20+ MLB players to be suspended? Braun, A-Rod? (2 Viewers)

[roadkill1292]

If you removed the prohibitions against PEDs in baseball, wouldn't the logical next step be for the clubs to require their players to take them? I can't think of any way that situation could be abused.

 

[Sinn Fein]

But do we really want HS kids and college kids thinking they have to use PEDs (thus risking long term health) so they can play the game they love?

BTW - thats just dumb.

There are probably in the neighborhood of 500,000 kids playing HS baseball - there are about 800 MLB jobs. SO, 99.8% of all HS players will never be good enough to play in the major leagues - with, or without, PEDs.

And, nobody gets to do everything they love - just because they "love it".

You seem to be under the very mistaken impression that there aren't a lot of people who wrongly believe they have a good chance to play sports professionally. There are literally millions of kids that fit the description. So I'm not sure what your statistics have to do with anything- usage wouldn't be limited to 0.2% of high school athletes. Not even close.

I don't care if they all use PEDs.

My point was that 99.8% of HS players can't "do what they love" now - there is no inherent right or benefit to being able to do "what you love"

If they "love it" and don't want to risk PED use, they can play rec ball - like everyone else who wants to play, but doesn't have the ability.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't know if I'm ready to require baseball players to risk their health to hit a couple of more home runs for the entertainment of a few baseball fans.

When was it "required"?

I'd be OK with baseball saying that they made a mistake during the years and now desire a change of culture to a "cleaner" game. It seems that just about everyone is OK with that from the bulk of the fans to the players themselves. But baseball didn't do this.

When the adoring public turned on the usage of PEDs by athletes baseball has acted like a victim and has been busy expressing as they throw everyone under the bus for the sins they encouraged for at least a decade. This is what you get when you retroactively enforce rules on others when your own hands are caught in the candy jar. When you build up ARod to tear down Bonds and others.

 

[NCCommish]

But do we really want HS kids and college kids thinking they have to use PEDs (thus risking long term health) so they can play the game they love?

BTW - thats just dumb.

There are probably in the neighborhood of 500,000 kids playing HS baseball - there are about 800 MLB jobs. SO, 99.8% of all HS players will never be good enough to play in the major leagues - with, or without, PEDs.

And, nobody gets to do everything they love - just because they "love it".

You sir have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I saw plenty of parents convincing themselves and their children that if they just stuck to it they would get a full free ride in college and be in the majors. Never mind that free rides are virtually non-existent for baseball players and that as you noted the numbers are clearly stacked against them. And then you have the coaches who think they are playing in the World Series when they play in their podunk towns championship. PEDs have inflitrated high school play. They are rampant in college. And it's all so they can get enough edge to make it to the pros.

 

[pollardsvision]

If A-Rod was hitting .350 with 40 HR and 100 RBI right now, I'd want him suspended. Choose to not believe me if you wish, but I hated Gary Sheffield the entire time he was putting up great stats for the Yanks. I'm a baseball fan first and a Yankee fan second, and I want nothing to do with steroid cheats.

Every game, from Monopoly up to MLB, has rules. Without rules, you have a different game. If you break the rules, you don't get to play.

I agree. We should suspend for 100 games any player that steps out of the batters box without being granted time and any pitcher that takes longer than 12 seconds to pitch with the bases empty.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you have such a semmingly large hate for this "thing" that is going on?

I don't think this is in the best interests of baseball. Have a drug testing program. Suspend players that get caught. Move on. The investigation, if it were going to happen, should have been done discretely.

If the league hadn't leaked Braun's positive test, we'd have never heard of his appeal and then they wouldn't have egg on their face for losing and feel the need to get him. If they'd basically ignored the Biogenesis report, this would have been old news months ago. If they'd kept leak free, this wouldn't have been the only baseball topic people have mentioned outside of Puig and Chris Davis.

Plus, I feel like the players involved are getting railroaded. Suspending Braun extra time for winning an appeal? Giving players extra time for not cooperating? Suspending a player without recourse because you don't like him? MLB has been bullies since the start of this thing - intimidating witnesses, abusing the discovery process, paying for testimony, using connections to sway the Feds.

I feel no moral outrage over the use of steroids or other drugs, many of which would be prescribed for legitimate purposes. The line between what is and is not allowed is fairly arbitrary. I also feel no outrage over public figures lying in the press. That's partially a price of a PC society, and partially just human nature.

Also, I see ARod along the lines of TO. Sure, he's weird and does stupid things, but he's hardly the worst human being in the league as so many seem to want to make him. He's also one of the greatest players to ever live and I'd rather watch him play than have him banned from the league.

So if they would have just ignored the evidence then it would all be honky dory?

Yes. You see Roger Goodell trying to turn shady clinic owners into rats?

He doesn't because it's a really dumb thing to do.

Actually, I'd be a little scared to call Goodell's office and say, "hey I've got evidence that Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers and 20 other players used HGH. Should we do lunch". I assume Goodell would have me whacked before meeting with me.

And yet the owners are forcing an HGH testing regime on the league. Not sure you understand the priorities that have been set by the owners.

I didn't say the NFL wasn't interested in evidence gained from drug tests. Just that they don't seem interested in pillaging for evidence that might be available outside of those tests.

They test. You fail, you get punished. It's clean and simple.

They don't mount investigations that swing on shady clinic owners. They don't associate random drug dealers with the NFL brand or drag such proceedings out in the public eye.

I have no idea how much the NFL really cares to catch PED users.

Fans don't give a ####. Players keep passing tests (we assume), even though it's a safe assumption that PED use likely very prevalent in the NFL. The NFL seems content to leave well enough alone.

They have to push for HGH testing because they'd look like they don't care if they didn't.

If players happen to find ways to beat the HGH tests (which they absolutely will), so be it (from the NFL's perspective).

 

[TobiasFunke]

But do we really want HS kids and college kids thinking they have to use PEDs (thus risking long term health) so they can play the game they love?

BTW - thats just dumb.

There are probably in the neighborhood of 500,000 kids playing HS baseball - there are about 800 MLB jobs. SO, 99.8% of all HS players will never be good enough to play in the major leagues - with, or without, PEDs.

And, nobody gets to do everything they love - just because they "love it".

You seem to be under the very mistaken impression that there aren't a lot of people who wrongly believe they have a good chance to play sports professionally. There are literally millions of kids that fit the description. So I'm not sure what your statistics have to do with anything- usage wouldn't be limited to 0.2% of high school athletes. Not even close.

I don't care if they all use PEDs.

My point was that 99.8% of HS players can't "do what they love" now - there is no inherent right or benefit to being able to do "what you love"

If they "love it" and don't want to risk PED use, they can play rec ball - like everyone else who wants to play, but doesn't have the ability.

You don't care if every high school athlete in America uses something that endangers their health and well-being? Can you unpack that a bit?

