FanHouse GeorgeMitchell

The Daily Jolt is a dose of baseball reality every weekday morning.

Most of the time you can ignore Ozzie Guillen. Do so at your own peril, of course. When he's not testing the boundaries of decency or making you do earmuffs like Vince Vaughn's kid in Old School, he's wildly entertaining. And if you can get by the crudeness and the f-bombs, he's even insightful sometimes.

The White Sox skipper told reporters over the weekend that he'd like to see Major League Baseball adopt stiffer punishments for players who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs the first time.

Left on Base is MLB FanHouse's link dump.

* There's been plenty of talk about Mark McGwire lately, what with the Hall of Fame vote last week, and his long lost (estranged?) brother seems ready to cash in on it. From Deadspin comes the news that Jay McGwire has been shopping a tell-all book that will detail, among other things, how he got Mark hooked on steroids and how he "crashed and found God." Don't worry it probably won't be on our Amazon pre-order list either.

* Curt Schilling will expand his role on Boston radio station WEEI in the coming year. Good, Schilling talking more is just what everyone wanted. All joking aside, does this mean the big fella is retiring?

In the annals of Major League Baseball's steroids legend, much has been made of the books of former player and current professional scumbag Jose Canseco. Those books -- the first, Juiced, especially so -- managed to blow the lid off of MLB's as-yet-quiet performance-enhancing drugs story. They also managed to make Jose Canseco look like a terrible person.

One imagines it will be much the same with steroid dealer Kirk Radomski's tome, "Bases Loaded" -- the titles of steroids books are not renowned for their subtlety -- which comes out next week on Hudson Street Press. The New York Times was given a copy of the book to review for a story today (what, no copy for FanHouse?) and Times sportswriter Michael S. Schmidt summarizes the book nicely, preventing either you or I from having to actually buy and read something written by a creepy steroids dealer. Win-win:

The news of Jordan Schafer being suspended 50 games this season for violation of baseball's PED policy was shocking to say the least. Although maybe it shouldn't have been, since there has apparently been a Mitchell Report aftershock investigation surrounding the prospect since spring training, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports. This, of course, resulted from his meteoric rise through the minors.

Even more spicily, there's a lot of chatter coming out of Schafer's "camp" (read: his dad) about a slew of extenuating circumstances that surround the suspension, none of which Jordan or his family are available to talk about, at the advice of their attorney.

'I want so bad to clear things up, and I want so bad for Jordan to clear things up,' said David Schafer, a Florida businessman. 'But unfortunately the powers that be say not to say anything. I want so bad to straighten this thing out, I just can't say. ... I don't know what to do. He's in a bad spot. It's not the way it seems.

'I never thought it would come to this.'

The article in the AJC also confirmed not only the investigation this spring but also that there was no positive drug test for Schafer, which makes this suspension ridiculously speculative. In fact, the only possible manner of him being busted that would make me not remotely start firing up the conspiracy machine would be possession, but we can't guarantee that either.

The official would say only that there are other 'non-analytical' means of establishing guilt, including possession of a drug.

'He was willing to take a blood test, give them hair samples, willing to do anything he could,' David Schafer said.

Just briefly -- isn't it just freaking fabulous that from now on, anytime someone plays well or improves rapidly, they're going to be privy to a Senate-style investigation from baseball? Anyway, that hair sample/blood test bluff isn't something I would offer up if I was guilty of having done HGH, and I would certainly think Schafer would have the same attitude.

Come now, you didn't think MLB had gotten to the root of all steroid evil, did you? Of course not, silly. The latest shady doctor prescription deal comes from the great state of California.

The New York Times has the details.

Dr.Ramon Scruggs and two of his associates face 11 charges stemming from the suspected distribution of steroids and human growth hormone to patients who did not have legitimate medical reasons for using the substances, the indictment said.

The players were referred to Scruggs by agents "for the purposes of obtaining anabolic steroids and other drugs which those individuals knew to be banned by Major League Baseball and therefore unavailable to the players through lawful medical channels absent the illegal prescripts provided by Scruggs," the indictment said.

This isn't the first time Scruggs has been mentioned in the same breath as MLB and PEDs. If you remember, George Mitchell cited him in congruence with the Internet ring of pharmacies, made famous by Albany, NY's district attorney's office. No names yet -- whether agent or player -- but perhaps those will come down the wire soon enough here.

We love names.

Photo note: Can we get this as MLB's official slogan/stance against steroids? Because really: who doesn't love a good relaxing round of yoga? This kid has the right idea.

If there's one thing I've been able to hold my head high about during baseball's ugly steroid drama, it's that the guy I grew up idolizing, the player my childhood will forever be tied to in Chicago, has been nowhere near any of it. That man is Frank Thomas. There's a certain satisfaction in knowing my guy kept his head above the fray. (Although, it was such a pervasive culture and personally, I'm not so sure it's really that bad players were/are taking HGH to hang on to a few more years.That being said: society sees the whole era as bad. So, in turn, Frank Thomas is good.)

