This Bud's Not For Me

Stop.  You're upsetting the Commish:

"I don't want to hear the commissioner turned a blind eye to this or he didn't care about it," Selig told Newsday in a Monday phone interview. "That annoys the you-know-what out of me. You bet I'm sensitive to the criticism.

"The reason I'm so frustrated is, if you look at our whole body of work, I think we've come farther than anyone ever dreamed possible," he said, adding, "I honestly don't know how anyone could have done more than we've already done." But the mid-to-late 1990s also is looked at at the launching point of players bulking up, and steroids and other PEDs had much to do with that. Rodriguez admitted using banned substances from 2001 to 2003 while playing for the Texas Rangers. "I'm not sure I would have done anything differently" at that point in time, Selig told Newsday. "A lot of people say we should have done this or that, and I understand that. They ask me, 'How could you not know?' and I guess in the retrospect of history, that's not an unfair question. But we learned and we've done something about it. When I look back at where we were in '98 and where we are today, I'm proud of the progress we've made." When labor negotiations between owners and the players association commenced in 2002, Selig said he got behind a tougher drug policy but, fearing the lack of an agreement with the union would force another work stoppage, settled for a less rigid policy. "Starting in 1995, I tried to institute a steroid policy," Selig told Newsday. "Needless to say, it was met with strong resistance. We were fought by the union every step of the way." Players and owners did not agree to a joint drug program until August 2002, and testing with punishment didn't start until 2004. "It is important to remember that these recent revelations relate to pre-program activity," Selig said last week. "Under our current drug program, if you are caught using steroids and/or amphetamines, you will be punished. Since 2005, every player who has tested positive for steroids has been suspended for as much as 50 games."

Once again, Bud just doesn't get it. You would think after watching guys like Giambi and Pettitte get caught and essentially quiet all of their personal controversy by fessing up that Selig would have figured this out. Let's say it a little louder.  Maybe the man's ears are going:

Everyone is to blame, Bud.  Including you.

Bud does his usual dance around the facts, which is probably the only reason why he is still commissioner today (that and the fact that the owners are filthy

$$$).  Let's see how he addresses the question that he didn't do enough.

"I don't want to hear the commissioner turned a blind eye to this or he didn't care about it... The reason I'm so frustrated is, if you look at our whole body of work, I think we've come farther than anyone ever dreamed possible.  I honestly don't know how anyone could have done more than we've already done."

The question, Bud, isn't about what you've done, but when you did it.  Dale Murphy told Chris Russo that he heard the whispers in the 1980's.  The eighties!  That was at least thirteen years before you had anything meaningful done.

Sure, the whole body of work looks great if you ignore when you started working.  Let's not forget that it was former players who brought the PED issue to the forefront by talking to the press about it.  Only then did the commissioner's office and the player's union actually take action.  It's safe to assume that was because of public pressure.

Until that point, Bud was happy to soak up the cash the owners were hauling in that led to his $18 million salary last year.

What other dumb things did he say?

"I'm not sure I would have done anything differently" at that point in time

, Selig told Newsday. "A lot of people say we should have done this or that, and I understand that. They ask me, 'How could you not know?' and I guess in the retrospect of history, that's not an unfair question. But we learned and we've done something about it. When I look back at where we were in '98 and where we are today, I'm proud of the progress we've made."

How about the rumblings about Jose Canseco in 1988? According to the Mitchell Report, baseball said in 1998 that they wouldn't investigate

Canseco's possible steroid use because baseball had "no information about his usage or the usage of any other player in the major leagues."

No information.  Isn't that why you investigate?  If you have information, you probably have a lot less work to do. Was the commissioner's office (not Bud at the time) ignoring this incident before the 1989 season?  From the Mitchell Report:

Just before the 1989 season began, David Valdez, Jose Canseco's assistant and traveling companion, pleaded guilty to possession of a handgun while clearing security in Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. He was alleged to have been in possession of steroids when the gun was seized. Canseco had been with Valdez at the time, but he later denied any connection to the steroids or even knowing that Valdez was carrying steroids, explaining to a reporter that: "From what I know when he was young he was anemic and they did prescribe some pills for weight gain."

¹⁸⁹

Valdez said that he admitted the gun charges to spare Canseco embarrassment about the steroids. He explained that the steroids belonged to him, not Canseco, but Valdez added that he did not know the pills he was carrying were steroids at the time of his arrest.

Would that have been reason enough to investigate?  That is

some

information, anyway. What about what the press was saying?  This was pre-widespread Internet and easily ignored, but the signs were there.  From the Mitchell Report:

In August 1992, Peter Gammons reported in the Boston Globe that while there was not much discussion of steroid use in baseball, "there's a growing suspicion that it's much greater than anyone lets on." Ten years before Rob Manfred's 2002 Senate testimony, Gammons wrote that a recent increase in injuries in Major League Baseball could be the result of steroid use, as "players' muscle mass becomes too great for their bodies, resulting in the odd back and leg breakdowns . . ."

²⁰⁶

The issue was mentioned from time to time in articles over the next several years. One Long Beach, California reporter asserted in June 1993 that the use of steroids in baseball was "starting to run rampant." A law review article in spring 1994 argued for separate drug testing programs in baseball for drugs of abuse and performance enhancing substances.

²⁰⁷

A vocal early observer of the growing steroids problem in baseball was Bob Nightengale, who was then a baseball writer with the Los Angeles Times (and now covers baseball for USA Today). In a July 1995 article entitled "Baseball Still Doesn't Get It," Nightengale observed: "Come on, you know there's no steroid use in baseball. Those bodies and dramatic increases in strength and bat speed are only the byproducts of these athletes dedicating their bodies to the gym all winter. That's what baseball tells us." Several weeks later, a Nightengale story quoted a number of major league players and front office executives who expressed concern over the prevalence of steroid use in Major League Baseball.

Originally published in the Los Angeles Times, the story was picked up by wire services over the next few days and a revised version ran in the next issue of the Sporting News, in which steroid use was called "baseball's deep, dark, sinister secret." In the article, Randy Smith, then the general manager of the Padres, was quoted as having said that "

e all know there's steroid use, and it's definitely become more prevalent." He estimated that "10% to 20%" of players were using steroids.

All of these examples predate 1998, McGwire and Sosa, and the andro controversy in McGwire's locker.  If Bud really wanted to push for a steroid policy in 1995, he didn't try very hard.  It was the press and public pressure that really forced the issue earlier this decade.  All Bud had to do was make his concerns known and do a little investigating himself. Bud had no intention of doing that.  It would take an act of Congress to get Bud to act. But the worst comment from Bud, which shows that he truly doesn't understand, was this:

"It is important to remember that these recent revelations relate to pre-program activity."

Yes, Bud.  All of the news we are hearing is about the steroids that were being used before you got a program in place.  It's important to remember, Bud, that there was rampant steroid use before you took action.  With each new bit of news, we are learning about all of the steroid abuse that took place on your watch that you chose not to investigate. I'm sorry you're sensitive to criticism, Bud, but in this case, it's well deserved.