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

[The General]

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.

Melky Cabrera's case is now being brought up as if it's exactly the same as Arod's.

First, it's not really the same.

Second, Cabrera admitted wrong doing and accepted a deal.

Arod is still saying he didn't do anything wrong.

 

[NCCommish]

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.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while. Kids are not capable of making appropriate long term decisions about their lives. No 16 year old has the capacity to make that long term decision. That is why we don't let them enter into legally binding contracts on their own, we don't let them vote and we don't let them drink alcohol.

 

[Sinn Fein]

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

Parent, and someone who was good enough to play sports collegiately.

I am not advocating that kids use steroids - only that it is a decision best left to the individual person to make.

 

[DCThunder]

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.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while. Kids are not capable of making appropriate long term decisions about their lives. No 16 year old has the capacity to make that long term decision. That is why we don't let them enter into legally binding contracts on their own, we don't let them vote and we don't let them drink alcohol.

So how much maturity do kids gain in the years between 16-18, when we do let them vote and consider them "adults"?

 

[NCCommish]

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.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while. Kids are not capable of making appropriate long term decisions about their lives. No 16 year old has the capacity to make that long term decision. That is why we don't let them enter into legally binding contracts on their own, we don't let them vote and we don't let them drink alcohol.

So how much maturity do kids gain in the years between 16-18, when we do let them vote and consider them "adults"?

A lot of growth happens in those years. Especially in the areas of the brain concerned with risk taking and long term thinking. Still not fully developed but better off than they were just two years ago.

 

[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.

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.

The process is happening right now. He hasn't been suspended.

Once the suspension comes down, if he ends up being suspended for life, or 2 years, or 3 weeks, he can appeal all he wants.

 

[DCThunder]

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.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while. Kids are not capable of making appropriate long term decisions about their lives. No 16 year old has the capacity to make that long term decision. That is why we don't let them enter into legally binding contracts on their own, we don't let them vote and we don't let them drink alcohol.

So how much maturity do kids gain in the years between 16-18, when we do let them vote and consider them "adults"?

A lot of growth happens in those years. Especially in the areas of the brain concerned with risk taking and long term thinking. Still not fully developed but better off than they were just two years ago.

OK.

 

[pantagrapher]

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

Parent, and someone who was good enough to play sports collegiately.

I am not advocating that kids use steroids - only that it is a decision best left to the individual person to make.

lol

Yeah, let the kids decide!

 

[Sinn Fein]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

 

[NCCommish]

BTW I love how we have gone from defending these liars to deciding we should be dispensing PEDs like Pez if the kids want it.

 

[NCCommish]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

There is no medical need to induce higher levels of testosterone or growth hormone in healthy children.

 

[pantagrapher]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

How is MLB going to regulate steroid use by kids who aren't in the league? Or are you saying the government should regulate it on behalf of MLB? Because the government already regulates it.

 

[Sinn Fein]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

There is no medical need to induce higher levels of testosterone or growth hormone in healthy children.

Is there a benefit? If so, what is it?

Is there a risk? If so, what is it?

weigh them and make a decision (or let the parent make the decision)

 

[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.

Definitely. Or hes not a parent

Parent, and someone who was good enough to play sports collegiately.

I am not advocating that kids use steroids - only that it is a decision best left to the individual person to make.

Just like sex with underage girls, I suppose, right?

 

[Sinn Fein]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

How is MLB going to regulate steroid use by kids who aren't in the league? Or are you saying the government should regulate it on behalf of MLB? Because the government already regulates it.

I am saying all sports should allow them - then those that want them will be able to do so openly, and can have a rational discussion about the risks/rewards.

Over time - this will balance out, and you will have a very small number of people choosing PEDs as the risks will significantly outweigh the benefits.

If the current talent level to play pro sports is X, then with PEDs it will be X + PEDs. If you figure 0.2% will be good enough to attain that level with PEDs, then something like 1% will accept the risks. 99% will not use PEDs - HS or college.

 

[Sinn Fein]

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

Parent, and someone who was good enough to play sports collegiately.

I am not advocating that kids use steroids - only that it is a decision best left to the individual person to make.

Just like sex with underage girls, I suppose, right?

Yeah, just like that.

When I say I am OK with a HS student choosing steroids - I am assuming it is done above board with parental and/or doctor involvement - which would be more likely if they were allowed.

