The Mitchell Report

12 months. While the study's authors acknowledged that underreporting was certainly a possibility, participating players admitted use of amphetamines and certain serious drugs of abuse at much higher rates. The study's authors concluded that "there is little indication of lying and the obtained rates should be taken as reliable but conservative estimates."202

The survey, and the cooperation between owners and the Players Association that brought it about, reflected an admirable joint commitment to self-examination of drug use in the game at the time. The authors concluded that "[t]he major purpose of this project has been accomplished. MLB has established a scientific data base to inform alcohol and drug policy and planning."203 The study's authors made several recommendations, most notably that "MLB should develop a comprehensive integrated health-oriented preventive education, treatment, and aftercare program for the entire MLB community" and that "MLB should launch periodic surveys to monitor changes and trends in substance use . . ."204

D. Baseball Writers Address the Issue, 1992-95

In March 1992, Pittsburgh columnist Gene Collier addressed the perception that baseball was not a sport for steroids users. Collier derided the suggestion that the game of baseball "is simply too complex to be positively augmented by some injectable." He quoted Penn State professor Charles Yesalis, an outspoken critic of steroid use, who said that steroids were a "natural" fit for baseball:

I don't know how common it is, but I have colleagues in the sports medicine community who say "Yeah, they're doing it. . . . You know baseball players are lifting weights. They're in gyms where the steroids are, and pro baseball players know pro football players."

202 Id. at 53 (emphasis in original).

203 Id. at 70.

204 George De Leon, Ph.D., and Stanley Sack, Ph.D., Major League Baseball Alcohol a Drug Use Survey, 1991, Presentation Report, at 23.

68