PDA

View Full Version : Federal Investigators: Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, and others on the juice


doublem23
03-02-2004, 04:55 AM
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpbmdmam0wBF9TAzI1NjY0ODI1BHNlYwN0 bQ--?slug=ap-athletes-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns

Ten bucks says the Cubune or Cub-Times picks up the tidbit on Marvin Bernard and makes a circus out of it.

:moron
Here are the Scum Sox, who would sign a known cheater to play for their baseball team. For shame.

white sox bill
03-02-2004, 06:24 AM
I guess shammy must have gotten his juice from another source. In retrospect, a smart move.
Bill

voodoochile
03-02-2004, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpbmdmam0wBF9TAzI1NjY0ODI1BHNlYwN0 bQ--?slug=ap-athletes-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns

Ten bucks says the Cubune or Cub-Times picks up the tidbit on Marvin Bernard and makes a circus out of it.

:moron
Here are the Scum Sox, who would sign a known cheater to play for their baseball team. For shame.

Either that story got pulled or the link is broken.

doublem23
03-02-2004, 07:27 AM
Strange. It's still the headliner on Yahoo Sports MLB. Here's a new link...

All right, that link doesn't want to work either... Go here, http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb you'll see it.

This is pretty much the main gist of it, anyway:
Barry Bonds received steroids and human growth hormone from a nutritional supplements lab implicated in a steroid-distribution ring, according to information given to federal investigators, the San Francisco Chronicle reported late Monday on its Web site.

Investigators also were told that New York Yankees stars Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield, as well as three other major leaguers and one NFL player, were given steroids, the newspaper reported.

Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, gave the players the drugs from the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, according to information given to the government and shared with the newspaper.

doublem23
03-02-2004, 07:43 AM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20040302&content_id=643742&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp

Here's the story from MLB.com. Hopefully this works.

voodoochile
03-02-2004, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20040302&content_id=643742&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp

Here's the story from MLB.com. Hopefully this works.

The second one, your comma was inside the URL tags. I still can't figure out why the first one doesn't work, but I fixed the second Yahoo one.

Jerko
03-02-2004, 08:31 AM
Those guys ought to be locked up for being dumber than Scammy.

doublem23
03-02-2004, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The second one, your comma was inside the URL tags. I still can't figure out why the first one doesn't work, but I fixed the second Yahoo one.

Man, I'm a dumbass.

Thanks, VC. :D:

soxfan26
03-02-2004, 08:50 AM
I read the story on ESPN.com and saw some additional notes on the consequences the players face for using steroids. In the article they said a player had to test positive FIVE times to be banned?

That CBA is unbelievable. Unfortunately MLB as a whole will suffer much worse if this all turns out to be true...

mantis1212
03-02-2004, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by doublem23
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpbmdmam0wBF9TAzI1NjY0ODI1BHNlYwN0 bQ--?slug=ap-athletes-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns

Ten bucks says the Cubune or Cub-Times picks up the tidbit on Marvin Bernard and makes a circus out of it.

:moron
Here are the Scum Sox, who would sign a known cheater to play for their baseball team. For shame.

The Cub-Times has a story today about Bernard defending Bonds, obviously written before this came out. Talk about bad timing...

Rex Hudler
03-02-2004, 09:02 AM
Here is the problem with this whole thing.....

I can understand the players argument here. Whether it is truthful or not, who knows, but I don't see a way to prove it.

The players are saying in so many words that they never knowingly took anything that was illegal. Considering that the substance in question wasn't known to exist. It couldn't have been illegal if no one knew it existed.

Of course, it has since been discovered and found to be an illegal steroid, but can you go back and punish someone for taking something that they may or may not have known exactly what it was? They could have been told it was a new supplement and not given the details. If I am Barry Bonds and I am a long time friend of my trainer and he comes to me and says hey, I have this new supplement I want you to try, I'd trust him and do it. New supplement products become available daily.

Granted, Bonds and MLB players have the ultimate responsibility to know what is going into their bodies and they cannot be completely excused here. But I think you would have a hard time punishing them in this case. Baseball will have a tough road with this one.