Not sure how this turned into I am passing out PEDs at halloween.

 

[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.

Definitely. Or hes not a parent

Parent, and someone who was good enough to play sports collegiately.

I am not advocating that kids use steroids - only that it is a decision best left to the individual person to make.

Just like sex with underage girls, I suppose, right?

Yeah, just like that.

When I say I am OK with a HS student choosing steroids - I am assuming it is done above board with parental and/or doctor involvement - which would be more likely if they were allowed.

Not sure how this turned into I am passing out PEDs at halloween.

Yes, because teens are so trustworthy about inviting their parents into their decisions, especially when the parents may disagree with those decisions.

 

[pantagrapher]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

How is MLB going to regulate steroid use by kids who aren't in the league? Or are you saying the government should regulate it on behalf of MLB? Because the government already regulates it.

I am saying all sports should allow them - then those that want them will be able to do so openly, and can have a rational discussion about the risks/rewards.

Over time - this will balance out, and you will have a very small number of people choosing PEDs as the risks will significantly outweigh the benefits.

If the current talent level to play pro sports is X, then with PEDs it will be X + PEDs. If you figure 0.2% will be good enough to attain that level with PEDs, then something like 1% will accept the risks. 99% will not use PEDs - HS or college.

If you don't think it'll be a race to the bottom, you're living in a typical libertarian fantasy world.

 

[JuniorNB]

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

Parent, and someone who was good enough to play sports collegiately.

I am not advocating that kids use steroids - only that it is a decision best left to the individual person to make.

And you don't think that knowing steroids are acceptable, and almost a necessity, in the majors is bound to make thousands of high schoolers (and younger) turn to trying to purchase steroids?? And since they are ILLEGAL without a prescription, that means buying them on the black market. Without proper knowledge and observation.

Your stance is not only ridiculous from a major league standpoint, but socially irresponsible.

 

[NCCommish]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

There is no medical need to induce higher levels of testosterone or growth hormone in healthy children.

Is there a benefit? If so, what is it?

Is there a risk? If so, what is it?

weigh them and make a decision (or let the parent make the decision)

According to the PCRM( Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) HGH should only be used in children that don't naturally produce what they should. It should never be prescribed for a healthy child. HGH can lead to Diabetes, Renal Failure in kids with any kidney issues and an increase in cancer risk.

 

[JuniorNB]

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.

But the doses that these anti-aging clinics prescribe is just to get testosterone levels to a natural level (of a young adult). And patients are tested a couple of times a year to monitor those levels. The clinics raise or lower prescribed dosage to keep the levels in the middle-high part of the lab's range. I can assure you that Ryan Braun, Alex Rodriguez, and the others weren't taking anti-aging doses. They were taking doses that make you test positive for abnormally high testosterone levels.

 

[shadyridr]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

There is no medical need to induce higher levels of testosterone or growth hormone in healthy children.

Is there a benefit? If so, what is it?

Is there a risk? If so, what is it?

weigh them and make a decision (or let the parent make the decision)

According to the PCRM( Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) HGH should only be used in children that don't naturally produce what they should. It should never be prescribed for a healthy child. HGH can lead to Diabetes, Renal Failure in kids with any kidney issues and an increase in cancer risk.

Sid Finn: This is negligible

 

[pantagrapher]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

There is no medical need to induce higher levels of testosterone or growth hormone in healthy children.

Is there a benefit? If so, what is it?

Is there a risk? If so, what is it?

weigh them and make a decision (or let the parent make the decision)

According to the PCRM( Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) HGH should only be used in children that don't naturally produce what they should. It should never be prescribed for a healthy child. HGH can lead to Diabetes, Renal Failure in kids with any kidney issues and an increase in cancer risk.

Well if you don't want to roll the dice with diabetes, renal failure, and cancer, then maybe pro sports isn't for you.

 

[DCThunder]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

There is no medical need to induce higher levels of testosterone or growth hormone in healthy children.

Is there a benefit? If so, what is it?

Is there a risk? If so, what is it?

weigh them and make a decision (or let the parent make the decision)

According to the PCRM( Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) HGH should only be used in children that don't naturally produce what they should. It should never be prescribed for a healthy child. HGH can lead to Diabetes, Renal Failure in kids with any kidney issues and an increase in cancer risk.

What about in adults? Or older adults? If I'm in my 60s (which I am) and taking HGH would improve my quality of life, shouldn't I be able to do so?

 

[JuniorNB]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

There is no medical need to induce higher levels of testosterone or growth hormone in healthy children.

Is there a benefit? If so, what is it?

Is there a risk? If so, what is it?

weigh them and make a decision (or let the parent make the decision)

According to the PCRM( Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) HGH should only be used in children that don't naturally produce what they should. It should never be prescribed for a healthy child. HGH can lead to Diabetes, Renal Failure in kids with any kidney issues and an increase in cancer risk.

What about in adults? Or older adults? If I'm in my 60s (which I am) and taking HGH would improve my quality of life, shouldn't I be able to do so?

You can. Go to an anti-aging clinic. They'll test your IGF-1 levels. If they are low end on the scale, they can prescribe HGH for you. Problem is, very few insurances will pay for it and even small, anti-aging doses will run you over a grand per month.

 

[NCCommish]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

There is no medical need to induce higher levels of testosterone or growth hormone in healthy children.

Is there a benefit? If so, what is it?

Is there a risk? If so, what is it?

weigh them and make a decision (or let the parent make the decision)

According to the PCRM( Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) HGH should only be used in children that don't naturally produce what they should. It should never be prescribed for a healthy child. HGH can lead to Diabetes, Renal Failure in kids with any kidney issues and an increase in cancer risk.

What about in adults? Or older adults? If I'm in my 60s (which I am) and taking HGH would improve my quality of life, shouldn't I be able to do so?

Actually the one category of people that may benefit from HGH is seniors. And in fact many currently do under a perfectly legal prescription. So not sure how a ban on using it in baseball is stopping you.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Talk about kids taking drugs and how it affects them in this thread = sucks. Stop it.

Talk about the MLB drug policy and how it should be handled = ok, you may continue

Talk about Alex and how many bullets he's about to take with a smile = purpose of thread at this point.

Now you know. And Knowledge..... is half the battle.

 

[NCCommish]

Talk about kids taking drugs and how it affects them in this thread = sucks. Stop it.

Talk about the MLB drug policy and how it should be handled = ok, you may continue

Talk about Alex and how many bullets he's about to take with a smile = purpose of thread at this point.

Now you know. And Knowledge..... is half the battle.

It's "and knowing is half the battle" and you aren't the boss of me so there.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Talk about kids taking drugs and how it affects them in this thread = sucks. Stop it.

Talk about the MLB drug policy and how it should be handled = ok, you may continue

Talk about Alex and how many bullets he's about to take with a smile = purpose of thread at this point.

Now you know. And Knowledge..... is half the battle.

It's "and knowing is half the battle" and you aren't the boss of me so there.

So my GIJoe is off. I blame hollywood and what they did to an american and childhood icon.

Oh, and you can admit I'm right. The board goes so much better when you do that.

 

[NCCommish]

Talk about kids taking drugs and how it affects them in this thread = sucks. Stop it.

Talk about the MLB drug policy and how it should be handled = ok, you may continue

Talk about Alex and how many bullets he's about to take with a smile = purpose of thread at this point.

Now you know. And Knowledge..... is half the battle.

It's "and knowing is half the battle" and you aren't the boss of me so there.

So my GIJoe is off. I blame hollywood and what they did to an american and childhood icon.

Oh, and you can admit I'm right. The board goes so much better when you do that.

This part I think we can find common ground on.

 

[Sinn Fein]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

There is no medical need to induce higher levels of testosterone or growth hormone in healthy children.

Is there a benefit? If so, what is it?

Is there a risk? If so, what is it?

weigh them and make a decision (or let the parent make the decision)

According to the PCRM( Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) HGH should only be used in children that don't naturally produce what they should. It should never be prescribed for a healthy child. HGH can lead to Diabetes, Renal Failure in kids with any kidney issues and an increase in cancer risk.

Sid Finn: This is negligible

its Sinn, and yes - in the overall scheme of our society - this is negligible. I never said the individual risk was negligible - only the burden on society when someone make a bad choice is negligible. One kid with kidney failure is an individual tragedy - it happens every day. But it does not rise to the level of a national epidemic where it causes a decay in our society.

Candy does more harm to kids and/or society than PEDs - but nobody is rushing out to outlaw candy...

 

[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.

The process is happening right now. He hasn't been suspended.

Once the suspension comes down, if he ends up being suspended for life, or 2 years, or 3 weeks, he can appeal all he wants.

Actually, if Selig suspends him under the best interest of baseball provision he cannot appeal.

 

[Sinn Fein]

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

Parent, and someone who was good enough to play sports collegiately.

I am not advocating that kids use steroids - only that it is a decision best left to the individual person to make.

And you don't think that knowing steroids are acceptable, and almost a necessity, in the majors is bound to make thousands of high schoolers (and younger) turn to trying to purchase steroids?? And since they are ILLEGAL without a prescription, that means buying them on the black market. Without proper knowledge and observation.

Your stance is not only ridiculous from a major league standpoint, but socially irresponsible.

RIF

 

[DCThunder]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

There is no medical need to induce higher levels of testosterone or growth hormone in healthy children.

Is there a benefit? If so, what is it?

Is there a risk? If so, what is it?

weigh them and make a decision (or let the parent make the decision)

According to the PCRM( Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) HGH should only be used in children that don't naturally produce what they should. It should never be prescribed for a healthy child. HGH can lead to Diabetes, Renal Failure in kids with any kidney issues and an increase in cancer risk.

What about in adults? Or older adults? If I'm in my 60s (which I am) and taking HGH would improve my quality of life, shouldn't I be able to do so?

Actually the one category of people that may benefit from HGH is seniors. And in fact many currently do under a perfectly legal prescription. So not sure how a ban on using it in baseball is stopping you.

I didn't say it was.

 

[NCCommish]

You goys are missing the big point - allow individuals to make the choice.

If you allowed steroids - then you could regulate their usage. By outright banning them, you are more likely to find HS kids getting doses from shady places. If you allow their use, then you get kids, with their parents and doctors, who can make better informed decisions in each case.

There is no medical need to induce higher levels of testosterone or growth hormone in healthy children.

Is there a benefit? If so, what is it?

Is there a risk? If so, what is it?

weigh them and make a decision (or let the parent make the decision)

According to the PCRM( Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) HGH should only be used in children that don't naturally produce what they should. It should never be prescribed for a healthy child. HGH can lead to Diabetes, Renal Failure in kids with any kidney issues and an increase in cancer risk.

What about in adults? Or older adults? If I'm in my 60s (which I am) and taking HGH would improve my quality of life, shouldn't I be able to do so?

Actually the one category of people that may benefit from HGH is seniors. And in fact many currently do under a perfectly legal prescription. So not sure how a ban on using it in baseball is stopping you.

I didn't say it was.

Than I am not sure what your point was.

 

[SofaKings]

lol at him not getting the Sid Finn reference.

 

[JuniorNB]

lol at him not getting the Sid Finn reference.

Based on the level of intelligence he's displaying in the rest of this thread, is that really all that surprising?

 

[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.

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.

The process is happening right now. He hasn't been suspended.Once the suspension comes down, if he ends up being suspended for life, or 2 years, or 3 weeks, he can appeal all he wants.

Actually, if Selig suspends him under the best interest of baseball provision he cannot appeal.

That's not true. He can appeal, an arbitrator has already been named.Last time baseball did this was with John Rocker when he popped off to SI. Rocker went through this process and won his appeal and had his suspension shortened.

 

[T Bell]

Talk about kids taking drugs and how it affects them in this thread = sucks. Stop it.

Talk about the MLB drug policy and how it should be handled = ok, you may continue

Talk about Alex and how many bullets he's about to take with a smile = purpose of thread at this point.

Now you know. And Knowledge..... is half the battle.

The kids talk comes in response to broad questions/statements about "why do we even ban the stuff", which is as much a social question as it is a question about MLB policy.

 

[dparker713]

That's not true. He can appeal, an arbitrator has already been named.Last time baseball did this was with John Rocker when he popped off to SI. Rocker went through this process and won his appeal and had his suspension shortened.

Appeals for the integrity of the game/best interests are heard by the Commissioner, which is effectively no appeal at all. Also, there is no stay while any such appeal is pending. And the arbitrator is in place for an appeal under the JDA, under which ARod would presumably be suspended in addition to any suspension handed down directly from the Commissioner's Office. While the arbitrator can rule the additional suspension is disproportionate, he can neither stay the suspension nor overturn it. It's essentially an advisory opinion. So no, there really isn't a means to appeal for ARod should he be suspended in this manner.

 

[The General]

That's not true. He can appeal, an arbitrator has already been named.

Last time baseball did this was with John Rocker when he popped off to SI. Rocker went through this process and won his appeal and had his suspension shortened.

Appeals for the integrity of the game/best interests are heard by the Commissioner, which is effectively no appeal at all. Also, there is no stay while any such appeal is pending. And the arbitrator is in place for an appeal under the JDA, under which ARod would presumably be suspended in addition to any suspension handed down directly from the Commissioner's Office. While the arbitrator can rule the additional suspension is disproportionate, he can neither stay the suspension nor overturn it. It's essentially an advisory opinion. So no, there really isn't a means to appeal for ARod should he be suspended in this manner.

What you are saying makes no sense.

The last time MLB used this best interest clause to suspend someone that guy appealed and had their suspension reduced.

The whole point is you painted Arod as some victim whose not getting due process which is BS.

He brought all of this upon himself. His ego, vanity, hubris, will not allow him to admit any wrong doing. The guy is cementing his place on the Mt Rushmore of sports dbags.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

You know if I was 30 years younger, actually had an once of athleticism, etc. then MLB creating all of these extra jobs through suspensions would mean I better get with the program to take one of those spots.

 

[rodg12]

Good read on this subject...

NY Times Article

 

[DrJ]

It seems every time I watch TV on a live feed you see half a dozen commercials for all sorts of drugs. And just about all of them suggest "this could damage your kidney, liver, make you hate life, etc". If you didn't realize that all of these drug companies were buying politicians left and right, you might believe that the government has a pretty random way of determining what is "harmful".

 

[Raider Nation]

Alex Rodriguez will be suspended Monday, likely through the end of the 2014 season, sources told "Outside the Lines" Saturday.

About 12 other players will also be suspended Monday, according to sources.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

That's not true. He can appeal, an arbitrator has already been named.

Last time baseball did this was with John Rocker when he popped off to SI. Rocker went through this process and won his appeal and had his suspension shortened.

Appeals for the integrity of the game/best interests are heard by the Commissioner, which is effectively no appeal at all. Also, there is no stay while any such appeal is pending. And the arbitrator is in place for an appeal under the JDA, under which ARod would presumably be suspended in addition to any suspension handed down directly from the Commissioner's Office. While the arbitrator can rule the additional suspension is disproportionate, he can neither stay the suspension nor overturn it. It's essentially an advisory opinion. So no, there really isn't a means to appeal for ARod should he be suspended in this manner.

What you are saying makes no sense. The last time MLB used this best interest clause to suspend someone that guy appealed and had their suspension reduced.

The whole point is you painted Arod as some victim whose not getting due process which is BS.

He brought all of this upon himself. His ego, vanity, hubris, will not allow him to admit any wrong doing. The guy is cementing his place on the Mt Rushmore of sports dbags.

I think he can appeal, but cannot play during his appeal time

 

[Abraham]

A rod has some legal ace up his sleeve to get his money. Surely he can't prove innocence.

 

[shadyridr]

I gotta be honest with you, i was in the MLBs corner until that ARod press conference. It does seem like a conspiracy to me. They should treat him like every other cheat. That being said ill withhold all my judgement until all the evidence comes out. It seems to change every minute.

 

[The General]

I gotta be honest with you, i was in the MLBs corner until that ARod press conference. It does seem like a conspiracy to me. They should treat him like every other cheat. That being said ill withhold all my judgement until all the evidence comes out. It seems to change every minute.

I didn't get that feeling. If he had fessed up then maybe we would see some equal treatment.

The line where he said we all want to get rid of PED's was pretty funny though.

 

[shadyridr]

I gotta be honest with you, i was in the MLBs corner until that ARod press conference. It does seem like a conspiracy to me. They should treat him like every other cheat. That being said ill withhold all my judgement until all the evidence comes out. It seems to change every minute.

I didn't get that feeling. If he had fessed up then maybe we would see some equal treatment.

The line where he said we all want to get rid of PED's was pretty funny though.

he is definitiely off his rocker