And I still don't understand your point. I mean I guess I understand it, I just don't see how it's remotely relevant. The point is that usage won't be restricted to 0.2%. Not even close. The only question is whether you're OK with that as a tradeoff for the "benefits" of legalizing PED use in professional sports or not.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You sir have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I saw plenty of parents convincing themselves and their children that if they just stuck to it they would get a full free ride in college and be in the majors. Never mind that free rides are virtually non-existent for baseball players and that as you noted the numbers are clearly stacked against them. And then you have the coaches who think they are playing in the World Series when they play in their podunk towns championship. PEDs have inflitrated high school play. They are rampant in college. And it's all so they can get enough edge to make it to the pros.

And giving ARod a lifetime ban will change this? "All" of these parents and children believe that they will get away with it no matter what the sanctions.

 

[roadkill1292]

I don't know if I'm ready to require baseball players to risk their health to hit a couple of more home runs for the entertainment of a few baseball fans.

When was it "required"?

I'd be OK with baseball saying that they made a mistake during the years and now desire a change of culture to a "cleaner" game. It seems that just about everyone is OK with that from the bulk of the fans to the players themselves. But baseball didn't do this.

When the adoring public turned on the usage of PEDs by athletes baseball has acted like a victim and has been busy expressing as they throw everyone under the bus for the sins they encouraged for at least a decade. This is what you get when you retroactively enforce rules on others when your own hands are caught in the candy jar. When you build up ARod to tear down Bonds and others.

I knew that using the term "required" would raise eyebrows. But if baseball removed the prohibitions against PEDs, then using them would pretty much be "required" to compete at that level.

I have no truck with any of your criticisms of MLB. I'm generally critical of every professional sports organization in this country.

 

[NCCommish]

You sir have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I saw plenty of parents convincing themselves and their children that if they just stuck to it they would get a full free ride in college and be in the majors. Never mind that free rides are virtually non-existent for baseball players and that as you noted the numbers are clearly stacked against them. And then you have the coaches who think they are playing in the World Series when they play in their podunk towns championship. PEDs have inflitrated high school play. They are rampant in college. And it's all so they can get enough edge to make it to the pros.

And giving ARod a lifetime ban will change this? "All" of these parents and children believe that they will get away with it no matter what the sanctions.

It may or may not. But I see it as part of an overall move to make it harder to use PEDs and prosper for it. The NFL is going through the halting steps to try to remove HGH. They will start punishing it's use at some point. And when kids see big stars losing whole seasons, their reputations and those high dollar endorsement deals then maybe it will make a difference. I know doing nothing sure hasn't helped.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You sir have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I saw plenty of parents convincing themselves and their children that if they just stuck to it they would get a full free ride in college and be in the majors. Never mind that free rides are virtually non-existent for baseball players and that as you noted the numbers are clearly stacked against them. And then you have the coaches who think they are playing in the World Series when they play in their podunk towns championship. PEDs have inflitrated high school play. They are rampant in college. And it's all so they can get enough edge to make it to the pros.

And giving ARod a lifetime ban will change this? "All" of these parents and children believe that they will get away with it no matter what the sanctions.

It may or may not. But I see it as part of an overall move to make it harder to use PEDs and prosper for it. The NFL is going through the halting steps to try to remove HGH. They will start punishing it's use at some point. And when kids see big stars losing whole seasons, their reputations and those high dollar endorsement deals then maybe it will make a difference. I know doing nothing sure hasn't helped.

Again I'm not opposed to baseball (or other sports) creating rules against PEDs usage, though to some degree it will always be a fool's folly especially as we get to mass gene doping using otherwise legitimate therapeutic practices. I just don't see how these media circus "witch hunts" serve that purpose.

ETA: And its been quite a while since "doing nothing", at least in baseball. See this year's HOF class.

 

[pollardsvision]

You sir have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I saw plenty of parents convincing themselves and their children that if they just stuck to it they would get a full free ride in college and be in the majors. Never mind that free rides are virtually non-existent for baseball players and that as you noted the numbers are clearly stacked against them. And then you have the coaches who think they are playing in the World Series when they play in their podunk towns championship. PEDs have inflitrated high school play. They are rampant in college. And it's all so they can get enough edge to make it to the pros.

And giving ARod a lifetime ban will change this? "All" of these parents and children believe that they will get away with it no matter what the sanctions.

It may or may not. But I see it as part of an overall move to make it harder to use PEDs and prosper for it. The NFL is going through the halting steps to try to remove HGH. They will start punishing it's use at some point. And when kids see big stars losing whole seasons, their reputations and those high dollar endorsement deals then maybe it will make a difference. I know doing nothing sure hasn't helped.

How do you know this?

I really don't know.

Is PED use in HS a huge problem and/or growing? Is there any evidence to give us any insight into the actions taken by MLB and the NFL having influence on the lower leagues?

I'm also wondering if Selig's approach to keep PED use in MLB in the headlines as much as a possible might do more harm than good.

Whatever the reality is, I'd think many fans believe PED use is rampant in MLB.

Anyway, I'm not sure what the NFL does has a huge impact on what HS kids do.

I'd think stringent drug testing in HS is the only way to curb that (and I sure as hell don't want to spend tax dollars on that sort of thing).

If a kid's delusional enough to think he's got a shot to make it to the NFL, he can also convince himself that using to get into a good college program makes sense and that he can just quit later.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Of course young kids shouldn't take anything. I wouldn't support that. But frankly, once someone is in a professional league...... I really just don't care. And we need to be clear on something - everyone knows that NFL players take anything they can right? I mean, we all can agree that human males are not of the size strength and speed of most of these men without something? Right? Yet it's our most popular game and people don't even blink with drugs being used there. Frankly, I think we want it. The bigger faster and stronger they are the better the games.

I don't care what anyone in baseball takes. I really don't see the difference between cortisone with Mickey Mantle, amphetamines with Hank Aaron, Andro with McGwire or whatever the hll Alex was taking now. I really just don't see a difference. In the end, you are taking the natural body and its natural pain, recovery, strength, stamina and speed and changing it with a chemical or something not natural in the body to begin with, or something not in natural levels with the body. Therefore, by definition, they are all PED's. There is absolutely no difference between a steriod that helps Bonds hit a HR vs. an amphetamine that helps Aaron play 40 games in a row and therefore break Ruth's record because he played more than his body would naturally let him play. No matter what word usage you use to try to justify it before, you can't. There is no difference.

Now, should there be a drug testing program? Sure, why not. I'm not that obtuse. I get the feeling that at some point the best is simply the one with the best doctor. But that is already true to a degree. What team has the best facilities, best doctors on staff, best whatever?

 

[culdeus]

So instead of 20+ MLB players it is sounding like 6 MLB players and 8 or so Minor Leaguers? That about cover it?

 

[T Bell]

I have no love lost for Arod - i think its kind of funny that he could be banned for life after everyone was clamoring for him to break Bonds' HR records to "clean up the game."

But, the whole PED-use-is-outrageuos crowd is among the most disingenuous groups out there.

Guys like PED users are what built America. People willing to work hard, and cut a few corners to get there.

Its ok for someone to get LASIK surgery to improve their performance, but not take something that lets them work harder? Tommy John surgery is fine, but not an injection to help quicken the recovery schedule?

