Are you freaking kidding me?!!?!?!?!? A-Rod update

Just noticed the last quote from Selig in this article:

Quote:

---

"We are fully committed to ridding our game of steroids and other performance-enhancing substances," Selig said in Thursday's statement. "These drugs and those who use them and facilitate their use threaten the integrity of our sport. It is disappointing that others may have acted to thwart or prevent a legitimate drug testing program from being implemented sooner. That only served to stiffen our resolve. We are very proud of the enormous progress we have made, and it is important to note that the recent revelations are at least five years old and a residue of pre-program behavior. But we will not rest or relax our efforts until the use of these illegal drugs are gone from baseball."

---

Mind telling us how suspending players for something done 6 years ago, before the program was in place, forwards the goal of removing illegal drugs from baseball?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Just noticed the last quote from Selig in this article:


Mind telling us how suspending players for something done 6 years ago, before the program was in place, forwards the goal of removing illegal drugs from baseball?

---

Cmon now, that ones easy. Even you have to admit it would be a scary precedent and show players that mlb is extremely serious. Doesn't mean its right to do but it would be a deterrent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Cmon now, that ones easy. Even you have to admit it would be a scary precedent and show players that mlb is extremely serious. Doesn't mean its right to do but it would be a deterrent

---

It would be an EXTREMELY scary precedent. "I am Bud Selig, and I can do whatever I want, including punishing you for failing a test to which I agreed that not only would you not be subject to punishment for, but that your test results would be anonymous." Yes, that is a VERY, VERY, VERY scary precedent.

But I don't think that'd deter anybody from anything. Isn't that what the rules which are now in place are meant to do? How would punishing a guy who broke a rule before it existed act as a deterrent? "Don't break rules that don't exist"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

It would be an EXTREMELY scary precedent. "I am Bud Selig, and I can do whatever I want, including punishing you for failing a test to which I agreed that not only would you not be subject to punishment for, but that your test results would be anonymous." Yes, that is a VERY, VERY, VERY scary precedent.

But I don't think that'd deter anybody from anything. Isn't that what the rules which are now in place are meant to do? How would punishing a guy who broke a rule before it existed act as a deterrent? "Don't break rules that don't exist"?

---

Houston I agree with you yet again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Houston I agree with you yet again.

---

hate to say it but I agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

It would be an EXTREMELY scary precedent.

---

Yep, but if fact this development already a scary precedent, and both the MLBPA and MLB should already be being grilled by the individual players -- not just those on the "list of 104," but at least every player who was in the league at the time. The players, in a vote, agreed to change the terms of the existing CBA in order to allow the survey test. They didn't have to do that, at the very least they could have held off until the agreement expired and have testing be negotiated as part of the new agreement.

Why did they do that? Because most players thought that it would be the best thing for the sport to curtail use of steroids. It's very likely, in fact, that even many of the players who were using them felt that way, and voted in favor of the anonymous survey testing -- that there were players using these drugs because they felt pressured to do so because of the fact or the threat of their competitors already doing it.

So the players backed off on a right they'd bargained for and voluntarily took these tests, in exchange for a promise of privacy and no recriminations. The first of those has already been violated, so there's a scary precedent. Now, should there also to be punishment from the league years after a promise was made that there wouldn't be?

It's already been made clear that any such assurances in the future will have to be taken skeptically by the players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

It would be an EXTREMELY scary precedent. "I am Bud Selig, and I can do whatever I want, including punishing you for failing a test to which I agreed that not only would you not be subject to punishment for, but that your test results would be anonymous." Yes, that is a VERY, VERY, VERY scary precedent.

But I don't think that'd deter anybody from anything. Isn't that what the rules which are now in place are meant to do? How would punishing a guy who broke a rule before it existed act as a deterrent? "Don't break rules that don't exist"?

---

Yes thats what the rules are in place for now...and yes it would be a deterrent. You don't think that future designer drugs or other methods of cheating that "aren't in the rule books" would be ventured into more cautiously knowing that a strict punishment may be on the receiving end due to the ethics involved, even if not against the rules?

You're free to believe what you want...but I think its inaccurate to believe Arod being disciplined wouldn't have a ripple effect or be a deterrent to anyone else. Of course it would. Again, it doesn't make it right or smart to do...but that wasn't the question.

I hadn't thought about this before, but the discussion of whether any punishment should be carried out made me think... can it be?

It'd be interesting to read the actual actual agreement between the league and union that allowed the survey tests. Clearly that agreement specified that the results would be confidential, but did it also specify that there could be no punishment under any circumstances? If there was something along those lines, the specific wording could be important.

That seems like a clause that should have been there, from the MLBPA standpoint anyway. I don't remember seeing any specific mention of anything like that in the articles I've read since the A-Rod story broke, but it doesn't seem unlikely that there's nothing MLB can do without violating the CBA.

Is Selig the biggest idiot and also the one who benefited the most from the steroid era?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Yes thats what the rules are in place for now...and yes it would be a deterrent. You don't think that future designer drugs or other methods of cheating that "aren't in the rule books" would be ventured into more cautiously knowing that a strict punishment may be on the receiving end due to the ethics involved, even if not against the rules?

