Well the 12 days of Christmas are over. I'm still not sure why there are 12 of them. Must have something to do with dozens of eggs or donut.

As we go into tonight's heavily anticipated contest between the Patriots and Giants, here are 10 things I'm thankful for:

 

 

1)      the game is on Saturday night. Sunday night games are the worst for going to work on Monday

2)      the NFL has put the game back on free TV

3)      this blogsite's NFL section is not 95% full of blogs about the latest Jason Whitlock article

4)      the NFL still has cheerleaders

5)      we've managed to get through another Christmas season without any idiotic terrorist screwing things up (at least in the U.S.)

6)      yesterday, I saw the largest peregrine falcon ever sitting on the ground in Mt. Auburn Cemetary in Cambridge, MA. No joke, I walked to within 5 yards of it, but then remembered that falcons are superior hunters and can snatch pigeons and just about anything else in midair, so I just stood there and marveled at it. for some reason it made me think of Michael Vick.

7)      the Celtics are still cruising

8)      New York City reported a nearly 20% drop in homicides (hey, I can still be a Bostonian and love NYC)

9)      Dunkin Donuts still makes a heck of a good donut (btw, here's a shocking fact for you people in Albany and the surrounding areas. I just heard that your donuts are not made fresh on-site, but rather are shipped from Massachusetts. I'm serious. That comes directly from a manager at a Dunkin Donuts in the Albany, NY area. Maybe that's why Dunkin Donuts had to pull the ad for "time to make the donuts". Maybe that has to be replaced with "time to unpack the donuts".)

10)  my little niece who just happens to love Tom Brady.

 

Rocket: "Hey Andy, are you crossing your fingers also? I won't tell the truth if you won't"

 

Roger Clemens is used to being in the driver's seat, and nothing has changed with the Mitchell Report. He might not be doing any future PSAs for a "Drug-free America", but even if he never gets another endorsement deal, he's got a multimillion dollar bank account to console him at the end of every month.

Ever listen to an automated bank system tell you your account balance?

Imagine Clemens's bank system saying, "Rocket, your available balance is one-hundred and seventy-million dollars." 

Now his lead attorney, a term that immediately makes you suspicious that he's got a lot to hide since he needs a team of attorneys, has announced that he's doing his own investigation. Where would Roger be without you Rusty Hardin?

Great drama.

If I were advising Clemens, here is what I would say:

"Roger, dig up every little piece of trash possible on Brian McNamee. Look for evidence of dog fighting, so you can turn the PETA people against him. Look for any shred of racism to turn the NAACP against him. Come up with some sacrilegious statement that he was heard uttering in a bathroom stall during a particularly painful bowel movement to pit every non-atheist against him. Finally, if he has any history of domestic abuse against a woman or child, then throw that in there also.

As for yourself? Your lawyer Rusty Hardin is doing a fantastic job. Keep having him get up there instead of you, because then he becomes the face that the American public associates with your illegal drug use.

Have Rusty keep stirring the pot and announcing that he won't rest until the people who killed your reputation have been brought to justice. For good measure, have him say that he's going to use his and your money to find the killers. Even better, have him tell people that you only can tolerate a 25-gauge syringe needle and that McNamee swears that he only used 20-gauge needles on you (the higher the gauge number, the thinner the needle). Then have Rusty thunder, "If the needle don't fit, you must acquit!!!!!!"

If you're feeling super adventurous, start a rumor that you were the one who tipped off the authorities to the illegal activities of Radomski and McNamee. That should get a few law enforcement people on your side, and that's always a good thing, especially when you or your sons pick up a parking or speeding ticket.

Also, never ever admit your guilt. Of course you got better with age all by yourself. Keep saying that to yourself. The funny thing about positive affirmations is that they can become your reality if you say them often enough and for a long enough period of time. And that might really help your case, because then you can take a polygraph test and pass it with flying colors.

And just remember that the steroids and HGH you took are completely untraceable now. Remember that, because without that proof there is "reasonable doubt". And we know that "reasonable doubt" does not mean that the doubt you've created is reasonable, but rather that you've managed to insert the smallest shred of doubt into the situation.

It's just your word against some guy who was a true drug pusher: he not only sold you the drug, but he also pushed it into your body. It's your Cy Youngs against his heavy sighs. It's your World Series ring against his mood ring.

