However, fighting against government snooping into people’s private lives is important. Defending the right to privacy is more important than protecting homerun records. Freedom from criminal prosecution for violation of chemical prohibitions is a good fight. Nobody should go to jail or lose their job for ingesting proscribed substances. Employer drug testing of any kind constitutes a violation of personal privacy, no matter what laws have been enacted. I believe this whole campaign constitutes public grandstanding on the part of government figures for two primary interconnected aims:

1. Scaring more people into support for further governmental intrusion into our daily lives; and
2. Undermining the presumption of innocence for targets of governmental repression.

This is not primarily a sports discussion, but a political discussion with lots of nuance and detail, closely linked to other social changes underway for some time now. There is bound to be some sharp disagreement on this.

One might argue whether the term “witch hunt” is being used aptly here by Sheffield, but “fishing expedition” would be right on target for how this whole morass is being conducted by George Mitchell, grand juries, and the entire repressive apparatus. It is highly reminiscent of the style of the late Joe McCarthy, and just as devoid of respect for human rights. “Are you now or have you ever been…a user of today’s proscribed performance enhancers?”

Baseball is explicitly under government regulation because of its anti-trust exemption. Testing employees of a specific company and testing private citizens have nothing to do with each other — employers have every right to require drug testing (although in the case of MLB, the union has threatened to strike if they don’t agree with the testing program that’s put in place). The use of steroids without a specific medical reason is illegal; those aren’t chemical “prohibitions” — whatever that means — they’re laws. (You obviously know this; that’s why you’re using “proscribed.”) That’s why there was a huge bust this week. That’s why doctors lose their licenses if they prescribe steroids without a valid medical reason. And unless you’re a libertarian, this absolutely isn’t a political discussion, and to say it’s related to other governmental intrusion into our daily lives is a stretch of Iraq-was-connected-to-9/11 proportions; it also cheapens what most definitely is a very important discussion concerning those same intrusions. (And come on: if you know enough about McCarthyism to even refer to it casually, you need to know how ridiculous you sound.)
Finally, I think you’d be hard-pressed to justify calling this a fishing expedition. Sheffield has admitted using steroids, although he says it was accidental. There’s loads of evidence that Bonds did too. It’s not as if, apropos of nothing, MLB decided to conduct an investigation into whether there’s a heroin problem in baseball.

– Seth

– It would get them some positive publicity. The PA, unfortunately, has a long history of doing the opposite: being obstructionist at every turn, even when it would make sense to give a little ground. They have contributed significantly to the permanent cloud that hangs over some of the greatest athletes and performances of the last 15 years. Guys like Palmeiro, Bonds and McGuire made their millions, but at what cost to their reputations?

–It would put MLB in the unaccustomed position of leadership on an important issue. The Orlando raids are another indication that this stuff is going to come out sooner or later; wouldn’t it be better for baseball to be out front once in a while, instead of either denying or playing catch-up?

– It might help to end the extremely quantifiable reality that “it’s bad for the kids,” as was revealed at that infamous Congressional hearing. Teenaged athletes are taking this stuff, and it’s even more dangerous for them than it is for adults.

– Oh, I don’t know — it’s the right thing to do???

I’m not convinced that your harsh invective against the players association is warranted. I think that you would be hard pressed to find a self-respecting lawyer who would allow his clients to be interviewed under such circumstances. I suspect that the the union’s attorneys have reached the same conclusion. After all, why risk legal exposure when there is absolutely nothing to be gained? This is just lawyering 101. You suggest that the union should be willing to compromise “to help convince the public that the game is trying to clean up its act.” Frankly, I’m unsure that the public really cares a whole lot about the steroids issue. Despite the media hoopla and concomitant holier-than-thou handwringing, most baseball fans that I know don’t give the steroids issue more than a passing thought. Perhaps people care about it in some abstract, unquantifiable sense that “it’s bad for the kids”, but their moral sensibilities certainly don’t seem to be affected to the point that it’s stopping them from purchasing tickets to games, watching games on television, buying merchandise, etc. The fiscal state of the game has never been better, and the players are certainly reaping the benefits. Consequently, it’s difficult for me to understand what incentive the players association might have to change its stance on the Mitchell investigation.

To get Sheff’s enthusiastic cooperation, tell him it’s really a Bitch hunt.