I watched all 11 hours of that friggin fiasco. The Tucker report pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole sordid mess.

Scott: Isn't that almost beside the point? I mean, of course there are more important things. But I don't see Congress investigating anything of importance lately. (I'm not going to go into a long list there, but I think we could all guess what they'd be.)

In other words, where's the outrage from anyone that anything of importance is being investigated?

Baseball, eh. They can handle it.

Fire Bud. That would help.

I agree that Congress wastes a lot of its time worrying about gay marriage and if a feeding tube continues to be connected to a human coma.

What was special about this steroid case was these athletes were not hurting anyone, outside of possibly themselves, but were sent down to the Principal's office anyway, a Principal's office which had television cameras broadcasting it all over the country.
Now baseball's anti-trust exemption is something I do believe Congress has a right to look at, but hauling celebrities in front of panel, so these "moral compasses" can shake their fingers at them and say bad dog, bad dog, is pretty sad.

Wow, never thought I'd agree with Carlson. Maybe I'll send him a book. I think he is exactly right. Why is there no outrage? Because the media is leading people by the nose. Rollerball had it right.

Guys,
We are so busy debating if/how/why congress should get involved, and what nimrods they ended up being, that no one is discussing the issues.

1) Did MLB put forth a good enough steroids policy?
2) If not, would they have may it better withOUT congressional interference?
3) Is FIVE strikes reasonable?
4) Was the OR clause sleezy or what?

Forget about all the other bullshit... it is NOT relevant what Congress does... only what Baseball does.

My feeling is if not for McCain, MLB wouldn't even have the (minimal) steroid policy they have. If not for Balco, no one (including the press) would be talking about this.

I think the hearings were laughable. Bloggers could write books on the moralism, mistakes and other crapola we saw.

But don't let that 'show' let you ignor the real show. Does anyone really believe that MLB did NOT need a kick in the ass?
Might this finally be the straw that breaks the camels back and gets MLB to take this seriously?

I live for baseball guys but...
5 strikes ???
10,000 fine ??? (about 1 days work)
Don't ask, Don't tell ???

I, for one, am glad its finally out of the closet.

tucker carlson is an idiot. taking steroids is cheating...and it's illegal. don't think it should be illegal? great, change the law. until then it's wrong and I, for one, am glad that Congress is threatening baseball and their precious antitrust exemption. i'm not at all sympathetic to the MLB on this issue.

Congress needs to either shit or get off the pot on the roids issue. Stop wasting our money on dog and pony shows. The press has kept this in the forefront for the last few years and I commend them for that. We are all very familiar with roids and cheating now as a result. Congress needs to give baseball a deadline to improve its testing policy and if that fails, inact a policy for them. ITs not rocket science. The anti-trust exemption makes baseball a target for this kind of legislation and thats too bad because i hate gov't being involved in private business matters. I would rather find Osama then sweat whether big mac got a shot in the ass in the A's shitter by canseco or if barry and jason played footsie w/the guys at balco. Thats all water under the bridge, time to concentrate on the present and future of the sport i love.

1. Steroids are illegal, and a punishment is provided in the criminal justice system. If it's the illegality that's the issue, then prosecute users and put them in jail. It's not baseball's job to enforce the penal code.

2. Congress has no authority to unilaterally implement a drug testing policy.

3. The current system is obviously working, as evidenced by the dramatic decrease in positive tests from 2003 to 2004.

My response. See Anthony above. Well said.

a bit surprised that I agree completely with Tucker Carlson. I'm going to take a shower now.

Apparently the congress heard you, Scott. They are now tackling more important issue of playing doctors and god by trying to keep the poor lady in Florida alive. Even the President has left his Crawford ranch to sign the bill tomorrow. Not to pile it on, but guess who's paying for the medical bill--Medicare, something Bush tried to cut this year.

Damn it. I expect more from my readers.

USE IS NOT A CRIME. You could look it up. There are penalties for distribution and possession. Use, in and of itself, does not constitute possession, though the two go hand in hand. There's a whole chapter in The Juice about this.

The hearings were a joke. The "or clause" was merely remnant language that no one took seriously (besides Congress.) It's already gone.

Five strikes? I can live with the idea of progressive discipline bc I don't believe the punishment is the big deal that the public outing will be.

At this point, anyone using steroids doesn't need a drug test, they need an IQ test.

Re: #5

1) Depends upon your purpose. If it's to rid the sport of steroids without a lot of fanfare, MLB's original policy was just fine. If you want public outing, scandal, and condemnation of users -- superstars as well as marginal players -- MLB's original policy wasn't all that great.

2) MLB probably wouldn't have revised its initial steroid policy without Sen. McCain's saber-rattling.

3) Five strikes is reasonable if rehabilitation is the purpose of your policy. It's similar to the policies for other illegal drugs. The Olympic standard doesn't focus on rehabilitation, but rather on punishment--probably because the Olympics aren't a sports league, like MLB, NFL and the NBA. The whole thing is comparing apples to oranges.

4) Potentially sleazy. Both Manfred and Fehr testified, under oath, that it was a drafting glitch. They deserve the benefit of the doubt. However, there was some potential, given the absolute worst reading of the clause, that Selig could use "Commissioner's discretion" to protect a player and keep a first offense secret.

The question isn't whether Congress's bullying produced a more potent steroid policy than you would have seen otherwise. The question is, what was congress's purpose in bullying Major League baseball? The stated purpose--saving our children from steroids--seems like bunk. MLB can test all it wants, and it won't remove a single steroid pusher from a local gym, or prevent a single teen from ordering steroids online. Testing athletes, be they professionals or amateurs, does not solve any of the body image problems that lead teens to steroid use in the first place.

So what's left as far as a proper legislative purpose for trying to get stronger testing and discipline in MLB? Is protecting Hank Aaron's home run record a proper purpose for federal hearings and/or legislation? I don't think so.

Yeah, Congress is bad. Local law authorities should enforce the law. Nail the steriod users who are stupid enough to get caught. Our criminal justice system can solve this issue. The criminal penalities are a deterrent for MLB players. I trust the collective bargaining process.

Then, when new steriods are undectable, this progressive policy will allow the more ambitious players to do them with modest risk. These are the sort of people we want to break records and be stars. It's very American really--survival of the smartest, "fittest", and those with the best legal representation.

Clearly there are more important things Congress should be doing....

http://slate.msn.com/id/2115124/

-cough-