You know theres one thing I dont understand, and thats HGM's stance on this issue.
Im watching you
You know theres one thing I dont understand, and thats HGM's stance on this issue.
o
What's not to understand?Originally Posted by ragecage
You know theres one thing I dont understand, and thats HGM's stance on this issue.
Registered User
why do you refuse to admit to being wrong, and twist it to another argument? Fay Vincent "reminded the clubs that players were forbidden from taking any illegal substance." What made this memo noteworthy was that he explicitly mentioned steroids although it was redundant because they are an "illegal substance". Yes, he admitted that the memo had no power only to the point that if a team "suspected" a player to be using steroids there is/way little they could do because TESTING wasn't legal under the CBA. So in summary, since 1971 steroids have been against the baseball rules as they were illegal under federal law without a prescription.Nobody is saying that players didn't know they were illegal, under the law.
Prior to 1990, steroids were not illegal. A prescription was required to have them, but possessing and using steroids was not illegal. Distributing steroids without a license was.
After 1990, certain steroids were illegal. This is different than the MLB banning them. An enforceable drug policy in the MLB must be collectively bargained. This was not the case until 2004. MLB had NO penalties for steroid use until then.
Fay Vincent, HIMSELF, admitted that his memo had no power. You can continue to disagree with him about his own memo, but that seems like a pretty foolish thing to do.
You can believe what you want, but the policy has less frequent testing in the offseason and players are allowed a certain amount of "absentees". I think since the initial testing program thats been toughened up a bit, but in the offseason players shun the calls and simply state they were on vacation or unavailable. Do you really think the MLBPA allowed the program to impact the players while they are on a month long get-away in Tahiti?What makes you think that testing in the offseason has a "minimal chance"? See here and here.
Here is ESPN grades for drug testing programs;
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?id=3408547
Baseball has the toughest policy but again the offseason program is weak with only 5-10% being tested. While I haven't been able to find a link I seen some time ago addressing players who are "unavailable", below is one in which victor conte discusses loopholes in the program including 30 types of steroids which aren't tested for and the fact that theres no penalty for being "unavailable" during the offseason. I've seen elsewhere that players can claim that they are unavailable like 3 times or something before its determened to be a positive...though don't quote me on that as i'm not positive of the number.The offseason program could be stronger, as only 10 percent of players will be tested under the new policy. Baseball still does not test players' blood, but if a viable test for HGH becomes available, it will be considered in an annual review period. How willing the union will be to allow blood testing and how hard MLB will be willing to push for it remains to be seen.
As with the NFL, baseball's two biggest issues are transparency and follow-through. Baseball says it collects information about where players are at all times in the offseason and promises that, under the new policy, a player can be tested anytime, anywhere in the world with no notice. On paper, the policy is strong, but whether the league will enforce it aggressively remains to be seen. Part of its new policy states that baseball will provide a full accounting of its testing annually. And as with the NFL, for a time, baseball also appeared to be testing only at stadiums and with players receiving some warning.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/13/bal...der/index.html
o
I'm not wrong, nor am I twisting it into another argument. Fay Vincent's memo pertained to non-MLBPA members. The MLB had no steroid policy for players under the CBA until 2004. They were "banned" because they were illegal, but MLB had no "jurisdiction" over their use. It was a purely legal matter. Fay Vincent admits this. They had no power over union members. I'm not sure why YOU can't admit that, when the man that wrote the memo himself does so.
You can go on and on about how they were illegal to use, but the fact of the matter is that the MLB had no ability to enforce it, and if something can't be enforced, is it really a "ban"? "We can't do anything to you if you do this, but years later, we'll punish you for it." That's okay to you?
Incorrect. Possession and use of steroids, prescription or otherwise, was not illegal until the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990.So in summary, since 1971 steroids have been against the baseball rules as they were illegal under federal law without a prescription.
Registered User
Cmon now, even the Mitchell report concurred that steroids have been illegal in baseball since 1971!
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3153509
As for your quote here;The Mitchell report took issue with assertions that steroids were not banned before the 2002 collective bargaining agreement.
They had been covered, it said, since management's 1971 drug policy prohibited using any prescription medication without a valid prescription, and were expressly included in Vincent's 1991 drug policy.
