The indelible scarlet letter...

I think we’re safely at the point where we can state that once a player is accused of steroid usage he is guilty in the eyes of public opinion. It is why the identities of the 103 remaining names of the 2003 survey testing should be guarded with extreme prejudice.

When the accusation has dropped, we’ve seen players respond in a number of ways yet one theme holds undeniably true--nobody believes them.

Not only that, if they do deign to confess, that confession is viewed with suspicion unless they declare that they’ve juiced their entire professional career and continue to do so until this very day. It is generally assumed that whatever the perpetrator has admitted isn’t the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and he’s holding back some details so it won’t look so bad.

We’ve had a chance to witness a number of confessions over the years and among the star players they are--without a doubt--viewed with suspicion. Nobody believes that the accused have been completely forthright. Those who claim they’re innocent are generally viewed to be lying and it doesn’t matter what the player does or how he makes his assertion he simply will not be believed. Let’s look at the example of Roger Clemens and John Q. Public’s reaction to how he has handled things (a shout out to fellow primate Ray DiPerna for drawing the map):

First Clemens outright denies the charge through his attorney. The public says “If he were really innocent he would speak to the people directly.”

He does so and releases a video statement to that effect, however the public remains skeptical and says “If he were really innocent he would deign to be interviewed”--a form of public cross-examination--so he faces the tough Mike Wallace to plead his case.

However, the public still refuses to believe him and states: “If he were really innocent he would make himself available to the media to clear his name” he does this, but no dice since now the people say that “If he were really innocent he would sue the person making the allegations and accusations against him.”

Clemens now sues Brian McNamee--the source of the claim against him but nothing changes as the masses state “If he were really innocent he would deny steroid use under oath in front of the government" and guess what?

He is still guilty in the court of public opinion. Clemens jumped through every hoop folks demanded that a player go through to defend his innocence and it wasn’t good enough--they still wanted more; bottom line: to be accused is to be guilty and to be guilty (as previously noted) is to be a juicer from cradle to grave and being interred with a syringe sticking out the casket.

For those who defend themselves by pointing out that every accusation has produced a juicer then think: there have been a lot of accusations tossed out and players implicated--up to 80 percent of players by some. That being the case, then we can safely assume the number is that high can we not? After all, Tom House stated back in the 1970’s that (1) 6-7 pitchers per pitching staff were using either steroids or human growth hormone and (2) that number has decreased in recent years.

Decreased to 80 percent of players? Hey, that’s the logical conclusion of believing every claim and pointed finger at a player regarding steroid usage.

What does that say about how level the playing field was (and is)--if that many players are on steroids then doesn’t it stand to reason that what has been achieved in the game has occurred with nobody with a competitive advantage over others? This in turn would make Barry Bonds' records fairly legitimate would it not? He faced juiced pitchers and the fielders chasing down his shots did so with juiced legs and juiced reflexes. If that many were on steroids then it was pretty much a zero-sum game for Bonds, Mark McGwire, Alex Rodriguez et al.

Now you know why it’s so important that the 103 remaining names that came up positive in the survey testing in 2003--there will be a small number of false positives and players that took a tainted supplement. What hasn’t received near enough press is what happened in 1994--DSHEA (Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act) was signed into law. What this did was allowing the manufacturers of supplements to put products on the market without having to prove that they were completely safe and untainted with anabolic substances; DSHEA meant that the FDA would have to establish there was no problem with these things after they hit the marketplace.

Make no mistake--a lot of supplements had steroidal elements to help them deliver the promised gains and these could be purchased at any pharmacy and GNC and also bear in mind that “euphemisms” for various hormones in them would be used so as not to trigger suspicion and some wouldn’t be listed at all. Athletes of all stripes bought these by the bucketful and ingested large quantities of these things never knowing that they could potentially result in a positive test for steroids.

Chances are excellent that some of the 104 positives from the survey testing were just that--remember: the players knew that testing was coming and would’ve prepared for it accordingly but 104 still flunked which would indicate that some were ingesting steroids through supplements not realizing what was in them.

That, ladies and gentlemen why those 103 names need to remain anonymous--to protect that small handful that were false positives and the result of tainted supplements because were those names to be revealed they would be tried and convicted of being lifetime hardcore steroid abusers deserving of all the scorn the public can muster and there is absolutely, positively no way they would be able to prove that they weren’t cheaters.

Heck, Sammy Sosa is guilty in the eyes of many for his "no speaka da English" routine in front of the government committee, a corked bat and a trio of 60 HR seasons even though nobody has linked him to any dealers, never flunked a test and didn't show up in the Mitchell Report but is guilty as charged regardless.

As Colonel Nick Jessup said: ‘We can’t handle the truth’; or more pointedly, we cannot be trusted with it because we have been conditioned by the media to be completely irrational on the subject and our own inherent pettiness and jealousy toward those “spoiled, pampered, overpaid ballplayers” require that we take these self-entitled brats down a notch whenever possible since we’re too lazy to engage in the hard task of self-improvement and so are content to merely tear down others so we can feel better about ourselves.

It’s sad--but it is true.

Best Regards

John