Given our shared interests and the association's evident willingness to compromise, our failure thus far to reach a comprehensive new agreement is both frustrating and disappointing.

Hopefully, we can move on to other things. I still think it was something much better handled by agreement than it would have been by legislation.

There are teams that receive more money from central baseball -- between the national television contract and revenue sharing -- than what their payroll is. That's before they sell a ticket or a hot dog or a beer or a parking space. There's a provision in the agreement that says revenue-sharing funds are to be used to improve the quality of a team's performance on the field, so we'll have to take a hard look at that.

We never talk about specifics of internal meetings. We have an agreement coming up and we talk about issues relevant to preparation for that. We keep our internal meetings confidential.

This agreement reaffirms that major league players are committed to the elimination of performance-enhancing substances and that the system of collective bargaining is responsive and effective in dealing with issues of this type.

After the hearings on the House side in March and after receiving the commissioner's letter (re tougher penalties), we had discussions both before and after. There was an agreement that it would be unfair to change the deal in the middle of the season. I then sent the tapes of the (March) hearings to the players. I had an obligation to meet with them all, which I did.