A League of Her Own

Chicago Cubs headlines for Wednesday

Sammy Sosa and William Petersen
If William Petersen can approve of
Sammy, why can't we?

The media gods gave me a gift today. When Mother Nature rained out the Cubs/Sox game last night, I might have had trouble finding headlines for today's diary. But thanks to the leak that Sammy may have been on the 2003 positive test list, there are plenty of things to share.

First up, Ozzie speaks:

"Why don't we come up with the [bleeping] names, and that's it?" Guillen said. "Every time somebody says he's clean, the next day it's in the [bleeping] paper. Alex [Rodriguez] says, 'They can check me.' He gone. Manny [Ramirez] say, 'They can check me.' He gone.

"A couple of days ago, Sammy says, 'I'm clean, I should be in the Hall of Fame.' He gone. ... OK, don't wait for those guys. Right here. Open it up, we're talking about one time, and let's move on. Because I know in one month I'll be sitting with [the media] talking about someone else."

And Lou agrees:

Piniella said during spring training that the names should be released. He reiterated that notion Tuesday.

"It would probably create a lot of havoc for a while, but it might be the best thing," Piniella said. "But look, I don't make those decisions. I have enough problems handling the Chicago Cubs, so let baseball handle this the way they want."

And I know you're all dying to read what Todd Hollandsworth has to say:

"It's sad; it's a sad day," said Hollandsworth, a Cubs commentator for Comcast SportsNet. "You're never happy when stuff like this happens. It's a sign of the times, the era that he played in. I played through it myself. That's the worst part about it, another guy who made a very positive impression on the game in length of his career has been stained."

And the Fonz:

"I don't like to comment on steroids; it's a negative thing, and anything negative about the game, I don't like to follow," Soriano said. "To me, steroids, I don't like to talk about them because I never used them. I don't know what it is.

"He's still my hero, no matter what."


Now back to Hollandsworth and a little Derrek Lee:


'I'll tell you what I wasn't: I wasn't surprised. I wasn't shocked,'' said former Cubs outfielder Todd Hollandsworth, now a Comcast analyst. ''There's always been speculation around him.''

Said Derrek Lee: ''It's not a shock. I like to believe people are innocent until proven guilty. Now it sounds like it's proven.''


Now, back to some current baseball news. Milty's accepting the blame for the firing of Gerald Perry:


''I like Gerald personally. I felt for him when his father passed away earlier in the spring,'' said Bradley, whose .227 seasonlong slump is emblematic of the team's offensive woes. ''Most guys around the team who have been with him the past couple years said he didn't really do anything different.

''If anything was different it was just us not hitting. We should all feel partly responsible for him getting fired.''


Despite his lack of on-field antics, Lou wants you to know he still wants to win:


"What do I need to show fire for?" Piniella said. "I'm not a dragon."

...

"Look, if I was out there arguing all the time, what they would be saying is 'Well, this guy has lost his cool,' " Piniella said. "I still want to win. I still have it in my belly. I think the players obviously know that. I just have to let them play. I don't win baseball games.

"The players play on the field, and our job is to prepare 'em and keep them as motivated as possible."



Recommended

[?]

Recent Posts

Subscribe

Leave a comment

59 Comments

secdelahc said:

user-pic

Someone pinch me. Was that Ozzie Guillen saying something that other people agree with? I do believe that's the third sign of the apocalypse.

Umbra said:

user-pic

I, for one, do NOT agree with Ozzie. These were anonymous drug tests, and the results for individual players should not have been released, especially by 'lawyers familiar with them', who should have known better. You have a right to not incriminate yourself, so I doubt very many players would have taken the drug test if they knew it would be leaked later. The bait and switch tactics employed there were unconscionable.

Second, and I know I will accused of self-righteous bloviating, but taking steroids is cheating. Cheaters shouldn't be rewarded. I know that there are a few arguments against this, namely that steroids confer no competitive advantage to a player if everyone else is using them too. Also, lots of people in the past cheated with spitballs and greenies and whatever else. But just because other people break the rules doesn't mean that you get to.

