Players, owners reach deal; suspensions rescinded

NEW YORK (AP) - Baseball players and owners agreed Friday to more frequent drug testing and increased — but not total — authority for the program's outside administrator.

All players implicated in December's Mitchell Report on peformance-enhancing drugs were given amnesty as part of the agreement, which toughens baseball's drug rules for the third time since the program began in 2002.

Thus, the deal eliminated 15-day suspensions assessed against Jose Guillen and Jay Gibbons.

The independent administrator, a position created in November 2005, will be given an initial three-year term and can be removed only if an arbitrator finds cause. Until now, he could be fired at any time by either side.

But baseball did not heed advice from the World Anti-Doping Agency and turn drug testing over to an outside agency.

In addition, the decision over whether a player can be subjected to reasonable-cause testing will remain with management and the union, with any disagreement decided by the sport's regular arbitrator. Also, a joint management-union body called the Treatment Board will supervise the part of the program relating to drugs of abuse, such as cocaine.

Reps. Henry Waxman and Tom Davis, leaders of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that has held hearings on drug use, said in a joint statement they were "pleased that Major League Baseball has taken steps to strengthen its drug-testing policy."

Yet the changes were not enough for Dr. Gary Wadler, chairman of the committee that determines the World Anti-Doping Agency's banned-substances list.

"It's another incremental step. It's better than it was but not where it needs to be," said Wadler, who faulted baseball for not adding blood testing for human growth hormone and for not turning testing over to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

"This still falls significantly short of the mark, no matter what internal bureaucracy they've patched together," Wadler said.

As part of the agreement, players will join Major League Baseball's efforts to educate youth about performance-enhancing drugs, and their union will contribute $200,000 to an anti-drug organization.

In exchange for those two provisions, baseball commissioner Bud Selig agreed not to discipline players implicated by Mitchell during his 1 1/2-year investigation.

"We are gratified that commissioner Selig chose to accept Sen. Mitchell's recommendation that no further punishment of players is warranted," union head Donald Fehr said. "In many instances the naming of players was punishment enough; in others it may have been unfair."

Guillen and Gibbons were suspended in December following media reports linking them to performance-enhancing drugs. Those penalties were put on hold just before opening day as negotiators neared an agreement.

"It is time for the game to move forward," Selig said. "There is little to be gained at this point in debating dated misconduct and enduring numerous disciplinary proceedings."

The sides agreed that in future investigations, allegations against players won't be made public unless discipline is imposed, and that a player will be given the allegations and evidence against him before any investigatory interview.

While the sides agreed that records of negative tests be kept for two years, they did not agree to keep the actual urine samples.

Players and owners reached their first joint drug agreement in August 2002, then under pressure amended it in January 2005 and instituted a 10-day penalty for first offenses. After Congress pushed for more changes, they amended it a second time in November 2005, changing the first offense to a 50-game suspension, banning amphetamines and creating the independent program administrator, who shared power with a management-union Health Policy Advisory Committee.

In his recommendations, Mitchell said the program should be administered "by a truly independent authority" in the form of an expert who couldn't be removed except for good cause, an independent nonprofit corporation or another structure created by the sides.

As a result, the HPAC is being disbanded, and its duties largely turned over to the administrator, Dr. Bryan Smith.

In the deal, the sides agreed:

Annual tests will rise by 600 to 3,600.

As many as 375 offseason tests can be conducted over the next three years, up from the current limit of 60 per offseason.

testing will include the top 200 prospects for each year's annual draft.

the IPA will issue an annual report detailing what substances resulted in positive tests, the number of tests given and therapeutic use exemptions by category of ailment.

additional substances were added to the banned list, among them: insulin-like growth factor, gonadotropins, aromatase inhibitors, selective estrogen receptor modulators, and clomid and other antiestrogens.

an automatic stay for an initial suspension will be expanded to players disciplined for conduct unrelated to a positive test.
The sides also disclosed a previously unannounced agreement struck during the 2006 labor talks in which they specified the commissioner has authority to discipline players under a just cause standard for violations of the drug agreement that don't carry a specified penalty.

"Going into this negotiation, the commissioner was 100 percent correct that we had the best program in professional sports," said Rob Manfred, baseball's executive vice president for labor relations. "These changes just solidify that kind of premier leadership position in my view."

The new joint drug agreement, which must be ratified by both sides, runs until Dec. 11, 2011, when baseball's labor contract expires. The sides will meet annually with the IPA, the collection company and the laboratory to consider changes.

"Given the series of modifications which have previously been made, as well as the flexibility provided for in the current JDA, we do not expect to be renegotiating the JDA again prior to the next scheduled round of collective bargaining," Fehr said.

Selig's next step will be to determine whether management employees should be disciplined for conduct mentioned in the Mitchell Report. He already has met with officials of the San Francisco Giants, who were mentioned prominently. Manfred said no decisions on management discipline have been made.

Selig said any fines imposed on management will be donated to the Partnership of a Drug Free America and the Taylor Hooton Foundation.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8010674?MSNHPHMA

Nope players will still cheat thats they way it works. They still cheat and get away with it in the Olympics and and they are subject to WADA and USADA testing and Marion Joines still almost got away with it.

They still cheat id Football and thats considered to have they best testing of the pro sports.

Any step to to stamp it out is a good step, but ultimately its a game a Whack-a-Mole: They just keep coming until you give up, just hope you collect enough tickets to get you a nifty spider ring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

Nope players will still cheat thats they way it works. They still cheat and get away with it in the Olympics and and they are subject to WADA and USADA testing and Marion Joines still almost got away with it.

