For the Record: On how long steroids have been banned in MLB (since 1971)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>According to George Mitchell, a former Federal Judge and US Attorney, steroid use, except when legally prescribed by doctor, has been banned in MLB since 1971. In 1971 baseball banned the player use of all prescription drugs that aren't doctor prescribed to the user. In 1991 steroids were specifically named. So, according the Mitchell, steroids and related without legal prescription have against baseball's rules since 1971.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric B</b><p>That would include HGH too!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joseph</b><p>I'm SO excited about the events of the past few days that I'm breaking my for-the-most-part<br />self-imposed ban from this forum. As a baseball fan--and as a journalist who had to cover this thing--yesterday was like the Super Bowl and Christmas rolled into one. My true feelings pretty much amount to this: the Mitchell Report is the most dramatic case of "Shocked, shocked" (see "Casablanca") of all-time, certainly in the sports world. <br /><br />But the real reason I'm posting is the pic below, which I didn't want any of the fine fellows who read this forum to miss. All hail New Jersey's The Trentonian!<br /><br /><img src="http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w150/base_ball2007/trentonian.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ed Ivey</b><p>I'm shocked by Petite allegations. Still, no due process - all MLB show business. How many will sue for defamation?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric B</b><p>....How many will sue for defamation?<br /><br />None. Because it was true.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Define due process. Would that involve inviting each player and his lawyer in to review the evidence and to be able to comment and provide any counter evidence? Argue all one wants about Mitchell, but he was was asked by both the rival Irish and British to serve an impartial outside mediator between in Northern Ireland. If the Protestants and and Catholics of Northern Ireland can agree that Mitchell is a trustworthy and fair person, I find it hard to believe Mitchell wouldn't have seriously listen to and reported on both sides of the story if the ball players chose to participate. There's little doubt Mitchell asked players and the union to participate because he hoped they would<br /><br />It should be noted that the Union's stated position is that the report shouldn't report a name of a player who didn't participate in the process. Mitchel said that policy would mean that all a guilty player had to do to not have his name reported would be to not participate, and, he added, all of these players chose not to participate.<br /><br />If the complaint is that the report "includes only one side of the story," now who's fault would that be? If a player waives his due process rights, that means due process was available. If choosing to not exercise one's due process rights was sufficient to end a legal proceeding, there would be no one in prison. <br /><br />Of course, the Mitchell report was not a courtroom legal proceeding (Nor did I say it was. It is not only courts that have due processes. Dog shows, spelling bees, NFL football games and eBay disputes all have their own due processes). Part of Mitchell's due process was to not only allow, but to encourage, players and their lawyers to participate. The players and their lawyers chose not to.