That's fine, that is their prerogative. They should remember however, there are consequences for this position. They better hope they are right in stridently aligning themselves with Vick and continuing to roll out new products with his name as the sales tool.

For what it's worth, I'll take my chances on an early burn-anything-I-own with the Nike logo on it. If I end up wrong, I'll by a whole new Nike infested wardrobe. However, the verdict won't be my prime determinant (you know the whole OJ thing).

Let's see how big a fan of the court of public opinion the World Wide Leader in Shake and Bake (ESPN) becomes now that one of the biggest stars of their largest broadcast partner (the NFL) publicly fries when the details of his behavior come to light.

It's like I've always said, don't listen to what they say, watch what they do. Actions speak louder than words. They will act different here, because at the core level, let's just say, we know what they are, we're just negotiating the price.

I forgot where I saw it, for attribution's sake, but some legal expert opined in an article that Team Vick will spin all further media accounts using some euphemism that diverts attention from what this is, a dog-fighting operation, sick, sadistic animal abuse. Much like L'Affaire Kobe's rape-trial was rarely referred to as what it was, a rape-trial, it was Kobe's off the court issues, or Kobe's legal issues.
Making it sound like he was fighting a parking ticket or something. You'll see the same thing here.


Just to remind people that one of the behaviors psychologists have found common and prevalent in serial killers and other sociopaths, is an inclination to abuse animals before moving on to other victims. It is a sick, abhorrent behavior. Clinton Portis's jackass defense that a lot of people do it, doesn't justify the behavior.

It makes the defense that once this jackass exhausts the legal process, Goodell better come down good and hard on this clown. In fact, if I was NFL Commissioner for the day, I would tell Scumbag Vick in no uncertain terms:

"You can play the system here all you want, that is your right, but if this thing gets strung out to the end, and you're even remotely close to a guilty verdict, you'll never play in the NFL again. You will be banned for LIFE. And I don't mean life, like in the justice system definition of life, I mean the rest of your time here on earth LIFE. Are we clear, scumbag?"

It actually disgust me to no end that they will let this guy take the field.
Make no mistake about it, as much as I love the Giants, if this douchebag is playing against them, I wouldn't watch it.

UPDATE: Nike surprisingly does the right thing by suspending the new Vick shoe line that was due to be released. I already weeded the Nike shoes from my wardrobe but maybe now I can keep the pants and shirts.
=====================================================================================
AS THE GIANTS TURN:

Well, we're stuck with Sabean for a few more years. The team is in last place and seemingly is intent on mounting a sincere challenge to the Tampa Bay Devil Rays for the #1 overall pick in nest years draft. Which we'll use to draft and develop a stud pitcher we can use to trade for another broken down veteran.

That's the Sabean MO.

And don't give me the A-Rod pipe dream.

I think Magowan has been a good owner for this franchise, money has not held them back as much IMO as the use of the money given, and that is Sabean all the way. There’s been way too many dollars tossed down the drain with little return on the field.

Bonds salary over all his years with the Giants has been one of the biggest bargains in baseball. They’ve done a poor job capitalizing on having a centerpiece.

Which leads me to believe that if they ever actually had a legitimate chance to get someone like A-Rod, this recent history of personnel decisions will come back to haunt them. 4-5 teams will be in the hunt for him and I have to imagine the dollars will be close among all. The deciding factor after that, for A-Rod and his agent, will be which team can build around him after they’ve paid his king’s ransom of a salary.

Giants and Cubs would seem to fall back in this regard, behind the Yankees, RSox, Angels and perhaps the WSox. Just my $0.02.

UPDATE: Well, the Taste of Chicago just concluded, but for dessert Chicago gets a taste of Bonds. Two dingers, two balls hit out of the stadium (one foul). 4AB's and three absolute laser beams. GUESS WHO'S BACK??? At this point, FUCK THE WEASEL, who cares if the scumbag Selig is there or not. It would actually be better if he's not there.

BYE BYE BALCO, WE KNEW YOU TOO WELL

I couldn't write this script any better myself to demonstrate what I've been saying about this steroid mess all along.

