Why The "New" Alleged Steroids List Is A Crock [Steroids]
Deadspin —
... Team" wrote me: Hey Tommy Sorry we haven't called you personally. This story is generating some buzz. The list is a rumor and unconfirmed. We stressed that in the article. Its a trusted source, that's why we didn't hesitate to post it. When we receive more details, you will be the first to know; we will gladly share everything with you. I asked for more details about their source. RotoInfo's response: Hello Jason [sic] As we state in the in the article, its unconfirmed and a rumor. ...
[Audio] STBNL for June 30 - Where did this list come from?
Fanster.com —
... Segment 2 - (21:57) - We don’t know how this list was generated, but somebody’s posted a list of the 103 players who tested positive for steroids in 2003. The list appeared on the blog The Big Lead.com, and there’s a ton of big names on it. And hey, we’re only speculating on a published list, so everyone’s fair game, right? If nothing else, it’ll be good to see the ‘commish sweat a little bit and concern himself with how these names were leaked as opposed to the actual names that appear on the list. ...
2003 Major League Baseball steroids list: fact or fiction
Steroid Nation —
... of 104 players testing positive during the 2003 MLB preliminary steroids testing, surfaced on the net yesterday. There is no way of knowing the authenticity of such a compilation of names. It could be fantasy, or it could be a leak -- which did not find outlet through a credible source. If such a list were available, then why did Senator Mitchell not discover the document during his well-financed, thorough investigation? Links are found here (Rotoworld) and here (The Big Lead) ...


![Why The "New" Alleged Steroids List Is A Crock [Steroids]](http://images.dailyradar.com/media/uploads/ballhype/story_preview/2009/07/01/why_the_new_alleged_steroids_list_is_a_crock_stero.png)

