I'm sure what defines a "working plan" for him is catching people that he thinks are on steroids, preferrably somebody with a big name, especially somebody in the Bay Area who is on the verge of passing Babe Ruth. It's the same for any program though: Reps/Sens want to catch high publicity targets and don't care so much about process. Process is boring. Low base rates are boring. They *know* somebody is doing bad out there, science be damned.

Good post, good points.

I'm particularly intrigued by the increase in players to 26. Why not 27 or 28? Teams when I was starting to follow baseball got by on 9-11 men pitching staffs; now teams are going to 11-13 men. I am not sure what's optimal, but definitely there should be an increase, at 13 pitchers, you only have 4 position players on the bench, C, MI, OF, and 1B/3B, depending on what other positions the MI and OF can play. I'm curious what your thought process on arriving at 26 was.

The evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bunning#Erratic_behavior_during_2004_reelection_bid) suggests that Jim Bunning is going crazy. That said, do you think that the Olympics penalties are too harsh? Do you really believe think drug testing is something that MLB should handle IN-HOUSE? I wonder not only about the efficacy of the MLB's drug testing program but also about its commitment (aside from Selig, of course).

BGF, 26 was arbitrarty. I assume that MLB doesn't want to add much more salary, but they might be convinced to take on one more player. Two or three would probably be better for the game. However, the way things have been going, teams might go to six man rotations and start carrying 14 pitchers.

Erik, I thought part of this deal is that the testing would be handled independently of the league and the union.

I can only believe that an increase to a 26 man roster will only lead to an increase in in-game pitching changes and LaRussian micro-managing on the basis of match-ups. Maybe the rules would also have to dictate the maximum/minimum pitcher-position player split.

Jim Bunning is definitely losing it. If you watched the steroid hearing in March it looked like he wanted to personally fight anyone who took steroids. Nonetheless, they're not going to legislate on this despite Bunning and McCain's tough talk, Congress has historically avoided interfering in MLB rules or any industry with self-governance for that matter. I would even go as far to say Bush would dust off his veto pen on legislation like this, and if challenged, the Supreme Court would conclude it's not for Congress to decide.

That said, I am also skeptical about the number of players who will get busted next year. I wouldnt be surprised if it goes down. It's all about perception and with the higher penalties the measurement shifts. 5 players on 50 game suspensions outweights 12 players on 10 game suspensions, at least in Congresses eyes. That's all they care about - not actually ridding baseball of steroids, just a show of progression towards that end.

I think the "percentage" of players testing positive is really no indication of the drug problem in baseball. The players caught are the dumb ones. Take a look at cycling and track and field again, please. Players that want an advantage will work closely with a doctor who will either show them how to beat testing (dope intelligently) or give them something that can't be detected. The only reason some Balco track and field athletes tested positive is because a coach sent the USOC a sample of the custom drug used so they could develop a test. My guess is that various forms of enhancing drug use is extremely prevalent in baseball. The press, congress and most baseball fans are very ignorant of doping right now. My guess this will change in 5 years, but to say that the percentage of cheaters is low based on how many are caught is ignorant.

Read this:
http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200507/drugs-in-sports-1.html

Think about the baseball season as not only a test of strength, speed and skill, but also endurance for a long season. Steroids in the Canseco model are a red herring, probably only the stupid and desperate use them. The big names may be on something else, more expensive, custom brewed, less testable and far less damaging to the person using them.

That all said, congress clearly has NO business regulating this. MLB and the players union need to come up with something to make the appearance of dealing with a problem they will never solve completely. No one is making an honest effort. The olympics and pro cycling are making an honest effort, but still are WAY behind the curve. Don't fool yourself into thinking that they are clean because they do not test . There is way too much money in baseball for it to be at a 1% rate.

Changing the rosters is a interesting approach and may reduce some of the pressures to cheat. The outside article also provides some interesting methods to start dealing with it. It certainly is not a legislatable problem.

Tarik,

You're right that it should not be a legislative issue and I think most of them were just grandstanding. Having said that I'll admit after the fact that baseball would have done nothing without the congressional threat to to do it for them.
However, I don't agree that a larger roster would reduce the "pressure to cheat." The pressure to cheat isn't created by needing to stay fresh since there aren't enough guys on the bench. Guys cheat because pay is based on past performance.
Lastly, next year will be interesting if they are really going to include Amphetamines. That could lead to hundreds of false positives.

Thought you all might be interested in this article, a bit old (2001), but still very relevant by Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote the excellent books Tipping Point and Blink. http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_08_10_a_drug.htm

It talks about performance-enhancing drug usage in sports and how hard it has been for the authorities to monitor and detect who the abusers were. This quote is quite blunt and to the point: "The basic problem with drug testing is that testers are always one step behind athletes. It can take years for sports authorities to figure out what drugs athletes are using, and even longer to devise effective means of detecting them."

Also, if you like well written, eclectic but interesting articles on a wide range of topics, I recommend you read the other articles on his website as well.

Steroids? Really, Jesus, who cares? Let them all take steroids what difference does it make, is there any serious evidnece that it enhances or improves performance? Even if it does improve performance, so what, so does wearing glasses, or contacts, eating better, working out, and so on, are we banning all those as well? Steriods is the biggest bogus story ever. Who cares? Let's move on to important things like counting the number of grains of sand in the world.

If steroids are a bogus story so is that little thing referred to as the record book. They don't improve performance? Grow up. The physical benefits are fact, so get over it.

I guess the biggest question now is who will supervise these random tests. I believe they should use an independent outside service to
make these random tests and make public all
positive and negative results. This will insure
that all players have been tested conflict free.

thanks for backing that up with fact jimmie. Check out onlybaseballmatters.com for great insite in to just how ignorant you are on what steroids are. Your the reason senators scream about steroids.

Speed, power, endurance, muscular recovery are all improved via steroids. That is fact. Perhaps these attributes do not contribute to sucess between the lines? Quite the unique sport, baseball is. Due respect, Greg, it's a matter of medical science. Google it, you'll see. Regards, N Poppageorgio