PDA

View Full Version : Why not print the whole article?


34rancher
11-14-2003, 08:36 AM
In this morning's Suntimes, they printed an AP article (http://www.suntimes.com/output/baseball/cst-spt-roids14.html) about steroid- usage. They conviently left out the part regarding the beloved Sox. Here is the entire AP article (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpNWZic251BF9TAzI1NjY0ODI1BHNlYwN0 aA--?slug=ap-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns) from yahoo. Go to the bottom and you will see what I mean.

Just bad, and getting worse.

Testing with penalties will continue until positive tests drop below 2.5 percent in consecutive years.

Major League Baseball penalties for steroid use starting in 2004:
*First positive test: Player gets treatment.
*Second positive test: 15-day suspension or up to a $10,000 fine.
*Third positive test: 25-day suspension or up to a $25,000 fine.
*Fourth positive test: 50-day suspension or up to a $50,000 fine.
*Fifth positive test: one-year suspension or up to a $100,000 fine.

What a joke.

soxruleEP
11-14-2003, 10:29 AM
In the Sun-Times efforts to out Cubbune the Cubbune, they certainly don't want to print anything that would indicate anything positive about the Sox, especially since Shamme has slimmed down so much and it's obvious he's now off the juice.

It's amazing how much the HRs fell off this year after they started testing for the juice.

Randar68
11-14-2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by 34rancher
Testing with penalties will continue until positive tests drop below 2.5 percent in consecutive years.


This thing was a joke from the start, but this line says it all. Once they get to only 2.5% cheaters, they'll test. Then they'll go back to everyone cheating. So, 2.5% of employees cheating is an OK number??? *****.

If these guys are going to find undetectable drugs to take, at least pretend to test and penalize like the NFL does. What a joke.

34rancher
11-14-2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by soxruleEP
In the Sun-Times efforts to out Cubbune the Cubbune, they certainly don't want to print anything that would indicate anything positive about the Sox, especially since Shamme has slimmed down so much and it's obvious he's now off the juice.

It's amazing how much the HRs fell off this year after they started testing for the juice.

When was the last year that no one hit 50? Let alone 60 or 70? Isn't it interesting that the Sham got caught with a corked bat during the one year that they tested for roids? Also, why stop when only 2.5% of people are positive? What percent really was tested positive? If there are 30 players and 32 teams, then in order for them to continue the testing process, at least 48 tested positive after they were given 6 month notice that they would be tested!
How many do you think quit with that kind of notice? How many were on the juice then to begin with?

Randar68
11-14-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by 34rancher
In this morning's Suntimes, they printed an AP article (http://www.suntimes.com/output/baseball/cst-spt-roids14.html) about steroid- usage. They conviently left out the part regarding the beloved Sox. Here is the entire AP article (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpNWZic251BF9TAzI1NjY0ODI1BHNlYwN0 aA--?slug=ap-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns) from yahoo. Go to the bottom and you will see what I mean.

Just bad, and getting worse.

Testing with penalties will continue until positive tests drop below 2.5 percent in consecutive years.

Major League Baseball penalties for steroid use starting in 2004:
*First positive test: Player gets treatment.
*Second positive test: 15-day suspension or up to a $10,000 fine.
*Third positive test: 25-day suspension or up to a $25,000 fine.
*Fourth positive test: 50-day suspension or up to a $50,000 fine.
*Fifth positive test: one-year suspension or up to a $100,000 fine.

What a joke.

I also think it's even more funny that Strawberry was hired the same week as drug testing became mandatory! LOL! Now THAT is irony my friends.

34rancher
11-14-2003, 10:42 AM
This is ridicuous, they are breaking the law, heck with suspending them, arrest them.

thepaulbowski
11-14-2003, 11:38 AM
Did anybody listen to Mike & Mike this morning on ESPN when the had the guy who started the MLBPA (his name escapes me right now)? He was talking about how the testing is a violation of peoples rights and equal to the police searching your house without a warrant. The guy also said, "how do we know that they 5% that tested positive didn't have prescription for the steroids." He also stated there is not conclusive evidence that steriods is harmful (even though Mike Golic mention Lyle Alzado, he wouldn't agree). I think they guys regretted interviewing him, because all he did was ramble on.

voodoochile
11-14-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by 34rancher
This is ridicuous, they are breaking the law, heck with suspending them, arrest them.

There is a fine line there with regards to self incrimination. I doubt the tests would hold up in a court of law.

You cannot randomly test people off the street without showing cause and following due process.

I would think all those people who have been suspended or fired from jobs for using drugs would have been locked up a long time ago if they could actually make that happen.

CubKilla
11-14-2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
There is a fine line there with regards to self incrimination. I doubt the tests would hold up in a court of law.

You cannot randomly test people off the street without showing cause and following due process.

I would think all those people who have been suspended or fired from jobs for using drugs would have been locked up a long time ago if they could actually make that happen.

The tests done by companies on ballplayers and American workers where "random" drug testing or drug testing after a work place related accident are the same tests performed by police agencies in criminal cases so, if it were legally possible, the test results could be admissable in court.