Keep saying that you're innocent, because the longer you do it, the more traction you get in people's minds that maybe you are innocent. Don't stop doing that, because I'm telling you now that outside of some Yankee and Astros fans, there's not a single person on this earth who believes that you didn't bend over and take that needle in the kiester for your own embellishment.

And make sure to be modest. Don't ever run around naked, because shrunken testicles are a classic sign of long-term steroid use. If people insult you, don't turn your back on them or turn the other cheek, because that might expose more of your steroid-induced acne. As for your breast development, confuse people by appealing to their common sense and asking how could you possibly be growing breasts if you've been taking a drug that's  suppose to turn you into a He-man (although people in medicine know that breast development in a male is a classic gender-specific side effect of anabolic steroid use).

Some people may say that a well-known negative side effect of anabolic steroids are significant muscle cramps, as well as increased risks of muscle tears and tendon injuries. The really sharp ones might look at your record with the Yankees and Astros and wonder if the way you broke down the past several seasons was due to the steroids. Keep making jokes about your age, because that's the best way to deflect such a line of questioning.

Stay in control.

Hey, I don't blame you for thinking you can get away with it. Don't you remember in 2000 when Mike Piazza hit that broken bat single and you grabbed part of the broken bat that was closest to you and threw it at Piazza while he was running to first? At that time you told all of us that you thought you were "fielding the ball" and had mistaken the bat for the baseball. We ridiculed you then, but maybe we should be apologizing, because can't 'roid rage make a guy hallucinate? The thing is that miraculously you weren't ejected that game, and you went on to completely obliterate the Mets by mowing down 9 batter and allowing only 2 hits in 8 innings. You were in total control.

How about in 2006 during the World Baseball Classic game between Japan and Korea when you said that, "None of the dry cleaners were open; they were all at the game." For your information and according to several of my Korean friends, only the Koreans dominate the U.S. dry cleaning business, so you not only made a racially insensitive comment, but a racially ignorant one as well. But it's okay, because you got away with that one also.

Remember, you're not just the Rocket, you're the driver of the Rocket.

You need to be in control. That's why you loved to throw tantalizingly close to a lot of batters. I know, I know, you're misunderstood on that count. Hey, you weren't throwing at them to hurt them, you were just trying to make them appreciate the fact that they were still alive after the ball was pried out with a crowbar from the catcher's mitt or the backstop. Isn't it amazing how people try to vilify the good works of Samaritans such as yourself?

You're still in control, just like you were in control every time you pulled a fast one on the steroid testing people from MLB. The only thing you missed is that AT&T Wireless dropped call commercial. You thought you were in control as you pulled a fast one on your wife by telling her you were coming out of retirement while your call had been dropped. But actually, the commercial demonstrated what we've known all along: you'll do anything and use any trick to control the situation.

So, as you skip off into the sunset and protest loudly that you must be innocent because you've never failed an MLB steroid test, I have one final piece of advice for you: make sure to delete Marion Jones's number from your speed dial.

Your Friend,

DivineSwine"

There are several sports which lend themselves well to television. Baseball, gymnastics, basketball are ones that come to mind immediately. Of course, the king of them all is football. I've gone to Red Sox games this past season and Patriots games this season, and the truth is that there is no sport which transfers better to TV than football.

Why? The players are big, the football is big, there is a lot of stop-and-start action (a key for those looking to refill on food or make a bathroom pit stop), and the cheerleaders brighten up the screen.

There is also one clear TV loser: ice hockey.

Give Fox Sports credit for trying to put a little pizzazz into hockey with colorful tails to help TV viewers track the puck speeding towards the goal, and also putting a colored dot over the puck to help viewers track its course as it passed from stick to stick and disappeared into the corners of the rink. But in the end it was a failure. A noble failure.

For anyone who hasn't seen a live highly competitive collegiate or professional ice hockey game, you have no idea what you are missing. In terms of sound, there are few sounds that rival the sharp crack of a puck being slapped by a piece of wood travelling towards it at high velocity. How about the distinctive sound that a hard body check makes?

As for visually, the action and the puck are usually visible from anywhere in a hockey arena. The skating is beautiful as is the top-flight passing, and the only thing it needs is a flashier way of indicating that a goal has been scored. Maybe the lights should flicker on-and-off on the ice.

