Nice, clear-headed column by George Vecsey: http://tinyurl.com/26agn4

As a Yankees fan, in looking back on 1996-2001, one fact that has struck me is the absence of any "oversized" hitter on the Yankees, as was the case for so many of their competitors. Thus, as highly regarded core players such as Jeter, Bernie and Posada are, I've considered them to be even better than their numbers relative to their peers, considering the environment in which they played. That has not changed.

The only Yankee of any significance to be cited during the Yankees championship seasons is Clemens in 2000. I'm sorry but Canseco, Neagle, Hill, Manzanillo (?!), Naulty (?!?!), etc., were not in any meaningful way "Yankees." But here's where things become intriguing, with respect to Clemens PED use being most identified with his time with the Yankees.

Clemens' career ERA apart from the Yankees is 2.85. His Yankees ERA is 4.00. His ERA in the time immediately preceding and following his stint with the Yankees, with the Blue Jays and Astros is 2.37. Thus, not only was his performance with the Yankees not "enhanced," but it was actually the worst of his career by a significant margin. I'm not saying that Clemens wasn't a good pitcher with the Yankees, especially relative to his era, but if his performance for his entire career had been the same as for the Yankees, we wouldn't even be talking about the HOF.

But, even looking closely at his pre and post-Yankees time is interesting. First of all, other than his 10-13 record, he actually had a very good year with the Red Sox in '96. His ERA was 3.63 (lower than all but one of his Yankees seasons) during a season when the league ERA was 5.05 - the highest of the entire period. He also had 257 Ks. Furthermore, he had a thoroughly dominant season in '97 - 2.05 ERA and 292 Ks, when there is no indication of steroid use. In addition, after his thorougly dominant time with the Astros, he returned to the Yankees this past season and had a 4.18 ERA. Other stats relevant to effectiveness, such as H/IP also match the ERA and Ks.

Here we do not have an average to above-average player having a remarkable single season performance (Anderson 96, Gonzalez 01), nor do we have productive players suddenly shattering records (Sosa, McGwire). We don't even have an all-time elite player exceeding his already exceptionally high achievement level - Bonds. We have an all-time great player who, during a time when he was supposedly using PEDs, consistently performed at levels far below his career norms.

I'm not sure what all the numbers mean, and I'm not saying that Clemens didn't use steroids. But what I do know is that this is obviously not the case of a great player declining and then taking PEDs to not only peform at, but even surpass, previous levels.

Quite frankly, I find this much more interesting and even curious. It might even make for some interesting writing and reporting if among the thousands upon thousands of words written and spoken it were acknowledged.

1 These articles always come off as trying to remove any personal responsibility from people. Baseball had no specific rule against it, so these men just blatantly breaking American law to cheat is baseball's fault.

Furthermore, if these don't wish to be held to the standard of a role model, they're more than welcome to trade all their money, fame, photo ops, celebrity hobnobbing and charity galas and become my garbage man.

I wish we could 'break out' each person on the list and examine and judge their behavior on it's own, without lumping everyone together and labeling them.

Yes Matt 3 , Pettitte did break the law. Have you every broken the law? Between speed limits, drinking, drugs, tax returns, smoking cigarettes, gambling, sexual activity and a host of other activities, I guess 90% of Americans have broken the law and many continue to do so. So what?

Did Andy 'cheat'? Yeah, I guess so. Not very long and not very well... but yes. Between greenie, PEDs, corked bats, scuffed balls, stolen signs and the rest, a good portion of MLB players have cheated at one time or another. So what?

The is now no shortage of material for all the sanctimonious virgins out there who LOVE to jump on the band wagon and judge others, as opposed to examining and taking care of their own behavior. But for how PED usage has really impacted Baseball, there is ONLY ONE true question here that is REALLY of concern. How many players used PEDs specifically to enhance their career and their career numbers?

If you did some 'uppers' in college, I don't consider you a 'speed freak'. If you had a bad month and did some binge drinking for a bit, and it ends there, I don't consider you an alcoholic. If you drive 70 MPH on the highway a lot, I don't consider you a criminal (although by the letter of the law, you are). And for the players that did small quantities for a very short period, that had little to no effect on their performance, I can't consider them PEDs users.

