Fifty Plus (50+) - Interested in "Mature" response to Mitchell Report

This is cycling related, in that, I'm wondering if any of the negative press or media coverage of drugs in cycling will abate with the release of the Mitchell report implicating quite a number of very popular baseball players in the use of illegal drugs. I've been so tired of almost anything I read or hear from the main stream media about cycling needing to interject the "current state of affairs with cycling's drug problem." Perhaps there will be less focus on the "drug issue" in cycling? Or, is this just wishful thinking on my part?

I think it might increase media coverage of doping/juicing in all sports, as this topic becomes more and more a headline subject.

I think the key issue is that baseball is primarily a skill sport, so while athleticism is very important, the greatest athletes in the world (think Michael Jordan) don't necessarily make good ball players.

So, the use of PHD's aren't quite as critical to the outcome of a career of a game in baseball as they are in track and field, or cycling.

Not to say that the cheating by these guys shouldn't be ignored...just that Roger Clemems has pinpoint control, and Bonds can hit a 90 MPH split finger pitch, and drugs have nothing to do with either. Their longevity, however, was aided I'm sure.

I think it's wrong that names were named in the report, simply because the comission had no criteria other than hearsay -- except for some purchase reciepts -- and yet they can and did destroy a lot of guys' lives. And the accused have no recourse other than go on sports talk radio or Larry King and deny it.

For the record, I don't doubt that at least 90% of the accused did cheat, but all things considered, there was a better way to handle the information that was accrued.

I think it's wrong that names were named in the report, simply because the comission had no criteria other than hearsay -- except for some purchase reciepts -- and yet they can and did destroy a lot of guys' lives. And the accused have no recourse other than go on sports talk radio or Larry King and deny it.

For the record, I don't doubt that at least 90% of the accused did cheat, but all things considered, there was a better way to handle the information that was accrued.

I'm a bit conflicted about this. On one hand it feels a bit like the McCarthy "Red Scare" era. On the other hand, each of the named players was invited to talk with Mitchell before the report was released. Unfortunately, in today's high pressure media world, their reputations and liekly careers will take a serious hit by just being named.

Sports has literally risen to the "high" common denominator. Now that the cat is out of the bag, everything must change. Otherwise, some very talented athletes will not miss an opportunity to sue the crap out of their employers if they're cut to make way for doped performers.

Can you imagine the lawsuit that would exist in the litigious business of environment of today if you had to take speed to keep up with the rest of your fellow speed-taking co-workers? Wouldn't your employer be charged with constructive knowledge and tacit approval of the practice?

If you are fired after complaining ... you get whistleblower protection, right? And, if you're fired--because you refused to buck-up to get ahead ... constructive, unfair termination of employment, right?

However, up to now, the employer has had a good defense: it apparently was the players' union that prevented any employers from changing anything--even if it wanted to.

:)

I think it might increase media coverage of doping/juicing in all sports, as this topic becomes more and more a headline subject.

It certainly should show that doping is spread through the fabric of sporting. It should also blow up some of the myths about doping such as:

1. You have to look BIG to be doping.
2. The 3 big American sports - the NFL, the NBA and MLB do effective drug testing
3. <place hero's name here> isn't doping!

... Brad

Baseball is reaping its just rewards. Can you imagine the level of doping that would have occurred in the NFL, NBA, cycling, or the Olympics if those sports had performed no drug testing until 2003? With every sport around it testing and finding drug users, and with home run hitters and power pitchers proliferating at record rates, there could not have been more warning signs. Yet baseball chose to ignore it. And did so when all of those home runs and strikeouts put more people in the seats. They knew exactly what they were doing.

First baseball and then other "American" pro sports (football and basketball) will head down the long and bloody road that pro cycling has already and still is traveling. It may be painful, but it is inevitable, and one could say absolutely necessary. Winning should be determined by talent, skill, training and effort, not by cheating. Define cheating, draw the line, and enforce the rules. The consequences of cheating should be so severe, that most, if not all, will not cheat. Then let the best man (or woman) win. Isn’t that how it should be???

