Not that I'm excusing his previous behavior, but Jason Giambi has never tested positive for steroids. Unless he's truly stupid, I believe he'll never test positive. So do you wipe every suspected previous steroid users' records away?

Plus, Franklin supposedly tested positive because of a steroid in dietary supplements he was taking because he couldn't keep weight on. Now, he's not taking anything. There are imperfections in this policy.

oh, chill out ben. I believe Dave was making a funny there.

Funny how few people are probably even aware that Franklin did a suspension for steroids. He got his suspension about the same time as Palmeiro, so he got lucky and flew beneath the radar.

Last night I watched Juan Rincon pitch for the Twins. How many people remember he got suspended?

In unrelated Yankees news, they're going to sign Mark Bellhorn. Mark is the classic moneyball player, a reliable OBP machine with a career .350 mark. So he probably interests the Yankees a lot more than the .298-OBP rook they've got at 2B right now. I wouldn't be surprised to see Bellhorn get a fair amount of time at second, especially if Cano continues to struggle so badly.

I believe he is truly stupid. A positive test is inevitable.

I'm not privy to Giambi's IQ scores, so I can't comment on his stupidity or lack thereof. Getting tangled with steroids was certainly dumb, but at least he was smart enough not to lie to the grand jury.

As for whether a positive test is inevitable...there are only two things in life that are inevitable, and I'm not going to repeat them.

When it comes to baseball smarts, Giambi's career actually shows a pretty impressive record. He started out as a high strikeout guy who walked only rarely. He put up a nearly two-to-one ratio of strikeouts to walks in 1996-97.

But as he learned the pitchers, umpires and strike zone a lot better, he shifted that ratio substantially. It's now down to about 1-to-1 for his career.

I don't think this had anything to do with steroids, unless the drugs mysteriously confer better strike zone judgment. Giambi's now become the ultimate OBP warrior, leading the league in the single most important offensive statististic.

Hm, that's an imaginative spelling of "statistic."

Stupid or not, Giambi is mashing.

It'll be interesting to see how Torre deploys Bellhorn...I have a hard time imagining that Torre will have the stomach to stick it through Bellhorn's outrageous K-rate for long, despite the fact that Bellhorn (as Casey points out) has a solid OBP, and rarely G'sIDP.

I think it comes down to whether Cano continues to stink it up at second. If the rook starts to play a little better, Bellhorn won't get much playing time at all. If Cano continues to flounder, Torre might try Bellhorn for a spell.

The signing is certainly a message to Cano that he's not impressing Torre right now.

Ben, so far everyone who has tested positive for steroids has used the "oh, there must have been steroids in one of my supplements" excuse. Ryan Franklin is no exception. I'm guessing that most, if not all of them, are lying OR they knew EXACTLY what was in their supplements.

LOL!!!

Maybe they should form a new league... the SLB - "Steroid League Baseball" and any players who want to be on steroids can go play there. When you think about it, it makes some sense... minor leagues, major leagues, and steroid leagues... all different levels of play.

And guess which would be the most fun to watch.

I'm still waiting for the explanation for why an admitted cheater is allowed to continue playing professional baseball and significantly impact a pennant race.

The explanation is something called the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Under the agreement the MLBPA and MLB negotiated a testing program and various penalties. Giambi so far has qualified to play under that program.

It's that simple. I think the testing program should be more rigorous and the penalties a lot more severe, as Selig has proposed. But even I don't favor blacklisting players based on past steroid use, if they test clean under the agreed-on program.

I thought David Pinto's original posting was funny, and he made his point well, so I'm not responding to his comment. I am responding to some of the comments about Giambi.

There are two points that I think deserve highlighting: Giambi was honest before the grand jury, and now Giambi is posting good numbers even though he has passed several tests this year.

I think using steroids is unhealthy and wrong, and I would support an ever stricter policy against those who use them. But the fact is that Giambi's story is not just that of the "guy who took steroids."

I'm still trying to figure out who the "admitted cheater" is.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying watching The Great Giambino mash. Mickey would be proud.

Giambi admitted under oath to taking steroids and HGH in several forms and on several different occasions.

Even with someone like Franklin or Palmeiro, there remains some doubt, however unlikely. It is certainly possible that they tested postive falsely, however improbably.

With Giambi, there is no doubt.

is posting good numbers even though he has passed several tests this year.

Good numbers? He's exceeding his 2003 numbers, the year in which he has admitted taking steroids.

