As I have posted, the single most disturbing part of the report was the reference to the Dodger scouting report talking about a player's performance while on steroids, off steroids, their trade value and the player's likely return to steroids.
That caused me to wonder whether and how much scouts may need to completely revise their appraoch to scouting players if PED's are not part of the process.
The answer came quickly. Baseball America has a very troubling article just posted.
Some of the suggestions from my reading of the article:
1.) PED's have been a factor in the evaluation of draft eligible players for many years.
2.) With the advent of testing in Milb, there has been an increased need to determine if PED use before the draft could be substantiated as impacting performance.
3.) When PED's have been involved or suspected, the scouts have to project the player's skills when PED's may be minimized or removed by Milb drug testing.
4.) There isn't college or high school testing which eliminates PED's as a factor for consideration.
5.) One must anticipate that just as the Dodgers have a scouting report on LoDuca, there are likely many scouting reports about players in past drafts that discuss PED's in similar ways.
I, for one would be very interested in PGStaff's view of the information in that article.
If it is substantially true, the implications are that drug testing implementation should be part of the predraft process and likely even before that.
Original Post