FROM THE AP REGARDING RADOMSKY CASE:

Federal prosecutors said yesterday they did not give baseball steroids investigator George Mitchell a complete copy of an affidavit containing names of players who allegedly received performance-enhancing drugs from a former New York Mets clubhouse employee.

Prosecutors urged a judge to keep under seal the names of the players identified in a sworn statement signed by IRS special agent Jeff Novitzky.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco said a motion by Hearst Corp. seeking unredacted copies of the search warrant affidavit is a "thinly veiled attempt to benefit financially" by publicizing the names of people involved in the government's steroid probe and does not serve a public need.

Now, one wonders why the same argument was not made loudly and vociferously by all the haters. Why wasn't the public portrayal of the "Game of Shadows" put in the same light?

PUBLICIZING THE NAMES DOES NOT SERVE A PUBLIC NEED!!!

THIS FROM THE SAME OFFICE THAT DOESN'T BAT AN EYELASH WHEN THE NAMES AND TESTIMONY OF BONDS AND SHEFFIELD IS USED TO PUBLICLY SMEAR AND PROFESSIONALLY HARM THEM?

Disgraceful, disgusting conduct and once again your tax dollars at work. As I always say, if there is ever again another true revolution in this country, guys like these "public servants" will be hanging upside down in the public square like human pinatas. And I'll be happy to bring my Louisville Slugger. Unfortunately, all we can do is vote the scumbags out of office, but it doesn't hurt to think of the possibilities.

That's OK, it's becoming apparent to everybody with a brain what's going on and what's gone on in the past.

FROM THE BALCO CASE:
Lead Investigator IRS Agent Novitsky: Charges of misconduct and abuse of office in this case. It became obvious what was going on when he asked Grimsley to wear a mike and gather evidence against Bonds in exchange for leniency. Has been accused by former partners of having a personal vendetta against Bonds. Not widely reported for obvious reasons.

The Lead Attorney in the case fired for incompetence and replaced by the President.
It's pretty bad when the most incompetent President of my lifetime fires you for incompetence. THAT'S GOT TO HURT.

And on a side note, how can the Bush Adminstration's Justice Department continue to pursue perjury charges in a high-profile case like this after erasing perjury charges against one of their own in Scooter Libby? Seems a little hypocritical. It would seem to be at odds with their own Attorney''s quotes in this case about the public interest being served. What then is the continued public interest that is being served in continuing to investigate Bonds for perjury?

Potential Star Witness in the case Greg Anderson gives them nothing in the case, and if he says anything of value now, how hard would it be for a defense attorney to tear up his testimony due to duress caused by his incarceration? Guys have given up mob figures with less screw-turning from the feds.

Potential Star Witness, mistress Kimberly Bell. Aside from the potential sour-grapes angle of an ex-lover scorned, there's the hurdle of possible extortion that would make her value as a witness next to nil. Combine this with the book deals and the pending Playboy layout and this ex-stripper has defined what she is, we're just not sure of the price.

After almost five years, and this is the huge pile of evidence that is not only the basis for the case against Bonds for perjury, but also the basis of the book, "Game of Shadows" that all the haters cite as indisputable proof.

I just have one simple question. If it's that indisputable, how come we haven't seen that indictment we've heard should be coming down the pike "any day" now for fricking years on end? Not even an indictment. And remember how easy it is to bring down an indictment. The Keystone Cops can't even do that.

My guess is this latest grand jury will not be able to bring down anything of substance and even the pending tax evasion charges will go away leaving only the vapor trail of innuendo and supposition. That's where the haters want it, in the court of public opinion, but the assholes had the full weight of the US Government behind the and have, to date come up with more swings and misses than Dave Kingman.

The Radomski case names are likely filled with some popular names from the New York market. Good Luck getting them released. Guys from outside the New York area have their own clubhouse boys why would they trust the NY clubbie more than their own?

The Grimsley case, they won't pursue much further because of the names that have already been linked to it.

All this time and all these tax dollars expended and these guys have come up with a big bag of nothing. GOOD JOB FOLKS.

It's all right here in black and white

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2863623


DAVID ORTIZ COMMENTS:


Ortiz believes Bonds needs to be cheered. Loudly.