-Spoke

I don't know about anyone else, but I pine for the days of old, when athletes tended to stay with one team, when they weren't paid a gajillion dollars a year, and when talk about performance enhancing drugs (or other drugs) and their police blotters didn't dominate the scene.

Maybe they were underpaid in the fifties and sixties, and maybe it was unfair to not have free agency in baseball, but give me a break. At least they played because they loved the game and not to get rich. And at least ordinary Joe's could afford a ticket.

I remember when a bleacher seat in Cleveland Municipal Stadium (which put you about a mile from the action) was just 50 cents. And I'll never forget my first glimpse of that amazing field of green.

But that was then, and this is now. The San Diego Millionaires are hosting the Detroit Millionaires in the NFL this Sunday. I hope the Millionaires beat the tar out of the Millionaires.

I don't begrudge them the money. They generate huge dollars and deserve their fair share of it. Why should some unknown group of millionaires get to keep 80% of the profits and underpay their employees?

And I don't really begrudge them using steroids and HGH at some level. The competition was fierce, there were millions of dollars to be made, everyone was looking the other way (and knowingly so), and others were using them to great success. If I had been sitting in the AAA minors, making $20K, and saw that I had a good chance of becoming a multi-millionaire by taking some drugs for a few years, there's a good chance that I would have done it. And as there was no testing program, there was no chance of getting caught.

People who say they wouldn't have don't really know if that would have been the case, had the perfect opportunity presented itself to them. Heck, the trainers in the clubhouses were pushing the stuff.

This is why I think the short list of names is only the tip of the iceberg. If there was a way to go back into the late 90s and retest everyone, I think you would have found a very high usage rate. The guys on the bench making $200K were using it because the alternative was to be in the minors.

I'm just glad my agent was able to keep my name off all the lists........Popeye and my Mom always talked about the virtues of spinach, even thought it sure does smell funny when it's burning.

Oops......probably not a mature response.

Seriously, I suspect most folks are just getting pretty callous to the whole doping thing. There's not suspense to it anymore........which is sad.

+1, DG
Doesn't matter if it's cycling, baseball, football, basketball or whatever, as long as millions of dollars are being paid to athletes to participate in these sports, some are gonna try and find a way to get to the top, if natural talent and training aren't enough. The addictive effects of money, status and fame are too strong for these young men(and women) to withstand. Who cares what I do to my body, as long as I can stay healthy long enough to land one year of A-Rod's contract?

Oh darn......I guess they'll have to compete with Britney for headline space now. My entertainment dollar is and has not been for some time now available for pro sports. The NBA, NFL, NHL, Major League Baseball and even the MLS are beyond my means and interest. I still watch some of the auto racing available but that is more due to my background in the sport then real "fansmanship". Even there I'm begining to be "disappointed" by the cubic money involved and how business has supplanted sports.

College sports....OK for now but the future is looking dim there also.

I'll watch European Football (soccer here) but I must admit that I'm actually watching to see if a stadium can be burned down during the game without the players noticing.

I guess that the Mitchell report doesn't surprise me......I'm just let down.

I think the key issue is that baseball is primarily a skill sport, so while athleticism is very important, the greatest athletes in the world (think Michael Jordan) don't necessarily make good ball players.
So, the use of PHD's aren't quite as critical to the outcome of a career of a game in baseball as they are in track and field, or cycling.

Not to say that the cheating by these guys shouldn't be ignored...just that Roger Clemems has pinpoint control, and Bonds can hit a 90 MPH split finger pitch, and drugs have nothing to do with either. Their longevity, however, was aided I'm sure.

I think it's wrong that names were named in the report, simply because the comission had no criteria other than hearsay -- except for some purchase reciepts -- and yet they can and did destroy a lot of guys' lives. And the accused have no recourse other than go on sports talk radio or Larry King and deny it.

For the record, I don't doubt that at least 90% of the accused did cheat, but all things considered, there was a better way to handle the information that was accrued.While baseball has a number of specialized skills that must be mastered to be a good player, at the professional level, everyone has mastered those skills. Therefore, atheletic ability becomes critical. Also, many "skills" in baseball, such as running, aren't really that esoteric, and depend squarely on atheletic ability. The fact that professional atheletes, who know far more about their sports than we do, feel they are aided by PEDs, suggests to me that they DO give their users an advantage.