As an example of how ice hockey transfers miserably to TV, let's talk about hard hits. When I watch football on TV, I really feel the hits. No joke, it's like my own neck is getting snapped back, but that never happens with hockey on TV.  

The NHL and the networks have tried just about every camera angle, but nothing seems to work. Maybe they need to design hockey pads that make a lot of noise when a guy gets checked so that the harder the check, the louder the sound. Until that time, hockey is a sport that's just meant to be watched in person.

Here's another example of why watching live hockey is far better than attending any other pro sporting event. In Gillette Stadium, I sit right near the goal line, but when the action is all the way down the other end of the stadium, I usually watch the big jumbotron that's over that end. It's because the players shield the ball. But in Boston Garden, while sitting up in the balcony and off to the side of one goal, I never need to watch the jumbotron at center ice, even when the puck is down at the other end. By the way, the jumbotron in Boston Garden is super nice.

When I'm sitting near Pesky Pole (down the right field line) at Fenway Park, it's a bit tough to track the baseball, especially on a sunny afternoon. When I'm sitting in the balcony at Yankee Stadium, it's also tough to track the ball at times. That problem almost never occurs at a hockey game.

Hockey might not be as popular as baseball or football, but it definitely is the best sporting event to watch live. If you don't believe me, then head over to Boston Garden for a Bruins game and sit in any seat (trust me there are enough unoccupied ones that you can sample seats to your heart's delight), and after watching that contest, there is no way to tell me that the same can be said for Fenway Park or Gillette Stadium or any other baseball or football stadium.

 

P.S. yes, the Celtics also play at Boston Garden, but one of the problems with pro basketball is that there is too much emphasis on guys standing around while the ball handler runs an isolation play. In hockey, the players are in continuous motion.

The early returns are in: Roger Goodell is the right man for the job. He's been strong with reprobates like Pacman Jones. He's been compassionate with the Sean Taylor tragedy. And now he's provided high drama and a satisfying resolution to the Patriots-Giants game.

For those who have been napping in Sleepy Hollow for a while, the 15-0 Patriots are going up against the playoff-bound Giants (compared to the Patriots, the Giants record is irrelevant). It could very well be the most watched regular season game, because there is a chance we could all see NFL history made as a win for the Patriots would make them the first team to go undefeated since the advent of the 16-game season.

It's also a game that could feature several records being broken by the Patriots, including most touchdown passes thrown (Tom Brady needs 2), most touchdowns caught (Randy Moss needs 2), and most points scored in a season (they need 7 to break the record).

The problem is that the NFL wanted to broadcast that game on their own little pet project called the NFL Network. Doing so would have meant that outside of people in Boston and New York, the vast majority of the rest of America would have been shut out of the game, because few subscribe to the NFL Network.

The NFL could have stuck to its guns, but I have a feeling that Goodell's strong hand was behind the decision to back down.

Showing the game on the NFL Network would be just the kind of seemingly small thing that could spell big trouble for the NFL's plans to increase the popularity of the game and viewership. Don't believe me? Google Jeff Jarvis and his blog titled "Dell (Computer) Hell". It's the story of how one small fish caused major negative ripples in a corporation's lake.

What long-term gain did the NFL have by keeping the game on the NFL Network? None. People who were lucky enough to have the NFL Network would soon forget about it. Remember it's the game that's the truly important thing here.

But the long-term gain of letting the game be simulcasted on free TV is immense: people will be talking about the game long after the announcers sign off, and that's exactly what NFL executives and their advertising people like to hear.

The NFL should seriously reevaluate their position and investment in the NFL Network. You'll have a few NFL junkies with disposable incomes willing to pay for the extra service, but do you really think that you can force cable companies like Time-Warner and Comcast to make your channel part of its basic package?

Do you really think that those cable companies are going to bump off a channel like TBS which appeals to a huge group of people most days throughout the year and replace it with the NFL Network which currently only shows 8 games a year?

If you were looking for bargaining power, you just watched it evaporate it with your sudden and correct decision to let the game be seen for free.

I'm from Boston and there used to be a time where you could turn on Channel 38 and see most Bruin or Red Sox games. The Red Sox are lucky to have recent success and a large enough following amongst those willing to fork over large sums of money to watch the game live as well as on cable. But the Bruins are not in the same boat, and I have little doubt that the sharp decline in their popularity was not only due to their weak play, but also the increased difficulty in people watching their games which are no longer broadcast on Channel 38.

