RESTORING FAITH IN AMERICA’S PASTIME: EVALUATING MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL’S EFFORTS

TO ERADICATE STEROID USE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 17, 2005

Serial No. 109–8

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

RESTORING FAITH IN AMERICA’S PASTIME: EVALUATING MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL’S

EFFORTS TO ERADICATE STEROID USE

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

★ 20–323 PDF 2005

RESTORING FAITH IN AMERICA’S PASTIME: EVALUATING MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL’S EFFORTS

TO ERADICATE STEROID USE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 17, 2005

Serial No. 109–8

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 17, 2005 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Bunning, Jim, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky ........................... 55

Canseco, Jose, former Oakland Athletic and Texas Ranger; Sammy Sosa,

current Baltimore Oriole and former Chicago Cub, accompanied by

Jim Sharp, attorney, and Patricia Rosell, interpreter; Mark McGwire,

former Oakland Athletic and St. Louis Cardinal; Rafael Palmeiro, current Baltimore Oriole and former Texas Ranger; Curt Schilling, current

Boston Red Sox; and Frank Thomas, current Chicago White Sox ............ 208

Canseco, Jose ............................................................................................. 208

McGwire, Mark .......................................................................................... 219

Palmeiro, Rafael ........................................................................................ 227

Schilling, Curt ........................................................................................... 229

Sosa, Sammy .............................................................................................. 215

Thomas, Frank .......................................................................................... 236

Garibaldi, Denise and Raymond, parents of former U.S. Player Rob Garibaldi; Donald Hooton, president and director, Taylor Hooton Foundation, father of high school baseball player, Taylor Hooton; Nora D.

Volkow, M.D., Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National

Institutes of Health; Gary I. Wadler, M.D., associate professor of clinical medicine, New York University School of Medicine; Kirk Brower,

M.D., associate professor of psychiatry, University of Michigan Medical

School, and executive director, Chelsea Arbor Addiction Treatment

Center; and Elliott Pellman, M.D., the medical advisor to Major League

Baseball ......................................................................................................... 113

Brower, Kirk J., M.D. ....................................................................................... 145

Garibaldi, Denise and Raymond .............................................................. 113

Hooton, Donald M. .................................................................................... 118

Pellman, Elliott, M.D. ...................................................................................... 160

Volkow, Nora D., M.D. ..................................................................................... 124

Wadler, Gary I., M.D. ....................................................................................... 136

Selig, Allan H., commissioner of Major League Baseball; Robert Manfred,

executive vice president, labor and human resources, Major League

Baseball; Don Fehr, executive director and general counsel, Major

League Baseball Players Association; Sandy Alderson, executive vice

president, baseball operations, Major League Baseball, former general

manager, Oakland Athletics; and Kevin Towers, general manager, San

Diego Padres .................................................................................................. 276

Alderson, Sandy ......................................................................................... 323

Fehr, Don ................................................................................................... 307

Manfred, Robert D. .................................................................................... 288

Selig, Allan H. ........................................................................................... 276

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Alderson, Sandy, executive vice president, baseball operations, Major

League Baseball, former general manager, Oakland Athletics, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 325

Brower, Kirk, M.D., associate professor of psychiatry, University of Michigan Medical School, and executive director, Chelsea Arbor Addiction

Treatment Center, prepared statement of .................................................. 147

Brown-Waite, Hon. Ginny, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Florida, prepared statement of ................................................................ 380

Bunning, Jim, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 58

Page

IV

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by—Continued

Canseco, Jose, former Oakland Athletic and Texas Ranger, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 210

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 384

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 48

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia:

Major League Baseball’s drug testing policies ........................................ 62

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

Prepared statement of Mr. Efrain and Brenda Marrero ........................ 105

Fehr, Don, executive director and general counsel, Major League Baseball

Players Association, prepared statement of ................................................ 311

Garibaldi, Denise and Raymond, parents of former U.S. Player Rob Garibaldi, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 116

Higgins, Hon. Brian, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New York, prepared statement of ................................................................ 382

Hooton, Donald, president and director, Taylor Hooton Foundation, father

of high school baseball player, Taylor Hooton, prepared statement of .... 121

Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 194

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio, H. Res. 496 from the 107th Congress ........................................... 356

Manfred, Robert, executive vice president, labor and human resources,

Major League Baseball, prepared statement of .......................................... 292

Marchant, Hon. Kenny, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Texas, prepared statement of .................................................................. 179

McGwire, Mark, former Oakland Athletic and St. Louis Cardinal, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 221

Palmeiro, Rafael, current Baltimore Oriole and former Texas Ranger,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 228

Pellman, Elliott, M.D., the medical advisor to Major League Baseball,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 163

Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nevada, prepared statement of .................................................................... 386

Schilling, Curt, current Boston Red Sox, prepared statement of ................. 233

Selig, Allan H., commissioner of Major League Baseball, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 280

Sosa, Sammy, current Baltimore Oriole and former Chicago Cub, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 217

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Indiana:

Information concerning ephedra .............................................................. 341

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44

Prepared statement of Mr. McClellan ..................................................... 197

Thomas, Frank, current Chicago White Sox, prepared statement of ........... 237

Van Hollen, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 102

Volkow, Nora D., M.D., Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, prepared statement of .................................... 126

Wadler, Gary I., M.D., associate professor of clinical medicine, New York

University School of Medicine, prepared statement of .............................. 139

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California:

Background memo ..................................................................................... 23

Fact Sheet .................................................................................................. 367

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

(1)

RESTORING FAITH IN AMERICA’S PASTIME:

EVALUATING MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL’S

EFFORTS TO ERADICATE STEROID USE

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman of the

committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Tom Davis, Shays, Burton, RosLehtinen, McHugh, Mica, Gutknecht, Souder, Platts, Cannon, Duncan, Miller, Turner, Issa, Brown-Waite, Porter, Marchant, Westmoreland, McHenry, Dent, Foxx, Waxman, Lantos, Owens, Towns,

Kanjorski, Sanders, Maloney, Cummings, Kucinich, Davis of Illinois, Clay, Watson, Lynch, Van Hollen, Sanchez, Ruppersberger,

Higgins, and Norton.

Also present: Representatives Osborne, Sweeney, and Serrano.

Staff present: Melissa Wojciak, staff director; David Marin, deputy staff director/communications director; Keith Ausbrook, chief

counsel; Ellen Brown, legislative director and senior policy counsel;

Jennifer Safavian, chief counsel for oversight and investigations;

Amy Laudeman, special assistant; Anne Marie Turner, counsel;

Robert Borden, counsel/parliamentarian; Rob White, press secretary; Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications; Susie

Schulte, Shalley Kim, Brien Beattie, and Howie Denis, professional

staff members; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Sarah D’Orsie, deputy

clerk; Corinne Zaccagnini, chief information officer; Phil Schiliro,

minority chief of staff; Phil Barnett, minority staff director/chief

counsel; Kristin Amerling, minority deputy chief counsel; Karen

Lightfoot, minority communications director/senior policy advisor;

Molly Gulland, minority communications assistant; Brian Cohen,

minority senior investigator and policy advisor; Tony Haywood, minority counsel; Richard Butcher, Anna Laitin, Nancy Scola, Josh

Sharfstein, and Andrew Su, minority professional staff members;

Earley Green, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa and Teresa Coufal,

minority assistant clerks; and Christopher Davis, minority investigator.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Good morning. The committee will come

to order, and welcome to the Committee on Government Reform’s

hearing on Major League Baseball and the use of performance enhancing drugs. Fourteen years ago, anabolic steroids were added to

the Control Substance Act as a Schedule III drug, making it illegal

2

to possess or sell them without a valid prescription. Today, however, evidence strongly suggests that steroid use among teenagers,

especially aspiring athletes, is a large and growing problem. The

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tells us that more than

500,000 high school students have tried steroids, nearly triple the

number just 10 years ago.

A second national survey conducted in 2004 by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the University of Michigan found that

over 40 percent of 12th graders describe steroids as fairly easy or

very easy to obtain. And the perception among high school students

that steroids are harmful has dropped from 71 percent in 1992 to

56 percent in 2004. This is but a snapshot of the startling data that

we face. Today, we take the committee’s first steps toward understanding how we got here and how we begin turning those numbers around. Down the road, we need to look at whether and how

Congress should exercise its legislative powers to further restrict

the use and distribution of these substances.

Our specific purpose today is to consider Major League Baseball’s

recently negotiated drug policy, how the testing policy will be implemented, how it will effectively address the use of prohibitive

drugs by players and most importantly, the larger societal and public health ramifications of steroid use. Yesterday, USA Today reported that 79 percent of Major League players surveyed believed

steroids played a role in record-breaking performances by some

high profile players.

While our focus is not on the impact of steroids on Major League

Baseball records, the survey does underscore the importance of our

inquiry. A majority of the 568 players in this survey think steroids

are influencing individual achievements. That’s exactly our point.

We need to recognize the dangerous vicious cycle that perception

creates.

Too many college athletes believe they have to consider steroids

if they are going to make it to the pros. High school athletes, in

turn, think steroids may be the key to getting a scholarship.

It is time to break that cycle and it needs to happen from the

top down. You can’t do this by just sending people into the high

school classrooms talking about it. It hasn’t worked. It has to start

from the top. When I go to Little League opening games these

days, kids aren’t just talking about their favorite teams’ chances in

the pennant race, they’re talking about which pro players are on

the ‘‘juice.’’ After the 1994 Major League Baseball strike, rumors

and allegations of steroid use in the league began to surface. Since

then, longstanding records were broken. Along with these broken

records came allegations of steroid use among Major League Baseball players. Despite the circulating rumors of illegal drug use,

Major League Baseball and the Players Association didn’t respond

to ban the use of steroids, which were illegal until 2002.

The result was an almost decade-long question mark as to not

only the validity of the new records, but also the credibility of the

game itself. In February of this year, former Major League Baseball all star Jose Canseco released a book that not only alleges

steroid use by well-known Major League players, but discusses the

prevalence of steroids in baseball during his 17-year career. After

hearing Commissioner Bud Selig’s public statements that Major

3

League Baseball would not launch an investigation into his allegations, my ranking member, Henry Waxman, wrote to me asking for

a committee hearing to ‘‘find out what really happened and to get

at the bottom of this growing scandal.’’ I was initially reluctant to

hold such an investigation because Major League Baseball assured

us they had the problem under control.

However, a cursory investigation raised more questions than it

answered and we decided to proceed. Major League Baseball and

the Players Association greeted the word of inquiry first as a nuisance, then as a negotiation replete with misstatements about the

scope of the documents and information we had sought and inaccurate legalese about the committee’s authority and jurisdiction.

Fine. I understand their desire to avoid the public’s prying eye. I

understand this is not their preference. I understand that they just

wish it would go away. But I think they misjudged the seriousness

of our purpose. I think they misjudged the will of the American

public. I think they mistakenly believed we got into this on a

whim. We did not. We gave this serious, serious consideration. And

we decided it was time to break the code of silence that has enveloped the game.

I’m a baseball fan and always have been. I didn’t become a political junkie until the Senators left town and I needed something to

replace my near daily routine of memorizing box scores. And I’m

not looking forward to being relegated to the nose bleed sections in

the next few years. But there is a cloud over the game that I love.

Maybe we’re late in the game in recognizing it. Maybe we’re partly

to blame implicitly and wrongly sending the message that baseball’s anti-trust exemption is also a public accountability exemption. But the cloud hovers over us nonetheless and our hope is that

a public discussion of the issues with witnesses testifying under

oath can provide a glimpse of sunlight.

Why? Because more than just the reputation of baseball is at

risk. Our primary focus remains on the message being sent to the

500,000 steroid users in America’s high schools, children who play

baseball, children who idolize and emulate professional baseball

players. I still have faith in Major League Baseball and a lot of

players, managers, trainers and fans want to join us in helping

kids understand this.

Steroids aren’t cool. Our responsibility is to help make sure

Major League Baseball strategy, particularly its new testing program, gets the job done. We need to know if the policy is adequate

in terms of how the tests are done and the punishments and the

scope. As Mr. Waxman and I wrote to Major League Baseball and

the Players Association yesterday, there are real doubts about this

new policy and all that it’s cracked up to be. The same USA Today

survey I referenced earlier found that 69 percent of players believe

the new policy is strict enough. Frankly, I’m surprised the number

isn’t higher. That’s like asking trial lawyers if we need more tort

reform. The answer is going to be no.

Over the years, there have been a consistent drip, drip, drip of

information about steroids in baseball with not much of a response

from Major League Baseball. After all, it was, in large part, due

to congressional pressure that the current policy took shape. Now

we have not only the BALCO case, but a book by a former big

4

league star naming names. We don’t know if the allegations are accurate, but the truth needs to come out, however ugly the truth

might be. Baseball can’t simply turn its back on recent history, pronounce that the new testing policy will solve everything and move

on. You can’t look forward without looking back. I would hope that

baseball would see this hearing as an opportunity to talk about the

steps it is taking to get a handle on the situation. That’s what we

are interested in. We’re not interested in embarrassing anybody,

ruining careers or grandstanding.

This is not a witch hunt. We’re not asking for witnesses to name

names. Furthermore, today’s hearing will not be the end of our inquiry. Far from it. Nor will Major League Baseball be our sole or

even primary focus. We are in the first inning of what can be an

extra-inning ball game. This is the beginning and not the end. We

believe this hearing will give us good information about the prevalence of steroids in professional sports, shine light on the sometimes tragic results of steroid use by high school and college athletes and provide leads as to where our investigation will go next;

leads from Senator Bunning about how to restore the integrity of

the game; leads from medical experts about how to better educate

all Americans about the real dangers of steroid use; leads from parents whose stories today will poignantly illustrate, like it or not,

professional athletes are role models and their actions can lead to

tragic imitation.

We are grateful to the players who have joined us today to share

their perspective on the role and prevalence of performance enhancing drugs in baseball. Some have been vocal about the need

for baseball to address its steroid problems, and we applaud them

for accepting this calling. Others have an opportunity today to either clear their name, take public responsibility for their actions or

perhaps offer cautionary tales to our youth. In total, we think the

six current and former players offer a broad perspective on the

issue of steroids in baseball, and we are looking forward to hearing

from all of them.

Finally, we are fortunate to have with us a final panel representing Major League Baseball, the Players Association and front office

management. This panel is quite frankly where the rubber hits the

road. If the players are cogs, this is the machine. If the players

have been silent, these are the enforcers and promoters of the code.

Ultimately, it’s Major League Baseball, the union and team executives that will determine the strength of the game’s testing policies.

Ultimately, it’s Major League Baseball and the union that will or

will not determine the accountability or punishment. Ultimately,

it’s Major League Baseball and the union that can remove the

cloud over baseball and maybe save some lives in the process. A

famous poem starts, oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is

shining bright the band is playing somewhere and somewhere

hearts are light. And somewhere men are laughing and somewhere

children shout, but there is no joy in Mudville until the truth

comes out. I now recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr.

Waxman.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

5

6

7

8

9

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding

this hearing. Today’s hearing is about steroid use in professional

baseball, its impact on steroid use by teenagers and the implications for Federal policy. These are important questions for baseball,

its fans and for this Nation. Major League Baseball and the Players Association say that this is the subject that should be left to

the bargaining table. They are wrong. This is an issue that needs

debate in Congress and around the dinner table of American families. Steroids are a drug problem that affects not only elite athletes,

but also the neighborhood kids who idolize them. And this issue is

challenging not just for baseball, but for our whole society. More

than 500,000 teenagers across the country have taken illegal

steroids, risking serious and sometimes deadly consequences. Together, the Garibaldis and the Hootons will testify about what

steroids have done to their sons and their families and I want to

commend them for their courage.

There is an absolute correlation between the culture of steroids

in high school and the culture of steroids in Major League club

houses. Kids get the message when it appears it’s OK for professional athletes to use steroids. If the pros do it, college athletes will

do it. If it is an edge in college, high school students want that

edge, too. There is a pyramid of steroid use in society, and today

our investigation starts where it should, with the owners and players at the top of that pyramid. Congress first investigated steroids

and drug use in professional sports over 30 years ago. And I think

perhaps only two people in this room would have knowledge of that

or would remember that and that would be Commissioner Selig

and myself. He was an owner in 1970 and I was elected to Congress in 1974.

The year before I ran for Congress, the House Committee on

Interstate and Foreign Commerce, which I served all of my time in

Congress as a member in addition to this committee concluded a

year-long investigation. And they concluded ‘‘drug use exists in all

sports and in all levels of competition.’’ In some instances, the degree of improper drug use, primarily amphetamines and anabolic

steroids can only be described as alarming. The committee’s chairman, Harley Staggers, was concerned about making these findings

public.

He thought it would bring too much attention to them, might

even encourage kids to use these drugs. So what he did was he

agreed with Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn to consider instituting tough penalties in testing and he trusted Commissioner

Kuhn to do that. And in a press release in 1973, Chairman Staggers said, ‘‘based on the constructive responses and assurances I

have received from these gentlemen, I think self-regulation will be

intensified and will be effective.’’ But now we know from 30 years

of history, baseball failed to regulate itself. Well, let’s fast forward

to 1988. Jose Canseco was widely suspected of using steroids. Fans

on opposing teams at the park even chanted the phrase steroids

when he came to bat. But according to Mr. Canseco, no one in

Major League Baseball talked with him or asked him questions

about steroids. He was never asked to submit to a drug test.

Instead, he was voted the American League’s most valuable player. In 1991, Faye Vincent, then baseball’s commissioner, finally

10

took unilateral action and released a commissioner’s policy that

said, ‘‘the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled

substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled

substances, including steroids.’’

Well, this policy didn’t give Major League Baseball the right to

demand that players take mandatory drug tests, but it was a step

in the right direction and demonstrated the League’s authority to

act on its own to respond to allegations of steroid use.

In 1992, Bud Selig was appointed commissioner and replaced Mr.

Vincent. One year later in 1993, the Centers for Disease Control

reported that 1 in 45 teenagers had used illegal steroids. That was

1992. 1995, the first of a series of detailed investigative reports appeared. The L.A. Times quoted one Major League manager who

said ‘‘we all know there is steroid use and it has definitely become

more prevalent, I think, 10 to 20 percent.’’ Another general manager estimated that steroid use was closer to 30 percent. In response to that story, Commissioner Selig said, if baseball has a

problem, I must say candidly we are not aware of it. But should

we concern ourselves as an industry? I don’t know.

In 1996, Ken Camaniti was using steroids, won the most valuable player award. That same year, Pat Courtney a Major League

spokesman, commented on steroids and said, I don’t think the concern is there that it is being used. In 1997, the Denver Post investigated the issue reporting as many as 20 percent of big league

players using illegal steroids. In 1998, baseball hit the height of its

post strike resurgence as Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire both

shattered Roger Maris’ home run record. In 1999, the Centers for

Disease Control reported 1 in 27 teenagers now using illegal

steroids. In July 2000, a Boston Red Sox infielder had steroids

seized from his car. Three months later, the New York Times published a front page story on the rampant use of steroids by professional baseball players, and here is what a Major League spokesman said the very same year, ‘‘steroids have never been much of

an issue.’’

In June 2002, Sports Illustrated put steroids on its cover and it

reported that baseball had become a pharmacological trade show.

One Major League player estimated that 40 to 50 percent of Major

League players use steroids. After that Sports Illustrated article,

Major League Baseball and the players’ union agreed to a steroid

testing regimen. Independent experts however, strongly criticized

the program as weak and limited in scope. But in 2003, when the

first results were disclosed, Rob Manfred, baseball’s vice president

for labor relations said, ‘‘a positive rate of 5 percent is hardly a

sign that you have rampant use of anything.’’

The same year, CDC reported to us that 1 in 16 high school students had used illegal steroids. The allegations and revelations

about steroid use in baseball have only intensified in recent

months. We have learned that Jason Giambi, a former most valuable player, Gary Sheffield and Barry Bonds, who was one of the

most valuable player awards seven times, testified before a Federal

grand jury in San Francisco about their steroid use.

And just last month, Jose Canseco released a book alleging that

steroid use in baseball was widespread in the 1990’s and it inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
11

volved some of baseball’s biggest stars and that he personally injected other players with steroids. In response to these unproven

but serious accusations, Sandy Alderson a senior Major League official said, ‘‘I would be surprised if there is any serious followup.’’

And Bud Selig was quoted as saying, as a sport, we have done everything that we could. Well, that brings us to today. For 30 years,

Major League Baseball has told us to trust them, but the league

hasn’t honored that trust. And it hasn’t acted to protect the integrity of baseball or send the right message to millions of teenagers

who idolize ball players.

Major League Baseball isn’t the only reason 1 in 16 kids are

using illegal steroids, but it’s part of the reason. Baseball had the

responsibility to do the right thing and it didn’t do it. I don’t see

any other way to read the history of the past 30 years. Major

League Baseball is actually right that it couldn’t impose mandatory

testing on the players. It needed the union’s agreement to do that.

But there were many other steps they could have taken. And I

don’t see that they had taken in the 1980’s and the 1990’s.

Baseball’s constitution says that the commissioner can ‘‘investigate any act alleged or suspected to be not in the best interest

of the national game of baseball.’’ The collective bargaining agreement expressly recognizes that the baseball commissioner retains

inherent authority to take actions necessary for again, ‘‘the preservation of the integrity of or the maintenance of public confidence

in the game of baseball.’’

But Major League Baseball never exercised its authority to investigate steroid use. It boils down to this. We don’t know what

happened. We don’t know who did it. We don’t know what they did

or how they did it, but we fixed it. Trust us. Well, we wrote the

commissioner yesterday because we already see significant differences between what Major League Baseball says its new drug

policy will accomplish and what is actually in the policy and we

will ask a lot of questions about that today. Over the past century,

baseball has been part of our social fabric. It helped restore normalcy after World War II, provided a playing field for black athletes like Jackie Robinson who broke the color barrier and inspired

civic pride in communities across the country.

Now America is asking baseball for integrity, an unequivocal

statement against cheating, an unimpeachable policy and a reason

for all of us to have faith in that sport again. At the end of the day,

the most important thing Congress can do is find as many of the

facts as we can and do our part to change the culture of steroids

that has become part of baseball and too many other sports.

That’s why I am intrigued with the idea of one Federal policy

that applies to all sports and all levels of competition from high

school to the pros and that provides a strong disincentive to using

steroids. If we are going to do something for our Nation’s kids, it

seems we are long past the point where we can rely on Major

League Baseball to fix its own problems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman

and thanks to our witnesses for helping us fulfill our responsibility

in Congress.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, my staff has prepared a background memo that provides additional details about some of the

points I discussed this morning. I have taken a long period of time,

but I wanted to lay out this history and this chronology as baseball

did nothing over the years. The increase in steroid use by kids increased. Now it is 1 in 16. It used to be 1 in 45. We are going in

the wrong direction. I ask unanimous consent to make part of the

hearing record the memo that we would like to submit.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Because we have four panels and many

witnesses to hear from today, I am limiting further opening statements to the chairman and the ranking minority member of the

Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. All Members will have 7 days to submit written statements for the record. And of course on the cross-examination and

the examination of witnesses, members will be under the 5-minute

rule.

Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Some have

questioned why we are focusing on steroids. As chairman of the

Drug Policy Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform, along with ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings, we have held

29 narcotics hearings in the last 24 months, hearings on how to

prevent, control, interdict, eradicate and treat cocaine, crystal

meth, marijuana, heroin, Ecstasy and over the counter drug abuse.

This committee has been tackling the overall narcotics issues.

What has been missing is this type of media coverage. If there is

a question to be asked, it is why we held 29 hearings on drug

abuse and all the focus on this hearing by the media. The answer

in itself proves the importance of this hearing.

Like so many Americans growing up, baseball players were my

heroes. Nellie Fox was my personal favorite. I tried to bat lefthanded. I saved my money for months to try to get a Nellie Fox

baseball glove. I had Nellie Fox box. I traded once a whole box of

cards including some Mickey Mantle’s to get one Nellie Fox card.

Not the wisest business decision.

Today, we will hear from some parents of young baseball players

who wanted to grow up to be professional athletes, only they took

steroids. They are now dead. Years ago, when the integrity of baseball was at stake, Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis put an end to

the infamous White Sox scandal when allegedly eight Chicago

White Sox players were involved. Even shoeless Joe Jackson who

was illiterate and hit 380 in the World Series is still banned from

the Hall of Fame because Judge Landis not only said, ‘‘no player

who throws a game’’ will ever play professional baseball again, but

he said ‘‘no player who sits in a conference where people are with

crooked players’’ discussing where ‘‘ways and means of throwing a

game’’ will be discussed shall ever play the game.

If there was that much of a baseball reaction to players who allegedly may have let a ball go through their legs or deliberately

walked a batter, what about when key players systematically cheat

through steroids and performance enhancing drugs to alter game

after game. Pete Rose was banned for life from baseball and the

Hall of Fame by commissioner Bart Giamatti because he eroded

the integrity of the game of baseball. It’s not even clear he bet on

a game that he played in.

Yet we have today people who are admitting that they are altering the games and cheating. How low has the integrity of baseball

sunk? Their example is sad. Now millionaire baseball players and

owners depended upon the public protection of anti-trust legislation

to achieve their enhanced money through their licenses and everything else and could not have the salaries and income that they

43

have without the protection of the taxpayers—didn’t even want to

come without subpoenas to be questioned today.

Even worse, it appears they have told us less than the whole

truth about what policies they do have. They have changed their

answers so many times in the media the last few days, that really

the only question of this hearing is what exactly are they trying to

cover up? With drastically rising drug abuse among youth in America, baseball needs to come clean. If anyone takes the fifth amendment today saying they would incriminate themselves, it would be

a terrible additional tragedy. The scourge of all illegal drug abuse

tears at the fabric of our Nation. Baseball was once America’s pastime and it needs to start today to regain its former glory.

Right now, its records and current players, the overwhelming

percentage who are completely innocent are all tainted. This committee will continue to pursue all illegal drug use, whether in Afghanistan or Colombia, whether it’s in rural or urban America.

Whether it involves street dealers or whether it involves millionaire athletes, we will not stop.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Souder.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]

44

45

46

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, for the first time I want to associate myself with the words of my subcommittee ranking chairman,

and I want to commend you and the ranking minority member, Mr.

Waxman for holding today’s very important hearing examining the

use of steroids in professional baseball and Major League Baseball’s response to the problem and the broader implications of this

problem for America’s public health. As ranking member of the

Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, I work routinely with subcommittee Chairman Souder on

issues related to the U.S. drug control policy and public health. All

those Schedule I substances are the primary focus of our oversight,

the dangers associated with the illegal diversion and abuse of other

drugs, including drugs available by prescription, can be as serious

as those attending the use of purely illicit drugs.

Anabolic steroids have legitimate medical use in patients who

have suffered muscle damage, but abuse of steroids by recreational

users seeking increased muscle growth and enhanced athletic performance can result in serious health problems. These problems

can include early cardiovascular disease, liver damage, infection

from contaminated injection equipment, changes to sexual characteristics and serious psychiatric side effects, including severe depression leading to suicide.

To protect the public from dangerous and illegitimate use of

steroids, Congress added certain anabolic steroids to Schedule III

of the Controlled Substances Act. Individuals possessing drugs

without a valid prescription can be subject to a misdemeanor

charge with persons convicted of distributing, dispensing or selling

these drugs are subject to a 5-year sentence for the first offense.

In addition, Drug Enforcement Administration has authority to

schedule additional substances. State laws on controlled drugs may

also apply to the use and distribution of anabolic steroids. The

growing abuse of steroids by recreational users, particularly by

young athletes seeking a competitive edge to get to the next level

in their sport, is a serious public health problem that is encouraged

by the illegal use of steroids by professional athletes.

The iconic status of elite athletes in America’s society gives them

tremendous influence over the attitudes and behaviors of the American public, especially among young people who aspire to be like

them. The alleged private actions and personal choices of even a

few elite players can speak even louder than the scripted promotional messages that prominent athletes are paid to recite.

Young people are the most impressionable consumers of all of these

messages and there is clear evidence that steroid use among young

people is increasing at the same time that steroid use in professional baseball is being called widespread.

In just 10 years, the percentage of U.S. high school students reporting steroid use has tripled and experts believe more than

500,000 high school students have used steroids in some form. According to the Centers of Disease Control, 1 in 45 high schools reported steroid use in 1993. By 2003, the figure was 1 in 16. Major

League Baseball has lagged behind other sports in clamping down

on the use of steroids by athletes, often blaming its collective bargaining agreement with the players’ union, but specific substances

47

banned by other sports have only recently been banned by baseball

and despite numerous reports of steroid use by baseball players,

the league has not once exercised its authority to investigate a specific allegation of illegal steroid use.

Mr. Chairman, Major League Baseball’s policy on steroids needs

to be one of zero tolerance and needs to have teeth. The committee’s preliminary review of the new drug policy announced by

Major League Baseball and the players’ union suggest the policy

could be made stronger by addressing areas of concern, which include the limited scope of prohibited drugs and the paltry penalties

for violations.

What is clear, in my opinion, is that Major League Baseball and

the Players’ Union has a joint responsibility to send to the public

the message that steroids and performance-enhancing drugs have

absolutely no place in legitimate sports competition or a lifestyle

that is consistent with long-term health. In the absence of strong

proactive leadership by Major League Baseball, it is incumbent

upon those of us who have responsibility for overseeing our Nation’s public health and drug policies to counteract the missed

mixed signals of steroids emanating from the world of professional

sports. I believe we have a moral obligation to the parents of youth

who are using or who may be tempted to use these drugs to say

that not only is the use of performance enhancing drugs contrary

to the spirit of fair competition that we aim to promote in all aspects of American life, but these drugs can lead to serious mental

and physical harm, including death. The editors of the Baltimore

Sun may have put it best when they wrote, ‘‘the time has come to

hold baseball up to the brightest possible light. The sport needs to

be examined and challenged.’’ That is exactly what we plan to do

today. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here. And with

that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. Because we

have four panels and many witnesses to hear from today, we are

going to limit further opening statements to where we are and we

are ready to move with our first panel. But before we get there, I

want to ask unanimous consent that Mr. Osborne from Nebraska,

former coach at the University of Nebraska, Mr. Sweeney, who has

been active on this issue, and Mr. Serrano, be allowed to sit with

the panel.

And hearing no objection, so ordered. Our first witness is the

Honorable Jim Bunning, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, and a member of the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. As a pitcher for

the Detroit Tigers and Philadelphia Phillies, Senator Bunning was

the only second pitcher to record 1,000 strikeouts and 100 wins in

both the American and National Leagues. Senator Bunning has

served in public office since 1977. After winning a seat in the Fort

Thomas, Kentucky City Council, he was elected to a second term

in the U.S. Senate this past November, and he is a former Member

of this body. And thank you, Jim, for being here.

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM BUNNING, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Senator BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all other members, Ranking Member Waxman and all my good friends from the

House of Representatives. I appreciate the opportunity to come

here today to testify on this very important issue. As a member of

the Baseball Hall of Fame and someone who helped found the current Player Association, our union, and as a lifelong fan, protecting

the integrity of our national pastime is a matter that is near and

dear to my heart.

Since the beginning of this scandal, I have said that baseball

should get the chance to clean up its own mess and government

should stay out of the way. With the new steroid testing policy, it

looks like baseball has taken a first baby step toward restoring

honesty to the game. But if they backslide or don’t follow through,

then the owners and players need to know that we can and will

act. Mr. Chairman, thank goodness that I don’t have any personal

experience with steroids. They weren’t around during my 17 years

in the Major Leagues. But when players broke the rules or cheated

for sharpening spikes or corking bats or something worse, they

were suspended. Since 1991, it has been illegal under Federal law

to possess or sell anabolic steroids without a prescription. Many

steroid dietary supplements like Android, were regulated as controlled substances by legislation that Congress passed last year.

These substances have no place in baseball and players who use

them illegally are cheating.

Like I said before, I think the new policy that suspends players

for steroid use is a baby step forward. Personally, I think the penalties are really puny. I would like to see much stronger ones. Onemonth suspension for a first offense and from what I have read

today, that isn’t really what happens. A year for a second. And

then 1-month suspension for a first offense is what it should be, a

year for a second and then the third strike and you are out, out

of the game. Football has a much stronger penalty and everyone

agrees its program has worked. Players who break the law and

56

cheat should be severely punished and their records and statistics

from when they used steroids should be wiped out.

If baseball fails to fix this scandal, then there are a lot of things

we can do to get their attention, by amending the labor laws, repealing the outdated anti-trust exemption that baseball alone enjoys and shining the spotlight of public scrutiny. The last thing I

want for the national pastime to be the subject of a witch hunt. All

of the players should be considered innocent until proven guilty,

but we can’t let anything get swept under the rug either. It is important we hear from the players themselves about the steroid use

in baseball. We need to hear the truth and I think hearings like

this one the committee is holding today can be helpful in bringing

the truth forward. The players and Major League Baseball must be

held accountable for the integrity of the game. After all, it’s not

their game. It’s ours, they’re just enjoying the privilege of playing

it for a short time.

What I may think many of today’s players don’t understand is

that many others came before them and even more will come after

them. And all of us have an obligation to protect the integrity of

the greatest game ever invented. Now the game of baseball has

been tarnished by some players because they didn’t follow the rules

and thought they were bigger than the game. It is disturbing to see

trends continuing today. Baseball has to follow the rules just like

everyone else. If a player thinks they are above the law of the land

and can defy a congressional subpoena, they are sadly mistaken.

They are not bigger than the game and they are certainly not bigger than the law of the land.

The same goes for owners. For over a decade, they have turned

their heads when it came to steroids. They have helped put the

game at risk. Not only did they turn a blind eye, they built smaller

parks making it easier to hit home runs. The balls started flying

farther. We have to ask why all of these things happened. Some

in the press have talked about this hearing like it’s a lark. It isn’t.

Congress is dead serious. We have every right to be concerned that

the national pastime and all that it represents has been threatened

by the selfish actions of a few.

Baseball is part of our culture, our history. It’s a multi-billion

dollar business that affects our economy and most of our largest

communities. There’s no doubt that Congress has a direct and important interest in what happens in baseball. Finally, players can’t

forget that like it or not, they are role models. By using steroids,

they have sent the wrong message to the kids and to the public.

As has been quoted by many in opening statements, too many, almost a half a million kids or more have tried steroids. 40 percent

of 12th graders in a recent University of Michigan study said that

steroids are easy to get.

So it’s important for the American public to understand just how

harmful steroids can be to someone’s health. Side effects of steroid

use include fatal conditions like liver cysts, liver cancer, blood clotting, hypertension and can even lead to heart attack and stroke

and many other bad things. Baseball has helped to open a Pandora’s box and now there’s a chance to fix that damage and educate

the public on the terrible health effects of steroids.

57

Baseball needs to know that we are watching and even more importantly, the fans are watching. Mr. Chairman, maybe I’m old

fashioned. I remembered players didn’t get any better as they got

older. We all got worse. When I played with Henry Aaron and

Willie Mays and Ted Williams, they didn’t put on 40 pounds and

bulk up in their careers and they didn’t hit more home runs in

their late 30’s than they did in their late 20’s. What’s happening

in baseball now is not natural and it isn’t right. Baseball has to

get its act together or else. So let’s see how they do. And now I’ll

follow the proverb President Reagan always quoted, trust but verify. I’m willing to trust baseball, but players and owners have a

special responsibility to protect the game and they owe it to all of

us to prove that they are fixing this terrible problem. If not, we will

have to do it for them. Thank you again for giving me this opportunity to speak before your committee today and I will be happy

to answer any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Senator Jim Bunning follows:]

58

59

60

61

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Senator Bunning, thank you for a splendid statement from a Hall of Famer. I think we have given you a

copy of Major League Baseball’s drug testing policies, the one with

the red tabs. Could you turn to page 11, section 9(b), discipline. It

says, player tests positive for a steroid. It says, first positive test

result, a 10-day suspension or up to a $10,000 fine. Is that a baby

step?

[The information referred to follows:]

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

Senator BUNNING. Unfortunately, that is not the evidence that

was sent to me by Major League Baseball. I have in front of me

the penalties for testing positive for steroids are as follows: First

offense, 10 days suspension. It doesn’t mention anything, up to a

fine of $10,000.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Or, the option. Could you turn to page 10

for a second? Do they say anything in their letter to you that the

name would be disclosed if someone flunked the test for steroids?

Senator BUNNING. No mention of that in here.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. It says on page 10, under section (a)(2),

the results of any prohibitive substance testing, any disciplinary

fines imposed upon the player by the Commission shall remain

strictly confidential. And it says if a player—and that is on the or.

So if they go with a fine, the way I read this, it’s not even public.

If they elect to suspend, only then will they note somebody was

suspended for a specified number of days for a violation of the program be made public. Is that in the policy?

Senator BUNNING. That was not sent to me either. I know you

are familiar with the Major League Football drug testing policy.

Not only do they suspend them for four games on first offense, but

they name the offender.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That’s 25 percent of the season?

Senator BUNNING. That is 25 percent of the season. This 10-days suspension is 10 days or $10,000 or up to $10,000.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. It could be $1.

Senator BUNNING. Or, and they do not name the person. Second

offense in football is eight games suspension. That is half a season.

No pay.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That gets you where it hurts.

Senator BUNNING. There is a difference in the approach between

the National Football League. And I realize that Major League

Baseball was at a disadvantage in trying to negotiate a new agreement with a contract already in hand, so they had their hands tied

behind them. But in fact, what they did is a Band-Aid and it

doesn’t really get to the problem.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Would you think that maybe they are not

at the first base, they are merely out the of the batter’s box?

Senator BUNNING. First step out of the box.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I just note that in the Commonwealth of

Virginia where I reside, in our legislature, if a student athlete is

caught with steroids, it is a 2-year suspension.

Senator BUNNING. The Olympic Committee has the best policy as

far as steroids are concerned, 2 years suspension for the first offense, life suspension for the second offense.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Our feeling is this starts from the top

down. They have passed laws in legislatures for kids. It’s strict and

it has to start from the top. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Senator, I want to thank you for your eloquent

statement. When I hear from someone who has firsthand knowledge who was a baseball player as well as a very well respected

senior member of the Senate, I’m impressed by what you had to

say to us. I want to put out there for further discussion with you

an idea that was suggested to me by a very prominent person in

the athletic field and he suggested that maybe what we ought to

95

do is have one standard, one standard for all sports, not only in the

Major Leagues, Minor Leagues and at schools, something like the

Olympic standard and have that as a clear statement that there

are going to be severe penalties, maybe even suspension from forever participating in the sport if there are numerous occasions

when they have been caught.

I don’t want you to answer that now. I would like you to think

about it and perhaps we can talk about it at another time.

Senator BUNNING. You know that would require a lot of changing

of the laws that we have now.

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes, but laws can be changed if it’s appropriate,

and I want to discuss with you at some future time whether it is

appropriate.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. What’s your time schedule? We have a

vote in 10 or 15 minutes. Do you have a couple of minutes?

Senator BUNNING. I have whatever you want.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Burton.

Mr. BURTON. I just would like to ask if you were in a position

where you could make decisions, what would be the steps that you

personally would take to clean this mess up?

Senator BUNNING. I’ve been looking back a little sooner than the

current operation. You have to look forward and you’ve got to at

least get some kind of an idea where these records that are being

set have come from. So there’s got to be a date certain if you can

find out—and I don’t suggest you do that today, find out from some

of these key players if they started in 1992 or 1993 illegally using

steroids, wipe all of their records out, take them away. They don’t

deserve them. Go ask Henry Aaron, go ask the family of Roger

Maris, go ask all of the people that played without enhanced drugs

if they would like their records compared with the current records.

I sincerely believe that one of the solutions to get baseball’s integrity back in heel is to look forward, but not forget what’s happened

in the past.

Mr. BURTON. I guess I didn’t make my question clear, assuming

you were commissioner, what steps would you take to make sure

that this sort of thing does not happen in the future? How do you

stop it?

Senator BUNNING. By making the penalties such that if you are

caught, you are out of the game. Who would take the chance of losing $12 million a year if they were thrown out of the game if they

tested positive for any of the steroids and if they were randomly

sampled. That’s the big key to be able to randomly sample every

player in Major League Baseball and not just once, but at the will

of the Major Leagues.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one quick statement. I want to thank you

for your testimony. It was indeed very moving. And there is only

thing that I wonder about, when you say ‘‘trust and verify,’’ and

you can answer this some other time, but the question becomes

how long do you trust?

Senator BUNNING. You are about at the end of your trust.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You answered my question. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Towns.

96

Mr. TOWNS. Let me also thank you, Senator for your testimony

and I think part of my question is, the question that was asked,

but I would like to take it a little step further. Are you saying that

Congress should not take action at this time, that we should wait

and give Major League Baseball an opportunity to act?

Senator BUNNING. I’m not saying that. Congress can take action

at any time. On the evidence presented today at this hearing and

subsequent hearings, I think this committee can put forward any

kind of legislation they deem necessary to clean up the problems.

You are going to hear some statistics today you are going to have

a hard time believing from Major League Baseball. You are going

to hear statistics that the abuse is down to 1 percent. Now that’s

hard for me to believe, knowing full well that a 150-pound righthanded hitting second baseman can hit the ball 425 feet to the

right center field for a home run. And I’m not naming any names.

But it’s impossible.

The only person who could do that in my era of baseball was

Mickey Mantle, and the only reason he could do it he was stronger

than anybody who played the game. But he was the only one who

ever hit a ball in the right center field. Maybe it’s because they

knocked the mound down 5 inches. But I know one thing, hitters

are much stronger and the ball is much more souped up than it

was in the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s.

Mr. TOWNS. I want to leave this room with new ideas and a cogent plan to stem the tide of steroids among our professional athletes as well as our young people. If we are to explore the dangers

of these drugs and educate our young athletes, we need to hear

from the right people. Mr. Chairman, I’m here today to help our

younger people stay away from these substances, if we have any

future hearings on this topic, please consider inviting these individuals that I’m going to mention.

This is essential and could go a long way toward helping our

young people avoid the temptation and dangers of this crippling

drug. We should invite the Commissioner of FDA. We should invite

Mr. John Walters, Director of the National Drug Control Policy for

the United States of America, the Governor of the most populated

State in the Nation, Governor Schwarzeneger who has indicated

that he has used enhancing drugs and is now speaking out against

them. I would like to hear from him. I think he has a lot to contribute.

So Mr. Chairman, on that note, I yield back. But I’m hoping we

do not stop at this point but continue to move forward with these

people that have information that we need in order to make the

proper decision.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, my colleagues, it is great to have you

here. I think one thing that Major League Baseball has done more

is to unite Republicans and Democrats in this Congress than anything else that has happened in the last 18 years, because of the

arrogance that you outlined. The letter that you received was from

whom?

Senator BUNNING. Major League Baseball.

Mr. SHAYS. Who signed the letter?

97

Senator BUNNING. I would have to ask staff.

Mr. SHAYS. Is it in front of you, could we have a copy of that letter?

Senator BUNNING. Well, I only have an outline of the policy.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I think we would like a copy of that letter. And we would like to know who it was from.

Senator BUNNING. It was background in a memo. It wasn’t a letter. It was a background memo.

Mr. SHAYS. All right. In your statement, I just want to clarify,

because you talked about 30 days for the first suspension. It’s 10

days for the first?

Senator BUNNING. Correct.

Mr. SHAYS. It’s 30 for the second, 60 for the third, and for the

fourth, 1 year. What we didn’t know, and you clearly didn’t know

as well, is that it could be replaced with a fine. I am interested to

know, do you think the reason that they chose a fine was so that

they then didn’t have to publicize that this player was being reprimanded or disciplined?

Senator BUNNING. Well, I think they gave the opportunity of a

fine, because obviously it doesn’t hurt. Somebody is making a $6

to $8 or $10 or $12 million a year, when you are fining them

$10,000 or less for our first offense, it means absolutely nothing.

There is no record of who that person is.

Mr. SHAYS. You clearly wouldn’t know it, necessarily, but if they

are absent from the game, it would raise questions from the press.

If they were suspended for 10 days or 30 days or 60 days, we would

clearly have a sense of what they were all about.

Senator BUNNING. Unlike football’s program, where you know exactly who has been suspended.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank you Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Who seeks recognition? Mr. Owens.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a brief

comment. I serve as the ranking democrat on the Subcommittee on

Workforce Protections, which is concerned about the safety of workers in the workplace and although baseball players earn tremendous amounts of money in the final analysis, baseball is a business,

and they are workers and we are looking at a situation where the

health and safety of every worker will be compromised if we allow

the use of steroids, because in order to remain competitive have

been has to do it, stay in the sport unless you compete on that

basis, so we are jeopardizing the health of every worker eventually

if we don’t put a stop to this at this point.

Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you, Mrs. Miller.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a brief question.

Senator, I appreciate you coming today, I am from Detroit, so you

can guess my allegiance to the Detroit Tigers. We are very proud

to call you a Detroit Tiger—I don’t quite remember—I read about

it.

Senator BUNNING. Don’t date yourself.

Mrs. MILLER. For the Detroit Tigers, but let me say, in light of

the conversation and the subject that we are talking about today—

I am glad there are no Detroit Tigers on any of our panels here

today. But also in the Detroit area, of course, we have very strong

98

unions there. And I am just wondering, why has it taken, in your

opinion, the players union such a long time to address this? The

union, in my mind, is the organization that tries to help and protect other members. Do you have any comment on that, Senator?

Senator BUNNING. You will be able to answer that question of

Donald Fehr. He is the executive director of the Major League

Baseball Player Union, so I suggest that you ask him.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, I will.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Let me just add.

Just because a player is summoned here today. It is a cross-section.

We have some players here today who have been outspoken about

steroids and we are proud to have all of them here.

Mr. Sanders.

Mr. SANDERS. No questions.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Jim, Senator, great to

see you.

Senator BUNNING. John.

Mr. MCHUGH. Always appreciate your enlightened comments on

so many subjects. I had the opportunity to go to Cooperstown, and

listen to Jim Bunning to speak as he was inducted into the Hall

of Fame. Anybody who heard that speech or knows of his representation on our stance knows he is a real straight talker, and it is

hard to imagine anybody who has more validity on that issue and

I appreciate you being here.

I just wanted to followup on my young colleague who doesn’t remember that no hitter, I do. In comments about the Players Association, Major League Baseball, as you look at the situation now,

how would you assess culpability for there not being a stronger

steroids testing policy? Could you say it’s equally responsible in

equal failure between Major League Baseball and the Players Association, 80/20, just to give us an idea where the true land mine is?

Senator BUNNING. I think after the 1994 debacle where we lost

part of the season, lost part of the World Series. There was a lack

of attention played by both the Players Association and the management. That’s when it looks like steroids really got a hold in

baseball.

Everybody was looking for kind of a rekindling of interest at the

Major League Baseball level, and the home run looks like, was the

savior, and Mark McGwire, who you will have here before you, and

Sammy Sosa, put on a home-run hitting contest that wound up

breaking—or Roger Maris’ 1961 record, and that rekindled fans’ interest in Major League Baseball.

I think maybe that might be the reason that there wasn’t real

hard scrutiny put on the players who were succeeding in hitting

balls out of the ballpark faster than I have ever seen in my life.

I always wondered why the pitchers weren’t pitching inside a little

more. Because when someone hit a ball, you know, 480-foot, a few

years prior to that, they had to suffer some consequences if they

did that.

My feeling is that there wasn’t a lot of attention paid, John.

Mr. MCHUGH. So the home run meant the dollars, meant the

game?

99

Senator BUNNING. Well, take a look at the Major League parks

and what has come from that time forward. They have shortened

the fences, the home run is a big part of the game. People don’t

really like to watch 1–0 or 2–1 games. They would rather be 11–

9.

So I would say that’s pretty accurate.

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, Senator, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. I will have some questions of a later panel, thank

you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman I want to

thank you and Mr. Waxman for holding this hearing. Senator, let

me thank you for your testimony. It was certainly good to see you

earlier this morning. I want to ask you, do you think that a strong

anti steroid-use statement from the Baseball League and the Players Association with serious consequences for abusers would be

helpful in stemming the tide among active players and would help

to steer young people away from their use?

Senator BUNNING. I don’t know about the latter part of your

statement, but I know for sure, if there was a joint statement between Major League Baseball and the Players Union, and there

were severe enough penalties involved in the use of those steroids

at an earlier time, not on the fifth or sixth time, yes, I think that

would have a dramatic effect on the use of steroids in Major

League Baseball.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, it is a

pleasure to see you again.