Fisk Fan
03-02-2004, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by white sox bill
I guess shammy must have gotten his juice from another source. In retrospect, a smart move.
Bill

Don't you remember when he got busted in the airport with around $10,000 in a paper bag. What do you think he was buying down there?

Rex Hudler
03-02-2004, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by soxfan26
I read the story on ESPN.com and saw some additional notes on the consequences the players face for using steroids. In the article they said a player had to test positive FIVE times to be banned?

That CBA is unbelievable. Unfortunately MLB as a whole will suffer much worse if this all turns out to be true...

They haven't finalized on all of the details yet, but you are right. The first positive test results in treatment. The second in a suspension or a fine. Beyond that it is cloudy, but I have read about the "5th time".

The thing here was the owners got what they could have from the player's union on this. If they were bargaining only this and not a complete labor deal, it would have been different. But if the owners pressed for more, the union would have demanded the owners give something back in another area. The union then would have stated that issue (whatever they asked for) was the problem in the negotiations, not steriods. They would have said they were willing to give in on steriods, but the owners would not budge on the luxury tax (or whatever they wanted).

The owners didn't want to take the chance the game would get shut down, so they acquiesced.

voodoochile
03-02-2004, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Here is the problem with this whole thing.....

I can understand the players argument here. Whether it is truthful or not, who knows, but I don't see a way to prove it.

The players are saying in so many words that they never knowingly took anything that was illegal. Considering that the substance in question wasn't known to exist. It couldn't have been illegal if no one knew it existed.

Of course, it has since been discovered and found to be an illegal steroid, but can you go back and punish someone for taking something that they may or may not have known exactly what it was? They could have been told it was a new supplement and not given the details. If I am Barry Bonds and I am a long time friend of my trainer and he comes to me and says hey, I have this new supplement I want you to try, I'd trust him and do it. New supplement products become available daily.

Granted, Bonds and MLB players have the ultimate responsibility to know what is going into their bodies and they cannot be completely excused here. But I think you would have a hard time punishing them in this case. Baseball will have a tough road with this one.

Ignorance of the law or of the fact that you are violating the law is no excuse. A guy who makes that much money off his body knows everything they are taking. I'd bet good money they knew they were taking a performance enhancer that just hadn't been banned by name yet and figured they'd go ahead and take it for exactly the reasons you suggest - they could get away with it and not be punished later. If they did indeed take something without knowing what it was for "plausible deniability" then they are even bigger dumbasses than I previously thought. Who in their right minds puts an untested, unproven, potentially dangerous drug in their body. People are going to look back at these HR records years in the future and put a jumbo sized asterisk beside them, or they probably should anyway.

Man, Maris just got screwed and as time goes by, it is more and more apparent just how bad the screw job was. He gets an asterisk beside his name for most of the time he holds the record and then has it stripped from him by cheaters and/or idiots. Nothing wrong with baseball under Bud's watch now is there?

I agree that not much can be done to them from a baseball perspective, but it still reeks of bad judgement, intentional deceit and spin doctoring, IMO.

Rex Hudler
03-02-2004, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Ignorance of the law or of the fact that you are violating the law is no excuse. A guy who makes that much money off his body knows everything they are taking. I'd bet good money they knew they were taking a performance enhancer that just hadn't been banned by name yet and figured they'd go ahead and take it for exactly the reasons you suggest - they could get away with it and not be punished later. If they did indeed take something without knowing what it was for "plausible deniability" then they are even bigger dumbasses than I previously thought. Who in their right minds puts an untested, unproven, potentially dangerous drug in their body. People are going to look back at these HR records years in the future and put a jumbo sized asterisk beside them, or they probably should anyway.

Man, Maris just got screwed and as time goes by, it is more and more apparent just how bad the screw job was. He gets an asterisk beside his name for most of the time he holds the record and then has it stripped from him by cheaters and/or idiots. Nothing wrong with baseball under Bud's watch now is there?

I agree that not much can be done to them from a baseball perspective, but it still reeks of bad judgement, intentional deceit and spin doctoring, IMO.