To those saying Giambi is admitted cheater because of the Grand Jury testimony: What can anyone really do about it? Selig doesn't have the power to retroactively suspend him. And how would that solve any problems? Are we going to retroactively suspend Bonds because his ex-girlfriend said he took steroids? Will we suspend Spaceman Lee for pitching on LSD?

Giambi cheated in the past, but as in our judicial system, this season, he's innocent until proven guilty. So far, he hasn't been proven guilty.

One man robs a bank and gets caught on camera and is sent to jail for 10 years.

Another man robs a bank, is not caught on camera, but confesses to it anyway after spending all the money. He is pat on the head for being honest and sent on his merry way. When he suddenly starts again spending money like a rock star, people shrug and say things like "maybe he's gotten good at playing the stock market."

Is that about right?

Is that just?

We can choose to ignore it, but we know that Giambi was on steroids for at least the 2003 season. He is currently exceeding those numbers. Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on him?

Will we suspend Spaceman Lee for pitching on LSD?

Is he pitching in a pennant race right now?

Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on him?

What are you suggesting? That he be suspended for good play unless he proves that he isn't taking a banned substance? And just how do you expect him to prove a negative?

Love Steve's sanctimonious claptrap. It's posters like him that keep these sites entertaining.

Sure do wish Giambi would stop robbing banks, though. :)

I'm not trying to be sanctimonious. All this head-in-the-sand-ism just seriously confounds me.

To be honest, I'm not sure yet where I stand on "performance enhancing" drugs/items/surgeries, etc. Is TJ surgery or LASIK so very different from taking steroids? Hell, we might be drinking HGH in our tap water someday.

But that's a policy question, and MLB has made their decision. Cheating is cheating, whether or not you agree with the rules in principle.

Giambi cheated. No one can deny that. To date, he has not been punished one bit (apart from his body saying WTF?) except in Satire Land. Correct?

That he be suspended for good play unless he proves that he isn't taking a banned substance? And just how do you expect him to prove a negative?

Full blood work, regular testing at short intervals including the offseason, GPS ankle bracelet.... B)

Steve, if you define cheating as breaking the rules, at the time, Giambi wasn't breaking the rules. We don't know Giambi was on steroids in 2003. We do know he was on steroids in 2000, according to his Dec. 2003 Grand Jury testimony.

If you want to blame someone for this steroid fiasco, you shouldn't blame Giambi. He was doing what many other baseball players were doing; he was working within the wimpy rules set forth by MLB and the MLBPAA that did not punish for steroid use. In 2005, it would be cheating. But he hasn't been caught. In 2000, when he reportedly used steroids, it wasn't "against the rules" cheating. So why should he be punished for doing something that wasn't against the organization's rules?

From that SF Gate article I linked to earlier:

New York Yankees star Jason Giambi told a federal grand jury that he had injected himself with human growth hormone during the 2003 baseball season and had started using steroids at least two years earlier, The Chronicle has learned.

[. . . .]

The onetime Oakland A's first baseman and 2000 American League Most Valuable Player testified that in 2003, when he hit 41 home runs for the Yankees, he had used several different steroids obtained from Greg Anderson, weight trainer for San Francisco Giants star Barry Bonds.

I guess I really don't understand the rush to defend the guy. He lied to us, he juiced up to get himself a huge contract, and he's currently mashing the ball just like he used to when he was juicing.

We test people because it's the best way to uncover people who are using but hide it. That isn't necessary with Giambi, because he admitted it. Not publicly, but under oath, which I think is a pretty good piece of evidence.

You don't get punished for failing drug tests. You get punished for using drugs. The test is one way to prove it. A confession is another.

But your point is that he confessed to something he did two years ago or more. Where's your proof that he's doing it now? You don't get punished for breaking the spirit of the rule. Why not punish everyone who lifts weights or trains? That makes your muscles bigger. The point is: He was using steroids when it wasn't against any rule. Now, there's a rule, and he has yet to fail a test for them. Hence, no punishment.

Steve-- While you believe and I believe and the commish believes and Giambi doesn't expect anyone to not believe that that was his testimony, its still "leaked and unconfirmed." They can hardly suspend him for it till it has a provenance...

By the way, that wasn't Bill Lee in the famous LSD case anyway-- was it Doc Medich? He wasn't scheduled to pitch that day, and showed up at the park with the drug not fully worn off and was asked to make an emergency start... (Not that I'd want to damage Lee's rep any-- it is of course possible that he did it too...)

Whether or not steroids were illegal under the CBA should be moot, as they were illegal in both countries that MLB is played in. Hey, if I got busted for possession of a gram of hash when I was 18, then ballplayers should also face the legal consequences of their actions.