Senator BUNNING. Ileana.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. We all know you as an American hero in

Major League Baseball, but maybe some of our members don’t

know that in my native homeland of Cuba, you are also a baseball

hero, because you played for many years in the Cuban leagues in

the off season. And we thank you, and you are very much of a

hometown favorite, still in south Florida, where so many Cuban exiles are living now.

You say in your statement that you would hope that the Association, the Players Association and all of the entities would take the

necessary rules and regulations so that Congress would not have

to act, and that the recommendations are not what we had hoped

that they would be. What role do you see Congress playing in this,

in the regulation of steroid use, understanding that the union is

such a powerful union, what can we do and how do we fit into that

scenario?

Senator BUNNING. Well, there’s been some suggestions made already. My suggestion is if you feel this committee, and any other

committee of the Congress feels, that Major League Baseball and

the Players Association or Players Union does not comply strongly

enough to our desire to wipe steroids completely out of baseball,

then we ought to take it into our own hands. And it’s not going to

be an easy thing to change the labor laws of this land, to make

sure that we can affect a change in all professional athletics. I

100

think you are going to have to do it that way, make it the law of

the land that all professional athletics are governed under this onedrug policy.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. You think hearings such as this one help further the cause for that?

Senator BUNNING. I think it can, yes.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Senator.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. We have votes on the House

floor. The Obey amendment, the Hensarling amendment and rules

suspension from yesterday, so when we go there we will be doing

three votes. When we come back, the rest of the voting of the day,

I think, will be single votes on different substitutes to the budget

resolution. And at that point, we should be able to keep the hearings going continuously if we alternate the Chairs.

Mr. Burton, Mr. Shays have offered to help with the Chair duties

at that point.

I would like to see if anybody else would like to make an opening

statement before we go or any other comments, and then Senator

Bunning could have—anyone else wish to, Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member Waxman, for holding these hearings. I will be very brief since

the votes are on. Thank you, Senator, for being here in this matter.

As a fan of baseball, I hope today’s hearing will serve as a forum

to discredit some rumors and prove that the records obtained by future Hall of Fame inductees are credible.

While the NFL randomly tests football players for steroid use,

using unpaid suspensions to get their point across, the most impressive testing is within the Olympics. Olympic sports have the

strongest drug-testing program run by the independent U.S. AntiDoping Agency. Athletes are subject to frequent unannounced yearround testing, and the first positive test brings a minimum 2-year

suspension.

I commend Major League Baseball, therefore, to strengthen its

steroid policy. However, it is strikingly clear that more steps need

to be taken in order to send a clear message to players that using

illegal drugs will not be tolerated.

It is my hope that today’s hearing will not only shed light on

Major League Baseball’s policies, but more importantly educate the

public about the dangers to youths who may be tempted to use anabolic steroids and to insure that adequate safeguards for the future are in place.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you, I will save my questions

for later, but I do want to make a brief comment that I think my

friend, Jim Bunning’s statement was one of the finest summations

of this problem that I have heard. And I want to commend him.

I also want to commend you for calling this hearing, because I

think this has given a very important wake-up call to Major

League Baseball.

As some of you know, my family owned and operated the Knoxville Smokeys AA baseball team, and were involved with the team

from 1956 until the early 1990’s. So this is very near and dear to

101

my heart also. I grew up in baseball, although at a much lower

level than Jim Bunning.

But I think this is very, very important here today, and I think

also, though, that we should give Major League Baseball a chance

to take some serious steps, in addition to the actions that we take.

I think that we will react positively, and I certainly hope they will,

because this is a very serious problem for the young people of this

country, and I thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator, thank you

for your excellent testimony. I will be very brief. During my 12

years in the Maryland Legislature I had the opportunity to work

with many people in raising awareness about the dangers of chewing tobacco, tobacco use, for oral cancer and many of the baseball

players and the Baltimore Orioles organization were terrific at

helping get out the word, Hank Aaron has been a real leader in

that effort.

I think that effort shows that the players understand that when

they are committed to doing it, can work to send signals and messages to our young people, and I think it’s had an effect, because

of the position Hank Aaron and others have taken. It seems to me

we need an even higher level of commitment to message sending

to our youth, from Major League Baseball and the players, especially from the players, who young people—I have young children,

I have two young boys and a daughter, they are very actively engaged in sports.

My 13-year-old tries to do 10 pushups every night. He is very interested in being physically fit. We may need to make sure that we

are sending a message that in sports across the board, as you said,

baseball or any other sport, you can’t get ahead by taking these

shortcuts. You can’t get ahead by cheating. We can’t send a message that sports figures are somehow above the law, and it’s critical that the ball players themselves, those who are engaged in

those efforts.

So I thank you for all your efforts to raise attention to this issue

and call upon my colleagues here, the ball players to get with it

and to start sending the right messages to our youth. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Chris Van Hollen follows:]

102

103

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Dent.

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bunning, as a representative of eastern Pennsylvania, I want to congratulate you

nearly 41 years after your perfect game on Father’s Day 1964.

In your statement, you mentioned the Federal antitrust exemption. If Major League Baseball fails to enact stringent policies on

steroids, do you think that we as a Congress should consider repealing that antitrust exemption that, in my State, the team owners effectively use to extract over $150 million to pay for their stadiums in the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh?

Senator BUNNING. Well, my personal feeling is that if you are

going to grant an exemption to someone, if they don’t honor the exemption that they have and respect the fact that they have it, or

Major League football doesn’t and Major League basketball doesn’t

and Major League hockey never had it, then they should be held

accountable for that exemption. Of course, it should be one of the

things on the table, if you are going to look at not reacting to this

crisis that’s before them.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Anyone? Mr.

Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. First, one baseball question. What was that

pitch that you threw to Mickey Mantle when he hit the ball to

right field, home run?

Senator BUNNING. Which home run, which pitch?

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, we know this is a very serious area,

I am from Baltimore, a Baltimore Oriole fan all of my life. I went

to a lot of games, I have seen you pitch. But what I liked about

your testimony, I liked a lot about your testimony is bottom line,

baseball is a game and you talked about using steroids as cheating.

We do not want our national pastime, the sport that we love, to be

considered a game where people can cheat, where it can take advantage of one over another.

It seems to me that now we have to come together, and this

hearing will put the limelight on this and I think help the Commission. The Commissioner is in a pretty bad position right now, because he has to pull the Players Association together. Maybe have

the Players Association rethink their position, because it seems we

have to be able to get the facts on using steroids and who was not.

Right now, a lot of the testimony out there from Canseco is

Canseco’s credibility versus someone else’s credibility.

My question to you is what do we need to do now, from a testing

point of view, a change in policy for baseball, to get this issue

worked on so we can start worrying more about the game and who

is going to win or lose and not about athletes using sports, using

steroids that is cheating and illegal.

Senator BUNNING. Well, what you need to do is make it tougher

and then the policy that they have proposed, and you have to make

it so that if you use them and get caught, you are gone.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And I agree with all of that. I think the

Olympic testing is great, but I think we have to move right away.

How can we move right away from your point of view?

Senator BUNNING. Well, they are in the middle of a contract right

now, a collective bargained agreement. And that puts an ominous

104

job on the United States to change labor law, so it is much more

difficult than it appears.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well thank you, we have to go run and vote

thank you.

Senator BUNNING. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Senator Bunning, thanks so much for

being with us.

Senator BUNNING. Thank you, Tom.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Ms. Norton, we have to go run to vote. Go

ahead—well, the hearing will be in a recess for about half an hour

as Members go. We have three items, at that point we will go with

our second panel, be ready to swear them in and move on to their

testimony and questions, thank you.

[Recess.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I want to move to our second panel as everybody will return from votes.

We have Dr. Denise and Mr. Raymond Garibaldi, the parents of

former U.S. player Rob Garibaldi, who committed suicide after

steroid use.

We have Mr. Hooton, president and director of Taylor Hooton

Foundation and father of high school baseball player, Taylor Hooton, who committed suicide after steroid use.

We have Dr. Nora D. Volkow, Director, National Institute on

Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Gary I. Wadler, associate professor of clinical medicine, New

York University School of Medicine.

And we have Dr. Kirk Brower, associate professor of psychiatry,

University of Michigan Medical School and executive director Chelsea Arbor Addiction Treatment Center.

And Dr. Elliott Pellman, the medical advisor to Major League

Baseball.

We ask unanimous consent that the written statement of Mr.

Efrain and Brenda Marrero be inserted in the record, and hearing

no objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

Chairman TOM DAVIS. It’s a policy of this committee that all witnesses be sworn before you testify. If you would rise with me and

raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Your entire statements are in the record.

This is a very important topic, and I thank each of you for taking

the time to be with us here today to share it.

Dr. Garibaldi, I will start with you.

STATEMENTS OF DENISE AND RAYMOND GARIBALDI, PARENTS OF FORMER U.S. PLAYER ROB GARIBALDI; DONALD

HOOTON, PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR, TAYLOR HOOTON

FOUNDATION, FATHER OF HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL PLAYER, TAYLOR HOOTON; NORA D. VOLKOW, M.D., DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH; GARY I. WADLER, M.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF MEDICINE; KIRK BROWER, M.D., ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

MEDICAL SCHOOL, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHELSEA

ARBOR ADDICTION TREATMENT CENTER; AND ELLIOTT

PELLMAN, M.D., THE MEDICAL ADVISOR TO MAJOR LEAGUE

BASEBALL

STATEMENT OF DENISE AND RAYMOND GARIBALDI

Ms. GARIBALDI. Honorable Davis and members of the committee,

as a licensed psychologist and more so parent, I thank you for the

honor of addressing this committee today. My husband’s and my

personal efforts interest in your efforts emanates from our son,

Rob, who, with the exception of his size, had all the makings of a

professional baseball player.

We were living on the San Francisco peninsula when Rob was a

Little Leaguer, watching with excitement the accomplishments of

his local sports heroes, Barry Bonds and the Bash brothers, Mark

McGwire and Jose Canseco. Their successes fueled his dreams. He

had both the talent and the desire. To Rob, baseball was life. By

the time he reached high school, his skill at baseball was considered remarkable. In fact, his dream of playing in the Major

Leagues came very close to reality.

Rob turned down the Yankees in 1999 in order to accept a full

scholarship at University of Southern California, and then he

played for USC in the 2000 World Series.

Mr. GARIBALDI. As a team, Rob was told by all working with him,

coaches, trainers and scouts, that the only way to improve his

game was to get bigger. With the exception of size, he had all the

tools Major League scouts considered in a potential draftee. Running speed, throwing skills, defensive skills and hitting skills. Getting bigger began with working out diligently and using creatine.

Creatine was supplied by a scouting team sponsored by the California Angels when he was 15.

In fact, this and other performance-enhancing supplements, such

of which the FDA purport as food, were given to him throughout

his baseball career. We were told they were like vitamins. When

weight lifting, nutrition and supplements did not produce the deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
114

sired results, Rob was encouraged to obtain and use steroids. Rob

obtained his first cycle of steroids after graduating from high

school. He travelled to Tijuana, Mexico with a friend, and within

an hour, had a prescription and purchased steroids from a pharmacy there for himself and other friends. Rob also implicated his

trainer at USC as assisting his use of steroids so as to gain 20

pounds.

At 16, 5’9’’ and 130 pounds, Rob was far from being a prototype

designated by Major League scouts as desirable. Their goal weight

for Rob was 185 pounds. By the 2002 Major League draft, steroids

had made good on their promise. Rob was a power hitter, 5’11’’ and

weighed 185 pounds, but he was not drafted. Steroids had taken

an insidious hold with scouts commenting he was a head case.

Even though his mom and I confronted him about his weight

gain, upper body muscle development, puffy face, hair loss and

acne—all symptoms of steroids use—he denied his use. Most disturbing were the adverse psychiatric effects he demonstrated over

time. Mania, depression, short-term memory loss, uncontrollable

rage, delusional and suicidal thinking and paranoid psychosis—

symptoms he never acknowledged as being problems.

Prior to steroids, Rob never displayed any of these symptoms.

When not on steroids, or withdrawn from them, Rob was a sweet

and empathetic guy with ambitions beyond baseball. When disabled by steroids, his character and demeanor so drastically

changed that he was dismissed by the coaching staff at USC as a

behavioral problem. During this time, no one recognized his symptoms as being somewhat other than aggregated depression or bipolar disorder.

Rob also never thought of the known physical consequences as

being serious. Having heart or liver disease or being sterile were

issues he would think about after baseball. At our insistence, Rob

eventually cooperated with psychiatric treatment. He was hospitalized in an inpatient psychiatric unit involuntary, and was prescribed antidepressants and antipsychotics, and went to an residential treatment facility. But his depression was unsurmountable. On

October 1, 2002, in his car a half a block from our home, Rob shot

himself in the head. He was 24.

We support your every effort to implore your continued efforts to

purge steroids from baseball and inform and legislate law that

guides the general public.

Ms. GARIBALDI. Our children are using the same performance-enhancing supplements and drugs as professional athletes. Research

is showing that at an early age, intake of the supplements creates

a mindset that prompts steroid use later.

Grave misinformation, such as that in Jose Canseco’s recent account in his book ‘‘Juiced,’’ continues to be disseminated. Because

of ignorance, denial of these athletes who refuse to testify without

subpoenas and opinions touted as fact, coaches, scouts and parents

will continue to make misinformed statements to those in their

charge.

Even though Mr. Canseco states on the first page that steroids

are for adult use, youth are not afraid to take the risk of losing

their health or their lives to emulate their heroes and/or to help

115

guarantee a place on a team a scholarship, their physique or competitive edge.

I have a question, if the Federal Government has designated

steroids as illegal unless prescribed by a physician, why did Major

League Baseball have to ban their use before ball players could be

sanctioned for using them. Our children are reading ‘‘Juiced’’ right

now, watching Barry Bonds right now, getting permission from

their role models right now to use. Canseco states—and his counterparts imply—that as long as you trust your instincts, control

carefully the amounts, administer them at a proper time and be

smart, careful and know what you are doing, full potential can be

reached.

I would like to know where Dr. Canseco got his research. Because what we know is that without steroid use, Rob’s suffering,

and ultimately his death, would have been averted. How many

more youngsters will die questing ego and fame through steroids?

There is no mind that anabolic steroids caused Rob to assault his

father and choke him until he was restrained by two men. There

is no doubt in our minds that steroids killed our son. Ultimately

we do blame Rob for his use. He surrendered his well-being and integrity. He made his choice, and we must now live with the consequences.

However, with his sports heroes as examples and Major League

Baseball’s blind eye, Rob’s decision was a product of erroneous information and promises.

In his mind, he did what baseball players like Canseco have done

and McGwire and Bonds are believed to have done. Rob fiercely argued, I don’t do drugs, I am a ball player, this is what ball players

do. If Bonds has to do it, then I must. We miss him terribly.

And in Rob’s name and in the name of athletic excellence, we

thank the committee for defining and demanding responsibility for

those who are admired and communicating to the Nation that the

win-at-all-cost attitude that prevails is much too dangerous a game

for our youths for anyone. Baseball is not life. Baseball is a game.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. and Mrs. Garibaldi follows:]

116

117

118

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Hooton.

STATEMENT OF DONALD M. HOOTON

Mr. HOOTON. Mr. Davis, Mr. Waxman, Congressmen. 20 short

months ago, our youngest son, Taylor, took his own life. He was 2

weeks away from beginning his senior year in high school. He was

carrying a 3.8 average, made excellent scores on his SAT tests, and

he and I were preparing to make college visits. Taylor was well

liked by all who knew him, adults tell us he was one of the nicest

young men they ever knew, extremely well mannered. His kids

thought he was one of the nicest kids on campus, a real lady’s man,

quite a charmer. This past spring, Taylor would have been a starting pitcher on his varsity baseball team.

But during the fall of his junior year, his JV coach told the 6-

foot 3, 175-pound young man that he needed to get bigger in order

to improve his chances of making the varsity team. Taylor resorted

to using anabolic steroids to help him achieve his objective. Like

the Garibaldis, I am absolutely convinced that Taylor’s secret use

of anabolic steroids played a significant role in causing the depression, the severe depression that resulted in his suicide. And I have

also learned that the events leading up to and including Taylor’s

suicide are right out of the medical textbook on steroids.

Experts put the usage of steroids amongst our high school kids

at about 5 to 6 percent of the overall population. Some of the percent experts that I talk to put the numbers at more like 1 million

kids doing steroids, not 500,000. And I am of a personal belief that

those numbers are at the bottom end of that range, that number

is higher.

In some parts of the country the studies show that usage among

high school and junior and senior males is as high as 11 to 12 percent. Let me put that in context. The kids in my part of the country

tell me that as many as one-third of the boys who show up to play

football under the lights on Friday night are juicing. A number of

factors are contributing to the increasing usage amongst our kids.

You have asked me to talk about one of them, and I am happy to

do that.

I believe the poor example being set by professional athletes is

a major catalyst fueling the high usage of steroids amongst our

kids. Our kids look up to these guys. They want to do the things

the pros do to be successful. And with this in mind, I have several

messages for the professional athletes.

First, I am sick and tired of having you tell us that you don’t

want to be considered role models. If you haven’t figured it out yet,

let me break the news to you that whether you like it or not, you

are role models, and parents across America should hold you accountable for behavior that inspires our kids to do things that put

their health at risk and that teaches them that the ethics we try

to teach them around our kitchen table somehow don’t apply to

them.

Second, our kids know that the use of anabolic steroids is high

amongst professional athletes. They don’t need to read Mr.

Canseco’s new book to know that something other than natural

physical ability is providing many of you with the ability to break

119

so many performance records that provides you with the opportunity to make those millions of dollars.

Our youngsters hear the message loud and clear, and it’s wrong.

If you would want to achieve your goal, it’s OK to use steroids to

get you there, because the pros are doing it. It’s a real challenge

for parents to overpower the strong message that’s being sent to

our children by your behavior.

Third, players that are guilty of taking steroids are not only

cheaters, you are cowards, you are afraid to step on the field to

compete for your positions and play the game without the aid of

substances that are a felony to possess, without a legitimate prescription, substances that have been banned from competition at

all levels of athletics. Not only that, you are cowards when it comes

to facing your fans and our children. Why don’t you behave like we

try to teach our kids to behave? Show our kids that you are man

enough to face authority, tell the truth and face the consequences.

Instead, you hide behind the skirts of your union. And with the

help of management and your lawyers, you have made every effort

to resist facing the public today.

What message are you sending our sons and daughters, that you

are above the law, that you can continue to deny your behavior and

get away with it? That somehow you are not a cheater unless you

get caught? Your attorneys say they are worried about how your

public testimony might play in a court of law. But how do you

think your refusals to talk about playing in the court of public

opinion? Let me tell you that the national jury of young people

have already judged your actions and concluded that many of you

are guilty of using illegal performance-enhancing drugs.

But instead of convicting you, they have decided to follow your

lead. In tens of thousands of homes across America, our 16 and 17-

year-old children are injecting themselves with anabolic steroids.

Just like you big leaguers do.

Your union leaders won’t want us to be sensitive to your right

of privacy. Rights of privacy? What about our rights as parents, our

rights to expect that the adults our kids all look up to will be held

to a standard that does not include behavior that is dangerous, felonious and is cheating.

How about a short message for management. We can’t leave

them out. Major League Baseball and other sports need to take serious steps to stop the use of steroids. Slapping a player on the

wrist with a 10-day suspension, I didn’t even know about the

$10,000 thing until this morning, but a 10-day suspension is just

one more signal to our children that you are not serious about ridding the game of this junk. Forcing a pro, even at worse, to miss

10 games, is asking him to miss 6 percent of a season. Let’s put

that through the prism of the glasses of a high school student.

Forcing a high school student to miss 6 percent of his season is

asking him to sit the bench for less than 1 game. We shouldn’t be

talking about whether or not to put asterisks next to these guys’

records. They ought to be thrown out of baseball, and we ought to

be turning them over to the authorities to have them arrested and

put in jail for the behavior that they have done.

Why don’t you implement a program that we have heard about

today that is a lot closer to the Olympics standard where cheaters

120

are not able to compete for 2 years after their first offense and

banned for life following the second. Just maybe our kids will get

the message that you are finally serious about solving this problem. Let me add to the whole discussion that this is not about a

collective bargaining agreement.

Guys, we are way past that. Steroid usage has become a major

health issue that is affecting the lives and health of our kids, and

I encourage the Members of Congress to please deal with it in such

a manner. A critical weapon that we have in this battle is education.

Our students need to know that these drugs can seriously harm

them. But I am convinced that trying to warn 16-year-olds about

the danger of liver cancer or having a heart attack probably is

going to fall on deaf ears, which I believe is why our first targets

for education have to be our parents and coaches.

Our parents need to know the dangers of this drug, how to recognize the warning sign and how to understand the importance of supervising this with our kids. Our coaches have to be more responsible and accountable for dealing with this situation with their

teams. Coaches across the country need to be certified and

credentialed to have to pass a test to prove that they are competent

to supervise our children. As part of a certification, they need to

be trained about steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs

and trained to know what to do about it when they find it.

Finally, they need to be held accountable for insuring that their

teams are steroid free, to help fill the education void, we have

formed the Taylor Hooton Foundation for fighting steroid abuse,

the Nation’s first private organization in this area. Working in conjunction with experts like Dr. Gary Wadler here on my left, we

would like to explore ways to work with you and others in the government to make our foundation a part of your work going forward.

On behalf of my son, Taylor Hooton, Rob Garibaldi and Efrain

Marrero, whose parents are with us today, let me implore you to

take steps to clean up this mess. Please help us to see that our

children’s lives were not lost in vain. You have the power to do

something about it, and we are counting on you to do so.

Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Hooton.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hooton follows:]

121

122

123

124

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Dr. Volkow, thank you for being with us.

STATEMENT OF NORA D. VOLKOW, M.D.

Dr. VOLKOW. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is

my privilege to be here today to discuss what science has taught

us about the serious health consequences of anabolic steroid abuse.

We are now facing a very damaging message that is becoming pervasive in our society, that bigger is better and being the best is

more important than how you get there.

We are here today because of the reports of anabolic steroid

abuse by professional athletes, many of you are regarded as role

models by today’s young people. There is great risk that our adolescents will be vulnerable to these messages, and will be far less concerned about the long-term health risks to their bodies and their

minds.

What are anabolic steroids and how do they affect the body? Anabolic steroids are synthetic versions of the primary male sex hormone testosterone. They can be injected, taken orally or

transdermally. They promote the growth of skeletal muscle and the

development of male sexual characteristics. Anabolic steroids are

controlled substances which can be prescribed to risk conditions

such as body wasting in patients with AIDS and other diseases

that occur when the body produces abnormally low levels of testosterone.

However, the doses prescribed to treat these conditions are 10 to

100 times lower than the doses that are abused for performance enhancement.

Let me be clear, although anabolic steroids can enhance certain

types of performance and appearance, they are dangerous drugs.

And when used inappropriately, they can cause a host of severe,

long lasting and often irreversible negative health consequences.

These drugs stunt the height of growing adolescents, masculinize

women, and alter sex characteristics in men.

Anabolic steroids can lead to heart attacks, strokes, liver tumors,

kidney failure and serious psychiatric problems. In addition, because steroids are often injected, users risk contracting or transmitting HIV or hepatitis.

The research also indicates that anabolic steroids directly affect

the brain. They affect some of the same reverse sequence as other

drugs of abuse, and with repeated use, can produce addiction. However, they also affect areas in the brain that are normally regulated

by sex hormones, and these actions account for many of the behavioral changes that occur with steroid abuse, such as aggression, depression, psychosis, mania.

Some of these consequences occur long after the person stops taking the drug. Indeed, depression induced by steroid withdrawal can

result in suicide weeks after drug discontinuation.

Anabolic steroid abuse differs from the use of other illicit substances, in that the initial use is not driven for the desire of the

high or euphoria with such drugs such as cocaine, marijuana or

heroin, but the desire of the user to enhance their performance and

appearance, characteristics that are extremely important for adolescents. The effects of steroids in addition can boost confidence

125

and strength, leading the abuser to overlook the potentially serious

long-term damages that these substances can cause.

I am pleased to say that NIDA has supported research that lead

to the development of two highly effective prevention programs,

ATLAS targeting male athletes, and ATHENA, targeting female

athletes, which not only prevent anabolic steroid abuse but also

promote other behaviors and attitudes in adolescents.

Because school-sponsored athletics involve about 50 percent of

high school students, these programs, which are sports-based, provide the opportunity to reach a large number of adolescents. Influential coaches and peer groups provide information on sports nutrition and acrobatic strength training as alternatives to the use of

drugs to performance and build confidence.

ATLAS and ATHENA have been adopted by schools in 29 States

and Puerto Rico. Both Congress and the substance abuse and Mental Health Services Administration have endorsed ATLAS and

ATHENA as model prevention programs which could and should be

implemented in more communities throughout the country.

In response to the increasing alarming use of steroids in adolescents, NIDA invested in public education efforts to increase the

awareness of the dangers of steroid use. Beginning in 2000, we created a new Web site focused on steroid abuse, developing information on material for healthcare professionals and the public and

aired public service television announcements.

In summary, we know that the inappropriate use of anabolic

steroids can have catastrophic medical and psychiatric consequences.

For this reason, we are very concerned about the misleading

positive messages being conveyed on the abuse of these drugs by

well-known professional athletes. These could undermine our work

prevention and education efforts. NIDA will continue to bring the

power of science to bear on these issues.

I thank you for your attention and interest, and would be pleased

to answer any questions you may have.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you, Dr. Volkow.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Volkow follows:]

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Dr. Wadler. Thanks for being with us.

STATEMENT OF GARY I. WADLER, M.D.

Dr. WADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appear before this

committee wearing multiple hats. I am an associate professor of

clinical medicine at NYU School of Medicine and represent the

United States as a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Prohibited List and Methods Committee. I am a fellow of the largest

sports medicine association in the world, the American College of

Sports Medicine, and am the legal author of the textbook, ‘‘Drugs

and the Athlete.’’

In 1993, I received the International Olympic Committee’s President’s Prize for my work in doping. I have served as an expert on

anabolic steroids for the Department of Justice and since 1999, I

have advised the Office of National Drug Control policy on matters

of doping. Since appearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in 1999 to discuss the use of

performance-enhancing drugs in Olympic competition, there has

been a sea of change on many fronts. At the Federal level, we have

witnessed great strides in the fight against doping.

The President highlighted his issue in his 2004 State of the

Union. The Department of Justice has pursued the BALCO investigation, and the FDA removed ephedra and androstenedione from

the store shelves. Just last month, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act

of 2004 became effective, adding numerous steroid precursors to

the list of steroids controlled under the act.

Internationally the United States, with the Office of National

Drug Control Policy at the helm has played a leadership role in the

World Anti-Doping Agency, its governance and funding. And most

recently, in drafting the anti-doping convention under the auspice

of UNESCO.

In 2004, the U.S. Government contributed an unprecedented

$1.45 million toward WADA budget of $23 million and last year

$7.5 million was appropriated to support our national anti-doping

and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, USADA for testing, research and

education.

With this as a backdrop, one must ask the question where have

we gone astray with Major League Baseball and why should we

care? Perhaps a seminal moment on researching the issue of performance enhancing drug use in baseball was a 1998 revelation

that Mark McGwire had used androstenedione during his recordbreaking 70 home run season. At the time, McGwire did not violate

the laws of the land nor the laws of baseball. Those were to change.

The 2002 assertions of Jose Canseco and the late Ken Caminiti

that steroid use was rampant in baseball were dismissed by many

in organized baseball as being hyperbolic.

However, last week, Mr. Selig acknowledged in 2001, 11 percent

of Minor League players had tested positive, and baseball’s own

2003 steroid survey testing have revealed that even with its very

poorest testing program, as many as 5 to 10 percent of players had

tested positive, the equivalent of two entire Major League teams.

Last week we learned that in 2004, 1 to 2 percent tested positive,

which still translates to an unacceptable number of users, between

12 to 24-league wide, the equivalent of a half to full roster. The inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
137

cidents would likely have been higher if the testing had been performed as it should have been year around, in and out of competition, on a random, no notice basis.

To put these figures in perspective, compare Major League Baseball’s statistics with those of the World Anti-doping Agency, where

less than 1 half percent of 150,000 tests rigorously administered

worldwide in 2002 tested positive for steroids. One can only conclude that the prior assertions of rampant steroid abuse in baseball

likely were not hyperbobolic, and why should we care?

We should care for many reasons, but perhaps most notable is

that baseball, our national pastime, for better or for worse, is a role

model sport and likely contributes to the alarming abuse of anabolic steroids by teenagers. Just reflect on the enormous increase

in sales in andro, the year after Mark McGwire broke Roger Maris’

longstanding home run record. The most recent data from the annual review of the National Institute of Drug Abuse survey reveals

that in 2004, 3.4 percent of 12th graders had used these drugs at

some time in their lives and as many as 1.9 percent of 8th graders

had used them. Even more alarming is the perception amongst

high school students that they are harmful has dropped from 71

percent in 1992 to only 56 percent in 2004.

Let me assure you from a public health perspective that the

abuse of these drugs is harmful both physically and behaviorally.

Their abuse can lead to an array of physical problems, some predictable, such as feminization of the male, some not, such as premature heart disease, some permanent and some not.

But baseball’s problem is not limited to steroids. One can only

wonder why baseball’s new drug policy does not explicitly ban amphetamines, a Schedule III drug. It was amphetamine abuse that

gave rise to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and to the development of Olympic banned substances list in 1968.

Following the first recorded fatalities from performance enhancing drugs, namely amphetamines. While ephedra is now banned in

baseball subsequent to the heat stroke defendant of Steven Bechler

and is being banned by the FDA, one should not lose site of the

fact that ephedra is closely related to the stimulant amphetamine.

Why ephedra is banned by Major League Baseball while amphetamines are not, remains an enigma. The position that the Players

Association has taken with respect to amphetamines, certainly

leads one to suspect that they too are endemic in baseball.

Finally, a few words about Major League Baseball’s new drug

policy testing program, which I had a brief chance to review.

In my judgment, the policy at best as we know it, can best be

described as one of incrementalism. One designed to silence its critics, but not one designed to seriously rid professional baseball of

the abuse of all performance enhancing drugs. To be sure that the

devil is in the details as we heard with the word ‘‘or,’’ for example,

while human growth hormone is on baseball’s banned list, baseball

will not conduct blood testing, which is the only way it can be currently detected.

Doping is an exquisitely complex subject involving interplay of

numerous disciplines. In my opinion, the complexity of antidoping

far exceeds the capacity of baseball to design, implement and monitor an effective transparent and accountable program.

138

It is embodied in the world’s antidoping code, which I distributed

to you this morning, and its international standards and Major

League Baseball should embrace them, as have other high profile

professional sports such as men’s professional tennis, soccer and cycling.

Organized baseball should heed the experience of the Olympic

movement, which recognized that its very credibility was cracking

under the weight of doping. And so it passed the antidoping baton

to WADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency, and to the national

doping agencies such USADA.

I am pleased to note that baseball has taken one significant step

in that direction, by contracting out its antidoping laboratory services to WADA certified accredited laboratory.

At a minimum, and now I am being very, very specific, as the

next step, Major League Baseball should adopt the WADA list,

which I distributed this morning of prohibited substances and

methods in its entirety. The list is a continuously evolving product

reflecting countless man-hours by scientists, and physicians around

the world. It is endorsed by sporting bodies worldwide as well as

by world governments, including the United States.

For the potential of a 2-year sanction for steroid abuse is called

for in the world antidoping code, we make baseball hesitant to

erase the code, baseball should be mindful that baseball caused the

sanctions to be reduced in ‘‘exceptional circumstances,’’ and provides for the possible reduction or elimination of the period of eligibility in the unique circumstances where the athlete can establish

that he had no fault or negligence in connection with the violation.

Furthermore, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency [USADA] is in the

best position to implement the best practices of doping control

baseball in conformity and the requirements with the world requirements of the world antidoping code.

Finally, only when baseball demonstrates its unabashed commit

to drug-free sport, will it fully regain the confidence of its fans and

once again deservedly become America’s favorite pastime. Thank

you.

Mr. SOUDER [presiding]. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wadler follows:]

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

Mr. SOUDER. Our next witness is Dr. Kirk Brower, associate professor of psychiatry, University of Michigan Medical School and executive director of the Chelsea Arbor Addiction Treatment Center.

STATEMENT OF KIRK J. BROWER, M.D.

Dr. BROWER. I want to thank Members of Congress for inviting

me to testify here today. I will focus mostly on psychiatric side effects. May I have the first slide please. Illicit use of anabolicandrogenic steroids has been associated with a variety of adverse

psychiatric effects. You can cancel that slide, since it is not mine.

Illicit use of anabolic androgenic steroids has been associated with

a variety of adverse psychiatric effects, which I define here as disturbances in, thinking, behavior, and perception. The most frequently described of these effects are major mood swings, ranging

from mania to depression, suicidal thoughts and behaviors, marked

aggression, including homicidal thoughts and behaviors, sometimes

called by users ‘‘roid rage.’’

In addition, grandiose and paranoid delusions and addiction can

occur. Mania, or its less severe form known as hypomania, aggression and delusions typically begin during the course of using

steroids. Whereas depressive episodes and suicide attempts are

most likely to occur within 3 months of stopping use, that is, during the period we call steroid withdrawal. Fortunately, most psychiatric effects we believe, such as mood swings, are reversible with

medically monitored cessation of steroid use. But not always as you

have heard this morning. Suicides and homicides are obviously irreversible.

In adolescents, psychiatric effects of illicit steroid use are not

well studied, but this age group may be particularly vulnerable.

Adolescents are already subject to the normal surges of sex hormones during puberty, which are associated with expected, albeit

sometimes problematic changes in mood and behavior, which everyone who has a teenage child at home knows. Thus, taking additional sex hormones in the form of steroids could potentially exacerbate the usual degree of psychological upset normally observed

during adolescence.

Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people

aged 15 to 24 years of age, following unintentional injures and

homicide. This statistic is especially troubling, because steroids can

increase suicide risk in an age group that is already at risk.

The true rate of adverse psychiatric effects amongst steroid users

is unknown. One controlled study of 160 athletes reported that 11

percent were diagnosed with major depression, and that the psychiatric effects were dose related. The higher the dose the greater

the risk.

Another study found that 3.9 percent of 77 illicit steroid users

had made suicide attempts during the withdrawal period. Rates of

completed suicides, however, are especially hard to estimate. In a

series of 34 forensically evaluated deaths among male steroid

users, 11 users committed suicide, 9 were victims of homicide, 12

deaths were judged as accidental and two were indeterminate.

The gold standard of drug studies is the placebo control double

blind randomized trial. There are at least four such studies that

employed relatively high doses of steroids in human subjects. AverVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
146

aging across studies, the incidents of prominent irritability or

hypomania was 5 percent. Another study found that during steroid

withdrawal, 10 percent developed significant depressive symptoms,

including 3.2 percent, who met full criteria for major depression.

These gold standard studies, however, are likely to underestimate psychiatric effects, illicit steroid users as you have been told

typically consume 10 to 100 times a therapeutic dose. By contrast,

the maximum doses that can be ethically prescribed in the gold

standard studies are zero to 6 times a therapeutic dose, or up to

20 times less than active illicit users take.

At least 165 cases of addiction or dependence on steroids have

been documented in the medical literature. In individuals who

chronically consumed high doses and combinations of steroids

taken as pills or injections for nonmedical purposes. No cases of dependence have been associated with legitimate prescriptions of

steroids used as therapeutic doses for medical purposes.

How teenagers and student athletes regard the use of steroids by

professional athletes has not been investigated. However, studies of

other drugs suggest the following. First, the adolescent’s peer group

is probably a more important influence than adults. Although adult

role models can be important.

Second, adolescents’ use of a drug is influenced by the perception

of how harmful that drug is. In other words, the more harmful they

perceive a drug, the less likely they will take it, and unfortunately,

use of steroids by famous athletes who appear so well in the media

probably contribute to the perception that steroids are not harmful.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Brower follows:]

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

Mr. SOUDER. Last witness on this panel is Dr. Elliott Pellman,

the medical advisor to Major League Baseball.

STATEMENT OF ELLIOTT PELLMAN, M.D.

Dr. PELLMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin

by thanking the committee for the opportunity to be present this

morning. Unlike some other medical professionals that you have

heard from today, I have had extensive experience in the area of

professional sports. This morning I would like to offer you three

important medical perspectives that are relevant to the development or evaluation of any steroid policy.

I would also like to discuss the medical and educational efforts

that form a key component of Major League Baseball steroid policies.

Although there is understandably a serious lack of studies in this

area, my personal belief is that anabolic steroid use has significant

associated health risks.

Most physicians agree that steroid abuse can increase the risk of

heart disease, certain types of cancer, sterility and can lead to depression and aggressive, and at times, inappropriate behavior.

More importantly, in professional sports, anabolic steroids can

create a working environment that is unfair and unbalanced. Those

who use steroids have a competitive advantage, and others may

feel forced to take steroids to even the playing field. When one fully

appreciates this perspective, it becomes clear that steroid use is

like an insidious, contagious disease. In structuring programs to

deal with steroids, it is to approach steroids like the disease it is.

Second, the complexity of the steroid problem in professional

sports in America has been significantly increased by the Federal

Government’s deregulation of nutritional supplements and

prohormones in the 1990’s. Despite recent changes in the law,

there is an entire generation that has been potentially contaminated by the belief that the uses of such substances is in fact legitimate. In creating an effective drug program, one must take into account the reality of the damage that has been caused by the deregulation of nutritional supplements.

Last, in evaluating the severity of penalties imposed under any

program, an element of reality is necessary. My experience in the

National Football League suggests that other than deliberate

cheating, the most common reason for a positive test is the ingestion of a dietary supplement that is contaminated with a banned

substance that is not listed on the label. When one begins talking

about 2-year suspensions or lifetime bans for professional athletes,

it is important to remember that, while athletes must be forced to

take responsibility for what they put in their bodies, honest mistakes do occur. Commissioner Selig has described in some detail for

all of you the substance of the Major League Baseball’s new drug

testing program. I am also very familiar with the National Football

League’s program. On balance, the baseball program compares favorably with any of the other professional sports leagues, including

the NHL, NBA and the PGA. Above a certain critical threshold of

testing, there will always be individuals, whether or not baseball,

NFL, NCAA and the Olympics, who will try to circumvent or cheat

the testing program. This point is perhaps illustrated by the alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
161

leged use of athletes of several different sports of THG, the designer steroid that is the center of the BALCO investigation.

Therefore, the intent of a testing program must be to try to create an environment that is conducive for athletes to perform without feeling the need to cheat by taking steroids. But the program

must be flexible and innovative enough to change as the type of

drugs change. I am comfortable that the baseball program like the

NFL’s meets this goal. Our efforts with respect to steroids, however, are much broader than just drug testing and discipline. Last

year, the Major League Baseball’s medical staff visited in person

all 30 Major League camps to provide players and baseball operations personnel an educational program on the health risks associated with the use of steroids. Participation in this program was

mandatory, and we have followed up last year’s program with individual calls or visits to, presently, approximately two-thirds of the

teams. Major League Baseball continues to believe that the issue

of steroids also must be addressed from the bottom up. As you

know, Commissioner Selig implemented a very aggressive Minor

League drug testing program in 2001. That program has continually been refined and strengthened. As a supplement to the testing program, we have produced a professional quality video in

English and Spanish which details the health risks and problems

associated with steroid use. Minor League programs must view this

video every year. We significantly enhanced this educational video

this off-season, and the new video has been or will be shown in

every Minor League camp this spring.

We have also made resources available to players that can be utilized on an individual basis. For example, we have entered into a

contractual relationship with a hotline that is available to provide

players with information about what substances are included in

particular dietary supplements. We have strengthened and educated the employee assistance provider’s program at each individual club, so they are in a position to deal effectively with steroidrelated issues associated with the Major League and Minor League

players. We have also used the medical staffs on the individual

teams as a resource in combating steroid use. Each of the last 2

years, we have had mandatory meetings for physicians and athletic

trainers to educate and instruct them on the dangers of steroid use

and to review with them the uncertainties associated with players

using dietary supplements. A major component of that program is

to emphasize to all club personnel the serious disciplinary ramifications they face in the event they enable use by any player Major

League or Minor League. Our educational efforts have extended to

the highest levels of management in the game.

Over the last 2 years, I have addressed the assembly of all general managers on two separate occasions on the issue of steroids

and performance-enhancing substances. I have also had the opportunity to discuss steroid performance-enhancing substances at two

separate owners meetings as well. My strong sense is that at all

levels of management in baseball are committed to the elimination

of these substances. In this regard, there is no difference between

the leadership in the Commissioner’s Office, between Major League

Baseball and the National Football League. Looking ahead, Major

League Baseball is committed to making every effort to eliminate

162

the use of performance-enhancing agent substances from this sport.

We are working to establish a program that will provide nutritional

products to players that can be used without concern about potential contamination of prohormones. We are working closely with the

World Anti-Doping Agency certified laboratory, UCLA, to make

sure that baseball is completely abreast of developments in the

area of designer steroids.

Finally, Major League Baseball is currently in the process of developing a funding arrangement that will hopefully speed the development of a urine test for human growth hormones.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Pellman follows:]

163

164

165

166

167

168

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I want to thank all of our witnesses here.

I am going to start the questions with Mr. Sweeney.

Mr. SWEENEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know we have

other panels that are of greater celebrity than maybe this panel is,

but I happen to think this is the most important panel we are

going to face today. It starts with the notion and the idea and our

deepest gratitude to the Garibaldis and Mr. Hooton for your courage in being here and for your commitment to keep fighting, and

please know that you have our sympathies and our best wishes. I

have so many questions to ask in such little time, and I want to

get to them as quickly as I can.

Mr. Hooton, I have a bill in Approps to create such an education

program. And I would like to work with all of you on the panel to

try to get it more perfected as we get forward. I want to get to the

scientists, though, because I think it is important.

Dr. Wadler, you are not a member of USADA.

Dr. WADLER. I’m not a member and have no vested interest at

all.

Mr. SWEENEY. You mentioned that Major League Baseball does

use your labs?

Dr. WADLER. My understanding is that they have used the Montreal lab.

Mr. SWEENEY. And you mentioned that, in your testimony, that

you hope that they will adopt your list of prohibitive substances.

That’s not the case now; is that correct?

Dr. WADLER. That’s correct.

Mr. SWEENEY. You have the capacity to test for those in your

labs now?

Dr. WADLER. Yes, we do.

Mr. SWEENEY. I want to make this point to you, that lab testing

is only the final test in this process.

Dr. WADLER. That’s correct.

Mr. SWEENEY. In the current Major League Baseball agreement

or whatever the status of it is, because I’m confused as to whether

it’s in play or not in play at this point, there’s no process in place

other than the lab testing. In other words, the chain of custody

that is critically important here, the monitoring of athletes during

testing, during the entire test and the amount of tests and the randomness of those tests are sketchy. And I have other questions that

Dr. Pellman can answer.

Dr. WADLER. I did not mention, because of time, there are a series of international standards which are highly complex documents. The one on testing, which I’m glad to make it available to

you, is 41 pages of highly detailed information of utmost importance. Remember that these cases tend to be adjudicated, and

issues of a legal nature are incredibly important. So the standard

is spelled out and used worldwide.

Mr. SWEENEY. Does it make any sense not to employ a group like

USADA to oversee that chain of custody and the process to you?

Dr. WADLER. I personally believe there is no reason why this

should not be done by an agency.

Mr. SWEENEY. Dr. Pellman, I’m intrigued by your testimony and

hope that, when we’re done, that we can talk about some things.

I’m intrigued by the notion or your assertion that there is a lack

169

of studies in the area, and maybe you could clarify that because I

think Dr. Brower has an issue with that. I’m going to let you clarify first, and then I’m going to ask Dr. Brower if he would agree

with you.

Dr. PELLMAN. First, talking as a physician and a scientist, it is

very difficult to do studies on anabolic steroids. In terms, if you go

and look at publications on anabolic steroids, when we talk about

the risk of cancer or liver disease or heart disease, it is very hard

to do analysis on those patients, because how, in fact, do you give

them anabolic steroids and study them and test them the way most

validated scientific studies are done?

Mr. SWEENEY. You don’t refute the notion that anabolic steroids

need to be banned in baseball and need to be banned in general

society. You are not casting aspersions on the idea that this is a

substance that is no worse than anything else out there; are you?

Dr. PELLMAN. Quite the opposite. Despite the fact that there are

no strong scientific studies that support those conclusions, I, in

fact, absolutely concur regarding the potential health risks and the

fact that it should be banned.

Mr. SWEENEY. You make reference in your testimony to THG.

You know, we banned that last year along with precursors like

andro. I need to mention to the parents, I don’t have your experience, but I got in this business because my teenage son wanted to

take andro because he heard Mark McGwire took andro. I happen

to have access to some scientists who believe there is emphatic

data out there, and that is how I got started out there, and I was

lucky. You make reference to THG, the designer steroid that is the

center of the BALCO investigation. Several baseball players may

have used THG for years before its detection by authorities was

really even capable. And its addition to the list of Federal controlled substances was perfected as of last year. Under the new policy, does baseball currently list designer steroids like THG and the

precursors like andro?

Dr. PELLMAN. First, the answer is in terms of precursors, absolutely, yes. And I will get to THG in one moment, but in fact, I

would like to ask a question as well. What is interesting to us and

in fact I suspect the other physicians on this panel as well is why

not all precursors were banned. Why was DHEA not banned, in

fact, when the new laws were passed? I have very strong feelings

about that and in fact spoke to one of the Senators regarding this,

a key Member.

Mr. SWEENEY. I don’t want to filibuster, but it’s a good point, and

I agree with you on that issue.

Dr. PELLMAN. When we talk about prohormones and talk about

the exclusion of prohormones, DHEA was excluded. But, yes,

prohormones are covered. And regarding THG, yes, designer

steroids are covered. It is impossible to list steroids that you can’t

identify, but the intention—and I suspect that Rob Manfred will

address this later on—was in fact THG was added on and the intention was that any designer steroid that is identified will be

added on to that list.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the

Garibaldis and Mr. Hooton, thank you very much for being here.

170

I know it is painful for you to have to relive the experience, but

it is a powerful message for everyone to get.

Dr. Wadler, I want to ask you, because you are a world expert

in the use and detection of performance-enhancing drugs, you have

a senior advisory position with the World Anti-Doping Agency, and

that oversees the Olympic testing and is considered the international gold standard in preserving integrity in sports. You have

had a chance to look at the Major League Baseball’s new 2005 drug

testing policy?

Dr. WADLER. I have had a chance to look it over, but not study

in detail. I’m not paid by the World Anti-Doping Agency by the

way. I’m a volunteer.

Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to run down a few key provisions of

baseball’s policy and ask for your professional opinion. Does the

policy cover all anabolic steroids?

Dr. WADLER. No.

Mr. WAXMAN. Does the policy address the misuse of human

growth hormone?

Dr. WADLER. Inadequate in terms of testing.

Mr. WAXMAN. Does the policy cover other important performanceenhancing drugs that have similar effects as anabolic steroids and

human growth hormone?

Dr. WADLER. They do not for IDF1, insulin, and there is a number of them that do not.

Mr. WAXMAN. Does the policy cover stimulants?

Dr. WADLER. Except for ephedra, I believe it does not deal with

the broad category of stimulants, including amphetamines.

Mr. WAXMAN. Does the policy ensure integrity in the testing

process?

Dr. WADLER. There are significant loopholes in the program as

outlined.

Mr. WAXMAN. Does the policy permit new types of substances to

be tested as new problems are identified?

Dr. WADLER. It’s not quite clear, as it winds its way onto the list.

I am not certain.

Mr. WAXMAN. Does the policy adequately inform athletes what

are banned substances and masking agents?

Dr. WADLER. They don’t test for masking agents, by the way, and

they don’t test for diuretics, which are critical in detecting abuse.

I’m not sure how much of the educational part of the program deals

with it.

Mr. WAXMAN. Does the policy contain adequate penalties?

Dr. WADLER. Categorically, in my view, not.

Mr. WAXMAN. Will this new policy remove the cloud that has

been hanging over baseball?

Dr. WADLER. Unfortunately, it creates the cloud.

Mr. WAXMAN. Dr. Wadler, Dr. Pellman just made the statement

that I thought was really quite interesting, and if it’s true, that is

a number of legal dietary supplements are laced with banned substances which is not known to the player and would come up with

false positives. Has this been a problem in the Olympics or in other

testing programs?

Dr. WADLER. Yes. He is absolutely correct about that. That was

a major issue for several years around the world. Very large perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
171

centage of positive tests were related to the ingestion of the socalled precursors, andro-type drugs. A lot of adjudication around

that. The United States was seen as somebody who actually facilitated that with respect to around the world and happy to see the

loophole has been closed, but it did account for a lot of positive

tests, and the adjudication took that into account.

Mr. WAXMAN. You disagree with Dr. Pellman when he claims

this is a problem in the testing.

Dr. WADLER. I think it was a problem, but I don’t think it’s a

problem anymore.

Dr. PELLMAN. May I respond to some of the comments that Dr.

Wadler just said, including the fact that my suggestion is, before

you comment on something for the record, that you do more than

glance at it but that you study it?

Mr. WAXMAN. Dr. Pellman, I only have a few minutes, and if you

want to respond to that last point on testing because he challenged

your statement.

Dr. PELLMAN. I am getting there. Substances like diuretics are

tested for, like masking agents are tested for. The letter that I saw

from this body, four steroids were listed as being out of the list in

which that will be disputed later on.

Mr. WAXMAN. My staff has had a chance to review National

Baseball League’s policy and there is no list of specific masking

agents or diuretics in this policy contrary to the public assurances

of Major League Baseball. It is not in the documents that were submitted to us. I want to ask Dr. Wadler because I only have a few

seconds. You suggested that the Olympic testing program is the

right way to approach, which happens every 4 years, and it’s the

wrong approach to sports like baseball with long seasons. Can you

give us some examples of other sports that have adopted the Olympic testing program, and could the standard be applied to baseball

and other sports at different levels?

Dr. WADLER. Professional tennis. I adjudicated a case yesterday

morning on a professional tennis player. May not be as big in this

country as in other parts of the world, but professional soccer, huge

money sport is signatory to the world anti-doping code as is cycling,

which is a huge money sport. Rugby. But there are at least four

professional sports around the world which are not in the Olympic

movement which are using this as their standard.

Mr. WAXMAN. Could it apply to baseball?

Dr. WADLER. Could it apply to baseball? Absolutely. Absolutely.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mrs. Miller.

Mrs. MILLER. I want to agree with my colleague, Mr. Sweeney,

when he said this is the most powerful panel we are going to hear

from today, and I say that because, personally, I wasn’t quite certain this was something Congress should be getting involved in. I

wasn’t quite sure. In fact, I want to read you one quick thing. This

is today’s Detroit News, my big paper in my area. In my district,

I had a lot of people calling and saying, ‘‘What are you doing?’’ This

is what the Detroit News opined today. They said: Congress strikes

out with steroid hearings. A Federal jury has already exposed the

problems, and the teen use of performance-enhancing drugs is deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
172

clining. That is what my Detroit News is saying. And I read that

this morning and thought, I don’t know about this hearing.

But I’m going to tell you, after listening to you parents, in particular—and my heart goes out to you—I am convinced we are

doing the right thing, and I applaud the chairman and ranking

member for calling this hearing. I intend to write an editorial to

the Detroit News. And I may lift some of your statements if you

don’t mind, because it was very powerful.

And Mr. Hooton in particular, when you said that your son’s

coach said to your son that he needed to get bigger, he essentially

told your son—I don’t want to put words in the coach’s mouth, but

what was he implying to your son? He was implying to your son,

essentially, that Taylor should be using steroids. To the Garibaldis

as well, so sorry for the loss of your son. But you said in your testimony, he was advised to obtain steroids. I am wondering who actually advised him to do so? Was it a coach? Was it a scout? This is

amazing to me listening to that.

Mrs. GARIBALDI. That statement comes from Rob himself. When

we were trying to figure out what was going on with his steroid

use, he said he was advised and it actually had been obtained for

him at the University of Southern California. He did not name

names. However, since he has passed away, we have learned that

his initial course of steroids he did on his own going across to Tijuana. We have no facts if the University of Southern California

was involved. What we are concerned about is that we believe they

are still implicated because Rob was ill, showed symptoms for

months, and nothing was done. It took a mother from his roommate to call us and say something is terribly wrong, and you have

to get down here. So the coach’s staff at USC did nothing to help

us.

Mrs. MILLER. Did USC have a program set up to test?

Mrs. GARIBALDI. It is set up, but only during the season. Rob

began suffering the withdrawals during the season and had taken

the steroids in the fall.

Mr. HOOTON. In our case, first of all, it was Taylor with his psychiatrist that told his psychiatrist that the reason he got started

was because of the advice the coach had given him to get bigger.

In this particular case, I don’t make any inference, because I don’t

know that the coach had steroids in mind. Rather, what I would

like us to learn from this, the reason that I think our coaches need

to be trained and certified, because this particular coach hasn’t

been trained in how to show this kid get on a diet or exercise program to show him how to gain 20 pounds. And you turn a 16-yearold kid loose with an objective of trying to gain 20 pounds when

he has half of his teammates doing steroids, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what path he is going to take. But this is going

on with coaches around the country. They need to be trained, but

they need to be held accountable to see that this doesn’t happen.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. First of all, I want to thank the Garibaldis and

Mr. Hooton, I thank you for being here. As a father, I can truly

relate to how you must feel, and I can only say that, hopefully—

and first of all, I thank you for taking your pain and trying to turn

it into something positive so somebody else might be helped and

173

other young people might not go through what your sons have gone

through. And I am just wondering, what it is that you would like

for baseball players to do to help get the word out, in other words,

to help as opposed to hurting the process?

Mr. HOOTON. Well, we have an organization that was formed to

tackle this. The Garibaldis are involved. And it would be wonderful

if coming out of these hearings, after the dust settles, if we haven’t

made them so mad that they won’t talk to us again, they would get

behind an organization like ours or the programs that we are working on and become a part of actively solving this problem with the

kids, not just doing training in the locker rooms of Major League

Baseball, but doing training in the locker rooms in our high schools

across the country, with the big league players with the big names

standing there helping us deliver that message.

Mr. GARIBALDI. It’s not only the players. Major League Baseball

scouts have a big influence on the young kids of this country. Their

network of scouts evaluates every kid playing baseball in high

school in this country. Their stats, everything, all their statistics

are all there. This is where it starts. Major League Baseball in

1988, the average-sized player was 188 pounds. Today, it is 220

pounds. The scouts indirectly talk to every high school coach, college coach and get the point across so a kid who is a prospect, exactly what they need to do to meet the profile that they desire. So

they have an influence on our high school kids from the time they

are 14, 15 years old. And what they say and how they deal with

it is a problem.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you.

Dr. Wadler, let me ask you this. You said that there were loopholes in the policy as you know it, the National Baseball League’s

policy. Let me ask you this. If a player cannot urinate an adequate

amount, there is a rule, apparently, that says if an inadequate

amount of urine is collected, less than 75 milliliters, to discard the

specimen in the player’s presence; instruct the player that he

should return in an hour to attempt another collection. Do you see

that as a problem?

Dr. WADLER. The player has to be escorted from the moment

they are notified. They can never be left and must be chaperoned

until an adequate specimen is supplied so they can be certified by

the players’ union and there was no opportunity for tampering.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Coming back in an hour, there is a problem that

happens there. In other words, if they come back, you are saying

there can be—in other words, the body is still the same; is it not?

Dr. WADLER. I don’t want to get graphic, but there are a number

of things that athletes have been known to do to deceive the collection of urine. You don’t want to leave them alone unattended until

you have that specimen, from the moment they are notified until

you have it sealed.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Would you consider that a major loophole?

Dr. WADLER. I consider it a loophole.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Dr. Pellman, you are the medical adviser to the

commissioner. Can you say why that is allowed?

Dr. PELLMAN. No, I cannot, but I agree with Dr. Wadler that person should be observed for that hour.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Were you aware of that policy?

174

Dr. PELLMAN. In terms of that component, no.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You are the advisor on these kinds of issues, and

you didn’t even know that a person could walk away and not be

observed—is that what you are telling me—for a test?

Dr. PELLMAN. Well, the answer to that, Congressman, is yes, but

on the other hand, I would tell you that in terms of the development of this program, which was brand new, if that’s the worst of

my problems as we move forward and make changes, I would say

we have done a pretty good job; that if you tell me in fact that is

the loophole there that stands alone, I will make sure that gets

changed.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You are telling me today that you are going to

go back to baseball and say, make sure you do this, as their advisor?

Dr. PELLMAN. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Westmoreland.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the Garibaldis, Mr. Hooton

and the Marreros, and for your losses.

My first question is for Dr. Pellman. Dr. Pellman, you are the advisor to the commissioner of Major League Baseball; is that correct?

Dr. PELLMAN. Yes, I am.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. If he had asked you what the result of steroid use was, would you have answered him that there was a serious lack of scientific studies as to what it did?

Dr. PELLMAN. First, I think we need to separate that out between

what I am and have published and do publish. When I say things

that are for the record, that is for the record. So therefore, my response to that is, I would have told the commissioner that there

are severe medical consequences from taking anabolic steroids.

However, do I have the literature that can be pulled to make my

case in front of other scientists in terms of certain health risks that

we assume? The answer is no.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Would your answer have been to him that

there are no serious studies as to what the effects of the use of

steroids are?

Dr. PELLMAN. Again, it depends upon how you define studies. In

terms of when we talk about doing perspective analysis and we

talk about doing trial studies on drugs, we take two groups of patients. We take patients and put them on a drug. We took patients

that we presume they are on the drug and may not be, and then

we put them on something else, and then we follow that. You cannot do that humanistically when it comes to anabolic steroids. The

data we look at is called retrospective. We pull data out, for example, with East German swimmers and others who have allegedly

taken steroids. But the consensus, again, is that, and my opinion

strongly stated, is that anabolic steroids are unequivocally

unhealthy for you and can lead to severe consequences, including

death.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. You didn’t get that from reading studies

about it?

Dr. PELLMAN. It depends, again, in terms of defining studies.

There are studies out there.

175

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Let’s go to the next question. You also say

that the most common reason for a positive test is the contamination.

Dr. PELLMAN. I say that, in my experience, in the National Football League, one of the more common—besides taking it and cheating it—the most common reason for being tested positive for anabolic steroids is, in fact, at least allegedly taking a dietary supplement that contains a banned substance.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I could be taking a dietary supplement

right now and be taking some controlled substance?

Dr. PELLMAN. In fact, there is no doubt about it. That is one of

the travesties of the dietary supplement industry right now.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Could it be caused from carrying them in

the same bottle?

Dr. PELLMAN. It could be, but it also could be that it’s contaminated. And if you take a dietary supplement that does not contain

a bad substance, it won’t do anything for you; therefore, it increases their own marketing.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. If the commissioner asked you about the

penalties imposed, just getting your expert opinion you would have

said that, from your experience with the NFL, that this contamination, unknowing to this athlete, caused most of the positive drug

testing.

Dr. PELLMAN. Could cause some of, if not many, of the positive

drug tests.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Dr. Brower, could I ask you a question? You

know, lately, in sports, we have seen basketball teams run into the

stands. We have seen baseball players go over bleachers and dugouts to get to fans. Could this be a sign of some type of steroid use?

Not accusing anybody. But is this the typical behavior? Because it

seems that more and more of this is happening in sports today that

we witness. And I know there is a lot of pressure from being a professional athlete, but could steroid use help this along?

Dr. BROWER. I am not in a position to say whether any player

has used or not. I have not examined these players, and I haven’t

seen their urine tests. It is also the case that these professional

sports are going to attract athletes who are competitive and have

to be aggressive in order to be successful at their sport. Steroids

may be involved, but I cannot say for sure.

Dr. VOLKOW. Could I interject, because I wanted to take a pointer? Effectively, we cannot do studies where we can give steroids to

a normal controlled population and compare it with those that

don’t get it. What we can do is test on laboratory animals. And

what these tests have shown is that steroids do affect a wide variety of parameters that include your own physiology as well as behavior. And there is clear evidence, and there are multiple studies

in animals showing that, if you give them these anabolic steroids,

animals are more aggressive.

Mr. ISSA [presiding]. Gentleman’s time has expired. Because

there are no Democrats presently here, we will go to the Republican side and make it up when they come back.

The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder.

176

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much. I don’t think there could be

anybody who heard the testimony of the Garibaldis or the Hootons

and not be moved.

And I particularly wanted to ask Mr. Hooton, if the baseball

stars had spoken out against steroids and performance-enhancing

drugs, do you think your son Taylor might be alive today?

Mr. HOOTON. Yes, I do.

Mr. SOUDER. If you thought that Rob might be alive today also?

Mr. GARIBALDI. Without a doubt. Absolutely.

Mr. SOUDER. They were their heroes?

Mr. GARIBALDI. So much so that he would videotape his heroes

and breakdown frame by frame and try to emulate their swing, and

he was a student of the game.

Mr. SOUDER. This is so different than the other drugs we deal

with where, many times, the drug dealers and the pushers are not

heroes, and it is a different set of problems. But professional baseball has a whole different set of responsibilities because it is different than heroin and cocaine.

I wanted to ask Dr. Volkow, and I want to thank you for coming

in front of our committee. You just gave some additional testimony

on what we can know from at least laboratory animals, and it is

hard to get human tests. One of the things in baseball is not the

strength and aggression, but do you believe—any tests that have

occurred—that it would impact hand-eye coordination because that

would be very critical as far as how it impacts the game?

Dr. VOLKOW. My knowledge, in other words, specific study that

has evaluated the effects of anabolic steroids on eye-motor coordination—I am aware of studies that have evaluated the effects of

these anabolic steroids on performance but not specifically on coordination. Most of the studies have evaluated their effects on

strength and endurance.

Mr. SOUDER. If it increased your aggression or your heart rate,

would that impact, potentially, motor skills and how quick you

could react as well as how powerful you would react?

Dr. VOLKOW. What we do know, for example, is that aggression

is related to the activation of an area of the amygdala. And when

the amygdala gets activated, the frontal cortex gets deactivated,

and I say to my staff, do not comment if you are angry because

your cognitive abilities are not going to be as sharp. So if you are

very, very angry, your ability to do the right thing and make proper decisions is going to be markedly, markedly impaired.

Mr. SOUDER. But not necessarily on a baseball that is coming at

you. The increased aggression and increased enhanced hyperactivity might in fact, short-term, result in you being able to hit the ball

harder or quicker?

Dr. VOLKOW. The extent to which you can disassociate the effects

of steroid performance in baseball where many of the issues are

very controlled as opposed to outside where you don’t know if a car

is going to hit you is very different. In the baseball field, to my

knowledge, there is—and this is clearly not scientific because, there

are no scientific studies done on a game; there is no evidence in

my view of the performance of the player itself in the game.

177

Mr. SOUDER. Dr. Brower, you made some references on medical

things. Do you know of anything that might suggest that or whether it might impact that ability?

Dr. BROWER. What I can say is that steroids do work otherwise

athletes wouldn’t take them. There are studies not looking at specific coordination issues, but there are studies looking at development of muscle mass and muscle strength and those studies are

fairly conclusive that anabolic steroids can increase muscle mass

and muscle strength. Is that going to be an advantage to every athlete? Maybe not. But to many athletes, it will. Steroids will not

turn me into a baseball player. But if I was a baseball player, they

could give me an edge.

Mr. SOUDER. Our fastest growing and most difficult law enforcement problem in the United States is meth. And we have many

proposals both here in Congress and at different State levels to regulate pseudoephedrine, which is the manufactured form of ephedra.

Can you talk about what similarities ephedra would have to

pseudoephedrine which is the key for meth?

Dr. VOLKOW. The question relates to stimulant drugs. All of

these drugs share a similar psychological effect, and they increase

the concentration of a chemical, called dopamine, that allows you

to perform motor speed much faster. It also gives you a sense of

energy. They vary in terms of their potency, so some of these drugs

are more potent. Among the most potent is methamphetamine, and

that is why it results in such a severe addiction.

Mr. SOUDER. It’s rather problematic when we are trying to send

a message about crystal meth around the United States when

Major League Baseball wouldn’t even address ephedra which has

now been illegal for several years.

Dr. VOLKOW. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Even if it is a lighter dose. Methamphetamine, crystal methamphetamine can come in heavier or lighter doses.

Ephedra would be in effect very similar to a lighter impact of

pseudoephedrine, which is the key part of crystal meth.

Dr. VOLKOW. Correct. It is not the right message that one drug

is bad and the other one is acceptable. And I think that is one of

the reasons why we lose so much credibility in our education prevention campaigns.

At the same time, we need to recognize that not all of the drugs

are the same and that some are more dangerous. Definitely amphetamines are drugs that are dangerous and definitely produce

addiction, no question about it. Should we be sending the message

ephedra versus pseudoephedrine is OK? No, we shouldn’t.

Mr. ISSA. Gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Marchant for 5 minutes.

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hooton, I think most of my comments and my questions will

be directed to you. I’m a neighbor; I live in Copper Hill. So let me

say, first of all, I’m sorry for your tragedy and appreciate all of

your efforts today appearing before this panel. As you have been

reading in the newspaper in our area in the last 2 or 3 months,

the district that I represent is Copper Hill. We probably have several dozen professional athletes that live in our communities that

play for the Rangers, the Stars, the Mavericks, and the Cowboys

178

practice there in Irving. So these professional athletes are very,

very important people in our community, and they are very involved in our community.

But the message that I’m most concerned about today is the message that Major League Baseball is sending to the student athletes

in my district. We are the home of South Lake, the best high school

football team in America it is said and that we are seeing a disturbing trend in our high schools where steroids are not only being

used but, I think, are being encouraged to be used both among the

athletes themselves and, I believe from some of the comments that

we have read in the newspaper, from even the parents. What do

you think Major League Baseball could do? What kind of practical

things do you think Major League Baseball could do to begin to

communicate directly to those student athletes?

Mr. HOOTON. Two things. One is the message I delivered today,

which is taking serious steps to clean up their act to make sure it’s

not just training and all of the good words, that we implement

meaningful programs.

As far as the kids go, the horse is already out of the barn, and

we have to figure out how to get them back in there. I think a

great role that Major League Baseball could play and the Trainers’

Association and the other significant players within the league

could come with us or by themselves, however we implement the

program, to go into the schools with us to deliver the message to

the coaches but, most importantly, to the kids that this stuff is not

acceptable and that it’s not being tolerated and they are trying to

turn this thing around. As a parent——

Mr. MARCHANT. What would you say to parents who are out

there, who are listening today and beginning to wonder whether

their student athlete is involved in this? What kind of questions

would you say to a parent you can ask and what are some of the

signs that my parents that I represent——

Mr. HOOTON. Outstanding question, No. 1, recognize the use of

this stuff is as high as it is and don’t assume that your son or

daughter—we haven’t talked about the girls in here—that your son

or daughter is somehow immune from being in this thing.

Second, you need to read for yourself what the signs are of steroid abuse. Hindsight is 20/20. In hindsight, all of the signs that

would have told us that Taylor was doing steroids were right in

front of us. He put on about 30 pounds of weight in his upper body.

He had acne on his back; puffy face; puffy neck; oily skin. He was

going through what seemed to be gallons of mouthwash. Bad

breath is another sign. He was beginning to grow nipples. Boys on

steroids begin to grow breasts. Taking any of those individually

and you combine them with aggressive behavior of the type that

the Garibaldis experienced and we experienced, the Marreros, you

have a steroid user in your house. And all of the signs were right

there in front of us, but parents across America like us have no

idea what we are looking at, and it’s right there in our face.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Kenny Marchant follows:]

179

180

181

182

Mr. ISSA. Now my privilege to introduce the Member from California, Mr. Lantos for 5 minutes.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first say, my

heart goes out to the parents. As a grandparent of 17, I know exactly of your loss. We are deeply grateful for your presence. I would

like to step back for a moment from baseball to put this hearing

into broader perspective, because in many ways, what we are dealing with is the problem of a society that provides mind-boggling opportunities to some individuals with obscenely excessive rewards.

And these individuals, whether they are corporate crooks, CEOs

who eventually go to prison, domestic divas like Martha Stewart,

who spent some time behind bars, or people viewed as role models

considering themselves somehow not bound by the laws of society

that apply to the rest of us.

And in many ways, this hearing is also reminiscent of the tobacco hearings we held in this body, very profitable industry which

has grown very arrogant and is unprepared to play by the rules.

The first inkling we got is that we had no authority, no jurisdiction

to deal with this issue. Well, baseball is not on the moon. It is subject to the oversight authority of the Congress. Second, I think it

is sort of intriguing listening to our physicians and scientists that,

unless one is unbelievably naive, it is self-evident that baseball’s

new policy is designed to silence the critics and not to solve the

problem.

I found your testimony, Dr. Pellman, unpersuasive, and you underrate the intelligence of this panel in presenting the arguments

you have, shifting the blame to other entities; the Federal Government, other sports are more guilty than we are. That simply will

not wash.

What I would like to ask, Dr. Wadler, and I was very much impressed by your testimony, sir, is there any earthly reason why, in

the face of tragedy such as the ones presented here today and untold numbers of others, we should not have penalties which, in fact,

work? Our distinguished colleague, the first witness, former baseball star, said the industry is taking baby steps when young men

are dying and tens of thousands of children or hundreds of thousands are involved; baby steps are not enough. We need to have,

since self-regulation palpably has not worked, we need to have provisions enacted into law that will work. And while we have had

some discussion of the Olympic rules, I would be grateful if you

would comment on the applicability of the Olympic rules with proper changes for baseball.

Dr. WADLER. There are a number of issues at hand here. We

haven’t talked about governance, for example, and having conflicts

of interest. What we need is an independent transparent accountable system. What you are referring to is the Olympic movement

code that is no longer the Olympic movement code but the world

code. The United States is part of that and is taking a leadership

position in it. That applicability is not only to Olympic sports, but

to sports worldwide. It is the gold standard. It takes no bias whatsoever. It is absolutely incomprehensible that code should not be

adopted with slight modifications perhaps in its entirety by all

sports. This is an incredibly complex business, its physiology, its

chemistry, therapeutics, psychiatry, law, ethics, education and so

183

on. And the budget alone of the World Anti-Doping Agency is $20

million a year. To think that HPAC, Health Policy Advisory Committee, a body of four, can substitute for the collective wisdom of

the world makes no sense to me. So I think it’s time to move forward. And as I suggested in my remarks, my biggest concern of

baseball is the sanctions, because of the mandatory 2-year sanctions under the code. I understand that. But, clearly, even the National Football League comes close to that code and they have at

least some teeth in their sanctions. Four games suspension, a quarter of a season. But the bottom line is all sports should get out of

the drug business. They should leave it to the people who are experts in the drug business and go on about running their sports.

This has gotten far too complicated and far too expensive for them

to deal with it on their own. The day has come to move this agenda

forward to say that all sports should adopt that and use that as

their gold standard, and sports should get out of the drug business

period.

Chairman TOM DAVIS [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Lantos. Mr.

Kanjorski, 5 minutes.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I was struck today by the testimony I think we

all concede that the use of steroids are extremely disadvantaged

personally in certainly the tragedies we heard. But I am awfully

struck by the fact—and maybe I am unfamiliar with the question;

who manufactures these steroids? Who profits from them? Is that

the driving motivation or is it something else? Is it attainment in

success which, obviously, for professional sports, that is there. Does

any member of the panel know they are manufactured in the

United States? Are they manufactured in garages or manufactured

in sophisticated laboratories?

Mr. HOOTON. In working very closely over time with the Drug

Enforcement Administration, several of the agents have told me

that the stuff that the kids are buying, that is another whole subject. The stuff that kids are buying is different than what the professional athletes are taking. Steroids are not the same. The stuff

that is coming in illegally is in excess—80 percent is coming across

the border from Mexico. From a quality standpoint, at best, this

stuff is veterinary grade. What our kids are getting was designed

at best for use in horses and pigs and cattle. That’s what our kids

are taking, not the stuff the big boys are taking.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Where are the big boys getting theirs?

Mr. HOOTON. I don’t know.

Dr. WADLER. I think it’s important to understand on another

level, this is about drug dealing. It is another mote pervasive form

of drug dealing. It is a different cache than cocaine, marijuana and

heroin. Some of it is diverted from legitimate sources. Some of it

is clandestinely manufactured. Some of is comes across the border

or through the Internet.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Let me ask this question. What volume of the

production of steroids are for illegal or improper use? Do you have

any studies on that?

Dr. WADLER. I missed your question, sir.

Mr. KANJORSKI. What percentage of the production of steroids

are being used illegally, improperly? In other words, do we have a

large volume? The question I’m asking is why can’t we look at the

184

inventory of production and realize that people that are making

these things know they are going for illicit purposes?

Dr. WADLER. I can only answer in general terms but, there is no

question that the illegitimate use of these substances has dropped

dramatically in recent years. So the legitimate marketplace for it

has shrunk substantially.

Mr. KANJORSKI. What is the production? Has that shrunk, too?

What I’m struck with, we don’t have any manufacturer on the

panel. We have no doctor on the panel. This isn’t happening in a

void. Who is making the delivery system? Who is making the production of these things? You know, I will relate for the panel and

the record, I just went over to vote and a Member of Congress told

me that in 1967, he used steroids on the advice of his coach, and

they were animal-grade steroids and the only reason he stopped

was because his father was a cattle rancher and told him that he

is losing too many cattle out on the range and these things probably aren’t good for you. Where is the medical profession and the

pharmaceutical profession? Why aren’t they here?

Dr. WADLER. I think that is another question that——

Mr. KANJORSKI. This hearing is set up that we are going to talk

about handling this on the retail basis. I mean that is what we are

talking about, what kind of studies, what more labs do we need,

how many more tests? And the reality it seems to me is that it’s

clear it is being used by some percentage in sports. But how are

we going to get down to its broad use and get control if we don’t

find something. One question I would like to know, is there a footprint after you test that you can identify after you test where the

source of the drug came from?

Dr. WADLER. Generally. But just as alluded to, in baseball’s own

statistics, Equipoise, which is a veterinary drug, accounted for half

of the 96 tests. Stenozonal and called Winstrol and Winstrol V,

which is a veterinary drug; clenbuterol is also used in animals.

Some of this is coming out of the veterinary world not the human

medicine world.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Can’t we require a licensing or manufacturing

process that a footprint be entered into the drug that would be

traceable after testing so we would know what companies or what

individuals knowingly are profiting from the manufacture and sale

of these illicit drugs?

Dr. WADLER. That’s a very good question. A number of years ago,

EPO, which is another abused drug in other endurance sports, we

had met with Amgen to put a marker on the EPO, but the feeling

was that it would cause such other issues in terms of approvals

going through drug approvals and so on that considering the extent

of abuse relative to use, that was dropped. I am not aware of any

market that exists.

Mr. KANJORSKI. We would have the physical capacity to put a

marker in?

Mr. ISSA [presiding]. We will come back with a second round.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Can I get a response to that?

Dr. VOLKOW. The other aspect that makes it very difficult to do

what you are doing is that unfortunately, access to drugs is now

through Web sites. You get drugs that are manufactured not only

from the United States but abroad. Moreover if you go to the Web

185

and put anabolic steroids, no prescription, you will get hits. You

can now go as an adolescent in the privacy of your own home and

order these things through the Web delivered to you. You will not

know the quality or where they came from, which of course is very

risky, but there is no revelation. So that makes it very, very problematic.

Mrs. GARIBALDI. The vials that I found in Rob’s bedroom after he

died were not marked. There would be no way to trace them.

Mr. HOOTON. The vials that were found in Taylor’s bedroom all

had Spanish writing on them.

Mr. GARIBALDI. If you type on your computer, buy steroids, you

will come up with thousands of sites.

Mr. ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired and we will come

back for the next question. The gentleman from Minnesota Mr.

Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I was interested in this line of questioning. We

have this ongoing battle with the FDA and a lot of folks in my

home State of Minnesota where people are buying legal drugs from

Canada and are facing a blizzard of criticism. And they are intercepting a lot of the drugs now and sending them back. And what

I’m hearing is this particular class of drugs which are clearly dangerous, clearly illegal, and we don’t see much enforcement by our

own FDA is that what you are saying?

Mr. HOOTON. What I am suggesting is that the law enforcement

folks that I have talked to, both at the local, State, as well as the

enforcement guys from the DEA, will all tell you the same thing.

They don’t get as many points for picking up a steroid dealer as

they do for picking up somebody on coke or heroin. It’s not in the

same classification as the harder drugs. So the reality is, when you

can talk to them privately and understand what is really going

on—the officer in Plano, TX, that handled our cases, you know, Mr.

Hooton, if this wasn’t such a high-profile case, we wouldn’t even be

following up on it.

Steroids are not considered—it’s a whole other can of worms.

They are not considered hard-core drugs. I think we have learned

today they are, and for whatever the rules are on the penalties that

go along with the drugs, they don’t incent our law enforcement

agencies to deal with them. That’s a general statement, but I believe it’s very accurate.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Yes.

Dr. WADLER. There was an unintended consequence of the Substance Control Act in 1990, the anabolic steroid guidelines, but

those have been rectified with the recent enactment of the Anabolic

Steroid Act of 2004. But——

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Can you explain what you mean by rectified?

Dr. WADLER. Apparently the sentencing guidelines provide for a

high degree of sentencing, depending on amounts and so on. I am

not in that area, but I was sufficiently involved with several cases

years ago for the Justice Department. That became obvious, and

there was actually a review, I think it was under the DEA, as the

consequences of the sentencing guidelines a couple of years ago,

and U.S. attorneys from around the country had recognized that

the sentencing guidelines were sort of—deincentivized how they

used their budgets in prosecuting cases. But I don’t believe—and

186

it’s not my area of expertise, but I believe it was rectified in the

Anabolic Steroid Act that went into effect last week, and there may

be greater prosecutions.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would hope at some time we

would try to get some folks in from FDA and the DEA and try to

get to the bottom of why it is we treat one classification of potentially dangerous drugs so leniently, and yet we are going after seniors who are driving to save 50 bucks on their Zocor. It seems to

me that’s a misallocation of resources and the wrong way to ultimately deal with these kinds of problems.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. The gentleman yields back.

Mr. Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to thank the Garibaldi and Hooton families

for coming. Please know that our prayers are with your families

and your sons. I deeply regret that this has happened.

I want to turn my questions principally to Dr. Wadler and also

Dr. Pellman. It seems we are in a cat-and-mouse game where a

substance is listed as a prohibitive substance in the Major League

Baseball drug policy. Dr. Pellman, did you help draft this? Are you

part of this?

Dr. PELLMAN. No.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. It seems we have a listing here, and if a chemical, a steroid is on the list and is laid out in the contract, and a

player uses it, it’s illegal, and they can be penalized on its face.

However, if there’s an alteration, and if there’s a slight modification, chemical modification, a molecular modification, to any of

these substances, then technically under the contract they are

legal.

What I am fearful of is that it will just be a cat-and-mouse game

as designer steroids become available, and players continually shift

from listed steroids to up-listed steroids. That’s a concern of mine.

I do know that the International Olympic Committee has their answer to that problem, and they have adopted language that says

any substance listed or any substance of a similar chemical composition that has a similar biological effect on the person taking the

chemical, that is also banned as well. So it is sort of a like a catchall so that we don’t get into this long list of steroids that has to

be added to.

By the way, under the baseball policy, it has to be by mutual

consent by the Players’ Union and by management to add something to the list, which is problematic. I am wondering, you know,

Dr. Wadler, if you could speak to the IOC dimension of this, and

perhaps, Dr. Pellman, you could talk to Major League Baseball.

Dr. PELLMAN. Well, I could certainly give you a medical perspective, and my answer is, speaking not only for myself, but for the

other medical people who work for me, is that the intention is and

will be to ban all anabolic steroids. But you are asking——

Mr. LYNCH. I am an attorney, OK.

Dr. PELLMAN. I am not.

Mr. LYNCH. I negotiate these collective bargaining agreements.

And I will tell you what, if it is not in the agreement, there is no

187

written agreement here. The reason we write it down is there is

an agreement.

Dr. PELLMAN. Then, Congressman Lynch, my——

Mr. LYNCH. The people who defend what is in the contract—

these are basic rules of contract. If it’s not in there, you can’t enforce it.

Dr. PELLMAN. Then, Congressman Lynch, I suspect, knowing the

schedule today, you will be able to speak to Mr. Manfred, who did

write out the contract——

Mr. LYNCH. Fair enough.

Dr. PELLMAN [continuing.] And ask him that question. I am unable to answer that question.

Mr. LYNCH. OK, fair enough, Doctor, fair enough.

Dr. Wadler.

Dr. WADLER. Yes. This is a living document. Just to tell you the

way we deal with this list is that we meet—and I am a member

of the list—what they call the Prohibited List and Methods Committee, because there are methods to enhanced performance which

are illegal also, not only drugs.

We revisit this list several times a year with experts around the

world. We distribute the modifications to the governments of the

world, including the U.S. Government, to weigh in on this, and so

we constantly have information, and we have the flexibility to add

to it. We actually have a provision where if there’s a sudden new

drug that was otherwise uncategorizable, it could be added to the

list without waiting for the 1-year cycle.

Mr. LYNCH. OK.

Dr. WADLER. It’s a living account that takes into account what

you are saying.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, how am I doing on time?

Mr. WAXMAN. Would you yield?

Mr. LYNCH. Certainly, I would yield.

Mr. WAXMAN. I would just point out, Dr. Pellman, we have had

3 loopholes pointed out, and we have 10 more. You are here at the

request of Major League Baseball, but you said you didn’t draft this

testing protocol. Did they consult you about the testing protocol?

Dr. PELLMAN. Well, first, in terms of what I said, I said—the

paper was held up, and my first response is I am not a lawyer, I

am a physician. My role is to give medical advice, and so therefore

I will answer that question in terms of broad strokes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, let me—it is Mr. Lynch’s time, but the point

I am making is we have pointed out three areas where there are

loopholes that you aren’t aware of.

Dr. PELLMAN. Can you define the three for me to refresh my testimony?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes. Somebody who is tested and gone for an hour.

Dr. PELLMAN. Yes, of that I am aware.

Mr. WAXMAN. The specimen could be corrupted. The second one,

10 days suspension, could also be a fine or less, you were aware

of that; and the third one is the one that Mr. Lynch just pointed

out that not everything was covered.

Dr. PELLMAN. Congressman Waxman, let me respond to the second one, because I have already responded to the first one. This is

for the record.

188

We talk about drawing up this document. In terms of philosophy,

my philosophy has been expressed very strongly to the Commissioner and others in the Commissioner’s Office, I stand by, in fact,

and as you are well aware, my thumbprints are all over the NFL’s

policy as well. Therefore I will look at you and tell you the following. The intentions of this program is suspension and public notice

of that suspension. If that is not adhered to, I will resign. I am

aware of the language, and not aware of the language before it was

published, but I am now.

So therefore, my understanding from conversations with the

Commissioner, from Mr. DuPuy and Mr. Manfred, who will clarify

that today, that if, in fact, there is a loophole in which a player—

and I understand——

Mr. LYNCH. I think you have made your point. We will take it

up with Mr. Manfred.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, since I asked Mr. Lynch to yield to

me, you are so gracious, could I ask unanimous consent he be given

an additional minute?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are very fair.

The last section I want to ask you about is this. We have a provision in this agreement that states that in the event of an independent government investigation into this drug policy, that it will be

null and void.

If the government looks into this agreement and into this drug

policy and starts investigating whether the enforcement is going

on, monitoring and penalties are going on and actually being enforced, then by mutual agreement it goes away in the face of a government investigation.

Dr. Wadler, I mean, you have had experience with a bunch of

countries, and have you ever seen a policy like this, a provision like

this; and if you have, could you enlighten the committee as to what

its purpose might be?

Dr. WADLER. I have a simple answer: No, I have not. I have

never heard of that.

Mr. LYNCH. Now, Dr. Pellman, with great trepidation I will ask

you, I know you are saying you didn’t draft the document, but perhaps you were advised around some of it? Do you have any information with respect to this sort of escape clause that says if the

Government Reform Committee starts looking into this, we are

going to treat it as void, and we won’t treat the policy as valid?

That is very troubling here.

Dr. PELLMAN. Mr. Lynch, I suspect that you know what my answer will be in terms of again being a physician and not a lawyer.

Mr. LYNCH. If I knew, I wouldn’t have asked.

Dr. PELLMAN. I think you need another lawyer to respond to that

regarding individual rights and protection of Constitutional rights.

Mr. LYNCH. OK.

Dr. PELLMAN. For me to begin to comment on that would be way

beyond the scope of my knowledge.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Lynch, I just want to point out that what the

document says is what will be controlling, not what Dr. Pellman

intends for it or wishes it would say. We were told that you had,

189

Dr. Pellman, a very intimate involvement in drafting this document. If you did, I think the lawyers picked your pocket, because

what they did is substituted wobbly words so that what you suggested they do they didn’t even do.

Dr. PELLMAN. You know what I am finding most fascinating

about this, Mr. Waxman, is the following, is that the terms and intentions of this complicated world we live in in terms of these drug

policies and what we have done, there’s a fine line between patients and being a physician and working with lawyers. And in

terms of my pocket being picked, I will come back to you and tell

you the following, that baseball in its way has made an incredible

amount of progress, despite the comments here today.

Mr. WAXMAN. That’s what you have already told us.

Dr. PELLMAN. I am responding to a personal comment you made

to me.

Mr. WAXMAN. But we have to talk about——

Dr. PELLMAN. We have talked about the Major League system,

but we have not talked about the Minor League system, and, in

fact, in terms of the language that was there, I have deferred to

Mr. Manfred in terms of answering that.

So instead of coming to a conclusion about whether or not there

was a quarter or a dollar picked from my pocket, I suggest you

wait until you get all the information. Thank you.

Mr. WAXMAN. I recommend the same for you before you tell us

what is in the document.

Dr. PELLMAN. I could not. You have told me.

Mr. PORTER [presiding]. Doctor, I have a question. Assuming the

Major League Baseball’s policy is weaker than the NFL’s, the penalties for violation differ significantly. For example, the NFL, the

first positive test results in a four-game suspension, which I guess

is about a quarter of a regular season. Major League Baseball policy stipulates that the penalty for the first offense could be a 10-

day suspension or a $10,000 fine. How do you reconcile the difference?

Dr. PELLMAN. Well, I think I reconcile the difference in terms of

the ability—and this will be more of a nonphysician response, but

a response in terms of dealing with both cultures. Dealing with the

NFL and dealing with the National Football League in terms of

getting medical issues solved is truly a partnership between management and between the Players Association, one of which it is ultimately interesting in terms of parallel lives in terms of priorities.

I will tell you that from my experience—remember, I have only

been with baseball now for about 21⁄2 years—is, in fact, that there

is a difference of philosophy between the Commissioner’s Office and

the Players Association in terms of the priorities.

If you ask me, and you look at me and you tell me what would

be your wish in terms of the ability to make unilateral decisions

regarding the Major League program, I will point out the Minor

League program to you, because it would have been my intentions

that, in fact, the Minor League program become the Major League

program. And the Minor League program, a first suspension is, in

fact, 15 games; not 15 days, but 15 games.

We could argue in terms of how substantial that is in terms of

taking a quarter of a season from the NFL, 15 games of Minor

190

League baseball. But look at the amount of money and the hardship that those young men experience from being suspended from

what they often claim are innocent mistakes.

However, the program that you have for the Major League is a

negotiation between management and the Players Association. And

I will tell you that in terms of my perspective and their perspective, there is a wide, wide schism.

Mr. PORTER. You, I guess, testified that—the testing for anabolic

steroids began in the NFL, in the league, in 1989, correct?

Dr. PELLMAN. I did not testify, but, yes, that is very correct.

Mr. PORTER. When did testing begin for anabolic steroids in the

Minor League?

Dr. PELLMAN. In the Minor Leagues, essentially it started before

I started in baseball, but became much more rigorous upon my

starting and recommendations that were made to the Commissioner’s Office.

Mr. PORTER. And you stated that the difference between baseball

and football policies can be attributed to the climate of labor relations between management and the Players Association. Is there a

union in baseball’s Minor League?

Dr. PELLMAN. No, there is not. Unilateral decisions are made

from the Commissioner’s Office regarding that program. There are

no negotiations.

Mr. PORTER. Thank you very much.

Yes, sir. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Dr. Pellman, let me go back to something you said a moment

ago. I think you said that you were prepared to resign. Under what

circumstances?

Dr. PELLMAN. If, in fact, players were not suspended, and their

names were not made—publicly notified; in fact, it was deferred,

that instead of that penalty, as was intended, they received a monetary fine, that was blinded.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, according to our review of the policy as presented by Major League Baseball, the policy states, ‘‘The results of

any prohibited substance testing shall remain strictly confidential,’’

and in the case of a fine, the policy also states, ‘‘Any disciplinary

fines imposed on the player by the Commissioner shall remain

strictly confidential.’’

Are you aware of that?

Dr. PELLMAN. In fact, not only did we discuss it, I am aware of

it. Again, I will let Mr. Manfred explain the technical components

to that, but I was assured that those names will be out there in

the public and be aware of who was suspended.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me go back, because, you know, we have the

Garibaldis here, and we have Mr. Hooton, and one of the things

that has always concerned me is that particularly when we have

the testimony of people who have suffered like these wonderful parents have is that I don’t want them or anybody else to get the impression that, you know, they come here, they sit through a hearing, they are heard, and, in the words of my mother, we have motion, commotion, emotion and no results. It gets rather frustrating.

Because what it does is that it—I would imagine that people can

get to a point where they say—throw up their hands and say, why

191

did I even go there? I would be happy to yield, but they weren’t

here. So I just want to ask you a question—all right, I am going

to yield. I will be happy to yield to anyone here. I will yield to whoever else is here.

Mr. WAXMAN. OK. Well, go ahead.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you.

So, I guess what I am trying to get to, Mr. Waxman, was—he

had raised some issues. I want to know, what are you prepared—

you told me you were prepared to make it clear that this thing

about being able to go away for an hour while you are taking a

urine test, that needs to be straightened out. What else are you

prepared to recommend to the folks that you are working with; the

Commissioner, that is? In other words, as a result of what you

have heard today, are there other things that you would recommend? Are you following me with regard to the policy?

Dr. PELLMAN. What more would I recommend?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, sir.

Dr. PELLMAN. Well, what I would recommend would be clearly

stated by just looking, again, at the Minor League policy.

Which is, in fact, an image of a policy that was created without

negotiation.

Mr. CUMMINGS. OK. All right. With that, I yield back to Mr.

Waxman, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. I just wanted to see if anybody on our

side wanted a chance to ask questions. OK.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you.

I would like to take the discussion just a hair away from the central subject, if I might. In our society today, when you turn on television, we see programming like Extreme Makeover, right? And essentially what that programming is telling millions of American

people, hey, your bodies are not good enough, you are not a Hollywood star, you are not voluptuous, you are not really strong. You

need radical change in your body.

To what degree do you think that whole effort in our culture, to

make everybody beautiful and voluptuous and strong, has some impact? I know this is above and beyond taking steroids to hit a home

run or pitch faster. Dr. Wadler, how does that influence the taking

of steroids and other types of body-enhancement drugs?

Dr. WADLER. I don’t have figures, but there’s no question, in talking to my colleagues and talking to people around the country, that

body image is another important factor here. It is not only about

enhancing performance, and that, in fact, is probably the major

reason why girls are using it. As a physician I encourage people to

go to the gym and exercise and so on. They have taken it a step

further and feel they have to use enhancing products.

Unfortunately much of this, in my view, took root in the Dietary

Supplement and Health Education Act of 1994, which sort of set

the notion in play that you need a powder, a potion of some sort

to be better than by eating a regular diet or working out. So there

is a whole culture of getting six-pack abs, getting muscularly-defined, cut-looking, which is totally separate from fit-looking, which

is totally the athletic enhancement aspects of this.

192

Mr. SANDERS. But you would agree, I think, that the television

industry and entertainment industry spends huge amounts of

money telling us, hey, we are not strong enough, we are not busty

enough, we are not voluptuous enough, you better do something

about it.

Yes, Doctor.

Dr. VOLKOW. Yes, you are touching on something that is very

problematic not only for anabolic steroids, but also for a wide variety of drugs of abuse. But indeed, one of the elements, and one—

I mentioned two programs that were very effective in anabolic

steroids are actually targeting exactly, among other things, not just

exercising, but telling them how to construct the images that the

media is putting forth. So these kids sit down, and then as their

homework they have to go in into the message and look at them

and say, this is absurd for this and this, and this is not part of the

reality. So part of the training prevention program, which, as I

said, is shown to be very effective, is allowing the kids to realize

that not everything the media says should be emulated.

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you.

Did anyone else want to comment on that?

Dr. BROWER. Yes, I did——

Mr. SANDERS. Doctor.

Dr. BROWER [continuing.] As well. The comment was made that,

true, that anabolic steroids are hard-core drugs, and this is true,

but there is a big difference between anabolic steroids and the people who are taking them and the people who take cocaine and heroin. When you take cocaine and heroin, your main goal is to get

high. When you take anabolic steroids, your main goal is to make

yourself consistent with what our cultural goals are, winning and

looking good.

Chairman TOM DAVIS [presiding]. Thank you. The time of the

gentleman is expired.

What I would ask, we have two more panels to go, I would and

unanimous consent 5 minutes a side, and we can move on to the

next panel. Is there objection? Hearing no objection, I will yield to

your side. I will start on our side, Mr. Issa, and I know Mr.

Osborne has a couple of questions.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be yielding half of my

time to Mr. Osborne so we can get through this. When you are here

at the end on one of these panels, there’s an awful lot that has already been asked and answered. I will try to do my opening and

closing by just working on a couple of things that I don’t know

were made completely clear.

Senator Bunning made it completely clear in his opinion that if

you take steroids, you are cheating, and there should be an asterisk, more or less, after the name of every record set at a time in

which steroids were involved. I think that’s a fair characterization

of the Senator.

So what I would like to do is just ask each of you, in light of the

fact that we know that if you go into a baseball game with a corked

bat deliberately, not making any accusations, but if you went in deliberately with a corked bat and hit extra home runs, you would

be cheating, and that would be clear. Yes or no for each of you, if

193

you take anabolic steroids, bulk up and play professional sports,

are you cheating?

Mr. GARIBALDI. Yes.

Ms. GARIBALDI. Definitely.

Mr. HOOTON. Absolutely.

Dr. VOLKOW. Yes.

Dr. WADLER. Absolutely.

Dr. BROWER. Yes.

Dr. PELLMAN. Absolutely.

Mr. ISSA. OK. So the second question that goes with this, should

Congress have the ability to make sure that our national pastime—

including its exemption from antitrust, there is no cheating?

Mr. GARIBALDI. Yes.

Ms. GARIBALDI. Yes.

Mr. HOOTON. Yes.

Dr. VOLKOW. Yes.

Dr. WADLER. Yes.

Mr. BROWER. Yes.

Dr. PELLMAN. Yes.

Mr. ISSA. In light of that, I just want to close my 21⁄2 minutes

by saying as a Member from San Diego, I am all too aware that

every day young boys go over—many of them can’t even drive.

They go by trolley, they go into Mexico. They go into a pharmacy.

There are more pharmacies in Tijuana than all the rest of Mexico

combined. They go into a room with just the pharmacist. They get

shot up and come back out, and Mexican law protects that pharmacist because it can’t be entrapment. That is a problem what we

in San Diego and the people of San Diego have to fix. There is no

question that they will continue doing it until they take care of

that, but hopefully today we are setting the stage to send the right

message. With that I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Darrell E. Issa follows:]

194

195

196

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized.

Mr. OSBORNE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank you

for being here today. The thing is we focus so much on the physical

effects of steroids, you know, the increased risk of heart disease

and the competitive advantage, sometimes an increased risk of cancer. But I would really like to thank the parents for being here

today, because I think maybe the most serious side effect that I see

is the emotional component, the mood swings, the roid rage, the

tremendously devastating things.

I think there are an awful lot of really bad things that happen

to kids, whether it be suicides, automobile accidents or whatever.

Sometimes they are never really linked to steroids. They really are

there. And so I just wanted to thank you all for calling attention

to that. And I don’t think there’s anything that could be more painful to a parent than to lose a child taking their own life, so I just

wanted to thank you for being here. Thank you for calling attention

to that issue, because it is something that kind of flies under the

radar screen so much of the time.

Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Souder, do you have anything you want to put in the record?

