Return to Baseball Leftovers

Another Step in the Right Direction (steroid policy)

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Another Step in the Right Direction (steroid policy)

Postby slomo007 » Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:47 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2050587

Selig: Lifetime ban for third offense
Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Baseball commissioner Bud Selig asked players to agree to a 50-game suspension for first-time steroid offenders and a lifetime ban for a third violation.

In a letter sent this week to union head Donald Fehr, Selig proposed a 100-game ban for a second offense. He also asked the union to ban amphetamines, to have more frequent random tests and to appoint an independent person to administer the major league drug-testing program.

Under the rules that began this season, a first offense gets a 10-day suspension, with the penalty increasing to 30 days for a second positive test, 60 days for a third and one year for a fourth. For a fifth positive, the penalty is at the commissioner's discretion.

Baseball currently has no penalties for amphetamine use by players on 40-man major league rosters. Amphetamines are banned for players under minor league contracts.

"Last winter, we reopened our agreement to deal with steroids," Selig wrote in the April 25 letter, a copy of which was obtained Saturday by The Associated Press. "I am asking you now to demonstrate once again to America that our relationship has improved to the point that we can act quickly and effectively deal with matters affecting the integrity of our great sport."

Reached Saturday, Fehr said the union was not yet prepared to discuss Selig's proposal.

"We'll respond in due course," Fehr said, adding he anticipated replying early next week.

Baseball players agreed during the offseason to reopen the drug agreement, which was not set to expire until December 2006. The new rules, which began in March, for the first time instituted suspensions for a first positive test for steroid use.

The new agreement, not scheduled to expire until December 2008, has been criticized by many in Congress as not tough enough and several congressmen threatened to propose federal legislation.

"I continue to believe that time is of the essence in addressing this issue," Selig wrote to Fehr.


Hopefully this goes through. ;-D
slomo007
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicEagle Eye
Posts: 11890
(Past Year: -70)
Joined: 31 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby bleach168 » Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:56 pm

Good move by Selig. Fehr and the player's union are going to look really bad if they try to fight this.
bleach168
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy Expert
Posts: 5033
(Past Year: -11)
Joined: 22 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Conner » Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:31 pm

This is obviously good news.


I tend to doubt that it'll get approved, though.
Conner
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 758
(Past Year: -2)
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby great gretzky » Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:45 pm

personally, I am in the minority, but I think it is BS.

They are getting tough NOW that scrutiny is on them. But they reaped all of the benfits of the roids explosion.

Personally, I think they should be legal. Tons of people accept lower life expectancies for all kinds of jobs, not the least of which cops, firemen, soliders, nuclear( and other waste cleanup crews) highway workers, etc. Why shoudl baseball be any different.

the very idea of steroids being "artificial" is hollow to me, when people get tommy john surgery, eye surgery -- weird idets that aren't "natural", andro, you name it.

Drawing the line at steroids is weird to me. If they were safe, and lets just say for the sake of argument that they were -- woudl they be "wrong"? or would they be another training tool? what would society think if there were some drug that did for your brain that steroids do for your brawn? I bet a bunch would take it.

I don't buy that steroids don't help your avg, mind you -- they help you get your bat around quicker, but at the same time, bonds still hit the ball out of the park. If I were a true competitior, it would bug me that there were some means of being even better, but society declared it "out of bounds".

In football, I can understand, because everyone would HAVE to take it. (again if there weren't health risks, it would be different)

in baseball, you can still be good without being a homerun goon. I also think that by taking them, in general you sacrifice longevity.

I see and at the same time don't see what the big deal is. It seems that MLB is cracking down not out of some real care for the players, but out of outside scrutiny. I think that sucks. Frankly, the risk can't be the same as it was in the 80's when all the bodybuilders and wrestlers had the issue. Chemists and biologists know more and have better versions of the stuff. Philososphically, it seems to be an arbitray line int he sand -- especially when we allow surgeries, painkillers, you name it to help performance.

no one is talking about the mets team that won, basically behind the effects of our good friend known as cocaine.

