Illegal drugs and the game

[HoustonGM]

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?

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.

I think the fact that there was no discipline despite steroid use basically being an open secret shows that they couldn't...or if they could, they simply didn't care enough to do so, which just further goes to prove the league's complicity in the problem.

Any player considering taking steroids must perform their own personal risk/reward evaluation. Until 2004, the risk of taking steroids in terms of punishment was essentially non-existent. There was little incentive NOT to use and a ton of incentive TO use.

By the way, my point has simply been that MLB could not punish them simply for steroid use. If a player got arrested for steroids and had to deal with legal proceedings, their team could have obviously suspended them simply to open up a roster spot while they handle the legal issues. The MLB could not suspend or otherwise discipline a player for using steroids. If such a situation arose, the MLBPA would have fought the suspension tooth and nail and would have won because there was no policy in place for it and no testing to prove it.

But, really, if you want to disagree, fine, we'll agree to disagree on that. The point, though, that I feel can't be disputed, is that baseball players had no reason to fear punishment.

[dickay]

I think the fact that there was no discipline despite steroid use basically being an open secret shows that they couldn't...or if they could, they simply didn't care enough to do so, which just further goes to prove the league's complicity in the problem.

Any player considering taking steroids must perform their own personal risk/reward evaluation. Until 2004, the risk of taking steroids in terms of punishment was essentially non-existent. There was little incentive NOT to use and a ton of incentive TO use.

By the way, my point has simply been that MLB could not punish them simply for steroid use. If a player got arrested for steroids and had to deal with legal proceedings, their team could have obviously suspended them simply to open up a roster spot while they handle the legal issues. The MLB could not suspend or otherwise discipline a player for using steroids. If such a situation arose, the MLBPA would have fought the suspension tooth and nail and would have won because there was no policy in place for it and no testing to prove it.

But, really, if you want to disagree, fine, we'll agree to disagree on that. The point, though, that I feel can't be disputed, is that baseball players had no reason to fear punishment.

I never said they weren't complicit. I never said they didn't turn a blind eye. I simply said that people need to stop saying "there was no rule" because clearly there was.

By the way, my point has simply been that MLB could not punish them simply for steroid use.

They certainly could, if they wanted to, but they had to prove usage. And not being able to test, thats awful difficult to do unless someone did it in front of a team or league official who wanted to pursue the matter.

If a player got arrested for steroids and had to deal with legal proceedings, their team could have obviously suspended them simply to open up a roster spot while they handle the legal issues.

Thank you...of course they could because the rule was violated. Thats all i've said from the beginning yet we needed to argue for 2 or 3 pages about it for some reason.

If such a situation arose, the MLBPA would have fought the suspension tooth and nail and would have won because there was no policy in place for it and no testing to prove it.

I agree the MLBPA would have fought it, but whether they would have won or not is very subjective and entirely dependent upon the situation and particulars.

The point, though, that I feel can't be disputed, is that baseball players had no reason to fear punishment.

While I would not argue that point, and haven't argued that point. If they did it behind closed doors away from team and league officials, which they did, then they truly did have nothing to fear because there was no way of testing and finding out. Of course they did have to fear punishment from the law for possession if caught....so while as a whole I understand what you're trying to say...its not as if they were completely out in the open in their usage of this stuff.

I guess to simplify it, despite MLB having a rule you're claiming they didn't have a rule because they didn't punish or claim they "couldn't" punish. My company has a rule prohibiting the use of illegal drugs, yet in my state they can't perform random drug testing. Does that mean they don't have a rule? No...it means the rule is there to explain the company's expectations and provide a policy in which they COULD implement discipline should it ever be proven I am using illegal drugs. For my company that would have to happen by a court of law or if done in their plain sight, just as it would have had to happen in MLB. In no way does it mean there's no rule in place though.....which has been the issue you've been trying to argue with me for 2-3 pages for some reason.

[grasshopper]

My final 2 cents on this.

This argument about legality/morality/ethics etc is now going on 5 years. The solution is to make rules and move on. Barry would probably have broken 700 w/o steroids. Clemens would have won over 300 w/o steroids. Let the records stand/ add asterisks if you want and whatever.

From here on in I think 2 things need to happen.

1) Ozzie has the best plan in baseball. If a player tests positive, 1 year ban. 2nd offense, out of BB for life. If that aint a deterrent, what is? If the Union fights this, they will look like total asses.

2) Get a new Commish. All this crap happened under Selig. I think we need a clean break and getting rid of this status quo commish would be a great 1st step.

[dickay]

My final 2 cents on this.

