I agree it makes no sense to look at who took steroids years ago. We should focus on if anyone is taking them now. If so ban them for life. Done. Set the example with new players caught cheating and boom...
Printable View
I agree it makes no sense to look at who took steroids years ago. We should focus on if anyone is taking them now. If so ban them for life. Done. Set the example with new players caught cheating and boom...
I suppose, but what they're doing is giving the suppliers deals to catch the players...It's completely backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
I don't think it should be a one positive = ban policy. I think the current punishments are fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
One positive and a ban will unquestionably make some people blink before cheating.....others will try to be more creative in what they take and how they mask it....however it sets a tone of no cheating will be tolerated.....
And it will unquestionably lead to players being banned that shouldn't be.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
Start locking pro athletes up, especially those involved in distribution. That is the best way of bringing change.
See, I'm not looking at this from a purely pro sports angle, though. If you really want to deal with the larger issue of abuse of steroids and HGH and testosterone and EPO and everything else, you need to start busting down the doors of the suppliers and the shippers and the distributors. Pro sports is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
so... how does giving immunity to suppliers and persecuting players (users) help "to deal with the larger issue of abuse of steroids and HGH and testosterone and EPO and everything else" then?
:confused:
I haven't read anyone saying that suppliers should get immunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Get serious and set precedent that they WILL prosecute and lock up players who used and distributed to others (not for life but to the max permissable by law for the penalty's found guilty of). Doing that, they will start singing.....until then you will not find all the suppliers or users.
If baseball and the govt. really wanted to get to the bottom of who did what, why, and how they obtained it...they easily could. There's enough evidence in the Mitchell Report to begin locking up players and trainers. The fact that most of these players, led by their union, have not coorperated in any way is ubsurd. The fact the Selig & the Govt. has not gone after them because of it is even worse.
I don't want roid's in baseball. I don't want roids in college athletics, and I sure as he!! don't want it in high schools where kids want an edge to get into college. Nobody in Govt. or MLB Front Office wants to seriously attack this however. Yes, persecuting these players and outing all of the dirty little secrets will most certainly effect how steroids are viewed for years to come in our society. Yes, ignoring/sugar coating/band aiding the problem will also effect how they are viewed...only negatively as kids will still feel they worked to get the pro's where they are and they were only slapped on the wrist, it's no big deal.
Stop waiving your white flags and accepting the BS trinkets Selig has thrown. Baseball is banking on the fact that fans will get tired of the story and let a sleeping dog lie and they're apparently correct. Thats the real shame here.
Arctic didn't say that suppliers should get immunity, but he did reply to HoustonGM's statement which talked about that happening by supporting what's currently occuring... which is giving suppliers immunity in order to persecute high profile players.
Ideally, immunity and prosecution are the carrot and stick that you go after the each successive group with. Stick, with the option of carrot instead, for those who were just end users (and not all of them, just those that investigation shows could have the most information useful for getting the next level). Bigger stick, with less options for a carrot, as you move up from low level dealers to low level illegal distributors to high level illegal distributors to doctors/illegal labs/gross illegal distributors (which get a full tree and no option of a carrot).
Perjury has to get a big stick though. To allow it undermines the legal system. That is why you have the option of taking the 5th.
yea... honestly, my heart just isn't into arguing this. Baseball's politicking of the whole matter has turned me off to the issue in baseball, at least. As for the wider deal regarding colleges and high schools, I most certainly don't support PED use by... well, really by anyone. They shouldn't be allowed, end of story (although, they shouldn't necessarily be illegal either, but that's a different subject). There's really nothing else to talk about.
The main reason that I just don't care about the whole topic anymore is because it's been beaten to death, and really nothing has or appears likely to change. MLB and the other pro leagues will catch their tolken users, who wil be martyred to the "clean image" of the various leagues, but the end effect is that nothing will really change. Go ahead and reil about it until you're blue in the face... it's simply not going to do any good.
As far as sports leagues go, they will just do whatever they believe is the most profitable for them. Their only interest in the fans is how much money they can give them. I expect nothing else from them. The law is another matter.
See I feel just the opposite. I think MLB wants to create the appearance that they want to know who used but in fact would prefer it never comes out. Hence the Mitchell Report, which cost ubsurds amounts of money and was doomed before it started because all involved knew that players would hide behind the union and not talk. Now Selig can and has said, we've done our thorough investigation, and are moving on.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Just as they did a half-a$$ look into the past and how things got to where they are however, they are doing a half-a$$ job preventing use now and into the future. What is the rationale for not having a 3rd party governing body involved? What is the rationale for not mandating that sample be saved for possible retesting when future tests for HGH do become available? HGH is banned, they just currently can't test for it although there is a blood test supposedly available and used by WADA if i'm not mistaken but what is the rationale for not performing it???
Seriously, if you want to keep players from using 'the next generation drug' which is undetectable..wouldn't the fear that your sample (blood and/or urine) will be kept for XX amount of years and subject to new tests should they become available make the players think twice about it?
Finally....why the 'agreement' not to discipline those who were found guilty of roid use? Who lobbied for that? How can that be rationalized? "No, we're not signing this new half-a$$ agreement unless you agree not to penalize those found guilty earlier." Thats like negotiating with a terrorist, I just don't get it.
I understand your frustration Ohms, really I do. But to be honest, I get frustrated at this type of attitude, waving the white flag. It's precisely what MLB wants to happen and the majority of America is going along with it. Because of that, you are correct, nothing will come of the griping because those griping are now in the minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
It's classic American politicking. Drag a story out long enough, and the people will lose interest. They play us like puppets and it sickens me. Not because it's baseball players that I want to see pay for their actions, but because it's a much bigger web that goes all the way down to high school age kids and younger. The Govt. and Selig don't have the balls to make real change...they just posture, which is also classic American politicking.
Well... have fun railing about it.
*shrug*
I do have to admit though that I'm fundamentally opposed to the illegaility of PED's. Their dangerous if used improperly (and sometimes if used properly, depending), but their only dangerous to individuals. Drug use by itself does not lead to the downfall of civilization... and indeed a good agument could be made that criminalizing drug use does more harm to a society than the drug use itself.
That's not to say that I condone drug use in any form. I know as long as I'm able to do so that I'm going to keep my kids out of that. More importantly, I'm going to ensure that their educated about the reasons not to use. I don't need the law to tell me that drug use is a problem though, and criminalizing it obviously isn't doing any good.