I'll agree with you and I will disagree. If a substance is not known, it is not illegal. Baseball did not have ANY banned substances, so as far as they knew it could have been something like Andro or Creatine. So the ignorance of the law argument doesn't hold here.

I'll repeat, if my lifelong friend who I trust and has been my trainer for years tells me he wants me to change supplements that he has one that is more effective, I do it. Bescause I trust him. I don't question it at all. Nothing would make me think it was "untested, unproven or potentially dangerous". It would be like him saying hey, we're going to change from Myoplex to MetRx this year.

I do agree that they have the ultimate responsibility to know. And that they can either claim shady or stupid and look bad either way. But I can certainly see a scenario where at least Bonds didn't know what he was taking beyond what he was told. And like I said, in his situation, I would have never questioned my friend and trainer. That is what I would be paying him for.

It's real easy to look back in hindsight and make assumptions based on information we know now.

cheeses_h_rice
03-02-2004, 09:36 AM
So what's it going to take to finally out Sham-ME*? He has the benefit of living in the DR and doing most of his training there, and he tends to surround himself with close friends and confidants (remember Manny Alexander, his friend, caught with 'roids a few years back?).

If Bonds was using HGH or 'roids, then Sham-ME* definitely was.

Kittle
03-02-2004, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by soxfan26
I read the story on ESPN.com and saw some additional notes on the consequences the players face for using steroids. In the article they said a player had to test positive FIVE times to be banned?

That CBA is unbelievable. Unfortunately MLB as a whole will suffer much worse if this all turns out to be true...

But, hey, we can't let the greedy owners take away the rights of the players. God forbid the players have to give up the right to cheat and use illicit drugs!

Jerko
03-02-2004, 09:55 AM
You know, I am kind of a bigshot where I work, I wonder if I can re-write my office handbook to allow myself to take illegal drugs. This way, when I get busted or arrested, the police can't do anything to me because my hand-book "says" I can take the drugs. Kind of how the CBA works. Funny, "no player is bigger than the game" but the entire player's union is above the law.

Rex Hudler
03-02-2004, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Jerko
You know, I am kind of a bigshot where I work, I wonder if I can re-write my office handbook to allow myself to take illegal drugs. This way, when I get busted or arrested, the police can't do anything to me because my hand-book "says" I can take the drugs. Kind of how the CBA works. Funny, "no player is bigger than the game" but the entire player's union is above the law.

They were discussing this on The Sports Reporters last night and they made a good point. The players union is more worried about their own level of power than their own player's health. This question was brought up..... Does the union work for the players or do the players work for the union? It is a valid question.

Kittle
03-02-2004, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
They were discussing this on The Sports Reporters last night and they made a good point. The players union is more worried about their own level of power than their own player's health.

Or the good of the game, for that matter.

This question was brought up..... Does the union work for the players or do the players work for the union? It is a valid question.

They certainly weren't working for A-Rod when they wouldn't allow him to re-structure his own contract.

KingXerxes
03-02-2004, 10:36 AM
Okay here's my take.

The players are now lining up behind the "I didn't know it was a steroid, I didn't knowingly ingest or use anything illegal" line of BS - and that's exactly what it is - BS.

Let's assume that the players are telling the truth. Where is the total and absolute outrage on their part that they were given illegal and life threatening substances? Guess what - IT ISN'T THERE. Why isn't it there you may ask? Because the minute Barry Bonds (or anyone else) sues his supplier, it will come out that Bonds (and everyone else using these things) knew exactly what was going on.

Now before I get slaughtered with "This is America - these guys are innocent until proven guilty" by all the apologists for these cheaters, I would like to remind you that I am not in any position to "convict" them of anything, I'm not a juror etc. and therefor this response is almost a non sequiter to my statement.