It's a simple formula: increased access = increased viewership = increased popularity.

Somehow, Roger Goodell must have remembered this very simple and long-standing truism, and so the Patriots-Giants game is where it should be: on free TV.

Let's get some things straight. First, Sen. Mitchell did a fine job with his report. He identified the problem, meticulously worked through the investigation, assigned blame, named players, and proposed some solutions. And he did all of this with no subpoena power.

For all of you conspiracy theorists, forget about his ties to the Red Sox. He implicated former Red Sox players such as Eric Gagne and Mo Vaughn, and he indirectly added former Red Sox utility player Manny Alexander's name into the mix.

For all of you Bud Selig haters, and that includes me, let's get off the MLB Commissioner's back for a bit. It's not like he hasn't been pushing hard for stricter drug testing for the past few years. Does he share some blame in this whole mess? Yes, but Sen. Mitchell was refreshingly blunt in his criticism about who is to blame for the current steroid mess.

According to the MLB Player's Association's (MLBPA), the owners and management are partly to blame as they looked the other way for a while.

True, but the MLBPA's assertion that more stringent testing did not occur earlier because the owners didn't initially push for it is ludicrous. Look at the roadblocks that the MLBPA has put up for current testing. Does anyone think the MLBPA would have acted differently 15 years ago if the owners had wanted tougher testing?

For those who argue that Sen. Mitchell's report is incomplete, I agree but for different reasons. I watched Sen. Mitchell's press conference and parts of it were very good, but certain parts of it made no sense, because they seemed to have one goal: hide the Real Drug Issues.

Since this will be a bit lengthy, I'll break the issues into groups:

Real Drug Issue #1 = severe underestimate of MLB players who used illegal drugs.

Sen. Mitchell said that the percentage of MLB players who had tried or used steroids or HGH was about 5-7%, and that the vast majority of MLB players were clean. He then discussed how HGH couldn't be detected by urine samples.

Does anyone else see the big problem here? If you can't detect it, then how can you even guess how many players are clean or dirty?

I would bet a lot of money that if the American public were polled, at least 95% of rational Americans believe that the number of MLB players who have tried an anabolic steroid, HGH, or some other illegal drug is probably closer to 70% or higher.

If you're a struggling minor league player, aren't you going to do everything in your power to get that extra edge? This is why the idea of MLB players policing themselves is a joke.

Real Drug Issue #2 = the "Marion Jones Effect"

As many of you know, Marion Jones was a U.S. Olympian in track and field. For years she vehemently denied using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). It was easy to believe her because she's gorgeous, well-spoken, and she passed all of her drug tests. Trust me, the drug tests that track and field athletes take makes the MLB test look like a starter kit.

Also, elite track and field athletes can be tested anytime and anywhere, as opposed to MLB players who are always given some type of advanced notice of a test. You think I'm joking about how strict track & field is about testing? Here is an excerpt from the USATF, the governing body for U.S. Track & Field, regarding out-of-competition drug testing:

"...it is important for athletes to know that out-of-competition drug testing can occur any time and any place--at work, home, the track, the gym, in class, etc."

The point is that if Marion Jones can consistently beat such a tough detection system, then so can MLB players. That is the "Marion Jones Effect".

Therefore, the fact that Roger Clemens never had a positive urine test does not prove his innocence. In short, a positive urine test means that someone is definitely doing steroids (assuming a very very low false-positive ratio). A negative urine test only means that the sample wasn't definitively positive. Think "Marion Jones".

Real Drug Issue #3 = wimping out on addressing banned substances

The Mitchell Report talks about the use of testing that "maximizes detection". But what it really is saying is that measures should be used to maximize the detection of currently banned substances. Although this is a step in the right direction, it misses the major point that the current list of substances banned by MLB is woefully inadequate.

Let's look closely at what the list of banned substances really is. MLB has divided the list into two categories: a) Drugs of Abuse, and b) Steroids.