I think the key issue is that baseball is primarily a skill sport, so while athleticism is very important, the greatest athletes in the world (think Michael Jordan) don't necessarily make good ball players.

So, the use of PHD's aren't quite as critical to the outcome of a career of a game in baseball as they are in track and field, or cycling.

I would have to disagree after hearing testimony of the inventor of "the clear". He states that "the clear" and possibly other steroides DO INCREASE HAND/EYE COORDINATION AND REACTION TIME/ETC. Moreover, he has the test data to prove it.

Therefore, at least in the case of "the clear", both skill (hand/eye-reaction time-etc) AND power/strengh are increased.

... Brad

Prolly be chucked into P&R for this. . .or out of BF altogether. . ., but I'd recommend "Going Zen on Their A**es". . .with drugs in sports as with religion, politics, and the other outrages portrayed at 110 decibels in our ears 24/7 by the lowest of humans. . .pay it no attention. Individuals cannot get one step ahead of those who insist on doping. . .or preaching. . .or peddling promises for votes. Doping in cycling? As heartbreaking as it is to see it dragged into the mud, pay it no attention. The best an individual can do is to protray in one's self the best of humanity. Our individual example is all we have.

One of the main benefits of steroids for baseball players is increased stamina and muscle recovery. Pitchers could last longer in games, relievers could bounce back to pitch the next night more readily, hitters & pitchers did not wear down as much going through the long season.

Take a minor league reliever who can throw a 92 mph fastball. Give him steroids and into a rigorous conditioning program. He comes out being able to throw 96 and can do it on back to back nights. Hello major leagues.

+1, DG
Doesn't matter if it's cycling, baseball, football, basketball or whatever, as long as millions of dollars are being paid to athletes to participate in these sports, some are gonna try and find a way to get to the top, if natural talent and training aren't enough. The addictive effects of money, status and fame are too strong for these young men(and women) to withstand. Who cares what I do to my body, as long as I can stay healthy long enough to land one year of A-Rod's contract?

That Game of Soccer and England recently failed to make the final 16 of the European Championships to be held next year. Just heard tonight that the team that beat them in the final eliminating match- had a player that has proved positive for drugs. Looks Like England will qualify now by default.

Get big money tied up in anything and "Cheating" will be a factor. Drugs are just a factor of cheating. Heard today of a drug that will enhance your thinking and confidence. It is a drug for some other illness- but people have been taking this drug for interviews for jobs. Problem is that if taken for the side values of the drug- it will induce high blood pressure and other nasties after prolongued use.

I found it outrageous and libelous to name individuals without proper due process i.e. a regulatory body overseeing the sport or the justice department. Yes, the named players were offered the opportunity to "meet" with Mitchell but legally, that would have been a bad idea. Of course, one will say if you are innocent then meeting has no downside. I do not believe that is always the case and what was their upside to meeting with Mitchell? His mind was made up - he was going to name some people. He and others knew that the report would be a significant blow to anyone named that can never be erased and proceded anyway.

Now did some of them do it? Based on hearsay, admission and circumstantial evidence, yes. Should major league baseball, football and basketball have tough testing standards and ban players for two years like cycling, yes, bowling too:rolleyes:. It is about a level playing field and the health of the athletes. They do not need drugs to be great athletes that entertain us and make a lot of money.

Does this change anything for cycling? IMHO, no. Professional sports is about playing for money and sponsors, ticket sales, TV rights and winnings provide that money. A sponsor must want to associate with a player or team to get co-branding, more impressions or other advertising benefit. I do not think the beer guys care if pro baseball player is drugged or not and in fact may be delighted. But many sponsors do and will not want their name associated with anything tainted by drugs. Once again too much downside and not enough upside.

I found it outrageous and libelous to name individuals without proper due process i.e. a regulatory body overseeing the sport or the justice department.