I refuse to swallow any more laughable spin or BS from these liars. Admit you took them, and let's get on with life.

soxfan26
03-02-2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Ignorance of the law or of the fact that you are violating the law is no excuse. A guy who makes that much money off his body knows everything they are taking. I'd bet good money they knew they were taking a performance enhancer that just hadn't been banned by name yet and figured they'd go ahead and take it for exactly the reasons you suggest - they could get away with it and not be punished later. If they did indeed take something without knowing what it was for "plausible deniability" then they are even bigger dumbasses than I previously thought. Who in their right minds puts an untested, unproven, potentially dangerous drug in their body. People are going to look back at these HR records years in the future and put a jumbo sized asterisk beside them, or they probably should anyway.

Man, Maris just got screwed and as time goes by, it is more and more apparent just how bad the screw job was. He gets an asterisk beside his name for most of the time he holds the record and then has it stripped from him by cheaters and/or idiots. Nothing wrong with baseball under Bud's watch now is there?

I agree that not much can be done to them from a baseball perspective, but it still reeks of bad judgement, intentional deceit and spin doctoring, IMO.

That post is homerun VC!

That intentional deceit is what I see being the lasting stain on the game.

soxfan26
03-02-2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Okay here's my take.

The players are now lining up behind the "I didn't know it was a steroid, I didn't knowingly ingest or use anything illegal" line of BS - and that's exactly what it is - BS.

Let's assume that the players are telling the truth. Where is the total and absolute outrage on their part that they were given illegal and life threatening substances? Guess what - IT ISN'T THERE. Why isn't it there you may ask? Because the minute Barry Bonds (or anyone else) sues his supplier, it will come out that Bonds (and everyone else using these things) knew exactly what was going on.

Now before I get slaughtered with "This is America - these guys are innocent until proven guilty" by all the apologists for these cheaters, I would like to remind you that I am not in any position to "convict" them of anything, I'm not a juror etc. and therefor this response is almost a non sequiter to my statement.

I refuse to swallow any more laughable spin or BS from these liars. Admit you took them, and let's get on with life.

And that one was the game winner!

That is exactly what I would of said if I didn't have to run off and take an exam.

I'm reaching the end of my rope as a baseball fan. The players are more important than the game now. Meanwhile Pud Selig sits by with that Alfred E. Newman grin and says "Who Knew?"

Dadawg_77
03-02-2004, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Okay here's my take.

The players are now lining up behind the "I didn't know it was a steroid, I didn't knowingly ingest or use anything illegal" line of BS - and that's exactly what it is - BS.

Let's assume that the players are telling the truth. Where is the total and absolute outrage on their part that they were given illegal and life threatening substances? Guess what - IT ISN'T THERE. Why isn't it there you may ask? Because the minute Barry Bonds (or anyone else) sues his supplier, it will come out that Bonds (and everyone else using these things) knew exactly what was going on.

Now before I get slaughtered with "This is America - these guys are innocent until proven guilty" by all the apologists for these cheaters, I would like to remind you that I am not in any position to "convict" them of anything, I'm not a juror etc. and therefor this response is almost a non sequiter to my statement.

I refuse to swallow any more laughable spin or BS from these liars. Admit you took them, and let's get on with life.

Let just find out if the report is true. It isn't like the FBI has never made a mistake and falsely accused someone.

KingXerxes
03-02-2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Let just find out if the report is true. It isn't like the FBI has never made a mistake and falsely accused someone.

The lack of outrage at being accused tells me everything I need to know. If they were truly duped or falsely accused - guys would be bouncing off the walls proclaimiing their innocence. Again I would like to point out that while this "proves nothing in a court of law" - we're not in a court of law.

SEALgep
03-02-2004, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
I'll agree with you and I will disagree. If a substance is not known, it is not illegal. I disagree with that. There are many forms of steroids, and this is just one more. The only thing that makes this steroid unique is that it didn't show up in traditional steroid testing. It is still a steroid, and as such, illegal in MLB.

cheeses_h_rice
03-02-2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
The lack of outrage at being accused tells me everything I need to know. If they were truly duped or falsely accused - guys would be bouncing off the walls proclaimiing their innocence. Again I would like to point out that while this "proves nothing in a court of law" - we're not in a court of law.