I think it is all posturing.

people debate this concept all the time -- would you rather have a longer life, or would you rather have a shorter, but better lige? most would take the latter. I don't really care to be honest, just saying that the issue is deeper than most would care to admit.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3762
(Past Year: -7)
Joined: 3 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

Postby ocmusicjunkie » Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:50 pm

I'll keep it short, because there are enough angles here to talk about all day.

They are going to start catching chumps like Alex Sanchez... people who might not be in the majors without them, so they have nothing to lose. A couple of these guys will get suspended.

They will NEVER catch another Bonds, Giambi, or Shef for this. These guys made their name in the "roid era", when there was nothing to lose. Now guys are going to get busted before they reach that level with the extra "help".

It's sad, because all the damage is done. The current policy works fine now, because it prevents long-term useage like Bonds and Giambi were guilty of.

What MLB really needs to deal with is the records that have fallen. Of course, they use the current testing policy to draw attention away from that issue.
Help please:
http://www.fantasybaseballcafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1086524#1086524


Harden- 2.15 ERA, 7.61 K/9
Peavy - 2.89 ERA, 10.10 K/9

[b]Lets go Rich![/b]
ocmusicjunkie
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 828
Joined: 6 Jul 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Conner » Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:52 pm

ocmusicjunkie wrote:What MLB really needs to deal with is the records that have fallen. Of course, they use the current testing policy to draw attention away from that issue.


How on earth do you suggest they do that, though?


Time machines?
Conner
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 758
(Past Year: -2)
Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby The Punisher » Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:55 pm

Big hand for Selig, now you do it buddy, once the whole league and media is making you look like a dumbass then youll raise the bar. He shouldve done this a long time ago. Actually I think one violation should result in a years suspension. 2 violations is banishment from the sport for life. I mean come on, Trot Nixon almost got as long as a suspension as Alex Sanchez and Nixon just got in small everyday baseball fight while Sanchez was dopin. That old rule was crap. If Artest gets a year for going into the stands so should someone caught cheating
Screw the Peavy and Burnett Watches, I'm probably one of the laziest people in the world
The Punisher
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1297
(Past Year: -63)
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Fighting the Sith with Star Wars Kid

Postby Oat Soda » Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:31 pm

The union will never allow this anyway. They're going to feel like they've given an inch by renegotiating the policy before it expired and now Selig is trying to take a yard.
Oat Soda
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 358
(Past Year: -18)
Joined: 3 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby GameOn » Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:12 pm

great gretzky wrote:personally, I am in the minority, but I think it is BS.

They are getting tough NOW that scrutiny is on them. But they reaped all of the benfits of the roids explosion.

Personally, I think they should be legal. Tons of people accept lower life expectancies for all kinds of jobs, not the least of which cops, firemen, soliders, nuclear( and other waste cleanup crews) highway workers, etc. Why shoudl baseball be any different.

the very idea of steroids being "artificial" is hollow to me, when people get tommy john surgery, eye surgery -- weird idets that aren't "natural", andro, you name it.

Drawing the line at steroids is weird to me. If they were safe, and lets just say for the sake of argument that they were -- woudl they be "wrong"? or would they be another training tool? what would society think if there were some drug that did for your brain that steroids do for your brawn? I bet a bunch would take it.

I don't buy that steroids don't help your avg, mind you -- they help you get your bat around quicker, but at the same time, bonds still hit the ball out of the park. If I were a true competitior, it would bug me that there were some means of being even better, but society declared it "out of bounds".

In football, I can understand, because everyone would HAVE to take it. (again if there weren't health risks, it would be different)

in baseball, you can still be good without being a homerun goon. I also think that by taking them, in general you sacrifice longevity.

I see and at the same time don't see what the big deal is. It seems that MLB is cracking down not out of some real care for the players, but out of outside scrutiny. I think that sucks. Frankly, the risk can't be the same as it was in the 80's when all the bodybuilders and wrestlers had the issue. Chemists and biologists know more and have better versions of the stuff. Philososphically, it seems to be an arbitray line int he sand -- especially when we allow surgeries, painkillers, you name it to help performance.

no one is talking about the mets team that won, basically behind the effects of our good friend known as cocaine.