But what ends up happening in situations like this where you have a lot of guilty people is truly unfortunate: you simply cannot logistically punish everyone, so you severely punish a select few scapegoats. And that's not just, especially when the people you choose to scapegoat are also the most important ambassadors of the sport.

Lastly, we need to consider why steroids are so upsetting in the first place: the integrity and continued popularity of the game. The reason why gambling on baseball was so harmful was that it made people question the legitimacy of the entire game itself: why should I play baseball or pay money to watch baseball if the outcome is a sham? In the same way with steroids, how can I root for a player if they cheat? Steroids could have the effect of eroding all confidence in the legitimacy of the games. People would stop watching, playing, talking about, and blogging about baseball and that would be a Very Bad Thing.

But that's not what is happening. People love steroids. They love home runs. Can't get enough of them. The only people with a real sour opinion on them are sports writers. And maybe they have a duty to challenge their audience, but as a friend of mine said, the quicker sports writers get over the issue, the quicker they'll be in touch with regular Americans. I can agree to disagree with my fellow baseball fans- I'm sure I care a lot more about steroids than they do- but if the future of baseball in America is not in jeopardy because of this, why all the fuss?

flyball said:

user-pic

I completely agree with the first point

a little less with the rest, but I get where you're coming from

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

you do have a right not to incriminate yourself, which is why people take the FIFTH before Congress rather than lying about it. Sammy should have taken the 5th rather than lying.

at any rate, i'm not even sure the 5th applies in this case, as it's unclear what, if any crime, he could have been charged with. you can't prove possession after the fact, you can't prove trafficking after the fact based solely on his confession (the law says a confession has to be corroborated by evidence). the only crime he was faced with was the one he committed: lying to congress.

that's why sammy's name had to come out, i think. it's because of perjury. and lawyers who sit on that information can be disbarred.

Doc said:

user-pic

ut oh...

Soriano said. "To me, steroids, I don't like to talk about them because I never used them."

Great, he's going to be the next name released now.

(and before you all go flaming me, it was a joke...ha..ha..giggle..giggle)

gravedigger said:

user-pic

"I'm not a dragon"... bwahaha that made me laugh.

flyball said:

user-pic

Hollandsworth is on Comcast? I can't believe you've all been holding this piece of information from me.

flyball said:

user-pic

how are there even names to be released? wasn't it supposed to be confidential? why didn't they just number all the vials or cups or whatever and be done with it

my problem with releasing the names is that if the players were told it was anonymous and then 6 years later MLB decides "oh, no, we lied, we're telling everyone" thats ridiculous, if I was in the players union I'd be screaming right now

gravedigger said:

user-pic

a bunch of lawyers saw it, and theyve been leaking names.

flyball said:

user-pic

there should never have been any names, whats so hard about putting little numbers on a label?

a liar exposing a cheat doesn't exactly give it a lot of weight, especially hiding behind their own anonymity

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

my understanding is the promise of anonymity was made by mlb as part of the collective bargaining agreement. in that sense, it was mlb and not any external lawyers who were bound by anonymity. it's mlb who violated the terms of the contract, not the law firms who received the lists. there's no reason those names, other than the few in question, couldn't have been redacted.

i'm with ozzie--just give us the whole damn list and let's be done with it.

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

Sec: No kidding. I thought the same thing ... probably the one time I'll agree with something Ozzie Guillen says. They def. should release all the names if they're going to leak the big ones. Which leads me to ...

Flyball: Apparently there's some scumbag lawyer (somewhat redundant?) who is leaking the names. Apparently there's a number of law firms who have this list because of possible litigation. From what they were saying last night, it's not just one or two, which makes it surprising that only A-Rod and Sosa have been leaked given how some will do anything to get paid.