This is where I get stuck. Is due process extended to worker - employer relationships in such matters? In my area, the local newspaper would have no problems publishing the names of, let's say public school employees for the sake of argument, who were accused of using illegal drugs. And they would do this regardless of any pending trials within the legal system. So, given the nature of the bargaining agreement Major League Baseball has with the Player's Association, was Mitchell's investigation within what could be called due process? I believe the head of the Player's Association indicated that the association's role was to ensure that due process in accordance with the bargaining agreement would be followed for any player who appeals. It seems to me that this is qualitatively different than what happened to Landis with the lab releasing results in violation of the rules. It's a complicated issue to be sure. In my idealistic fantasy, there would be greater tolerance for the entire sport of cycling as a result of this. I suspect it is, in fact, a fantasy.

While baseball has a number of specialized skills that must be mastered to be a good player, at the professional level, everyone has mastered those skills.

Then why did Terry Forster have a long career, and Rick Ankiel did not? Ankiel is 20 times the athlete, yet Forster was 20 times the pitcher.

My older son graduated from college in 2003. He was on a baseball scholarship. His last year he played first base and was hitting in the 3 spot. This was a division one school and they played some of the top teams in the country.
My son was injured his first year. This injury did not keep him from playing on the college level, but it was detrimental for pro ball. He knew he was not going pro, but many of the other players on his team did get drafted. My son did not use steroids. He said he did not want the problems since he probably had no chance to go pro anyway. He also told me he was the only starter on the team NOT on steroids, including the pitchers.
The other players said they had no chance if they were not on roids.
Pitchers were actually affected trememdously be the steriods. Someone wrote earlier that it would not have helped pitchers. BAD WRONG. The "Tommy John" operation on the elbow is mostly due to steriods. Many of the pro pitchers have needed this operation.

Can you imagine what the record would have been if Babe Ruth had been on steriods instead of beer.

This is cycling related, in that, I'm wondering if any of the negative press or media coverage of drugs in cycling will abate with the release of the Mitchell report implicating quite a number of very popular baseball players in the use of illegal drugs.

To me the biggest surprise is that it's such a big story. HELLO! Pro athletes using performance enhancing drugs? I'm utterly shocked!

I think that the genie's been out of the bottle for quite some time. As long as professional athletes in any sport feel that their competition might be using performance enhancing drugs, they're are also going to feel compelled to use them. I don't think there is much hope of ever going back. The contest now is how to beat the testing and I think that the users are always going to be one step ahead of the regulators.

I overheard a conversation between two football players at the lunch table once in high school, and they were talking about using steroids to bulk up. That was in 1968.

This ISN'T news!!!

Who really cares...Professional sports is entertainment anyhow. Until people stop attending games and watching in the media NOTHING will be done. Cycling is now losing the cash cow and will change because of the reality of money. If Bonds gets cancer and dies because of steroids maybe others will think. As long as Sports is entertainment I really don't think there will be any consequences. Bonds for example was clearly a first ballot HOF player before he started using. The only thing he gained was the HR record. Take that away and maybe...

I care because of the health risks to teenagers trying to break into big time college or professional sports. And, I've read where Little Leaguers are now juiced...urged on by their fathers, of course.

I care because of the health risks to teenagers trying to break into big time college or professional sports. And, I've read where Little Leaguers are now juiced...urged on by their fathers, of course.

I can't stand it anymore. I confess: I JUICE!

I've found my Vitamix to be an excellent way to make juice. Not eveyone likes it because there's lots of pulp. But it works for me.

Anyway, I juice, there, I've said it. I am not here to be anyone's idol, not me or Charles Barkley.

Let's print up a few thousand DG posters, showing him in a loincloth, depicted as a juicer. That will stop those high school kids from doping.

I think it might increase media coverage of doping/juicing in all sports, as this topic becomes more and more a headline subject.
Including bicycling? Is that possible?

That aside, the OP posted here for a "mature" reponse? How long has he been here?

Including bicycling? Is that possible?

That aside, the OP posted here for a "mature" reponse? How long has he been here?

That depends on the OP's definition of mature. Kind of like what is, is.