“He deserves respect,” Ortiz said Sunday in Minneapolis. “People are not going to give it to him because of all the bad things running around, this and that, but people need to realize. I’ve heard a lot of different things about Barry Bonds, but people should just admit it - this guy’s a bad (expletive).”

Whether or not Bonds will be on the verge of breaking Hank Aaron’s career mark of 755 home runs - he’s at 744 with 34 games to play before he arrives here on June 15 - Ortiz expects Fenway Park fans will be making a mistake by focusing on the performance-enhancing drug allegations against Bonds rather than his home run totals.



Ortiz has an almost willful naivete about both Bonds and steroids. He still does not believe in his heart or his head that Bonds took steroids. And even if it were proven to him, Ortiz still would not link it to what Bonds does with a baseball bat.

“To hit the frickin’ ball, the guy makes it look easy, but it ain’t. I don’t know how you can have that swing, consistently. I don’t know how steroids can do that,” Ortiz said. “There are supposed to be guys using steroids in the game, and there’s nobody close to Barry Bonds. What’s that mean? He was using the best (expletive)? Know what I’m saying?”

Ortiz is not sure how he would feel if someone ever were to prove to him that Bonds took steroids. It sounds as if it would not matter.

“I don’t look at it like that. I look at it hitting-wise, because I don’t know what steroids can do to you as a baseball player. You’ve still got to swing the bat, man,” Ortiz said. “If I ever use steroids, and then I know what the difference can be and I’m using them, I’ll tell you, ‘Yeah, whatever,’ but I don’t know what the feelings are when you use the steroids. But I can tell you how it feels to pull yourself together to swing the bat.”

No matter where Bonds breaks Aaron’s mark, Ortiz wants commissioner Bud Selig to be there.

“He’s just making things worse,” Ortiz said of Selig’s inconclusive remarks about attending. “He’s the commissioner, there’s nothing you can do about it. You can’t be saying that. What are people going to think about the game? They’ll be like, ‘This game is a joke.’ He should come, even if he doesn’t want to.”

Despite revelations in “Game of Shadows,” the book by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams that offers a damning chain of evidence linking BALCO and a number of baseball players, including Bonds, Ortiz said he is unaware of any evidence that Bonds used steroids.

“Have they proved he used steroids?” Ortiz asked. “But it was a cream or something he was using. He wasn’t injecting anything, right?”

Ortiz said he just cannot be sure so he doesn’t want to think about it.

“People come to me, talking about Barry Bonds using steroids and I’m like, ‘He’s the only one, or are people focused on him because of what he’s doing?’ So I don’t go there, I don’t even think about it,” Ortiz said. “I think about how he can be that perfect at the plate because I don’t think that steroids mentally get you perfect.”

Ortiz believes people who have a problem with Bonds either never played the game or are pitchers.

“If you go to the hitters, and ask them, ‘A), What do you think about 744 home runs?’ and b), ‘You know how hard it is to hit a baseball. What do you think about that?’ The bottom line is, I don’t care what people say.”


CURT SCHILLING'S COMMENTS:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18557376/


Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling suggested that it's a travesty to the national pastime that Barry Bonds is about to break Henry Aaron's home run record, the Boston Globe reported Tuesday.

On the WEEI’s "Dennis and Callahan" radio show, Schilling was asked if fans should "hold their noses" while watching Bonds’s pursuit of the all-time record. Bonds is 11 from tying the all-time record of 755.

“Oh yeah. I would think so. I mean, he admitted that he used steroids,” said Schilling, according to the Globe. “I mean, there’s no gray area. He admitted to cheating on his wife, cheating on his taxes, and cheating on the game, so I think the reaction around the league, the game, being what it is, in the case of what people think. Hank Aaron not being there. The commissioner [Bud Selig] trying to figure out where to be. It’s sad.

“And I don’t care that he’s black, or green, or purple, or yellow, or whatever. It’s unfortunate . . . there’s good people and bad people. It’s unfortunate that it’s happening the way it’s happening.”

Despite Schilling's remarks, Bonds has never admitted to knowingly using steroids. On Dec. 4, 2003, Bonds was one of several athletes forced to testify as part of the BALCO case, which centered around the San Francisco-area lab, its founder Victor Conte, and Greg Anderson — Bonds’ personal trainer and longtime friend.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it's apparent again to anyone with a brain that not only is there a divide in America regarding this issue, there is a divide in the Red Sox clubhouse.