As for my overall thoughts, I enjoyed watching Sosa in person. He was a great player. It's sad he did what he did, but it's not my place to soapbox on steroids b/c the fact is, Sosa was just one of many who did them. Who knows what the percentage was, but I'm sure it was high (that's why I'd like to see the full list released, because I bet some of the players would surprise people. Guys who I'm sure many wouldn't believe were on there).

I've never thought athletes should be role models or heroes (interesting that Soriano said that, I've never even heard of him speak of Sosa before), so maybe that's why this doesn't bother me as much. Well, that and the fact there are plenty of others who used steroids that haven't been announced yet.

flyball said:

user-pic

soriano having Sosa as his hero makes a little bit of sense, they're in the same field (pun not intended) people admire the accomplished in their profession

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

before you start calling lawyers scumbags (btw, all of us former public defenders, domestic violence attorneys, and child guardians thank you for that---how many lawyers do you actually know, anyway? you should know that ethical cannons in many states call for lawyers to be disbarred if you know a crime has been committed and you do nothing to bring it to light (absent an attorney-client privilege). perjury, which sammy has clearly committed, qualifies.

i was in this situation myself, where i knew someone had perjured themself and i had to release the information. i can tell you that it's not fun and that most lawyers take their professional responsibilities VERY SERIOUSLY. i doubt the information about sammy was released without a lot of soul-searching and a lot of discussion about what was the ethical thing to do.

flyball said:

user-pic

I have a lot of respect for a lot of lawyers, not all, its like any profession, some good, some bad, some ridiculous jackasses but this isn't what you're talking about, someone is strategically leaking names, I highly doubt its because they think its the ethical thing to do

but again, there should have never been any names to leak

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

my point is that you don't know who or WHY someone is leaking the names.

saying "lawyers" is a total cop-out. name a source. and i just don't think an attorney would give information like that to the NYT without thinking about it long and hard. there is a lot at stake in both directions: you could get sanctioned by the bar for releasing confidential information, you could get sanctioned for NOT releasing it.let's not all just assume that someone is talking just for kicks or because they want to see Sammy squirm.

flyball said:

user-pic

but now you're putting all lawyers in the same group, and we both know not all lawyers are the perfection of ethics, and you can argue a point to convince yourself of anything, I'm sure I could argue myself into believing that ice cream is a good daily breakfast

I just don't buy that it was for the reasons you say, maybe it was, I'd like to have faith in all of mankind, but MLB lied by saying these were anonymous, and as far as I know the players did not waive any privacy rights, and now they one by one coming out, but only the big name players, which is all going to be good reasons for all other player organizations to reject similar proposals in the future, and for that matter the public at large

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

lawyers worry about ethical cannons a lot more than anyone outside the law knows. not because we're all such ethical, wonderful people, but because many state disciplinary agencies are extremely vigilant. there have been plenty of lawyers suspended or disbarred for things that probably seem like minor infractions to others. for example, there's a famous case in Illinois where an attorney failed to turn in his buddy for violating ethics rules, even though he advised him repeatedly to do the right thing, and was disbarred himself.

i doubt there's a lawyer anywhere who goes a single day without reviewing his/her actions of the day and wondering if they did anything that could get them sanctioned, because your law license is the most valuable thing you own.

i understand that it's hard for non-lawyers to believe. it's hard for me to believe that a lawyer would do it for any other reason, just because of the risk involved.

the bottom line is that no one knows why whoever realeased this information did without asking him/her.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

im a non-lawyer, but am surrounded by them. from my experience, this is exactly true.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

i am putting all lawyers into the same group as far as contstantly worrying about their law licenses, yes.

flyball said:

user-pic

for enough of a reason people will risk anything and everything

money, feeling of power, to get a favor for later, just because they are pissed

I'd really like to believe that its all for the right reasons, but why a reporter, isn't the ethical obligation to tell someone sho can actually prosecute some sort of crime? aren't there "anonymous" numbers you can call or something?

this to me just screams of cowardice and revenge, if that isn't the reason then whomever is leaking the names should think twice before leaking anymore