"Drugs of Abuse" are:

Cocaine, LSD, Marijuana, Opiates (e.g., heroin, codeine, morphine), MDMA ("Ecstasy"), GHB, Phencyclidine ("PCP"), Ephedra

 

"Steroids" are:

Androstanediol, Androstanedione, Androstenediol, Androstenedione, Bolasterone, Boldenone, Calusterone, Clostebol, Dehydrochloromethyltestosterone, Desoxy-methyltestosterone, ?1-dihydrotestosterone, 4-dihydrotestosterone, Drostanolone, Ethylestrenol, Fluoxymesterone, Formebolone, Furazabol, 13a-ethyl-17a-hydroxygon-4-en-3-one, 4-hydroxytestosterone, 4-hydroxy-19-nortestosterone, Mestanolone, Mesterolone, Methandienone, Methandriol, Methenolone, Methyltestosterone, Mibolerone, 17a-methyl-?1-dihydrotestosterone, Nandrolone, Norandrostenediol, Norandrostenedione, Norbolethone, Norclostebol, Norethandrolone, Oxandrolone, Oxymesterone, Oxymetholone, Stanozolol, Stenbolone, Testolactone, Testosterone, Tetrahydrogestrinone, Trenbolone

Any salt, ester or ether of a drug or substance listed above

Human Growth Hormone

That list looks long, but it's actually quite small.

Now let's look at the list of banned substances established by WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency), the governing body for illegal drug testing,

S1. Anabolic Agents

 Anabolic agents are prohibited.

1. Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS)

a. Exogenous * AAS, including:

18 -homo-17 -hydroxyestr-4-en-3-one; bolasterone; boldenone; boldione; calusterone; clostebol; danazol; dehydrochloromethyl- testosterone; delta1-androstene-3,17-dione; delta1-androstenediol; delta1-dihydro-testosterone; drostanolone; ethylestrenol; fluoxymesterone; formebolone; furazabol; gestrinone; 4-hydroxytestosterone; 4-hydroxy-19-nortestosterone; mestanolone; mesterolone; metenolone; methandienone; methandriol; methyldienolone; methyltrienolone; methyltestosterone; mibolerone; nandrolone; 19-norandrostenediol; 19-norandrostenedione; norbolethone; norclostebol; norethandrolone; oxabolone; oxandrolone; oxymesterone; oxymetholone; quinbolone; stanozolol; stenbolone; tetrahydrogestrinone; trenbolone and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).

 

b. Endogenous ** AAS:

androstenediol (androst-5-ene-3 ,17 -diol); androstenedione (androst-4- ene-3,17-dione); dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA); dihydrotestosterone; testosterone.

 

and the following metabolites and isomers:

5 -androstane-3 ,17 -diol; 5 -androstane-3 ,17 -diol; 5 -androstane- 3 ,17 -diol;, 5 -androstane-3 ,17 -diol; androst-4-ene-3 ,17 -diol; androst-4-ene-3 ,17 -diol; androst-4-ene-3 ,17 -diol; androst-5-ene- 3 ,17 -diol; androst-5-ene-3 ,17 -diol; androst-5-ene-3 ,17 -diol; 4-androstenediol (androst-4-ene-3 ,17 -diol); 5-androstenedione (androst-5-ene-3,17-dione); epi-dihydrotestosterone; 3 -hydroxy-5 - androstan-17-one; 3 -hydroxy-5 -androstan-17-one; 19-norandrosterone; 19-noretiocholanolone.

2. Other Anabolic Agents, including but not limited to:

    Clenbuterol, zeranol, zilpaterol.

S2. Hormones And Related Substances

1. Erythropoietin (EPO);
2. Growth Hormone (hGH), Insulin-like Growth Factor (IGF-1), Mechano Growth Factors (MGFs);
3. Gonadotrophins (LH, hCG);
4. Insulin;
5. Corticotrophins.

S3. Beta-2 Agonists

All beta-2 agonists including their D- and L-isomers are prohibited. Their use requires a Therapeutic Use Exemption.

S4. Agents With Anti-Estrogenic Activity  

1. Aromatase inhibitors including, but not limited to, anastrozole, letrozole, aminogluthetimide, exemestane, formestane, testolactone.
2. Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs) including, but not limited to, raloxifene, tamoxifen, toremifene.
3. Other anti-estrogenic substances including, but not limited to, clomiphene, cyclofenil, fulvestrant.

S5. Diuretics And Other Masking Agents

Diuretics and other masking agents are prohibited.

 

Masking agents include but are not limited to:

Diuretics * , epitestosterone, probenecid, alpha-reductase inhibitors (e.g. finasteride, dutasteride), plasma expanders (e.g. albumin, dextran, hydroxyethyl starch).