People who object to PEDs on moral grounds are the same type of people that pushed for Prohibition. Cut the sanctimonious bull####, and worry about your own life imo.

LASIK surgery and Tommy John surgery have no serious side effects like PEDs. Sure, what these guys are willing to sacrafice and put in their body is one thing. But do we really want HS kids and college kids thinking they have to use PEDs (thus risking long term health) so they can play the game they love?

Life is about risk v. reward.

It takes "X" talent level to play in the major leagues and reap the rewards of multi-million dollar contracts. You can be born with "X" talent level, or you can achieve "X" talent level at some cost. It should be up to individuals to weigh those benefits and costs. Governments and institutions do not have a great track record in providing paternal oversight.

Ignoring everything else you wrote for the moment, isn't assessment of "risk v. reward" precisely the sort of thing that young males tend to screw up, especially when ego is involved?

 

[Koya]

Of course young kids shouldn't take anything. I wouldn't support that. But frankly, once someone is in a professional league...... I really just don't care. And we need to be clear on something - everyone knows that NFL players take anything they can right? I mean, we all can agree that human males are not of the size strength and speed of most of these men without something? Right? Yet it's our most popular game and people don't even blink with drugs being used there. Frankly, I think we want it. The bigger faster and stronger they are the better the games.

I don't care what anyone in baseball takes. I really don't see the difference between cortisone with Mickey Mantle, amphetamines with Hank Aaron, Andro with McGwire or whatever the hll Alex was taking now. I really just don't see a difference. In the end, you are taking the natural body and its natural pain, recovery, strength, stamina and speed and changing it with a chemical or something not natural in the body to begin with, or something not in natural levels with the body. Therefore, by definition, they are all PED's. There is absolutely no difference between a steriod that helps Bonds hit a HR vs. an amphetamine that helps Aaron play 40 games in a row and therefore break Ruth's record because he played more than his body would naturally let him play. No matter what word usage you use to try to justify it before, you can't. There is no difference.

Now, should there be a drug testing program? Sure, why not. I'm not that obtuse. I get the feeling that at some point the best is simply the one with the best doctor. But that is already true to a degree. What team has the best facilities, best doctors on staff, best whatever?

I think this is all a valid point. Now, I think you can distinguish, without splitting hairs, the ability to recover quickly, or perform at your "optimal" (not "normal") level vs. taking something that enhances what optimal is, to begin with. So, aspirin, pain killers, greenies, etc help you be at your best, but steroids make your best far better - if that makes sense.

It's more than a fine dinstinction, but I can certainly see the sliding scale of just where does optimal but normal become enhanced optimal.

That said, I think the most important thing is an even playing field. If everyone is taking (or not taking) the same thing, we have sport and fair competition. The problem is when some have an advantage that others do not, especially if that advantage is against the rules. My concern with the idea of just let them take anything is the fact that some of these drugs are very damaging, so are you basically saying that to be your best you have to harm yourself, die younger etc? That's a bit hard to digest, even if theoretically it makes sense regarding everyone has the same chance to take (or not take) whatever they want.

We take this a bit further - and it's not THAT far down the road - and you get into issues with prosthetics and "bionics" - at what point does someone say, screw it, Im going with mechanical limbs that can hit a ball 700 feet and run a 3.8 forty? We heard some of this with Pastorius as to was there an unfair advantage. Then again, is it unfair to have a stronger arm AFTER tommy john surgery BECAUSE of the surgery?

Lots of fine lines, but at root, its about an even playing field and fair competition for me.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Of course young kids shouldn't take anything. I wouldn't support that. But frankly, once someone is in a professional league...... I really just don't care. And we need to be clear on something - everyone knows that NFL players take anything they can right? I mean, we all can agree that human males are not of the size strength and speed of most of these men without something? Right? Yet it's our most popular game and people don't even blink with drugs being used there. Frankly, I think we want it. The bigger faster and stronger they are the better the games.

I don't care what anyone in baseball takes. I really don't see the difference between cortisone with Mickey Mantle, amphetamines with Hank Aaron, Andro with McGwire or whatever the hll Alex was taking now. I really just don't see a difference. In the end, you are taking the natural body and its natural pain, recovery, strength, stamina and speed and changing it with a chemical or something not natural in the body to begin with, or something not in natural levels with the body. Therefore, by definition, they are all PED's. There is absolutely no difference between a steriod that helps Bonds hit a HR vs. an amphetamine that helps Aaron play 40 games in a row and therefore break Ruth's record because he played more than his body would naturally let him play. No matter what word usage you use to try to justify it before, you can't. There is no difference.

Now, should there be a drug testing program? Sure, why not. I'm not that obtuse. I get the feeling that at some point the best is simply the one with the best doctor. But that is already true to a degree. What team has the best facilities, best doctors on staff, best whatever?

I think this is all a valid point. Now, I think you can distinguish, without splitting hairs, the ability to recover quickly, or perform at your "optimal" (not "normal") level vs. taking something that enhances what optimal is, to begin with. So, aspirin, pain killers, greenies, etc help you be at your best, but steroids make your best far better - if that makes sense.

It's more than a fine dinstinction, but I can certainly see the sliding scale of just where does optimal but normal become enhanced optimal.

That said, I think the most important thing is an even playing field. If everyone is taking (or not taking) the same thing, we have sport and fair competition. The problem is when some have an advantage that others do not, especially if that advantage is against the rules. My concern with the idea of just let them take anything is the fact that some of these drugs are very damaging, so are you basically saying that to be your best you have to harm yourself, die younger etc? That's a bit hard to digest, even if theoretically it makes sense regarding everyone has the same chance to take (or not take) whatever they want.

We take this a bit further - and it's not THAT far down the road - and you get into issues with prosthetics and "bionics" - at what point does someone say, screw it, Im going with mechanical limbs that can hit a ball 700 feet and run a 3.8 forty? We heard some of this with Pastorius as to was there an unfair advantage. Then again, is it unfair to have a stronger arm AFTER tommy john surgery BECAUSE of the surgery?

Lots of fine lines, but at root, its about an even playing field and fair competition for me.

I agree with the thought. Sports are so much fun because we all played them and we can relate to them even though they are infinitely better than we ever were. I played baseball every day of my life for probably 10 years. I know everything going on during a game. I can play every position. I can relate in that sense. What they do amazes me because I was never that good. And with that we want to keep that sense of realism as much as possible.

But I really just don't care what they do to themselves. I wouldn't want my son to do it, obviously. But let's also be fair again - football players seem to be dying young. We aren't boycotting the NFL. That game is massively damaging to them later in life even if they happen to be clean. Schlereth had what, 30 surgeries on his knees? That's not healthy. But we don't care. But for some reason we hate this iteration of drugs in baseball far more than anything else we really have dealt with - at least it seems like we are.

I'm fine with a level playing field, and I'm fine with drug rules. I just see the players using more akin to a 5 minute major in the penalty box then I do something that shouold brand them a quasi criminal. I have no idea what the NFL drug rules are. I know some players get suspended for 4 games every now and then. Doesn't really affect me at all. Baseball needs to get to that point. And if, in the end, it takes killing a star to let the blood flow, metaphorically, then just do it to Alex and get it over with.

 

[dparker713]

I don't know if I'm ready to require baseball players to risk their health to hit a couple of more home runs for the entertainment of a few baseball fans.

You realize you're saying this on a fantasy football board, right?

 

[dparker713]

But do we really want HS kids and college kids thinking they have to use PEDs (thus risking long term health) so they can play the game they love?

BTW - thats just dumb.

There are probably in the neighborhood of 500,000 kids playing HS baseball - there are about 800 MLB jobs. SO, 99.8% of all HS players will never be good enough to play in the major leagues - with, or without, PEDs.

And, nobody gets to do everything they love - just because they "love it".

You sir have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I saw plenty of parents convincing themselves and their children that if they just stuck to it they would get a full free ride in college and be in the majors. Never mind that free rides are virtually non-existent for baseball players and that as you noted the numbers are clearly stacked against them. And then you have the coaches who think they are playing in the World Series when they play in their podunk towns championship. PEDs have inflitrated high school play. They are rampant in college. And it's all so they can get enough edge to make it to the pros.

Prohibition works so well with other drugs, I can see why you're all for it in this case.

 

[roadkill1292]

I think more and more people are caring. There's a growing backlash against the long term damages from playing football, though it might be a little fuzzy when seen from the cozy confines of the website Footballguys.

I agree that there's a grayer line when it comes to PED use because it's often so difficult to separate the harmful from the helpful effects. That might change if recent high-profile users start coming down with an epidemic of ball cancer. I don't really have a good handle on how dangerous these things really are.

 

[NCCommish]

The whole Tommy John thing seems like a red herring to me. You have that surgery after a significant injury. And the doctors who do it say there are two reason pitchers seem to throw harder afterward these are an increased attention to mechanics/conditioning and the fact that their ulnar collateral ligament had been deteriorating for years leading to less velocity over time so the procedure just gets it back to normal and they appear "stronger". There is no benefit to a healthy player to have the surgery.

 

[roadkill1292]

I don't know if I'm ready to require baseball players to risk their health to hit a couple of more home runs for the entertainment of a few baseball fans.

You realize you're saying this on a fantasy football board, right?

Tilting at windmills is my specialty.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I have no love lost for Arod - i think its kind of funny that he could be banned for life after everyone was clamoring for him to break Bonds' HR records to "clean up the game."

But, the whole PED-use-is-outrageuos crowd is among the most disingenuous groups out there.

Guys like PED users are what built America. People willing to work hard, and cut a few corners to get there.

Its ok for someone to get LASIK surgery to improve their performance, but not take something that lets them work harder? Tommy John surgery is fine, but not an injection to help quicken the recovery schedule?

People who object to PEDs on moral grounds are the same type of people that pushed for Prohibition. Cut the sanctimonious bull####, and worry about your own life imo.

LASIK surgery and Tommy John surgery have no serious side effects like PEDs. Sure, what these guys are willing to sacrafice and put in their body is one thing. But do we really want HS kids and college kids thinking they have to use PEDs (thus risking long term health) so they can play the game they love?

Life is about risk v. reward.

It takes "X" talent level to play in the major leagues and reap the rewards of multi-million dollar contracts. You can be born with "X" talent level, or you can achieve "X" talent level at some cost. It should be up to individuals to weigh those benefits and costs. Governments and institutions do not have a great track record in providing paternal oversight.

Ignoring everything else you wrote for the moment, isn't assessment of "risk v. reward" precisely the sort of thing that young males tend to screw up, especially when ego is involved?

Not my place to substitute my judgement for theirs.

This has a negligible, at most, impact on society. Its an individual choice.

 

[culdeus]

I think more and more people are caring. There's a growing backlash against the long term damages from playing football, though it might be a little fuzzy when seen from the cozy confines of the website Footballguys.

I agree that there's a grayer line when it comes to PED use because it's often so difficult to separate the harmful from the helpful effects. That might change if recent high-profile users start coming down with an epidemic of ball cancer. I don't really have a good handle on how dangerous these things really are.

People are doing testosterone therapy to help them in the bedroom now. It's advertised wall to wall on radio and the internet.

That's probably what this lab gives out along with HGH which for adults has nearly no negative side effects.

And that assumes they aren't also doing endurance drugs like EPO or something which is even less risky.

 

[NCCommish]

But do we really want HS kids and college kids thinking they have to use PEDs (thus risking long term health) so they can play the game they love?

BTW - thats just dumb.

There are probably in the neighborhood of 500,000 kids playing HS baseball - there are about 800 MLB jobs. SO, 99.8% of all HS players will never be good enough to play in the major leagues - with, or without, PEDs.

And, nobody gets to do everything they love - just because they "love it".

You sir have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I saw plenty of parents convincing themselves and their children that if they just stuck to it they would get a full free ride in college and be in the majors. Never mind that free rides are virtually non-existent for baseball players and that as you noted the numbers are clearly stacked against them. And then you have the coaches who think they are playing in the World Series when they play in their podunk towns championship. PEDs have inflitrated high school play. They are rampant in college. And it's all so they can get enough edge to make it to the pros.

Prohibition works so well with other drugs, I can see why you're all for it in this case.

I'm not for prohibition. I don't care what you put in your body on your own time. I'll be heading home to a well packed bowl myself later. But I also have no problem with sports having rules against using drugs to gain a competitive advantage.

 

[dparker713]

But do we really want HS kids and college kids thinking they have to use PEDs (thus risking long term health) so they can play the game they love?

BTW - thats just dumb.

There are probably in the neighborhood of 500,000 kids playing HS baseball - there are about 800 MLB jobs. SO, 99.8% of all HS players will never be good enough to play in the major leagues - with, or without, PEDs.

And, nobody gets to do everything they love - just because they "love it".

You sir have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I saw plenty of parents convincing themselves and their children that if they just stuck to it they would get a full free ride in college and be in the majors. Never mind that free rides are virtually non-existent for baseball players and that as you noted the numbers are clearly stacked against them. And then you have the coaches who think they are playing in the World Series when they play in their podunk towns championship. PEDs have inflitrated high school play. They are rampant in college. And it's all so they can get enough edge to make it to the pros.

Prohibition works so well with other drugs, I can see why you're all for it in this case.

I'm not for prohibition. I don't care what you put in your body on your own time. I'll be heading home to a well packed bowl myself later. But I also have no problem with sports having rules against using drugs to gain a competitive advantage.

Doesn't matter to the end user if the ban comes from a government or a sporting body. Allowing players to receive physician care while on these drugs would severely undercut the market and limit the supply lines for people too young to use without serious health risks.

 

[Sinn Fein]

But do we really want HS kids and college kids thinking they have to use PEDs (thus risking long term health) so they can play the game they love?

BTW - thats just dumb.