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

why on earth would lawyer, presumably in a law firm in NYC, have it out for Sammy Sosa?

that makes no sense. and to put that on someone without knowing the circumstances seems to me parallel to people pretending to know they know what goes on in player's heads.

i think it's really messed up that sammy, no having cheated in a least two different ways and lying to congress on national tv (though i admit, the hearings were stupid in the first place), has somehow become the victim in all of this, and the person who exposed him for being a hypocritical, lying cheater is the goat.

flyball said:

user-pic

I'm not defending Sammy at all, I'm just pissed that what should have been an anonymous drug test is getting released, and 6 years later

I have no idea why someone would do this, maybe they just had a bad day, went out with their friends after work and started chatting, I don't really care, but does telling a reporter mean you've fulfilled your ethical obligation?

and, as someone who is working very hard to one day be a licensed professional, the boards are scary, we can lose our licenses for things that have nothing to do with the any professional conduct, but it doesn't stop people from doing stupid stuff

things get leaked, sometimes on purpose, sometimes on accident, its what happens in the world, MLB should have known that and there should never have been any names to leak

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

yeah well, i don't think the testing should have been anonymous in the first place, so if they want to be stupid and get their asses sued for breach of contract it's their own damn fault.

no, telling a reporter would not satisfy your ethical responsibility. i would be curious as to whether this information was always released to the US Attorney's Office or Congress, as well. If not, we would have our answer as to motive right there.

Like I said, I'm not saying I'm right about the reason. I just bristle at the remark that if a lawyer did it, it must have been with malicious intent, because we're all scumbags.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

"always released" = "also released"

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

i know that you will be a licensed professional, and i know you are working your butt off for it.

imagine that, a building falls down, no one get hurt, but someone says "yeah, the building fell down because some scumbag architect (somewhat redundant?) cut corners to line his own pocket."

you'd be like "hey! wait a minute! you don't know that!"

and it might even turn out to be true, but you would be offended by the sweeping assumption.

flyball said:

user-pic

for the record I never said that

and I get more offended when people say "oh, like Mr. Brady"

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

lmao. you should design every building to look like the brady house.

and i know you didn't say it.
i may have overreacted. i just know so many wonderful, hardworking, underpaid lawyers who toil in criminal and family courts. i hate seeing them lumped in with the jerks.

at any rate, we're all kidding ourselves.

sammy took PEDs to hit more homeruns. some jackass lawyer leaked it to be a dick.

that's really the most likely scenario.

flyball said:

user-pic

seriously, did I not know about Hollandsworth? did I know and that part of my memory was fried?

Holly and Gonzalez? we should do a comparison of their analyst skills

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

i was complaing about him a lot, but it was when you were seriously over-worked.

at least he's not dan plesac.

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

Geez, seriously Julie, I said it was a joke. If you're that offended by it, sorry. I have six friends who are lawyers, if you must know. Are they scumbags? No. Would they laugh if I said "Is scumbag lawyer redundant?" Yes, just like they've laughed at the countless other lawyer jokes told to them and they've told themselves.

So again, sorry. Now let's get back to what we should be talking about, the steroids and this leak. Melissa said pretty much what I was going to say, so I won't repeat it. I'm not comparing the New York Times to ESPN, I'm just naming different news outlets. Why was the NYT the only one who got this? Why not send a PR blast out to all the major ones?

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

Also, as much as I like Sosa (and still will), he definitely dug his grave when he all of a sudden unlearned English at the Congressional testimony. That was funny and sad all at the same time.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

the SNL clip of that was hilarious, i wish i could find it online.

fwiw, i also tell and laugh at lawyer jokes. that one just seriously rubbed me the wrong way. sorry for taking it so personally.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

I didn't mean to come off sounding like lawyers were a bunch of jerks. Frankly, had it been any other group of people who'd seen it, the news probably would have leaked a hell of a lot faster. Just stating a fact -- that's who saw the information, and that's who is leaking it in the press. That's been stated in press reports on numerous occasions.