Exactly. Whenever I watch a true crime documentary on Court TV, you can always tell the guilty ones were guilty the moment the verdict is read. If you didn't do the crime, you'd be going nuts.

Dadawg_77
03-02-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Exactly. Whenever I watch a true crime documentary on Court TV, you can always tell the guilty ones were guilty the moment the verdict is read. If you didn't do the crime, you'd be going nuts.

Being convicted and being accused are two different things. These guys have tons of lawyers and advisers around them. I would guess they told them to play it cool and keep their months shut. If I was in that postion and my people told me to play cool and keep my month shut, I would follow what the professionals said.

KingXerxes
03-02-2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Being convicted and being accused are two different things. These guys have tons of lawyers and advisers around them. I would guess they told them to play it cool and keep their months shut. If I was in that postion and my people told me to play cool and keep my month shut, I would follow what the professionals said.

And in doing so you would be:

1 - Strengthening your legal position should it ever come to that in order to stay out of jail.

2 - Murdering your reputation and exposing yourself in the court of public opinion to be the cheater that you are.

That's about what's happening.

Jerko
03-02-2004, 11:55 AM
I hate to say this, but nobody is gonna admit to doing steroids unless someone catches them on film taking them; and even then they'll say it was "aspirin" or something.

Dadawg_77
03-02-2004, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
And in doing so you would be:

1 - Strengthening your legal position should it ever come to that in order to stay out of jail.

2 - Murdering your reputation and exposing yourself in the court of public opinion to be the cheater that you are.

That's about what's happening.

True, but if a lawyer is advising what do you think their biggest concern will be, 1 or 2?

KingXerxes
03-02-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
True, but if a lawyer is advising what do you think their biggest concern will be, 1 or 2?

If I were guilty......absolutely #1, and that's what they're doing, and that's what I'm seeing.

cheeses_h_rice
03-02-2004, 12:32 PM
Good thing I look exactly the same!

rahulsekhar
03-02-2004, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
And that one was the game winner!

That is exactly what I would of said if I didn't have to run off and take an exam.

I'm reaching the end of my rope as a baseball fan. The players are more important than the game now. Meanwhile Pud Selig sits by with that Alfred E. Newman grin and says "Who Knew?"

IMO, Bud took the best deal he could. He wasn't the one pushing for less and less stringent drug testing. He was the one figuring - better this than shutting the game down again.

Kittle
03-02-2004, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
IMO, Bud took the best deal he could. He wasn't the one pushing for less and less stringent drug testing. He was the one figuring - better this than shutting the game down again.

And Paul Tagliabue is watching this with that "I told you so" look on his face...

voodoochile
03-02-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
They were discussing this on The Sports Reporters last night and they made a good point. The players union is more worried about their own level of power than their own player's health. This question was brought up..... Does the union work for the players or do the players work for the union? It is a valid question.

Bigger stronger players make more money. The union won't do anything that puts a restraint on income. That is true across the board in all unionized sports.

Dadawg_77
03-02-2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Bigger stronger players make more money. The union won't do anything that puts a restraint on income. That is true across the board in all unionized sports.

They also make more money for the owners.

crector
03-02-2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
They were discussing this on The Sports Reporters last night and they made a good point. The players union is more worried about their own level of power than their own player's health. This question was brought up..... Does the union work for the players or do the players work for the union? It is a valid question.


Actually, that's been a question about unions in general since the end of WWII. That was the main thrust of south sider Ed Sadlowski when he ran for president of the United Steelworkers union in the late 1970's. Does the union stand for the workers or work with the companies in ways that do not necessarily work to the interests of the workers?

rahulsekhar
03-02-2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Bigger stronger players make more money. The union won't do anything that puts a restraint on income. That is true across the board in all unionized sports.

I agree that that's the MLBPA attitude, but IMO that's a simplistic view of unions. Unions SHOULD be there to work towards the benefit of their members in all ways - not just income. This is a huge example. Health benefits, competitive benefits (for players, not teams - so that you're not forced to juice or lose your job to someone who does), etc. In other arenas - pension, health, working hours, and other benefits would simiarly apply (and usually do).