By what I read in the papers, Clemens has played for 24 seasons in the Majors and he is still throwing heat, not a natural thing. Hoyt Wilhelm pitched 'til age 48 (?) because he threw a flutter ball (aka: knuckle ball), not heat.

With "juice" pop-ups and rather routine fly balls to the outfield go over the fence. (Babe Ruth had help, too. He had the now gone 296' fence in right field at Yankee Stadium, not the usual 335' RF fence, but he got to play only 1/2 of his games there.

The players of today are so much bigger and stronger than yrs ago - some of it natural, some of it not. I am 6'3"/200 and a total runt by today's major sport athlete standards.

I remember the quarterback of my daughter's HS's football team in 1985 - he was 6'4"/210 lbs as a senior. He went on to the NFL, and the last time I saw him, maybe 8-9 yrs after graduation he was the long snapper for an NFL team, had a neck the size of a gallon wine jug and must have weighed 275+ (all muscle). His dad was a Dr. no less, so draw your own conclusions. ADD: When he last played in the NFL in 2000, he was listed as 6'5"/297!!!

ADD: Another kid on this same H.S. team also made it to the NFL as a hard hitting Defensive Back. He developed intestinal cancer and died at age 31. He had been the highest defensive back draft pick ever.

RE: the high salaries athletes get: Think govt built stadiums (w/ tax dollars) and TV $. It gives all those big dollars to compete for players, and...How many business get the Gov't to build state of art buildings (aka: stadiums) for them every 30 yrs?

As usual, it's all about fame and money. Enough rant. Need to go ride my $129 folder.

I don't know about anyone else, but I pine for the days of old, when athletes tended to stay with one team, when they weren't paid a gajillion dollars a year, and when talk about performance enhancing drugs (or other drugs) and their police blotters didn't dominate the scene.

Maybe they were underpaid in the fifties and sixties, and maybe it was unfair to not have free agency in baseball, but give me a break. At least they played because they loved the game and not to get rich. And at least ordinary Joe's could afford a ticket.

I remember when a bleacher seat in Cleveland Municipal Stadium (which put you about a mile from the action) was just 50 cents. And I'll never forget my first glimpse of that amazing field of green.

But that was then, and this is now. The San Diego Millionaires are hosting the Detroit Millionaires in the NFL this Sunday. I hope the Millionaires beat the tar out of the Millionaires.

Why not the Williamsport Millionaires?

http://www.millionairefootball.com/

I care because of the health risks to teenagers trying to break into big time college or professional sports. And, I've read where Little Leaguers are now juiced...urged on by their fathers, of course.

Why blame professionals? Unfortunately, everyday people do it. I know someone at my gym who has bragged about the steroids he's using. He doesn't need to use them. He's not competing as a weightlifter. He has lots of muscle, and a build better than most men. Still, he uses steroids since he wants to be 'bigger'.

In many ways, this fellow's use of steroids is a mirror of American culture. Get more, get bigger, even if you don't need it, and if there's a way to get it without working for it, or get it with shortcuts, do it. Can you blame the kids if they are being taught this is how to get what you want?

It certainly should show that doping is spread through the fabric of sporting. It should also blow up some of the myths about doping such as:

1. You have to look BIG to be doping.
2. The 3 big American sports - the NFL, the NBA and MLB do effective drug testing
3. <place hero's name here> isn't doping!

... Brad

Even wanna-be 'sports' are concerned about doping now.

http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_raves/102802_js_rave.html

From FIDE (Federation Internationale des Echecs):

"At all other events (except where doping control is carried out under the rules of another sporting body) the NCF [National Chess Federation] conducting the controls or in whose territory an event is held shall be responsible for conducting doping control and shall adopt the procedures set forth in these Regulations and shall report the results thereof to the FIDE Medical Commission."

One of the main benefits of steroids for baseball players is increased stamina and muscle recovery. Pitchers could last longer in games, relievers could bounce back to pitch the next night more readily, hitters & pitchers did not wear down as much going through the long season.

Take a minor league reliever who can throw a 92 mph fastball. Give him steroids and into a rigorous conditioning program. He comes out being able to throw 96 and can do it on back to back nights. Hello major leagues.