They still cheat id Football and thats considered to have they best testing of the pro sports.

Any step to to stamp it out is a good step, but ultimately its a game a Whack-a-Mole: They just keep coming until you give up, just hope you collect enough tickets to get you a nifty spider ring.

---

what is the solution then?

The ultimate solution to eliminate them ?

Thats the point there is NO WAY to do it, just keep whacking ans scoop up as many as possible. like i said "any step is a good step .. " but to ultimately solve the issue, you can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

what is the solution then?

---

Quit trying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Quit trying

---

if baseball stops testing and makes any and all performance enhancing drugs legal what effect on stats do you think this would have? Do you think that because everyone will probably use that it will end up having a nullifying affect and stats will stay with in historical norms???

who cares...

the players who do not want to harm their bodies but are edged out by users probably care, as should the union, since players' health should be one of their top concerns.

*shrug*

They should definitely test and discipline players that fail, but I think that going on witch hunts to get players, or nabbing players and suspending them based on anonymous accusations (such as what happened with Jordan Schafer) should not occur at all. It's impossible to ever stop players from using drugs, but I do think testing and discipline should be in place for those that test positive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

They should definitely test and discipline players that fail, but I think that going on witch hunts to get players, or nabbing players and suspending them based on anonymous accusations (such as what happened with Jordan Schafer) should not occur at all. It's impossible to ever stop players from using drugs, but I do think testing and discipline should be in place for those that test positive.

---

Agreed.

Actually, I do to... I really am just tired of all of this.

It'd be great if the MLB would just stop trying to find out who used 10-15 years ago and focus on preventing use from now on. But, unfortunately, stupidly, and illogically, they feel it's more important to ascertain who may have used at some point in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

It'd be great if the MLB would just stop trying to find out who used 10-15 years ago and focus on preventing use from now on. But, unfortunately, stupidly, and illogically, they feel it's more important to ascertain who may have used at some point in the past.

---

that is because the owners and media perceive baseball records to be more hallowed than other sports....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

that is because the owners and media perceive baseball records to be more hallowed than other sports....

---

Agree one hundred percent, Wassit.

I don't have an issue with investigations in to older drug use for one reason...you can find out who the SUPPLIERS were.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

I don't have an issue with investigations in to older drug use for one reason...you can find out who the SUPPLIERS were.

---

I suppose, but what they're doing is giving the suppliers deals to catch the players...It's completely backwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

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 don't think it should be a one positive = ban policy. I think the current punishments are fine.

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

One positive and a ban will unquestionably make some people blink before cheating.....

---

And it will unquestionably lead to players being banned that shouldn't be.

Start locking pro athletes up, especially those involved in distribution. That is the best way of bringing change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I suppose, but what they're doing is giving the suppliers deals to catch the players...It's completely backwards.

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

It'd be great if the MLB would just stop trying to find out who used 10-15 years ago and focus on preventing use from now on. But, unfortunately, stupidly, and illogically, they feel it's more important to ascertain who may have used at some point in the past.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

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.

---

Criminalization without enforcement is useless. I also agree that this topic isn't about the legalization of drugs, you and I would go on about that forever and I don't have the time to begin. I completely disagree with your sentiments however, and know there is plenty of historic fact that shows legalization obviously doesn't improve anything.

Quote:

---

and know there is plenty of historic fact that shows legalization obviously doesn't improve anything.

---

Hog wash, there's plenty of countries that have legalized some softer drugs and they have seen a decline in the usage of hard core drugs and crime.

Just to keep the discussion on point, let's draw a real work comparison. Say you work Acme, Inc., and for the sake of argument the company doesn't have a policy against drinking on the job (a slight bit of suspension of disbelief is required here... we are ultimately talking about baseball though, so it's not that outlandish). One day, Joe Schmoe goes out and has a "liquid lunch", then comes back to work and injures himself. Well, now the company management figures out what happened and goes on a crusade. The first obvious move it to make a policy saying that drinking at lunch or before work, and being drunk at work is not allowed. That's a perfectly reasonable and expected response. However, they then go about launching a huge investigation to determine if anyone else has ever drank at lunch, and by interviewing employees and looking at certain records (business lunch receipts, etc...) they find say a dozen or so employees who have drank at lunch in the past. In response to that information, they fire all of those employees who they've identified "broke the rules".

No matter which way you cut it, the above is basically exactly what MLB is doing. The legality of the behavior has nothing at all to do with the company's response to the problem, and it shouldn't. MLB didn't have a policy for a long, long time, and that's just as boneheaded as Acme, Inc. not having a no drinking policy in the scenario above. The same holds true with the response to the problem after the fact, as outlined in the scenario above. The players use is questionable at best, regardless, but the MLB's response is hardly good. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

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.

---

Because you can't punish players for doing something which, at the time they did it, had no written code against it. You cannot retroactively apply punishment to something that, at the time committed, had no punishment.

And more to the point, it's completely hypocritical to go back in time and search for players who did something which MLB KNEW was going on and DID NOTHING ABOUT. People need to get off their high horses on this issue. Everybody involved in baseball was in part responsible for the steroid problem. The players, the dealers, the front offices, the commissioner, the media, the fans. Everybody knew and nobody cared until Congress made them. It is completely illogical to punish the players that took the drugs, while letting those that fostered the environment and turned a blind eye to the issue off the hook.