Again wrong. Steroids did require a prescription;Incorrect. Possession and use of steroids, prescription or otherwise, was not illegal until the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990.
http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nat...ds-in-bas.html
Under US statutes the acquisition of a prescribed medicine not ascertained by a physician has been illegal for some time. However the US Congress made anabolic steroids a scheduled controlled substance by revision of the Controlled Substances Acts of 1988/1990. Although always illegal, these substances now come under stricter regulation and control. Not just any physician could prescribe them. A physician needed to register with the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency (the FDA) and his state narcotics board. An FDA number is needed to write and dispense these drugs. The manufacture and prescribing of anabolic steroids are monitored by the FDA, and severe penalties given for doctors violating the law.
o
http://www.elitefitness.com/bodybuil...00/008554.html
http://www.ussc.gov/USSCsteroidsreport-0306.pdfAnabolic steroids were required to be prescribed and dispensed by licensed physicians but were not scheduled as controlled substances. It is often overlooked, however, that black market drug trafficking of anabolic steroids already was illegal before anabolics became classified as controlled substances. Under 1988 legislation amending the Food and Drug Act, criminal penalties were specifically set forth for traffickers in anabolic steroids for non-medical reasons. This Anti-Drug Abuse Act would have enabled effective enforcement against those illegally dispensing steroids and black market dealers, including application of federal forfeiture laws, without classifying steroids as controlled substances. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, Sec 2401, 102 Stat. 4181 (1988), repealed in November, 1990, effective Feb., 1991, by the Anabolic Steroids Control Act.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act added a new subsection to the federal Food, Drug, andCosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 333(e). While the law did not criminalize merely possessing steroids,it did outlaw possession accompanied with intent to distribute.Dealing steroids was illegal. Possessing them for personal use was not until 1990. Until they were classified as a controlled substance, you could not be arrested for using steroids, only dealing them.The March hearing resulted in legislation, H.R. 4658, The Anabolic Steroid Control Actof 1990, introduced by Rep. Hughes on April 26, 1990. 45 This bill proposed amending theControlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), to add anabolic steroids as a Schedule III substance, making possession illegal
But it's beside the main point. Whether or not they were illegal under U.S. law is irrelevant to whether the MLB banned them. You can go on and on about how they were banned for players to use, but the fact of the matter is that the MLB had no ability to enforce it, and if something can't be enforced, is it really a ban? "We can't do anything to you if you do this, but don't do it!"
o
Hm, watching Bill Maher on the Larry King show and he said something that made me laugh and that is really a good point. They were talking about A-Rod and steroids and everything, and Bill's reaction was basically "Who cares" because he thinks people care too much about sports, but even he, a non-baseball fan that doesn't watch it except for the playoffs, was baffled by the people that want the records stripped from the books and he brought up era adjustments. But, anyway, back to the point...he said that all the people that are so outraged about players using steroids or HGH need to look at their own dinner plate, as the meat we eat is juiced up to the max, and it's true. The animals that are bred for food are injected with all sorts of antibiotics, steroids, and growth hormone. So his basic point was "America is on steroids." It was just something I found mildly funny and an interesting point at the same time.
Im watching you
That is true about the meat. I find it fascinating how they raise cattle. I haul material into a ton of dairies and you learn a great deal just by watching what they do there. They treat milk cows much different than they do cattles raised for slaughter.
Registered User
thats beside the point. my point was that people saying "players were not breaking the rules as there was no rule" is wrong. There was rules in place, whether or not they could be enforced is debatable and moot.....there was rules in place.but the fact of the matter is that the MLB had no ability to enforce it, and if something can't be enforced, is it really a ban?
o
So, what you quoted is not beside the point. A rule that can't be enforced might as well not be a rule.
Im watching you
So that makes what they do right? Dealing steroids is illegal and players that take part in it are part of the crime, but just because its not written in a rule book that makes it ok?
o
Nope, never said that. For the players we're discussing, the distinction between dealing/possessing is irrelevant because since 1990, possession has been illegal. I'm not saying that what the players did was "right" or "okay." I'm just saying that MLB effectively had no rules about it. Because of that, they had no power over the players' use of steroids.
Registered User
They DID have a rule though, thats what this discussion has been about. And I don't know why you claim they couldn't discipline. They couldn't TEST and therefore couldn't find out for sure who was using, but you bet your a$$ if a police sting found a bunch of illegal roids in a players home or locker the league could have disciplined using their conduct policies as a basis. It would be no different than if a backpack full of cocaine was found. I really have no clue why you keep pounding that they had no rule, when I made it very clear they did (even the Mitchell report mentioned it) and they could discipline if confirmed but had no legal way of testing.
o
See Manny Alexander.
Steroids were not part of the Controlled Substances Act. That is what the Anabolic Steroid Control Act was for in 1990 - it put steroids under the Controlled Substances Act.Uhh...actually no, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 made possession of roids without a prescription illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act
Registered User
That in no way proves baseball could not discipline if the situation warrented it. The police had insufficient evidence to prosecute, why would baseball have anything more?See Manny Alexander.
As for the remainder, it was deleted prior to your post if you hadn't realized that. I did see where it was added in 1990. From that point on, there's no reason MLB couldn't discipline if it was warrented.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote