Hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Panel II - Report on Performance Enhancing Substances in Major League Baseball

Hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Panel II- Report on Performance Enhancing Substances in Major League Baseball

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. JOHN YARMUTH (D-KY): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner, in the Mitchell Report details in a number of places, incidents in which club personnel appeared to have been complicit in, at least enabling the violations of some of the rules. And one case we know -- or we heard that club personnel actually returned steroids to a player after he'd found it, who talked about the penalties being imposed upon the players for violations. What plans do you have to hold club personnel accountable for incidents in which they may be complicit in the violation?

MR. SELIG: For the same reason that I said that baseball is a social institution with enormous social responsibilities. I plan to evaluate the club personnel in the same way I'm doing the players. There is no question that if there were club personnel -- and there have been some pretty serious accusations there, if those people are guilty of doing what was said they were doing, they will face discipline, and very significant discipline.

REP. YARMUTH: Okay, thank you for that.

I'd like to pursue a discussion I had with Senator Mitchell, about the issue as to whether we really know enough about the effects of these substances we're talking about. And, again, I wanted to make a distinction between the legality issue and the competitive advantage issue. I'm talking strictly about the competitive advantage issue.

We've heard a lot about, you just mentioned, the distinction between cocaine and steroids. And you said one's performance enhancing and one's not. And yet, as I've said, there's some evidence at least that there is no -- at least statistically, there's no competitive enhancement.

So my question is, do we really know enough to say that taking steroids or HGH improves a player's competitive position any more than chewing tobacco does, any more than chewing on sunflower seeds does, or anything else they might put in their body to relax them or to stimulate them?

I -- (inaudible) -- boxes of Wheaties as a kid, I know Wheaties don't do it, but do we have enough evidence to really make these type of determinations?

MR. SELIG: (Pauses, unsure to whom question was directed.)

REP. YARMUTH: I'm sorry. The question was directed to you.

MR. SELIG: My answer to that would be, yes. I think there is enough evidence that using performance enhancing drugs gives a player an advantage. I think there's -- I've talked to a lot of doctors; I've talked to our own people; I've talked to other team doctors; I've talked to trainers about it. Yes, I think there is.

And I'll tell you what else it does, when you think about it, it attacks the integrity of the sport. You have some people doing something that others aren't. And even if one could make a case that, well, really it doesn't help -- I happen not to agree with that, and I think there's a lot of medical evidence that would support that -- the fact of the matter is that that's something you just can't tolerate.

And as I said to Senator Mitchell way back -- (inaudible) -- I asked him -- (inaudible) -- I wanted him to create a roadmap, that was my (reason ?), a roadmap which will show us, which will take history -- and using the way I love to use history, to try to educate us for the future -- and you get into an integrity problem. And so, as far as I'm concerned, I don't have a scintilla of doubt that the use of performance enhancing drugs is a very serious matter for this sport at its core -- at its core.

REP. YARMUTH: Good.

Mr. Fehr, do you have the same conclusion?

MR. FEHR: Yeah, let me say a number of things. First of all, I approach it this way: The use of such substances, in a fashion not authorized by law, is unlawful. That's where you start. Secondly, players use it for a lot of mixed motives, including to recover and to help train better, as Senator Mitchell indicated. But undoubtedly, there are players -- and perhaps most of them who use it because they believe it has such effects, whether it does or not.

Third, we did a study jointly with Major League Baseball about a decade ago as to whether or not androstenedione builds muscle mass. And what the study indicated -- if I remember it correctly, I haven't looked at it in a long time, is if you take dosages in the amounts recommended on the bottle, nothing much happens. If you take it in much larger amounts, however, you do build muscle mass in a fashion which would otherwise have to be duplicated by more traditional methods of exercise and diet.

Fourth, to go back to the kids issue, regardless of its effects on adults -- and we do draw distinctions between children and adults in this country for a lot of issues, but the evidence is clear that it's bad for children. And that's something we need to pay some attention to. The last thing I'll say -- and I want to stress that I'm saying this because I'm musing a bit in response to your question, I'm not saying it because it represents a position of the players association or even the one that I advocate -- but I have wondered, given the anecdotal suggestions about ability to recover better if some of these things are used, whether, in fact, there are therapeutic doses which could be administered to people who have, elderly people with broken hips?

I mention that because we had an experience in my family with that recently -- that would be helpful? And I don't know whether any of that research has been done, but that's a musing on my part.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source