PDA

View Full Version : If Selig Acts, Who Gets Caught?


owensmouth
03-17-2004, 09:05 AM
Just saw this on Fox Sports:

http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2237996

So if Selig follows up, who gets caught?

Bonds, the Yankees, Sammie?

Jerko
03-17-2004, 09:09 AM
I'll believe it when I see it. I wonder if everyone could get "clean" before he makes a decision though, so nobody may get caught unless they just do it randomly instead of announcing it to the world.

Railsplitter
03-17-2004, 09:25 AM
As I understand it, it takes about four weeks for steriods to completely leave one's system. If Selig dithers for a month, then we should see what players will do either lay off or get the idea it won't happen.

Maximo
03-17-2004, 10:04 AM
Even if someone acts to alleviate the problem......Selig, Congress, whomever......I don't think they'll ever be able to prove who used them in the past, unless the person is still on them. And it would take a fool to still be using them after the 'steroid police' go into action. (Sammy?)

Therefore, we will be left to follow such things as reductions in a player's performance....i.e. homeruns....to draw conclusions about whether a player used them up to this time.

Unfortunately.....if justice is to be served.....I'm afraid we will have to be content that the trial will be held in the court of public opinion. While never proven, the tag of "steroid user" may be something some of these current superstars will carry with them forever.

jabrch
03-17-2004, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Maximo
Even if someone acts to alleviate the problem......Selig, Congress, whomever......I don't think they'll ever be able to prove who used them in the past, unless the person is still on them. And it would take a fool to still be using them after the 'steroid police' go into action. (Sammy?)

Therefore, we will be left to follow such things as reductions in a player's performance....i.e. homeruns....to draw conclusions about whether a player used them up to this time.

Unfortunately.....if justice is to be served.....I'm afraid we will have to be content that the trial will be held in the court of public opinion. While never proven, the tag of "steroid user" may be something some of these current superstars will carry with them forever.

Current and former. Don't leave Mark McMgwire off the roids list.

rmusacch
03-17-2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by owensmouth
Just saw this on Fox Sports:

http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2237996

So if Selig follows up, who gets caught?

Bonds, the Yankees, Sammie?

He has not invoked the clause yet on anything so what makes us believe that he will this time?

jackbrohamer
03-17-2004, 11:11 AM
If he invokes the clause for that purpose, I bet he does it so no star players get caught. He believes big HR numbers are good for attendance & increase profits so Sosa, Bonds, Giambi and the other juiced-up stars will be safe.

Tekijawa
03-17-2004, 11:18 AM
Why do you think the Cubs keep Sammy's "pee assistant" around?

soxfan26
03-17-2004, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Maximo
Even if someone acts to alleviate the problem......Selig, Congress, whomever......I don't think they'll ever be able to prove who used them in the past, unless the person is still on them. And it would take a fool to still be using them after the 'steroid police' go into action. (Sammy?)

Therefore, we will be left to follow such things as reductions in a player's performance....i.e. homeruns....to draw conclusions about whether a player used them up to this time.

Unfortunately.....if justice is to be served.....I'm afraid we will have to be content that the trial will be held in the court of public opinion. While never proven, the tag of "steroid user" may be something some of these current superstars will carry with them forever.

Well said. I'm glad Bud realized he was the commissioner of baseball. In my opinion he has to invoke this clause, for the game.

But just as you said in your post, it won't change the past, and will make for years of barroom speculation...

:gulp:

Baby Fisk
03-17-2004, 11:33 AM
I wonder if "in the best interests of baseball", some sacrificial lambs may be singled out to deflect from the big names of the sport. This is a horrible notion, already alluded to above, but is it possible? I think so.

The sport of cycling has spent the better part of the last decade combatting the problem of performance-enhancing drugs among riders. Some of the greatest riders in the world (including one world champion) have been caught taking drugs. They have received suspensions, "paid their dues" and returned to pro racing without much of a fuss later. It is the lesser known riders who seem to pay a higher price. If an unknown is caught doping, he is thrown off his team, suspended from racing and pretty much ostracized from the sport. I guess it allows the cycling establishment to point to "cheaters" and single them out as bad athletes who got the ostracism they deserved. The establishment clears its conscience, suspicion is deflected from the big name riders, and the sport rolls on. Where the double standard comes in is with popular or champion riders, who are able to come back from a drug suspension and sign with big teams for decent money as if nothing happened. COULD THIS SCENARIO HAPPEN IN BASEBALL?

Lip Man 1
03-17-2004, 11:41 AM
A history lesson to all.....