 

Diuretics include:

acetazolamide, amiloride, bumetanide, canrenone, chlortalidone, etacrynic acid, furosemide, indapamide, metolazone, spironolactone, thiazides (e.g. bendroflumethiazide, chlorothiazide, hydrochlorothiazide), triamterene, and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).  

 

Prohibited Methods

 

M1. Enhancement Of Oxygen Transfer

 

The following are prohibited:  

a. Blood doping, including the use of autologous, homologous or heterologous blood or red blood cell products of any origin, other than for medical treatment. 

 

b. Artificially enhancing the uptake, transport or delivery of oxygen, including but not limited to perfluorochemicals, efaproxiral (RSR13) and modified haemoglobin products (e.g. haemoglobin-based blood substitutes, microencapsulated haemoglobin products).

Prohibited Substances

S6. Stimulants  

The following stimulants are prohibited, including both their optical (D- and L-) isomers where relevant:

Adrafinil, amfepramone, amiphenazole, amphetamine, amphetaminil, benzphetamine, bromantan, carphedon, cathine * , clobenzorex, cocaine, dimethylamphetamine, ephedrine ** , etilamphetamine, etilefrine, famprofazone, fencamfamin, fencamine, fenetylline, fenfluramine, fenproporex, furfenorex, mefenorex, mephentermine, mesocarb, methamphetamine, methylamphetamine, methylenedioxyamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine, methylephedrine ** , methylphenidate, modafinil, nikethamide, norfenfluramine, parahydroxyamphetamine, pemoline, phendimetrazine, phenmetrazine, phentermine, prolintane, selegiline, strychnine, and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s) *** .

S7. Narcotics  

buprenorphine, dextromoramide, diamorphine (heroin), fentanyl and its derivatives, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, pentazocine, pethidine. 

 

S8. Cannabinoids

Cannabinoids (e.g. hashish, marijuana) are prohibited.

S9. Glucocortocosteriods  

All glucocorticosteroids are prohibited when administered orally, rectally, intravenously or intramuscularly. Their use requires a Therapeutic Use Exemption approval.

 

Specified Substances* 

 

Ephedrine, L-methylamphetamine, methylephedrine;
Cannabinoids;
All inhaled Beta-2 Agonists, except clenbuterol;
Probenecid;
All Glucocorticosteroids;
All Beta Blockers;
Alcohol.

 

See a difference?

Some of you may think that WADA seems like a foreign organization, so you may be a little suspicious of it. Okay, let's bring it closer to home. Here is a list of substances banned by the NCAA:

 (a) Stimulants:
amiphenazole, amphetamine, bemigride, benzphetamine, bromantan caffeine1 (guarana), chlorphentermine, cocaine , cropropamide, crothetamide, diethylpropion, dimethylamphetamine, doxapram, ephedrine (ephedra, ma huang), ethamivan, ethylamphetamine, fencamfamine, meclofenoxate, methamphetamine, methylene-dioxymethamphetamine
[MDMA (ecstasy)], methylphenidate, nikethamide, pemoline, pentetrazol, phendimetrazine, phenmetrazine, phentermine, phenylephrine, phenylpropanolamine (ppa), picrotoxine, pipradol, prolintane, strychnine, synephrine (citrus aurantium, zhi shi, bitter orange) and related compounds  

(b) Anabolic Agents:
anabolic steroids, androstenediol, androstenedione, boldenone, clostebol, dehydrochlormethyl-testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), dihydrotestosterone (DHT), dromostanolone, fluoxymesterone, gestrinone, mesterolone, methandienone, methenolone, methyltestosterone, nandrolone, norandrostenediol, norandrostenedione, norethandrolone, oxandrolone, oxymesterone, oxymetholone, stanozolol, testosterone2, tetrahydrogestrinone (THG), trenbolone, and related compounds
other anabolic agents
clenbuterol

(c) Diuretics:
acetazolamide, bendroflumethiazide, benzthiazide, bumetanide, chlorothiazide, chlorthalidone, ethacrynic acid, flumethiazide, furosemide, hydrochlorothiazide, hydroflumethiazide, methyclothiazide, metolazone, polythiazide, quinethazone, spironolactone, triamterene, trichlormethiazide, and related compounds

