A couple of interesting stories out today worth discussing ...

First off, have you heard the report linking ex-Nat Jose Guillen to steroids and human growth hormone? The story, in this morning's San Francisco Chronicle, also accuses retired third baseman Matt Williams and right-hander Ismael Valdez of purchasing thousands of dollars worth of performance enhancing drugs from a Florida anti-aging clinic.

Obviously, you never want to presume guilt in these matters, but there's some pretty significant detail to this story, and it's hard to believe it's not true. If so, are we really all that surprised? Guillen certainly fits the profile for someone charged with taking these kinds of drugs. In addition to his physical prowess, he has always been prone to mood swings, aggression, depression and serious injuries ... all known side effects of steroids and hGH.

Now, I will be the first to admit that I actually liked Jose when covering him in 2005 and 2006. I never thought he was a bad guy, just a high-drama player who seemed to think more of himself than he should have. Teammates loved how hard he played the game, but they also grew tired of his act, especially when he wasn't producing at the plate. Based on the Chronicle report, it appears Guillen first started buying the illegal drugs in 2002 while playing for the Diamondbacks. He enjoyed a career renaissance in 2003 with the Reds and A's, earned a large contract with the Angels in 2004, then had his infamous falling out with Mike Scioscia and was traded to the Nationals before 2005. After a nice rebound performance in Seattle this year, he was hoping to strike it big again on the free-agent market. This news, however, could severely hurt his chances.

In today's other big development, the major-league general managers have voted 25-5 to recommend the use of instant replay on controversial home-run calls. You'll notice in the story that Jim Bowden was one of five GMs in charge of the recommendation, which isn't a surprise, because Bowden has been a proponent of replay for years.

The proposal would allow an MLB official with access to all TV replay angles, to review and rule on any close call involving balls off the top of the fence, the foul poles or along the warning track down the lines. It does not give anyone the right to use replay on close plays at the plate or on balls and strikes.

Now, everyone should be aware that today's development doesn't mean replay is coming to baseball. It takes a lot more than the GMs to approve that kind of radical move. The commissioner's office must be on board (and Bud Selig has said he doesn't favor replay), the owners must be board, the players union must be on board and the umpires union must be on board. I doubt all those groups are going to agree on this matter in time for it to be used in 2008.

The larger question, though, is this: Should there be replay in baseball? My feeling is no. I've never been a fan of replay in any sport, though I reluctantly concede that it has mostly worked in the NFL and in basketball and hockey. Baseball, though, is a different animal. This game has been umpired by human beings in real time for almost 150 years, and while there have been a few blown calls over the years, the rate of success is remarkably high.

Umpires have done a good job in recent years of huddling up to make sure they get a call right. Rarely have they gotten a major one wrong, and usually those have involved bang-bang plays at the plate or first base (see: Matt Holliday in the NL wild-card tiebreaker game). Replay wouldn't be used in cases like those.

Here's my real problem with it: Doesn't baseball move slow enough already? Add replay to the mix, and you're talking about lengthy delays that may or may not ultimately get the calls right. How often are TV replays inconclusive? And how often do the umpires actually get it right without benefit of multiple looks in slow motion? I'd say their record is near-perfect.

I also don't like replay because I think it gives officials an "out," reason not to feel like they have to get every single call right. If they know a close call is going to be looked at again anyway, where's the motivation to get it right? I think replay is always in the back of officials' minds, and it shouldn't be that way. Umpires have enough to focus on. They shouldn't be worried about whether their call is going to stand or be overturned.

Leave instant replay to the other sports.