Proud To be Your Bud also said he was thinking about using those same powers to allow A-Rod to be traded to the Red Sox... we all say how that turned out didn't we?

Bud will do nothing .

Personally I hope he does....I'd love for Don Fehr to say (and he is allowed to, if the CBA is agreed to be re-opened), 'now let's talk about this debt-reduction rule you put in that is preventing teams for going out and signing free agents...'

Remember if the CBA is agreed to be reopened and renegotiated then all items are fair game.

This is a PR move on Bud's part, nothing more. I seriously doubt that anything comes of it.

If this was that big of a deal to Bud and his fellow morons , ehr... I mean owners, then they would have risked a shut down in baseball over it when they were negotiating the CBA that was signed in August 2002.

It wasn't that big of a deal to the owners though, because they were more interesting in economic items like the luxury tax and revenue sharing, which would increase their profits, then the drug issue they probably condoned themselves in an effort to get fans back after the 94 labor debacle.

Bud is totally laughable. What a clown.

Lip

rahulsekhar
03-17-2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
A history lesson to all.....

Proud To be Your Bud also said he was thinking about using those same powers to allow A-Rod to be traded to the Red Sox... we all say how that turned out didn't we?

Bud will do nothing .

A HUGE difference between allowing a player to be traded and performance enhancing drugs, so I'm not sure that's a good analogy. I may talk about squishing a bug but not do it, but I sure as heck would jump on a dog attacking my kids.


Personally I hope he does....I'd love for Don Fehr to say (and he is allowed to, if the CBA is agreed to be re-opened), 'now let's talk about this debt-reduction rule you put in that is preventing teams for going out and signing free agents...'

Remember if the CBA is agreed to be reopened and renegotiated then all items are fair game.

Except that unless I'm wrong, his implementing something a commish if indeed it falls under the "best interests" clause wouldn't constitute reopening the CBA. I think the NLRB would first have to get involved and rule in the union's favor - no sure thing.



If this was that big of a deal to Bud and his fellow morons , ehr... I mean owners, then they would have risked a shut down in baseball over it when they were negotiating the CBA that was signed in August 2002.

It wasn't that big of a deal to the owners though, because they were more interesting in economic items like the luxury tax and revenue sharing, which would increase their profits, then the drug issue they probably condoned themselves in an effort to get fans back after the 94 labor debacle.



That's one interpretation - another is that he didn't want to shut down the game again regardless of the issue. You can argue whether that was appropriate or not, but it's a big difference between it "not being a big deal".

Jerko
03-17-2004, 01:07 PM
Funny how NO players want the CBA to be re-opened because they "have to live" with what they signed, but they all want their contracts renegotiated years before they expire. Two faced hypocrites.

npdempse
03-17-2004, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar

Except that unless I'm wrong, his implementing something a commish if indeed it falls under the "best interests" clause wouldn't constitute reopening the CBA. I think the NLRB would first have to get involved and rule in the union's favor - no sure thing.
[/B]

As I'm reading it (and I'm surely not a lawyer), you're correct--Selig invokes the best-interest clause, the union files (a) grievance(s), the NLRB reviews the grievance and decides whether MLB can proceed or whether they're in violation of the CBA. The article on ESPN suggests that MLB lawyers are trying to figure out if they can win if grievances are filed. None of this involves renegotiating the CBA.

MarkEdward
03-17-2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by npdempse
As I'm reading it (and I'm surely not a lawyer), you're correct--Selig invokes the best-interest clause, the union files (a) grievance(s), the NLRB reviews the grievance and decides whether MLB can proceed or whether they're in violation of the CBA. The article on ESPN suggests that MLB lawyers are trying to figure out if they can win if grievances are filed. None of this involves renegotiating the CBA.