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

Oh, simmer, it was a joke. I'm sure there are a lot of good lawyers. Like Jack McCoy!

Anyway, I'm with flyball here, I don't think this leak is because of ethics. It's being done strategically, like she said. Wouldn't the ethical thing be to release everyone, aside from just one player? Someone's reaping the rewards.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

no, because only one person lied to congress. why would you release everyone else's name if you think you're only bound to release one name?

what, pray tell, is the "strategy" here? what does anyone gain by this? it's not like they're talking to sports illustrated or writing a book about it.

you always jump on people for pretending they know what is going on in a player's head; you're doing the same thing. is it only players that are entitled to the benefit of the doubt? what about ordinary people? do they not get the same presumption that they're decent people trying to do the right thing?

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

I'm not sure the strategy. I would imagine some sort of quid pro quo, or possibly money. Journalists and lawyers have relationships, some are clean, some not so much. If said leak has nothing to gain, then why did he/she release it only to the New York Times? Why not the AP? ESPN? USA Today?

I believe a decent person trying to "do the right thing" would release the entire list, not just one big name.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

how many times do i have to say that a decent person, trying to do the right thing would only release THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY COMMITTED A CRIME. what you're saying makes no sense. if they were decent people, they would release the list of names of a bunch of people who, legally, have done nothing wrong, as opposed to the name of one person who lied to congress?

yeah--that makes a lot of sense.

lawyers can't give out case information for money. and i'm quite sure the nyt doesn't pay for information. are you seriously comparing ESPN to the NYT? please.

oog of ulams said:

user-pic

A. Rodriguez crime?

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

i don't know. who leaked that info? i thought that came from mlb as part of the selena roberts book?

oog of ulams said:

user-pic

oog not know. oog want know.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

i don't know either. i don't remember.

was ARod ever interviewed by congress or the us attorney's office? i know he wasn't part of the hearings, but i wonder if mitchell ever talked to him? if so, i think any denials to a congressionally-appointed investigator would be perjury, just like with clinton and ken starr, no?

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

arod's crime = being a sanctimonious jackass.

look, i'm not saying that it WASN'T leaked for selfish reasons. but can we not jump to that solely based on the fact that the leaker was a lawyer?

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

look, the difference between doctors and lawyers and other professions is that, in addition to being able to be sued in court for malpractice, we have disciplinary boards that exist SOLELY for the purpose of investigating what we do and taking away our licenses. it's a scary thing, and practicing lawyers think about it every day.

i find it really hard to believe that anyone would release information like this just for shits and giggles. or at least without a lot of though beforehand. if the state bar didn't have your ass, your boss undoubtedly would.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

here. i'm not saying ethics IS the reason this information was leaked. what i am saying is that as the name of the lawyer, his/her motives, and the circuumstances under which this information was leaked have not been revealed, i don't think it's far to assume that the person is a "scumbag" who is doing this for nefarious purposes. especially since the original article referered to "lawyers," which makes me think it's more than one person . . . possibly from the same firm, which undoubtedly means it was discussed beforehand.

in the past, matt has called me out for thinking i know what's going on in bradley or soriano's heads. what is the difference between that and thinking you know what's going on in the head of some anonymous lawyer, whom you don't even know?

and frankly, having spent the majority of my legal career working for legal aid organizations for very little pay, i'm still offended by the "scumbag" remark. and i'm still waiting for you to tell me how many lawyers you associate with on a daily basis.

melissa said:

user-pic

"I have never taken illegal performance-enhancing drugs. I have never injected myself or had anyone inject me with anything. I have not broken the laws of the United States or the laws of the Dominican Republic. I have been tested as recently as 2004 and I am clean." — Sammy Sosa of the Baltimore Orioles. His lawyer read his prepared testimony.