I believe it was Dock Ellis who threw the no-hitter on acid. I'd love to find an old jersey of his - but would that be a throwback or a flashback?

This is a very good discussion, but let me point something that's being missed. I believe steroid use was against the rules before the CBA. Baseball could not randomly test for it, and there were no penalties set in stone. However, according to the book Juicing the Game, baseball could have tested individuals for probable cause. So, if a player is bragging about using steroids, or if a player was known to be hanging out with suspected steroid users, the clubs could ask for a test based on that. They never did.

I still don't see where Giambi is an "admitted cheater." Where did he admit using steroids in any meaningful sense? What he did was give testimony in a secret proceeding for which he was granted immunity in exchange for being truthful. That testimony was then leaked - illegally. I find that far more disturbing than something he supposedly said. The reason for granting immunity and secrecy is to encourage people to tell the truth.

So you have something for which Giambi can't be prosecuted and then you have Steve wanting to throw him out of the game based upon what amounts to hearsay.

Meanwhile, most likely everyone and his sister is on 'roids or has been on them or will be on them but they get a free ride because they didn't happen to get their 'roids from BALCO. Ridiculous.

Finally, the fact remains that baseball has a policy in place for steroid testing. Giambi hasn't tested positive yet (as far as we know), and so he can't be punished for using them.

The fact is that legally baseball can't do a thing about Giambi unless he tests positive. There is no legal basis or ability to do anything to Giambi based upon anything he has done yet.

Giambi hasn't tested positive yet (as far as we know), and so he can't be punished for using them.

Of course, if he has, then he'll be going through some super secret appeals process while he continues to belt homeruns in a close division race. Just like Palmeiro was earlier in the year.

Okay, so I'll stipulate that MLB currently can't do any more than they're doing, unless Selig uses his "best interests of baseball" powers.

What about us? We're supposed to shrug and throw up our hands? Chicks dig the long ball? It's been too long since the Yanks have won one?

Where did he admit using steroids in any meaningful sense?

The reason for granting immunity and secrecy is to encourage people to tell the truth.

Which he did, wisely. As did his brother, who did later admit it publicly and is currently wallowing in the minors because he didn't have a giant major league contract.

"What about us? We're supposed to shrug and throw up our hands? Chicks dig the long ball?"

Yes, that's exactly what we should do. What else would you have us do? Boo vociferously? Awesome. We'll totally be fighting the good fight. And plus, won't the game be much more enjoyable when we're able to show hatred and disdain every time someone comes to bat? Seems to me Giambi has paid pretty dearly for what he may have done (maybe not dearly enough for Steve, but more dearly than any other alleged or confirmed steroid user). Personally, as an A's fan and someone who rooted hard for Giambi for years, I'm psyched to see him doing well. I believe in second chances, I guess (maybe I'm corny.)

I believe in second chances too.

What I don't believe, going back to what I was saying before, is that he is currently clean. Again, forget MLB and collective bargaining and all that.

1) We know he was on steroids in 2003
2) He looked like a shrivelled corpse in 2004, but still put up some good OBP numbers because that's a skill we know he has
2) He is currently putting up better numbers than 2003 and no longer looks like a corpse

Who thinks he's clean? Seriously.

It's certainly possible that he's not only clean but lost whatever steroids gave him and he rebuilt himself like ballplayers are "supposed" to. But is it likely, considering his history?

And considering that history, yes, I think he should have to prove conclusively that he's clean. If I were a Yankees fan (shudder) I would demand nothing less.

A few quick points.

First, Jason "shrivelled corpse" Giambi put up excellent numbers during the first 2 months of 2004. At the time he went on the DL in late May, his line was .270/.406/.540/.946, or pretty close to what it is now. And that's at a time when the consensus is that he wasn't on 'roids.

Second, if Giambi is going through some kind of secret process as Palmeiro did, that's simply because of a quaint idea known as due process. In other words, Jason is simply availing himself of a bargained-for provision which he, and all other players, may rely upon.

Third, I think at some point we have to give Giambi credit for being a great hitter, period. Randy Velarde didn't post a 1.000 OPS because he was 'roiding up. Neither did Marvin Benard. Whatever benefit he may have derived from taking 'roids (and that benefit is very much unquantifiable at this point), a lot of his success has to do with his talent, beginning with his knowledge of the strike zone. Alfonso Soriano can shoot up 'roids and HGH all day long and will never be the hitter that Giambi is because he lacks plate discipline.