Brooks Robinson decries steroid enhanced records.

[Ned]

All this shows is that Kuhn eventually pissed off enough owners not to get "re-elected," even though he wanted to continue as commissioner. In a word, he was fired. Steinbrenner clearly was one of the reasons.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All this shows is that Kuhn eventually pissed off enough owners not to get "re-elected,"

For many reasons, not because he invalidated deals involving the Yankees and Red Sox. As your interview and quoted portions show, Kuhn had bad reputation from the 1981 strike and his plans for an equitable sharing of revbnues.

And your last sources shows than it was the NL clubs that were ultimately responsible for Kuhn getting the boot. Neither the A's, Yankees, or Red Sox were in the NL.

Sorry Ned, you fail again.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I realise I'm showing my old-fashioned streak again, but on the whole I prefer sport to showcases for the pharmaceutical industry. Still, at least it's only a backwater sport like baseball.

[Ming]

Ned... are you really trying to advocate that Government be allowed to dictate to private companies who should run them? The owners have the right to pick who they want in that positon... it is THEIR league...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thought this would be interesting:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2052364

SAN FRANCISCO -- Former major league pitcher Tom House used steroids during his career and said performance-enhancing drugs were widespread in baseball in the 1960s and 1970s, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday.

House, perhaps best known for catching Hank Aaron's 715th home run ball in 1974 in the Atlanta Braves' bullpen, said he and several teammates used amphetamines, human growth hormone and "whatever steroid" they could find in order to keep up with the competition.

"I pretty much popped everything cold turkey," House said. "We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses. That was the '60s, when nobody knew. The good thing is, we know now. There's a lot more research and understanding."

House, a former pitching coach with the Texas Rangers and co-founder of the National Pitching Association near San Diego, is one of the first players to describe steroid use as far back as the 1960s.

He was drafted in 1967 by the Braves and pitched eight seasons for Atlanta, Boston and Seattle, finishing his career with a 29-23 record and 3.79 ERA.

House, 58, estimated that six or seven pitchers per team were at least experimenting with steroids or human growth hormone. He said players talked about losing to opponents using more effective drugs.

"We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed," he said. "And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them."

House said he gained almost 30 pounds while using steroids, blaming the extra weight for contributing to knee problems. He said the drugs helped improve recovery time and conditioning but did not add velocity to his fastball.

"I tried everything known to man to improve my fastball, and it still didn't go faster than 82 miles per hour," House said. "I was a failed experiment."

House said he stopped using steroids after learning about the long-term harm they could cause.

"I'd like to say we were smart, but we didn't know what was going on," he said. "We were at the tail end of a generation that wasn't afraid to ingest anything. As research showed up, guys stopped."

[Ned]

Here is a good history of the whole question of drugs in baseball. The central problem is that the NRLB holds that drug testing is a part of collective bargaining. This has lead to weak rules that are largely ignored in the case of steroids.

"The MLBPA, more so than the MLB, appears to use the drug testing issue as an
inappropriate bargaining tool. The MLB drug testing policy should be something
implemented to promote the health of the players and the well-being of baseball as a
sport and career provider. It should not be “a matter of negotiation.”174 Bargaining in a
unionized industry is supposed to be conducted “in good faith.”175 Understandably, both
sides negotiate until they obtain the most favorable contract possible for their side,
however, when it comes to a policy governing drug testing, the health and welfare of
baseball and its players should transcend the negotiation process entirely. Both the
league and the players should be concerned with curbing the problem of drug use and
strive together for the most comprehensive and effective drug testing policy possible.
Unfortunately, that is not the case in the present labor arrangement, where drug testing is
used as a “pawn,” valued more for its bargaining power than its potential worth to the
league, players, and the game of baseball.
Commissioner Selig has expressed a desire to remove the regulation of drugs (he
includes “unsafe nutritional supplements” in this category) from the collective bargaining
process.176 However, he understands the limitation of his desire, “[p]layers’ associations
hold different views on the relative importance of protecting players from the dangers of
these products as compared to their interest in safeguarding players’ privacy rights.”177 The MLB and the MLBPA have not achieved an effective drug testing policy that protects the rights of the players through collective bargaining, and the likelihood of that
happening is slight. Thus, the implementation, execution and administration of the drug
testing policy in MLB should be the Office of the Commissioner’s responsibility because
the MLBPA will not facilitate a drug testing policy that works due to their privacy
concerns.178 Until the power is taken away from the MLBPA to bargain inappropriately
for a weak policy, a strong policy that works to promote the health and welfare of the
players will never materialize.
The union and the league should not be able to barter with a policy that promotes
health and welfare to negotiate against subjects like salaries, revenue sharing, and season
schedules. Although the NLRB considers drug testing a mandatory topic of collective
bargaining in all industries, perhaps the MLB (of its own accord) could obtain some sort
of exemption. Specifically, the NLRB could assign regulation of the drug testing policy
to the league, or, better yet, to some impartial third-person group that would design a
policy to promote health and protect credibility.
It would be beneficial to the MLB and the MLBPA.

http://www.willamette.edu/org/sls/journal/feb_05/ruscharticle.pdf

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, since we have players saying that steroids were widespread in the 60s and 70s will you drop your silly "I would recommend that we give an asterisk to all records made in the '90s that have anything to do with strength."

[Ned]

Imran, OK.

I think we have also identified the problem: the NLRB. Perhaps Congress could fix that.