Ken Rosenthal gets the Felz treatment.

I realize I'm being kind of unfair. I'm not against the concept of cleaning up baseball from steroids, that would be like being against sunny Sunday afternoons.

But while Ken Rosenthal accuses the "clean" MLB players of just not "getting it," maybe he doesn't really "get it":

"Now that the world is aware of the grand jury testimonies of Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds, aware that recent MVPs have used performance enhancers, many believe the onus is on commissioner Bud Selig to act boldly and clean up the sport."

Even though "such a program won't eliminate the use of performance enhancers because the cheaters always stay ahead of the testers" and "the time for Selig to act was a decade ago or more ago, when the threat of performance-enhancing drugs first became apparent."

Which is it? Were performance-enhancing drugs first apparent ten years ago, or just last week, with the revelation of Giambi's testimony?

I think this is a somewhat interesting conclusion by Rosenthal, that Selig must act boldly to clean up the sport and save the game. The MLB steroid policy is often unfavorably compared to other programs, such as the NFL's. But how could the NFL policy be considered a success?

Or the NBA: "Fans might want to see him make like NBA commissioner David Stern and drop Ron Artest-like suspensions on Giambi and/or Bonds."

These leagues are notorious for their inability to clean up drugs "and/or" steroids. The NBA is infamous for touting its zero-tolerance (more like zero-conviction) drug policy. But when you're finding zero failures of your drug tests, it merely indicates ineffective testing. Nobody has his head in the sand more than David Stern.

Rosenthal isn't telling MLB players to cease using steroids, he's just telling them not to get caught anymore. Getting caught is bad for the game.

"The union always has been star-driven -- the top salaries set the salary structure -- but the rank-and-file needs to seize control." It's not a huge point, but I completely disagree. The MLB player's union seems to benefit the so-so players with nice benefits and enormous minimum salaries. If you think a player like ARod is overpaid as a result of the free agency bonanza, take a look at Eric Milton's offer.

"To you, though, it all should be very clear. This is about your survival. And you're on your own to effect change.

The fans? They've already spoken -- they're not going to boycott the sport. They like it too much."

Again, make up your mind. If the fans like the sport too much and are never going to boycott ... then why is this about the sport's survival?


"Don't you guys get it? Fans and media lump you all together, cheaters and noncheaters." Definitely not true.

"They have little confidence in the current testing." True.

"And your sport is suffering." Not really true, though it's a bit hard to quantify.


Overall, it's not a bad idea ... let the "good" players stand up and flush out the "bad" players ... even if the notion seems highly unlikely.

Just because the MLB steroid policy can not be perfect, it's important to make it better. I completely agree. I think steroids have small short-term performance benefits and have a tendency to break down the body in the long run (Giambi, Sosa, Caminiti, Dykstra, Canseco). The owners should insist that the players stop taking steroids because it ruins their investments. The players should realize that it's just not worth the health risks -- at the very least, maybe Giambi can serve as a sacrificial lamb.

Unfortunately, what history tells me is that it's only important to appear to clean up the sport. The genie isn't going back into the bottle and the difference between a legal performance-enhancing substance and an illegal performance-enhancing substance is not going to make much difference when Javy Vazquez hangs another curveball. Selig, MLB players, and Congress can all get together to enforce harsher rules and harsher penalties, but it amounts to nothing more than a shinier facade.