There are probably in the neighborhood of 500,000 kids playing HS baseball - there are about 800 MLB jobs. SO, 99.8% of all HS players will never be good enough to play in the major leagues - with, or without, PEDs.

And, nobody gets to do everything they love - just because they "love it".

You seem to be under the very mistaken impression that there aren't a lot of people who wrongly believe they have a good chance to play sports professionally. There are literally millions of kids that fit the description. So I'm not sure what your statistics have to do with anything- usage wouldn't be limited to 0.2% of high school athletes. Not even close.

I don't care if they all use PEDs.

My point was that 99.8% of HS players can't "do what they love" now - there is no inherent right or benefit to being able to do "what you love"

If they "love it" and don't want to risk PED use, they can play rec ball - like everyone else who wants to play, but doesn't have the ability.

You don't care if every high school athlete in America uses something that endangers their health and well-being? Can you unpack that a bit?

And I still don't understand your point. I mean I guess I understand it, I just don't see how it's remotely relevant. The point is that usage won't be restricted to 0.2%. Not even close. The only question is whether you're OK with that as a tradeoff for the "benefits" of legalizing PED use in professional sports or not.

The original point was above - HS and college kids won't be able to play the game they love without PEDs.

My response was: So what? Nobody owes them the right to play "the sport they love" 99.8% of them won't be able to play the sport they love professionally no matter how you slice it - so I don't care if they can't continue to play without PED use.

To the other point - no - I don't care if every HS athlete makes a decision to use PEDs. Its on them to weigh the risks v. the rewards. Its not my place to tell them they shouldn't risk ball cancer for a chance at a million dollar contract. Just like its not my place to tell people cashing welfare checks not to buy lottery tickets.

If every single HS baseball player used PEDs, and every single player developed ball cancer, it still would have a negligible overall effect on society.

Thats a them problem, not a me problem, or an us problem.

 

[B-Deep]

i think the point is a segment of poor kids thingk sports is their way out, and if they think PEDS will gfet them there they will try it, even though most of them will fail PEDs or no

And kids sports has become so demented and twisted that coaches and the like certainly cannot be counted on to stop this.

but the bottom line is, it is the damn rules, and in some cases the damn law

 

[TobiasFunke]

The original point was above - HS and college kids won't be able to play the game they love without PEDs.

My response was: So what? Nobody owes them the right to play "the sport they love" 99.8% of them won't be able to play the sport they love professionally no matter how you slice it - so I don't care if they can't continue to play without PED use.

To the other point - no - I don't care if every HS athlete makes a decision to use PEDs. Its on them to weigh the risks v. the rewards. Its not my place to tell them they shouldn't risk ball cancer for a chance at a million dollar contract. Just like its not my place to tell people cashing welfare checks not to buy lottery tickets.

If every single HS baseball player used PEDs, and every single player developed ball cancer, it still would have a negligible overall effect on society.

Thats a them problem, not a me problem, or an us problem.

Sorry, but the "it's on them" argument doesn't work for kids. Never has, never will.

And I don't know why you keep restricting your argument to high school baseball players. If the pros decide that PEDs are OK it will trickle down well past high school. And unless you're saying that you think it should be OK in baseball but not in other sports (which would be bizarre) the arguments and numbers you make should consider athletes in all sports, not just baseball.

 

[NCCommish]

But do we really want HS kids and college kids thinking they have to use PEDs (thus risking long term health) so they can play the game they love?

BTW - thats just dumb.

There are probably in the neighborhood of 500,000 kids playing HS baseball - there are about 800 MLB jobs. SO, 99.8% of all HS players will never be good enough to play in the major leagues - with, or without, PEDs.

And, nobody gets to do everything they love - just because they "love it".

You sir have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I saw plenty of parents convincing themselves and their children that if they just stuck to it they would get a full free ride in college and be in the majors. Never mind that free rides are virtually non-existent for baseball players and that as you noted the numbers are clearly stacked against them. And then you have the coaches who think they are playing in the World Series when they play in their podunk towns championship. PEDs have inflitrated high school play. They are rampant in college. And it's all so they can get enough edge to make it to the pros.

Prohibition works so well with other drugs, I can see why you're all for it in this case.

I'm not for prohibition. I don't care what you put in your body on your own time. I'll be heading home to a well packed bowl myself later. But I also have no problem with sports having rules against using drugs to gain a competitive advantage.

Doesn't matter to the end user if the ban comes from a government or a sporting body. Allowing players to receive physician care while on these drugs would severely undercut the market and limit the supply lines for people too young to use without serious health risks.

I don't think there has been anywhere near enough study of what we do to ourselves when we raise the HGH level for instance to ten times the normal level. I am going to go out on a limb and bet there are repercussions regardless of your age. In fact we are starting to see hints of it filter into the news here and there now. Same goes for testosterone. It even goes for Vitamin C:

megadoses of vitamin C supplements may cause:

• Diarrhea
• Nausea
• Vomiting
• Heartburn
• Abdominal bloating and cramps
• Headache
• Insomnia
• Kidney stones

So don't try to sell me the bag of crap that says that raising the bodies level of hormones to multiple times the natural amount isn't going to cause problems.And it does matter to the end user if the ban comes from the game they think will make the rich.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The original point was above - HS and college kids won't be able to play the game they love without PEDs.

My response was: So what? Nobody owes them the right to play "the sport they love" 99.8% of them won't be able to play the sport they love professionally no matter how you slice it - so I don't care if they can't continue to play without PED use.

To the other point - no - I don't care if every HS athlete makes a decision to use PEDs. Its on them to weigh the risks v. the rewards. Its not my place to tell them they shouldn't risk ball cancer for a chance at a million dollar contract. Just like its not my place to tell people cashing welfare checks not to buy lottery tickets.

If every single HS baseball player used PEDs, and every single player developed ball cancer, it still would have a negligible overall effect on society.

Thats a them problem, not a me problem, or an us problem.

Sorry, but the "it's on them" argument doesn't work for kids. Never has, never will.

And I don't know why you keep restricting your argument to high school baseball players. If the pros decide that PEDs are OK it will trickle down well past high school. And unless you're saying that you think it should be OK in baseball but not in other sports (which would be bizarre) the arguments and numbers you make should consider athletes in all sports, not just baseball.

Let me re-phrase this so you might understand - the original post i responded to talked about HS players - so I responded in kind.

But, having said that - I DON"T CARE WHO USES PEDS.

Nobody is forcing anyone to take these drugs. They seemingly provide some benefit. There is some debate around the level of risk, and long-term effect of such usage. But - that is an individual decision to make - not something that should be legislated.

The idea that certain things are allowed that enhance a player's performance, and certain things are banned, suggests that it is an arbitrary line, that will undoubtedly be moving in the future - so why draw it now?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

IF there is some way for A-Rod to be suspended for life or for all intents and purposes, his career, AND the Yanks still are over the luxury tax threshold, that'd be great.

 

[Tom Servo]

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.Rodriguez could be punished under Article XII B of the Basic Agreement, which states: "Players may be disciplined for just cause for conduct that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of baseball including, but not limited to, engaging in conduct in violation of federal, state or local law."