---

I think that punishing people for something not against the rules is ridiculous and wrong. If a player (or many) do something legal and it turns out to be bad for the game, the rules should be changed, but the players shouldn't be punished unless they continue doing it after the rule change (unless, of course, they're grandfathered in like with the spitball). This is how many of today's rules came into place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I think that punishing people for something not against the rules is ridiculous and wrong. If a player (or many) do something legal and it turns out to be bad for the game, the rules should be changed, but the players shouldn't be punished unless they continue doing it after the rule change (unless, of course, they're grandfathered in like with the spitball). This is how many of today's rules came into place.

---

cmon now...thats why they have conduct clauses as there's no way the "rules" will encapsulate everything. Should Pacman Jones not have been suspended for his "make it rain" escapade? There's many more examples like that.

So again....while I agree punishment should not be handed out for AROD or anyone of these past roid users....your reasoning is flawed IMO.

Why shouldn't punishment be handed out? I say because they've already set precedent and let alot of them go without punishment. Selig himself said after the Mitchell report that those in it would not be punished if i'm not mistaken. Its time for them to turn the page and go with the rules that are now established regarding this situation. I won't go as far as say though that just because something is "not in the rule book" that they shouldn't be able to discipline. No legitimate company would do that.

My co-workers an a$$....there's no rule against pi$$ing in his trashpail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

cmon now...thats why they have conduct clauses as there's no way the "rules" will encapsulate everything. Should Pacman Jones not have been suspended for his "make it rain" escapade? There's many more examples like that.

So again....while I agree punishment should not be handed out for AROD or anyone of these past roid users....your reasoning is flawed IMO.

---

I hope you can see the difference between a Pacman Jones incident and a player doing something that many other players are doing and that the league is effectively encouraging.

Quote:

---

Why shouldn't punishment be handed out? I say because they've already set precedent and let alot of them go without punishment. Selig himself said after the Mitchell report that those in it would not be punished if i'm not mistaken. Its time for them to turn the page and go with the rules that are now established regarding this situation. I won't go as far as say though that just because something is "not in the rule book" that they shouldn't be able to discipline. No legitimate company would do that.

---

For A-Rod, I think punishment shouldn't be handed out because his name was illegally leaked, and the test for which he failed was under a program in which players were supposed to be anonymous and no punishment was supposed to be given.

I agree with your comments about Selig claiming he wouldn't punish the Mitchell guys, and that it's time to turn the page and move on.

Here's the thing about performance enhancing drugs: they are overrated. Granted, they are illegal, and yes, they do increase performance, but not the extent people are making them out to be. The media overreacts to steroids, which causes us as fans to overreact to steroids. Steroids, at best, gives the ball an extra 20 feet. 20 feet of distance is significant, but when you factor in the fact that a lot of Bonds's home runs and a lot of A-Rod's home runs were not just little shots over the wall, they were blasts into the back row of the seats, and the steroids did not give them many extra home runs. I think, that at best, steroids might have given Bonds and A-Rod a combined 50 extra homers during their careers, and that might be an overstatement too.

The other thing is, pitchers are using these steroids as well so it is harder for these players to hit the ball. Oh yeah, there's another thing. The player still has to hit the ball!! It doesn't matter how many steroids a player takes, they still have to make contact, by hitting the ball with the sweet spot on the bat, and have amazing bat speed for it to carry the way Bonds' and A-Rod's home runs did.

Now, for the record, I'm not condoning Bonds or A-Rod. I think it is despicable that they have done steroids, then lied about it (Bonds), breaking federal laws and baseball rules alike. Steroids should be absolutely banned and never used again in baseball, and if Selig doesn't do something correct NOW, we are going to have some problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5dodgers5

Here's the thing about performance enhancing drugs: they are overrated. Granted, they are illegal, and yes, they do increase performance, but not the extent people are making them out to be. The media overreacts to steroids, which causes us as fans to overreact to steroids. Steroids, at best, gives the ball an extra 20 feet. 20 feet of distance is significant, but when you factor in the fact that a lot of Bonds's home runs and a lot of A-Rod's home runs were not just little shots over the wall, they were blasts into the back row of the seats, and the steroids did not give them many extra home runs. I think, that at best, steroids might have given Bonds and A-Rod a combined 50 extra homers during their careers, and that might be an overstatement too.

The other thing is, pitchers are using these steroids as well so it is harder for these players to hit the ball. Oh yeah, there's another thing. The player still has to hit the ball!! It doesn't matter how many steroids a player takes, they still have to make contact, by hitting the ball with the sweet spot on the bat, and have amazing bat speed for it to carry the way Bonds' and A-Rod's home runs did.

Now, for the record, I'm not condoning Bonds or A-Rod. I think it is despicable that they have done steroids, then lied about it (Bonds), breaking federal laws and baseball rules alike. Steroids should be absolutely banned and never used again in baseball, and if Selig doesn't do something correct NOW, we are going to have some problems.

---

What is Selig supposed to do ...NOW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

What is Selig supposed to do ...NOW?

---

Stop focusing on the past, shut up about striking records, and start hyping up how MLB has the toughest steroid policy of the professional sports in America, and according to the tests, detectable steroids have been virtually eliminated.