For a lead role in a cage
Must reads about steroids and baseball...
On the potential of a chemical Bonds: Possible effects of steroids on home run production in baseball by Professor R. G. Tobin, Ph.D. in Physics
616* (* no asterisk required) by Patrick Hruby, ESPN columnist for Page 2Specifically, a 10% increase in muscle mass can increase the fraction of balls put in play that result in home runs by 50% or more
Registered User
If you read the Mitchell report page 18 says steroids were illegal as early as 1971 without a vaild prescription. All those that are using the "it wasn't illegal until collective bargaining in 2002" is dead wrong. Anyone possessing or taking steroids broke the rules, bottom line.
I agree.It is hypocrisy to ignore McGwire's andro while he's chasing the record, and then year's later villify him for it. Nevermind the fact that andro was a legal substance that anybody could go to the local GNC and buy and there were no rules by baseball prohibitting its use.
E=I*R
Not quite true, from what I've read. There were certain drugs which were made to be illegal, but then new ones came along that were still legal (including, most notably, Andro). Then there were bills passed in 2001 and 2004 which made a whole bunch more illegal.
That's the actual law though. In terms of Major League Baseball, nothing was really "illegal" until the 2002 CBA, and then they added some more in this last CBA. So technically, in terms of MLB, no one broke any rules until 2002.
Anyway... who really cares. The owners will do a big song and dance about it for the next couple of years, and the MLBPA will cry about it while they go along with it all anyway. I said months ago that I could really care less about this stuff anymore. It's just boring. I've tuned out to most of it anymore.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
No the key is a valid prescription, they were illegal to use as early as 1971. Again read page SR10 and SR11 of the report even the commissoner at the time says so.
o
Steroids were against the rules, but the MLB had no punishment guidelines. It's unfair for the MLB to try and correct the problem it helped create by punishing people under guidelines that did not exist at the time they broke the rule.Originally Posted by Reade
Some steroids were illegal as early as 1971, but Ohms is right that the law was not updated until this millenium. And furthermore, a "notice" went out in 1990 or so from the Commissioner stating that since steroids were illegal, they were prohibbited by the MLB. That's really it. There was no punishment guidelines, no actual hard rules, because those require collective bargaining. They were against the law, and therefore "prohibitted" by the MLB, but we've never prevented entry into the Hall of Fame based on players breaking drug laws.
Registered User
In the cocaine scandal in the '80's players were suspended after the fact, that does set a precedent for Selig to take action justifiably.
o
Note that none of the players actually served their suspensions, as they had provisions which allowed them to play if they donated a portion of their salary to drug programs and do community service work. They were suspended directly after the trials that they were involved in (ie. after investigations). Also, what were the rules on the books regarding cocaine use?
Also, these players weren't barred entry into the Hall of Fame, as many are calling for regarding the steroid-using players. I don't have a problem with suspending known drug users - denying them entry into the Hall of Fame is a different story. I also don't think hearsay is enough justification to suspend someone.
Reply With Quote