This all goes back to the 'witch hunt'. The desire to take a huge problem (PEDs in baseball) and sweep under the rug, all the systemic mistakes made by Selig and Fehr, as well as the hundreds (or more) of players who in some form or manner 'cheated', and use our collective anger and denial to 'burn a very few players at the stake'.

Let's not worry about the vast sums of money made during the steroid era. The new stadiums. The new fans. The cable TV contracts. The 'growth' of baseball. After all, MLB does NOT want to give any of that back, nor have the motivation for ignoring this problem for over a decade examined.

No, let's instead take a very few players that actually got caught (as opposed to the majority who are still unnamed) and publicly shame them. Let's all be 'Moral Shillings' and call for their records to be exsponged. Let's make them into 'bad people' and use them as examples to our children. Let's get real creative and see how we can punish these bastards. Let's tar and feather them, give dozens of sportwriters hundreds of easy articles to write damning them to hell, so the rest of us can feel better.

The we can go back to business as usually. Just look at our government and corporate bahvior. This, after all, IS the American way.

What is the Chewbacca defense? Did I sleep through that class in law school?

Good work? Left out was the stupid op ed piece in yesterday's NYT.

Howie Bryant has the best perspective. He documented all ya need to know, without the attendant preachiness, in Juicing the Game. If you follow his lead, you want to jump on everyone. Come clean, will ya. Everyone. I mean, I mean, like everyone.

Are we going to maintain the code of silence? Buddy was so scared that his game was going into the crapper, he and his boys ignored the problem. Managers didn't report what they knew saw or heard. Players wispered. Agents. Canseco kept getting signed and resigned. Are we going to buy the line that only a handful of people provided the drugs?

I just still haven't heard what I am supposed to do with all the information. In the world of stats and heroes, how many of my squad rank higher or lower due to their use of performance enhancers or someone elses?

Having a lot of problems with it, I am.

3 Matt, that's way too reductionist. Vecsey certainly didn't take your moralistic stance, but he didn't exonerate anyone. Sure, they should take responsibility, under the law and the rules (really, under the rules at the time, but that's a different story). He's just saying that they're human, and we shouldn't be so outraged and hurt to discover that they act that way.

Similarly, his point wasn't about the players not wanting to be role models. It wasn't about them, it was about us; if we expect them to be morally superior, then we're damn fools.

As I said, let them take responsibility for their actions. But if people peg their moral certainty to baseball players and the players fall short, they shouldn't have to bear that responsibility. Our illusions (or delusions) are our own, not theirs.

It really is possible to see the players as having responsibility for their actions and to place those actions in a context that makes their meaning more ambiguous. But from what I've seen, ambiguity may not be your strongest suit.

2 Great post, and this is stuff that the mainstream media has chosen to ignore or outright lied about. Clemens did not "get better with age." The best parts of his career were in Boston as a younger man. The years that throw people off, I believe, are the Houston years. But considering he went from the war zone that is the AL East to the NL Central, it's not inconceivable (that's the Princess Bride defense for those new to law school).

And Clemens' career was not on life support in 1996. If you can ignore the relatively pointless stat (for a starter) of wins and losses, then you can see he had a good year. Toronto didn't sign him for four-years at top dollar just for his name.

And people are saying you can look at him and see steroid use. But pull up his baseball cards through the years and there is gradual change, but there is no sudden leap that most suspected steroid users have. Of course, if his use was limited to the three periods mentioned, then there wouldn't really be that.

I don't know if he used or not, and my head tells me he probably did. But I think a lot of the things the media has put forth as evidence have been pure garbage.

7 Another part of the story that seems to be accepted is that the Red Sox were correct in their decision to let Clemens go, that he was in a steep decline that was masked by steroids.

But McNamee's story - assuming it's true - gives every indication that Clemens started using steroids in 1998. That's when Canseco came to Toronto, and McNamee describes Clemens getting his basic education at that point.

So what about that 1997 Cy Young?

5 The Chewbacca defense is a South Park creation. Wikipedia entry here: http://tinyurl.com/63jlb. There used to be a YouTube video of it, but apparently it's been taken down.

Roger speaks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD0GHx980CU

Sounds like they're hoping to pull a Billingsley on Joba next year. While it did limit his innings for the year, it might have screwed the Dodgers out of a playoff spot considering how many starts were given to Mark Hendrickson and Brett Tomko.

Luckily, Kennedy and Hughes are much better bets than Tomdrickson, so I think it would be wise to start him in the bullpen. Not only does it give you a dominant setup man, it allows you to further evaluate the youngsters in the rotation.