Mr. SOUDER. I have a unanimous consent request. I would like

to insert into the record testimony from Mark McClellan, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, before the Energy

and Commerce Committee on July 24, 2003, where he praised, on

ephedra, the National Football League, NCAA, International Olympic Committee and specifically not baseball. I think actions speak

louder than words. I ask unanimous consent for this.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClellan follows:]

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Our side will yield the last 5 minutes.

Let me just say to the parents, thank you so much for your testimony. I know this is difficult for you, something America needs to

hear. Commissioner Selig has been here the whole time listening

to this. I know they are sensitive to it as well. We appreciate very

much your being here. And for the medical experts, thank you very

much for shedding light on this very dangerous epidemic.

Mr. Waxman—Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

I want to ask about human growth hormone, and according to

what we know about Jason Giambi’s testimony in the BALCO case,

one of the substances he took was human growth hormone. That

hormone acts like a steroid in that it builds muscle. It also changes

the physical appearance of a player.

Major League Baseball officials have told the public that the new

policy bans the use of human growth hormone, but my concern is

that it appears to be another big loophole. The only drug test that

baseball is doing is a urine test, and this does not work to detect

the illegal use of human growth hormone.

Dr. Wadler, is it fair to say, then, that the new policy does not

have a mechanism to enforce a ban of human growth hormone?

Dr. WADLER. That’s absolutely correct. There’s been a national

consensus for testing human growth hormone. It is only a blood

test. There are two different types of tests done. It was implemented in Athens on 300 athletes. There’s nothing in the immediate future to suggest there is going to be a urine test.

Mr. CLAY. Well, we have asked Major League Baseball about this

loophole. They have told us not to worry because they have expressed optimism that a urine test for human growth hormone

could be available in time for the 2006 season. I would like to ask

if that optimism is justified.

Dr. WADLER. There is absolutely no basis for that optimism

whatsoever.

Mr. CLAY. Let me ask Dr. Pellman.

Dr. PELLMAN. Yes, I will be more than happy to comment regarding that. First, the blood test that Dr. Wadler is alluding to is a

nonvalidated blood test, and, in fact, was used for the first time by

the Olympics, this past Olympics, of which the data has not been

released.

We have had conversations with both the WADA lab and the

UCLA in Montreal that has confirmed that to us, as well as, my

understanding both as a physician and in my role as an advisor,

that taking blood in the United States and checking urine is two

very, very different things, complicated in terms of privacy acts, in

terms of taking blood and doing urine tests, and again in terms of

what my recommendation would be, because, again, for the record,

in terms of what I have told two Commissioners is that my biggest

fear is, in fact, about human growth hormone. I am more worried

about human growth hormone now in terms of the future than I

am about anabolic steroids.

Mr. CLAY. OK, Doctor, that doesn’t make a lot of sense, because

the new agreement prohibits blood tests, and this agreement lasts

until 2008. Why is baseball banning the only known tests for

human growth hormone then?

205

Dr. PELLMAN. It’s not a question of banning it, it’s a question of

banning blood tests. And, again, in terms of technically speaking,

right now there is no validated test for human growth hormone. In

fact, I am unaware, and Dr. Green, who is behind me, who is the

former chairman of the subcommittee of the NCAA for drug testing, who is my expert on this, has informed me that, in fact, it is

unvalidated. We have no information on it.

Mr. CLAY. Doctor, they use blood tests for Olympic athletes and

tennis stars. Can I ask that Dr. Wadler try to respond to what Dr.

Pellman said, please?

Dr. WADLER. Blood testing is part of the landscape in antidoping

control worldwide for a variety of substances. For human growth

hormone, there are two tests, isoforms and a market test. There

was a consensus meeting in Dallas last year under the auspices of

the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. It was clearly a consensus as to how

to proceed. It was implemented by the World Anti-Doping Agency

with the assurance that the test was validated and, in fact, was implemented and carried out with 300 athletes in Athens.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response to the parents.

Dr. PELLMAN. May I ask Mr. Wadler one question which I think

will help you?

Mr. CLAY. No. No. No. I have a limited amount of time. You can

get to him after this.

To the parents my deepest sympathy on the tragic loss of your

young sons. As a father I cannot imagine how painful this must be

for you, and we thank you for sharing both of your sons’ story.

Would you recommend testing high school athletes?

Mr. HOOTON. Absolutely, for two reasons. Excuse me. I jumped

on that one. I feel very strongly.

One, we will never, ever know how many kids we got doing

steroids without testing. Kids don’t admit it, just like our professional athletes don’t admit it. You have to test.

But second, I think more important and more positive, is at least

if there is a testing program, even if it is random, for the good kids,

it gives them an excuse to say no. At least there’s a disincentive

to do it. Right now, no testing, no supervision, there’s nothing to

keep the players from doing it.

Mr. CLAY. Doctor.

Ms. GARIBALDI. Second, the huge Constitutional argument is

about the privacy of our youngsters. As a parent, I expect to know

everything there is to know when it comes to my child, especially

that under 18, I believe it’s the parents that hold the rights, not

the children. Therefore, the parents especially would like testing,

and the schools are for it. It needs to happen.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s

time has expired.

Ms. Watson, we have run out of time. We can give you a quick

question, I guess, with unanimous consent.

Ms. WATSON. I, too, want to extend my sympathy to both parents

for being brave and courageous in coming here today. I am very

disturbed right now because I have a picture of my Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said that he does not regret using

steroids in the 1970’s because they were not illegal then.

206

But he doesn’t want school-age children to use steroids and at

the same time vetoed a bill that would have created a list of

banned substances for interscholastic sports and required coaches

to take a course on performance-enhancing supplements.

The Garibaldis’ son went to USC, which is in my district, and I

want to know if you will join with me in seeing that a new bill in

the State of California directed toward the high school students

and coaches be introduced, and would you attend a meeting at USC

with me and the coaching staff?

Ms. GARIBALDI. We will absolutely be there. Currently we are

working with State senator Jackie Spear on her reintroducing Senate Bill 37, which targets exactly what it is you are talking about.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you very much. I see this as a public health

issue, and we have to make a move now, or our children will be

impressed by this.

Ms. GARIBALDI. They are impressed by that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. GARIBALDI. We also are working with the California Interscholastic Federation, and by, I think, the first week of May, they

will be voting on a certification for high school coaches and banning

accepting sponsorships from any performance-enhancing supplement company.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Our time has expired. We have to get on to the next panel at this

point. I want to thank you for the time today. It’s been a very, very

healthy discussion. We thank our medical experts. Thank you very

much. The panel is dismissed.

The committee will take about a 10-minute break as we set up

for the next panel.

[Recess.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. As I noted in my opening statement this

morning, the committee’s primary goal in this inquiry is to break

the vicious cycle of the growing steroid use that begins at the professional level, and inevitably trickles down to college and high

school sports.

Mr. Waxman, I believe our oversight, which begins but does not

end today, can help break that cycle and help 500,000 using

steroids today that are making a big mistake. We can’t do this

alone. After all, there is a cause and effect here. Steroids becomes

legitimized in large part because young people emulate star athletes, so it is going to take stars to combat stars. Today we are

grateful that we have two pillars of the game of baseball ready,

willing and able to take on that charge.

We are taking this break in today’s hearing to announce the creation of Zero Tolerance, the advisory committee on the ending the

use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. While membership

on this task force is evolving, and names are sure to be added in

coming days and weeks, it will initially be cochaired by Curt Schilling and Frank Thomas, Mr. Waxman and myself. Zero Tolerance

will gather information, foster discussion and provide recommendations to Congress on the next steps.

We have invited the NFL, the NBA and the NHL to recommend

participants to this panel, since every professional sport needs to

let young people know about the dangers of illegal steroid use. We

207

believe the profile Mr. Schilling and Mr. Thomas can lend to this

committee will send a strong message in and of itself about the

dangers of steroid use. We also believe that their input and leadership will be essential to putting the issue of steroid use at all levels

of sports under the microscope.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to have Mr. Schilling here with us. The reason that

Mr. Schilling and Mr. Thomas were invited to be participants in

this hearing today is because they have both been outspoken critics

of steroid use by baseball players, for which I commend them, and

I think it’s so important that they have taken the position that

they have. I am pleased that they are going to be testifying, in one

case, Mr. Thomas, by remote control, and, Mr. Schilling, you are

with us today. I am pleased that they are here, and announcing as

well the fact that they will be part of an advisory group.

This will serve a very, very important purpose as we move along

to try to figure out how we can best stop steroid use by sports figures and, more importantly, the children who emulate them. So I

want to commend both of them for their presence, willing to participate in the committee that they are going to be a part of. Thank

you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Waxman, before we start the formal

hearing again, Mr. Schilling and Mr. Thomas were invited today

because they have been outspoken about steroids in professionals

sports.

Mr. Schilling, before you give your prepared and are sworn in,

would you like to say anything?

Mr. SCHILLING. No, I wouldn’t.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We are happy to have you as part of this.

I just wanted to say thank you very much. And, Mr. Thomas, same

thing, thank you very much.

We are ready to bring in the next panel. We are going to swear

each member in before they testify individually. Jim Sharp will be

reading Mr. Sosa’s statement. I will start.

We have a very distinguished panel here, obviously, in front of

us: Mr. Jose Canseco, the former member of the Oakland Athletics

and Texas Rangers; Mr. Sammy Sosa, current member of the Baltimore Orioles and former Chicago Cub, accompanied by his interpreter Mrs. Patricia Rosell, and also Mr. Jim Sharp will be reading

his opening statement; Mr. Mark McGwire, former member of the

Oakland Athletics and St. Louis Cardinals; Mr. Rafael Palmeiro,

current member of the Baltimore Orioles and former Texas Rangers; and Curt Schilling, current member of the Boston Red Sox.

And we have Mr. Frank Thomas, current member of the Chicago

White Sox, appearing by video conference.

Mr. Canseco, if you would stand first and——

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Canseco, do you wish to make an

opening statement?

Mr. CANSECO. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We will go down, each one of you make

an opening statement, and then we will open it up for questions.

Thank you very much for being here.

208

STATEMENTS OF JOSE CANSECO, FORMER OAKLAND ATHLETIC AND TEXAS RANGER; SAMMY SOSA, CURRENT BALTIMORE ORIOLE AND FORMER CHICAGO CUB, ACCOMPANIED

BY JIM SHARP, ATTORNEY, AND PATRICIA ROSELL, INTERPRETER; MARK McGWIRE, FORMER OAKLAND ATHLETIC

AND ST. LOUIS CARDINAL; RAFAEL PALMEIRO, CURRENT

BALTIMORE ORIOLE AND FORMER TEXAS RANGER; CURT

SCHILLING, CURRENT BOSTON RED SOX; AND FRANK THOMAS, CURRENT CHICAGO WHITE SOX

STATEMENT OF JOSE CANSECO

Mr. CANSECO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, distinguished guests. My name is Jose Canseco, and for 17

years I played professional baseball. I am humbled by the opportunity to appear before you today. Never in my wildest dreams

could I have imagined that my athletic ability and love for America’s game would lead me to this place and this subject that has

brought me before this committee.

When I decided to write my life story, I was aware that what I

revealed about myself and the game I played for the majority of my

life would create a stir in the athletic world. I did not know that

my revelations would reverberate in the halls of this Chamber and

the hearts of so many.

My heart and condolences go out to those families who lost their

children through the use of steroids. Today I commit myself to

doing everything possible to assist them in conveying to the youth

of America the dangers that using steroids will bring. After this

hearing I will be happy to work with them in whatever way I can

to help convey to the youth of America the message that steroid

use is unnecessary to be a great athlete, and that they are harmful

to those who take them.

When first contacted by the committee, I was willing to cooperate

in all aspects of the investigation. Unlike others, I have never refused to appear before this committee and assist in this endeavor.

However, due to the fact I am on probation in Florida for events

unrelated to baseball and steroid use, and to the clear evidence of

the overzealous efforts of State prosecutors to make an example of

me, I request immunity from this committee. I requested immunity

from this committee. With immunity I will be free to answer all

questions posed to me by the committee without fear of how my

testimony would affect my probation. Without immunity, I cannot.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. CANSECO. It has been represented that this committee has

been called to get to the bottom of steroid use in baseball. Having

said that, this meeting is not about prosecution or individual use.

If that were true, granting immunity to me should not be an issue.

Although I have nothing to hide, and although my answers to your

questions will be helpful in resolving uncertainties and issues facing this committee, because of my fear of future prosecution for

probation violations or other unrelated charges, I cannot be totally

candid with this committee. When appropriate, I will invoke the

protections offered me by the fifth amendment.

It is unfortunate that the committee chose not to grant me this

request, especially since I have been the only player or member of

209

baseball who did not fight the request to appear here today. It is

unfortunate the committee has made this decision, as it will not be

able to fully investigate the steroid issue without all testimony, and

the issue will continue to plague the sport.

Thank you for asking me to appear. I will try and answer every

question that may be posed to me. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Canseco.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Canseco follows:]

210

211

212

213

214

215

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You are appearing voluntarily.

Second, I would note that we did try to get immunity. I talked

to the Attorney General about it. We were not able to get it in the

time scheduled, unfortunately, but we thank you for your statement.

Mr. Sosa, you will be next. Would you rise with me, raise your

right hand, as well as your attorney and your interpreter.

[Witness, attorney and interpreter sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. If you have any opening statement, the

committee would been happy to entertain it.

Mr. SHARP. Yes, I do.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Sharp, I understand you are going to

read it for Mr. Sosa.

STATEMENT OF SAMMY SOSA

[NOTE.—The following statement was provided through Mr.

Sosa’s attorney.]

Mr. SHARP. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Waxman and representatives of the committee, my name is Jim Sharp, and I represent Mr. Sosa. I appreciate the departure from the norm permitting me to read his statement.

The statement of Mr. Sammy Sosa.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. I understand that

people have said that steroids are a big problem in professional

baseball, and that it is trickling down to our children. I am here

to offer my testimony in the hope that it will assist the committee

in remedying this problem.

I grew up in San Pedro in the Dominican Republic with four

brothers and two sisters. My father passed away when I was 7

years old. We sold oranges and shined shoes to get by. Early on I

displayed a talent for baseball, and when I was 16, I left home and

signed with the Texas Rangers. I played in the Minor Leagues for

4 years before I played in my first Major League game when I was

20 years old.

Playing at that level is very difficult, especially for someone as

young as I was. I had to fight for everything, and that meant working out harder than the next guy, lifting a few more reps than the

last guy. It meant spending more time in the batting cages and less

time in the clubs.

Everything I heard about steroids and human growth hormones

is that they are very bad for you, even lethal. I would have never

put anything dangerous like that in my body, nor would I encourage other people to use illegal performance-enhancing drugs. To be

clear, I have never taken illegal performance-enhancing drugs. I

have never injected myself or had anyone inject me with anything.

I have not broken the laws of the United States or the laws of the

Dominican Republic. I have been tested as recently as 2004, and

I am clean.

I support testing professional athletes for illegal performance-enhancing drugs. Because rigorous testing is new to baseball, the initial reaction of many players was to bristle at the perceived invasion of privacy, but if more testing is what it takes to help clean

up the sport, I am behind it.

216

In light of recent scandals and serious public health problems,

we players need to commit to doing whatever it takes to regain our

credibility as athletes and as members of the community. I do a lot

of charity work for young people. I am genuinely committed to

their welfare. I am willing to work with you and the Congress as

a whole to educate kids and young athletes about these serious

issues. Education, of course, starts in the home, but we baseball

players can help by speaking out against the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs. To the extent that I can help in these efforts, I am anxious to do so.

Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sosa follows:]

217

218

219

Mr. SHARP. If you will indulge me at this point, he would just

like to say a few words.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That would be fine. Make sure the microphone is in front of him.

Mr. SOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was back there in the

room, and I was watching on the TV the two families that lost the

two kids, and it really shocked me and breaks my heart. I want to

send sympathy to those families that had to go through that situation, and, you know, the quicker we can resolve this problem as to

that which is bad for kids, you know, I am willing to work with

you guys and do the best that I can to stop this. I just want to say

that. Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. McGwire, rise with me and raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. McGwire, thank you very much for

being with us today.

STATEMENT OF MARK McGWIRE

Mr. MCGWIRE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank

you for having me. My name is Mark McGwire. I played the game

of baseball since I was 9 years old. I was privileged to be able to

play 15 years in the Major Leagues. I even had the honor of representing my country in the 1984 Olympic baseball team. I love

and respect our national pastime. I will do everything in my power

to help the game, its players and fans.

First and foremost, my heart goes out to every parent whose son

or daughter were victims of steroid use. I hope that these hearings

can prevent other families from suffering. I admire the parents who

had the courage to appear before the committee and warn of the

dangers of steroid use. My heart goes out to them.

When I was lucky enough to secure my last Major League contract, one of the first things I did was establish a foundation and

donate $3 million of my own money to support abused children.

I applaud the work of the committee in exposing this problem so

that the dangers are clearly understood. There has been a problem

with steroids in baseball, like any sport where there is pressure to

perform at the highest level, and there has been no testing to control performance-enhancing drugs if problems develop.

It is a problem, and that needs to be addressed. Most importantly, every Little Leaguer, Pony League, high school, college player needs to understand that performance-enhancing drugs of any

kind can be dangerous. I will use whatever influence and popularity that I have to discourage young athletes from taking any

drug that is not recommended by a doctor. What I will not do, however, is participate in naming names, in implicating my friends and

teammates.

I retired from baseball 4 years ago. I live a quiet life with my

wife and children. I have always been a team player. I have never

been a person who spread rumors or say things about teammates

that could hurt them. I do not sit in judgment of other players,

whether it deals with sexual preference, their marital problems or

other personal habits, including whether or not they use chemical

substances. That has never been my style, and I do not intend to

220

change this just because the cameras are turned on, nor do I intend

to dignify Mr. Canseco’s book.

It should be enough that you consider the source of the statements in the book and that many inconsistencies and contradictions have already been raised. I have been advised that my testimony here could be used to harm friends and respected teammates,

or that some ambitious prosecutor can use convicted criminals who

would do and say anything to solve their own problems, and create

jeopardy for my friends.

Asking me or any other player to answer questions about who

took steroids in front of television cameras will not solve the problem. If a player answers no, he simply will not be believed. If he

answers yes, he risks public scorn and endless government investigations.

My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family and myself. I intend to follow their advice.

It is my understanding that Major League Baseball and the Players’ Union have taken steps to address the steroid issue. If these

policies need to be strengthened, I would support that.

I appreciate the difficult job you have as Congressmen and Congresswomen and will use this opportunity to dedicate myself to this

problem. I am directing my foundation to concentrate its efforts to

educate children regarding dangers of performance-enhancing

drugs. I am also offering to be a spokesman for Major League Baseball to convince young athletes to avoid dangerous drugs of all

sorts.

Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGwire follows:]

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Palmeiro.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much for being with us

today.

STATEMENT OF RAFAEL PALMEIRO

Mr. PALMEIRO. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of

the committee. My name is Rafael Palmeiro, and I’m a professional

baseball player. I will be brief in my remarks today.

Let me start by telling you this: I have never used steroids, period. I do not know how to say it any more clearly than that.

Never. The reference to me in Mr. Canseco’s book is absolutely

false. I am against the use of steroids. I don’t think athletes should

use steroids, and I don’t think our kids should use them. The point

of view is one, unfortunately, that is not shared by our former colleague Jose Canseco. Mr. Canseco is an unashamed advocate for increased steroid use by all athletes.

My parents and I came to the United States after fleeing the

Communist tyranny that still is in my homeland of Cuba. We came

seeking freedom, knowing that through hard work, discipline and

dedication, my family and I could build a bright future in America.

Since arriving to this great country, I have tried to live every day

in my life in a manner that I hope has typified the very embodiment of the American dream. I have gotten to play for three great

organizations, the Chicago Cubs, the Texas Rangers and the Baltimore Orioles, and I have been blessed to do well in a profession I

love. That blessing has allowed me to work on projects and with

charities in the communities where I live and play.

As much as I have appreciated the accolades that have come

with a successful career, I am just as honored to have worked with

great organizations like the Make a Wish Foundation, Shoes for

Orphans’ Souls and the Lena Pope Home of Fort Worth.

The league and the Players Association recently agreed on a steroid policy that I hope will be the first step to eradicating these substances from baseball. Congress should work with the league and

the Players Association to make sure that the new policy being put

in place achieves the goal of stamping steroids out of the sport. To

the degree an individual player can be helpful, perhaps as an advocate to young people about the dangers of steroids, I hope you will

call on us. I, for one, am ready to heed the call. Mr. Chairman, I

think the task force is a great idea to send the right message to

kids about steroids. If it is appropriate, I would like to serve with

Mr. Schilling and Mr. Thomas. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Palmeiro.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palmeiro follows:]

228

229

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Schilling.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We have votes on, so if Members feel they

have to leave to go to vote, come back. We have three votes. I am

going to try to get the testimony in of Mr. Schilling and Mr. Thomas. If we stay as a block, I think they will hold the vote.

Mr. Schilling, you have been asked here today because you have

been an outspoken opponent of steroid use in professional sports,

and we are happy that there are some people that want to help you

in that regard, and thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF CURT SCHILLING

Mr. SCHILLING. Chairman Davis, Congressman Waxman, members of the committee and other distinguished guests and invitees,

nearly 2 weeks ago I had the extreme honor of standing on the

West Lawn of the White House alongside my teammates and other

members of the Boston Red Sox world championship team to accept

the congratulations of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Following that, my teammates and I made a visit to Walter Reed

Hospital here in Washington, DC. During that visit my teammates

and I had the extreme honor of meeting and visiting with the heroic men and women serving in our country’s great Armed Forces.

As a son of a man who served almost two decades in the U.S.

Army, as a member of the 101st Airborne, with a brother who

served in Vietnam, a cousin who served in the U.S. Navy aboard

the USS Carl Vincent, and another cousin who recently finished

his service in the U.S. Army as a member of the Rangers, Green

Berets and finally the Delta Force, I think that visit, with absolutely no disrespect to our esteemed President and Vice President,

was the highlight of many of our trips and some of our lives. I believe that visit made my teammates and I aware of how fortunate

we are to live in this country and how fortunate we were able to

bring joy that afternoon to those courageous service people just because we are Major League Baseball players.

Being a professional baseball player has put me in a position to

try to bring awareness to certain issues and causes that affect so

many people in our great country. For example, my recognition as

a player has enabled me to bring an increasing awareness to the

terrible disease known as ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease,

which afflicts some 30,000 Americans at any one time, and to act

as an advocate to try to find a cure for the disease. My position as

a player, along with the dedication of my wife Shonda, a cancer

survivor, has enabled the two of us to bring awareness to the terrible problem that is skin cancer, or melanoma. Our foundation

tries to educate young Americans on the dangers of exposure to the

sun. In fact, at this moment the bill has passed the Arizona Senate

and is awaiting a vote by the House of Representatives that would

mandate that all children be taught sun safety in school, the first

such mandate anywhere in the United States.

My hope is that this hearing results in an increased awareness

of steroids and their inherent danger to America’s youth. I understand from the invitation I received to appear before this committee that my presence has been requested because I have been outspoken on this issue. I’m honored to be cochairman on an advisory

230

committee, tasked with putting together recommendations on how

to prevent steroid usage among young people. I recognize that professional athletes are role models for many of the youth in this

country. Most athletes take this role very seriously, and I hope

through my appearance here that I am conveying my seriousness

and understanding of the issue.

While I don’t profess to have the medical expertise to adequately

describe the dangers of steroid use, I do believe I have the expertise to comment on whether steroids are necessary to excel in athletics. I think it is critical to convey to the youth who desire to

excel in sports that steroids are not the answer, and steroids are

not necessary in order to excel in any athletic event, and success

is achieved through hard work, dedication and perseverance.

I also hope that by being here I can raise the level of awareness

on several other fronts. First, I hope the committee recognizes the

danger of possibly glorifying the so-called author scheduled to testify today or by indirectly assisting him to sell more books through

his claim that what he is doing is somehow good for his country

or the game of the baseball. A book which devotes hundreds of

pages to glorifying steroid usage, and which contends that steroid

use is justified and will be the norm in the country in several years

is a disgrace, was written irresponsibly, and sends exactly the opposite message that needs to be sent to kids. The allegations made

in that book, the attempt to smear the names of players, both past

and present, having been made by one who for years vehemently

denied steroid use should be seen for what they are, an attempt to

make money at the expense of others. I hope we come out of this

proceeding aware of what we are dealing with when we talk about

that so-called author and not create a buzz that results in young

athletes buying the book and being misled on the issues and dangers of steroids.

I must tell you that I hope as a result of this hearing there is

a better awareness of the steroid program recently implemented by

Major League Baseball and its Players Association. That program,

though certainly not perfect, and I dare say there is no such thing

as a testing program, is a substantial step in the right direction

that appears from initial statistics to be having the desired effect;

that is, removing steroids from the game of baseball.

Statistics have shown from 2003 to 2004, the number of players

using steroids in the Major Leagues has gone from 5 to 7 percent

to 1.7 percent. In yesterday’s New York Times it was reported that

there were 96 positive tests during the 2003 testing period. In

2004, that number saw a dramatic decrease as 12 players tested

positive. I see that as progress. I see that as positive.

It troubles me when I hear the program being identified as a

joke, a travesty, a program not designed to rid baseball of steroids.

I think those numbers show this to be a meaningful program, one

that is working, and steroid usage is dropping. The Players Association in an unprecedented move reopened the collective bargaining agreement for the sole purpose of strengthening drug testing

procedures and its penalties. You may view that reopening of an

agreement as a nonissue or one of minimal consequences, but we

didn’t.

231

It appears that the main complaint about the current program

revolves around the current penalties for being caught or failing a

test. It is my view as a 19-year veteran of professional baseball

there will be no system of suspensions or discipline that can be implemented that will stand up to or match the agreement made by

the players that positive test results will be made public, subjecting

the player to public humiliation and labeling as a steroid user or

a cheater. Given the intense media coverage that now permeates

professional sports, there is no doubt in my mind that any player

who is caught after this program has been implemented will, for

all intents and purposes, have his career blacklisted forever. When

a player’s suspension is over, he may be able to lose the label of

a player who is under suspension, but I am convinced he will never

lose the label of a steroid user.

While not a part of my original prepared statement, I think it is

important to address the issue that has arisen with respect to the

issue of public disclosure of test results under the current testing

program. It is my belief that the positive test results will be made

public, and it is the public disclosure which constitutes the real

teeth of the testing program as far as I am concerned. When I

learned upon my arrival in Washington yesterday that there was

some question about public disclosure, I looked into the public disclosure issue because of my beliefs. Based on that, I’m still of the

belief that positive test results will be made public. And I know for

a fact that 98.3 percent of the players who tested clean want the

results to be made public because they know the key to the elimination of steroids is a public recognition of who the cheaters are.

Members of the committee, do I believe steroids are being used

by Major League Baseball players? Yes. Past and present testing

says as much. Do I believe we should continue to test and monitor

steroid usage in Major League Baseball? Absolutely. I believe the

message has been heard by players, and that serious, positive, forward-thinking steps have been taken on the issue.

I urge the committee to focus its efforts in that direction and not

dwell on what may have occurred in the past. I also urge the committee to not make this process just about baseball. Steroids and

supplement usage appears to not be a baseball problem, but a society problem. Everywhere you look, we are bombarded by advertising of supplements and feel-good medications. I urge you to evaluate the way in which these products are manufactured and the way

in which they are marketed. If we are going to send a message to

the young athlete that steroid use is bad and steroids are not necessary to achieve success, you cannot allow that message to be

drowned out by the manufacturers’ advertising to the contrary. If

the government thought enough of American youth to rally against

the tobacco industry and its advertising to our youth, why should

the supplement industry be any different?

I cannot conclude my statement without expressing my admiration to the Hootons and Garibaldis for appearing, and I extend my

deepest sympathy to each of them for their loss. As a father of four

children, I cannot begin to imagine the pain they must be suffering.

To the Hootons and Garibaldis, I want to say this: Having been appointed as a cochairman on the advisory committee tasked with

232

educating our youth about the dangers of steroid usage, I would

welcome their input in helping the committee move forward.

Thank you for your attention and the chance to speak.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schilling follows:]

233

234

235

236

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Thomas, are you with us? Do we have

an audio out to Mr. Thomas? Can you hear us, Mr. Thomas? Can

I swear you in?

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And as you know, we have invited you

here because you have been an outspoken opponent of steroids in

Major League sports.

Do you wish to make an opening statement? And thank you for

joining the task force and cochairing it with Mr. Schilling.

STATEMENT OF FRANK THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. My name is Frank Thomas, and I am a baseball player

for the Chicago White Sox, a team I am proud to have been a part

of since joining Major League Baseball since 1989.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me say that as an outspoken critic

of steroids, I would like to work with the committee, Major League

Baseball and the Players Association to warn everyone, especially

young people, about the dangers of performance-enhancing drugs.

Steroids are dangerous, and the public should be educated about

them, and, in particular, parents should make sure their children

are aware that steroids can be bad for their health.

I also believe the league and the Players Association have done

the right thing by reopening our collective bargaining agreement

and strengthening our policy on drug testing. I support this new

policy as a very good first step in eliminating steroid use in the

sport I love.

I have been a Major League Baseball player for 15 years, and

throughout my career I have never, ever used steroids.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and member of the committee.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:]

237

238

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And I am going to recess the meeting and

ask the Members to come back. We are in the middle of three votes

and should be back in 20 minutes. I appreciate your opening statements, and if you would be able to stay for a few questions, we

very much appreciate everybody being here.

[Recess.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me start the questioning so we can

move this along.

Mr. Schilling, I will ask you and ask Mr. Palmeiro, as I read the

Major League policy, it says if the player tests positive for a steroid, a 10-day suspension or up to a $10,000 fine. So under the policy, a suspension is optional, and you could do a fine up to $10,000.

It could be less than that. Our feeling is it ought to be—with clarity, it ought to be a suspension because a suspension carries with

it a public acknowledgement. Under the rules as we read them, a

fine does not. Do you have any thoughts on that? I am not trying

to put you in the middle.

Mr. SCHILLING. I don’t think for a second there is any question

about making names public upon a failed test. I can’t speak at

length as to why the clause is in there, but I was given the impression, and I’m under the impression, there will be no chance for a

failed test to not be made public.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. It is not what it says, just to let you understand. Your position, you think it ought to be made public?

Mr. SCHILLING. I think that’s the position of players as a whole.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I believe the players should be suspended. I believe our policy needs to be strong, and I think we need to give it

a chance, but I believe the player needs to be suspended.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That is one of the major concerns, and it

was a huge surprise to us as we walk through here.

Mr. Canseco, let me ask you a question going back. It is your position that Major League Baseball knew that there was steroid use

going on and for years didn’t do anything to stop it?

Mr. CANSECO. Absolutely, yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. When you signed a contract with the

team, is it your opinion that people knew about the players that

they were signing and investigated, given the investment they were

making in them?

Mr. CANSECO. I’m under the impression they even did background checks on them.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. So in all likelihood they would know if a

player was taking steroids and what their private lives were because that could jeopardize their ability to perform?

Mr. CANSECO. I believe so, yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And why do you think baseball didn’t do

anything about this?

Mr. CANSECO. I guess in baseball at the time there was a saying,

if it’s not broke, don’t fix it. And baseball was coming back to life.

Steroids were part of the game. And I don’t think anyone really

wanted to take a stance on it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I wanted to wait until we got people in

the room. Mr. Palmeiro, I want to thank you for also agreeing to

be a representative on the Zero Tolerance Advisory Committee on

ending steroid use in sports. I want to thank Mr. Sosa and Mr.

239

McGwire for agreeing to support the efforts for the advisory committee as well. It is important that we get all athletes out there

publicly on this issue.

And, Mr. Waxman, I’m going to recognize you. I appreciate you

being here. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I start with this panel, I

wanted to acknowledge a third family that is here with us today,

the family of Efrain Marrero, a 19-year-old kid from California who

loved to play football. He killed himself after falling into the grip

of steroids. As his mother Brenda has said, steroids killed my son.

I understand that his mother and father and sister Erica are here

today, and they are working with the Garibaldis and Hootons to

get the message out about steroid use to America’s youth, and I

want to say on behalf of all of us, thank them for coming.

On the question I want to ask, and I don’t know which of you

to ask, what I want to know is you have seen steroid use in baseball. You have seen it from inside the clubhouse. Mr. Palmeiro,

maybe it would be best to ask you, is it something that most of the

baseball players knew about?

Mr. PALMEIRO. I have never seen the use of steroids in the clubhouse.

Mr. WAXMAN. How about the fact that players were using

steroids; is that something that other players knew?

Mr. PALMEIRO. I’m sure players knew about it. I really didn’t pay

much attention to it. I was focused on what I had to do as part of

my job.

Mr. WAXMAN. Did players know? You have spoken out about this.

Did you know that other players were using steroids?

Mr. SCHILLING. I think there was suspicion. I don’t think any of

us knew, contrary to the claim of former players. I think while I

agree it’s a problem, I think the issue was grossly overstated by

some people, including myself.

Mr. WAXMAN. Grossly overstated? Why did you do that?

Mr. SCHILLING. I think at the time it was a very hot situation,

and we were all being asked to comment on it. And I think my

opinion at the time was to go with someone who maybe had a better idea than me. But given a chance to reflect, when I look back

on what I said, I’m not sure I could have been any more grossly

wrong.

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you think it is a nonproblem in baseball?

Mr. SCHILLING. If one person is using it, I think it’s a problem.

I think the desire to get to zero players using is a great goal. I

don’t know how achievable that is.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Sosa, did you know that other players were

using steroids?

Mr. SOSA. To my knowledge, I don’t know.

Mr. CANSECO. Absolutely.

Mr. WAXMAN. You say it so affirmatively, but the others seem to

be vague about it. Was it only where you were playing?

Mr. CANSECO. I didn’t hear you.

Mr. WAXMAN. They seem to be vague as to whether it was known

by the players that some players were using steroids. Do you think

there should have been any doubt in anybody’s mind that steroids

was being used by—would you say a large number of players?

240

Mr. CANSECO. There should have been no doubt whatsoever,

none.

Mr. WAXMAN. Does it stop with ballplayers? Steroid use has

grown. Do you think that the team trainers, the managers and general managers, and even the owners might have been aware that

some players were using steroids?

Mr. CANSECO. No doubt in my mind, absolutely.

Mr. WAXMAN. It’s not a secret that stayed with the players; others knew it in the baseball community?

Mr. CANSECO. Absolutely.

Mr. WAXMAN. Do any of you disagree with you that?

Mr. SCHILLING. Disagree with——

Mr. WAXMAN. Not only did some baseball players know that others were using it, but that managers and other teammates and the

trainers also were aware of it?

Mr. SCHILLING. Again, I think it falls—it includes a lot of suspicion and a lot of questioning. Unless you were Jose and you were

actually using it, I don’t think you had firsthand knowledge of who

knew.

Mr. WAXMAN. Last week a very respected person in the athletic

world called me with a suggestion. He said if we want to dramatically cut the use of illegal steroids by kids, we should pass Federal

legislation that applies one standard to all major sports, to colleges

and high schools, instead of a patchwork of different policies. He

suggested taking the Olympic policy and applying that program to

everyone. The first violation would result in a 2-year suspension,

and the second would bring a lifetime ban. Do you think that

would be effective? Let me start with you.

Mr. CANSECO. I think, in my opinion, the most effective thing,

right, would be for us to admit there’s a major problem. It’s got to

start here, and we have to admit to certain things we have done

and change things there. From what I’m hearing, more or less, I

was the only individual in Major League Baseball that used

steroids. That’s hard to believe.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Sosa, do you think we ought to have that gold

standard of the Olympic program, zero tolerance? You got caught

using steroids; for whatever the sport is, that you are suspended

for 2 years, and after that second offense, you’re out. Do you think

that would be effective with baseball and other sports as well?

Mr. SOSA. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have too much

to tell you.

Mr. WAXMAN. You can think about it.

How about you, Mr. McGwire?

Mr. MCGWIRE. I don’t know, but I think we should find the right

standard.

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you think that the standard the baseball commission is using right now is the right standard?

Mr. MCGWIRE. I don’t know. I’m not a current player.

Mr. WAXMAN. You haven’t looked at it?

Mr. MCGWIRE. Correct.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I wouldn’t have a problem of playing under any

type of standard. Like I said, I have never taken it, so if you want

to play under the rules of the Olympics, I welcome it.

241

Mr. WAXMAN. My time is up, and I hope we will get another

chance.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Sweeney.

Mr. SWEENEY. Welcome all, and thank you for your participation.

I want to ask a general question of the entire panel with the idea

that I would followup with a specific. The general question is you

all made very strong statements about your interests in helping us

develop some public education process. Very briefly, because there

is a time issue and I would like to hear from each of you what you

think the danger is, what your perception of what has happened

out there in the world because of the allegations of steroid use; and

second, what can Major League Baseball and the Players Association do tangibly, if you have ideas? And, Mr. Schilling, I will start

with you.

Mr. SCHILLING. I think the inherent danger here is inactivity. I

don’t think a PSA is going to do it. I think there needs to be tough

legislation mandated on the Federal level that affects high school

athletics, college athletics. And I do agree, I think if you come to

one standard and a blanket standard for everybody that is tough

and strict and enforceable, there’s no question that’s the way to go.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I do believe we are role models, and we do have

a lot of power in what kids listen to and the message that we send

to them. And I believe that if we do send the right message, we

can help tremendously.

Mr. MCGWIRE. I believe that’s one of the reasons I am here is

to make this a positive thing instead of a negative thing, and I will

do everything in my power to turn this around from a negative to

a positive.

Mr. SOSA. I agree with Mr. McGwire. One of the reasons we are

here is to stop that. And I think we did some more tests. And one

way or another, we are here to help.

Mr. CANSECO. I think the most important thing is going to be

awareness here. I mean, it is in the forefront right now. We are

looking at it. Major League Baseball player, whatever comes out of

this meeting will say, wow, we have eyes on us, they are looking

at us. We have to change something. Hopefully this book educates

people and what is going on in sports and how devastating the use

is in Major League sports. And no matter what comes out of this,

at least we are going to have some type of start, some type of position to say, look, you got to stop this. The owners have to stop this

continuing. They have to stop this, period.

Mr. SWEENEY. I have two questions to followup. One is that

given its impact, especially with the last panel on scholastic athletics and kids in this country, do any of you doubt that maybe Major

League Baseball—and when I say Major League Baseball, I’m including the Players Association—don’t you think that Major

League Baseball has an obligation to help pay for that program because all of those things cost money? Anyone disagree that Major

League Baseball helps to subsidize?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Talking about the owners here?

Mr. SWEENEY. I’m talking about the owners and possibly the

Players Association in conjunction.

Mr. SCHILLING. For the owners I say yes.

242

Mr. SWEENEY. My point is baseball has an obligation here; don’t

you agree?

And the final question, I’m going to go into sensitive territory,

and our intent is not to embarrass anybody here. We have just established—we all agree this is a public health policy issue. This is

not treading on conduct that rises to the level of criminality in the

past years, but this year it is, and that is the use of steroid precursors and designer steroids and how prevalent that was in baseball

because that is part of the culture. And specifically, Mr. McGwire,

I have to ask you this question from your statement. In part 10,

you essentially say that the impact on children is devastating. You

recognize that. And you want people to understand that the use of

any performance-enhancing drug can be dangerous. It is rather an

infamous occurrence that in the year you were breaking the home

run record, a bottle of Andro was seen in your locker.

My question to you is your position now says that the use of that

product, which is now illegal but was not then—how did you get

to that point that was what you were using to prepare yourself to

play? And if you could tell this committee how you ended up there.

And I would like to know if other players have similar experiences.

I think that would help us understand what you all live in.

Mr. MCGWIRE. Well, sir, I’m not here to talk about the past, I’m

here to talk about the positive and not the negative about this

issue.

Mr. SWEENEY. Were you ever counseled that precursors or designer steroids might have the same impact?

Mr. MCGWIRE. I’m not here to talk about the past.

Mr. SWEENEY. I will simply say to alleviate the kinds of questions that surround the game, we need to understand the game.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Gentleman from Baltimore.

Mr. CUMMINGS. First of all, I want to thank all of you for being

here, and, you know, Mr. Canseco, I have been taking a look at

your book, and you said some things that really—I hear all of you,

and I’m trying to feel good this hearing. But at the same time, I

see you and Mr. McGwire with almost tears in your eyes when you

are talking, and everyone is willing to come and be the spokespersons to help those families who may be trying to deal with this

issue and prevent it in the future.

But, Mr. Canseco, let me ask you this. You said in your book,

and this is in your book, I’m tired of hearing such short-sighted

crap from people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Steroids are here to stay. That’s a fact, I guarantee. Steroids are

the future. By the time my 8-year-old daughter Josie has graduated from high school, a majority of all professional athletes in all

sports will be taking steroids, and believe it or not, that’s good

news.

Help me with that. You sit here one moment talking about how

you want to do all these wonderful things to prevent it in the future, but then it sounds like you are saying something almost the

opposite in your statement in your book.

Mr. CANSECO. I think that was very much pertaining to two subjects. No. 1, if Congress does nothing about this issue, it will go on

forever. That I guarantee you. And basically steroids are only good

for certain individuals, not good for everyone. I think I specify that,

243

in previous chapters, if you medically need it, if it is prescribed to

you. I think those are the things I spoke about.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You realize it is a Federal crime to abuse

steroids?

Mr. CANSECO. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Are you now for a zero tolerance policy?

Mr. CANSECO. Absolutely.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You made some allegations, and as I understand

it, Mr. Schilling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sosa and Mr. Palmeiro said they

never used the substances. Is that right, Mr. Sosa?

Mr. SOSA. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. McGwire, would you like to comment on

that? I didn’t hear you say anything about it. You don’t have to.

I just ask. You don’t want to comment. Are you taking the fifth?

Mr. MCGWIRE. I’m not here to discuss the past. I’m here to be

positive about this subject.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I’m trying to be positive, too. But just a few minutes ago, I watched you with tears—I need to ask a question.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman made it clear.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I made it clear, and I’m just telling him something. I sit here and I almost got tears in my eyes watching you

testify. And, you know, the thing that I’m curious about is, you

know, it’s one thing to say that we want to help. It’s a whole another thing when those parents are sitting directly behind you and

they wonder if this is real.

I guess my question is you said something about your foundation

and trying to help out. Tell us exactly what it is that you plan for

your foundation to do.

Mr. MCGWIRE. Well, right now?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Talking about the future, as you said.

Mr. MCGWIRE. My foundation helps out neglected and abused

children. We have not talked about it, but I’m going to redirect

about this subject.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You are willing to be a national spokesman

against steroids? We have all these high school kids that are emulating you and still look up to McGwire and others. And I think you

said you are willing to be a national spokesman?

Mr. MCGWIRE. I would be a great one.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You would do it?

Mr. MCGWIRE. Absolutely.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Gentleman’s time has expired.

Mrs. Miller.

Mrs. MILLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, perhaps just a question. I appreciate all of the panelists coming here today sincerely. But in

your book you did admit you were a user and abuser of steroids,

and you did suggest that perhaps steroids were a good thing for

players to use. I think you said in your book if properly used,

steroids could help you to live to be 120 years old.

Unfortunately during your playing career, baseball did not have

the testing policy in place against the use of steroids, no testing regime.

I want to applaud you for your testimony today saying that you

are willing to work toward educating our young people about the

dangers of steroids, but could you answer, even if the new random

244

testing policy that the Major Leagues are putting in place today,

if that was in place during your playing career, do you think it

would have changed your behavior in regards to steroids, or do you

think that the desire to play better is just so strong that the standard that is going to be in place today is going to eliminate steroid

use in Major League Baseball?

Mr. CANSECO. I don’t know how the policy for Major League

Baseball is structured right now, but I heard it’s a complete joke.

Obviously if there were a proper system completely educating athletes and so forth, I truly believe that no Major League player

would do steroids.

Mrs. MILLER. My understanding of the new policy is that it is a

random test, at least one time during the season for each player.

And I suppose we will have additional questions for the next panel.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is my only question.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. If you would yield to Mr. Burton.

Mrs. MILLER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have a question.

I just would like to say it’s evident from this hearing that a lot

more needs to be done to make sure that not only the baseball

world, but the entire world of athletics that these kind of drugs

need to be outlawed. And I would like to say I understand the

Commissioner has started to move in the right direction, but evidently hasn’t moved fast enough.

Rather than me questioning the players who are here today or

pound on this subject anymore, I would like to say that the message is loud and clear from this committee and from the Congress

of the United States, we want this stuff stopped in all athletics, not

just baseball. And I think you can tell by the tone of my colleagues

up here, if it doesn’t stop, you are going to end up with something

that you don’t want in the world of athletics, and that is the Congress of the United States doing what you don’t do.

So do the job. Baseball players, whom I have respected since I

was kid, go out there and tell the kids even if you use steroids, tell

them this is not the right thing to do. Tell them about the people

who lost their kids because of misuse of steroids. If you preach the

Gospel, and if the baseball Commissioner and everybody in baseball gets the word out, this will change. You won’t have to have

Congress legislating. You will get the job done.

Do the job so we don’t have to. And I hope this message goes out

loud and clear in every athletic endeavor, not just in baseball. If

it does in this hearing, Mr. Chairman, because of you and Mr.

Waxman, it will be of great benefit to all sports.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I increasingly feel a feeling of the theater of the

absurd unfolding here. We are all interested in the future, but in

order to plan a better future in this field, we must look at the past.

In every single endeavor as we plan for the future, unless we learn

from the past, it will be a futile endeavor.

I am totally disinterested in individual past behavior, let me

make that clear. But there are a few specific questions I would like

all of you gentleman to respond to. Jim Bunning, our former colleague testified earlier today, who said that the industry is taking

245

baby steps. Well, baby steps are clearly not adequate when we are

facing a major national crisis impacting our young people. That’s

why we are here; that’s why all the media is here. So to pretend

that baby steps will solve this problem is ludicrous.

So I would like to ask each of you gentlemen to answer the following questions. You have already said, some of you, that you

favor the Olympics formula. Could I ask all of you to say yes or

no? It is a much tougher formula, much more demanding, with

much more severe penalties. Mr. Schilling, are you in favor of it?

Mr. SCHILLING. I would need to see it first. I wouldn’t give a

blanket yes or no.

Mr. LANTOS. Are you in favor of much stricter penalties?

Mr. SCHILLING. I’m in favor of allowing the current system to

continue to work, and where loopholes are found, loopholes need to

be fixed. I think the testing is doing what it is aimed to do, which

is reduce the usage of steroids by players.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I’m in favor of eliminating the problem completely.

Mr. LANTOS. Obviously, the Olympics are internationally recognized as it has been referred to as the gold standard. If, in fact,

that is the gold standard, would you be in favor of applying to in

baseball?

Mr. PALMEIRO. I would play under any type of deal that would

clean our sport and make it level playing field for everyone.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you.

Mr. McGwire.

Mr. MCGWIRE. Being that I’m retired, I think that anything that

Major League Baseball can do to get rid of this problem and put

a positive light on this for our children and our future, I think it

would be great.

Mr. SOSA. Yes, I am in favor.

Mr. CANSECO. I’m definitely in favor of it, but I think you have

to monitor whoever is issuing this test.

Mr. LANTOS. The second question I have is are you in favor of

independent testing, because one of the issues that emerged is that

unless all testing is done by a totally independent entity, which has

nothing to do with the owners, the players, it stands by itself.

Would you favor that, Mr. Schilling?

Mr. SCHILLING. Yes.

Mr. PALMEIRO. Yes.

Mr. MCGWIRE. I think it would be outstanding.

Mr. SOSA. Yes, sir.

Mr. CANSECO. Going to be the only way you are going to solve

this.

Mr. LANTOS. Final question. On the assumption that within a

reasonable period of time the industry doesn’t clean up its own act,

are you in favor of Federal legislation, Mr. Schilling?

Mr. SCHILLING. Yes.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I agree. I agree.

Mr. MCGWIRE. If that’s what it takes, yes.

Mr. SOSA. Yes.

Mr. CANSECO. Yes.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Souder.

246

Mr. SOUDER. My first question is to Mr. Schilling. And my belief

is that all we have seen is sampling, and it is not adequate, and

it is not independent, and so full of holes and ephedra and everything else, that if it was cheese, it would definitely be Swiss cheese.

Clearly the policy needs to be fixed, and I’m disappointed that you

don’t seem to share that view.

You said earlier, as I understood it, that we went from 5 to 7 percent positive down to 1.7, and that is progress. I thought I heard

you also say it would be inevitable, and the people—this would be

public. I haven’t heard 5 to 7 percent of the players named as using

steroids. I haven’t heard 1.7 percent. Where is the public part?