You're pretty much correct. Doug Pappas summed up this column in his weblog:
Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle reports that Commissioner Selig may invoke his "best interests of the game" power to, in effect, unilaterally replace the drug-testing provisions of the CBA with those of his own choosing, including more random testing and stronger punishments.
An unnamed "industry source" explained MLB's thinking to Justice:
"It's a health issue. Our doctors have shown us that steroid use is linked to heart disease, sexual dysfunction and other problems. Players are going to start dying if we don't do something."
David Pinto of Baseball Musings worries that Selig's action could prompt the MLBPA to call for a strike. That won't be necessary. Instead, the union would file a grievance and submit the matter to baseball's neutral arbitrator, Shyam Das, to decide -- and the union should easily win any such grievance.
The "health issues" of steroids aren't new. Both parties were fully aware of the dangers of steroid abuse when they negotiated the testing provisions of the current CBA. The CBA also authorizes additional reasonable-cause testing of any player suspected of using steroids, thereby providing ample authority for dealing with specific "problem players." In short, nothing has changed except for the Commissioner's desire to Do Something.
Moreover, Article XIII of the CBA establishes a joint labor-management Safety and Health Advisory Committee charged with "deal[ing] with emergency safety and health problems as they arise, and attempt[ing] to find solutions." This Committee "shall only have advisory authority and it shall not have the power to impose its views or recommendations upon the Parties." When the parties agree that even a special committee created to address emergency health issues can't override the CBA, it's hard to imagine an arbitrator concluding that the Commissioner can do so on his own.
And however divided the players may be on the subject of random testing, it's hard to imagine any issue unifying them faster than Bud Selig's asserting the unilateral authority to replace collectively bargained terms with those more to his liking.
I'd love to see Selig attempt to invoke this clause. MLB would get beaten like a proverbial red-headed stepchild.

As an aside, Pappas' blog (http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/bbblog.htm) is a great source of information for this steroid controversy

Paulwny
03-17-2004, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward


I'd love to see Selig attempt to invoke this clause. MLB would get beaten like a proverbial red-headed stepchild.


Even if they lose ,they win. Everyone will blame the players over the drug issue. The owners will look like the good guys.

Daver
03-17-2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Even if they lose ,they win. Everyone will blame the players over the drug issue. The owners will look like the good guys.

Exactly,because this whole thing has been turned over to the court of public opinion,exactly where Bud wants it.

hftrex
03-18-2004, 04:39 PM
Question is, if the union loses in court will it instigate a wildcat strike and if so, how many players will walk out over their right to cheat?

Daver
03-18-2004, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by hftrex
Question is, if the union loses in court will it instigate a wildcat strike and if so, how many players will walk out over their right to cheat?


All of them.

hftrex
03-18-2004, 05:04 PM
If so, then the fans will support any move by the owners to bring in replacement players and break the union.

Daver
03-18-2004, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by hftrex
If so, then the fans will support any move by the owners to bring in replacement players and break the union.

How long do you really think the fans in places like Boston will continue to pay $45 and up to see minor league/semi pro baseball?

misty60481
03-18-2004, 05:48 PM
if he does enforce will they change the penalties for the players or still just re-hab for the ones caught, also if they catch a Bonds or Sosa will they put a STAR by his home run record???

rahulsekhar
03-18-2004, 09:47 PM
On a related note - anyone see how they'll be treating THG now that it's banned? By that I mean - will they re-test as the IOC and (I believe) NFL did?

Methinks that might drive the % far above the 5-7% for the previous baned substance list.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1


Bud will do nothing .

Personally I hope he does....I'd love for Don Fehr to say (and he is allowed to, if the CBA is agreed to be re-opened), 'now let's talk about this debt-reduction rule you put in that is preventing teams for going out and signing free agents...'

Remember if the CBA is agreed to be reopened and renegotiated then all items are fair game.

This is a PR move on Bud's part, nothing more. I seriously doubt that anything comes of it.

I'm not so sure about that. Bud has the overwhelming support of the public and, after McCain raipped Fehr a new one, Congress as well. What better way to secure one's legacy than to be the commissioner who got steroids out of baseball?

That said, I'm sure that the MLBPA will ask for something in return. And I'm sure they'll get it.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I'd love to see Selig attempt to invoke this clause. MLB would get beaten like a proverbial red-headed stepchild.

And you told me that you weren't biased towards the player's union?

No way that Selig looks bad if he invokes the clause. He has overwhelming support from alomost everyone... even some of the players (Smoltz, most of the Sox, etc.). When was the last time you heard of employees speaking out against their own union?

Maximo
03-19-2004, 09:51 AM
If Bud Selig is smart...........and there are times I wonder if those words belong in the same sentence together.......he'll just keep posturing on the subject and keep kicking the ball into Fehr's court.

First of all, Fehr and the union can't look good on this one if they insist on not even talking about it. Secondly, if the union agrees to open the agreement and some compromise on this issue is reached, Selig will look good regardless of any concessions the owners make on other issues.

Finally....if Selig can't get these guys to talk....Congress will invaribly do something and Selig can do the "well, it's out of our hands now" routine which I think is what he wants, anyway.
He'll look weak.....but take some comfort that the players got their butts spanked by a greater power and presume that the "united front' is beginning to crumble.