I think it is all posturing.

people debate this concept all the time -- would you rather have a longer life, or would you rather have a shorter, but better lige? most would take the latter. I don't really care to be honest, just saying that the issue is deeper than most would care to admit.


So should we just legalize drugs as well? Let the players shoot up heroin before the game too? Tommy John surgery and eye surgery repair a players body...they, in a sense, return a body to its original form. Tommy John Surgery does not give you a super bionic arm better than it was before...eye surgery does not give you X-Ray vision capable of determining what pitch is being thrown before the pitcher throws it. Both of those operations simply repair your body to its original form. NOW STERIOIDS ARE LEGAL AND ALLOWED IF THEY ARE PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR! A doctor prescribes them to return you to original form. However, anabolic steroids and human growth hormone make your body than it was before and better than it ever could be without them. Not only that but they can be deadly when used in the wrong way and even prolonged usage can lead to health risks.

The sole responsibility of a union is to protect its memebers...and that means from themselves as well if needed. Factory workers, police officers, truck drivers, etc. all belong to unions in part because their job is dangerous. The unions are responsible for providing a safe working environment. I do not see what is any different in this case.

As for chemsits knowing more and making them more safe or whatever...yeah right, give me a break. If the drugs were healthy or safe there wouldn't be any problem, chemists aren't making healthier steroids...they are making steroids that cannot be determined by tests. They just want money...they could care less about safety. They aren't under any regulation like the FDA, so what do they care about Joe Schmo's safety when they are raking in the dough.

I don't think any of your arguments hold any water.
Image
GameOn
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 967
(Past Year: -6)
Joined: 14 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby great gretzky » Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:13 pm

the problem is, all of those balls that bonds hit still left the park.

as far as I know, there wasn't an explicit rule against it. And if there were a "soft" rule if you will, how do you erase a guys records because of that? there is a rule in place for spitabllers, no? do those guys get their records erased? I know a lot will argue apples and oragnes, but it isn't -- it is a matter of degree. If you think about it, steroids enhance a skill you already have. Sign stealing, spitballs, you name it -- essentially give youa skill you were never intended to have.

The records should still stand, as bonds still hit those homers, and they still left the park, and pitchers still pitched to him.

Historians adjust for eras as it is.

how mahy pitchers records are discounted because they didn't happen in the "modern era"? quite a few.

Historians recognize the differences between the eras as far as I know. The tend to judge people against their competition at the time.

So yea, the steroid guys will be downgraded so to speak, but at the same time, if a bunch of people were using (which they were), bonds STILL stands out against that level of comeption. To outproduce the league like he did in the steroid era is still damned impressive.

And as far as "morals" go, I am more inclined to give a guy who did everything he could to be the best, even if it meant drugs than some guy who squandered his talent because of drugs.

We don't penalize mickey mantle or darryl strawberry/gooden, even though they did drugs, the only difference is they did things that degraded their ability rather than enhanced it. I'd rather follow a guy (and I hate bonds) who wanted to be the best, rather than people who figured they would coast on antural ability and get drunk and coked up. Adn honestly, those guys did that.

Baseball is so old at this point, probably the oldest league in the world that has had record keeping as long as it has, that it is hard to dissect the different eras. But the game changes, and histortians dissect it. bonds did roids. so did a lot of his contemproaries. But the fact is, it becomes almost relative at this point. And he was still head and shoudlers above those contemporaries, many of whom did the roids.

I will say that after all that, it is a shame that griffey is so injury prone. Im not the biggest baseball fan that ever existed, but it would have been so sweet that bonds needed roids, and griffey needed a sweet swing. I am saddedned by the day that he isn't the one chasing aarons record.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3762
(Past Year: -7)
Joined: 3 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

Next

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests

cron