(d) Street Drugs:
heroin THC, marijuana3 (tetrahydrocannabinol)3

(e) Peptide Hormones and Analogues
chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG human chorionic gonadotrophin), corticotrophin (ACTH), growth hormone (HGH, somatotrophin)

(f) others: erythropoietin (EPO), sermorelin

When you compare the list of banned substances by MLB, WADA and the NCAA, there are a few things which are notable 

1.  the MLB list lags far behind the WADA and NCAA list. If the real goal of MLB is to clean up its house, then how can it have such dramatically lower standards than WADA and the NCAA? For the NCAA to have such stricter drug policies than MLB is reminiscent of the fact that for years minor league baseball had a much stiffer drug policy than MLB.

2.  the MLB list only bans known steroids or agents which are almost completely identical to known banned steroids. It does not make a general statement that bans ALL anabolic steroids. Therefore, MLB players can use "designer steroids" which can be manufactured to avoid being classified with one of the known steroids.

This is exactly what happened with BALCO and its Tetrahydrogenstrinone (aka THG or The Clear). THG was not detectable previously because it was a designer drug created to avoid detection. Although THG is related to the banned anabolic steroids trenbolone and gestrinone, it had enough differences that made it undetectable to standard tests for these two illegal drugs.

Unless MLB includes a blanket statement that "all anabolic steroids are forbidden", it's only a matter of time before we have our next BALCO-type scandal

3.  the MLB list demonstrates ignorance. Growth Hormone is a peptide. It's not a steroid.

4.  the MLB list demonstrates how it's leaving the door open for continued abuse. To ban Growth Hormone but not IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor-1), its analogues or Growth Hormone Releasing Factor is ridiculous.

This requires a bit of explanation.

Growth Hormone itself can cause changes, but in the liver it causes the production and secretion of another important anabolic growth factor called IGF-1. IGF-1 is banned by WADA because various labs have clearly demonstrated that both unaltered IGF-1 and slightly modified IGF-1 can result in significant muscle mass gains.

The goal of using injectable (exogenous) Growth Hormone is to increase the amount of Growth Hormone in a person's bloodstream. To get the same result of increased Growth Hormone in your blood without actually adding/injecting it into your body, one could use Growth Hormone Releasing Factors (GHRFs). These drugs stimulate cells in a person's anterior pituitary to make and release more Growth Hormone. The end result of using these GHRFs is the same as using injected HGH.

5.  the MLB list does not account for steroid masking agents. These drugs are used by steroid users to evade detection during urine tests.

Real Drug Issue #4: the Mitchell Report does not discuss blood testing.

One of the real problems with the MLB drug testing policy is that it does not allow for blood testing. In a normal individual without a lot of resources, banned substances can be readily detected in the urine. However, in a person with money (e.g. an MLB player), there are all sorts of ways to make the urine look "clean" of steroids.

The simplest way is to carry a packet of "clean" urine into the bathroom during a drug test and dump it into the urine collection jar.

More complex ways involve the use of masking agents such as Propecia.

If MLB really wants to show that they're serious about cleaning up the sport, then blood tests should also be done. MLB players and the MLBPA may argue that it's dangerous, but if track and field athletes can do it, then so can MLB players.

Real Drug Issue #5: the Mitchell Report does not address the MLB's ridiculous difference in policy between "Drugs of Abuse" and "Steroids".

This is an issue that I have yet to see discussed anywhere.

Under the current drug/steroid testing policy which expires in 2008, "Drugs of Abuse" and "Steroids" are considered completely different entities for drug testing. A player can be randomly tested for steroids at any time (both in-season and out-of-season). However, a player cannot be randomly tested for "drugs of abuse"

Huh? Don't believe me?

According to "Major League Baseball's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program" rules, "Except as set forth in Section 3.C, Players shall not be subject to testing for the use of any Drug of Abuse."

In case you're wondering, Section 3.C states that a player cannot be tested for a "drug of abuse" unless there is reasonable cause (non-random) presented to the oversight committee and that committee votes by a majority to test the player.

If you wonder why more MLB players aren't caught using illegal drugs like cocaine, PCP and ecstasy, it's because the vast majority of them never get tested for it during their careers.

All of this brings me to a final ominous conclusion: NO ONE REALLY WANTS TO CATCH ANYONE.

