The kind of activity we've seen so far in certain respects is encouraging.

Obviously, I'm very curious to see how it plays out. Whenever you start something new like this, you never know what it's going to be like. You know a that whole bunch of things are going to happen that nobody thought about, and they're going to happen in a different way than anybody thought about. But you don't know what they are.

The fiscal and economic landscape is not at this point equivalent to what it was in 2001 and '02. And obviously, when you go into bargaining, you deal with what is, not with what used to be. The clubs have made a lot of comments in virtually all of our negotiations about distressed economic conditions. I will be very surprised if we hear very much of that this time.

It appears the 50 game initial penalty is principally a response to criticisms which have been made of our current program. We share your concern about the criticism our program has received, and, in response, the players have demonstrated, several times now, their willingness to take all reasonable measures in response. But we are still required to adopt, and defend, reasonable, fair and appropriate agreements.

I don't understand one thing. It's traditional in this country, when someone is accused, to let him tell his story to an independent body.

A 50-game penalty for a first-time steroid positive is not necessary to deter steroid use. Indeed, you have never defended your proposal on the basis that it is.