Lip Man 1
03-19-2004, 10:15 AM
From syndicated national sports columnist Jim Lizke:

"Say what you want about Fehr, but his logic was nearly flawless and his timing was even better. He told lawmakers if they wanted to ban performance enhancers for ballplayers, all they had to do was ban them for everyone. Then, knowing how much money from the industry flows into political coffers in an election year, Fehr put his feet up on the desk and waited.

He's still waiting.

For all the lip-quivering, hand-wringing pronouncements of the past few weeks, baseball will end up doing the same thing about its drug problem that it's done about nearly all the game's other woes: nothing.

It's not that Selig isn't well-meaning, just that it took him too long to get the courage to stick his toe into the batter's box. On one of those cool spring nights in the middle of the home run binge four years ago, I called Selig at home and asked him if it was time to worry. He pleaded for calm.

"Of course we have concerns," the commissioner said. "But at this stage, we're just sitting back and monitoring."

Besides, the commissioner assured us his men were already on it. He'd dispatched one team of scientists on a fact-finding mission (read: junket) to the Caribbean to rummage through the factories where baseballs are made. He dispatched another team Harvard scientists, no less to study the effects of using androstenedione, the muscle-building supplement that Mark McGwire used during his record-breaking 1998 season.

The study concluded andro probably translated into bigger muscles and could be hazardous to a ballplayer's health. Selig promptly thanked the researchers for a "significant contribution to the science surrounding its use" and put the study in a drawer.

Four years later, baseballs are still made the same way and baseball players can still use andro.

On Wednesday, Red Sox outfielder Johnny Damon said what a lot of people are thinking: Everybody in the game knew what was going on, but figured that if being big paid well, then bigger would pay even better.

"What boosted attendance in baseball more than home runs, guys taking steroids and hitting home runs?" Damon said. "That boosted attendance. It boosted salaries. It boosted money for owners."

Lip

Kittle
03-19-2004, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
He dispatched another team Harvard scientists, no less to study the effects of using androstenedione, the muscle-building supplement that Mark McGwire used during his record-breaking 1998 season.

The study concluded andro probably translated into bigger muscles and could be hazardous to a ballplayer's health. Selig promptly thanked the researchers for a "significant contribution to the science surrounding its use" and put the study in a drawer.

Four years later, baseballs are still made the same way and baseball players can still use andro.

On Wednesday, Red Sox outfielder Johnny Damon said what a lot of people are thinking: Everybody in the game knew what was going on, but figured that if being big paid well, then bigger would pay even better.

"What boosted attendance in baseball more than home runs, guys taking steroids and hitting home runs?" Damon said. "That boosted attendance. It boosted salaries. It boosted money for owners."

Lip

No doubt that the owners knew what was going on in the late '90s and swept the issue under the rug. It's to the point now where something has to be done, though.

FWIW, the Federal government is looking into banning Andro. Increased testosterone production in the body (which is what Andro does) has also been linked to elevated levels of prostate cancer. More studies are currently being carried out in this area.

Maximo
03-19-2004, 10:50 AM
Let's see....other ways baseball could improve attendance by increasing scoring through the means of longer and more frequent homeruns.

1. Move in the fences.
2. Adjust the height of the pitcher's mound.
3. Further reduce the 'strike zone'.
4. Only use aluminum or alloy type bats.
5. Use a golfball instead of a baseball, preferably the "Lady Precept".
6. Hire Nardi Contrearas to the position of assistant to the Commissioner in charge of pitching.

Any or all of the above...and many more too numerous to mention...will all add "to the wonderment of the game" and put more money into the players' and owners' pockets......and they're all at no risk to the participant and perfectly legal.

What a crock!!!! Owners and players can't see the forest through the trees.

MarkEdward
03-19-2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
And you told me that you weren't biased towards the player's union?

I think I said I agreed with most of the MLBPA's policies. You can correct me if I'm remembering wrong, though.

No way that Selig looks bad if he invokes the clause. He has overwhelming support from alomost everyone...

Since when has the MLBPA cared about public opinion?

even some of the players (Smoltz, most of the Sox, etc.). When was the last time you heard of employees speaking out against their own union?

Anecdotally, my mom's dad quit his union because he disagreed with some of their policies.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I think I said I agreed with most of the MLBPA's policies.

I also remember you saying that you "support the status quo." So, turning a blind eye to steroid use is the status quo that you support?

Since when has the MLBPA cared about public opinion?

Certainly not recently, which is why they'll look like a bunch of criminals if they threaten to walk out over this. They certainly won't be "smacking MLB around like a red-headed stepchild" with public and legislative opinion strongly on Selig's side.