Mr. SCHILLING. After the agreement renegotiated those past couple of months, those are instituted now. Those previous results are

from the last two seasons. The 5 to 7 percent was the number that

needed to be met for the testing to be put into effect, the different

method of testing which was put into effect last year.

Mr. SOUDER. Under the previous policy, was anybody suspended

for steroids?

Mr. SCHILLING. I can’t answer that.

Mr. SOUDER. The simple way to solve this is the way that Mr.

Sosa and Mr. Palmeiro and Mr. Schilling and Mr. Thomas has said.

I’m clean, I have been clean, I’ve taken the test, and I have passed

the test. This is pretty simple, and the American people are figuring out who is willing to say that and who isn’t.

And as far as this being about the past, that’s what we do. This

is an oversight committee. If the Enron people come in here and

say, we don’t want to talk about the past, do you think Congress

is going to let them get away with that? When we were doing investigations on the travel office, on Whitewater, if President Nixon

had said about Watergate when Congress was investigating Watergate, we don’t talk about the past, how in the world are we supposed to pass legislation? When you are a protected monopoly, and

all of your salaries are paid because you are a protected monopoly,

how are we supposed to figure out what our obligations are to the

taxpayers if you say you won’t want to talk about the past?

I praise those people that have come forward and have been in

awkward situations before because of peer pressure and said, look,

I’m clean; but I’m really disappointed because we have to talk

about the past because there isn’t any way to address that. And

unless there are independent entities doing this, I don’t believe this

is going to pass the laugh test. I believe we have advanced some

today, but we have also gone backward some today. And this is

going to be very critical.

Yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Owens.

Mr. OWENS. I don’t want to repeat what my colleague asked before. I want a clarification. He said if the industry can’t clean this

up, are you in favor of Federal legislation? I think you gave a positive answer. I want to go one step further and say baseball is an

industry, it’s a business. It’s our favorite pastime. In most instances, we have failed in attempts to have businesses self-regulate

themselves. There are few successes. Do you think it is possible

that self-regulation will solve this problem?

Mr. SCHILLING. Yes. Absolutely.

247

Mr. PALMEIRO. I think it’s possible, too.

Mr. MCGWIRE. Me, too.

Mr. SOSA. I think it’s possible, too. If we work together, yes.

Mr. CANSECO. My honest opinion, not completely, but because we

have brought this to light, it’s going to come very close.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. McHenry, any questions?

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you all for coming here today. I know it

is not an easy situation for any of you. I appreciate the fact that

as individuals you don’t like the idea of having to come before Congress and swear an oath. I certainly understand that, and I respect

your right to privacy as individuals.

Our hearings today are not about you as individuals. A lot has

been made of a book written, a lot has been made of statements

that have been made, but it’s not about you as individuals, it is the

overall societal problem. And you all mentioned, with these families that testified earlier, the impact it had on you as individuals.

That’s a message that your sport, you and your colleagues are

sending in many ways.

And so I have a simple question, and you can answer yes or no

or choose to not answer. That is certainly your right. Is using

steroids the use of steroids, is that cheating?

Mr. SCHILLING. Yes.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I believe it is.

Mr. MCGWIRE. Not for me to determine.

Mr. MCHENRY. For you, is it cheating, yes or no?

Mr. MCGWIRE. It’s not for me to determine.

Mr. SOSA. I think so.

Mr. CANSECO. I think so. And in many ways it also cheats the

individual who uses it because eventually if found out or come to

the forefront, they have to go through this. Absolutely.

Mr. MCHENRY. My followup question is to Mr. McGwire. You

said you would like to be a spokesman on this issue. What is your

message?

Mr. MCGWIRE. My message is that steroids is bad. Don’t do

them. It’s a bad message. And I’m here because of that. And I want

to tell everybody that I will do everything I can, if you allow me,

to turn this into a positive. There is so much negativity said out

here. We need to start talking about positive things here.

Mr. MCHENRY. How do you know they’re bad?

Mr. MCGWIRE. Pardon me?

Mr. MCHENRY. Your message, coming from professional baseball,

would you say that perhaps you have known people that have

taken steroids, and you have seen ill effects on that, or would your

message be that you have seen the direct effects of steroids?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me just note here that House rule 11

protects witnesses and the public from the disclosure of defamatory, degrading or incriminating testimony in open session. House

rules at this point are both clear and strict. I think if the testimony

tends to defame, the committee can’t proceed in open session, and

we want to proceed in open session today. So with that in mind,

you can choose to answer that, Mr. McGwire.

Mr. MCHENRY. Respectfully, my question is just about the message he would carry to the people.

248

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I just wanted to give——

Mr. MCGWIRE. I have accepted, by my attorney’s advice, not to

comment on this issue.

Mr. MCHENRY. If you go down the line again, and I will ask another question, and everyone can answer simply and directly I

would hope. If it is proven that a player has set records while using

steroids, should those records stand?

Mr. CANSECO. It’s impossible to measure, I would guess, what

one steroid does to one player and another player. There is no

guideline to try to say, well, if he hits 60 or 70 home runs because

he was on steroids, we are going to take away 20 or 25 of his home

runs. It’s impossible.

Mr. SOSA. It’s not up to me.

Mr. MCGWIRE. Not up to me to determine that.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I believe that’s up to the Commissioner.

Mr. SCHILLING. Absolutely not.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you for your frank answers. And as members of the Players’ Union, which you all are or were, your representatives sat down and negotiated on your behalf about the steroid policy. And part of what we will hear from the Commissioner,

I’m sure, and your union representative, is the fact, well, from your

union representative, that he was empowered to negotiate certain

directions.

Did you support the old policy, the old policy on steroids? Did you

empower your union representative—what was your stance on the

issue of steroids within your union votes as members of the union?

Did you support a more stringent policy, or did you ask your union

representative to limit the policy when it comes to steroids?

Mr. SCHILLING. No, I didn’t support the old policy. And as a

team, the Diamondbacks made it very clear we didn’t support the

old policy to the point where we spoke about not taking the tests

ourselves to force a failed result to increase the toughness of the

policy. And I think that’s exactly what happened.

Mr. PALMEIRO. Since there was a new policy in place, and first

time I was tested, I was in favor of it. I was aware we needed to

take bigger steps and more steps, and I think we need to give a

chance to this new policy. And if we do take more steps, I’m in

favor of that also.

Mr. MCGWIRE. I’ve been retired.

Mr. MCHENRY. When you were a member of the Players’ Union?

Mr. MCGWIRE. There was no policy.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Gentleman’s time has expired, and we will

allow the previous answer to be accepted.

Mr. SOSA. I don’t have the specific question to explain to you.

Mr. CANSECO. The policy was never an issue when I was there.

The only players that may have been privy to it briefly were members of the Players Association. Each organization had a representative that would go and represent that team. So as beyond that,

no policy was ever mentioned or really talked about.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman from New York Mr.

Towns.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

You know, looking back over the rules and the recommendations

that have been made, I think that we are overlooking the fact that

249

we can only hold the players accountable, but all wrongdoers, including management, trainers, front office and all, should be involved in this if we really want to clean up the situation we now

find ourselves in.

Let me just go down the line starting with you, Mr. Schilling. Do

you consider yourself a role model?

Mr. SCHILLING. Yes.

Mr. PALMEIRO. Definitely.

Mr. MCGWIRE. Yes.

Mr. SOSA. Yes.

Mr. CANSECO. Yes.

Mr. TOWNS. With that in mind, do you think that maybe posting

something in a locker room might remind a person that they

should not consider using? Being you’re saying that the kind of

damage that takes place with the person using steroids, for instance, in locker rooms, sometimes they put what smoking will do

to you and things like that. Do you think that will serve as a deterrent? I’m trying to figure out what we might be able to do if it’s

a widespread kind of thing. Do you think that is a scare tactic?

Mr. SCHILLING. No, I don’t.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I’m not sure.

Mr. MCGWIRE. I can’t answer that.

Mr. SOSA. I can’t answer that.

Mr. CANSECO. Yes. I think bringing this issue to light is going

to be a major deterrent. Players will be talking about this on a

daily basis and will be aware there will be a lot of eyes on them,

especially Congress.

Mr. TOWNS. My concern is the young people, high school ballplayers and people playing that I was wondering if this kind of

technique, the scared straight sort of thing, to kind of show them

that if you use, you could end up looking like this at the end of the

day. That is the reason why I was thinking about that for high

school players more than professionals, because my concern is that

at that level, they might begin to really use it. That is a real concern. So what can we do with high schoolers? Any thoughts on

that? Any suggestions? Because that is the area we need to focus

on a great deal.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I believe we can go around the high schools in the

country, use our names, use who we are to send the right message,

to send the message that steroids are wrong and costing lives every

day.

Mr. SCHILLING. I don’t think a PSA is going to do it. I think there

needs to be some form of drug testing, and there needs to be ramifications to failing a drug test, be it high school or college. Until

you have that and pay a price, I don’t think there is going to be

a lot of thought from a 16-year old about the consequences of using.

Mr. TOWNS. If a trainer has information about the fact that

somebody is using, what should that trainer do? And I’m thinking

in terms of in colleges, that if you see someone cheating and you

don’t tell, they put you out, too. So I’m thinking about the fact that

if you have a trainer that is very much aware of the fact that illegal actions are taking place, and nobody is doing a thing about it,

does anything happen to that person? You have a trainer who

might be aware of the fact that somebody is using steroids. He

250

knows it, but he just walks around every day and doesn’t tell anybody about the fact that this is going on.

Mr. SCHILLING. Might be aware or definitely know? Might be

aware that someone is using?

Mr. TOWNS. Yes. Has information that somebody is using and not

do anything about it.

Mr. SCHILLING. Unless you have a verifiable fact, I think you are

treading on dangerous ground. We are here because of some people

that had a loose tongue and said things that I don’t believe are entirely true. And it could cause a lot more problems than it solves.

Mr. PALMEIRO. If the trainer knows for sure, it is his responsibility to make the player aware and educate the player.

Mr. MCGWIRE. I agree with Raffy, I think that would be a great

step.

Mr. PALMEIRO. Exactly.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Sosa.

Mr. SOSA. I agree. I agree with Raffy. I think it is probably something we all should do.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Canseco.

Mr. CANSECO. I definitely believe and know that they are under

the same circumstances, some Major League players are under—

meaning if they come to the forefront and speak about it, Major

League Baseball will do something to them in the sense of maybe

blackballing them from the game or causing them a lot of problems.

Mr. TOWNS. In other words, there would be some penalties, if the

trainer does not report it, that he should be penalized?

Mr. CANSECO. It’s a very delicate position he is in. The example

I can give you, let’s say one player knows another player is using

steroids, or this player is still active, or one player wants to come

to the forefront but he is still active in Major League Baseball.

Major League Baseball is very powerful, and if you act against

them or speak out against them, it can cost you your livelihood,

definitely.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Ms. Foxx.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Candice Miller asked one of the questions that I wanted to ask

about whether, if the policy were in effect years ago, would it have

made a difference. But I want to ask another question and that is,

why do you think—I will ask each player this—why has it taken

so long for the League to act on this, since it seems to have been

so wide—that it was so well-known that abuse was going on; why

has it taken the League so long to act?

Mr. CANSECO. Basically something like a book written about the

problems in Major League Baseball had to be done, absolutely. I

think it definitely triggered a lot of events. I think it finally made

Major League Baseball aware of that, you know, or in the sense of

stuff covering up, what was really going on.

Mr. SOSA. I don’t really know, I am not sure.

Mr. MCGWIRE. Can you ask the question one more time?

Ms. FOXX. Why has it taken so long for the League to act, for

professional baseball to act on this issue? There’s a policy in effect

251

now, I think it’s a very weak policy, but why has it taken so long

to institute any policy?

Mr. MCGWIRE. I don’t know. But there is a great reason why we

are here today: to try to fix it.

Mr. PALMEIRO. Ma’am, I am not sure why it has taken so long.

You may have to ask the Commissioner and the Players Association.

Mr. SCHILLING. I don’t know—there was a policy in place before

the book came out. The only thing I think that has happened in

the last 6 months is that the policy has changed and gotten in

some ways stronger.

Ms. FOXX. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. The policy is weaker than the

Minor League testing at this point, and the Minor League had it

way before, and I think one of the concerns is among professional

sports, baseball has been a little bit late coming to the table and

maybe a little bit short of where some of the standards are. That’s

one of the concerns. Obviously, we will see how this is implemented.

There’s active testing going on now, but there is a concern, as

you can hear from us and some of the other experts, that maybe

it doesn’t go far enough and hopefully this hearing will shine some

light on it. Between the players and the owners, we can come up

and close some of these loopholes and make it work.

The last thing you want is us making the policy, I guarantee it.

We don’t do things very well anyway when we get into it. We act

as the last resort. But there’s still a lot of concern, not that—it is

late, but it is not as complete as we had hoped it would be. But

your speaking here is very helpful.

Next. I think Mr. Kanjorski was next.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Canseco, in your book—I didn’t read your book I must confess, but in your book I assume that you confessed to taking

steroids; is that correct?

Mr. CANSECO. Yes. In the past I have, yes.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Well, can you tell us—what we are trying to get

to here—one of the reasons I objected to the—I objected to the use

of subpoenas for the hearing was the highlight of just baseball, just

superstars in baseball. And I have been listening to the examination now, and I am getting the indication that we want to clean up

baseball at the highest level. And not looking at the broad application; I want to get to motive.

Why did you use steroids?

Mr. CANSECO. Well, there are many reasons. There’s a chapter

in my book, where my mom passed away, and I was called in from

California. I was playing ‘‘A’’ ball that year, and when I flew home

she was in the hospital and she was brain-dead from an aneurysm.

She never had seen me play Minor League in general, and I promised her I was going to be the best athlete in the world, no matter

what it took. I definitely got caught up in the whole——

Mr. KANJORSKI. Would it be fair to say that you did it because

the motivation was to build your body to be more competitive, and

ultimately make more money?

252

Mr. CANSECO. I don’t even think the money was an issue there.

I think just becoming, you know, the best athlete I could possibly

become.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Right. Have you given a lot of thought that if we

had the best damn testing system that baseball could possibly

imagine, what type of implication or ramification would that have

for all of those hundreds of thousands of high school athletes that

we are trying to establish some help for? Shouldn’t we be looking

at what we can do for them?

And now my next question is, since you obviously favor testing

for super-athletes, would you favor a universal testing of the highest standard—the Olympic standard—for all athletics, regardless of

where they are and regardless of what level of schooling that they

are in and regardless of what sex is involved, whether it’s male, female or otherwise?

Mr. CANSECO. I truly believe that at the Major League level, if

everyone knew there was no steroids at all, and a competitive balance was even, it will trickle down to the Minor League level, the

high school level and beyond.

Mr. KANJORSKI. But is it your idea that we can’t do anything

about steroids, then?

Mr. CANSECO. No, we definitely can.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Wouldn’t it require that we have a universal test

of all athletes? You know, is some kid, 16-year-old, is not looking

only at you, he is looking at football players, tennis players, he is

looking at wrestlers, and probably he is not doing it for some narcissistic reason. But probably for accomplishment and success.

Mr. CANSECO. I agree. But if you just regulate it at, let’s say, at

the Minor League level and then the college level and high school

level, and then don’t regulate it at the Major League level——

Mr. KANJORSKI. I am not suggesting not doing it at the Major

League level, I am saying a universal test for everybody who is an

athlete.

Mr. CANSECO. For Major League on down.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Major league on down.

Mr. CANSECO. Absolutely, yes.

Mr. KANJORSKI. You would be in favor.

Mr. CANSECO. Yes.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Do you have any idea how pervasive steroids are

used, particularly in your younger population, college and high

school? Do you have any idea, being at the center of the controversy?

Mr. CANSECO. If it is proportion to at the Major League level at

the peak of steroid use, I would say it’s very high.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Do you have any percentages or fractions?

Mr. CANSECO. No, I don’t, not beyond the Major League level. No,

I don’t.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Carrying that on, I am going to give you an

analogy that has bothered me—and I don’t expect anybody has the

answer—but suppose somebody came out with smart pills and that

smart pill could make you 10 times smarter than you are right

now, and they may put a warning on there that it could cost you

5 or 10 years of your life expectancy. How many people would be

tempted to try to win a Nobel Prize and take that smart pill?

253

Mr. CANSECO. You know, that’s a very tough question, because

we don’t know whether we are going to be around tomorrow or not.

We don’t know if our futures are guaranteed or not. But the smart

pill guarantees something, meaning you are going to win a Nobel

Prize. It’s a tough question to ask. I don’t really even——

Mr. KANJORSKI. It is trying to get to the point. Look, there’s a

motivation of why athletes who have a high appreciation of their

body—their making a judgment of risking something. So what I am

asking, it is somewhat of an intelligent question that they raise. I

mean, I assume all of you fellows, particularly you, I won’t address—you had an idea it could be dangerous to your body, didn’t

you?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. If you

would like to answer, you may.

Mr. CANSECO. I think as athletes have become more educated,

yes, they are starting to realize that—more and more information—

that the dangers are greater and greater.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this has been

one of the most fascinating hearings I have ever participated in,

and I have been in Congress now 10 years.

I am like a lot of the folks up here on this side of the panel. I

grew up listening to baseball games on WHO radio, listening to

Minnesota Twins, and my idols were people like Harmon Killebrew

and Earl Batty and Richie Rollins, and I remember those games

like it was yesterday.

When I started thinking about this issue, and as this issue has

sort of, you know, bubbled up over the last several years, my first

reaction is how unfair this is to people like Harmon Killebrew. You

wonder how many home runs he might have hit if he had been able

to use chemicals.

Or, particularly, Hank Aaron; you know, in some respects it sort

of cheats the game, it cheats history, and it cheats things like that.

I think about baseball, especially because growing up watching

Roger Maris hit 61 home runs and remembering that for years—

even today there’s an asterisk after his name—and knowing that,

for example, in Little League now, and even in softball leagues, we

use aluminum bats, but we don’t do that in some Major League

Baseball, not even in the Minor League, but the reason is we take

those records so seriously. I mean, they are all almost a part of history. We all know where we were when Roger Maris hit that 61st

home run, and we remember some of those things.

So in many respects, when I thought about this hearing, first I

thought about some of the greats of the game.

One of my favorite expressions is, with all kinds of issues we

deal with here in Washington, is that it shouldn’t take an act of

Congress.

But I would like all of you to perhaps respond to that question,

can baseball heal itself, or is it going to take an act of Congress

to force them to come to grips with this problem and hopefully

begin to spread the message down to the Minor Leagues and to the

colleges and high schools and ultimately to the Little Leagues, that

this is a bad idea and it’s the wrong way to go and it cheats you,

254

it cheats the game and it cheats the history of baseball. Is it going

to take an act of Congress?

Mr. Schilling.

Mr. SCHILLING. I don’t think so. I, as a member of the Players

Union and as a former player representative, I believe—and I have

always believed—that the 90-plus percentile of players that test

clean want to make sure that the ones that don’t are found out.

And I think that, given what I have heard from the Commissioner

and from the people and the player representatives, that’s going to

happen now. And I think the fear of public embarrassment and humiliation upon being caught is going to be greater than any player

ever imagined.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I don’t believe it will take an act of Congress. I

believe that our game will get straightened out and I believe it will

get cleaned up. We just need to give this policy a chance. Like I

said before, if we need to enhance it, let’s do it.

Mr. MCGWIRE. I don’t know, being that I am retired, but whatever it’s going to take to put more of a positive light on this situation, to detract the young people of today away from this stuff, I

am all for it.

Mr. SOSA. I believe it can heal itself. If Major League Baseball

will take that seriously, we can do so.

Mr. CANSECO. I have to be honest again. I don’t believe it can,

unless Congress steps in, because of the frugal testing programs

that Major League Baseball has. It will just be a joke. It will be

all this all over again, no buts about it.

Talk about the way baseball has evolved, baseball is evolving,

the ballparks, the bats. Let’s say there was no steroids invented

today at all; the nutrition, the information on food supplements out

there are incredible. Nonetheless, let’s say 10, 15 years from now,

we have a shortage of wood in the world, so we have to go to aluminum bats, so we are constantly evolving, striving to move forward, faster and stronger. We just have to find a way to do it legally, that’s it.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Sanders.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the ranking member for calling this important hearing.

Mr. Chairman, this morning I was on a TV show, as I am sure

many members of this committee were, and I was asked by the

interviewer whether I thought this committee was grandstanding,

whether in fact we were using the fame of these outstanding athletes to get our names in the paper and so forth. And I said I didn’t

think so, because I thought this was a hugely important issue impacting millions of young people. And that’s what I believe.

But I do want to say that I am overwhelmed by the kind of

media attention that this has gotten. I have counted dozens of TV

cameras, and I think some of the American people wonder is this

all we do, because this is what they see on television. So I want

to say to our media friends, that when some of us talk about the

collapse of our health care system and millions of people not having

any health insurance, come and join us, and we talk about the

United States having the highest rate of childhood poverty in the

255

industrialized world at a time when the rich are getting richer,

come on down.

Now, maybe we may have to bring great baseball players to help

us talk about childhood poverty, I don’t know; I would hope not. I

would hope we could have some of the great experts and you would

come. But to the American people, some of us are dealing with

other issues as well.

In terms of this issue, I have a couple of questions that I would

like to ask our guests. I have heard a discrepancy of opinion about

the seriousness of the problem. Mr. Canseco says it’s rampant, everybody knows it, virtually lots of people are doing it. Mr. Schilling

says he is not so sure. He doesn’t really think it is a terribly serious problem. I think Mr. Palmeiro has agreed with Mr. Schilling.

So let me start off—and I know this is a hard one—are we talking about 1 percent of players, in your judgment, doing it? Are we

talking about 5 percent, 10 percent? Is Mr. Canseco the only player

in the world to have done this?

Mr. Schilling.

Mr. SCHILLING. No, I don’t think he is the only player. I think

he is a liar. I think that what he did was grossly overstate a situation to make himself not look as bad.

Mr. SANDERS. What would be your guess in terms of——

Mr. SCHILLING. You know what? I took an oath. I swore to tell

the truth today. Nineteen years in the big league, I have never

seen a syringe. Other than one prescribed by a doctor to a player,

I have never seen steroids.

Mr. SANDERS. But in locker room gossip? You may not have seen

it. Right. This guy is doing something. That guy is doing something. I don’t need names. What is your guess? You have heard

people say somebody is doing it?

Mr. SCHILLING. Absolutely. We have been through discussions

about other guys on other teams. I would say the percentage is on

or around where it’s been tested at. I don’t think it’s much higher,

I think it’s—again, I am in a locker room I have played with six

different teams. I have played with over thousands of players. I

would guess that maybe 5 to 10 players in the last 15 years were

using.

Mr. SANDERS. Five to 15.

Mr. SCHILLING. Five to 10 maybe. I wouldn’t know—or more.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Palmeiro, Mr. Schilling says he would guess

he believes it would be 5 to 10 players in the many years he has

been in the majors. What do you guess?

Mr. PALMEIRO. I wouldn’t know, I couldn’t take a guess. I just

think as long as—even 1 percent is high, way too high. We need

to make sure it is zero percent.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. McGwire, would you like to speculate?

Mr. MCGWIRE. I wouldn’t know. It is a big reason today why we

are here today, to talk about it.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Sosa, what is your guess?

Mr. SOSA. I wouldn’t know.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Canseco.

Mr. CANSECO. I would say Mr. Schilling is correct on today’s statistics about how many people are using steroids, because we have

made steroids aware. We have brought it out. This book came out,

256

scared a lot of individuals. If they were using steroids when this

book came out, they cold stopped, period.

Mr. SANDERS. You are suggesting that it went from wide prevalence down to what Mr. Schilling is saying, almost nothing; is that

what you are saying?

Mr. CANSECO. When I mentioned 80 percent at the peak of steroid use, that may have been somewhere from the year 1994 to the

year 2000. That’s when I played. I have been retired I guess for 3

or 4 years now. It’s been a long time. But because of certain instances that have happened, definitely it has curtailed greatly.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me ask the last question. I appreciate all of

your efforts, and you are willing to stand up for the kids of America; that you know you are role models, you know that steroids are

bad, and you want to do everything you can to prevent kids from

emulating bad habits.

My question is this: If the Major League does not come forth

with an aggressive policy—I think what you are hearing today is

we are not overly impressed by what the Major Leagues have

done—will you come back in a year from now and say, Members

of Congress, we support you in passing Federal legislation to tell

the Major Leagues that they have to be aggressive and pass strong

and stringent requirements? In other words, will you come back

and tell us to do that?

Mr. Schilling.

Mr. SCHILLING. I am not sure I can answer that. We are in support of a stronger system that eradicates the use of steroids by

players.

Mr. SANDERS. The majors don’t do anything if the league doesn’t

do anything. Are you going to come back?

Mr. SCHILLING. That’s a hypothetical. That, I don’t believe is

going to happen.

Mr. SANDERS. Now you sound like a politician. I want you. Mr.

Palmeiro.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I am agreeing with Curt. I don’t think it is going

to happen.

Mr. SANDERS. You think the league is going to do the right

thing?

Mr. PALMEIRO. I believe so. But if it doesn’t, I would be more

than happy to come back and address the problem again.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. McGwire, will you come back and join us?

Mr. MCGWIRE. Well, I have no idea, being a retired player, I

have no idea what the policy is. But if you would like me back,

sure.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Sosa.

Mr. SOSA. Sure. I believe Major League Baseball will do something. If you want me to come back here, I am happy to do it.

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you. Mr. Canseco.

Mr. CANSECO. I think it would be the Major League, to let the

league police itself. No if and buts about it. We will be back here

quicker than quick.

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Dent.

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

257

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I’m sorry. I promised Mr. Issa first, then

we will go to Mr. Dent.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Schilling, I must say I came here intending to throw softballs

to all of you whenever possible. But listening, I have been a little

disappointed. I am sort of hearing a consistent problem from you

as a Players rep that there isn’t a problem and we don’t need to

intervene.

So would it surprise you if I told you that I talked to multiple

professional team owners, including baseball, and had an absolute

positive ‘‘please legislate a zero tolerance’’?

Mr. SCHILLING. Would it surprise me?

Mr. ISSA. Would it surprise you?

Mr. SCHILLING. No.

Mr. ISSA. So that’s a position that you feel is comfortable coming

from the owners?

Mr. SCHILLING. ‘‘Position’’ being——

Mr. ISSA. Zero tolerance, go ahead and mandate it. It doesn’t surprise you that the owners feel that way?

Mr. SCHILLING. Not that they say it, no.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Schilling, I take people at their word.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. He is a pretty good politician isn’t he?

Mr. ISSA. Yes, he is. By the way, as to my colleague on the other

side talking about that pill to make us 10 times smarter, I think

it could be mandated for Congress to save the Nation. So I am not

sure that wouldn’t be one we would give ourselves a special exemption, as we do so many other things.

The earlier panel, I asked every member—and they were medical

and grieving parents—basically a question. And I will set it up: If

you use the aluminum bat, if you were to sneak one into a game

and use it, that would be cheating, wouldn’t it? And if you were

to—if you were a pitcher and you were to bring in a dull ball so

that nobody could really hit a home run off of you while you were

pitching, that would be cheating, wouldn’t it? Anyone disagree

here?

So using an illegal drug to attempt to enhance the performance

of a player would be cheating, wouldn’t it? Anyone here disagree

in any way, shape, or form? And wouldn’t you agree that Congress

has a vested interest in ensuring that baseball does not have cheating going on?

Mr. Chairman, I have all my questions answered. I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

Some have used steroids, and with respect to baseball it defies

credibility that only the players know. I mean, we are holding players accountable here. But what about those who profited from a

system of enhanced performance?

Others know, including the owners, which may explain why the

owners may be congenial to some changes. So good for them. What

has not been investigated today or documented, is the win-at-allcost mentality which has infected not only sports but business, the

media, and, I might add, politics. Our steroids are called PACs and

special interest contributions. This does not excuse anyone.

258

But if we leave here today without looking at the larger questions of pressures to succeed, pressures to win, pressures to make

money, pressures to be bigger, pressures to be better, win at all

costs, at the cost of health, at the cost of reputation, at the cost of

life—if we don’t look at these life questions of win at all costs, if

we don’t think about this, if we don’t go deeper with our thinking

here today, we will be back here years from now, regardless of

what these players so graciously commit to do. We only need to go

back to Mr. Waxman’s initial testimony, his statement about how

we have been here before.

Now, I would like to have the remaining time belong to the players who have said that they want to communicate with the young

people of America. Take the opportunity now, because I think this

is an important moment to do it. What can you say right now, Mr.

Schilling, to America’s youth with respect to the use of steroids?

Just in a half a minute to a minute.

Mr. SCHILLING. I think that——

Mr. KUCINICH. If you speak directly to the young people.

Mr. SCHILLING. I think to the youth of America, we have made

it very clear that steroids is cheating, and winning without honor

is not winning.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Palmeiro.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I would have to say that I am the perfect example

of someone that came from another country and took advantage of

the situation that was given to me. I have worked very hard and

I have dedicated my life to my sport.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. McGwire.

Mr. MCGWIRE. I would say that steroids are wrong, do not take

them, it gives you nothing but false hope. That’s what I would say.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Sosa, poderia usted dar un consejo a los

jovenes en nuestro pais con respecto a uso de estroidas?

Mr. SOSA. Yes, sir. I would say pretty much, you know, hard

work, believe in yourself, you know, do good, and work hard, you

know. Set an example, you know, coming from the island, work

hard, make it to the Major Leagues. That’s the only thing I can

say. Everybody up there, you know, believe in yourself.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you. Mr. Canseco.

Mr. CANSECO. I can speak for myself and say I made a mistake

using steroids, no if, ands, or buts about it. I don’t want any youngster using steroids.

Mr. KUCINICH. Speak to the young people.

Mr. CANSECO. Yes. I probably haven’t slept in 3 or 4 days. My

attorney can verify this because of this issue. This is the first hearing about children that took their lives. It is not worth it.

I am going to say this again. If Congress does nothing about this,

Major League Baseball will not regulate themselves. The Players

Association will not regulate these players, that I guarantee. I have

been a Major League Baseball player for 17 years. Sure, the Players Association and the owners disagree on most things, but when

it comes to making money they are on the same page.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, and that’s what I alluded to earlier. I would

suggest to the members of the committee that we can take these

players at their word about their commitment, wherever they have

been in the past. As a matter of fact, some who know the territory

259

well may be the best spokespersons about a new direction. And if

you have not been in that territory, as some of our witnesses have

said, you can also make a strong statement. Young people look up

to you.

So thank you for being here today, and I agree that we need to

look forward and we need to move forward.

Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Dent.

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, we are here for a variety of reasons today because,

one, this committee has Federal oversight on drug policy. We are

all concerned about our youth. I believe we can all say that.

The other constituency I think that has to be considered today

are the taxpayers of this country. And in my State where we subsidize Major League Baseball—taxpayers do—over $150 million

went to support stadiums in the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. And we subsidize that industry, which is treated like a monopoly, and the antitrust legislation your industry enjoys.

That said, here is my main question. In 1919, Major League

Baseball went through the Black Sox scandal and the gambling

issues that really, I guess, created the Commissioners Office in

order to deal with that problem. I believe in 2005, that’s about

where baseball is now—1919—2005 is another similar year for

baseball.

And I guess my question is really this: Do you believe that steroid use in baseball is as serious an issue for Major League Baseball

as is the antigambling policy that Major League Baseball currently

has imposed?

Mr. Schilling, do you want to start?

Mr. SCHILLING. I think it’s cheating. I think any form of cheating—I don’t think they are any more serious than the next.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I agree. As long as there’s positive tests, it’s

wrong and we need to clean it up.

Mr. MCGWIRE. I don’t know, but if it’s a positive move, I am all

for it.

Mr. DENT. I guess my——

Mr. SOSA. I would do the same thing.

Mr. CANSECO. I didn’t quite hear the question.

Mr. DENT. The question is, is this issue, steroid abuse by ballplayers, as serious an issue as gambling or potential gambling by

ballplayers?

Mr. CANSECO. Steroid use is much, much more serious because

it takes lives. So you have to be very careful with it.

Mr. DENT. I get the sense you think it is as serious, or more serious in your case, because—I guess several years ago Pete Rose’s

ban for life—banned for life from the game of baseball because of

a violation of gambling policy.

I guess this is the second question: Why do you think Major

League Baseball was so aggressive, then, in going after Mr. Rose

on that issue, and seems to have been so much less aggressive on

this steroid issue? Do you think it’s because of money, or what

drives that?

Start with you, Mr. Canseco?

260

Mr. CANSECO. I think it’s very simple when you really look at it.

It didn’t affect the game in a sense of this issue. I say steroids affects the game. It’s a completely different subject matter.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Sosa.

Mr. SOSA. I have no idea.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I can’t answer that.

Mr. MCGWIRE. I can’t answer that.

Mr. SCHILLING. Could you repeat the question?

Mr. DENT. Why hasn’t baseball been more aggressive about gambling than this issue of steroid abuse, which has been described by

some as rampant?

Mr. SCHILLING. I don’t know. It’s illegal to gamble, it’s illegal to

bet on baseball. It’s always been that way. That’s about all that I

can say about that.

Mr. DENT. No answer. OK.

I am curious what your perspective would be. It was always clear

to me that baseball players knew not to bet on games, particularly

once that they were playing and there were serious sanctions for

that kind of behavior. I just get the sense, from hearing what I

have heard, that Major League Baseball just doesn’t take this issue

nearly as seriously as it does the gambling issue.

I commend Major League Baseball for what they did when they

found an instance of gambling. I mean, they dealt with it decisively, as they should have. I am just trying to get a sense from

players or former players why you think they are less aggressive

on this. If anyone has anything to say, I would be glad to hear it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You might ask the next panel.

Mr. DENT. I will ask them, too. I wanted to get a player’s perspective on that one, but I understand your reluctance to answer

that question.

Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Representatives of the league have emphasized that the current

policy—that is, the current testing policy—is a negotiated labor

agreement, you know, that was negotiated; it’s a collective bargaining agreement. I have a great deal of respect for that.

But I guess the question becomes for me that since the impact,

the outcome, the results, of what we are dealing with is far more

reaching than just the players themselves terms of their work situation, and the owners themselves in terms of the work environment, how do we get the two—Mr. Canseco, you have emphasized

consistently that you just don’t believe that there is enough will

within the industry itself, that there is enough will among the owners and players, to put together a serious policy that will impact

the situation to a level of satisfaction.

Is there any possibility that the industry can, in fact, really police itself, that would make it unnecessary for Federal legislation

to further regulate baseball and drug use, if you will, among players of the game? And so maybe we could just revisit that. Is there,

Mr. Schilling, any real possibility of that happening?

Mr. SCHILLING. Absolutely. I think it’s already happened. I think

that what you have seen in the last couple of months is a direct

result of Senator McCain’s anger over the original policy. I underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
261

stand that after yesterday he is a little bit more perturbed than he

might have been 2 days ago. But my understanding is, after having

spoken to him, that we are taking steps. And I believe if you as

a body are voicing your displeasure, which you have done, baseball

will listen.

I know that as a player, we have listened. We understand that

there needs to be stringent tests. There needs to be more stringent

things done. There are loopholes. I don’t question for a second we

will close them to make sure, because as a player we want the

playing field to be level.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Canseco, could you—why are you so

adamant that nothing will really happen unless Congress steps in?

Mr. CANSECO. I try to think about this in a positive way. But if

you really look at it, and you look at the drug testing policies

today, nothing has really been done. I think we are looking at a

drug testing policy that is not even down on paper yet. So I mean,

I am hoping, just out of this, something happens. At least the public is aware, at least, you know, children, children’s parents are

aware what is really going on, and maybe they can help also.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So then all of you are actually disagreeing with people who have suggested that there is no role in this

activity for Congress to play, and that this committee and the Congress is overstepping its bounds?

Mr. SCHILLING. I don’t think any of us said that.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. No, I don’t say any of you said it. But

there are people who are suggesting it, and I am trying to get a

verification from you that you are in agreement with my side of it,

which is that we are doing exactly what we ought to be doing.

Mr. SCHILLING. The media and Democrats maybe, but, no——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Where are you guys? After Ms. Watson’s

things?

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I believe so.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Could we finish?

Mr. PALMEIRO. I believe that we are policing ourselves right now,

and I believe that we will clean the game because I believe that

players, like Curt said, want a level playing field.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. McGwire.

Mr. MCGWIRE. Whatever it takes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Sosa.

Mr. SOSA. Yes, I believe they will take it seriously. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman has a little time left. Would you

yield to me?

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Yes, I yield to Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Why should we believe that the Baseball Commission and the Baseball Union will want to do something when we

have a 30-year record of them not responding to this problem? Why

should we believe it’s all going to be done now the way it should

be done?

Mr. Schilling, could you answer that question? In 30 years they

have done nothing, and even the proposal that you are vouching for

is not in effect yet. It’s only a draft, it is filled with loopholes. And

262

what you seem to be telling us is what baseball seems to be telling

us: Trust us.

Don’t you think there’s a reason not to trust them?

Mr. SCHILLING. What do you mean by 30 years of history?

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, 30 years ago, there was a committee hearing

in Congress that looked at this whole problem and Bowie Kuhn

was the Commissioner, and he assured the Congressmen, and that

they were going to do testing and they were going to stop steroids.

That was 30 years ago.

There have been so many other incidents of reports in the last

10 or 15 years of widespread steroid use. Nothing has happened

from the baseball industry. And even now when they have put a

testing program in place, it seems to be full of holes.

Don’t you think at some point even a Republican would say, as

a Democrat would say, how long do we go along with this trust

that something is going to be done when we don’t see a very good

record?

Mr. SCHILLING. I can’t answer for the prior 30 years. I can answer for my time in the game as a player. I think there’s a huge

contingent. Like I said, there’s 98.3 percent of us that have tested

clean, that are all for as stringent testing as we can get that’s Constitutional and fair.

Mr. WAXMAN. You accept the test results, then.

Mr. SCHILLING. Absolutely.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. Let me

move on to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all. This is a very important issue today. Not just important for the Nation, but, as all of the players have pointed out,

what an important message it sends to the young people. And I am

glad to hear that everyone is saying the right thing.

And I just wanted to point out the testimony given by two of my

favorite athletes, Rafael Palmeiro and Sammy Sosa, they are hometown favorites in our community in south Florida. As Rafael said,

‘‘my parents and I came to the United States after fleeing communist tyranny that still reigns over my homeland of Cuba. We

came seeking freedom, knowing that through hard work, discipline,

and dedication, my family and I could build a bright future in

America.’’

As a matter of fact, when he was asked by the team owner to

go to Cuba and play baseball diplomacy, and do that with Castro,

he said, ‘‘Not me.’’ We admire him for his courage, because we

know that was not an easy decision.

I thank Chairman Davis for being open to the possibility of having Rafael belong to the—be a member of the task force that they

will be putting together. He will be a valuable addition, a person

who says that his goal is to stamp out steroids out of the sport, and

he would certainly add a lot to the debate.

As all of us know, there are a high number of Hispanics playing

baseball throughout the Nation at all levels, and he would certainly

be a leading role model for that.

And Sammy Sosa. What an outstanding athlete, growing up dirt

poor in the Dominican Republic, undergoing very difficult cirVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
263

cumstances to get where he is today. He says, very strongly, he

supports testing athletes for illegal performance-enhancing drugs.

And we congratulate you, Sammy, for that stand. And both of these

individuals do so much charity work, especially in our area of south

Florida, and we congratulate them for that. Felicidades, muchas

gracias.

Jose Canseco is a Miami boy, growing up a just few blocks from

where I grew up, graduated from Coral Park High School. And I

am pleased to hear Jose say he is devastated when he listens to

the testimony that he heard today. And I have heard it in the past,

the parents of people, of young people who have killed themselves

as a result of steroid use.

And I hope that as a proud graduate of Coral Park, the Rams,

that in—a street right there, named for him right there, Southwest

16th Street. And you go back to Coral Park and you go back to my

alma mater, southwest—my alma mater in southwest just a few

blocks away, and talk to the people about the dangers of steroid

use, and your voice will be heard.

I encourage all of you to continue that battle, and I especially

congratulate Rafael and Sammy. Muchas gracias, mios amigos.

Mr. CANSECO. Muchas gracias.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I would like to yield my remaining time to

Mr. Souder.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. I would like to add for the record, as Major League

Baseball and Congress work together in how you look at drug testing—in 1989 I was a staffer for then-Senator Dan Coats, and we

passed the first drug-testing legislation through the Safe and Drug

Free Schools Act. And we looked at a high school in Indiana,

McCutcheon High School, where they drug-tested their kids because of several injuries on their baseball team, and one-third had

tested positive for marijuana.

That led to it being sustained by the courts that any athletic—

or any type of athletic drug test in the country, they could drug

test. That’s a random type of test, but courts have also ruled for

students that when there is probable cause or something that a

student does, you can do a test and not have it legally challenged.

For example, if you are tardy 3 days to school, you can be tested;

because that may be a sign that you have been imparting.

In baseball I would suggest there are other things, such as sudden dramatic changes in player performance.

Hey, if you are clean, it doesn’t matter. Like Rafael Palmeiro

said, if you are clean, hey, a drug test shouldn’t be a problem.

Also dramatic improvement when you are aging, like Senator

Bunning referred to. After a strike, when there is a financial incentive to alter a game, that would be a good time to have more drug

testing than usual. Also, if a particular franchise is in trouble.

Those are motivations that cause question to the game, and drug

testing should be accelerated, also including ephedra and other

things in it.

So there are lots of loopholes of policy. And I hope the players

are very serious that you will talk to your player reps about doing

logical testing, like we do for truck drivers, like we do for schools;

264

not in the Olympics but across the Nation. I thank the gentlelady

for yielding.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Souder.

Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McGwire, I along with all of St. Louis and the country

watched with great excitement when you and Mr. Sosa chased and

broke Mr. Maris’ record. A stretch of Interstate 70 that runs

through the heart of my district is named after you. And St. Louis

Cardinals baseball has held a special place in the hearts of millions

of fans for over 100 years.

So naturally I am very concerned about allegations of player misconduct that, if substantiated, could damage that proud condition.

Mr. McGwire, we are both fathers of young children. Both my

son and daughter love sports and they look up to stars like you.

Can we look at those children with a straight face and tell them

that great players like you played the game with honesty and integrity?

Mr. MCGWIRE. Like I said earlier, I am not going to go in the

past and talk about my past. I am here to make a positive influence on this.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. McGwire, you have already acknowledged that

you used certain supplements, including andro, as part of your

training routine. In addition to andro, which was legal at the

time—that you used it—what other supplements did you use?

Mr. MCGWIRE. I am not here to talk about the past.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am using my time.

Mr. Canseco, how did steroids enhance your effort to hit the

home run or your ability to hit the ball?

Mr. CANSECO. For me I think it was a little different, because I

have also had a background, since I was a child, of coming home

from baseball practice and bending over and falling to the ground

paralyzed. I have had—been diagnosed with degenerative disk disease, scoliosis, arthritis. I have had four major back surgeries,

elbow surgery.

So for me, I was a separate, different case than anyone else in

the sense of, yes, I truly believed, yes, it helped me. Yes, it helped

my physical stature and my muscle density, helped me stand up

straight. But I had so many other physical problems, that’s why I

said if you are completely healthy, I would never, ever, have

touched the stuff. Never.

Mr. CLAY. Would you have been able to perform at that level that

you did achieve without those—without steroids?

Mr. CANSECO. I am an exception to the rule, because I had all

these ailments. And I truly believe that for myself and I am just,

you know, just one in a billion in one sense, that it helped me because of my physicality, my problems.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your honesty.

Mr. McGwire, let me go back and ask you, would you have been

able to perform at that level without using andros?

Mr. MCGWIRE. I am not going to talk about the past.

Mr. CLAY. OK.

265

Let me go on to Mr. Schilling then. I commend you speaking out

against steroids even before baseball implemented testing. Who

benefits from having a weak drug policy?

Mr. SCHILLING. Nobody.

Mr. CLAY. Nobody benefits. Do clean athletes speak out often?

Mr. SCHILLING. I am not sure I can answer that with any accuracy.

Mr. CLAY. How do your colleagues receive your message when

you do speak out? Do they look at you funny?

Mr. SCHILLING. I don’t think I speak for—I am not trying to

speak for everybody, but I think I speak for the majority of the

players when I say that we all feel that it—that, you know, stricter

testing is not something we are against.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Thank you for that response.

Just in closing, Mr. McGwire. I wish you had taken this opportunity to actually answer some of these questions about your career. About the records that you established.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, it’s nice to have you here. This is an important hearing. It’s about drugs, and, frankly, modestly interested, until we

saw the response of Major League Baseball which I think has been

outrageous.

Some of your testimony has been very helpful. I want you to

know that this committee had requested a Major League Baseball

joint drug prevention and treatment program. We wanted a copy

of it. We asked for it, we wrote a letter, and then we had to subpoena it.

Now, I would like to ask the three who are active baseball players, I would like to have you tell me what you think, or thought

until today, the policy was. And let me first say, we thought that

it was—the first positive test, 10-day suspension; second positive

test, 30-day suspension; third positive test, 60-day suspension;

fourth positive test, 1-year suspension; and then any subsequent

positive test, you are out for life. That’s what we thought it was.

I want to ask the three active players, starting with you, Mr.

Sosa, if you thought that was the policy, or did you think that it

was what we have now learned: that you could also be fined up to

$10,000 on the first offense; fined up to $25,000 on the second offense; fined up to $50,000 on the third offense; fined up to $100,000

on the fourth offense.

Were you aware that you could be given a fine instead of suspension?

Mr. SOSA. No.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I wasn’t aware of it. I knew about the 10-day suspension for the first offense and your name being public and so on,

but I wasn’t aware of the fine.

Mr. SHAYS. They need an answer so they can record it.

Mr. SCHILLING. No, I wasn’t aware of it.

Mr. SHAYS. What does that tell you about Major League Baseball

and the management if we couldn’t get this information voluntarily, we couldn’t get it through a request by letter after asking

266

for it, we had to subpoena this? Why would this document, and

why should this document have been prevented from coming to us?

Would anyone care to answer that question?

Let me ask you another question. I hear the concept of team

player. And trust me, I don’t care at this hearing, I don’t care to

get into the issue of cheating or records. I don’t care at this hearing

to know if you took drugs or not. I don’t care to have you name

names. But what piqued my interest was the concept that as a

team player, I am not going to name names.

I would like to know the obligation that each of you think you

have for your team to make sure you don’t have drugs being used

by teammates.

Let me start with you, Mr. Schilling.

Mr. SCHILLING. Well, my obligation first is to the Lord and to my

family, my family name, above any of my teammates that I have

ever had.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. What do you think the Lord would want you to

do?

Mr. SCHILLING. To be as truthful and honest as you could be and

had to be.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you feel that means you should confront, even privately, your colleagues that are using them, drugs?

Mr. SCHILLING. I think that varies with different people.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I am not sure how I would handle that. I have

never had that problem. You know, if it became a problem, I guess

I would confront the player.

Mr. MCGWIRE. I agree. I have never had that problem. And being

retired and out of the game, I couldn’t even think about that.

Mr. SHAYS. Never had the problem of seeing your colleagues use

drugs?

Mr. MCGWIRE. Pardon me?

Mr. SHAYS. Never had a problem of seeing your colleagues use

drugs, steroids; is that what you mean? I don’t know what you

mean by you never had that problem.

Mr. MCGWIRE. I am not going to get into the past.

Mr. SHAYS. OK, I am not really asking about the past.

Mr. Sosa, what obligation do you think that you have to your

team if you are aware that someone is using drugs on your team?

Mr. SOSA. I am a private person, I don’t really go, you know, ask

people whether they——

Mr. SHAYS. I will just conclude by saying I think I know your answer, sir.

It just seems to me that one of the messages you may be telling

young people is that a team player—it’s an interesting concept of

a team player, it seems to me. It seems to me you do have an obligation.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. I want to thank everyone in front of us for being

here in this most grueling session. Believe me, some of us feel very

deeply for you.

My concern is this. When I read statistics like this, more than

500 high school students have tried steroids, nearly triple the numVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
267

ber just 10 years ago, nearly 20 percent of 8th-graders, nearly 30

percent of 10th-graders, and more than 40 percent of 12th graders

that were surveyed in 2004. They were using steroids and found

them fairly easy and very easy to obtain.