6 They're human. And there are consequences to a human's actions. When I do something wrong, there are consequences to my actions. Andy Pettitte did something knowing full well what the consequences might be if and when he was caught. I don't blame baseball. I don't blame society. I blame Andy Pettitte, and no half assed, insincere apology is going to change that. He's a very good pitcher, I'm glad he's pitching for my team. But much like Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez before him, I really so no reason to ever believe a word that comes out of his mouth. I certainly don't want to hear people citing his strength of character as a reason for why he does anything any more.

12 Yes? Every time you have exceeded the speed limit, you got a speeding ticket? Ever smoke any pot and go to jail for it?

How many people do you think would be walking the streets now if everyone that ever 'broke the law' were punished for it?
Sometimes when my daughter broke a rule I told her to 'not do it again'. Might that be a fair punishment for some of these players?

Furthermore, while Andy and other have 'confessed', and while others haven't, none have been convicted by a court of law.

And in 2002, what were the consequence of doing HGH? Did anyone know what the consequences were back then?

Yes, there are consequences for human's actions. Unless you are Bud Selig or Donald Fehr. Sometimes, depending on circumstances, a consequence is amnesty and forgiveness.

Do you think maybe you are being a tad pious?

No help yet, but I will keep pleading with you all. Please make some sense of what is going on. Perhaps, I am not clear (get it, clear) in my thoughts.

It is 1998. Baseball having some problemos. Yankees have a sweet team. No big superstars. Solid group of professionals. Win regularly. But, what am I following everyday? The assault on Roger's record (Maris not Clemmens). Andro and creatine found in his locker. Sammy all bulked up. The league buries the supplement story, allowing the race to go on. Writers threatened with banishment if they scribe on it. Sammy and Mark. Mark and Sammy. Arm in arm. Kisses to Mom. Bashing forearm. My heart. My heart. How may today?

I am so upset that I devoted the time to the story and that they took the record from some humble guy who will never get into the Hall of Fame, but who, in my estimation, holds the most sacred of season records. And look at the crap he put up with as he socked his way to 61.

How do I erase the memory of that season? Is it simple enough just to say what?

13 I think that the supplements that were used had been banned in football, basketball, and T&F before 1998. The effects were known. Baseball, management and union, chose not to deal with it.

In 2002, all illegal drugs were against MLB policy (duh). So doing HGH was like smoking Pot or tooting Coke. Were any Pot smokers disiplined for smoking Pot or doing Coke? I don't know.

David Justice did a long, detailed interview with M.Kay. He had some illuminating things to say about McNamee. Unfortunately, we have opened a can of he said-she said, so we have no idea who to believe, and maybe can't believe anyone about anything.

Even Mitchell recommended amnesty.
This whole report and issue haved turned into a real pile of sh*t.

Pettitte obviously knew there were consequences. Or he wouldn't have had to secretly obtain HGH illegally, kept it secret for almost six years and been worried about possible interviews on the subject.

I think its all but certain that no one is actually going to be punished by baseball. Selig dropped that ball ten years ago. Andy Pettitre isn't going to be punished by baseball. He's going to pitch and I hope he pitches well. And I'm sure Yankee fans will forgive him.

But I'm not going to be stupid enough to forget all this. I've already been sucked in by two separate baseball con men in the last five years. They're carnies and I'm not going to let myself be fooled a third time. I'm sort of tired of being burned.

Its not that I don't believe that the yanks listed didn't juice, but what bothers me is getting a red sox employee to write the report. The fact that no current sox or members of the 2004 team were listed seems intentional to me. Senator Mitchell had a horrible conflict of interest and obviously there was no chance that any current sox would be named. That's what erodes the credibility of the report to me. Why wasn't this assigned to John Dowd?

Incidentally, a bit off topic, but does anyone know when single game tickets go on sale?

12 That's nonsense. For starters, in 2002, not only was HGH not banned by baseball (so he wasn't cheating), my best google searches show it was only illegal to possess with intention to distribute (so he didn't break the law).

At the time he did, taking HGH was not a major issue. Was it wrong? Sure. But so are a whole myriad of other minor offenses that most normal people commit in a society of laws.

You are blowing what Pettitte did way out of proportion. I wont judge Pettitte's true character because I don't know the man personally, but so suggest he is inherently dishonest for experimenting with HGH is ridiculous.