I'm sure IRS Agent Novitsky would love to have an admission from Bonds that he cheated on his taxes. It would make his tax evasion case easier to prove. It seems Mr. Schiling doesn't mind if the facts get in the way of his fancy story, but I missed the part where Bonds admitted cheating on his taxes. Hey Schil, get a clue, you fucking dope, Bonds hasn't admitted cheating on his taxes and the government, as yet, has not prosecuted a tax evasion case againt him. Read the papers once in while.

Also, I wonder if the fat blowhard (among others) intends to give his teammate Ortiz the same lack of benefit of the doubt about his admission of a possible "unknowing" use of steroids. I'm sure ther will be some perceptible difference between the two stories (Ortiz and Bonds).

AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES. YOU SIMPLY CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP, BUT APPARENTLY THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SCHILLING DOES IN HIS OWN MIND. JUST MAKE UP "FACTS" OUT OF THIN AIR. MAKES YOU WONDER IF HE HAS EVEN READ "GAME OF SHADOWS". AND THIS IS THE GUY THAT CONGRESS WANTS TO HELP LEAD THE FIGHT AGAINST STEROID ABUSE. A GUY THAT JUST MAKES SHIT UP. COME ON, THIS IS TOO EASY.

Very interesting unsolicited comments from Ortiz about the "protein shakes". Makes you wonder what may or may not have been going on in or around those "Baseball Academies" that major league teams have scattered around the Dominican Republic. Makes you wonder if there may or may be be an eerie parallel between the aforementioned "protein shakes" and the "vitamins" of the German Democratic Republic that were given to the German women's swim team and other athletes without their knowledge. Makes you wonder sometimes, if that's why a disproportionate number of players and prospects are making it to The Show from that small island over recent years. God help everyone involved if that turns out to be the case.

Additional Note: The next day analysis by the talking heads focused primarily, almost exclusively, on Schilling's comments (which reinforces the negative evidence against Bonds) rather than Ortiz's comments (which tends to provide exculpatory evidence that Bonds story might be possible or reasonable).

Dan Patrick and Keith Olberman discuss Pujols Off the Juice

I'm sorry, that's how I heard it. I must be one jaded SOB, though. Really they did a great job of saying,

"Son of a bitch, I wish I could say this stuff about Bonds, because then we'd be able to twist it into proof positive that he's on something, but for God's sake it's Pujols. Shit, we like him, it just can't be! Do I trust my eyes, or my preconceived notions, biases and prejudices! Dammit, now I'm really confused!! God, I hate this shit, why couldn't it be Bonds."

Oh shoot, don't believe me, listen for yourself. I heard this myself as it was broadcast, but I have to credit the good folks at Steroid Nation for having the link to an audio of the broadcast. You can't make this stuff up. Of course, they can't resist taking a shot at Bonds at the end. No story about BALCO or Bonds various difficulties seem to end in a Pujols joke. Just helping everyone keep score at home. And in case you are scoring, it's spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S. F#$%^&G HYPOCRITES!!

Steroid Nation link:
http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/03/dan_patrick_and.html

What a shame when these guys can't get the facts to square up to reality. But never let it be said that the facts need to get in the way of a good story.

And don't forget to read the story of the Grimsley Affadavit and the famous redacted names:
http://deadspin.com/sports/baseball/so-weve-got-some-affidavit-names-179400.php

Yes, interesting, whatever happened to those redacted names? Shouldn't we be having a leak of those names anytime soon, or a congressional inquiry or something. I suspect we know the reason why those names haven't seen the light of day. The names will soil the reputations of white, popular players. When I'm proven wrong about this, let me know. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting though, and neither should you. And in the interest of the health, safety and well-being of all the youth of America, neither should they.

BALCO II: The Orlando Case?

Loomis: 'All we want to sell is hormone replacement'
By Tom Farrey
ESPN The Magazine
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=farrey_tom&id=2783117

The raids in Orlando and elsewhere effectively mark the formal start of the government's full-scale assault on compounding pharmacies, which differ from traditional pharmacies by creating custom creams and other products tailored to the needs of individual patients. They have become major players in the anti-aging industry, and a growing threat to big pharmaceutical companies whose drugs often cost more.