Nostalgia aside, turns out Thomas was the only player to speak to George Mitchell as the senator was conducting his report.

The interview with Mitchell lasted 45 minutes, with Thomas answering questions primarily about himself. It was a relatively insignificant session, but it became a key item within the 311 pages of the Mitchell Report, which was made public in December.

Every one of the players named in the Report -- and a handful like Thomas, who weren't facing allegations -- were asked to take part in interviews. What the 39-year-old Thomas might not have realized at the time was that he was the lone player who agreed to meet with Mitchell to discuss drug use in baseball.

(If you don't know why you are here, please go back to the launch page for What Kind of Pats Hater Are You?)

Those who deny the Patriots cheated ... well, they should be told they're wrong. The Patriots were caught. They were punished.

And cheating is bad. There's no doubt about that. If you choose to hate the Patriots because they broke the rules in order to win ... well, I can't argue with you. Bonus points if you have kids.

But they certainly aren't the only ones to film other team's signals. That's not even to mention the massive use of steroids, the tampering, the holding and various other "unsavory" acts that linemen commit to get an advantage in the trenches. That's all cheating too. It's everywhere. So, yeah, it's great that you, like Don Shula, have such conviction. But if Spygate bothers you that much, the NFL isn't really the place for you.

Judgment: You are an In-Denial Patriots Hater.

Pull your head out of the sand. In this world, the question isn't whether someone cheats or not, just whether they cheat appreciably more than the next guy. And if the Patriots have been uninspired in any way this season, it's been in their mediocre attempts at cheating.

(Do you want to start over? Then go back to the beginning)

Most were quick to scoff at MLB's Congressional hearing on the Mitchell Report yesterday. I suppose it's deservedly so: nothing ground-breaking sprung from it and Bud Selig, Donald Fehr and George Mitchell seemed to answer the questions with aplomb.

But as the New York Times points out today, one question opened up a different can of worms:

Amid discussion of steroids and human growth hormone, amid an atmosphere more tame than tempestuous, it was Representative John F. Tierney, a Massachusetts Democrat, who caught everyone's attention when he asked why the number of major leaguers claiming therapeutic-use exemptions for attention deficit disorder had mushroomed to 103 this past season from 28 in 2006.

To Mr. Tierney, the implication of the sharp increase was clear. Players were brazenly getting around the ban on amphetamines by making attention deficit disorder claims that allowed them to use stimulants like Ritalin and Adderall. Based on the 2007 numbers, Mr. Tierney said, the use of such stimulants among major leaguers was "almost eight times the adult use in our population."

How, Mr. Tierney wanted to know, had baseball allowed this to happen?

"We are trying to break down why it happened and how it happened," Mr. Selig said in response. Mr. Fehr suggested that the attention deficit disorder numbers might be higher in baseball than the general adult population because baseball players have a younger average age.

Earlier this morning, George Mitchell and the assorted luminaries of the House Oversight Committee discussed the way the steroids investigation has played out, and whether or not players need to be held culpable -- not just publicly culpable, but legally -- for taking performance enhancing drugs in the so-called steroid era. At first, the argument seems specious. It is, after all, the government's policy to do exactly the opposite in recreational drug cases; government as learned to ignore street-level users and do its best to bust top-dog dealers. (Except when local authorities need a public relations boost from increased drug arrests ... but let's not go there.)

Anyway, Slate's Frank Bowman turned that idea on its head today. He argues pretty effectively for a player-punitive model in his discussion of how the Department of Justice has screwed up the steroids investigation:

Miguel Tejada was one of many players implicated in the Mitchell Report's findings, and though he's been one of the quieter players on the issue -- he certainly isn't raging against the media machine like Roger Clemens -- it looks like he's going to be thrust back into the steroid limelight yet again. Today, after convening Congressional hearings on the Mitchell Report, Chairman Henry Waxman made a relatively surprising announcement:

House Oversight and Government Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) opened Tuesday's hearing into the Mitchell report about drug use in baseball by announcing that he and ranking minority member Tom Davis (R-Va.) sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Tuesday.

"Tejada told the committee that he never used illegal performance-enhancing drugs and that he had no knowledge of other players using or even talking about steroids," Waxman said. "Well, the Mitchell report, however, directly contradicts key elements of Mr. Tejada's testimony."

Said Davis: "We've concluded further investigation is warranted."

That's obviously bad news for Miguel, as news that you're being targeted by the Justice Department for lying to a Congressional committee can usually be qualified as "bad." It seems unsure whether Tejada will face perjury charges -- enough to give him the Marion Jones sentence for a few months -- or will merely be publicly flogged, but either way: Bad day for Miguel.