This argument about legality/morality/ethics etc is now going on 5 years. The solution is to make rules and move on. Barry would probably have broken 700 w/o steroids. Clemens would have won over 300 w/o steroids. Let the records stand/ add asterisks if you want and whatever.

From here on in I think 2 things need to happen.

1) Ozzie has the best plan in baseball. If a player tests positive, 1 year ban. 2nd offense, out of BB for life. If that aint a deterrent, what is? If the Union fights this, they will look like total asses.

2) Get a new Commish. All this crap happened under Selig. I think we need a clean break and getting rid of this status quo commish would be a great 1st step.

agreed with all of this, except for the astericks which are dumb IMO...i would just add to release all 104 names and move on. having it trickle out will just keep this on the burner forever.

[HoustonGM]

I never said they weren't complicit. I never said they didn't turn a blind eye. I simply said that people need to stop saying "there was no rule" because clearly there was.

They certainly could, if they wanted to, but they had to prove usage. And not being able to test, thats awful difficult to do unless someone did it in front of a team or league official who wanted to pursue the matter.

Which is basically my point. The players had no reason to fear punishment.

I agree the MLBPA would have fought it, but whether they would have won or not is very subjective and entirely dependent upon the situation and particulars.

I don't think it's subjective at all and you highlighted the very reason why the MLBPA would've won in the quote directly above this.

[dickay]

Which is basically my point. The players had no reason to fear punishment.

Whatever this means. It was never disputed or discussed....my claim was that people need to stop saying there was no rule against roid usage and for some reason you felt like arguing for two pages.

I don't think it's subjective at all and you highlighted the very reason why the MLBPA would've won in the quote directly above this.

And you yourself said that if a player was arrested the league could suspend them. Again, it's subjective because you don't know the particulars in your make believe situation.

[grasshopper]

Ok my 3 cents.

Like I have said earlier, baseball has mirrored Wall Street. Guys who have the chance to make millions are like children in the kitchen when Mom and Dad arent around. There lies the cookie jar. If they can get as many cookies as they want without any repercussions, they will do so.

Such are the Madoffs and Bonds of the world.

Oh, and **** the MLBPA. They might have been great during the strike and owner collusion, but have now become the Union of providing great defense attorneys.

If baseball is gonna get better, we need changes on all levels of admin.

[HoustonGM]

I won't bother explaining myself on this issue any more. Fine, MLB "had a rule." A meaningless one, but fine "a rule nonetheless."

[dickay]

I won't bother explaining myself on this issue any more. Fine, MLB "had a rule." A meaningless one, but fine "a rule nonetheless."

hey.........thanks. that was simple eh?

[Arctic Blast]

Ok my 3 cents.

Like I have said earlier, baseball has mirrored Wall Street. Guys who have the chance to make millions are like children in the kitchen when Mom and Dad arent around. There lies the cookie jar. If they can get as many cookies as they want without any repercussions, they will do so.

Such are the Madoffs and Bonds of the world.

Oh, and **** the MLBPA. They might have been great during the strike and owner collusion, but have now become the Union of providing great defense attorneys.

If baseball is gonna get better, we need changes on all levels of admin.

Agreed.

[HoustonGM]

Just curious, dickay, do you give any weight to an umpire's stance on the issue?

"They used it to make themselves better," McClelland said. "I can't fault a player for doing that. It was not against the rules of baseball, so I can't fault a player for trying to make himself better."

[dickay]

Just curious, dickay, do you give any weight to an umpire's stance on the issue?

no, not when an umpire was clearly wrong. its been known to happen. again, even the mitchell report said it was a rule. you finally yourself admitted it was a rule.....and now are in here again questioning yourself. Counselling maybe?

[HoustonGM]

As I said, I won't bother explaining myself on this issue any more. I just was curious about what you thought considering a long-time umpire probably has a better grasp of the rules of baseball than most people.

[OldFatGuy]

Speaking of umpires.......

Aren't we going to demand that umpires give up their eye glasses??? Those are definitely performance enhancing.

Cheaters.

I bet they helped some otherwise horrible umpires beat out other, better qualified umpires who weren't "using" for a MLB job, and cost them a MLB umpires salary.

What up wit dat???

[dickay]

Speaking of umpires.......

Aren't we going to demand that umpires give up their eye glasses??? Those are definitely performance enhancing.

Cheaters.

I bet they helped some otherwise horrible umpires beat out other, better qualified umpires who weren't "using" for a MLB job, and cost them a MLB umpires salary.

What up wit dat???

agreed....first food, now eye glasses?? how dare they.