The most telling line in the story and probably the most ignored and glossed over. Follow the money, right? Isn't that what we hear all the time? Follow the money.
Interesting, very interesting.


Also, this quote: Because it doesn't seem to be the facts as reported to us by the media or the pollsters. Accoridng to them, it's all athletes and young kids.

"As far as athletes, most of our patients don't walk up to the counter," Naomi said. "We're FedExing it [to clients] so we don't actually see the person. As far as names coming through, famous athletes, we don't see them. I mean, there are a couple, but ..."

"It's a very small number," Stan said, interjecting. "I don't know of any active athletes. It's the weekend warrior where most of it is going."

And from this follow-up story:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2781674

Victor Conte, the founder and president of BALCO, the Bay Area lab which has been the focal point in the federal steroids probe, said he was not surprised by the raid.

"People from all walks of life now are using performance enhancing substances. From athletes to movie stars, there seems to be an ever-growing need to find a competitive edge," Conte said. "Maybe it's time to fully realize that we are now living in a pharmacologically enhanced society."

Maybe its just me, but Conte and Canseco it seems have been closest to being on the mark with their comments and analysis of the situation than most. Sometimes the message gets lost due to the perception of the messenger.

Baseball News and Stories that just won't go away

Agents raided the Signature Pharmacy Lab in Orlando to provide fresh names and reputations to add to the fire that is the story of steroids in baseball. Not surprisingly only Gary Matthews name (black) is leaked.

Gary Sheffield (black) meanwhile is skewered publicly for not throwing Barry under the bus either in his new tell-all book or in his interview with Hall of Famer Peter Gammons, who pointedly reminded Sheffield that he and Bonds did not get along. In fact, Sheffield must have confounded Gammons and all of white America by stating in the interview that he was rooting for Bonds to break Ruth's record, more than anyone.

That fool must be on drugs, huh? When you can't be prompted into saying what you're supposed to say by a Hall of Famer, maybe you yourself are not qualified to be a Hall of Famer, even though you're closing in on 500 home-runs. Get ready for the end of career bend-over job Sheff, you have to know it's coming.

Speaking of which, the Veterans Committee met today, as it does apparently every two years now, and failed to see their shadows, which means that guys that were previously F_ _ _ ed over by sport writers for the fifteen or so years they had a chance to elect them, now have to wait another two years until this group of morons meets again in two years to say to Ron Santo, Jim Kaat, Gil Hodges, Tony Oliva among others, YOU'RE NOT WORTHY!!! YOU'RE NOT WORTHY!!!

And how about Curt Flood and Marvin Miller? Curt Flood is a player who if you asked baseball fans of today I'll bet anyone not older than 40 would even be able to tell you who Flood was and what he did that influenced baseball so much. And Marvin Miller is reviled too much to ever make it in. And both men did more to make baseball what it is today, in spite of the fact that the know-it-alls of the day told us both would destroy baseball. And they are not allowed entrance because they are judged by those whose contributions to baseball pale in comparison or are non-existent. But those pricks are already in the Hall and damned if they are not going to keep it an exclusive club.

Hey guys, it's not Augusta, you can be inclusive and it doesn't reflect in the least on your accomplishments. Yes, it does add to the pool of people who can sign autographs with the cute little HOF initials next to it on a baseball and sell them on E-bay for outrageously inflated prices. Maybe that's the motive, economic greed, turf protection.

By the way the Veterans Committee is made up of all the current living Hall of Famers, who seem to think that they are voting on people for sainthood, or for passage into heaven. It's a joke.

In fact the initial Baseball Hall of Fame process as voted on by the sportswriters is a joke. CAN YOU SAY...INHERENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST??? I thought that you could.

These sanctimonious pricks, many of whom don't come close to the standards they seem to hold out for other people should have their ballots disclosed publicly. If they can't justify why they are keeping people out, they shouldn't have a ballot. Same with sports writers or whomever is delegated to vote.