But it doesn't surprise me at all that the union that ascribed 0 value to a player playing in a city he wants to for a winning team (ARod) would ascribe little to no value to those things. Not when they have to potentially sacrifice some income to do so.

What will be interesting is their response to the increasing call from players on this farce of a program. When the next CBA negotiations come up in a year, you know that will be ahuge point and with some dissension in the ranks on this combined with increased public pressure for a stringent program, it's going to be harder for the MLBPA to use it as a negotiating point.

Rex Hudler
03-02-2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
I disagree with that. There are many forms of steroids, and this is just one more. The only thing that makes this steroid unique is that it didn't show up in traditional steroid testing. It is still a steroid, and as such, illegal in MLB.

Before the current labor deal steroids were not "illegal in MLB" at all, because there were no rules regarding them. They were illegal by law, but for something to be illegal, it has to exist.

That is not my point, however. The bottom line is that you can't retroactively discipline someone without proof that what they did was illegal.

steff
03-02-2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Before the current labor deal steroids were not "illegal in MLB" at all, because there were no rules regarding them. They were illegal by law, but for something to be illegal, it has to exist.

That is not my point, however. The bottom line is that you can't retroactively discipline someone without proof that what they did was illegal.


Ahhh.. a much calmer discussion on this matter.. :D:


And I completely agree with Jerko. Unless they admit it... or there is a tape showing them doing it.. and the used needle to test that it is in fact steroids... this will never be proven. No one will ever be "punished".

SoxEd
03-02-2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
Before the current labor deal steroids were not "illegal in MLB" at all, because there were no rules regarding them. They were illegal by law, but for something to be illegal, it has to exist.

That is not my point, however. The bottom line is that you can't retroactively discipline someone without proof that what they did was illegal.

IMO there is absolutely no justification for the MLBPA to oppose mandatory drugs tests.
Even if you take away the fact that using drugs is considered cheating by every other major sport in the world, 'roids (and other performance enhancing drugs) should be banned.

The UK's top sprinter, Dwaine Chambers was found to have used THG at a track meet last year, and has just been banned from competing in Athletics for two years - and banned from the Olympics for life.

This despite the fact that THG wasn't even on the Banned Substances list at the time he took the test he was later found to have failed.
He also denies being aware of what he was taking in his 'supplements' from his trainer.
So yes, in Sports you can be retroactively disciplined for something that wasn't technically illegal at the time of your offence.

I believe he's now looking for a gig in the NFL (yeah, like he can just jump straight into the game at the professional level without ever having played it. Muppet.).

Athletics is trying to make sure that it is clean, and that the fans know that the performances that they see are the result of talent, dedication and hard work, rather than being able to afford a better Chemist than your competitors.

I would even argue that, if anything, prevention of steroid abuse is actually in MLBPA members' interests (and not the owners') - presumably less juicers means less HR's which means less bums-on-seats, but less juicers also means less health problems for ex-MLB stars (and less incidences of wife-beating and other violent behaviours that bring the sport and its players into disrepute).

When there are so many kids going to watch Sports, idolising their sporting heroes, and wanting to be like them, which message do you think the athletes should be seen to give out:

i) 'so you can't make the grade - never mind, cheat', or;

ii) 'solve your problems with Substance Abuse', or;

iii) 'drugs are bad and we won't tolerate cheats or drug abusers'?

Hell, even Soccer has mandatory drug testing now, so why hasn't Baseball?

The MLBPA should look past the potential short-term financial gains open to juicers and demand the introduction of mandatory drugs testing - either RIGHT NOW or, if they think embarrassingly large numbers of players are still on the juice and need time to get clean, at the START of next season.

soxfan26
03-02-2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
IMO, Bud took the best deal he could. He wasn't the one pushing for less and less stringent drug testing. He was the one figuring - better this than shutting the game down again.

It is the commissioners reponsibility to protect the image of MLB, not to mention the revenue streams. A continuing debacle over steroids will not help the game of baseball no matter how you look at it.

