>Changing American sports topics, what is your take on the Mitchell report? I can't say anything in it really surprised me. Not even Clemens and Pettitte, who have been getting most of the attention since the report came out yesterday. Clemens was my favorite pitcher for a long time, but when he kept getting better at an age when most baseball players are in decline or out of the game you knew something was probably fishy.

It never occurred to me that there wasn't a real problem in baseball, not to mention football and basketball (maybe a bit less in basketball where finesse is more important than sheer strength).

>
>Not sure I agree with Mitchell's recommendation that baseball move on and not punish those identified in the report (other than egregious cases, which was not defined). I'm sure baseball would like to just sweep it all under the carpet and move on but shouldn't there be consequences for players who are still active?

Absolutely. There are only 2 ways to deal with it afaic, heavy penalties, or throw it open and make it legit. I know the second option will, of course, be frowned upon by most people, but it's an option. I think they should find a better way to get bigger, faster, and stronger, but I also feel to some extent that being adults, maybe they should be treated less like little children. My only real problem with it is that it is not healthy in the long run and like it or not, they are role models. Maybe they never signed up to be a role model, but it comes with the territory and they need to recognise that fact. If it weren't for the 'role model' aspect of it, I'd say, let them do what they like to their bodies and let them pay the penalties for that stupidity that their bodies will exact later on.

>Despite Bud Selig's avowal that drug testing will now be more stringent, I don't think the problem will be eradicated until they implement a system of punishment with real teeth. Even when players get caught they are generally suspended for a relatively trivial period of 10-25 games. Baseball needs to do something like track and field does: get caught once, you're suspended for a year; get caught again, you're banned for life. Now THAT would be a deterrent.

As long as they aren't going to legitimise it (and they aren't), I agree 100%. Of course, it might just spur the search for ways to either disguise it in testing, or to find subsances to abuse that are harder to detect.

>You have to wonder what the NFL (as well as college football) are thinking about all this. I don't think there is much doubt in anyone's mind that football has an even bigger steroids problem than baseball. They give cheaters a slap on the wrist and they're right back on the field in no time. Last season Shawne Merriman not only got off with the standard 4 game suspension, he was elected to the Pro Bowl. Talk about sticking your head in the sand.

Football probably has the biggest problem of all the major sports. Size (at least for linemen and to some extent, backfielders) means everything. Although, looking at some of the offensive linemen, it appears that their drug of choice is just plain food.