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.

Then why have a JDA at all? All of the violations ARod is accused of are covered in that agreement, yet MLB is seeking to void that agreement just in this one case. And trust me, if Bud tries to suspend ARod before his appeal is heard, this'll end up in federal court extremely quickly.

No, Perry Mason. You can be suspended for violating XII (B) of the CBA. This is not about PEDs here; it's about the coverup. And with that, he is suspended all through the appeals process.

You seem that ARod can just walk into a court room and a judge will toss out or set aside a punishment specifically enumerated in a CBA. This is not the slam dunk you think it is. In fact, I'd bet against him winning anything except more animosity by filing suit.

 

[dparker713]

Report out the Feds are now looking into Biogenesis. Looks like baseball's good word won't do jack for Bosch. How surprising.

 

[dparker713]

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.Rodriguez could be punished under Article XII B of the Basic Agreement, which states: "Players may be disciplined for just cause for conduct that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of baseball including, but not limited to, engaging in conduct in violation of federal, state or local law."

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.

Then why have a JDA at all? All of the violations ARod is accused of are covered in that agreement, yet MLB is seeking to void that agreement just in this one case. And trust me, if Bud tries to suspend ARod before his appeal is heard, this'll end up in federal court extremely quickly.

No, Perry Mason. You can be suspended for violating XII (B) of the CBA. This is not about PEDs here; it's about the coverup. And with that, he is suspended all through the appeals process.

You seem that ARod can just walk into a court room and a judge will toss out or set aside a punishment specifically enumerated in a CBA. This is not the slam dunk you think it is. In fact, I'd bet against him winning anything except more animosity by filing suit.

Actually, I think he'll walk into a courtroom and get a TRO stopping the suspension for this extra suspension with a later hearing to determine whether the injunction will be permanent.

And Perry Mason worked criminal cases, this'll be a civil suit. Hope that helps.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Let me re-phrase this so you might understand - the original post i responded to talked about HS players - so I responded in kind.

But, having said that - I DON"T CARE WHO USES PEDS.

Nobody is forcing anyone to take these drugs. They seemingly provide some benefit. There is some debate around the level of risk, and long-term effect of such usage. But - that is an individual decision to make - not something that should be legislated.

The idea that certain things are allowed that enhance a player's performance, and certain things are banned, suggests that it is an arbitrary line, that will undoubtedly be moving in the future - so why draw it now?

So you don't care if 12 year olds use PEDs, even though we don't give them that sort of autonomy to make complicated risk/reward decisions about potentially dangerous behavior in any other context?

Sorry, that seems a little strange to me.

I understand your larger argument, although I disagree with it- all sports have to draw an arbitrary line about what performance enhancements are OK and what aren't, otherwise we might as well just have sports played by cyborgs being controlled remotely. The human, relatable nature of athletes is part of the popularity of sports, and IMO banning PEDs is really an effort to protect that popularity more than it's about leveling the playing field.

But all that takes a back seat to the fact that you're saying you're OK with 12 year olds using PEDs if they want. That's just bizarre. I've never heard a single person who thinks that kids should be trusted with the autonomy our society gives to adults.

 

[The General]

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.Rodriguez could be punished under Article XII B of the Basic Agreement, which states: "Players may be disciplined for just cause for conduct that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of baseball including, but not limited to, engaging in conduct in violation of federal, state or local law."

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.

Then why have a JDA at all? All of the violations ARod is accused of are covered in that agreement, yet MLB is seeking to void that agreement just in this one case. And trust me, if Bud tries to suspend ARod before his appeal is heard, this'll end up in federal court extremely quickly.

No, Perry Mason. You can be suspended for violating XII (B) of the CBA. This is not about PEDs here; it's about the coverup. And with that, he is suspended all through the appeals process.You seem that ARod can just walk into a court room and a judge will toss out or set aside a punishment specifically enumerated in a CBA. This is not the slam dunk you think it is. In fact, I'd bet against him winning anything except more animosity by filing suit.

Actually, I think he'll walk into a courtroom and get a TRO stopping the suspension for this extra suspension with a later hearing to determine whether the injunction will be permanent.

And Perry Mason worked criminal cases, this'll be a civil suit. Hope that helps.

Arod is now negotiating with MLB on his suspension. He's probably not walking into any courtroom.

This is all calculated negotiations by MLB and Arod. Arod apparently has no reputation left to lose and is at the end of his career so the guy figures he might as well drag this out as long as possible.

Great dude you are spending all this time defending.

 

[pollardsvision]

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.Rodriguez could be punished under Article XII B of the Basic Agreement, which states: "Players may be disciplined for just cause for conduct that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of baseball including, but not limited to, engaging in conduct in violation of federal, state or local law."

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.

Then why have a JDA at all? All of the violations ARod is accused of are covered in that agreement, yet MLB is seeking to void that agreement just in this one case. And trust me, if Bud tries to suspend ARod before his appeal is heard, this'll end up in federal court extremely quickly.

No, Perry Mason. You can be suspended for violating XII (B) of the CBA. This is not about PEDs here; it's about the coverup. And with that, he is suspended all through the appeals process.You seem that ARod can just walk into a court room and a judge will toss out or set aside a punishment specifically enumerated in a CBA. This is not the slam dunk you think it is. In fact, I'd bet against him winning anything except more animosity by filing suit.

Actually, I think he'll walk into a courtroom and get a TRO stopping the suspension for this extra suspension with a later hearing to determine whether the injunction will be permanent.

And Perry Mason worked criminal cases, this'll be a civil suit. Hope that helps.

Arod is now negotiating with MLB on his suspension. He's probably not walking into any courtroom.

This is all calculated negotiations by MLB and Arod. Arod apparently has no reputation left to lose and is at the end of his career so the guy figures he might as well drag this out as long as possible.

Great dude you are spending all this time defending.

I don't think DP, or anyone else, is actually defending ARod.

Obviously, he's a cheater and seems like quite the ####head.

Personally, I just think it's dumb and pointless for MLB to go this route, and it seems weird to me that they would actually get away with it.

ARod's career as a useful player is almost certainly over no matter the suspension. Pursuing a lifetime ban seems like it's more personal or a favor for the Yankees than actually beneficial for the league.

IMO, Selig has done more harm to the league than ARod could ever hope to.

 

[Abraham]

Agreed. That said, doesn't it behoove most of the other teams for the Yankees to be over the tax?

 

[pollardsvision]

Agreed. That said, doesn't it behoove most of the other teams for the Yankees to be over the tax?

I don't really think Selig's trying to help the Yankees.

I'd assume this is all coming from Selig's ego and what he feels will be an impact on his legacy.

 

[dparker713]

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.Rodriguez could be punished under Article XII B of the Basic Agreement, which states: "Players may be disciplined for just cause for conduct that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of baseball including, but not limited to, engaging in conduct in violation of federal, state or local law."

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.