Anecdotally, my mom's dad quit his union because he disagreed with some of their policies.

Wouldn't you agree that schism between pro- and anti-steroid testing players is pretty significant? And this is supposedly one of the most powerful unions in the country? Looks like their solidarity is cracking.

MarkEdward
03-19-2004, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
I also remember you saying that you "support the status quo." So, turning a blind eye to steroid use is the status quo that you support?

I don't think baseball is turning a blind eye toward steroids. They have a policy in place, so they're not ignoring the problem. Now, one can argue that these policies don't far enough to diminish steroid use, but that's another argument.

Certainly not recently, which is why they'll look like a bunch of criminals if they threaten to walk out over this.

I haven't heard anything about the players walking out over this.

They certainly won't be "smacking MLB around like a red-headed stepchild" with public and legislative opinion strongly on Selig's side.

Public opinion may be on Selig's side. Legally, however, Bud doesn't have a foot to stand on; hence the "beaten like a red-headed stepchild" line.

Wouldn't you agree that schism between pro- and anti-steroid testing players is pretty significant? And this is supposedly one of the most powerful unions in the country? Looks like their solidarity is cracking.

Well, if the schism is that deep (and I'm not really sure how deep it is), I'd hope that the players pushing for a "better" policy step up and speak their minds. Also, I don't think this controversy will lead to the end of the MLBPA. If I had to guess, I'd say this will be resolved rather quickly, with little proverbial bloodshed.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Public opinion may be on Selig's side. Legally, however, Bud doesn't have a foot to stand on; hence the "beaten like a red-headed stepchild" line.

Sure he does. Bud can go ahead and lock out the players belonging to the MLBPA. And the beauty of it is that the union will be the ones that looks bad when that happens.

MarkEdward
03-19-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
Sure he does. Bud can go ahead and lock out the players belonging to the MLBPA. And the beauty of it is that the union will be the ones that looks bad when that happens.

Huh? First, what reasoning would Selig have for locking the players out? Second, if a lockout occurred, the MLBPA goes to either Das or the NLRB, and either one of these will allow the players to play again.

And I don't see how the players will look bad if the owners are the ones bargaining in bad (and illegal, and unethical) faith.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Huh? First, what reasoning would Selig have for locking the players out? Second, if a lockout occurred, the MLBPA goes to either Das or the NLRB, and either one of these will allow the players to play again.

And I don't see how the players will look bad if the owners are the ones bargaining in bad (and illegal, and unethical) faith.

(1) Selig could force the union to agree to a new CBA (with proper testing) and lock the players out until that agreement is reached. It might be financially unwise for both sides, though.

(2) The players refusing to be properly tested for performance-enhancing drugs makes the owners look bad? I'd say that it'd make Selig look like a hero for driving steroid out of baseball.

Daver
03-19-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
(1) Selig could force the union to agree to a new CBA (with proper testing) and lock the players out until that agreement is reached. It might be financially unwise for both sides, though.


Not legally he can't.

The CBA signed in 2002 is binding to both sides,MLB has to live up to their end of the bargain.

If he were to lock out the players he would have the NLRB hauling him to court so fast it would make your head spin.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Not legally he can't.

The CBA signed in 2002 is binding to both sides,MLB has to live up to their end of the bargain.

If he were to lock out the players he would have the NLRB hauling him to court so fast it would make your head spin.

So, the players are allowed to strike before the end of a CBA (e.g., August of '94), but the owners can't do the same thing? Interesting...

The CBA is up in two years, correct? Something will definitely be done then, if not before.

Daver
03-19-2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
So, the players are allowed to strike before the end of a CBA (e.g., August of '94), but the owners can't do the same thing? Interesting...

The CBA is up in two years, correct? Something will definitely be done then, if not before.

The CBA was expired in 94,they were playing under the old CBA as requested by Shyam Dys,so that good faith negotiations good be continued without a work stoppage.The players struck because the owners were not negiating in good faith and were preparing to lock them out at the end of season.

This situation is quite different from that.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The CBA was expired in 94,they were playing under the old CBA as requested by Shyam Dys,so that good faith negotiations good be continued without a work stoppage.The players struck because the owners were not negiating in good faith and were preparing to lock them out at the end of season.

This situation is quite different from that.

I had forgotten that the CBA had expired by then (thought it was good through the season).

ode to veeck
03-19-2004, 11:59 PM
6. Hire Nardi Contrearas to the position of assistant to the Commissioner in charge of pitching.

*****! ... and all the pitchers would be gone through like "Butter!"