Football seems to elect almost anyone who didn't kill someone (allegedly) and can't wait to send in others who were active participants in events that led to the murder of multiple people. Oh, and drug users, hey they'll just be more fun at the subsequent Hall of Fame get togethers. Who's turn is it to bring the hookers? Hell, let the Playmaker do it he's a rookie.

Disgusting, really disgusting. The more I think about it, those that they let in vs. those that they keep out, in both football and baseball, every year it seems like they turn what should be a great PR event for and celebration of the individual sport into a mockery and a sham.

The Veterans Committee's actions are so stupid, disgusting and revolting that it actually made the details of Tommy LaSorda's forays with the newest version of the Hollywood Madam understandable and palatable.

Yuck, mental image of Tommy LaSorda naked, I'm scarred for life.

Mental note: Don't read Deadspin on a full stomach.



P.S. - Of course, today we also hear from the law-breaking reporters from S.F. (exempt from the law of course because they are reporters and the only Amendment that counts is the first Amendment, right?) details about Barry Bonds hat size and other examples of his physical change over the years, like nobody has noticed Roger Clemens' head turn into the Great Pumpkin over the years and his body type transform from ectomorph to mesomorph before our very eyes. Sorry ladies, I don't know details of his shoe size, you'll have to find that out for yourself.

The take home message the media seems to want to deliver almost daily is that only the few black guys that are left in baseball cheat. Or they are seemingly the only ones the media cares about or seems to want to harp on ad nauseum. The white guys will get a pass or our sympathy, but they are allowed to move back into the publics good graces at warp speed compared to persons of color.

And it was the same type of coverage when baseball was suffering a public black eye due to the cocaine abuse headlines years and years ago. You can look it up.
So we really haven't progressed that much as a society, as much as we'd like to believe otherwise and that is truly disgusting.

And this is the foolish, hysterical climate in which we are making the type of public policy decisions that lead us to testing High School athletes for drugs, not all students, just athletes. We don't care if the other kids do steroids apparently.

I've always heard that you should not see how two things are made, laws and sausage. Well, laws or public policy made in this type of climate is like making sausage in a public restroom (or a NYC Taco Bell - Yum Yum, no pun intended, this sausage tastes a little mousey today)

Whether you agree with the mans politics or not, I thought one of the good things Bill Clinton did as President was attempt to open a dialogue on race in this country. And like most problems, our reflex as a country was to say "We don't have a problem, really we don't".

Well maybe we do. And the first step of course is to recognize the problem and admit to it. A poll taken by Markitecture recently, asked people if they thought:

"There is very little racial prejudice in Sports". Simple Question.

In 2002, 31% Agreed - 40% Disagreed - 29% I presume were Not Sure.
In 2006, 19% Agreed - 41% Disagreed - 40% Not Sure???

So clearly we are moving in the wrong direction, just from a public perception standpoint.

And equally as clear IMO, is that this is an issue that is as important or more important to remove as a scourge from our society. Isn't it? Or do we need a poll rather than our common sense to tell us:

Which is a more important problem to solve in our society today?:
a) Steroids - Cheating in Sports
b) Racial Prejudice in Sports

Someone asked me recently why I write about the steroids issue so much, and it's not so much about Bonds or Sosa or McGwire as it is about the ripple effect some of the issues have throughout society, from youth sports, to civil rights, to race relations, to character in sports and on and on and on.

There's too many layers to the story to have it presented in as simplistic and moronic a fashion as it currently is. That's why. I'd rather write about just sports. Maybe someday.

Steroids? And the HR King? Say it isnt so Hank!

From the Website www.protrade.com comes this interesting piece. We are often told by pundits that we need to connect the dots of circumstantial evidence in order to convict one Barry Lamar Bonds of steroid use in his assault on Hank Aaron's HR record. This article brings up some valid points using some of the same logic and methodology to circumstantially indict one Henry Aaron. Wow!!!

Interesting to note the use of Tom House quotes, which came and went without much of a furor. Why wasn't there the same level of moral outrage or consternation or ex-post facto indictment of players from the 60's and 70's? We know that recreational drug-use was a major social problem at this time. Why wouldn't we believe this extended to baseball? And why do we feel it was limited to recreational, non-performance enhancing drugs? Oh sure, these guys were doing cocaine and amphetamines, but steroids, Nah!! Players were well-paid and had an interest to protect back then as well, didn't they?