But as you pointed out, the results of a drug test done on athletes and American workers as a result of a "random" test or a test performed after an accident or other work place mishap, are protected by specific privacy laws and, because of this, the results are not admissable in a court of law. I do find it interesting though that media has a way to circumvent the privacy laws by reporting the name of an individual athlete who has tested positive. Then again, maybe they don't and the team and the player agree to a press release explaining why Chicago's favorite right fielder will be suspiciously absent while undergoing drug treatment.

cheeses_h_rice
11-14-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by 34rancher
When was the last year that no one hit 50? Let alone 60 or 70?

1993 was the last full season where no one hit 50 or more (1994 leaders were in the 40s, but that wasn't a full season).

The timing is, as they say, a bit suspicious.

:nandrolone

Doan loo' a' me.

washington
11-14-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by 34rancher
This is ridicuous, they are breaking the law, heck with suspending them, arrest them.

Great point. I'd like to see Shammy Bonds & Giambi get hauled into court to testify, just like Keith Hernandez and those other idiots during the 1980s Pittsburgh drug trials.

maurice
11-14-2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
There is a fine line there with regards to self incrimination. I doubt the tests would hold up in a court of law. You cannot randomly test people off the street without showing cause and following due process.

This is not the reason, since the government is not the one doing the testing. The reason is that drug laws are not applied unless you're a poor drug user or a drug dealer. See, e.g., Limbaugh, Rush.

thepaulbowski
11-14-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by maurice
This is not the reason, since the government is not the one doing the testing. The reason is that drug laws are not applied unless you're a poor drug user or a drug dealer. See, e.g., Limbaugh, Rush.

It's actually the possesion and/or the obtaining that is the crime people get punished for. People have been prosecuted (example Jeb Bush's daughter, Daryl Strawberry) for being caught illegally obtaining the drugs. Nobody has been arrested for failing a pee test (unless parole violations are involved ex. Jose Canseco).

MarkEdward
11-14-2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Did anybody listen to Mike & Mike this morning on ESPN when the had the guy who started the MLBPA (his name escapes me right now)? He was talking about how the testing is a violation of peoples rights and equal to the police searching your house without a warrant. The guy also said, "how do we know that they 5% that tested positive didn't have prescription for the steroids." He also stated there is not conclusive evidence that steriods is harmful (even though Mike Golic mention Lyle Alzado, he wouldn't agree). I think they guys regretted interviewing him, because all he did was ramble on.

I think you're talking about Marvin Miller.

And how do we know the 5% who tested positive didn't have prescriptions for the steroids?

poorme
11-14-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
And how do we know the 5% who tested positive didn't have prescriptions for the steroids?

Who cares? That wasn't part of the deal between the owners and the players.

MarkEdward
11-14-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Who cares? That wasn't part of the deal between the owners and the players.

Should those players then still be considered "cheaters" if they're on steroids for medicinal purposes?

poorme
11-14-2003, 01:30 PM
No one has been singled out as a cheater as of yet.

MarkEdward
11-14-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by poorme
No one has been singled out as a cheater as of yet.

Maybe not technically, but many are already being singled out in the media and on this site (Bonds, Sosa, Giambi).

I do agree that the players caught were stupid, considering it's pretty damn easy to hide steroid use (from what I've read). I'm no expert on this subject, so I could be wrong.

poorme
11-14-2003, 01:48 PM
The testing could vindicate those guys just as easily as could single them out.

thepaulbowski
11-14-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I think you're talking about Marvin Miller.

And how do we know the 5% who tested positive didn't have prescriptions for the steroids?

The let's have the 5% with the presciptions come forward. I wouldn't hold your breath.

maurice
11-14-2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
It's actually the possesion and/or the obtaining that is the crime people get punished for.

There's significant evidence that an athlete failing a drug test (or Rush) is guilty of possession and/or obtaining illegal drugs. There's certainly enough evidence to get a warrant to search their house. The police and prosecutors have discretion to pursue the case and choose not to.

nasox
11-14-2003, 05:41 PM
THe link doesnt work anymore.

Twin Killing
11-15-2003, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Should those players then still be considered "cheaters" if they're on steroids for medicinal purposes?

If their medical condition is such that they need to take a banned substance, they should not be allowed to play.

That's a tough break because I'm sure the 5% are using steroids for medicinal purposes.

StillMissOzzie
11-15-2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by 34rancher

Just bad, and getting worse.

Testing with penalties will continue until positive tests drop below 2.5 percent in consecutive years.

Major League Baseball penalties for steroid use starting in 2004:
*First positive test: Player gets treatment.
*Second positive test: 15-day suspension or up to a $10,000 fine.
*Third positive test: 25-day suspension or up to a $25,000 fine.
*Fourth positive test: 50-day suspension or up to a $50,000 fine.
*Fifth positive test: one-year suspension or up to a $100,000 fine.

What a joke.

For somebody who needs the juice to justify say, a $10 million/ year for X year contract, $10,000 is hardly a disincentive to lay off.

SMO
:gulp: - My juice is made with barley

MarkEdward
11-15-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Twin Killing
If their medical condition is such that they need to take a banned substance, they should not be allowed to play.


Riiight...

So you're in favor of these players endangering their health just to play ball?

Twin Killing
11-15-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Riiight...

So you're in favor of these players endangering their health just to play ball?

Endangering their health? Gimme a break