We also shouldn't assume that testing positive for a banned substance means that the above statement is perjured testimony. I don't buy the excuse that the leaker was somehow trying to expose a crime of perjury and thus was ethically bound to leak confidential information. If the leaker thought perjury had been committed shouldn't he or she have brought the information to the attention to congress as opposed to going to the NYT? If you are going to presume the lawyer acted ethically then you could also presume that Sammy took a banned substance that was actually legal and that he ingested it in a legal fashion. If you aren't going to jump to conclusions about the leaker then why are you assuming the banned substance was illegal?

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

for the 10,0000 time, i am not presuming the lawyer acted based on ethics, i'm just saying that maybe we could consider that someone isn't evil incarnate just because they have a law degree.

sure, i could assume whatever sammy took was legal. then we should also assume that every person charged with DUI/drugs who tests positive for opiates in their blood stream has a legitimate prescription for vicodin from their doctor.

if that's the case, i would expect whatever doctor prescribed sammy something that metabolizes into something banned to come forward immediately with sammy's blessing.

actually, i wouldn't be surprised if that happened. in which case, he wouldn't be in danger of being charged with anything, so why not just admit to congress what you were taking? why not say, i was taking "XYZ," it was prescribed by X doctor for X condition. that's what paul byrd tried to do.

i actually can't believe I'm arguing this 5th amendment point. i think the charge of perjury, in and of itself, is unconstitutional under the 5th amendment anyway.

this is what i mean when i say i get carried away and find myself arguing for things i don't really believe in, anyway.

i just really hated the "scumbag" comment.

melissa said:

user-pic

Julie,
First off, I don't think all lawyers are scumbags and realize that many lawyers such as yourself make every effort to act in an ethical fashion. I just wanted to make the point that if we can presume the lawyer acted ethically we can presume Sammy technically didn't perjure himself. I don't think it's fair to assume the leaker is a scumbag lawyer acting in his own selfish interests and it's unfair to assume Sammy perjured himself based on uncorroborated leaked allegations.

You stated earlier, "Sammy should have taken the fifth rather than lying." That seems like an unfair assumption to me. I understand why as a lawyer you feel the lawyer should be given the benefit of the doubt but why isn't the citizen given the benefit of the doubt? I also don't understand how as an attorney, you think it's okay to violate the privacy rights of the 103 players that tested positive. Why are these players not entitled to their rights of confidentiality? I would imagine that if these 103 players were your clients you could argue quite successfully that their names should not be released and doing so would be in violation of their legal rights. BTW, I'm not trying to make this any kind of a personal attack on you as a lawyer.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

no worries, melissa, i'm not even a lawyer anymore. lol.

as for the privacy rights, i think the distinction is that their privacy rights, such as they were, existed only by virtue of the collective bargaining agreement. it's not like every citizen has a right to have the results of their drugs tests kept private (although, i think that's an interesting issue now that the new HIPPA laws are out there), it's not a constitutional issue. the players' remedy for releasing the names is to sue mlb for breach of contract. and they do have that right, it's just hard for me to be sympathetic to their plight because, to my mind, they and mlb colluded to cheat at a game that i love. i know not everyone sees it that way. but i do.

i do believe that sammy is innocent until proven guilty; of course he's entitled to the benefit of the doubt under the law. he is not, however, entitled to that in my emotional rants--because i'm mad at him. maybe there's an explaination for all of this that makes him come out smelling like roses. i just kind of doubt it. at best, this entire thing was mishandled by whatever attorney advised him before the congressional hearing. at worst, it's exactly what it looks like.

and you're right, as a lawyer i would absolutely argue that those names should not be released. i might even argue that, by virtue of the anti-trust exemption, this amounts to a governmental invasion of the players' privacy.

but i'm not a lawyer anymore so i'm free to make emotional arguments. :P LOL.


gravedigger said:

user-pic

why does everyone get in fun arguments when i actually have to go do real work?