What could possibly be an impetus for cleaning up the game? Attendance is at an all-time high. TV contracts are through the roof. And the Yankees are still spending money like it grows on trees and contributing mightily to the luxury tax.

So, let's look at the participants in this charade of "getting tough on drugs":

1) MLB and the Commissioner's Office

If they were serious, they would use the same testing procedures as the USATF. If they are worried about the MLBPA, then at least they should release to the public a list of what they are pushing for in a strong new drug testing policy. If the MLBPA doesn't like it, then they will have to face the public and explain the reasons for their opposition.

The fact that this hasn't been done yet is either because it's all talk and no action, or the owners and Commissioner Selig are afraid of angering the MLBPA and inciting a strike.

2) MLBPA

Their perceived job is to protect ALL of their players. The last thing they really want is a tougher drug policy. Why? A tougher drug policy means that the MLBPA would be put in the negative situation of having to spend more of its time and resources defending cheaters.

3) MLB Players

This is the part that is the toughest to acknowledge. To date, only a couple of currently active players have publicly spoken out against steroids and HGH. If Sen. Mitchell's estimates of 5-7% of ballplayers using illegal substances is correct, and if the number one thing that really angers clean players is that the cheaters are gaining an unfair advantage, then it makes complete sense that a lot of players should be coming out and publicly blasting the cheaters.

This hasn't happened.

Why?

There are three possible answers:  

1)      no "clean" player wants to look like a goody-two-shoes

2)      player apathy

3)      the number of dirty players is much much higher than Sen. Mitchell's estimate

 

If Sen. Mitchell is correct that "clean" players are really angry about the cheaters, we can put #1 and #2 aside.

So, where is the yelling? The silence is a bit overwhelming.

Why might the number of dirty players be incredibly high?

Baseball is not like basketball or football. For most pro baseball players, it takes years of playing in the minors to get a chance in the majors. An early injury, perceived lack of strength/power, and whispers about a person not having enough "pop" in their bat can destroy a once-promising career.

The money waiting for baseball players in the majors has gotten ridiculous. It's probably the most ridiculous salaries of any major pro sport. For example, Yankees Alex Rodriguez, a guy who has done nothing in the postseason and never won a World Series Championship, will be paid $30 million a year to play baseball, while Tom Brady of the New England Patriots who has won 3 Super Bowl Championships and is on his way to a fourth will be paid $6 million a year to play football.

Many people (not athletes) have said that they would use illegal PEDs in a heartbeat if offered that kind of money to play baseball. It's understandable and also a telling statement.

If we as individuals without the necessary talent set to even get to the minor leagues would be willing to break the law and use such drugs, then how much greater must the temptation be for players who have the talent, but just need a small boost to get into the majors?

Then once a player gets to the majors and tastes the lifestyle, the thought of being sent back down to the minors or having to leave the game due to injury can be devastating.

In such a context, it's easy to understand why a lot of players probably used or at least tried anabolic steroids and HGH.

And it's also easy to understand why there has not been a bigger outcry about the steroids scandal from current MLB players: there are very very few players who have never tried steroids or HGH.

My guess is that as Sen. Mitchell and his team dug deeper, they realized that illegal drug use was far more rampant than anyone could have ever guessed. But he decided to do what was "in the best interest of baseball" and provide only the names of players that he was sure had cheated. Had we been provided a list of players under investigation...

Also, for those who think that Radomski and McNamee lied about which players they had assisted in using steroids and HGH, guess again. If you read the Mitchell Report carefully, you'll see that their immunity is valid only if their testimony is truthful. As much pressure as they were under to give up names, they were also under greater pressure not to lie.

Some say that the Mitchell Report is a good start to solving the problem. I disagree. Without proposing things like following the WADA guidelines for illegal substances, allowing random blood and urine tests, and figuring out a way to convince the MLBPA that it's in their best interest to push for much stricter test parameters, the currently proposed changes - if instituted - will catch a few more players, but nothing substantial is going to change.

People will try to deflect everyone's focus by concentrating on things like stiffer sentences handed out to players caught because of the system that's currently in place. But this is a smokescreen.

If the ultimate goal is to clean up the game, then stricter sentences for an inadequate system that only catches less than 1% of the total number of cheaters is just a drop in the bucket. The focus now should not be on punishment but rather on detection.

Until we have a better and more comprehensive detection system in place for MLB, we're just avoiding the Real Drug Issues.