We know that the Hall of Fame is slowly being littered with the busts of those whose recreational use of cocaine during their careers stained the game and provided a less than sterlng example to our nation's youth. Where was the "integrity of the game" litmus test when these guys passed muster? Oh, I guess we can pick and choose which law-breakers we want in and which we choose to exclude. Isn't that special?

Maybe Mark McGwire might have been better served if that reporter found some lines of cocaine on a mirror instead of a bottle of andro, right? Shameful, disgustingly shameful.

It is ironic that Tom House is the player who caught Hank Aaron's 715th home-run.
The evidence forms a neat little circle. Also, effective use of Davey Johnson's unusual, Brady Anderson-esque home-run production. What happened there, chief?

I have graphs that clearly show that when one looks at home-run production, relative to the the production of the rest of the league (to adjust for different eras and conditions), the line showing production by age of Mr. Bonds very closely matches that of Mr. Aaron in terms of late stage of career productivity.

In other words, the rising tide of factors (like expansion diluted pitching, smaller stadiums, tighter baseballs, etc.) that lead to increases HR production will be reflected across the entire population by examining the change in the mean. Hence, the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats". Comparing the individual's production relative to the mean would show unusual spikes in production that might be a cause for concern. You have to do both or you get an obscured visual image. To look at one to the exclusion of the other is like trying to hit with one eye closed. You might be able to do it, but it wouldn't look good nor would it be as effective as trying to do it with both eyes open.

Aaron's and Bonds' path of productivity as shown in these graphs, are not all that unusual for superstars and clearly not any more unusual than that of Davey Johnson's and Brady Anderson's among others. A one year spike is clearly more questionable.

You also have to remember that not too many power hitters play beyond age forty. Mays, Williams, Aaron, Bonds, etc. are exceptions to the rule. Many HR hitters like McGwire and Ruth are not playing at age 40 or more, so we are looking at a relatively low sample size which means we really don't know what normal is. Especially for a group (superstars) who by definition are not normal. That's important to remember also. Anyone who says they know what's normal and what's not regarding this sub-group is not being totally truthful or pushing an agenda or worse.

Bonds is usually indicted, tried and convicted by many on the basis of his late career jump in productivity, however when you compare his productivity jump vis-a-vis that of the rest of the league (his peers), his gains are not to be unexpected from a statistical standpoint.

One would and should expect that the productivity of the elite stars (Bonds, Sosa, McGwire) would jump a little higher then that of the "Average" player.

In fact if you compare Bonds' career HR productivity relative to the league average vs. the same statistical comparison of Aaron's career year-to-year, for each chronological year of age Aaron vs. Bonds, they run virtually neck and neck from the beginning of their career until at least age 40.

I will post the graph as soon as I master the technology.


http://www.protrade.com/content/DisplayArticle.html?sp=S8687c664-c2d1-11db-9291-83f05e1a00a7

Steriods. And the HR king. Say it isnt so Hank!
Smart 3 Not Smart 0 Comments 2 | Feb 22 2007 04:05 PM PST By BayAreaBaller
Topics: barry bonds hank aaron bud selig mlb jose canseco steroid steroids baseball home run king

STEROIDS GROUND ZERO: 1973 ATLANTA BRAVES
(Or what you will NOT read in Game of Shadows)

One of the more distressing fabrications which has emerged from the BALCO case has been the erroneous contention that the so-called 'Steroids Era' began in 1991 with Jose Conseco as its architect.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The San Francisco Chronicle, in a May 3rd 2005 article quoted former Major League pitcher Tom House of the Atlanta Braves as saying that steroids were rampant in the game in the late '60s and throughout the '70s.

House, perhaps best known for catching Hank Aaron's 715th home run ball in 1974 in the Atlanta Braves bullpen, said he and several teammates used amphetamines, human growth hormone and 'whatever steroid' they could find in order to keep up with the competition.

"I pretty much popped everything cold turkey', House said. "We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses. That was the '60s when nobody knew. The good thing is, we know now. There's a lot more research and understanding."

