Let's get back to your quote: Did Jose Canseco say that 85% of MLB was using steroids? Assume he meant active platers, so we'll use 25 man roster x 30 teams or 750 players. 85% of that is 637.5 roofing ball players. For him to be mostly soon on as you suggested, he'd have to get at least half of those + 1 right, round that off gives 319 players. Right I didn't read the book, but if you can point me to this long list of accused players I'd be happy to buy and read a copy. I can't possibly fathom how you could lend any credence to his book or his bombastic claims. Now if what you meant to say was that he was mostly right about the guys he specifically named out right, well sure fine. But even a broken watch is correct twice a day. He is just not a credible source, especially in regards to this subject which angers many if not all baseball purists. Look man, we see eye to eye on about 99% of things baseball/Yankees. But were just not on the same field when it comes to the PED issue. I think drug waivers are important because many banned substances can help injured players recover. I think intent matters because inadvertent or accidental injestion can happen with OTC supplements. The process is flawed because a player could be an unkowing victim of a crime resulting in injury to his reputation. The easiest way to enforce this drug policy is to limit banned substances to things that would require a prescription from a physician. Then a positive test equates to a federal drug charge that could carry jail time and/or felony status (depending on how Holder watered down sentencing) and loss of personal rights. These charges would then subject the player to contract termination clauses, etc. But let the justice system determine the real punishment, not public assisination based or hersay and conjecture. Because make no mistake about it, a judge and jury will consider intent.