Then why have a JDA at all? All of the violations ARod is accused of are covered in that agreement, yet MLB is seeking to void that agreement just in this one case. And trust me, if Bud tries to suspend ARod before his appeal is heard, this'll end up in federal court extremely quickly.

No, Perry Mason. You can be suspended for violating XII (B) of the CBA. This is not about PEDs here; it's about the coverup. And with that, he is suspended all through the appeals process.You seem that ARod can just walk into a court room and a judge will toss out or set aside a punishment specifically enumerated in a CBA. This is not the slam dunk you think it is. In fact, I'd bet against him winning anything except more animosity by filing suit.

Actually, I think he'll walk into a courtroom and get a TRO stopping the suspension for this extra suspension with a later hearing to determine whether the injunction will be permanent.

And Perry Mason worked criminal cases, this'll be a civil suit. Hope that helps.

Arod is now negotiating with MLB on his suspension. He's probably not walking into any courtroom.

This is all calculated negotiations by MLB and Arod. Arod apparently has no reputation left to lose and is at the end of his career so the guy figures he might as well drag this out as long as possible.

Great dude you are spending all this time defending.

Negotiations can fall apart at anytime.

And ARod is a lot easier to defend than a child molester. But they both deserve due process.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

If A-Rod knew he was under investigation and attempted to bribe or purchase evidence for destruction, then that isn't a drug violation, that is something not collectively bargained for. If he actively recruited other players to partake in knowingly banned activity, that isn't a drug violation, that is action not collectively bargained for. These acts are against what is best for baseball and can be punished under the integrity of the game clause.

 

[shadyridr]

The original point was above - HS and college kids won't be able to play the game they love without PEDs.

My response was: So what? Nobody owes them the right to play "the sport they love" 99.8% of them won't be able to play the sport they love professionally no matter how you slice it - so I don't care if they can't continue to play without PED use.

To the other point - no - I don't care if every HS athlete makes a decision to use PEDs. Its on them to weigh the risks v. the rewards. Its not my place to tell them they shouldn't risk ball cancer for a chance at a million dollar contract. Just like its not my place to tell people cashing welfare checks not to buy lottery tickets.

If every single HS baseball player used PEDs, and every single player developed ball cancer, it still would have a negligible overall effect on society.

Thats a them problem, not a me problem, or an us problem.

Sorry, but the "it's on them" argument doesn't work for kids. Never has, never will.

And I don't know why you keep restricting your argument to high school baseball players. If the pros decide that PEDs are OK it will trickle down well past high school. And unless you're saying that you think it should be OK in baseball but not in other sports (which would be bizarre) the arguments and numbers you make should consider athletes in all sports, not just baseball.

Let me re-phrase this so you might understand - the original post i responded to talked about HS players - so I responded in kind.

But, having said that - I DON"T CARE WHO USES PEDS.

Nobody is forcing anyone to take these drugs. They seemingly provide some benefit. There is some debate around the level of risk, and long-term effect of such usage. But - that is an individual decision to make - not something that should be legislated.

The idea that certain things are allowed that enhance a player's performance, and certain things are banned, suggests that it is an arbitrary line, that will undoubtedly be moving in the future - so why draw it now?

So if you had a HS age son who played baseball you wouldnt care if he was using steroids?

 

[T Bell]

I have no love lost for Arod - i think its kind of funny that he could be banned for life after everyone was clamoring for him to break Bonds' HR records to "clean up the game."

But, the whole PED-use-is-outrageuos crowd is among the most disingenuous groups out there.

Guys like PED users are what built America. People willing to work hard, and cut a few corners to get there.

Its ok for someone to get LASIK surgery to improve their performance, but not take something that lets them work harder? Tommy John surgery is fine, but not an injection to help quicken the recovery schedule?

People who object to PEDs on moral grounds are the same type of people that pushed for Prohibition. Cut the sanctimonious bull####, and worry about your own life imo.

LASIK surgery and Tommy John surgery have no serious side effects like PEDs. Sure, what these guys are willing to sacrafice and put in their body is one thing. But do we really want HS kids and college kids thinking they have to use PEDs (thus risking long term health) so they can play the game they love?

Life is about risk v. reward.

It takes "X" talent level to play in the major leagues and reap the rewards of multi-million dollar contracts. You can be born with "X" talent level, or you can achieve "X" talent level at some cost. It should be up to individuals to weigh those benefits and costs. Governments and institutions do not have a great track record in providing paternal oversight.

Ignoring everything else you wrote for the moment, isn't assessment of "risk v. reward" precisely the sort of thing that young males tend to screw up, especially when ego is involved?

Not my place to substitute my judgement for theirs.

This has a negligible, at most, impact on society. Its an individual choice.

If you're a policy-making legislator, it most certainly is.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The original point was above - HS and college kids won't be able to play the game they love without PEDs.

My response was: So what? Nobody owes them the right to play "the sport they love" 99.8% of them won't be able to play the sport they love professionally no matter how you slice it - so I don't care if they can't continue to play without PED use.

To the other point - no - I don't care if every HS athlete makes a decision to use PEDs. Its on them to weigh the risks v. the rewards. Its not my place to tell them they shouldn't risk ball cancer for a chance at a million dollar contract. Just like its not my place to tell people cashing welfare checks not to buy lottery tickets.

If every single HS baseball player used PEDs, and every single player developed ball cancer, it still would have a negligible overall effect on society.

Thats a them problem, not a me problem, or an us problem.

Sorry, but the "it's on them" argument doesn't work for kids. Never has, never will.

And I don't know why you keep restricting your argument to high school baseball players. If the pros decide that PEDs are OK it will trickle down well past high school. And unless you're saying that you think it should be OK in baseball but not in other sports (which would be bizarre) the arguments and numbers you make should consider athletes in all sports, not just baseball.

Let me re-phrase this so you might understand - the original post i responded to talked about HS players - so I responded in kind.

But, having said that - I DON"T CARE WHO USES PEDS.

Nobody is forcing anyone to take these drugs. They seemingly provide some benefit. There is some debate around the level of risk, and long-term effect of such usage. But - that is an individual decision to make - not something that should be legislated.

The idea that certain things are allowed that enhance a player's performance, and certain things are banned, suggests that it is an arbitrary line, that will undoubtedly be moving in the future - so why draw it now?

So if you had a HS age son who played baseball you wouldnt care if he was using steroids?

Depends on a lot of circumstances. Given the odds against it ever paying off, I would probably counsel against it.

But, I wouldn't hold it against the guy he was competing with for a spot on the HS team. We're talking HS sports here - its not the be all end all. I played sports collegiately, and in the grand scheme of things it had very little influence on who I am today. I am not going to let my kid define himself by whether he played HS sports, if he does not have the skill level to compete. There are far too many other things to do in life than be caught up in whether you play on a HS team.

 

[The General]

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.Rodriguez could be punished under Article XII B of the Basic Agreement, which states: "Players may be disciplined for just cause for conduct that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of baseball including, but not limited to, engaging in conduct in violation of federal, state or local law."

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.