So I want to ask a question about where does that come from?

And I think it comes to be that drug use goes across all sports. It

is a sign of the times. It seems to be so acceptable today to take

some kind of drug, I don’t care what kind of sport you are using.

And I guess we have to know that our youth are living in a different era when they do this as a matter of standard.

So, what I want to ask is what happened to sportsmanship? I am

using that in the generic, sportsmanship. And why are drugs so accessible and is it the money that drives this kind of practice? Does

anyone want to talk about that?

I am highly concerned about our youth today. Believe me, I know

what I am talking about. I sit on a school board in Los Angeles.

I was a school counselor. I chaired the Health Committee for 17

years. We fought, along with Representative Waxman, tobacco use.

And that’s why I held this up—a dual purpose. This is a man who

uses steroids and smoked cigars and was on the front of ‘‘Sports Illustrated.’’

I am really disturbed by the messages we are sending to young

people today, and so that’s a general—those are general questions.

If you would like to spout on them, it’s fine. If you don’t, it’s all

right with me. But I just had to get it out.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Anybody want to say anything?

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will yield.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I must say, the testimony I am hearing from you today is much,

much different from what I read in your book. I must say it’s a

stark, stark change.

I just want to remind you, at the end of your book you stated,

‘‘What I am hoping is that some more intelligent forward-looking

voices will come out and urge baseball to embrace the potential of

steroids and to fight for their place in the game and in our lives.’’

That’s what you are selling here in this book.

I don’t know if there is a new book coming out with what you

are saying today, but I have to tell you I am a little surprised when

I read—and what you are saying. So can you enlighten me a little

bit, because I am a little bit surprised?

Mr. CANSECO. I think we have to put it in context. This book

took, I think, over 2 years to write. And while that may have been

my opinion 2 years ago, it is not today. Absolutely not. I know, spoken with people, seen certain things that steroids has done, and

it’s—I have completely done a turnaround when it comes to that.

Mr. LYNCH. We will wait for the sequel.

Mr. Schilling, you actually live in my district. I want to say in

fairness to you, there’s never been any allegation or any suspicion

that you have ever had anything to do with any of the stuff. You

are here for two reasons; that’s what they tell me. One, you have

been outspoken on this stuff, and a voice for right in this case, and

268

that you are well respected among all the parties, the owners, the

managers, the players, everyone.

I have to tell you, though, I am a little surprised that you still

believe in self-regulation, and I am looking—I am a former iron

worker president, and I would negotiate for my guys and ladies,

and then I would come back to them with the contract after I negotiated with the companies and I would ask them to ratify it.

And Mr. Davis touched on this a little earlier. Did you folks ratify this contract? Because it’s not signed by the Players Union.

Mr. SCHILLING. That’s right.

Mr. LYNCH. It’s not signed by management. It says it’s a draft

agreement. I just wonder, did they ever come back to you and say

here is the drug policy, here is the collective bargaining agreement,

like I would do with my members? I would read to them, page by

page, and say, OK, now we are going to vote on this. Did they do

that?

Mr. SCHILLING. I don’t think it’s possible. I think the dynamics

in which we negotiate are very different than the ones which you

negotiate. We have over 1,000 players spread around the world.

Mr. LYNCH. The salaries are different than the iron workers as

well, I might add.

Mr. SCHILLING. We elect player representatives to negotiate for

us.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Did that happen, though?

Mr. SCHILLING. Yes, that always happens.

Mr. LYNCH. That always happens. Even on the drug policy?

Mr. SCHILLING. I can’t speak to that specifically. You will have

to ask the panel following us exactly how that happened. But as

a player, I am assuming it did. Yes, absolutely.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. I just want to talk about where self-regulation

has got us. You are allowed to leave in the middle of a urine test.

There are a bunch of substances that are not included on the list.

The players and the league have to agree on what is going to be

banned.

It says in the text of your agreement—and that’s what you negotiate, the text of the agreement—that the first offense of steroid

use, the players—according to the agreement—can pay $10,000 and

keep it quiet. They are not publicized for their violation. They can

buy it off for $10,000, and the average starting salary is over $2

million. So it’s not even a slap on the wrist. We have an escape

clause here, where if the government comes in and starts investigating your drug policy, it goes away, you just get rid of it.

The parties agreed. That’s where self-regulation has got us. I am

just—I am not with you on that, I have to admit. I just don’t think

that baseball is capable. I am going to have a—we are going to

have a chat with the next panel coming in. I just don’t think that

they have demonstrated good faith on their ability to be able to police this type of thing.

But I want to thank you all for coming here today. Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Duncan, any questions?

Mr. DUNCAN. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I hear Mr. Palmeiro

say that he could live with a one-strike-you-are-out Olympic standard on the steroids. And then I had to go to other meetings. And

269

Mr. Souder tells me that some of you defended the present Major

League policy.

After seeing all of the interest, all of the concern, after hearing

all of this testimony and seeing all of these news reports about

young people dying, and I saw a news report where a light heavyweight boxer who became a heavyweight boxer this weekend, they

had a report on the national news, that his legs were amputated.

All of these horrible things.

Do any of you on the panel, would anybody object to the Major

Leagues coming in or instituting a much, much tougher stricter

policy whatever that might be, much tougher than it is now?

Do any of you have an objection to or problems with something

like that? Even if it is not quite as strict as what Mr. Palmeiro

said, Olympic standard, but I mean a much, much tougher policy?

Anybody have any problems with that? Mr. McGwire.

Mr. MCGWIRE. I am retired. But, I am telling you whatever anybody can do to improve it so there is no more meetings like this,

I am all for it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I think everyone seconds that here on the

panel. All right.

Mr. DUNCAN. I think everybody agrees, a much tougher standard

is necessary. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of

you for your testimony here today. And thank you, all of you also

for your commitment to use your star power going forward to send

a message to our young people about the dangers of steroid use,

and the fact that it is just simply the wrong thing to do in baseball

or any other sport.

One of my sons, one of my young sons, Mr. Sosa, wore your tshirt to bed just about every night, couldn’t get it off of him. And

that is when you were with the Cubs. I am from Maryland. Now

that you are with the Baltimore Orioles, he is a real fan.

So all of you understand, I know, that you have a great responsibility given the fact that you are heroes to so many young people

to convey the right messages. And I thank you for that.

A part of making that message, I think, also requires conveying

to people an understanding of the scope of the problem. And that

is why we are here today is to try to get a handle on the scope of

the problem, and the best way that we can all work together to approach eliminating the problem.

And in that regard, Mr. Schilling, I do have a question for you

regarding your earlier statements regarding the extent of steroid

use within baseball. Because as I understood your testimony, you

said that steroid use in baseball is less than 2 percent. Is that

right?

Mr. SCHILLING. That is the results of the testing from the last

season. Right.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That is based on the league’s current steroid

testing policy? Right?

Mr. SCHILLING. Right.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. But, I think we have heard testimony today

about the weakness in that policy. As I understand it, it does not

include testing in the off season. Is that right?

270

Mr. SCHILLING. Yes. It is random.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. OK. It does not include, I understand, new designer steroids like the recent steroid, recently recognized by the

World Anti-Doping Agency. It did not include Andro, which is an

anabolic steroid precursor that we understand that players used. It

did not include human growth hormone, which we also believe, at

least from news accounts, that players used.

And so I guess, given that information, are you confident that

the 2 percent testing results really reflect the use of steroids?

Mr. SCHILLING. I don’t believe as written in—by the author of

that book that 70 percent of them slip through the cracks, if that

is what you are asking me.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I’m really asking very simply, you have used

the number 2 percent. And that 2 percent I think is just important

to understand for everybody is based on the current testing; right?

Mr. SCHILLING. Right.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I think that a lot of the testimony today we

heard from earlier panels suggests that policy is a very weak policy. As I understand your testimony, you would be willing to accept

a much tighter policy?

Mr. SCHILLING. Right.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. So I think it is something that we all have to

look at now, is that when you have a weak testing regime, you

can’t be confident in the results; is that right?

Mr. SCHILLING. Right. I think my answer earlier was given,

again, on my 19 years of being in the Major League clubhouse. I

can honestly tell you I have never seen a syringe. The discussion

is nothing more than you get on high school lunch breaks. You

talk. You wonder. You speculate. But none of us, if any, are experts. But I have never seen it. I have never seen—I wouldn’t know

what it would look like.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I appreciate that. The 2 percent number has

been out there. It is important for people to understand that is

based on a testing policy that I think most people have acknowledged today is relatively weak and would agree to strengthen it.

And I think it is important that we understand the scope of the

problem when we are trying to get a solution to it. I think it is important when we are communicating to young people that we are

not trying to narrow the scope of the problem, which at least by

all press accounts is much broader.

So I really think there has been some progress today. I think the

fact that you are all committed to going forth after the testimony

today to dedicate yourself to sending a strong message, I think that

is a very important part of it.

Obviously, tightening the testing policy is what gives some teeth

to the message going forward. But, I thank you for your testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Ms. Sanchez.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. Let me just start by saying that I am

a huge baseball fan. I admire all of your talents and dedication to

the sport. As a young girl who played competitive softball, I looked

up to Major League Baseball players as my heroes.

And as someone who plays on the Congressional baseball team,

and that is baseball, I still look up to you all and admire your talVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00278 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
271

ent. But, because baseball is so intertwined in, like our national

heritage and our history, to me this hearing is about being up front

and honest about the problem. I think everybody here has agreed

that there is a problem, but so far today, and I have to say I am

really disappointed, because I am hearing differences in terms of

how widespread it is.

We have one member of the panel who says it is rampant, and

we have four-fifths of the panel that could not really speculate because, you know, they never saw it, they never heard it, they have

never been around it, they do not know anything about it.

I just want to tell you that it is hard to reconcile those two visions about how rampant is this problem in baseball. And I think,

you know, if we want to move forward, we have to start with being

honest about how deep is this problem.

I want to just read to you really briefly some news accounts. In

1995, the Los Angeles Times reported that anabolic steroids apparently have become the performance drugs of the 1990’s in Major

League Baseball, and the paper quoted the San Diego Padres general manager saying we all know there is steroid use, and it has

definitely become more prevalent. I think 10 to 20 percent. That is

in 1995.

In July 1997, the Denver Post quoted a player for the Colorado

Rockies estimating that 20 percent of ball players used steroids. In

2000, the New York Times quoted Brad Andrews, the strength

coach for the Colorado Rockies, as estimating that 30 percent of

Major League Baseball players had used steroids at some point in

their careers. And one veterans all star outfielder said he believed

that two-thirds of the top players in the National League are using

some kind of steroid.

In 2002, Sports Illustrated reported that the game has become a

pharmacological trade show, and outfielder Chad Curtis estimated

that 40 to 50 percent of the players used steroids.

So it is hard for me to imagine that 2 percent of the players are

using, we have had extensive questions on the testing, and my understanding is the current policy is that 2 percent testing, is not

testing that is done more than once a year, randomly, it can be

done in the off season, it can be done in the preseason, but that

is 2 percent that they are catching using at the time that the test

is administered.

We had a colleague that tried to pin you all down and have you

just, I mean, estimate for us what percentage of ballplayers do you

think are using. You guys are in the clubhouses. We are not. We

do not have access there. We do not know. But we are getting this

hear no evil, see no evil, don’t know anything that is going on.

I mean, the first step is admitting, hey, there is a problem, next

step, how widespread is it? And then the next step is, what do we

do to try to combat it. I am not hearing that from you today, and

I am very disappointed, I have to say, extremely disappointed in

the testimony today.

So I am going to ask, you know, we are not asking you to name

names, we are not asking you to implicate anybody. We are asking

you because everybody admits that it is serious for young kids, but

you as a teammate, as a player, and if you are all nonusers, which

you, four-fifths of the panel has testified you guys did not use, if

272

you guys are users, I would think that you would be the first to

step and say, hey, there is a problem with teammates that are

using, because it is potentially hazardous to their health, and because it is unfair, it is cheating, it is not a level playing field.

If I am not using, why should teammates be allowed to use? Yet

I am not hearing that. Have any of you ever confronted over the

use, asked them about it, you hear rumors in the locker room, that

was some of the testimony today. But none of you went to management or said, hey, there may be a problem here. Have any of you

ever confronted a player or made that problem known?

I mean, I am hearing that 1 percent is too much. Yet none of

you, throughout all of the years that you have collectively played

together, has ever stood up and said that before now. I would just

like an answer to that question, as briefly as possible.

Mr. SCHILLING. The question is?

Ms. SANCHEZ. Have you ever made—I am sorry, but I am very

passionate about this. Have you ever made the problem of use

among players that you have heard rumors of, made that known

to somebody responsible?

Mr. SCHILLING. No. No, I haven’t. I never would, because I have

never known for sure.

Mr. PALMEIRO. I wouldn’t know who to go to. I wouldn’t know

who is on it.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Nobody knows.

Mr. MCGWIRE. I am not here to discuss it.

Mr. SOSA. I really am not going to tell you something that I do

not know, period.

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Canseco, when you played, did you ever notify

anybody about the use by other players?

Mr. CANSECO. In my days, which I will stick to my book, I was

a source of information for it.

Ms. SANCHEZ. But you never made it, the problem, aware to anybody responsible?

Mr. CANSECO. It is funny because it wasn’t a problem. There

wasn’t anyone that said, you know, don’t do it, or you shouldn’t do

it, or if you get caught, this is going to happen to you. It was as

acceptable in the 1980’s and mid to late 1990’s as a cup of coffee.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has expired. We have two questioners left and then will dismiss the panel

and move to the final panel. Mr. Ruppersberger, any questions?

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. When you come to the end of the panel, a

lot has been discussed. We have been here all day. The first thing,

I think, in the beginning I was concerned about this hearing.

Now, I think it is very positive, it is very positive for baseball.

The issue is now on the table. I guarantee you, if Jose Canseco is

not going to win a popularity contest with the players, but he

might be the best thing that has happened to you.

Baseball has a public relations problem. And in my opinion, you

players can solve it. Now, we can talk about management, and

management has a lot of responsibilities. But we have been going

through this testimony about who knows what, would you talk to

a player? And it all comes down, in the end, I think, to having a

good drug policy that works.

273

And if the NFL can have a policy, if the Olympics can have a policy, especially the Olympics who had a credibility problem, then

you can do it.

We love your game. And I look at you, Curt Schilling, it was one

of the worst trades we ever had. I’m a Baltimore Oriole fan. But,

bottom line you can fix it. You have been dodging a little bit today,

in my opinion, about saying, if I do not know about it, I am not

going to say about it.

If I think my colleague has taken a bribe, I am going to deal with

it. It is your responsibility I think as baseball. You have one of the

best negotiators, Mr. Fehr, if he cannot negotiate with management and management really, I am putting more burden on you

than management, because management would love to fix this.

And let’s get on with the game of baseball. So my question, bottom line, would you take the position to go to Fehr and organize

your players who have responsibility to this country, for our national pastime, for our children, would you go to Fehr and say, we

want the best and the strongest program that we can have to bring

integrity to baseball?

Because if you do not have integrity, eventually this game is

going to have problems. And we don’t want that to happen. Would

you go to Fehr and do whatever, and work with us. You might not

know the intricacies of drug policy. I do. I was a former prosecutor

who dealt with drugs. You have to have accountability. You can’t

tell people when they are going to test somebody. You have to

make sure that you follow the vial when you take the urine test.

These are things that have to be done. But if each one of you

would agree, and I challenge each one of you here today to organize

your players, you are world champion now, you have a momentum

to challenge your players to say, we will go and we will do what

we can do. We will match the NFL. Do you think you are a better

sport than the NFL?

Mr. SCHILLING. Definitely.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Why can’t you have a drug policy like the

NFL? So bottom line, you can fix it. OK. You cannot blame the

owners. The owners have responsibility. But you go to Selig, I am

sure that he would love to have the strictest policy that you can

have, and then you can go on about playing baseball.

How about you, Rafael?

Mr. PALMEIRO. I agree. I would go to Donald Fehr for that.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. If you were there, Mr. McGwire?

Mr. MCGWIRE. Being that I am retired, I still would go to him,

yes.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Sammy Sosa, welcome to Baltimore. But

would you do that?

Mr. SOSA. I would do the same thing.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What do you think, Jose. I gave you a plug.

You put this issue on the table. And, by the way, if I was going

to question you, I would question you about credibility, because you

have made some inconsistent statements about how many people—

I will go over it later in my private time if I was going to question

you.

But, the more I think about it, you put it out there on the table

and now we are dealing with it. And if players and baseball manVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
274

agement do not do it now, shame on you. OK. That is all. Thank

you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Serrano, you

are the clean-up batter.

Mr. SERRANO. Clean-up batter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am

just going to make two comments very briefly. One, a request

which probably falls more on the shoulders of Mr. Sosa and Mr.

Palmeiro than anyone else. If we talk about an education program

for young people, please remember that according to statistics, I

think it is 40 percent of all professional ballplayers from rookie

league up are Latin Americans.

And so an educational program that doesn’t include an outreach

to the Dominican Republic, to Venezuela, to Mexico, and to other

places in Latin America, will not be in preparation for what needs

to happen.

There have been already scandals reported about an anticipation

of signing as free agents people in different parts of Latin America

that have been beefed up and hurt with drugs.

And, I hope that would happen. And second, I hope that as the

one of the last speakers today, you see us for who we are. I am not

a member of this committee. The chairman and the ranking member gave me the privilege of being here today because I, like so

many of these people on the panel, are baseball fanatics.

For me baseball is not a game, it is a passion. Some reporters

may see us as politicians having another hearing, but we are concerned about a game that we love.

When Mr. McGwire and Mr. Sosa took us on that ride that summer, that wasn’t just hitting home runs, that was a country hanging onto heroes.

When Mr. Palmeiro, I will watch you this summer, as you become only the fourth player, joining Aaron and Murray and Mays

to get 500 home runs and 3,000 hits. As a Latino, I feel proud, and

as an American I will be excited.

Mr. Canseco, I wish I could have helped you get those 38 homes

to reach 500. You stopped at 462. Perhaps baseball stopped you,

you claim at times.

And, Mr. Schilling, even though you did it to my Yankees, you

are still my hero. That is who you are. You are not just normal,

regular people. It is not the kids who look at you alone. That is the

excuse we use. This autograph is for my son. It is for me. I already

signed up for Major League Gameday audio for my computer.

I already bought my first 25 packs of baseball cards for this year

to add to the closet full of baseball cards that I have. Mr. McGwire,

I will never sell your rookie card. I will leave it to my children and

my grandchildren, because you are heroes.

There is no prize for my love of this game. And so I hope that

when you leave here today, and think about it tomorrow and the

next day, that you do not think of us as another legislative committee, you think of us as no different than the people you see in the

stands. We are baseball fans who love this game, and we are terrified of what could happen to it.

I do not like the fact that you are here. I do not like to see the

break-up of the Bash Brothers in front of me. I do not like the fact

that Mr. Sosa hasn’t smiled that famous smile. I do not like the

275

uneasiness of all of you today. You shouldn’t be here. Circumstances put you here. Please save the game. Without this

game, this country is in deep trouble. I would like to yield now, to

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank you for yielding to me. That was a very

eloquent plea. And I thank you for it, because you speak on behalf

of so many of us.

But, Mr. Schilling, I just want to raise something that just came

to my attention and read you some quotes that were attributed to

you, which sound so different than what you said today.

So you will be prepared for it in case somebody raises it later.

This was from Sports Illustrated, June 2002. ‘‘Schilling says that

muscle building drugs have transformed baseball into something of

a freak show. Quote, you sit there and look at some of these players and you know what is going on, he says. Guys out there look

like Mr. Potato Head with a head and arms and six or seven body

parts that just do not look right. They do not fit.

I am not sure how steroid use snuck in so quickly, but it has become a prominent thing very quietly. It is widely known in the

game. And also I know guys who use and do not admit it, because

they think it means they do not work hard. And I know plenty of

guys now are mixing steroids with human growth hormone, those

guys are pretty obvious.’’

Were those your quotes?

Mr. SCHILLING. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. You feel—don’t those quotes seem to indicate that

you thought that at least when you gave them, that there was a

widespread use of steroids with some people, because you could see

it?

Mr. SCHILLING. I think we saw it as a problem. I think that any

player looks at anybody on the field, that gave themselves a competitive advantage by cheating as a problem.

Mr. WAXMAN. You do not think this is inconsistent with your

statements today?

Mr. SCHILLING. No. I think—I said those are my quotes. I made

those quotes. I think I said earlier today that there were some

quotes I had made in the past, referring to some of those, where

they grossly overstated the problem due to being uninformed and

unaware.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Let me just thank

all of you. It has been a long afternoon for you. This has been very

helpful to us. I think it is going to be very helpful, hopefully the

owners and management and union are listening to this as well.

We have a lot of different perspectives up here. We are the elected representatives of the people. I think we share that perspective,

which is a little different from being a player or in management.

But this has been very helpful for us.

I just appreciate the willingness of all of you to step forward.

This has been, I think, a victory in itself. We look forward to continuing to work with you. We wish all of you good luck on the field

this year as the season begins as well, and I am going to release

this panel. Thank you very much.

Take a 5-minute recess.

276

[Recess.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. If we can get everybody seated.

We are going to now recognize the fourth panel. We have Commissioner Allan H. Selig of Major League Baseball. Commissioner

Selig was not subpoenaed. He called up and volunteered to come

here today. And we appreciate that very much.

He is accompanied by Mr. Robert Manfred, the executive vice

president for labor and human resource of Major League Baseball.

We have Mr. Don Fehr, the executive director and general counsel of the Major League Players Association. Don, thank you for

much for coming here as well. I think you know where the lines

of inquiry are going to be, the concerns from the previous panels.

We have Sandy Alderson, the executive vice president of baseball

operations. Former general manager of the Athletics, Mr. Kevin

Towers, general manager of the San Diego Padres.

As you know, it is our policy that we swear in all witnesses before they testify. So if you can rise with me and raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Which of you are going to make an opening statement? Bud and Rob? Mr. Fehr, are you going to make an

opening statement as well?

Mr. FEHR. Very brief.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That is fine. Commissioner Selig, welcome

very much. You know the rules. Your entire written statement is

in the record. But take what you need. This is important, and I

can’t thank you enough.

Just for the record, you sat out here the whole day. He listened

to everybody that testified, the parents and everything else. And I

know it has been an interesting experience for you, as it has for

us. We appreciate your being with us.

STATEMENTS OF ALLAN H. SELIG, COMMISSIONER OF MAJOR

LEAGUE BASEBALL; ROBERT MANFRED, EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT, LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES, MAJOR

LEAGUE BASEBALL; DON FEHR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND

GENERAL COUNSEL, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS

ASSOCIATION; SANDY ALDERSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, BASEBALL OPERATIONS, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL,

FORMER GENERAL MANAGER, OAKLAND ATHLETICS; AND

KEVIN TOWERS, GENERAL MANAGER, SAN DIEGO PADRES

STATEMENT OF ALLAN H. SELIG

Mr. SELIG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Major League

Baseball has made progress in dealing with the issue of performance enhancing substances. Today I would like to describe for you

that progress at both the Minor League and Major League level.

I would also like to describe for you the newly negotiated Major

League steroid policy, as well as an effort we have undertaken with

the Partnership for a Drug Free America aimed at educating America’s youth on the dangers of steroid use.

Before I start, Mr. Chairman, let me clarify an issue that was

raised yesterday so that there is no misunderstanding from my perspective. I will suspend any player who tests positive for an illegal

277

steroid. There will be no exceptions. The union is aware of that and

they accept it.

In 2001, I promulgated the first-ever comprehensive drug-testing

policy for Minor League baseball. In the first year of testing under

that policy, the positive rate in the Minor Leagues was approximately 11 percent. Confronted with this high rate, we responded

with more testing and tougher discipline. In each subsequent year,

that positive rate has decreased. In the overall, the decrease has

been dramatic. The rate was 4.8 percent in 2002, 4 percent in 2003,

and just 1.7 percent in 2004.

As we embark on the 2005 season, baseball has committed even

more resources to the eradication of steroid use in the Minor

Leagues. We will do more testing, expanding the program into the

Venezuelan summer league. And we will continue to discipline violators in a manner that our medical advisors believe will eradicate

steroid use.

Similar progress has been made at the Major league level. In

2002, Major League Baseball reached a new agreement with the

Major League Players Association, which, for the first time, provided for testing of Major League players for steroids. The positive

rate for performance enhancing substances in 2003 testing was in

the range of 5 to 7 percent.

This disturbing rate triggered a more rigorous disciplinary testing program in 2004. That more effective program resulted in a decline of the positive rate to 1 to 2 percent. In other words, the 2002

agreement that has been roundly criticized in some circles, actually

resulted in a significant reduction in steroid use.

Despite this improvement, Major League Baseball has continued

to move ahead on this most important and challenging issue. Last

December at my urging, the Players Association took the unprecedented step of reopening an existing collective bargaining agreement to allow for the negotiation of an even stronger new policy on

performance enhancing substances.

This new policy addresses all of the major areas of concern raised

in congressional hearings conducted in 2004. Before I turn to the

specifics of the new policy, however, I want to review the background that led to our concerns and ultimately the adoption of a

new policy.

In the period of time following the 1994, 1995 strike, I began to

hear more about the possibility of the use of performance enhancing substances by players. That concern escalated with the 1998

statements involving Mark McGwire and Andro. At that time we

began a comprehensive review of the medical and health issues.

Given the limitations in our collective bargaining agreement, we

were prohibited from testing players to determine which particular

players were using what substances. To assist us in the development of our Minor League policy, and later our bargaining proposals to the Players Association, we hired and relied upon experts in

the areas of drugs and sports. I have relied heavily on those experts in developing and refining our policies.

I want to say a word about our players, four or five of them who

have just left. For sometime now the majority of our great and very

talented athletes have deeply and rightly resented two things. They

have resented being put at a competitive disadvantage by their reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00285 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
278

fusal to jeopardize their health and the integrity of the game by

using illegal and dangerous substances, and they have deeply and

rightly resented the fact that they live under a cloud of suspicion

that taints their achievements on the field.

The cloud has been produced in part by some critics of baseball,

who although well intentioned are not well informed about baseball’s multifaceted campaign against such substances. This campaign has produced a dramatic quantifiable successes that I outlined earlier.

Now I would like to turn to the details of our new Major League

policy. First the new policy broadens the list of banned substances

in baseball. The list includes not only all steroids, but also steroid

precursors, ephedra, human growth hormone, diuretics and other

masking agents. I should add that Congress’s passage of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 was a key development in allowing baseball to move closer to accepted international standards in

that area.

Second, the new policy greatly increases the frequency of testing

of Major League players. Under our prior policy, each player was

subject to one steroid test per season on an unannounced randomly

selected date. This type of testing was an important first step and

will be continued in 2005.

Under the old testing program, however, once a player had completed his one test for the year, the threat of discipline for the use

of steroids was gone until the next season. To address this issue,

Major League Baseball added on ongoing program of random testing for 2005, under which players can be tested multiple times in

a given year. Under the new policy, no matter how many times a

player is tested in a given year, he will remain subject to an additional random test.

Third, the new policy for the first time introduces off-season or

out-of-competition testing. In the traditional employment context,

unions have understandably resisted employer efforts to intrude

into off-duty hours and vacation time. To its credit, however, the

Players Association has agreed to compromise the legitimate privacy concerns of its members and allow off-season testing. This offseason testing, which will literally be carried out around the globe,

will ensure that players cannot use the winter as an opportunity

for drug-induced performance enhancement.

Baseball’s new policy also provides for increased penalties. Under

the new policy, first-time offenders, and as I said at the beginning

of my remarks, make no mistake about this, will be suspended for

10 days without pay, and will be publicly identified as having violated the policy against the use of performance enhancing substances.

A 10-day suspension will cost the average Major League player

approximately $140,000 in lost salary. Penalties for subsequent offenses include increase to 30 days, 60 days, and 1 year. More important in terms of deterrence, however, is the fact that no player

wants to be identified to his peers and the public as a cheater.

As baseball’s testing program has become more strict, we have

also worked to improve its quality. Last year baseball moved its

testing programs into independent Olympic laboratories certified by

279

WADA. These labs are the gold standard in testing for performance

enhancing substances.

Equally important, our relationship with these facilities has put

baseball in a better position to monitor new developments in the

area of performance enhancing substances. For example, baseball

has already banned at both the Major League and Minor League

levels the designer steroid DMP, that was recently discovered at

the WADA laboratory in Montreal.

Baseball is, of course, an international game. Recognizing that

fact, our efforts at eliminating the use of performance enhancing

substances have an international component. Last year, the Minor

League policy was expanded to the Dominican summer league,

complete with testing and educational activities. Our partners in

the Mexican League have announced recently their intention to implement a program much like our Minor League policy.

We will extend our Minor League policy to the Venezuelan summer league this year. Next spring, baseball and the MLBPA will

conduct the first ever international baseball tournament in which

countries from around the world will field teams that include the

best professional players, including the biggest Major League stars.

As part of that event, Major League Baseball and the Players Association and the International Baseball Federation have reached an

agreement whereby all participants in this event will be subject to

Olympic style drug testing in accordance with the world antidoping

code.

The world tournament will not only provide great international

competition, but it will mark yet another step forward in baseball’s

effort to deal with the problem of performance enhancing substances. In promoting this event, baseball will emphasize this important antisteroid message.

Major League Baseball has always recognized the influence that

our stars have on the youth of America. As such, we are concerned

that recent revelations and allegations of steroid use have been

sending a terrible message to our young people. Over the past year

we have been working with our friends at the Partnership for a

Drug Free America to determine the appropriate timing and content of public service announcements that will discourage young

people from using steroids.

In the coming months you will see the product of these efforts

on television, and we can only hope that those announcements will

contribute to better decisionmaking by young athletes. My office

has also had conversations with Congressman Sweeney about

Major League Baseball providing support for his proposed legislation on steroid education, and becoming involved in the educational

programs created by that legislation.

I expect that these conversations will continue and will bear

fruit. Baseball will not rest and will continue to be vigilant on the

issue of performance enhancing substances as we move toward my

publicly stated goal of zero tolerance.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I request that my entire written

statement be placed in the record.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection. And thank you for

bearing with us.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Selig follows:]

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Manfred.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. MANFRED

Mr. MANFRED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, committee members, I especially appreciate the opportunity to speak

with you this evening. And I would like to take the opportunity to

respond to some of the issues raised in the committee’s letter to

Commissioner Selig and Mr. Fehr.

At the outset, I should say that baseball has worked hard to negotiate and improve its drug policy in recent years. We know that

we have made significant progress in this area. At the same time,

we know that the policy is not perfect.

Our collective bargaining agreement, like every collective bargaining agreement, is a living document. There is the pure language, there is the understandings of the parties, and there are the

party’s practices. Tonight I would like to try to explain to you what

the agreement means based on those language, understandings

and practices.

I hope I can convince you that I am reading the agreement correctly. And in making that determination, I urge you to take into

consideration that the gentleman that I negotiated the agreement

with, Mr. Fehr, agrees with everything that I am about to tell you.

First, much has been made out of the fact that our agreement

sets forth penalties in the disjunctive. For each offense, there is a

suspension of a specified length or a fine amount. The formulation

of the penalties was included in our 2002 agreement, and was carried forward into the new agreement.

In retrospect, the language as a drafting matter should have

been altered. There is, however, no misunderstanding or dispute

between the bargaining parties as to how the agreement is going

to operate. We informed the MLBPA at the bargaining table, while

we were negotiating the agreement, that the Commissioner intends

to and will suspend across the board for all violations. The owners

ratified the agreement with this understanding. It is also my understanding that Mr. Fehr’s constituents are in the process of ratifying, based on the same understanding.

The agreement might have been drafted better. But, even as it

sits, it provides the Commissioner with the unfettered right to do

what he has said he is going to do, namely suspend all players who

violate the agreement.

Moreover, those suspensions are automatic in the sense that they

are for stated periods of time, and the union has taken the unprecedented step of waiving its right to contest the length of those suspensions. Our commitment to suspend also undercuts the committee’s criticism with respect to the topic of disclosure.

Under the agreement, if a player tests positive and is suspended,

it will be reported in the transaction list that is published in every

paper in America, that the player tested positive for violating the

joint drug agreement.

Given that we only test for steroids under the joint drug agreement, everyone will understand that the suspension was based on

a steroid test. In terms of the general confidentiality language in

our agreement, I would point out that virtually every drug program

in America contains such general confidentiality language, includVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00296 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
289

ing the programs that have been adopted by the Federal Government to cover its employees.

The assertion that all steroids are not banned under the baseball

policy is simply not correct. The plain language of our agreement

bans all steroids that are on Schedule III, as well as any other anabolic androgenic agent that cannot lawfully be obtained in this

country.

The list of substances in the agreement is clearly identified, explicitly identified as a nonexhaustive list. As to the four substances

specifically mentioned in your letter, we have discussed those with

our experts.

Two of the substances are anabolic androgenic agents that cannot lawfully be obtained in the United States and as such are

banned under the general language in our program. A third,

Boldonone, is a nutritional supplement that Congress inappropriately excluded from the Steroid Control Act of 2004.

We have been in conversations with the DEA, and we understand that substance is going to be added to Schedule III as the

first additional substance under the Steroid Control Act, at which

time it will be automatically banned under our agreement.

The fourth substance listed is DHEA, which dispute our lobbying

efforts, was excluded from the Steroid Control Act of 2004. I would

now like to address the issue of diuretics and masking agents.

At page 6 of our agreement it says: Any test conducted under the

program will be considered a positive under the following circumstances. Item 3. A player attempts to substitute, dilute, mask

or adulterate a specimen sample in any other—or in any other

manner alter a test.

In order to enforce this provision of the agreement, the Montreal

laboratory has been instructed by the MLBPA and me that they

are to test for their standard list of diuretics and masking agents,

continuing a practice that has existed under our agreement. The

assertion that our policy fails to ban designer steroids is contrary

to the language and history of this agreement. The language banning, quote, anabolic androgenic steroids that are not covered by

Schedule III, but that may not be lawfully obtained in the United

States has been previously used by the bargaining parties to ban

THG and DMT.

The bargaining parties have relied on this language in the contract to ban designer steroids in the past and will do so in the future. I would also point out that substances that fall within this

definitional language in the contract are added automatically to

our banned list without the necessity for action by the Health Policy Advisory Committee.

The committee’s criticisms on our position with respect to human

growth hormone were addressed earlier today. I want to reiterate

that our experts, including the director of the WADA certified laboratory in Montreal, and our drug testing expert, Dr. Gary Green

from UCLA has informed us that there is not a verifiable blood

test, and that blood test kits for this test are not available.

The labs do not have testing kits to perform this blood test. They

may have had 300 of them for the Olympics this summer, but they

are not currently available. We are actively involved in efforts to

accelerate the development of a urine test, and there are actually

290

some advantages associated with a urine test as opposed to a blood

test. I should also point out that no professional sport in America

conducts blood testing of any type.

The committee also raises issues with respect to the health policy

advisory committee. No other professional sport uses an independent outside agency to supervise its drug testing program. This includes the NFL. In fact, I am unaware of a single collectively bargained private employer drug testing program anywhere in the

United States that is supervised by an independent outside agency

such as the USADA.

While the Olympics may take a decidedly different approach, the

Olympics operate in a decidedly different environment, unrestrained by a collective bargaining obligation or the obligations

that accrue to an employer under many State and Federal statutes.

The committee’s letter characterizes as extraordinary a provision

that would suspend testing in the face of a government effort to obtain across-the-board testing results from our program.

At the outset, I should point out that this provision relates only

to individually, identified-by-name drug test results and not general oversight activities of the type reflected in the subpoena that

was issued to baseball.

It also does not apply if the Government’s investigation is supported by individualized probable cause for particular players. It is

also important to understand that this provision did not arise in

a vacuum. Baseball has faced efforts by law enforcement authorities to obtain across the board testing results absent any individualized showing of probable cause.

All the provision does is temporarily suspend the program while

we resist an attempt by law enforcement officials to premise a

criminal probe on private drug testing results.

Last, the committee’s letter raises issues with respect to some of

our collection procedures. In particular, the letter makes the point

that they are not consistent with those used by WADA. At the outset, it is important to understand that there are many Federal and

State laws that make it very difficult for an employer like Major

League Baseball, as opposed to an oversight organization like the

Olympics to follow strictly the WADA requirements.

On the fundamentals, however, our collection procedures are entirely sound. All urine specimens are provided under the direct observation of an independent, not employed by Major League Baseball, collector.

While players are occasionally allowed to leave the portion of the

locker room that is identified as the testing site for approximately

an hour, if they cannot provide a specimen in order to continue

their preparation for the game, the opportunities for a steroid user

to avoid detection during this hour are very limited, given that

baseball tests for diuretics and masking agents, and checks the

specific gravity of all urine samples.

I do not know whether anyone on the committee has been at a

Major League clubhouse, but there is precious little privacy in

those clubhouses. While they may leave the particular area where

the samples are being provided, our collectors are in and out of

that clubhouse and the players are still subject to observation by

those collectors during that period of time.

291

In closing, I would like to point out that no one likes to receive

a letter like we received from the committee yesterday. When one

really understands the substance of our policy, however, there are

few legitimate criticisms that can be directed at this policy. This

is particularly true when one gives some appreciation for the fact

that this policy was negotiated in the context of a voluntary reopener of a collective bargaining agreement that is encouraged and

protected by the Federal labor laws.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Manfred, thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Manfred follows:]

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Fehr, thanks for being with us.

STATEMENT OF DON FEHR

Mr. FEHR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a very long

day. I have listened to a lot of testimony. And rather than read

some remarks that were prepared last night, I am going to try and

make a number of other comments that perhaps may be more central to the question at hand. My full testimony I understand will

be placed in the record.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Would you like to put some remarks in

the record?

Mr. FEHR. My full testimony, I understand, will be in the record.

Before going on, I would like to make two introductory comments. First of all, we had concerns, a lot of people had concerns,

as the chairman knows, about the fairness of the hearing. And I

would like to thank him and the Members for the fashion in which

the hearing has been conducted.

Second, I want to address the parents of the three individuals

that were the subject of testimony and comment earlier in the

hearing. I have four children. My wife and I can think of nothing

more tragic than losing a child under any circumstances. Our

hearts simply go out to them. In my own family, although it wasn’t

of a child, we have experienced something of suicide, and it just is

tragic beyond description.

Third, I appreciate the committee’s interest and concern about

the unlawful use of steroids. And I want to just take a minute to

repeat the basic position we have had, which I expressed twice before Senate committees, once in 2002 and once in 2004. Simply put,

Major League Baseball Players Association does not condone or

support the use by players, or by anyone else, of any unlawful substance or condone the unlawful use of any substance legal for certain purposes.

I cannot put it any more plainly. The use of any illegal substance

is wrong. And lest there be any question on the matter, I should

add that we are committed to dispelling any notion that the route

to becoming a Major League athlete somehow includes the taking

of unlawful performance enhancing substances.

I am not a physician. One doesn’t have to be to understand that

these are powerful drugs that are dangerous, and should not be

fooled around with. And we understand that this is particularly

true for children.

Next, as I indicated in my full written statement, this has been

one of the most difficult and divisive issues that we have faced. As

I have explained to other committees, let me just take one moment

to go through the process. The summer of 2002, when we were in

bargaining, I met, as I do normally in bargaining with the players

on every team one at a time, to talk about all issues involved in

that negotiation.

Half of each meeting and a little more was devoted to steroids.

And a lot of issues were discussed with a lot of different, and a lot

of conflicting opinions. There was a lot of discussion, for example,

about the differences between legal and illegal steroids. And, in

fact, people wondered what percentage of the claimed steroid use

308

was legal substances. We did not know. There was a lot of speculation.

There is a lot of speculation about whether we could be certain

that dietary supplements, authorized and made legal by action of

this Congress some 11 years ago unanimously in both Houses could

be counted on to have the purity of products, or whether they were

adulterated. There were questions raised as to whether or not testing does not amount to an assumption of guilty. What I mean by

that is, you go up to someone and you say, take a test. And the

failure to take a test, even without any other evidence is considered

guilt. Normally, some players said, if someone accuses you of doing

something wrong, it is up to them to have some evidence of that.

And in a similar fashion, there was a question as to whether you

should have to make a preliminary showing to test of some reason

to believe there was inappropriate conduct. Not a precise fourth

amendment standard, but the concept is similar.

That produced, if I can use the words of Mr. Sosa earlier today,

some bristling among the players. We talked it through. And we

came to the following solution. We will do an anonymous test in

2003, and we will get some empirical data. If it is 5 percent or

more, we will shift to a program with disciplinary consequences.

Did I hope and expect that it would substantially below 5 percent? Yeah, I think I did. Was I right? No, I wasn’t. It was slightly

above 5 percent. So we shifted in 2004 to a program with disciplinary consequences.

The incidence of use dropped to somewhere in the neighborhood

of 1 percent. I have heard a lot of the comments about holes in the

program. I am not sure there are really there, or that any real

analysis has been done of the program. But, in any event, the trend

line is pretty clear. Notwithstanding that, after the hearing before

the Senate Commerce Committee a year ago this month, in which

I indicated, as I will today, or as I will now today, that we understand the concerns raised by the members of the committee, I have

listened all day, and that we will discuss them with the constituents.

We entered into discussions with Major League Baseball about

expanding that program. It took longer than we thought, in part,

because there were some legal matters that we had to await the

resolution of to see how certain matters could be resolved.

I went to the players in December, at our executive board meeting, and made the recommendation that they give us the authority

to finish that agreement and make the changes that we had negotiated. They gave me that authority without question. The result

is, without going into the details, although I will be happy to if

questioned, there is much more frequent testing this year.

And as Mr. Selig has indicated, there is never a time in which

a player is free from other tests. There is off-season testing. The

substances, Mr. Manfred has covered. And just to reiterate a point,

we both copied the applicable law, and provided that if any substance is shown to be anabolic and is unlawful, it gets automatically added. And the penalties were enhanced. With respect to the

‘‘or’’ clause, about which there has been a lot of discussion, let me

echo what Mr. Manfred has just told you.

309

During bargaining, we were explicitly told, there will be suspicions. During bargaining we expressly waived our right to contest

that. It is not up to us. Normally a union can file a grievance and

say, we think the penalty is too severe. In this case, up to the limit

set forth in the agreement, we cannot. This was such a nonissue

that in my transmittal to the players on ratification, I did not even

mention the ‘‘or’’ possibility. It was just the straight suspensions.

By any reasonable estimation, this is a considerably stronger and

more enhanced program than we had a year ago. Will it work? I

have my own belief. I believe that it will. And I believe that the

evidence we have from last year is. But we won’t have to guess

about that. We won’t. Mr. Selig won’t. None of you will. Because

the data will be the data. It will show us. And if it is successful,

we will know it. If it is not, we won’t.

We were asked about ratification. The players are not together

during the off season. They are together now. They are ratifying

this agreement on an ongoing basis through spring training. A lot

of clubs haven’t, because I have not had an opportunity to meet

with them yet, answer questions and explain the agreement and

make sure they understand it. I can envision no circumstance in

which it will not be overwhelming ratified.

Finally, the committee’s letter inviting me to testify asked me to

comment a bit on what can be done to help educate America’s

young people about the dangers of abusing drugs and so on. As I

previously testified, we stand prepared to work with the Congress,

to meet with all of you, and see what makes the most sense, what

would be the most effective. And I think you heard that from the

players that were here today. I don’t have to speak for them.

I also want to echo that we ought to make certain that we do not

explicitly or implicitly give credence or notoriety to those who claim

or have claimed that steroids are the future of sports, etc. I applaud the Advisory Committee which has been the subject of some

testimony.

I did not know about it until today. It seems to me to be a fine

idea. I am very glad that the players are involved. And I certainly

hope that it gets off the ground. If we can help as an institution,

as apart from the individual players, I am sure that we will be

willing to do so.

Finally, two points. I thank you for hearing me, Mr. Chairman.

I think that the Congress needs to consider the reality that for

many young people, steroids may only be a mouse click away. They

are getting them from somewhere. Or the fact that our culture does

not have a uniformally negative image of steroids.

And I was struck by testimony before House Energy and Commerce last week. And I don’t remember the individual testifying, I

apologize, who pointed out that a number of corporate giants have

premised advertising campaigns for products linking those products

to being bigger and better, like they were on steroids.

I mention it to indicate the breadth of the issue that perhaps is

out there in the public mind. Congress should consider not limiting

its attention exclusively to a top down review of testing programs,

but also how to furnish parents, coaches, athletic directors, team

physicians, teachers, principals and others who work with young

people to have the information that they need.

310

I know there was a bill pending in California that has not come

into law yet. I do not know what is in the bill. It seemed to me

the idea behind it was good. Last point and I will conclude.

There is an article today in the Washington Post talking about

gene doping. That article was similar to one that was in, I believe,

Scientific American or Discover that I saw about a year ago. The

principal point is, what has been going on now is chemical efforts

to change muscle mass. And the science may be progressing to a

point where it may be genetic efforts to directly change the genetic

code.

I suggest to you that is something which bears the closest scrutiny. And I do not know of anyone who can do that, other than the

Congress of the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize if I went a little long.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. No. That is fine. Thank you very much.

Anybody else wish to say anything up there.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fehr follows:]

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

Mr. ALDERSON. I have a statement, if I can. It will be abridged,

but I would like to make an opening statement, if I can.

STATEMENT OF SANDY ALDERSON

Mr. ALDERSON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Waxman, committee members, I have been employed in baseball for almost 24 years, 17 of

them with the Oakland Athletics, 14 of those years, from 1984

through 1997, I was the general manager of the A’s. I have been

executive vice president of baseball operations at Major League

Baseball since 1998.

With the considerable attention now being paid to the steroid

issue, it is difficult to imagine that there was a time when those

in baseball had barely heard of steroids, much less suspected that

they were a problem in the game.

When I first became the general manager of the Athletics, the

conventional wisdom within professional baseball was that

strength training would not result in improved performance. Many

players and clubs placed no emphasis at all on strength development.

In the early and mid 1980’s, the Oakland Athletics embarked on

many innovative programs. We were the first to embrace quantitative analysis for the evaluation of players. We hired the first

mental coach, someone actually in uniform, to assist with the development of our players and staff. We may have been the first

team to promote strength training and to configure a team weight

room at the ballpark.

At the Major League level, a former Major League player already

on the coaching staff was assigned additional responsibility as the

strength coach. One of the players developed by Oakland during

this time was Jose Canseco. Canseco was a mid-round draft selection, but he quickly developed a reputation for bat speed and

power. By the end of the 1984 season, which was before Canseco

claims he began using steroids, Canseco was a possible future star

with great power potential.

Baseball America considered him the A’s No. 1 prospect. Consequently his subsequent development physically as well as professionally was gratifying, but not surprising to those in the organization. By the time Canseco was an established player, many organizations had adopted similar strength training programs, and as a

result throughout—many players throughout Major League Baseball were getting stronger and bigger.

There did come a time when I did wonder whether Jose Canseco

might be using steroids. There was a column written late 1988 that

speculated his steroid use. But his reaction to that speculation was

a vehement denial, much different response than the recent admissions in his book. Also, probably in 1989, Canseco reported to

spring training looking markedly bigger and more physically developed than he had been the year before. However, under the collective bargaining agreement then in force with the Major League

Baseball Players Association, Major League players could not be

tested for steroid use. Steroids were not even illegal until 1991.

During my time in Oakland, I never saw a player use steroids,

never saw steroids or steroid paraphernalia. Steroid suspicion was

324

not a consideration of mine in trading Canseco in 1992, in trading

in 1997 or not resigning him in 1998.

There were many factors at work in baseball in the 1990’s which

may have obscured a steroid problem. Home runs and run production were increasing during this time, but not always year to year.

At the same time, strength programs were in vogue across baseball; hitter-friendly ballparks were being built, expansion that occurred in 1993 and again in 1998. Two seasons, 1994 and 1995,

had been shortened by a player strike. That design had changed,

and there was an emphasis with many clubs on having more offensive players even at traditionally defensive positions.

Beginning in the late 1990’s, there has been a growing awareness

of steroid use in professional baseball. This greater awareness first

emerged with the inquiry into the use of androstenedione in 1998.