17 It seems like your problem is you are looking at these guys as heros. They are professional baseball players who are employed by a team for which we all root. The only thing they owe me as a fan is their best effort on the field. I don't need them to be a role model, to profess their love for me or my city or to just be an all-around good guy. Instead of taking out your frustation on players when they prove to be imperfect, maybe you should lower your exectations of them.

18 To the general public on February 29.

12 , 17 It sounds like you have way, way to much invested in the moral purity of baseball players. What were you "sucked into?" What was the great trust you put in Pettitte to begin with? And why? If you no longer believe anything he says...so what?

For that matter, as far as we know Pettitte hasn't lied. I don't think he ever denied using PEDs before, he just never said anything about it one way or the other. As for his image as a paragon of virtue, that was something that other people said about him; he never claimed it for himself.

If there's a moral lesson to be learned from the Mitchell report, it's this: don't believe a word that any of them say about PEDs. Be skeptical about every single one of them.

Curt "Sanctimonious Prick" Schilling may talk like an anti-steroid crusader, but just because he says it doesn't necessarily mean it's so. I like to think that Derek Jeter and Bernie Williams didn't used PEDs - but maybe they did, even if it was only once.

That's one reason I think it was a mistake to release the names. I don't give a crap about protecting the players who were named, but I fear that everyone else has now been implicitly exonerated.

Finally: the report was really intended to be about systemic issues, not individual ones. You want to blame the players, fine, but that shouldn't let the Commissioner, owners and media off the hook. There's plenty of blame to go around, and you shouldn't let your bitterness towards the players obscure that.

18 You don't really believe that, do you?

Mitchell didn't choose to follow certain leads and ignore others. There were no others. Radomski and McNamee, New York sources, happened to be the guys who were talking to the feds. If Dowd or anyone else had investigated, they still would have had access to that information and no more.

Mitchell wasn't a great choice to run the investigation because of the appearance of impropriety. But I think it's ludicrous to suggest that there was a deliberate snow job.

22 Thats what I meant. I made the mistake of believing in the Texas Con Man in 2003. In 2007 I was dumb enough to think Alex Rodriguez might have actually cared about someone not named Alex Rodriguez.

And what Pettitte did bothers me a lot less than than lame as "apology" that showed how little he really thinks of the people that supported him.

I need to stop believing in these men. They're carnies. Its my mistake.

I'll start with season's greetings before disagreeing with my usual disagreers! I do value the discussion, just stayed out of it for a few days as we were (and still are!) tending to just repeat ourselves.

OYF says, "Even Mitchell recommended amnesty.
This whole report and issue haved turned into a real pile of sh*t. "

Yes, Mitchell did say this and it isn't an 'even' it is, to my mind, at the heart of his report, built around the need to go forward AND the necessarily selective nature of the names involved. He is (properly) treating these as REPRESENTATIVE not exhaustive, a function of the limited sources made available to him (in part because of stonewalling, which in turns reflects - as others have said - the union deciding it needed to protect the cheaters not the non-cheaters). I'd have thought acknowledgements by Pettitte AND Brian Roberts would have stopped at least SOME of the dump-the-messengers stridency.

The pile of shi*t is the cheating not the report on it, surely. The bigger pile will come soon as congress jumps in with subpoenas. Doesn't anyone else realize this sets us all up for ENDLESS testimony with exactly the implications of Bonds's perjury charges waiting for everyone who can - at ANY point - be found to be lying? Want to imagine a mess that makes Mitchell look like what it is (a restrained suggestion the game get its act together, because a LOT of bodies can be named)?

William, who is always emphatic, says: "That's nonsense. For starters, in 2002, not only was HGH not banned by baseball (so he wasn't cheating), " This is simply (I won't say nonsense) untrue. Read the report, William. It was a prescription drug, used off-prescription (it could not even be OBTAINED by prescription for 'speeding injury recovery') and as such was banned by the game. Why are we still even discussing this one? It amount to smokescreen talk, especially when you use words like 'nonsense'!

Having said all this, I will fall right in line with you guys calling for Selig's head if he starts to try for sanctions against the selective list offered by Mitchell. Among other things the can of worms has to then include greenies through the pre-steroid years (and into them). Punishment irregularly applied is NOT justice, deterrence can't work backwards.