House, 58, estimated that six or seven pitchers per team were at least experimenting with steroids or human growth hormone. He said players talked about losing to opponents using more effective drugs,

"We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed", he said. "And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them".


According to Rep. Henry A. Waxman in his March 17,2005 opening statement before the House Government Reform Committee:

"Congress first investigated drugs and professional sports, including steroids over 30 years ago. I think perhaps the only two people in the room who will remember this are me and Commissioner Selig, because I believe he became owner in 1970".

In 1973, the year I first ran for Congress, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce concluded a year-long investigation that found--and I quote--"drug use exists...in all sports and levels of competition...In some instances, the danger of improper drug use--primarily amphetamines and anabolic steroids--can only be described as alarming".

Bowie Kuhn, and the powers that be at the time, quietly squashed the entire tawdry episode and with good reason: it would cast suspicions on an African-American slugger who was challenging one of baseball's most cherished records: The career record for home runs.

Compare Hank Aaron's stats at the beginning of his career and then notice how his HR% began to increase beginning when Hammerin' Hank was 37 years old.

HR% is defined as being the number of HRs per 100 ABs.

Age HRs HR%
33 44 7.3
34 39 6.5
35 29 4.8

Nothing unusual about these statistics; it is a typical profile of a slugger in decline as he ages. But then Hank began to undergo an 'enhancement.'

Age HRs HR%
36 44 8.0
37 38 7.4

What explains this spike at a latter age? Expansion? Perhaps. But then what happens?

Age HRs HR%
38 47 9.5
39 34 7.6

Hank...What's going on buddy? Aaron's HR% were TOPS in the NL in both 1971 and 1972. Hmm.

Age HRs HR%
40 40 10.2

Which leads us to 1973 when at age 40 in just 392 at bats, juiced 40 HR's for a HR% of 10.2. Once again TOPS in NL for the THIRD STRAIGHT YEAR and the HIGHEST HR% in the ENTIRE 23 year career of Hank Aaron.

Hank Aaron at 40 was not the only Atlanta Brave to hit 40 Hrs that season. Teammates Darrell Evans and Davey Johnson blasted 41 and 43 HRs respectively.

Darrell Evans

Year HRs HR%
1971 12 4.6
1972 19 4.5

1973 41 6.9

1974 25 4.4
1975 22 2.8

Notice a statistical anomaly? Let's see what Davey Johnson did.

Davey Johnson

Year HRs HR%
1971 18 3.5
1972 5 1.3

1973 43 7.7

1974 15 3.3
1975 Played 1 game
1976 Did not play MLB

Notice a statistical anomaly? It would be one thing for Hank Aaron to undergo an 'enhancement', but what are the odds that not one but TWO teammates would both have career years in HR's and HR% in the SAME YEAR as when a Congressional Committee issued its final report saying that anabolic steroids were rampant in the game? Why did Darrell Evans and Davey Johnson both experience career spikes in HR's only to return to earth the following year? And how did Hank finish up?


Age HRs HR%
41 20 5.9
42 12 2.6
43 10 3.7

So what happened? Enquiring minds want to know.

The 1996 Baltimore Orioles set at the time the team HR record for one season. Brady Anderson's 50 HR season was viewed suspiciously.

The manager of the 1996 Baltimore Orioles? Davey Johnson.

The only question remains: What did Bud Selig know and when did he know it?

Fay Vincent circulated a draft steroids policy in 1991. Selig knew that if the scab of steroids was picked off, the puss of the 1973 Atlanta Braves would be oozing all over the game. The scandal of Hank Aaron's HR record being tainted by steroids use would have been a PR disaster at the time and. personally, extremely painful to Bud Selig who, after all, is a long-time friend of Hank Aaron.

Hence the boardroom coup which ousted Fay Vincent and made Bud Selig 'Acting Commissioner', while still maintaining his position as the owner of the Milwaukee Brewers, a blatant conflict of interest.

So long as Bud Selig remains in charge of Major League Baseball, the American public will never get to the bottom of the steroids scandal which has sullied the game. He has too much of a personal vested interest in Hank Aaron.

Besides, after this season, Barry Lamar Bonds will BE the HR KING.

LONG LIVE THE KING!!!