Other than pitching and the catcher, baseball takes stamina? They only stamina you need to have is from boredom.

I have been involved in Sport since the early 60's. Got quite high in the Regional rankings for cross country running and the only performance enhancing products I knew of were salt tablets and pasta. In hindsight- I was probably naive but I got to a level and could not improve on that. Difference is I have got to 60 and still able to participate in Sports. Several of my betters died early of heart attacks and I have heard that several of the others are now with serious medical problems.

I have never read an estimate of the financial losses suffered by the individuals who should have and would have won the various races. Surely it was a great deal of money. Not to mention the glory, fame, and adulation that winners receive and losers do not. People who dedicate their youth to winning at some sport should not, and I think would not, be opposed to very rigorous testing programs. The absence of such testing is almost as obscene as the cheating/stealing itself.

People who dedicate their youth to winning at some sport should not, and I think would not, be opposed to very rigorous testing programs. The absence of such testing is almost as obscene as the cheating/stealing itself.

Unfortunately I don't think that it's as simple as that.

The juicers are pretty good about designing programs to get around whatever testing is done. It looks to me like they're managing to stay one step ahead of the regulators. I also think that I'm also seeing a problem with false positive, or at least questionnable, test results.

I think that performance enhancing drugs are here to stay and that, from now on, the results of all sporting events will be forever clouded.

Whatever effect it has on perceptions of cycling will be small, I think, because most people don't care about the sport one way or the other. Everybody knows Lance Armstrong, and a few years ago everybody knew Greg, but I'll bet not 2 percent of Americans can even name another pro rider.
For that matter, not that many can name many pro athletes in the mainstream American sports. One of our local TV stations did a viewer survey a couple of years ago and found that only 17 percent of their audience cares about sports. That's about the same result my newspaper got when we asked the same questions. The people who do care tend to be enthusiastic, but that doesn't extend to cycling except for a tiny minority.

When a 25 year old kid is told that if he hits 30 home runs this year he will get $20 million dollars, he is going to find a way to hit 30 home runs.

If your the running a sports channel and can make 500 million off that kid and others, you really don't care how they do it.

In this atmosphere of corporate sports, it's not using perfomance enhancing drugs but getting caught that is the crime.

Heard on the news that baseball had been in decline until the guys taking drugs made it more exciting.

You can make any sport safer. There are fights in hockey because the sport would
tank without them. You could make football safer, but without the gladitorial feel, would the fans still come? You know the answer.

I think cycling could survive without drugs. But if you look at baseball's response
to Mitchell's report it's clear they know what side of their bread is buttered.

It's a long causal string; but the high school kid shooting steroids is doing it because sports are our secular religion. Time to grow up. If you can, which I doubt

An editorial cartoon from today's paper.

I have played organized baseball/softball since I was 11 years old - still doing it at age 64. When I was playing in H.S. and thru freshman year in college we didn't even lift weights.

Pro cycling is actually trying to rid itself of dopers; you can tell because the organizers are proactive with drug testing, fines and bans. Even teams are tossing riders they suspect of doping.

MLB, NFL and the PGA (thats right the PGA) are doing everything they can to make the public believe they are cleaning up their sports'. Thats a bit different than actually cleaning up the sport.

Look at what happened to pro football player Shawne Merriman and what happened to Pro cyclist Rasmussen and compare the two. Merriman tested positive for drugs and was suspended for just four games while Rasmussen was dropped by his team while leading the TDF because they suspected he had used drugs. One organization wants the public to think its' being tough and the other is actually being tough.

In the end pro cycling if it survives the purge will be a clean sport that occasionally catches a cheater. The NFL on the other hand will continue to hide its cheaters.

Like Mad magazines Spy vs. Spy in athletics we have counter-counter-
counter measures. No one has been caught with EPO in a couple of years
because the athletes doctors taught them to microdose and to diminish
their hermatocrit (sp?) levels later. Todays NYTimes has the headline
Scientists Move Closer to Reliable H.G.H. Test. People are wondering
how genetic modification will effect the '08 Olympics.

I welcome the Mitchell report but believe that we are far from solving
the problem.