melissa said:

user-pic

I'm not mad at any player that used steroids. They were in an environment that rewarded steroid use. Bud Selig had Doctors tell teams that steroids were good and that players should be told of the benefits. I just think there is a lot of righteous indignation going on right now and certain players are paying the price. I am pretty certain Sammy did use steroids and I'm also pretty certain a lot of the pitchers he faced used them. I really can't fault the guy for doing something he thought would make him a better player. I know he worked extremely hard to achieve what he did even if he did use PEDs. I'm more disappointed that there was an atmosphere created that made players feel as if they had to use PEDs in order to compete. Who is to blame? Everyone, including fans.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

i agree that everyone is to blame. but just like i blame employers who have happy hours in their offices and then let their employees get in the car and drive home for creating an environment that encourages drinking and driving, in the end, it's still the driver that's responsible for the act.

mlb created an environment that rewarded steroids use, there is no doubt. but i don't think guys like tony gwynn and ryne sandberg used, and i think it stinks that guys like sammy are getting off the hook with some fans. no matter what the environment is, the players who used knew it was wrong. if they didn't, they wouldn't have tried to hide it and lied about it later.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

Until I see substantial proof that steroids actually help that much, I won't care.

Further, it isn't jus that baseball created that culture. It just wasn't even against the rules. So players did it. Why should I care?

However, I'm a deeply cynical person and work in the world of politics, so really, I'm a fan of people that do whatever it takes to get wherever they need to go.

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

The sad thing is, we'll never know who was clean. I'd like to believe Sandberg didn't use steroids, but I can't be 100 percent sure. No one can. This is the environment that's been created, and it kinda sucks.

gravedigger said:

user-pic

heh yeah that's like the scene from reservoir dogs:

MR. PINK
Oh, you and Joe go back a long time. I known Joe since I was a kid. But me saying Joe definitely couldn't have done it is ridiculous. I can say I definitely didn't do it, cause I know what I did or didn't do. But I can't definitely say that about anybody else, 'cause I don't definitely know. For all I know, you're the rat.

MR. WHITE
For all I know, you're the rat.

MR. PINK
Now you're using your head. For all we know, he's the rat.

jtbwriter said:

user-pic

"What do I need to show fire for?" Piniella said. "I'm not a dragon."
LOL! I'm with Gravedigger-Lou was pithy at the pre-rainout conference!
And I still think that would make a great T-shirt-have Lou's face between the two lines and sell it for charity! I have dibs on the 2nd XL one!

As for the "leaking" of MLB player names-not only has this lawyer/lawyers violated HIPA laws-but the MLB Players contract specifically made these tests confidential. SO....since the law was violated, why would I put any faith in justice for or against the players who did use/take PHD?

I'm sorry about Sammy Sosa-my mother loved watching/rooting for him. But his questionable behavior with his wife/children/new relationship, etc, and unprofessional attitude in his last days as a Cub were what turned my family off. He does belong in the HOF, but I'll be happier when wiser heads prevail and Coach is voted in! And when Mr. Petersen finally gets his much deserved Emmy for CSI!

gravedigger said:

user-pic

i would buy and wear that shirt, and i am not generally a t-shirt kind of guy. someone make it on zazzle or something!

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

does HIPAA specifically cover employer-mandated drug testing? i would be surprised if it did. mostly because employers were only TOO happy to tell me and the judge when one of my clients failed a drug test, and that kind of info is printed in the papers all the time (think of all the pilots whose blood alcohol level is reported). Is an employer drug test considered "medical" information? DUI blood tests at hospitals are not--I would be really surprised if employer drug tests were.

right--the CONTRACT between the parties makes the results confidential. that's a breach of contract case, not a violation of any legislation that I know of.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

i did a quick google search and it looks like it's unclear whether HIPAA covers employee drug testing. i'd have to do more research to know for sure.

Leave a Comment?

Some HTML is permitted: a, strong, em

What your comment will look like:

said:

what will you say?

Most Active Pages Right Now

ChicagoNow.com on Facebook

A League of Her Own on Facebook

A League of Her Own - A Chicago Cubs Blog on Facebook