Since then we have become more knowledgeable as a result of a

strong testing program in the Minor Leagues as well as the testing

program contained in the 2002 collective bargaining agreement

with the Players Association. Participation in international competitions such as the Olympics, where professional players have

competed since 2000, has also contributed to our knowledge and,

I believe, to the willingness of the Players Association to finally accept drug testing for steroids. Out of this greater awareness have

come a strengthened Minor League drug policy, the new Major

League drug policy implemented for this season, and a medical advisory committee that was formed partly to keep the Commissioner

and Major League Baseball informed about performance-enhancing

substances. Also, tighter controls on the access to Major League

clubhouses have been instituted.

Hindsight is 20/20 vision. All of us in baseball, including me,

wish we would have been able to detect steroid use early in the

1990’s, but we can only learn from this recent history. In the meantime, the new Major League steroid policy effective for this season

is a great step forward. The program represents on the part of both

players and management an affirmation that the integrity of the

game, the health of Major League players and the health of the

youth of the United States are vitally important to baseball. Thank

you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alderson follows:]

325

326

327

328

329

330

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Towers, did you want to make an

opening statement?

Mr. TOWERS. Just questions.

Mr. MANFRED. Mr. Chairman, I notice this list went up over

here, and I might—so that we are clear, the second item from the

bottom, clenbuterol, that is listed is not covered by our policy. If

you review my letter of March 14, 2005, we reported a positive for

that substance to you. It is, in fact, covered by our program. It is

in response No. 5. In addition, the first item under the list of anabolic steroids is the base molecule for THG, which is also banned

under the program.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That is Mr. Waxman’s chart. Let me ask

you while you are here. Let’s turn to the agreement, page 11, player tests positive for steroid. First positive test results in a 10-day

suspension or up to a $10,000 fine. You are telling me this was just

carried-over language from a previous agreement?

Mr. MANFRED. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Fehr, your understanding is you have

communicated this to the players, that you didn’t even talk about

the fine; is that correct?

Mr. FEHR. That’s correct, we have not.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Since this is a draft agreement, we have

no problem taking this out of here, do we, ratifying this and just

taking this out? Does anybody?

Mr. SELIG. I do not have a problem.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Can we execute an agreement that we can

take that out?

Mr. FEHR. I will certainly go back to the players with it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The players don’t know it’s in there, right?

Mr. FEHR. That’s correct.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You didn’t communicate this?

Mr. FEHR. Mr. Chairman, as we heard from one of the individuals on the doctors’ panel, and I apologize, I do not remember who

it was, there may be individuals for whom it’s clear that a positive

result was either inadvertent or unknowing.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That’s why you have the appeal.

Let me just say I’m not a big lawyer like you, I’m a recovering

lawyer, but that’s why you have an appeal procedure where they

can come back.

Let me just say, we will look at this. Taking this out would be

a major advance for baseball both for everybody’s credibility.

Mr. SELIG. When we presented it to the owners on January 13

and 14, in Phoenix, we presented it as just suspension. There was

not a mention of fines. So it was passed and ratified 30 to nothing

with the understanding that any violation would be suspension.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me say, you are people of goodwill.

Mr. Fehr is a careful attorney, and I understand why he wants to

go back and check it, but it wasn’t communicated to the players,

according to your testimony, so I wouldn’t think you would have to

go back to the players. It seems to me there is an appeal period

for players who have a test result otherwise they can take advantage of and take care of——

Mr. WAXMAN. On this one point, yesterday Mr. Manfred was on

the radio, and he said that this was not simply carried over, but

331

it was intentionally done so to give as much power to the Commissioner as possible. Do you deny saying that on a radio interview

yesterday?

Mr. MANFRED. What I said on the radio was that the language

was originally put in the agreement to deal with an extraordinary

circumstance such as Mr. Fehr just described. That’s what I said

on the radio when I was talking about going into the agreement.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Wouldn’t the appeal period allow for that?

Mr. MANFRED. You are correct about that. Your analysis of that

issue is correct.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let’s watch that, and would like you to report back to us on that. We have made a major issue out of it, and

you have responded. And if you could respond to it, that would be

helpful.

If I could turn back to page 8 on the disclosures, where it says

that disciplinary fines imposed upon the player by the Commission

will remain strictly confidential, since we are not going to be doing

fines, is this another drafting error?

Mr. MANFRED. What page?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Page 10, disclosure of player information,

A–2.

Mr. MANFRED. There is language that deals with suspension. The

suspension shall be entered in the baseball information system.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I understand that. But under the language on page 11, where you still had under the written document

a fine or suspension option, this refers to the fine would not be disclosed. You tell me that was a drafting error. Would this be a drafting error as well?

Mr. MANFRED. You still might have fines under the drugs of

abuse portion of the program, Mr. Chairman. So not the steroid

portion, but the drugs of abuse portion. And there may be some use

for that language still, I believe, but not under the steroid piece,

because all the suspensions would be disclosed in the transactions.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. What about the discipline, going back to

page 11, under the discipline program, where you give options for

players who are at this point—who are put into treatment, and

they fail treatment, failure to comply with the treatment. Again,

you have suspensions, and you also have a fine option there. Was

this agreed to?

Mr. MANFRED. There is an option to fine. This part of the program would apply to drugs and abuse. Some people who enter

these programs are in an employee assistance mode. They may

come forward voluntarily, seek treatment, and they are put on a

treatment program and may be tested, OK. And if they have a slip,

sometimes the doctors recommend to us that a fine is appropriate,

and we don’t disclose those fines.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And, in fact, if a player came forward and

admitted they have a problem and went into the program, they

could still be playing, and you want to protect the fact that they

came forward?

Mr. MANFRED. Absolutely correct. The drugs and abuse portion

of the program, there could be still some fines there.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Confidentiality. Turn to page 9 of the confidentiality, and this was addressed. Mr. Selig, you addressed this

332

both in your opening statements on the governmental investigation. This means any subpoena issued, warrant obtained or any

other investigative effort employed by any governmental body with

the intention of securing information relating to drug testing of

players—that, in my mind, doesn’t just mean the individual player’s results; these could be the composite results, which we have

subpoenaed in this case, too. Am I misconstruing this, or did you

really mean——

Mr. MANFRED. All I can tell you is that when we provided you

the aggregate information——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Which is all we asked for. We didn’t ask

for any individual player results because some of your representatives are out there saying we asked. We never did ask for that, did

we, to you knowledge?

Mr. MANFRED. I believe—and I don’t have the document in front

of me. I think the original request for information was broader

than the subpoena. I mean, I don’t have it in front of me.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. It is not in front of me.

Mr. MANFRED. I just don’t remember, Mr. Chairman. Candidly,

the best answer I can give you on this is the type of request made

was such that nobody raised even the possibility that this language

was operative. Again, I think the best evidence of what we intended the language to mean was the way that Mr. Fehr and I conducted ourselves, confronted with the type of limited investigation

that you wanted to undertake.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. It would not apply to the investigation of

this committee under your understanding?

Mr. MANFRED. That is correct.

Mr. FEHR. If it is not seeking the individual private data. This

is designed to get that private, individualized results, and it is

broad enough to encompass not only steroid testing, drugs and

abuse testing, treatment programs, medical records.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Also broad enough to include what we are

doing, but you are telling me that doesn’t apply?

Mr. FEHR. The fact that it doesn’t, I think, is evidenced by the

fact that there was no effort to resist the subpoena once it was

clear that no individual names were being sought.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Both of your interpretations is as long as

you stay away from individual information, subpoenas and investigations would not halt the program?

Mr. MANFRED. I agree with what you just said.

Mr. FEHR. Yes.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I think one of our concerns is, you know,

when you get into labor negotiations—and I’m a recovering lawyer.

I used to do this before I got here. You get into negotiations, and

you very ably want to represent your client whether it’s the league

owners, whether it’s the players, and you get inside this bubble.

And I hope if nothing else, I hope today’s hearing has shown you

inside the bubble and what you are dealing with on these issues

from the players’ perspective and from the managers’ perspective

is just a solar system away from where the American public is.

The public really demands more clarity to this, a clearer sign

than what we have. NFL—and we have talked about other sports

and amateur sports. This is a start, and I don’t want to sit here

333

and say you haven’t tried to do something. That would not be fair.

And I know you have worked hard on this. I know, Mr. Fehr, from

your perspective, this is not an issue you had to address under

your collective bargaining contract. You came back and did this out

of cycle. I don’t want to take that away from you. But I want to

say that the end result—and you can hear this from the testimony

and from liberals and conservatives and Republicans and Democrats here—really falls short of what we think Major League Baseball ought to be doing because it is not just a business, it has been

decreed by the court as a national pastime. These players, like it

or not, are role models, and this trickles down into every element

of organized sports. And that is really the concern here as we look

at this in terms of some of the shortcomings.

Again, as Senator Bunning said, you are out of the batter’s box

and on your way to first base, and we think it needs, as we have

discussed here, some additional work. So I will end with that and

pass it on to Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, and thank you, gentlemen,

for your testimony.

Mr. Selig and Mr. Fehr, there are two fundamental questions

that I think we need to focus on today. One is what did baseball

know about steroid use in the game, and what did baseball do

about it? The other, of course, is whether baseball’s new policy is

adequate.

I want to focus my questions on the first issue. What did baseball

know, and what did baseball do to respond? Mr. Selig, Jose

Canseco told us that it was widely—Jose Canseco was widely suspected of using steroids during his career, yet he told us that no

one in baseball ever asked him about his steroid use. No one told

him it was wrong or asked him to submit to a drug test. What did

you do as Commissioner to investigate whether Jose Canseco was

using steroids?

Mr. SELIG. Some of the things that happened, Congressman, with

Jose Canseco happened before I became Commissioner.

Mr. WAXMAN. The stories were after you became Commissioner.

Mr. SELIG. The fact of the matter is that I have said—if I can

answer your question—having been in this sport for almost 40

years, that in the 1990’s, and I have gone back over that period,

there was some conversation, there was the 1988 thing, there were

a few articles written that people have quoted, but not many—nobody ever came to me, no manager, no general manager, nobody

ever came to me in the 1990’s. I became concerned myself in July

on a Sunday morning when I read about Mark McGwire and

Andro, and that’s when all these things started.

Mr. WAXMAN. Before that, Fay Vincent, who was your predecessor, was concerned about steroid use to make it a prohibition on

his own. He said it is going to be prohibited in baseball. And then

there were news reports about Jose Canseco.

Mr. SELIG. With all due respect, I want to be careful about my

predecessors, but baseball had no drug program at all until I took

over, none, zero. And therefore, whatever you may hear and whatever you read, there was no program, and it was only in the 1990’s

as we developed that these programs began to develop. There was

nothing. And remember——

334

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me interrupt you, because I have limited time.

In 1991, it became baseball’s drug policy the possession, sale or use

of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players

and personnel is strictly prohibited. Those were the rules in 1991.

Mr. SELIG. They were not the rules. They were not enforceable.

They were our statement of purpose, but they had to be collectively

bargained.

Mr. WAXMAN. That was true only if you were going to have random tests of everybody. But if you have an individual for whom you

had probable cause to believe that something needs to be investigated because they are violating the rules, it seems to me—I have

in front of me, the Major League Constitution, and it says, the

functions of the Commissioner shall include to investigate or upon

complaint or upon the Commissioner’s initiative any act, transaction or practice charged, alleged or suspected to be not in the

best interest of the national game of baseball with authority to subpoena persons and order the production of documents in case of a

refusal to do so, and to determine after investigation what actions

to take.

So you had the ability, if you knew that somebody was breaking

the rules, to bring them in and ask them, why are you breaking

the rules, are you breaking the rules, would you submit to a test?

Mr. MANFRED. Mr. Waxman, all aspects—and the only reason I

am answering, because it’s a lawyer’s answer, all aspects of that

Commissioner’s drug policy—and again, we have had a lot of agreement today. I think Mr. Fehr is going to agree with me about that,

we are mandatory. The probable cause requirement, the random

testing, those are all mandatory.

Mr. WAXMAN. I’m going to interrupt you, because you are giving

me a lawyer’s answer. The collective bargaining agreement was for

random testing of everyone, but the constitution of Major League

Baseball said if there was some suspicion of breaking the rules, the

Commissioner could do something about it.

I have a picture up there of Giambi, and he went to the Yankees.

And the picture on the left showed him with long hair and a beard.

And Steinbrenner said, nobody is going to play with long hair and

beard. That is what he looked like right after he went to the Yankees. If people said you are not going to disobey the rules of using

steroids, we are not going to permit it; and if we suspected it, I

think the Commissioner had the ability to go in and demand an explanation.

Mr. SELIG. I will let him give a more legal answer. 1990, 1991

was before I took over. Mr. Vincent was the Commissioner then.

No. 2, the fact of the matter is he denied it, he being Canseco. And

nobody did come to me. And he denied it emphatically, and that

was the end of the discussion.

Mr. WAXMAN. In July 2000, the police found illegal steroids in

the glove compartment of the car of Red Sox shortstop Manny Alexander. At the time it was a Federal crime to possess these steroids.

At the time you were the Commissioner. The Commissioner’s policy

on drug use specifically banned the anabolic steroids in Major

League Baseball. What kind of investigation did your office do after

this discovery, and was Mr. Alexander ever asked to take a test for

illegal steroid use?

335

Mr. SELIG. Mr. Manfred conducted the investigation.

Mr. MANFRED. When we learned about the situation with respect

to Mr. Alexander, we worked with the Players Association under

kind of ad hoc arrangements we developed. We reached an agreement, and there was actually reasonable cause testing imposed in

that situation.

Mr. WAXMAN. There was testing?

Mr. MANFRED. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. What sanctions did Mr. Alexander receive? Did he

get a suspension?

Mr. MANFRED. I believe——

Mr. WAXMAN. The answer was no.

Mr. MANFRED. I believe because his test was actually negative

and he denied those steroids were his, he took the position that

they belonged to a young man that was in the car with him. And

after we tested him and he was clean, we didn’t have a basis for

disciplining the individual.

Mr. WAXMAN. We heard from Senator Bunning this morning, and

he is a very respected Senator and someone who is—most valuable

player in the Hall of Fame for baseball, and he said your testing

program is puny. We heard from the parents, and the parents said

to us, we don’t think this testing program is adequate. We heard

from the players, and over and over again they were asked, why

don’t you go to something stronger? Why don’t you go to something

like the Olympic standard?

Now, Mr. Selig, you can’t agree to anything without collective

bargaining, but if Mr. Fehr would agree, would you accept the idea

that on a first offense, you got a 2-year suspension, and on a second violation, that you are out of the game? That is one that has

worked in the Olympics, and it would be a clear signal.

Mr. SELIG. Well, the Olympics are a little bit different, but let

me answer your question. The fact of the matter is—and I say this

and I think everybody is going to understand—yes, I wanted tougher testing. I think the Minor League program is a manifestation of

that. I believe there should be tougher testing. I believed it in 2002.

I believe it now. But we now have a program——

Mr. WAXMAN. Let me ask Mr. Fehr. If you are supporting it,

maybe we could find out if Mr. Fehr would support it.

Mr. Selig said he would support a tougher testing program. The

players said they wanted it. The members of your union, they

wanted a tougher testing program. And it appears that this program that you have already agreed on is not tough enough in the

eyes of so many people. Would you support a tougher testing program?

Mr. FEHR. Let me take a minute to explain my response. It is

not a simple yes or no answer. First, I believe my obligation with

the players is to consult with everyone in private, confidentially, in

a situation in which they are not under the glare of TV cameras.

That’s first.

Second, my personal view, this is not an institutional view I’m

expressing now, my personal view is that our job with violations of

substance use is not to destroy careers. Our job is to stop it. And

if we can stop it short of destroying careers, and we can put people

on the right track, and we can get them back to playing with the

336

appropriate disclosures that you heard the players talk about and

all the rest of it, that is manifestly better.

That is the principle behind which every employee assistance

program in the country. It worked with drugs and abuse with us.

No question about that. And therefore, my suggestion is, and I believe this very strongly, we have to find out empirically if it works

before you go back and do that. The evidence we have so far suggests that what we did, which is far short of the program we have

now, far short of it, had a—not only a demonstrable, but a dramatic effect. The data is the data.

Mr. WAXMAN. I would submit to you that it’s not just a collective

bargaining issue between the two of you. The best law enforcement

is the one that is clearly stated and enforced. And if laws are broken, you enforce them, and that means you prevent people from

using steroids or any other illegal drug. If we had a policy of first

offense, light penalty; second offense, not that big a penalty; third

offense, maybe a little stronger, if they know they are going to be

out of the game and lose that money, those players are not going

to be using steroids.

Mr. SOUDER [presiding]. We have gone way over time. I yield to

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I appreciate you gentlemen being here.

Frankly, you are the most important panel. I know you are people

of goodwill, but I feel that you are asking us to do something that

just boggles the mind. It boggles the mind for me to think that you

would send us a drug policy and then tell us that the document

isn’t accurate, and that is just sloppy. You guys are the best lawyers in the business. And I want to know, and I want to know

without—under oath, I want to know if you were asked for the

drug policy verbally by our staff?

Mr. MANFRED. I was here on March 2, and a member of the staff

asked me if we could get the drug policy. I told them we were still

drafting the policy. The next request that I received was a letter

that I received on March 7th. It was a two-page, single-spaced request for documents that included items——

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. You have answered the question. You

were asked first by staff. You were asked second by letter on

March 7. I want to know why it took a subpoena to get this document.

Mr. MANFRED. Because the document was not yet complete.

Mr. SHAYS. What do you mean not yet complete?

Mr. MANFRED. We were drafting the document. That document

on March 2 did not exist.

Mr. SHAYS. This document didn’t exist?

Mr. MANFRED. Not in the form that you have it.

Mr. SHAYS. You mean you just wrote it then; this document you

were telling people you had a policy, and now telling us wasn’t

even drafted in March?

Mr. MANFRED. We were making changes to the draft still in

March.

Mr. SHAYS. I think that I need to calm down.

Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman would calm down, I just want to

point out the Commissioner announced this policy in January.

337

Mr. MANFRED. We always have announced our collective bargaining agreements without language drafted. We have routinely done

that for 30 years.

Mr. SHAYS. All you do by your answers is make me want to know

more about what the hell you do do, because when you announce

the policy and you tell us—and you have not been responsive to our

staff—and the bottom line is—no, you haven’t been—and the bottom line is we had to subpoena this information. And when we get

this information, you are telling us what we are looking at is a

drafting error, that to me is just unbelievable.

I would like to ask you why should someone have five strikes before they are out? I want to go down the list. Why five strikes?

Mr. MANFRED. Congressman, let me begin——

Mr. SHAYS. I would like the Commissioner. Why five strikes?

Mr. SELIG. That is the negotiated policy. That is the best we

could do in collective bargaining. This is collective bargaining.

Mr. SHAYS. It’s the players’ fault? I want to know your position.

Is your position one strike and you’re out?

Mr. SELIG. No, but the penalties would be much tougher if I had

my way, as I did in the Minor Leagues.

Mr. SHAYS. Let’s not blame the players. I want to know why you

need five strikes and you’re out.

Mr. SELIG. I am not blaming the players.

Mr. SHAYS. I want to know why you need five strikes and you’re

out. I want to know why you can break the law once, break the law

twice, break the law three times, break the law four times and

then you’re out? Mr. Fehr, maybe you could tell me, because you

represent the players.

Mr. FEHR. The notion of progressive discipline is well ingrained

in collective bargaining agreements in this country and has been

for years.

Mr. SHAYS. Even when you break the law?

Mr. FEHR. Has been for years.

Now, second—I’m sorry. I lost my train of thought.

Mr. SHAYS. Why should you have five strikes before you are out?

Mr. FEHR. And the second reason is did we believe—did I believe

that doing it this way with the public disclosures would accomplish

the result of getting it stopped? The answer is, yes, I did. And I

think the data we have so far supports that.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, why would it accomplish it if you have five

strikes? You can break the law five times, four times before you are

asked to leave baseball?

Mr. FEHR. I can’t say it any more than we have. We believe in

the concept of progressive discipline. It is well ingrained in labor

law and has been for a long time. We believe that if what you do

is you have a circumstance in which there is a positive test, there

is no treatment program like there was under the first one. That

was the criticism last year. It becomes publicly known. That person

is now subjected, immediately, to individualized testing. He is no

longer part of the random program. He gets it on an ongoing basis.

If he screws it up, he is gone.

Mr. SHAYS. My light is on, but what you are telling the kids is—

is you can break the law four times before you are out of the game.

And that, to me, is amazing. And I just want to say to you, ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00345 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
338

missioner, when you say it is collective bargaining, you are basically blaming the ballplayers. And I don’t know why you just don’t

say what you want, what it should be, and fight like hell to make

sure it happens and publicly expose the players if they are taking

the position they are taking.

Mr. SELIG. I have said, Congressman Shays, over and over again

publicly that the Minor League policy, which is much tougher, is

a manifestation—is about how I feel about the issue and what I

want. I would even tighten that up, and we may in future years.

Mr. SHAYS. I think you need to take your case to the public.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. How many people have you suspended?

Mr. MANFRED. I’m sorry?

Mr. CUMMINGS. I asked the Commissioner how many people have

been suspended.

Mr. SELIG. This policy has just kicked in.

Mr. CUMMINGS. That’s what I thought.

You know, one of the things that you said, Mr. Fehr, and I do

appreciate all your testimony, but you talked about you didn’t want

to destroy the careers of these players, these multimillion-dollar

players. Well, Mr. Fehr, let me tell you something. I have people

in my district that don’t have a job. And if they got caught with

a Schedule III drug, you know where they’re going? To jail. And nobody cares about their careers. And Mr. Souder will tell you, we

travel all over this country, and we have people who get convicted

of offenses, and they suffer for the rest of their lives. And so we

have criminal laws here. And it seems to me that we would want

zero tolerance. Is that what you want, Mr. Selig?

Mr. SELIG. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. 1.7 isn’t good enough, is it?

Mr. SELIG. No. I agree with that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let’s talk to you, Mr. Manfred. On ESPN radio,

Mike and Mike show yesterday, you said the way the policy is written is that it says that for a first positive steroid test, the Commissioner has the discretion to impose a 10-day suspension or $10,000

fine. The reason it was written that way and committed to the

Commissioner’s discretion is because the bargaining party’s understanding consistent with the descriptions that have been made to

the policy publicly and to Congress is that a positive test will result

in the Commissioner imposing a 10-day suspension. The language

after the disjunctive was added, to give the Commissioner discretion to deal with that unusual circumstance where there was an

unwitting positive, what does that mean?

Mr. MANFRED. First of all, I was describing the original reason

for including the language in the 2002 agreement, No. 1. No. 2,

what I meant by the phrase ‘‘the unwitting positives,’’ somebody

who demonstrated to us that the only substance they ever took was

in this jar. We analyzed it. It contained a contaminant, a steroid

that resulted in a positive, and it was nowhere listed on the label.

The individual had no way of knowing; he could not have known

that it was in there, and that was the kind of circumstance I had

in my head when I said that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. When do we expect this, whatever the policy is,

to be ratified, Mr. Fehr?

339

Mr. FEHR. I’m sure it will be by the end of the month. I still have

to meet with 12 or 13 teams and make sure that I explain it and

answer the questions from them.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You can understand the frustration of Members

of Congress, can you not?

Mr. FEHR. Of course.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You can understand the frustration of these parents that I’m sitting here watching, and I feel kind of bad about

this, and they’re sitting here listening to this, and I wish you could

have a camera so you could see them while you are testifying, because they are getting the impression—that there used to be a time

when they used to use the phrase rope-a-dope where I think Mohammed Ali—they’d rope-a-dope and just play out the clock. And

basically I want to make sure that, first of all, that we know what

the policy is.

I am going to be frank with you. I’ve sat here for about 8 or 9

hours, and I am still not clear what the policy is. And we want to

know when is that policy going to take effect, and is it clear, Mr.

Selig, that if someone is found to use steroids, that they will be

suspended? Is that what you are telling us, that $10,000——

Mr. SELIG. Unequivocally, they are gone, and they will be suspended.

Mr. CUMMINGS. For how long?

Mr. SELIG. Ten days for first offense.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Without question?

Mr. SELIG. Without question.

Mr. SOUDER. I hope that you realize your position has deteriorated substantially on this panel, and we were progressing along

thinking we were kind of moving to the same page. In fact, you

have upset me and most of the other Members. Doesn’t matter if

you are a Democrat, Republican or liberal or conservative. We have

been hearing all day about a policy. I think spring training is

under way. I think off season is already over. Drafting errors—

where you have contradicted yourselves, whether it is a drafting

error—we have had testimony here saying there is precious little

privacy in the locker room. Mr. Alderson says he didn’t know what

was going on in the locker room. Is there precious little privacy

that we know? Ken Caminiti has already confessed. Jose Canseco

has already confessed. How come nobody could see it? It isn’t even

plausible. American people who are watching this right now aren’t

viewing your testimony plausible. It is a huge problem right now

for Major League Baseball.

Let me tell you another reason why you are losing ground. You

talk about financial penalties, and you confuse matters by saying

what is voluntary and involuntary. Quite frankly, that’s easily

fixed in the contract. Those that come forward voluntarily are

treated differently than those who get caught in a drug test. It is

that way in every business. Don’t act like you are the only collective bargaining agreement or the only business in the country that

has drug testing problems.

And in your fines, you are dealing with people who are making

in some cases $10 million a year. Do you know what your fine system is, the equivalent for a truck driver who has to take a test and

gets suspended? The equivalent is a $25 fine for a major player,

340

and the $10,000 equivalent for a 2 million or lower-level player is

$125. That is a real severe penalty.

As Mr. Fehr said, you believe someone will be—the first suspension, even though it is only 10 days, why do we have five? And you

said, well, because it won’t take five. Then take the five out if you

are so confident it won’t take the five. We don’t give five strikes

and you’re out to people all over this country. We are looking for

all kinds of reentry programs and looking how to address it, but

we don’t give young kids on the street that we pick up five chances

on this type of thing.

Let me go through one other category that I raised, and I ask

unanimous consent to put these materials in the record on

ephedra.

[The information referred to follows:]

341

342

343

344

Mr. SOUDER. In 1997, the NCAA banned ephedra. In 2001, the

NFL banned ephedra. In 2003, a baseball player of the Baltimore

Orioles, Steve Belcher, died of complications of an ephedra-related

substance. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Selig, Commissioner Selig, said

we are going to ban ephedra. Then ephedra wasn’t banned. Then

Congress went ahead and we made ephedra illegal. And this is one

of the documents I’m inserting into the record. It’s only in this policy that you start to even test for ephedra 1 year after it’s illegal,

and you expect us to believe here that you shouldn’t have independent testing, trust us, when you said there are drafting errors,

when you brag about the policies of the whole hearing, and you

don’t have the policy, as we are trying to develop the hearing, that

you have already started the baseball season and you are not doing

it.

And one last thing I want to say, and I would be interested in

some responses, that I heard you say that even given the holes in

the test, which I believe they are substantial, including on steroids,

that this applies to steroids only. If somebody is on cocaine or LSD

or other hormones, that they can be fined basically the equivalent

of $25 for a star; in other words, $10,000 converted is $25 for a

star, and $125. Are you saying you are going to suspend for other

drugs as well as steroids?

Mr. MANFRED. First of all, even though we reached this agreement in late January and began redoing what is a long and complicated agreement to get it right, we began operating under this

agreement on March 3. We were in the camps taking urine samples. So I understand you would have liked it done faster. That was

as fast as we could get it done, and, frankly, demonstrated a lot

of sort of cooperation in terms of beginning to go out and make collections under the program before the document was finalized.

With respect to the drafting of the agreement, this is a very long

and complicated document. You did identify one spot in the language where it could have been drafted better. I will say again

what I said at the outset, as drafted, the Commissioner had the

ability to do what he said he was going to do. He has the ability

to suspend for 10 days. And you have been mischaracterizing the

document.

Mr. SOUDER. You have been describing that as one thing we

made an error in. It is the pivotal part which is the penalty.

My time is up. I yield to Mr. Kanjorski.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I can sympathize with some of my fellow committee members and a little bit of the frustration in your responses. I think people that are watching us ask questions whether

there is favoritism and special benefits that flow to professional

athletes as opposed to the general population, and that is a reasonable question. And I have always wondered why you could go to a

hockey game and see an organized riot on the field, and nobody

ever gets prosecuted for assault and battery. If you are a professional hockey player, you have the right to take your club and beat

the living bejeezus out of your opponent as long as he doesn’t get

brain dead.

What we are facing here that—as a result of this hearing, we are

approaching this whole problem like it’s a baseball problem. I don’t

happen to think it is. I think it is a societal problem of great proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00352 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
345

portions. But what I think our policy as Congress should be is what

we are going to do to protect average people and average athletes,

misguided but nevertheless average, many of which will never get

there.

I am not certain it is totally solvable. I proposed some questions

earlier today that what is the motive for doing these things. And,

you know, when you are dealing with cocaine or marijuana, I guess

the motive is to feel good, I’m not sure. But when you are dealing

with these things, it’s a profit motive. If you can equip your body

in a more special way than your opponent, you have a chance to

succeed and get a greater salary. It is sort of free enterprise’s solution to the challenges of modern science. And regardless of what we

do in policy, somebody is going to be out there trying to put another drug together ahead of us so that we are obsolete by the time

we pass the law.

Mr. KANJORSKI. The situation I would like to have baseball look

like is one, and the rest of the committee is saying, back off from

this idea of collective bargaining. Quite frankly, if it is illegal substances, I’m not sure how you can participate in not prosecuting.

It would seem to me—isn’t it correct that in a junior high school

or high school, we found out if someone was taking one of these

Class III drugs that are illegal, that they would have to be prosecuted? Why should baseball be any different?

So whether I’m talking to the players’ side or the league side,

you know, you really have to disengage yourself from the idea that

you are some special category in American society that is not subject to criminal law or the same type of punishment as my friend

from Maryland indicated what happened in his congressional district has happened. You have to—and I’m going to tell you, I’m a

sympathetic Member of this Congress from the standpoint that I’m

not sure that it’s our role to get into taking on the regulation of

every sport in America. But it is awfully frustrating when professional athletics think they are in a special category and don’t have

to measure up to what other citizens are held for in criminal respects. And you have to do something about it. Have to do something about it.

But what we are trying to do is see how we can protect those

kids out there. I want to bring up a proposition. Look, we use

markers. We can trace where a drug comes from, where it was

manufactured, whose hands it was in until its final disposition.

Has baseball ever gone to people and said, let’s get these steroids

with markers in them so we can determine where they came from?

Has anybody inquired into who is making the money on this? Is

this the American pharmaceutical industry, or is this some diabolical foreign industry, or is this a garage operation? I happen to

think it is probably more sophisticated than that.

My question is what are you doing about the prevention of this

so it doesn’t spread to the millions of athletes out there that are

dreaming someday to sign a $10 million contract?

Mr. MANFRED. Let me take a crack at that. What we do know

as a result of our own internal activities is that steroids are available a wide variety of places. You heard some testimony earlier

today, different countries, Mexico, the Dominican Republic have

different types and severity of regulation in terms of the availabilVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00353 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
346

ity of these substances, and not only is the regulation different, the

acceptance in society of the use of those substances are different.

The Internet is a second huge problem. I mean, if you go on the

Internet and look up things like steroids, you cannot only figure

out how to buy them, there are whole Web sites devoted to how you

beat steroid tests. It is like a cottage industry.

So in terms of getting at it from the control end, when you realize you have both foreign sources and the Internet, to us, we don’t

have a good answer as to how you get your arms around that. It

just seems kind of beyond the capacity of a private employer to

deal with, you know, the trafficking issues associated with availability in other countries and, you know, the sale of these substances on the Internet.

Mr. ALDERSON. Recent reports to the contrary notwithstanding,

Major League Baseball has had an ongoing and very positive relationship with the FBI. We currently expect to have a meeting with

the FBI over the next 2 or 3 weeks in order to make sure that,

going forward, we work together. And this is certainly an area

where the FBI has been active in the distant past and perhaps may

be active again in the future.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Westmoreland.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only document we have is this drug proposal that we were handed today

that talks about Major League Baseball’s joint drug prevention and

treatment program. And I assume that is the most current copy;

is that correct?

Mr. MANFRED. Document that I produced to the committee.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And who negotiated this for Major League

Baseball, and who negotiated it for the players?

Mr. SELIG. Mr. Manfred did for Major League Baseball.

Mr. FEHR. It was very probably Michael Weiner for the players.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Manfred, we’ve got a saying down

home for something like this: You’ve got your hat handed to you.

And when they handed you, their hat—your hat, they handed

America their hat, because this thing right here, I’m going to read

this to the American people, and hopefully this will be able to put

on the Internet. As Mr. Shays said, if you don’t comply with the

treatment program, you have five opportunities; that the fifth failure is any subsequent failure, this is after No. 4, to comply by a

player shall result in the Commissioner imposing further discipline

on the player. The level of discipline will be determined consistent

with the concept of progressive discipline.

Now, remember, these people are being suspended for 15 days,

and I just took out my little calculator, and I hope I did it right,

if they are making $10 million a year, they make $61,728 a day.

If you’re going to suspend them for 15 days, maybe they are going

to play 10 ballgames, about $670,000, I think they will probably

want to go with a $10,000 fine. And if you negotiate with the players like you did on this, they are going to get by with a $10,000

fine.

Mr. MANFRED. We have already clarified that they have agreed

to take that language, at the chairman’s request, out of the agreement to clarify.

347

Mr. WESTMORELAND. You both agreed on this at one time, correct? I’m assuming you did.

Mr. SELIG. Yes, we did.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. If a player tests positive for a steroid, first

test, 10-day suspension or up to a $10,000 fine, is that still correct?

Mr. MANFRED. No. We agreed with the chairman earlier in this

hearing. It was drafting language.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Conviction for the use of a prohibited substance, first offense, a 15-day—but no more than a 30-day suspension or up to a $10,000 fine; is that correct?

Mr. MANFRED. Page what?

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Page 14.

Mr. MANFRED. That is correct.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Now, these are people being caught with a

prohibited substance; is that correct? Something that is against the

law, against the Federal law.

Mr. MANFRED. Defined term in the agreement.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. It could be against Federal law; is that correct?

Mr. MANFRED. Yes.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. You are going to fine them up to $10,000

on the first offense?

Mr. MANFRED. That is correct.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And you could suspend them for 15 days

but no more than 30 days?

Mr. MANFRED. That’s correct.

Let’s go to marijuana. And I would point out that these levels of

discipline are consistent with the levels of discipline that arbitrators have upheld in prior decisions in this agreement. Sometimes

the law is not good, but the law is what the law is.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. If it is against Federal law, I don’t know

what the arbitration society has to say. Listen to me, because there

are people in prison that would like this same kind of deal. Number E says participation in the sale or distribution of a prohibited

substance. A player who participates in the sale or distribution of

a prohibited substance shall be subject to the following discipline:

For the first offense, at least a 60-day but no more than 90-day

suspension and up to a fine of $100,000; is that correct?

Mr. MANFRED. That’s correct.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Second offense, they get a 2-year suspension. Then the third time, it goes into the progressive discipline,

again up to the Commissioner as to what it would be. Marijuana,

a player on the administrative track for the use or possession of

marijuana shall not be subject to suspension. The player will be

subject to fines which shall be progressive and shall not exceed

$15,000. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a player who participates

in the sale or distribution of marijuana would be subject to those

same penalties.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. One quick question. Mr. Fehr, you talked

about the progressive punishment. What kind of progressive punishment did Pete Rose get for gambling? And gambling is legal in

some States. What kind of progressive punishment did he get verVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00355 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
348

sus somebody that sells drugs that is against Federal law that

gives progressive punishment? Can you tell me the equity?

Mr. FEHR. My recollection is that Pete Rose was declared permanently ineligible. I am not familiar with the details.

Let me make one point in response to the questions you have

raised. Players are not immune from prosecution. We assume that

they will be prosecuted to the same extent that other individuals

will be prosecuted in similar circumstances. If they are in prison,

they are not getting paid and don’t have to be suspended.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. How many are going to prison; do you

know?

Mr. FEHR. No.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. One more question for Mr. Manfred. On

page 2, at the bottom of page 2, you put, but as those of you who

were around in 1994 will remember, the priority was resolving the

economic issues facing the game and getting the game back on the

field.

Mr. MANFRED. Uh-huh, I did.

I was reporting——

Mr. WESTMORELAND [continuing]. Than the welfare—health and

safety people that were reporting priorities.

Mr. MANFRED. I was not stating priorities. I was stating priorities that were expressed repeatedly in various committees on both

committees of the House, some when we were involved in the long

labor dispute.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So it was Congress’ fault that we didn’t do

anything about steroids then?

Mr. MANFRED. I am simply making the point as to what happened. Congress called us down here, and that was the point they

made.

Mr. SELIG. Congressman, let me also say, in 1994, I heard from

nobody—there was nobody anywhere who was talking to me about

steroids. I have really—any knowledge other than the one player

who admitted—that he now admitted that he was using steroids,

but he was in tremendous denial at the time. The fact of the matter is, even though we had a program that was—imposed collective

bargaining, there was no—if you go back to 1994—and I am an old

history major, and I understand this——

Mr. SANDERS. Please talk into the mic.

Mr. SELIG. There was nobody that was bringing up the steroid

issue.

Look, I have often said, and I will say to you here tonight, I wish

I knew in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 what I know today. I will acknowledge that.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I understand. I will just tell you, this document—for you to send this to us and expect us to use this during

this hearing, it’s an embarrassment to me, and I would hope that

it would be an embarassment to Major League Baseball.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Let me ask, before I recognize Mr. Sanders, if you were to

catch—if a Major League ballplayer were distributing illegal drugs

and you were to discover that, would you turn him over to the authorities?

Mr. SELIG. Oh, absolutely.

349

Chairman TOM DAVIS. You would.

Mr. SELIG. Oh, there is no question about it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK.

Mr. SELIG. Oh, absolutely.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Sanders.

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me start off with the very first line of Mr. Selig’s statement.

He said, Major League Baseball has made ‘‘tremendous progress’’

in dealing with the issue of performance enhancing substances.

Mr. Selig, I gather that if you have made major progress, there

must have been a tremendous problem. Was Jose Canseco correct

when he said that everybody knew what was going on? It sounds

to me like you are in agreement. If you have made tremendous

progress, there must have been a very serious problem. Was

Canseco correct?

Mr. SELIG. No. Jose Canseco has—in my judgment, was not correct.

Mr. SANDERS. What tremendous progress did you make, if there

wasn’t a tremendous problem?

Mr. SELIG. Because in the year 2000——

Mr. SANDERS. Please speak closer to the mic.

Mr. SELIG. I’m sorry. In the year 2000, we had no problems anywhere. Finally, I was able to put one unilaterally in the Minor

League. We began one in 2002. We began an educational program.

We began other multifacet——

Mr. SANDERS. But you are not answering my question. You are

saying that you made an effort, and I understand that. Whether it

was good enough, people here dispute that. Was there a major

problem?

I am gathering what you are telling us, between the lines, is that

Major League Baseball had a very, very serious problem with

steroids. It wasn’t dealt with, that in a sense Canseco is correct

and that what you are now saying is that you have begun to make

some progress.

Mr. SELIG. We have made some progress in testing and everything else. Did we have a major problem?

Mr. SANDERS. Yes.

Mr. SELIG. No, I don’t believe we ever had what he says is a

major problem. Let me say this to you, there is no concrete evidence of that. There is no testing evidence. There is no other kind

of evidence. All we have is some anecdotal evidence mainly articulated by him, and I think the other players dealt with that today.

But we needed a testing program.

Mr. SANDERS. There is—one of the problems that we are having

this whole day is trying to get a handle on how serious this problem was. You say nobody came to you, and yet there were articles

in the newspaper talking about Canseco in particular. Just because

nobody came to you doesn’t mean to say there wasn’t a problem.

Why are people turning their backs?

Mr. SELIG. I don’t believe people were turning their backs. No,

I certainly do not believe that. There were very few articles. But

once the andro—I said before, now let me try to say it again. I can

only tell you from my personal experience that when I read about

350

andro in July 1998, I began to be very concerned, and I would talk

to all of our people, and that’s when all this began.

But so—if—from my own thing—and I have been in this sport

almost 40 years, sir, and I think I understand and every general

manager I talked to, all the doctors I have talked to, all the trainers I have talked to, know there is no evidence that there was any

widespread problem, and nobody has any data to support that.

Mr. SANDERS. Let me just quote, in 1995, the LA Times reported

that anabolic steroids apparently have become the performance

drugs of the 1990’s in Major League Baseball. 1995, the LA Times

wrote that. You don’t know anything about that?

Mr. SELIG. No, I don’t.

Mr. SANDERS. Well, we have a problem here.

Mr. SELIG. No.

Mr. SANDERS. If the LA Times says something, how come—are

they wrong?

Mr. SELIG. Well, you would have to tell me what their basis in

fact was, because I was not aware of any of us, Congressman—OK.

Mr. SANDERS. Just out of curiosity, if there was an article in a

major newspaper—doesn’t say that they are right. I am not saying

they are right. Somebody should say, gee, we may have a problem,

we should look at it, don’t you think?

Mr. ALDERSON. Congressman, if I could attempt to answer that

question.

Mr. SANDERS. Sure.

Mr. ALDERSON. As a followup to that 1995 article in the LA

Times, there was also an article in the Detroit paper the following

year. The general manager quoted in the LA article is also quoted

in the Detroit article. The general manager had gone from San

Diego to Detroit. I only read this to you as a—sort of a sense of

what was going on at the time in terms of other factors that may

have obscured what was going on. But here is the same general

manager——

Mr. SANDERS. Is this Randy Hughes Smith?

Mr. ALDERSON. ‘‘The pitching has thinned out. The hitters are

stronger and the ballparks are smaller. They are always thinking

about hitting. I remember once finding Melvin Nieves working out

on a batting cage on Christmas Eve. Baseball could help slow the

offensive onslaught by raising the mound to pre1969 levels.’’ Smith

said, ‘‘They are not going to make ballparks any bigger, and you

can’t change the physical strength of the hitters. But you could

help even things out a little by raising the mound.’’

Now I am not pointing this out in contrast to the 1995 article but

only to say that those articles were infrequent, and there were

other explanations for the kinds of offense that were being generated at the time. I am not suggesting there wasn’t a problem, but

I think what it did was obscure the nature of the problem and the

extent of the problem.

Mr. SANDERS. I don’t have a lot of time, Mr. Alderson, so let me

say this. I think what people up here, regardless of political persuasion, are getting the impression is you have turned your back

on the problems in the past.

And the second issue—Mr. Cummings raised it—is obviously we

all know that in the real world people with money are treated difVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00358 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
351

ferently than low-income and moderate-income people. There are

God knows how many thousands of people rotting in jails, and

whether they should or should not is a whole other issue, but they

are in jail. And what people, I think, in America want to know is

that in this country people who commit the same crimes are treated the same way, and I think that the impression that we are getting is that is not the case.

The last point I would make. The players themselves acknowledge what everybody here knows, that they are role models for millions of young people, and I would hope that the union and management would substantially raise the standards to tell people who

are making millions and millions of dollars, who have opportunities

that very few people have, that if they want to do that type of work

and make that kind of money, they are going to have to not do

drugs at all, period.

Thank you.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired.

I mean, one of the problems you have is not the percentages. It’s

been the very high-profile MVP players who have bulked up who

have been linked to this. We heard from Mr. Canseco and Mr.

McGwire today. Mr. Caminiti was an MVP; Barry Bonds, a seventime MVP; Jason Giambi, an MVP; Sheffield. These are the role

models.

The percentages are one thing, but it is a lot of the stars that

appear to be using drugs. Yes, Mr. Selig, that seems to be where

it is siphoning down, to the little——

Mr. SELIG. I understand; and, No. 1, I accept the social responsibility that we have. I have said that everywhere. We have it—

you are correct. Our players have it. The clubs have it.

The thing that is fascinating me, as we go back in the 1990’s—

I have spent a lot of time now—I sent Sandy Alderson in 1998 and

1999 to Costa Rica. Do you know why? Everybody said the ball was

all juiced up. Then everybody said there was something wrong with

the bats. Then we had two expansions in the 1990’s, and everybody

said the pitching is lousy. Mike Smith, the Hall of Fame third

baseman, said the other day he doesn’t believe it’s the steroids. He

said, I believe it is the small ballparks, juiced-up ball, bats.

I am not—I don’t want to debate. I guess what I am saying, everybody has theories. As the Commissioner, I think you all understand that I need to deal with facts as they are. I understand our

responsibility, and I don’t disagree with it, and, frankly, the steroid

situation has been on my mind now the last 6 or 7 years.

Of course, I am not only taking it seriously, broke my heart

today to listen to the parents. I understand it’s an enormous health

problem. But, more importantly, we do have a responsibility, and

we better set and be a good role model.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Just on that point, Mr. Selig, you said it’s not a

major problem. Yet Barry Bonds, seven times Most Valuable Player; Giambi, Most Valuable Player; Jose Canseco, 1998 Most Valuable Player; Ken Caminiti, who was Most Valuable Player; and

Mark McGwire was suspected of steroid use. That’s half of the 30

352

MVPs, roughly speaking, and your job was to protect the integrity

of the game. Because you don’t need large numbers to have filtered

down to the kids to think it’s acceptable, because these are the heroes. So I just want to point that out to you.

Mr. SELIG. May I respond to you, Mr. Waxman? I agree with you,

Congressman. You are right. It is my responsibility. I take it very,

very seriously, and I have throughout my entire life.

However, having said that, the fact of the matter is that’s the

only way to finally get to the root problem here and solve it, is

through the toughest kind of testing program, doing all the other

things that I have heard here today. I agree with that, education,

everything else. I am not disagreeing there.

But I can’t just take anecdotal evidence about something without

having any other evidence that somebody has done something. For

instance, today—there are people who came here today, players,

who have been accused of something and clearly denied it today,

and that’s the kind of thing that we—that I have to live with, and

we have to deal with.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Sweeney.

Mr. SWEENEY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all. I know this has been long, arduous. Commissioner, I am really thankful that you mentioned in your statement

you are going to work with the partnership, and I look forward to

working on a program.

Let me just leave you this message. I know each of you pretty

well now after these numbers of years. You can tell Congress—I

think you have misread and misinterpreted Congress’ tolerance

here. I think you have made some very critical mistakes. I would

suggest to you—I know, Donald, this will be harder for you because

you have to sell this stuff—but I think time is of the essence.

You need to go back to your membership and let them know that

not only do the American people but Congress has reached a level

of intolerance, that this game that is special to them. But, more importantly, its impact on public health policy has really reached an

end, and you need to do something a little more definitive than

what you have done, maybe substantially more definitive.

Along that line—I would like to be helpful here, and I want to

talk to Mr. Manfred, specifically. I am a former labor commissioner. I called the NLRB. I talked to the Department of Labor.

That confidentiality clause is really, really extraordinary. I have

not seen too much of that, and neither have folks at the NLRB.

This is really more commentary than it’s anything, but Mr.

Alderson mentioned you are going to be preaching to the FBI to

work with them on steroid issues, related issues. Does that mean

that—because what you are essentially saying here in both subsection D and E, that both parties agree to resist the government

investigation and that the program itself will be suspended? It is

overly broad. It is incredible language, it seems to me, especially

to an entity that has the public relation problems and the perception problems you all have. I think you need to relook at that as

well and be—at least be more defined.

353

I understand it’s a privacy issue for you, Mr. Fehr, but people

aren’t particularly interested in the privacy aspects when their kids

are dying because of the influences.

Finally, let me say this. On the testing procedures, Mr. Manfred,

you said two things that have confused me. One is you said that—

I do think the chain of evidence is real important here—that independent collectors are involved in the collection of specimens. I

don’t see that anywhere in here. If you could point that out to me,

I would greatly appreciate that.

Mr. MANFRED. I will find the language for you. It may not be laid

out here.

I can tell you how we operate. We use a company called Comprehensive Drug Testing Services in California. We have used them

for a number of years. We have used them to put distance between

the Health Policy Advisory Committee and the actual operation of

the program. They do the random selection of dates on which tests

are to take place and actually dispatch the collectors, too.

Mr. SWEENEY. My understanding of the collection process—and

I am looking for the section myself.

Mr. MANFRED. And in terms of an independent——

Mr. SWEENEY. I forget what the acronym was for the group that

you had doing it.

Mr. MANFRED. CDT?

Mr. SWEENEY. HPAC. It’s certainly a representative from the

Players Association and a representative from management that

collects—is there an independent party involved or not?

Mr. MANFRED. Yes. HPAC oversees, picks somebody, enters into

an arrangement with a company to do—it has been the same company for a number of years, and there are two different contracts.