We are talking about suspected illegal activity by some of baseball's premier players, and the commissioner is going to wait for the Feds to clean his laundry. Regardless of his reasoning for signing or intentions in signing the CBA, he is responsible for resolving this matter. And if the CBA that he signed takes away his ability to find a resolution then he has failed.

Daver
03-02-2004, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
It is the commissioners reponsibility to protect the image of MLB, not to mention the revenue streams. A continuing debacle over steroids will not help the game of baseball no matter how you look at it.

We are talking about suspected illegal activity by some of baseball's premier players, and the commissioner is going to wait for the Feds to clean his laundry. Regardless of his reasoning for signing or intentions in signing the CBA, he is responsible for resolving this matter. And if the CBA that he signed takes away his ability to find a resolution then he has failed.

Bud was doomed to fail the minute he accepted the job as commisioner,because the MLBPA doesn't trust him and never will.

The Feds are actually doing Bud a great service here,because they are doing something Bud himself could never do,put a tremendous amount of pressure on the MLBPA as far as drug testing is concerned.This investigation and the media coverage brought on by it will have a huge affect on how the MLBPA can react to any type of changes in the drug testing procedure,because it has been transferred to the court of public opinion.

Jerko
03-02-2004, 08:10 PM
Here's what has to happen for me to stop complaining about steroid use in baseball.

1. Make them all legal.
2. Test everybody in public and suspend the dirty ones on the spot forever
3. Prove to me that nobody does it or everybody does it so it's at least fair, or

4. Public caning for anyone in the employ of MLB that ever uses the phrase "the integrity of baseball"; or says "no player is bigger than the game" again.

In my opinion baseball has no integrity and every player being mentioned in this crap is being treated like they are bigger than the game. Look at Sammy and his "lackey" who is probably his supplier getting special dispensation to go from "clubhouse provider" to "batting practice pitcher". I bet dollars to donuts he gets away with it too. Nobody is bigger than the game my butt.


I know all 4 are impossible but hey, I can dream.

Rex Hudler
03-02-2004, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Bud was doomed to fail the minute he accepted the job as commisioner,because the MLBPA doesn't trust him and never will.

The Feds are actually doing Bud a great service here,because they are doing something Bud himself could never do,put a tremendous amount of pressure on the MLBPA as far as drug testing is concerned.This investigation and the media coverage brought on by it will have a huge affect on how the MLBPA can react to any type of changes in the drug testing procedure,because it has been transferred to the court of public opinion.

Can't argue with that.

StillMissOzzie
03-02-2004, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Bud was doomed to fail the minute he accepted the job as commisioner,because the MLBPA doesn't trust him and never will.

The Feds are actually doing Bud a great service here,because they are doing something Bud himself could never do,put a tremendous amount of pressure on the MLBPA as far as drug testing is concerned.This investigation and the media coverage brought on by it will have a huge affect on how the MLBPA can react to any type of changes in the drug testing procedure,because it has been transferred to the court of public opinion.

I agree 100%. Let's get some FBI folks with subpoena power collecting urine samples. Maybe a subpoena would loosen Dusty Baker's lips about traffic in the Giants' lockerroom, too. And I think that the argument I'm anticipating, that the designer drugs that were allegedly passed around to Bonds, Giambi, et al were not illegal because they hadn't been discovered and defined as such is lame. Even if not prohibeted by the MLBPA, would they not be illegal as controlled substances, without a prescription?

SMO
Sipping a LEGAL drug
:gulp:

rahulsekhar
03-03-2004, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Daver

The Feds are actually doing Bud a great service here,because they are doing something Bud himself could never do,put a tremendous amount of pressure on the MLBPA as far as drug testing is concerned.This investigation and the media coverage brought on by it will have a huge affect on how the MLBPA can react to any type of changes in the drug testing procedure,because it has been transferred to the court of public opinion.

I would add that the Feds are doing Bud....and the game of baseball...a great service.

The best thing about it is that FINALLY, we're getting reaction from players against the current farcical "testing". Hopefully that puts enough pressure on the MLBPA to get some actual controls in place.