Yet another steroids column, yet another plea for perspective

I am sick of writing columns about steroids.

I've been doing it at least once a year since my junior year of high school. There always seems to be a "new" breaking story about how so-and-so used steroids, or how someone was accused by another player, or how someone got suspended for an undisclosed substance. And every time, it brings on an onslaught of the same, tired columns from writers around the country, myself included.

Now, the news is that Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz both tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003. That's the same test that Alex Rodriguez and Sammy Sosa tested positive in. Oh, and in case you forgot, that test was supposed to be anonymous.

Steroids weren't totally outlawed in 2003; the testing was supposed to be an anonymous gauge on how widespread the use was, in order to determine the right course of action.

But instead of focusing on the real issue at hand, once again the media starts up the witch hunt, as if something that happened six years ago has any relevance today.

No, the real issue is the fact that Major League Baseball is willing to put more credence in six-year-old test results than to face the problem in the present.

Yes, six years ago certain players tested positive for PEDs.

...so what?

How is that even important? They were using substances that weren't yet banned, and before strict testing policies even took place. Under the rules of the time, they weren't cheating.

Here's what's not being asked: did these same players test positive after 2003, when the substances were banned and stricter testing policies were enacted? That's what's really important - whether they broke the rules after the rules were created. Making criminals out of players for using steroids before steroids were banned makes about as much sense as putting a prohibition-era bootlegger behind bars in 2009.

The past is the past. Why crucify these players now?

Meanwhile, "lawyers with knowledge of the tests" continue to leak the results to the media every few months, thereby assuring a regular media frenzy. Why are no media outlets holding these sources accountable for these leaks? Last I checked, those results were supposed to be anonymous.

If the media wanted to tell the right story, they should be following up these leaks with stories on how these results got out in the first place, how the Players' Union is reacting, and who these people are who keep revealing this sensitive information. Those stories would actually be relevent for people to know.

But stories like that would put an end to these steroid leaks, and therefore slow down sales and page hits. It's not worth it for the media outlets to expose their sources for the sake of truth, because then the sensational, money-making stories would stop.

If only some media outlet would have the guts to dig for the truth in this story. If only some magazine or newspaper or blog would do what was necessary to ensure the story was fair and accurate.

Maybe then we would have a steroids column that actually meant something.