The Only Change in Baseball Was The Uniform, Everything Else Is Window Dressing

After re-reading Tom Verducci’s 2002 article “Totally Juiced” I was quite surprised to see his follow up this week. Although it may have been an eye-opening article 15 years ago, the fact is it did not change baseball in the way in which Mr. Verducci believes. In fact, his portrayal Don Fehr and Rob Manfred ‘s encounter with Congress is somewhat laughable when you consider the outcome. I’ll discuss that aspect later. What Mr. Verducci attempts to regurgitate here, is a story that gave baseball fans 6 months of the hard truth that many of the players they worshiped were cheating and steroid use was prevalent in their favorite past time. Aside from that, the belief that because of this article, baseball received a complete makeover as a result of random drug testing is absurd. The players union and MLB designed the so-called random drug testing for the “sole purpose of MLB and their audience.” Don’t get me wrong; some testing is better than no testing. 

If Caminiti and Verducci changed baseball forever, why then from 2004 through 2007 did we uncover more MLB players than ever before in one of the biggest outings of steroid using players in MLB history? In the March 2007 issue of SI, the documented use by numerous players, clinics and widespread steroid use in other sports was well documented by Luis Fernando Llosa and Jon Wertheim (Inside the Steroid Ring). As big as this article was, both authors, and myself personally, never fooled ourselves into believing that one expose would change sports forever, never mind baseball alone. What we attempted to do was to draw attention to the use of PED’s among young people and the illegal manner in which many were being supplied the drugs. It was less about baseball and more about the half a billion dollar a year illegal market that created these super-athletes at the expense of their health. 

Having spent 10 years of my law enforcement career investigating PED use in sports, I quickly learned that having even a small impact on the game was a monumental task despite having dozens of players and trainers. Many of these players, whose names I have never released, if outed would have only made for another short-lived news article. Verducci’s article was a temporary shock and awe that hit baseball that year and was temporary at best, with little if any long-term effect on the sport.

This brings me to the phone call that sent shivers down the spine of Don Fehr and Rob Manfred by John McCain’s Senate committee in Congress and their demand for answers. If anyone believes this had any impact baseball or any other sport you are sadly mistaken. In fact, baseball and Congress had tried this before, and after all of the barking never resulted in bite-marks on anyone. What’s even sadder is the fact that the whole dog and pony show missed the mark in in so many ways but most important, it missed the steroid use among teens and collegiate athletes. However, this wasn’t the first time Congress displayed their outrage about anabolic steroids. In fact, it became an election cycle issue on numerous occasions, beginning three decades ago. 

In the 90’s Congress created the anabolic steroid control act and it’s impact on baseball and then commissioner Fay Vincent, although acknowledging their use, was minimal. We saw the impact of the “congressional effect" in 1994 and then watched as steroid use exploded from 1996 through 20Wha7, five years after the Verducci’s article in which baseball was changed forever. 

From 2005 through 2007, Congress once again put the hammer down with hearings, and MLB responded with the Mitchell Commission Report on Baseball. As I wrote in The New York Daily News last month, neither did much for the game of baseball. Congressional hearings were photo ops and a swag fest for politicians and the Mitchell Commission Report, which raked in an estimated 10 to 30 million dollars, (the actual amount remains undisclosed), had little lasting effects on the game. Members of Congress gave great speeches about anabolics, much in the same way they do now with the opioid crisis, (which often go hand-in-hand with PED use) but what is really being done? Speeches and yelling on CSPAN doesn’t save lives or prevent players and athletes from using these substances. 

 “Random drug testing” is drug testing mandated through negotiations between the using party and the employer for the good of each other and not the game. That’s correct, random drug testing is more often “selective“ drug testing. Baseball, like any other sport, is a business and a team’s profit is dependent on winning. Occasionally, a strategic move needs to be made by both parties to offer the appearance of being tough. A sacrificial lamb here or there offers the appearance of keeping the game clean. Can I prove this theory? Perhaps not in the way that many would like to see but I would ask this question, If you are serious about cleaning up the sport and truly wanted to weed out the use of PED’s, why not have independent testing? It’s done in the Olympics and in many amateur sports yet in professional and college sports here in the U.S., we have left the fox in charge of the henhouse. Could it be perhaps independent testing might reveal some truth behind my theory? 

Make no mistake; it’s not just baseball. This article was about baseball and therefore the focus. However, the NFL, NBA, NCAA and others are no different. They are all engaged in so-called random testing, done or ordered by their own organizations. Can we really trust organizations that have let us down for more than three decades to be completely honest about testing? Where are the league’s drug testing policies? Can anyone find them on the Internet? 

We’ve demanded the athletes to come clean for years. It’s time we demand the same from the leagues. If you want the veil of distrust removed, prove it and initiate true random testing through an independent body not chosen by the leagues. Perhaps then, Mr. Verducci and others will finally see a true and lasting change in MLB and other sports and perhaps along the way, save a few young lives.