One is with this company called CDT. I think it is the largest drug

collection company in the United States. All they do is collect—I

am sorry?

Mr. SWEENEY. How did you find them?

Mr. MANFRED. Originally, the woman who ran the company

knew Commissioner Ueberroth from the Olympics. She was involved in the Olympics in Los Angeles. And then we have a separate contract——

Mr. SWEENEY. You are saying you have an independent contractor in the game.

Mr. MANFRED. We do.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Fehr, your colleague next to you has indicated

in the past that you probably would be the problem with bringing

U.S. antidoping in.

Mr. FEHR. I’m sorry. What?

Mr. SWEENEY. You would be the problem. You would object to reopening the Collective Bargaining Agreement to bring in USADA

in, sort of gold standard collector and standard setter in the area.

Is that true?

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. FEHR. My view is as follows: As Mr. Manfred indicated, and

I agree with, all of these drug testing programs operate under the

terms of their Collective Bargaining Agreements. We have a legal

obligation to negotiate all terms and the conditions of contracts—

of the contract and to administer it.

354

I think that if this committee had the opportunity—and I knew

that because of the speed this hearing was put together that was

very difficult to do—to examine who does the collections and what

the procedures are to look at the WADA certified lab and so on, you

would conclude that it is completely independent and entirely

trustworthy.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Commissioner. Tell me, can you tell

the committee who hired you as Commissioner?

Mr. SELIG. Who hired me?

Mr. KUCINICH. Yes, who hires the Commissioner?

Mr. SELIG. The owners.

Mr. KUCINICH. The owners, thank you.

Commissioner, 1 month ago the New York Daily News reported

that, in the 1990’s, FBI agents contacted Major League Baseball to

inform them that certain players were using steroids; and, according to the story, baseball did nothing to pursue these allegations,

no investigations, no testing, no nothing. Can you describe, Commissioner, the communications with the FBI?

Mr. SELIG. I can only tell you what the head of our security department said, Mr. Kevin Hallernan, who said that there hadn’t

been a contact and that he sort of denied the existence of the story.

Mr. KUCINICH. I’m sorry, what did you say, Commissioner?

Mr. SELIG. He denied that somebody contacted him.

Mr. KUCINICH. You were contacted or you weren’t?

Mr. SELIG. He was not contacted.

Mr. KUCINICH. Major League Baseball was not contacted. In that

New York Daily News story, you are saying that story was wrong?

Mr. SELIG. Well, I am just telling you—you asked me.

Mr. KUCINICH. You don’t have any knowledge.

Mr. ALDERSON. Congressman, could I attempt to respond to that?

Mr. KUCINICH. I am asking if the Commissioner had any knowledge, any contact.

Mr. SELIG. I did not, head of security said he didn’t know. He

works for Mr. Alderson.

Mr. KUCINICH. Does the gentleman want to answer yes or no,

whether you have knowledge of any contacts? I am interested in

finding out the substance of the New York Daily News article.

Mr. ALDERSON. Well, we have no knowledge of the 1994–1995

contact. If it happened, it happened on an informal basis at a seminar in Quantico.

The only other contact we had on the subject was in 2002 from

the same agent. That was an 8-year gap between what he said was

the initial contact and the subsequent followup.

Mr. KUCINICH. So you are saying—you are acknowledging that

there may have been informal contacts.

Mr. ALDERSON. It’s conceivable, yes, Congressman.

Mr. KUCINICH. Commissioner, let me ask you something. After

listening to Congress today, you feel very strongly that you are

willing to cooperate to make sure that baseball has strict standards

with respect to steroid testing, is that correct?

Mr. SELIG. Yes, sir. Absolutely.

355

Mr. KUCINICH. Is this the first time that you have heard from

Congress on this matter?

Mr. SELIG. No, we were here last year before Senator McCain

and his committee.

Mr. KUCINICH. Was that the first time you heard from Congress

on that matter?

Mr. SELIG. I have heard from him on most other matters. I believe that’s the first time——

Mr. KUCINICH. Let me submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, I

ask unanimous consent to submit for the record H. Res. 496 from

the 107th Congress titled, Expressing the Sense of the House of

Representatives that Major League Baseball and Major League

Baseball Players Association should implement a mandatory steroid testing program, and this is dated July 22, 2002.

[The information referred to follows:]

356

357

358

359

Mr. KUCINICH. Are you familiar with this, by the way, Mr. Selig?

Mr. SOUDER [presiding]. Mr. Kucinich, may I interject here——

Mr. SELIG. We were here. There may have been a resolution——

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

I would like to ask Mr. Towers a question. Is it true that, under

current law, baseball franchise owners are able to write off half the

cost of a purchase price of a team by capitalizing and depreciating

players’ contracts?

Mr. TOWERS. I would not have the answer to that, Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Does anyone on the panel know the answer to

that question, that baseball franchise owners are able to write off

half the cost of a purchase price of a team by capitalizing and depreciating players’ contracts?

Mr. FEHR. Mr. Kucinich, my basic understanding is as follows—

I haven’t looked at this in a long time—that the IRS had a rule

in effect which allowed substantial write-offs, and I believe that

this Congress, within the last 120 days, modified that. But the

write-offs still continue. I don’t remember precisely what they did.

Mr. SELIG. But I believe that is correct, Congressman.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. Let me ask just one quick followup, may I?

Mr. SOUDER. One followup.

Mr. KUCINICH. If you see baseball players’ contracts as being that

valuable, why in the world wouldn’t you want to know what the

health of a player was with respect to what they were putting in

their body, since it could undermine the value of your investment,

if you don’t look at it any other way?

Mr. Towers.

Mr. TOWERS. Well, we do, and because of the current basic agreement we were not able to test and find out what some of these

players were putting in their bodies.

I will say that our organization, San Diego Padres, in 1997 was

one of the first in baseball to add not only over-the-counter muscle

enhancers as well as steroids that test our Minor Leaguers. So at

least I knew within my own organization players that would either

want to commit to or not to commit to because they would have

knowledge of use.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Alderson, we have been going back and forth

on a couple of other questions about whether the FBI contacted

baseball. Why weren’t you contacting the FBI, if these things were

circulating, to do an investigation?

Mr. ALDERSON. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear your question.

Mr. SOUDER. In other words, the questions that have mostly

come at you is because there were—whether it’s at Quantico or

whatever—FBI contacts to baseball. The question is, why, if these

things were swirling around, weren’t you going to the FBI?

Mr. ALDERSON. Since the story in the Daily News, we have been

in touch with the FBI quite frequently, and—in an attempt to understand what exactly did take place in 1994 or 1995. And what

we hope to do is meet shortly in order to resolve that, as well as

reestablish a very positive relationship which has existed for quite

a long time.

Mr. SOUDER. I think the fundamental concern is why the FBI

would have to be initiating something, and they could figure it out

360

when those of you in the locker rooms couldn’t and weren’t going

to the FBI first. I think that’s the fundamental question.

I yield to Mr. Dent.

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Selig, I have a question of you. Back in 1919, the so-called

Black Sox scandal really created the Commissioner’s office as it

now is.

Mr. SELIG. Right. Major League Baseball, as you know, deals

very aggressively and swiftly with a player betting or gambling.

Mr. DENT. Pete Rose was mentioned. Do you believe that this

issue of steroid use in baseball players is as serious as the involvement in betting on baseball?

Mr. SELIG. Well, I don’t know that I could draw that analogy. Let

me suggest to you that Pete Rose was suspended by Commissioner

Giamatti, voluntarily accepted a lifetime suspension. There have

been rules since 1920 about gambling. Pete Rose was the manager

of the Cincinnati Reds, and so what he did was a violation of our

rules. At that time, we didn’t have any rules on steroids.

Do I think steroid use is very serious? Congressman, I think it’s

very serious. And as we test now we will be able to discipline players or people that violate that under the terms of our Collective

Bargaining Agreement. It’s a little different in terms of the Pete

Rose situation.

Mr. DENT. My only point is this. I don’t know if what Pete Rose

did was legal or illegal, but he was dealt with swiftly. He is out

of the game.

This issue—by the way, I just spoke a couple of hours ago—I

spoke to Curt Schilling. He said, in every locker room, it’s—I don’t

know what the article is about baseball betting, but every player

was well aware of that policy. They knew what the consequences

would be if they were involved in betting in baseball.

Mr. SELIG. That is correct.

Mr. DENT. They would be gone.

Mr. SELIG. That is correct.

Mr. DENT. All I am asking is that this issue be given the same

level of attention and interest by Major League Baseball as the

gambling issue. Based on what I have seen, we have heard about

the four strikes or five strikes and you are out, and it just seems

to many of us that this policy is unacceptable.

Again, I asked the ball players about that question. Again, we

have been talking about the kids, we have been talking our committee’s oversight on drug policy. In my State, and I will say it

again, that my taxpayers in Pennsylvania subsidize Major League

Baseball in a big way. Hundreds of millions of dollars just for two

baseball stadiums, not even counting the football. They are able to

do that because of the fact that you have this antitrust exemption.

At the time the Pittsburgh Pirates said—we were told they were

going to go to northern Virginia if they didn’t get their stadium. A

lot of people didn’t want to pay for that. They have a stake in the

game and I believe an obligation to the taxpayers. And I have to

ask to question, you know, is Major League Baseball worthy of that

antitrust exemption, granted at the Federal level, in light of all of

this issue with steroids?

361

Mr. SELIG. Well, I am obviously very sensitive about it. I think

that we have dealt with the issue as aggressively as we could, but

there is clearly work to be done. I don’t deny that. There is clearly

work to be done in the future, but I can assure you we are not taking it lightly in any way, shape or form, nor should we.

Mr. DENT. I would ask the same question of the players’ representative here, too. I know we heard from Mr. Selig that he

would like to have a more stringent policy but can’t because of collective bargaining and that apparently the Players Association is

the impediment, if I heard him correctly, to a more stringent policy

on steroid use.

Mr. FEHR. I will repeat what I said in my introductory remarks,

at least I hope we did. We took the unprecedented step of opening

the contract in the middle of this last year. We believe we have

made very substantial improvements. We believe that the data that

we have so far—and I am confident, but if I am wrong, it’s going

to be shown—is going to make everybody extraordinarily pleased.

I will, if you will permit me, make the same commitment that

I did before the Senate Commerce Committee a year ago, which is

that my obligation is, as you might expect, to relay the sentiments

of this committee to my constituency.

Mr. DENT. We do not as a Congress—I believe I agree with the

chairman we do not want to have to get into the issue of passing

a law at this level to deal with steroids, baseball, and the only

thing we have to hold over your heads is the antitrust exemption

to make you do something about it. So we hope you take this seriously. I believe you are now.

Mr. Towers—OK, well, I had a question for Mr. Towers. I guess

I will defer. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. We haven’t had a question of Mr. Towers. Why

don’t you go ahead.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Towers, I would first like to thank you for speaking today on such an emotional issue for you. I applaud the candor

of your public statements. Buster Olney and ESPN, the magazine,

quotes you stating that you have—imagine that all GMs at one

point or another had reason to think that a player on their ball

club was probably using. Could you please speak to what you believe general managers could do to curb the use of steroids in

Major League Baseball?

Mr. TOWERS. In the mid-1990’s we had our general managers

meetings, and several topics come up during those discussions. I

would probably say the mid to late 1990’s probably the most major

topic was over-the-counter muscle enhancers, something that we

talked about.

We certainly knew that there were whispers of steroids at the

time. There were discussions, because of the current basic agreement. There was no way of really knowing. I can say that, as general managers, we saw with our own eyes andro and muscle

enhancers in our clubhouses, in our locker rooms; and what we did

was we acted when we knew. We banned those from the clubhouse,

and now that we have more information and it is becoming evolutionary we are learning more about steroids. Now, today, we do

have a program where I think, as long as there is public disclosure,

I think it will be very effective.

362

Mr. DENT. And a quick followup, do you think that the league

ought to impose an obligation on management to report such illegal

drug use?

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Dent, others will have to do the followup.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Manfred, in your testimony, you talked about the Health Policy Advisory Committee; and, Mr. Fehr, you also mentioned it in

your statement.

A few years ago, the Olympics were in a similar position to Major

League Baseball. There were allegations of drug use, and the

Olympic organizations had no credibility within really to fix the

problem. In response, the Olympics decided to rely on an independent expert body to oversee the integrity of sports. This removed any

shadow of a doubt that decisions will be made on the best possible

science and not as part of a Collective Bargaining Agreement. This

is the same decision that other major sports have made, including

tennis, international soccer and cycling.

By contrast, baseball’s policy is overseen by the Health Policy

Advisory Committee. This sounds good. But when you read the details, you learn that the Health Policy Advisory Committee is a

four-member panel, with two members appointed by management

and two by the Players Association. Of course, one of the members

is you, Mr. Robert Manfred, who handles labor negotiations for the

owners, and the other is Gene Orza, who handles negotiations for

the players.

Now when I look at this provision, I really don’t see an independent health advisory committee. I see an extension of the labor management negotiations. So I have to ask the question, how can the

public have confidence that this is a credible policy when the members of the health advisory committee are management and labor

negotiators?

The Health Policy Advisory Committee has key responsibilities.

For example, it has to agree unanimously before any new substances are added to the drug testing regime. Also, it decides how

players will be tested during the off season when steroid use is reported to be common. These are decisions that should be made by

independent experts. That’s what’s done in the Olympics, and it is

what needs to be done to restore credibility to baseball.

My question is, why can’t it be done? What prevents it from

being done the same way?

Mr. FEHR. I will respond first, if that’s permissible, Congressman.

We have heard a lot of comment today about this isn’t really a

matter for collective bargaining in one sense or another. Please understand that, under our laws, the Players Association and management are obligated to bargain about all terms and conditions of

employment. Where you have matters arising under that agreement which need to be implemented, the traditional and expected

way to handle it—and I believe this is true in all professional team

sports in the United States—is done by the parties themselves.

That’s what the law contemplated, just like it does in other industries.

363

I think that if there would be an evaluation of the Health Policy

Advisory Committee, just as I indicated with respect to the independence of the testing collectors and of the lab, the suggestion

that it isn’t operating independently or it isn’t operating on the

basis of the best science or that the doctors are somehow making

medical judgments for reasons other than their sound medical beliefs, I think would be found to be inaccurate.

If the doctors disagree—if there is a disagreement, for example,

there is a provision for a fifth member to be chosen, effectively by

the two doctors, that will be another physician that will break the

tie.

That’s the best answer I can give you, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Then do you have any fear that if labor

and management cannot come up with a program that is going to

be independently oriented that really gets to the bottom of the

issue, similar to what appears to have happened with the Olympics, that then Congress may very well find it necessary to step in

and add some regulations that would lock both labor and management into some situations that you might find untenable and disagreeable?

Mr. FEHR. There may be a lot of things that people say that I

disagree with positions that I take or may advocate. No one has

ever questioned my ability to listen.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It’s been a long day, and I want to thank you all. I really don’t

want to badger you, but, you know, what we are hearing from most

of you is, well, this is a collective bargaining issue. This is a legal

issue. I think. At the end of the day, this is both a criminal and

a moral issue.

I want to at least congratulate you, Mr. Selig, because I think—

in your last few responses, I think you have acknowledged that this

is much bigger than just a collective bargaining issue.

Mr. Fehr, you heard the testimony today, and you heard from the

parents, you heard from the doctors, you heard from the players.

Based on what you heard today, would you be willing to go back

to members and ask for a much tougher policy and get a vote on

that?

Mr. FEHR. As I indicated before, I will report fully the sentiments

here today, both the testimony at the hearing and the comments

that have come from the Members; and I want to consult with my

membership.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. That’s an interesting answer. The question is,

will you go back to your members and ask for a new vote?

Mr. FEHR. I will go back to my members, and I will consult with

them. That’s the most I can do.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you.

Mr. Selig, I want to come back to something I raised earlier, and

that is, in some respects, using these chemicals, some of these

chemicals, it cheats the fan, it cheats the game. But, most importantly, in some respect it cheats some of the heroes that we grew

364

up with. If you had credible evidence that records had been set by

people who had used illegal chemicals, what would you do about it?

Mr. SELIG. If I had credible evidence and I wasn’t dealing just

in hypotheticals or conjecture, I would then feel that it is my responsibility to do something.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Do you think that right now we are dealing in

hypotheticals?

Mr. SELIG. Well, there’s no question that we have had a steroid

problem, and there’s no question that we need to do something

about it. I agree with what you said at the outset of your remarks.

No question in my mind.

The fact of the matter is, what is difficult—and people have

raised this issue with me. What will you do about the records?

What will you do about so on and so forth? And I am very sensitive

about that. But what I would say to you is, the evidence from the

1990’s—is the period we are talking about, there is no tangible evidence.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Selig, in all fairness, I don’t know how

much evidence you need to have. You know, I am not sure that you

don’t have to have the same level of evidence. I am not sure—you

have a lot of latitude as commissioner of baseball. I am not saying

you should move arbitrarily or whatever. But I think this is a very

serious matter, and I think you owe it to the greats of the game.

You owe it to the fans. You have the responsibility to protect the

integrity of the game. And so far, I mean, the general public and

the average fan thinks that you really don’t have much interest in

making certain that the records that have been broken in the last

several years were done legitimately.

Mr. SELIG. I don’t think that’s right. I mean, I think our fans do.

You know, I go from ballpark to ballpark. I wind up talking to a

lot of people. I have been in this sport for 40 years, so I think I

understand.

I happen to agree with you. I understand the sensitivity of the

problem, the depth of the problem. But I have said often, and I

would say to you, the first thing I said to myself, 4 or 5 or, actually,

7 years ago now, look, we have to—we get to deal with this problem, and there was a lot of—it was tough. I have talked to a lot

of players—talked to a lot of players. Hank Aaron has been a

friend of mine for 50 years. We literally have grown up together.

So I understand exactly how people feel and how different generations feel.

But what I said to you is I have concentrated my energy on trying to make the present and the future better. I will deal with the

past when there is evidence that I can deal with. Until then, I just

don’t want to deal with a matter of conjecture.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Selig, in all fairness, that really sounds like

a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil strategy.

Mr. SELIG. Oh, I don’t think so.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, it seems to me words are plentiful, but

deeds are precious. And, ultimately, I think we are looking for—

the American people and the fans are looking for some level of real

investigation by Major League Baseball to find out is there any

real evidence. See, that’s why we have hearings to find out: Is

there real evidence?

365

I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. I used more than my 5 minutes.

Mr. SOUDER. Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you. We have been here since 10 a.m.; and,

members, I think we have chewed over every issue as much as one

can tolerate.

Several hours ago, I held up a poster of our Governor; and I read

his comments. What I am trying to do now is start doing something

positive and productive. We discussed the substances that were on

that chart, and because I want to move forward and really focus

on our youth and preventing them from getting into steroids, I

made a telephone call to Senator Jackie Speier, who had the bill

that was described by myself that the Governor vetoed. That bill

would have created a list of banned substances for interscholastic

sports and would require coaches to take a course of performanceenhancing supplements.

I asked her if she would amend her bill to put in a passage

where we would ask the 1,100 school districts in California to look

at the problem among their high school students. It may be even

middle school students. And she said, if you don’t make it a mandate, I will do that. So my staff at this minute is sending her an

e-mail.

I would like to ask a question of Mr. Manfred, Mr. Fehr and anyone else that might answer. There was some discussion as to

whether those substances should be on the list or not. I told the

Senator that I would get back to her with a list of the substances

so that she could be sure that they were coinciding with what she

had in her bill before. So is there an agreement on those substances?

Mr. MANFRED. Let me take them one at a time.

We ban human growth hormone, clearly should be on her list.

The first four are anabolic. Well, I have to take them in order.

The first four are all anabolic agents of some sort. I would put

them on—if you are asking me my opinion, I would put them in

the bill.

I would also put in DHEA. We lobbied for that to be part of the

Steroid Control Act. That’s the last indented substances. Designer

steroids, THG and DMT should be included.

I have to tell you, I can’t answer about the next three, because

I don’t know what they are. Clenbuterol is banned under our program.

OK, so I can pull all but those last three. If you have any additional ones, would you give me that list? I am going to see that she

gets them right now.

Mr. MANFRED. OK. The only one that I would just talk briefly

to——

Ms. WATSON. There are some questions.

Mr. MANFRED [continuing]. To our drug expert, Dr. Green. He

said the only one that he would leave off the list is insulin. Insulin

is a complicated issue.

Ms. WATSON. OK, why don’t——

Mr. WAXMAN. Would the gentlelady yield?

Are those all on the list of what you would prohibit in baseball?

Mr. MANFRED. Ours in baseball. Human growth hormone is. I

said everything except DHEA in the anabolic steroid category

366

would be on our banned list or will be as soon as Boldione is added

to the Steroid Control Act.

Designer steroids are banned in our program. Insulin is not. I

don’t know what the next two are. Clenbuterol is the one I said we

had a positive for, is banned under our program; and stimulants,

with the exception of Ephedra, not banned under our program.

Mr. WAXMAN. Why wouldn’t you ban DHEA and Ephedra?

Mr. MANFRED. Ephedra is banned. DHEA—we actually lobbied

for DHEA to be included in the Steroid Control Act. We did what

Congress did in terms of the ban.

Mr. WAXMAN. Why—I mean, you lobbied, and I supported your

position, but why wouldn’t you put it on your list even though Congress failed to adopt it as a prohibitive substance?

Mr. MANFRED. We actually—look, it is a legal substance, and

that’s why it’s not on our banned list. It is, by the way, banned in

the Minor League.

Ms. WATSON. If I can reclaim my time, I would put it on the list

and save us some controversy about it. She can do what she wants

about it. It’s her bill.

Mr. MANFRED. I am sorry.

Ms. WATSON. So I will include it in the list, too.

But I want to thank all of you for spending this time with us.

It’s been a long day, and I don’t think there is another question

that we can put to you in any other form that hasn’t already been

addressed. So I want to thank you so much.

At this point, I am going to leave the committee. I want to thank

the chairman and the ranking member for, I think, quite an inclusive hearing; and the tolerance that you have shown is remarkable.

Thank you so much.

Mr. SELIG. Thank you very much.

Mr. WAXMAN. On the fact sheet, could we just put that in the

record?

Mr. SOUDER. Ask unanimous consent to it.

Mr. WAXMAN. Unanimous consent.

Mr. SOUDER. So ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

367

368

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. McHenry—Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I feel obligated—I have asked each panel of questions the same

series of questions, and I think this is the panel that I have waited,

as you have waited, for a long day to ask.

Please just nod yes, and we will acknowledge it, unless you want

to make some individual statement on it. Would you agree that if

a player brought a bat in that was either aluminum or had steel

or had cork or some other enhancing inside in violation of your batting rules that would be cheating if they brought it into a game

and slugged with it? Could I get a yes from everyone?

Mr. SELIG. Yes.

Mr. MANFRED. Yes.

Mr. ISSA. If a pitcher were to go get a dead ball that was custom

wound so it would not be very hittable and he threw with that,

would that be cheating?

Mr. SELIG. Yes.

Mr. MANFRED. Yes.

Mr. ISSA. So if is there any way not to say that if somebody were

to take illegal drugs which made them better at hitting a baseball

that would be cheating?

Mr. SELIG. It’s cheating, yes.

Mr. ISSA. Cheating.

Mr. SELIG. Yes, it’s cheating.

Mr. ISSA. There is no question here? It’s cheating.

Mr. SELIG. Yes.

Mr. ISSA. I am glad we have an agreement. That’s what we strive

for here.

Commissioner, I particularly want to call something to your attention, because I am concerned that this is sort of, you know, deja

vu, all new, all again.

In 1985, somebody who I have grown to know and actually

worked with when he explored running for Governor, Peter

Ueberroth, when he was Commissioner, in speaking about drugs in

1985 he said, baseball will be providing important leadership which

we believe will be followed by other segments of society. He was

talking about his intention to deal with drugs in professional baseball as Commissioner.

In 1986, again, Commissioner Ueberroth said, we do not have

any type of agreement with the Players Association regarding a

drug program because we have been unable to bridge the gap between the desire of the clubs for effective and comprehensive drug

testing program and the Association’s opposition to meaningful

testing.

Now, Commissioner, you are aware of that?

Mr. SELIG. Yes, yes.

Mr. ISSA. These two words of a man—two expressions in just a

year of a man I have great respect for—and I know his honesty and

integrity is unquestioned—tells me that, for 20 years, 19 and

change, you have known of a terrific problem of drugs and even

today, with your brand-new program, at best are just getting

around to dealing with it.

So I would like to echo Mr. Sweeney and others in saying that

it is going to be this Congress’ position that if you do not act much

369

better in very little time than you have done up until now, we will

clearly be holding you accountable by our mandating an act in

some way, shape or form.

I would like to ask a question of Mr. Towers. Mr. Towers has not

been asked very many questions.

As a general manager, multiple clubs, would it surprise you—

consistent with Commissioner Ueberroth’s second expression,

would it surprise you if I said that every professional sports team

owner I have talked to, including in baseball, had said that they

would welcome this body mandating mandatory testing, that it

would be great for them because it would bypass the collective bargaining system, and it would allow for an even playing field?

Mr. TOWERS. I think I would agree with that, yes.

Mr. ISSA. Is there anyone there that finds that surprising?

Mr. SELIG. No, I would say to you that the owners have been

unanimous in wanting very aggressive—see, and I, frankly—nobody has asked me, but I would tell you I would agree to a Federal

program, too. I think that’s—and I think I can speak for all the

owners. I don’t think that’s a problem.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Fehr, you are the other half of that equation. Does

it surprise you that the owners unanimously would like to have

that kind of enforcement and cite your representation and your

members as the reason that they don’t have it?

Mr. FEHR. Well, the owners generally would rather not be burdened with collective bargaining. I am not surprised by the comments.

Mr. ISSA. No, no, just as to drug testing, if you please. That was

the question.

Mr. FEHR. No, I am not surprised by the comments.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I know time has expired, but we have

been letting it go a little longer. One question, because we have two

choices if you don’t react. I would like to just paraphrase them.

One is, we can mandate drug testing. The other is, we can

change the law as to collective bargaining to take it out of all collective bargaining agreements for all organizations in this country,

dramatically change that. Either one of those would change what

would happen, and I only say that because those are really the

choices you are leaving us if you do not act and act immediately.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

Mr. Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think Mr. Issa is much more generous than I am. I don’t think

we have time to wait. I think that Congress has to act, and I have

not been reassured one bit by the testimony I have heard today,

I have to tell you.

I am a person who has negotiated probably 30 collective bargaining agreements on behalf of everyone from iron workers to wardrobe workers to stagehands to electricians to carpenters, and I always took the position in negotiating for my members that a drug

policy was a good thing for my members. I did not resist it. I

thought it was good to have clean members who would be subject

to that and that would get the clear signal that drug use on the

370

job is something to be avoided and when it was not good for their

overall health.

So this back and forth about whether people can hold each other

accountable to support our solid steroid policy is just—you know,

it’s just lost on me. I just think that if you are really acting in the

best interest of the people involved, the players who were using

this stuff, then you will get rid of it; and if you are doing it for

baseball, you will come to the same conclusion.

You know, I am looking at this agreement that it came up with,

and there are so many loopholes in this it is just unbelievable. And

the statement by Mr. Manfred, and confirmed by Mr. Fehr, that

the language of the contract, the Collective Bargaining Agreement,

the drug policy, it says you can either be suspended or you can pay

the fine, that’s clear language. That’s clear language. It is unambiguous.

I know you are going to tell me it was a typing error, but I have

to tell you, I have the 2002 agreement in front of me, the entire

agreement. I have the 2005 agreement in front of me. I have looked

at both of them. They have changed extensive language in the second agreement. They have left ‘‘or’’ in, the word ‘‘or’’ in. I am telling

you—I know what your explanation has been—as a union labor attorney, I find it unbelievable.

Mr. MANFRED. Congressman.

Mr. LYNCH. I find it unbelievable. Honestly.

Mr. MANFRED. OK. You can find—I mean, you are entitled to

find it whatever you want, obviously. But the fact of the matter is

the language as written, OK—just as written on the page—you

read it to suggest that the player gets to pick whether he gets a

fine or a suspension when, in fact, the agreement even as written,

however critical of it you may be, gives the Commissioner absolute

discretion.

Mr. LYNCH. Not under a plain reading of the contract.

Mr. MANFRED. With all due respect, I respectfully disagree.

Mr. LYNCH. Not under a plain reading of the contract, I have to

tell you. You are comparing the 2003 agreement to the 2005.

Mr. MANFRED. Who would believe a disciplinary decision that the

player gets to pick what the discipline is? There has never been a

Collective Bargaining Agreement written——

Mr. LYNCH. There is a lot of stuff I have never seen before, I

have to tell you.

Mr. MANFRED. OK.

Mr. LYNCH. But these are extraordinary terms to these agreements as well. I have to tell you, I am not encouraged, and I think

Congress has to act. I think the time for waiting has long since

passed.

I am very disappointed in the testimony and the fact that there

is still reluctance here, people are still in denial to say we have a

problem I think is a good indication of the depth of that problem.

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back, but I think Congress has to act

now.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. McHenry is next.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly appreciate it. I certainly appreciate you all being here.

I know it’s been a very long day. I commend you for your endurVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:27 Aug 19, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00378 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\20323.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
371

ance; and, indeed, I commend the committee for their endurance.

It has been quite a long day for all of us.

Let me just get to the point, and I just need a simple answer.

We have talked about the frequency of drug tests. How many—

there are 1,200 players. Let’s just say—how many samples will

there be at each interval of testing?

Mr. MANFRED. Every player will be tested once.

Mr. MCHENRY. No, no, the number, sir, the number.

Mr. MANFRED. Every player will be tested once, so there are

1,200 tests there. There will be four random selections at different

calendar points in the year, and we—our only understanding at

this point is there will be hundreds of additional random tests. We

haven’t allocated them out yet.

Mr. MCHENRY. OK. Hundreds, could be 101?

Mr. MANFRED. Hundreds of multiple—hundreds is what our understanding is.

Mr. MCHENRY. Is part of a policy? Is that part of a Collective

Bargaining Agreement?

Mr. MANFRED. No, HPAC will allocate out—decide a specific

number and then allocate out those specific numbers when we get

an opportunity to go back to finalizing the policy.

Mr. MCHENRY. Any ranges in mind?

Mr. MANFRED. As I said, I can’t be more—our discussions have

only progressed to the point that we understand there needs to be

hundreds.

Mr. MCHENRY. That will be a helpful thing to tell us. What you

are trying to say to us is baseball is acting reasonably and responsibly to crack down on steroids.

Mr. MANFRED. I understand that.

Mr. MCHENRY. Another question. Commissioner Selig, let’s say a

proposal is put on the table. Let’s say a proposal was put on to the

table that said, Mr. Commissioner, would you accept a zero tolerance policy, where you break it once, you are done, you are out.

Would you accept that? Yes or no?

Mr. SELIG. I can’t answer yes or no. I want a zero tolerance policy. I want tougher things. Whether once and out is fair is something I would have to think about.

Mr. MCHENRY. What is it then?

Mr. SELIG. Well, I really—I think that these—the numbers that

we have, frankly——

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Selig, Commissioner Selig, mic.

Mr. SELIG. I’m sorry. I think that while the numbers that we

have now need to be expanded considerably to get to a zero tolerance, I happen to agree with that. I have said that all along.

Whether or not there is no American sport that has once and out—

and I would really have to think that one through, frankly.

Mr. MCHENRY. So you are negotiating with a players union with

a perspective that—that not a zero tolerance policy—you are saying

maybe somewhere—maybe we can tolerate some steroid use and

give some people a few outs.

Mr. SELIG. Well, no, I am not saying that we tolerate anything.

On the contrary, I think that what we have done so far will discourage it. I am really very optimistic about this program.

372

But what I am suggesting to you is that I heard people say

today, about the NFL, well, isn’t that good? They do four games.

That’s 25 percent of their schedule. And there were a lot of nods

of approval today.

Mr. MCHENRY. Sure, sure. Let me go on to another question.

Mr. SELIG. I am suggesting to you I would take the ones we have

and I would make them tougher, yes, much tougher.

Mr. MCHENRY. Yes, you would make a much tougher steroid policy than what is in place.

Mr. SELIG. Yes.

Mr. MCHENRY. That’s positive.

Let me start from the end.

Mr. Towers, thank you, sir, for being here; and you can just answer yes or no. Do you consider the use of steroids cheating? Yes

or no?

Mr. TOWERS. Yes.

Mr. ALDERSON. Yes.

Mr. FEHR. Yes.

Mr. MANFRED. Yes.

Mr. SELIG. Absolutely, yes.

Mr. MCHENRY. So what you are telling me is professional baseball said, you can cheat once, you know, we will just give you a

slap on the wrist. You cheat twice, you know, we are starting to

get a little upset. We might even say your name. Third time well,

we are getting really ticked off here. The fourth time, fifth time—

I mean, this is absolutely ridiculous.

You admit that it’s cheating, but you don’t want a zero tolerance

policy. So you want to tolerate some level of cheating, which to me

seems totally irresponsible, and that’s why you are before the committee. The reason why we are having these hearings is not because we want to. No, in fact, the reason why we are having these

hearings is we want to be able to preserve our national pastime.

That’s what we are here to do, and you guys have not acted responsibly.

But, Mr. Selig, I want to let you off the hot seat, because Mr.

Fehr needs the final question.

From your perspective, Mr. Fehr, would you accept a zero tolerance policy?

Mr. FEHR. From my perspective, there is in the agreement now

penalties from day one, from the first one; and I believe, as I have

previously indicated, that the data we have suggests that it will

work. We will know if it doesn’t.

The final point I would make, if I understand the views of the

committee expressed by you and by other members, and I will advise my constituency, as is my obligation.

Mr. MCHENRY. A final note, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

Mr. Towers, I certainly appreciate you being here. I certainly appreciate you as an owner to step forward and to say tough things.

I know it’s not easy on you. But we as a committee appreciate your

genuine honesty on this issue and being forthright on it and your

boldness. And I speak for all members of the committee when it

comes to that matter.

373

On a final note, I think the players union needs to step forward

so we can save baseball from this disgrace, which you all have put

it in.

I yield back.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Selig, do you have a once and out on gambling?

Mr. SELIG. I am sorry?

Mr. SOUDER. Is it once and out if you are caught gambling?

Mr. SELIG. Do we have once and out on gambling? We do, yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Sure. Well, we are coming to the end. It’s

been a long day. I hope we have learned something from today.

Mr. Towers, you are the general manager of the San Diego Padres.

Mr. TOWERS. Yes.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. About 2 weeks ago, you were quoted basically, I think, because of your relationship with Caminiti, who just

passed away.

The quote, the truth is we are in a competitive business, and

these guys are putting up big numbers and helping your ball club

win games. You tended to turn your head on things. I hate to be

the one voice for the other 29 GMs, but I have had to imagine that

all of them at one point or another had reason to think that a player on their ball club was probably using baseball—body changes

and things that happened over the winter.

Now what you had the courage to say is what a lot of people

maybe suspect. There’s a lot of issues involving baseball. I am sure

Mr. Selig wants to do the best he can from his point of view; and,

Mr. Fehr, you want to do the best representing your players.

Bottom line, I think what I have learned today, more than I

thought I would, is that we have a perception problem. We have

an integrity problem. And we love this sport, and I feel you are

holding this sport in trust for future generations just like people

did for you. And if you don’t act on this and learn from today—I

would like you to respond to your comment a little bit more.

Evidently, based on what you said, you feel there is a problem.

Why do you think other GMs have not addressed that problem?

Mr. TOWERS. I don’t want to speak for the other GMs. I commented earlier that we have had GMs discuss only over-the-counter

muscle enhancers as well as steroids. My comments and quotes are

accurate, and I stand by those.

I will say that, you know, reflecting back on Ken Gaminiti, who

was a player of mine and somebody who I was very close with, I

have hindsight knowledge now. Some of those comments, I think,

were based on ‘‘I wish I knew back in 1996 and 1998 what I know

now’’ with Ken coming out and saying he was a user of steroids.

I do believe that, with the steroids testing program as it is today

in place, I am very hopeful that we will not be sending a wrong

message to the youth of America.

I can tell you as a talent evaluator, as a former scout and former

scouting director, listening to the testimonies today of Mr. and Mrs.

Garibaldi as well as Mr. Hooton, I have spent a lot of time in high

school parks and college parks and seen a lot of games around the

country, and I will assure them now that steroids—if there is any

374

knowledge of steroids with any amateur player that has aspirations

to get into professional baseball—steroids is not your way in.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Let me ask Mr. Selig and Mr. Fehr this

question. We have been here all day. You have your agendas on

both sides of your positions. Have you learned anything today that

you can take back with you that you might reconsider where we

are with respect to your existing policies? First, Mr. Selig, and Mr.

Fehr.

Mr. SELIG. I would say that it has been a most interesting day,

and I think I understood the intensity of the feelings. It is the feeling I have communicated and others have communicated, we are

going to be very, very sensitive in trying to meet all the feelings

and complaints and thoughts that this group has. That is fair. And

from an ownership standpoint, we will do that.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. We can talk about it, but we need action.

And I know that we have to move forward.

Let me ask you this. You stated today that you feel that we need

a stronger drug policy in baseball, and I think you want that. And

I think most of the owners do, because you want to fix this and

move on. Would you be in a position that you would not sign or

not participate in the existing contract? Would this be a contract

buster? Would you, in your negotiations, demand that there is a

stricter policy than you have now? You have talked about it all day.

If you mean this, would you say that this would be a contract that

you could not support? That is what it comes down to really.

Mr. SELIG. We are bound by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. To the Players Association’s credit, they reopened when they

didn’t have to.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Could you answer my question? My light is

starting to come on, and you are probably happy.

Mr. FEHR. As I indicated to a couple of your colleagues, a lot of

people have accused me of not doing a lot of things. Not listening

is not one of them.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Let me say this, I would hope that your

two sides could get together based on what we have here. It is not

what you think. It is perception. This is becoming reality. Perception does become reality. We all deal with it. And we have an obligation for our American sport, and if we don’t take away from

today what we have said and what Congress is doing, Congress

probably will start to get involved. You don’t want that. You want

to take care of that yourselves. And shame on you if you don’t.

Mr. Fehr, you have a lot of respect for your players and have

taken them a long way. And I challenge you, as I did the players.

And I challenge you, Mr. Selig.

And I challenge the players that were up here, to coordinate and

get a consensus to come back, because it is your game, and you are

getting the money. And if you don’t do it, it’s going to hurt.

Let me ask you one thing, and I will go forward. I would look

at the perception of NFL Football. The reason they are perceived

to have a better program is because of the penalties, but they also

are in a position where they can rehabilitate first time. But then

it’s time to move on, and I don’t see that in your contract at this

point.

Mr. SOUDER [presiding]. Ms. Foxx.

375

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Again, some of

the questions I wanted to ask have been asked already, but I have

to come back to the comment that has been made.

Mr. Selig, you said that there is one time for gambling, and you

are out. Is that correct?

Mr. SELIG. That’s correct.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Fehr, do you feel like one time for gambling and

you’re out? Is that your position?

Mr. FEHR. That has been the rule that has been articulated for

a long time. In a given case, we have a legal obligation to look at

the facts and advise the individual player whether or not we think

that can be supported. That is what any union would do.

Ms. FOXX. Explain to me, if you will, why it is you consider one

type of illegal activity having a zero-tolerance and not another kind

of illegal activity having zero-tolerance; having a zero-tolerance policy for one kind of illegal activity and not another?

Mr. FEHR. The best way I can respond in a succinct fashion—and

we know it’s late—is that the agreements we have had over the

last 20-odd years—and there actually were some in the 1980’s, formally and by consent, ad hoc, if you will—procedures that were in

place were the traditional type of employee-assistance programs

that we believed would work and we believed would solve the problem. And that’s the way you go after substance-abuse problems.

That’s the approach we have taken.

Ms. FOXX. Well, I will make one brief comment, and I need to

ask another question. I come from a family of huge baseball fans.

My husband can quote you the statistics of every game, I think,

that has been played from the Brooklyn Dodgers since the beginning. He is a huge, huge fan and really loves the game. And I find

it impossible to have sat here all day today and have heard the

kinds of things we have heard. And I know you all have said you

hear what we are saying, but I am not sure you have understood

the intensity of feeling of these when you have made both the Republicans and the Democrats as upset as they are in this body. You

have to get that message back to the folks that you deal with.

I need to ask a quick question of Mr. Alderson. In 2001, the Fort

Lauderdale Sun Sentinel reported a Major League scout as saying,

‘‘I wish our industry would start testing for steroids. It’s really become a joke. It is a laughing joke.’’ That same year, the Denver

Post stated, ‘‘Sandy Alderson has said he is not convinced steroid

use is a problem.’’

You all have said that you have become increasingly aware that

it’s a problem. Can you tell us when you personally became convinced that Major League Baseball had to institute a new drug

testing policy that encompassed steroids? Did a particular event

spark this realization on your part?

Mr. ALDERSON. Yes, I think, as I said in my statement, that, in

1998, actually, with the identification of andro in the locker room

was a precipitating event. It was the first concrete evidence we had

of something going on in the clubhouse. So from that time, really,

I have felt that steroids were something that needed to be addressed, and I felt that the commissioner has addressed steroids

progressively since 1998.

376

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I have been wrestling with the response to your question of the Major League Baseball’s joint drug and prevention program and the claim that it was

not written. And I want to ask you, since you were asked for this

document on March 2, Mr. Selig, what change in the document has

been made since March 2 on this document?

Mr. MANFRED. I would have to—I couldn’t tell you what has been

done to the document.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Manfred, what change was made in this document since you were asked for this document on March 2?

Mr. MANFRED. I can’t tell you what specific language changed.

There were meetings between the parties in which language was

reviewed.

Mr. SHAYS. Who were the members in that party? Who was at

those meetings?

Mr. MANFRED. On my side, myself, Frank Coonelly who works for

me, Mr. Orza and Mr. Weiner. We had conversations throughout

that period back and forth.

Mr. SHAYS. Was there a document on March 2?

Mr. MANFRED. There certainly was a draft.

Mr. SHAYS. Why didn’t you give us that March 2 document?

Mr. MANFRED. Because, as I explained to the committee, it was

a draft, and no one seemed to want the draft. I said that, when the

document is final——

Mr. SHAYS. That is not true, Mr. Manfred.

Mr. MANFRED. That is absolutely true.

Mr. SHAYS. It is not true. We asked for whatever draft you had.

Mr. MANFRED. The response I gave to the committee was when

I have a final document, I will provide it. That is exactly what I

said.

Mr. SHAYS. The response of the committee was, we want the

draft that existed.

Mr. MANFRED. I never was told that. I did not hear anyone say

that to me.

Mr. SHAYS. What I’d like from you is, I want the copy of the draft

of March 2, and I want to compare it to this draft. You are under

oath. I don’t buy it one bit. I don’t buy one bit that you would draft

a document, you would announce it that you had a document, you

had a policy and then you would make it up after the committee

has requested. I don’t buy it.

Mr. Selig, do you want to respond?

Mr. SELIG. No, Mr. Manfred was negotiating that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS [presiding]. I don’t think anybody wants to

respond.

Mr. SHAYS. That is the problem.

I want to ask you, Mr. Selig, was there a draft on March 2?

Mr. SELIG. I don’t have any knowledge.

Mr. SHAYS. There was no draft on March 2. You have no draft

of any drug policy on March 2? I’m asking the commissioner. I

want to know if he ever saw a draft of any drug policy before

March 2.

Mr. SELIG. I did not.

377

Mr. SHAYS. Why?

Mr. SELIG. Because that is not the way it works. I told Mr.

Manfred what he had to do. He was proceeding with the Players

Association people, and frankly, I don’t participate in the drafting.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Fehr, was there any draft on March 2?

Mr. FEHR. I’m sure there was a draft.

Mr. SHAYS. Would you make sure this committee gets a copy of

that draft of March 2? We would like to compare how you changed

it from March 2 when you were requested for a draft and the document we finally got. That is the request. Are you unclear on what

the request is?

Mr. MANFRED. No.

Mr. FEHR. No.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you think there will be much of a difference between the March 2——

Mr. MANFRED. I don’t believe there is any material change. There

were discussions about the document. I don’t think the language

changed in any big way.

Mr. SHAYS. Why didn’t you give us the March 2 document?

Mr. MANFRED. Because, I said it.

Mr. SHAYS. You have said it, and you are really now saying you

had a copy you could have given us. Give us that draft. We want

to compare it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That’s fine. Thank you.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Selig, I don’t know as much

about baseball as a lot of other members on the committee. I certainly don’t know as much as Senator Bunning, but when he was

here many hours ago, he said that all records tainted by steroids

should be thrown out. But you have made it absolutely clear that

you won’t consider doing that. You have also said that you would

only do that if you had credible evidence, but you have also said

your own investigator looked back. You made it as clear as you can

you weren’t going to find any evidence if you don’t investigate.

That’s one problem.

You have told us baseball doesn’t have a major problem, but

Kevin Towers has made it clear there is a major problem. And everything we know, everything that the American people know that

there was and is a major problem. I think you have let baseball

down. What is even worse, I think you have let down the kids of

this country. You have been involved deeply in baseball for over 30

years, and I know you have done many good things for baseball,

and I know you have done incredibly positive things for kids. And

I praise you for that, but we have been running in place for 30

years, and I think we can do better. We need to have accountability, I want to ask you, I want to ask you to work with us to get

a strong policy across all the sports. It ought to be like the Olympic

policy. I think that’s a policy you would support. If we can’t get it

through collective bargaining, I want you to work with us to get it

through legislation. And I want to say something that I don’t mean

to be real harsh, but I think that whoever makes the decision for

baseball—and you, also—look at the situation we are in and see if

it is time for new leadership, because I don’t think baseball is doing

what it should have been doing for all these years on the steroid

problem.

378

In my opening statement, I went back 30 years ago when Congress first looked at this issue, and we were given assurances, as

we have been given assurances, this problem would be dealt with

in a responsible and satisfactory way. I don’t think it has been. I

don’t think your policy will do it. Let’s get legislation passed, and

let’s get this issue resolved.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Do you want to respond briefly?

Mr. SELIG. I know the hour is very late, but I would just say to

you, Congressman, and I understand criticism. One thing about

being a commissioner, criticism goes with the job on a daily basis.

Having said that, I would say to you, my father used to say to me

1,000 times a day, nothing is good or bad except by comparison. We

have a program in place. None of my predecessors had a program

in place. There were a lot of problems in the 1970’s and 1980’s and

1990’s not dealt with. You may think this program is not adequately dealt with. Only time will tell. You may be right. And by

the way, and I share your view on Federal legislation and on other

things, and I do share your view on a tougher program. We probably don’t disagree. But having said that, we have a program in

place, and it is fair now to try to let that program work.

Mr. WAXMAN. In 1984, there was a drug testing program for

baseball. It didn’t test for steroids because steroids weren’t illegal

at that time, but Major League Baseball, because of the commissioners, abandoned that program. And I think there were a lot of

other causes for you to have reinstituted it, not as late as you did,

but in the 1990’s. I know what you have said, and I’m not going

to debate it with you any longer. I hope we can get legislation

passed. Let’s get one national standard for baseball and all sports

and college, professional, even kids in schools and let’s make it one

that is very, very clear if we are going to prevent people from using

steroids.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And thank you.

And it has been a long day for you, and we appreciate you.

And just again, Mr. Selig, you are not here under subpoena. You

came here voluntarily—and I want to thank everybody else for

coming as well. Hindsight is 20/20. And as we look at this from our

perspective today and look back with the moral clarity that I think

history gives us, we appreciate the advancements that baseball has

made, but we think it is still short of the mark. And we urge you

to make some of the corrections I think you said you would do

through here. And we are going to watch this closely. We represent

people from vastly different districts, but tonight, we speak with

one voice, conservative and liberal, Democrats and Republicans.

By the way, this is not the end of our investigation into steroids,

and Major League is one component, but you are a critical component because we can’t do this going into high schools. It has to

start at the top. Like it or not, your players are the role models

and the heroes for millions of kids. So I appreciate everybody taking the time to come here. This has been a very fruitful hearing.

And I know you would have rather done other things today, but we

have established a record here and heard a lot in terms of what

you are doing and what the league is doing, what the union is

doing. And we appreciate your staying with us until this late hour.

379

[Whereupon, at 9:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statements of Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite and Hon.

Brian Higgins, and additional information submitted for the hearing record follow:]

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

Æ