Then why have a JDA at all? All of the violations ARod is accused of are covered in that agreement, yet MLB is seeking to void that agreement just in this one case. And trust me, if Bud tries to suspend ARod before his appeal is heard, this'll end up in federal court extremely quickly.

No, Perry Mason. You can be suspended for violating XII (B) of the CBA. This is not about PEDs here; it's about the coverup. And with that, he is suspended all through the appeals process.You seem that ARod can just walk into a court room and a judge will toss out or set aside a punishment specifically enumerated in a CBA. This is not the slam dunk you think it is. In fact, I'd bet against him winning anything except more animosity by filing suit.

Actually, I think he'll walk into a courtroom and get a TRO stopping the suspension for this extra suspension with a later hearing to determine whether the injunction will be permanent.

And Perry Mason worked criminal cases, this'll be a civil suit. Hope that helps.

Arod is now negotiating with MLB on his suspension. He's probably not walking into any courtroom.

This is all calculated negotiations by MLB and Arod. Arod apparently has no reputation left to lose and is at the end of his career so the guy figures he might as well drag this out as long as possible.

Great dude you are spending all this time defending.

Negotiations can fall apart at anytime.

And ARod is a lot easier to defend than a child molester. But they both deserve due process.

Due process? Nothing has happened to Arod yet. Arod is negotiating the best deal he can.

He won't accept any responsibility when apparently MLB has more evidence against him then anyone else involved in this mess.

 

[T Bell]

So if you had a HS age son who played baseball you wouldnt care if he was using steroids?

Depends on a lot of circumstances. Given the odds against it ever paying off, I would probably counsel against it.

But, I wouldn't hold it against the guy he was competing with for a spot on the HS team. We're talking HS sports here - its not the be all end all. I played sports collegiately, and in the grand scheme of things it had very little influence on who I am today. I am not going to let my kid define himself by whether he played HS sports, if he does not have the skill level to compete. There are far too many other things to do in life than be caught up in whether you play on a HS team.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I have no love lost for Arod - i think its kind of funny that he could be banned for life after everyone was clamoring for him to break Bonds' HR records to "clean up the game."

But, the whole PED-use-is-outrageuos crowd is among the most disingenuous groups out there.

Guys like PED users are what built America. People willing to work hard, and cut a few corners to get there.

Its ok for someone to get LASIK surgery to improve their performance, but not take something that lets them work harder? Tommy John surgery is fine, but not an injection to help quicken the recovery schedule?

People who object to PEDs on moral grounds are the same type of people that pushed for Prohibition. Cut the sanctimonious bull####, and worry about your own life imo.

LASIK surgery and Tommy John surgery have no serious side effects like PEDs. Sure, what these guys are willing to sacrafice and put in their body is one thing. But do we really want HS kids and college kids thinking they have to use PEDs (thus risking long term health) so they can play the game they love?

Life is about risk v. reward.

It takes "X" talent level to play in the major leagues and reap the rewards of multi-million dollar contracts. You can be born with "X" talent level, or you can achieve "X" talent level at some cost. It should be up to individuals to weigh those benefits and costs. Governments and institutions do not have a great track record in providing paternal oversight.

Ignoring everything else you wrote for the moment, isn't assessment of "risk v. reward" precisely the sort of thing that young males tend to screw up, especially when ego is involved?

Not my place to substitute my judgement for theirs.

This has a negligible, at most, impact on society. Its an individual choice.

If you're a policy-making legislator, it most certainly is.

No its not - if it does not have a meaningful impact on society. Governments have too much else on their plate than to worry about kids taking steroids.

It sounds important: Oh my gosh, who will think of the kids!!!JUAN!11!!!

But, in reality its such a minor issue, and everyone is operating on such limited information regarding the benefits/risks of drug usage that time woudl be better spent elsewhere.

I am not advocating that someone tie the kids down and shoot them up. But, if a kid is willing to risk ball cancer, or shortening his life by 10 years for a 10% chance at improving his already minuscule chance of getting a multi-million dollar contract - then let him make that choice. Its not impacting you, me, or society.

Darwinism at its finest imo.

 

[dparker713]

If A-Rod knew he was under investigation and attempted to bribe or purchase evidence for destruction, then that isn't a drug violation, that is something not collectively bargained for. If he actively recruited other players to partake in knowingly banned activity, that isn't a drug violation, that is action not collectively bargained for. These acts are against what is best for baseball and can be punished under the integrity of the game clause.

Obstruction of investigators was already handled under the JDA for the Melky Cabrera case. The precedent has already been set that the investigation into banned substances falls under the auspices of the JDA's just cause provision.

 

[shadyridr]

So if you had a HS age son who played baseball you wouldnt care if he was using steroids?

Depends on a lot of circumstances. Given the odds against it ever paying off, I would probably counsel against it.

But, I wouldn't hold it against the guy he was competing with for a spot on the HS team. We're talking HS sports here - its not the be all end all. I played sports collegiately, and in the grand scheme of things it had very little influence on who I am today. I am not going to let my kid define himself by whether he played HS sports, if he does not have the skill level to compete. There are far too many other things to do in life than be caught up in whether you play on a HS team.

Definitely. Or hes not a parent

 

[dparker713]

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.Rodriguez could be punished under Article XII B of the Basic Agreement, which states: "Players may be disciplined for just cause for conduct that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of baseball including, but not limited to, engaging in conduct in violation of federal, state or local law."

Pretty sure trying to buy evidence for its destruction falls under the bolded.

Then why have a JDA at all? All of the violations ARod is accused of are covered in that agreement, yet MLB is seeking to void that agreement just in this one case. And trust me, if Bud tries to suspend ARod before his appeal is heard, this'll end up in federal court extremely quickly.

No, Perry Mason. You can be suspended for violating XII (B) of the CBA. This is not about PEDs here; it's about the coverup. And with that, he is suspended all through the appeals process.You seem that ARod can just walk into a court room and a judge will toss out or set aside a punishment specifically enumerated in a CBA. This is not the slam dunk you think it is. In fact, I'd bet against him winning anything except more animosity by filing suit.

Actually, I think he'll walk into a courtroom and get a TRO stopping the suspension for this extra suspension with a later hearing to determine whether the injunction will be permanent.

And Perry Mason worked criminal cases, this'll be a civil suit. Hope that helps.

Arod is now negotiating with MLB on his suspension. He's probably not walking into any courtroom.

This is all calculated negotiations by MLB and Arod. Arod apparently has no reputation left to lose and is at the end of his career so the guy figures he might as well drag this out as long as possible.

Great dude you are spending all this time defending.

Negotiations can fall apart at anytime.

And ARod is a lot easier to defend than a child molester. But they both deserve due process.

Due process? Nothing has happened to Arod yet. Arod is negotiating the best deal he can.

He won't accept any responsibility when apparently MLB has more evidence against him then anyone else involved in this mess.

We have no idea the quantity or quality of the evidence in the case. That's kinda exactly what due process is for. If ARod so chooses to make an agreement, that's entirely up to him. But he shouldn't be summarily suspended without the chance to appeal - and that's exactly what people seem to want and what Bud intends to do.