PDA

View Full Version : Schilling, Damon whining


gosox41
03-19-2004, 07:33 AM
Gotta love these guys whining about the steroid policy. Today's article in the Trib had a quote from these two guys, and at least it was very entertaining reading, even if it is illogical.


Now I do realize these guys are skeptical of owners, as I would also be skeptical of most owners, but they're argument don't make senst.

For example:

Curt says: if "you find an independent third party that will handle drug testing free of ownership input, I'd bet that 99.9% of the players in baseball woulsd say please do it."

In reality, there are 2 comapnies that MLB and the MBBPA hire jointly to do testing. If both sides are paying for 2 companies to do testing, then how are the owners controlling things. Maybe the players are slipping cash under the table so fewer positive results come back. See how ludicrous Curt's argument is here?
Also, MLB has offered to have the USASDA do the testing. They're also independent and do the testing for the NFL and USOC.

Curt says: "We had a drug test last year that we were told was absolutely confidential. Coe to find out a year later it isn't. That's ownership in a nutshell.

In reality, there were Federal subpoena's issued for this infromation. Baseball didn't volunteer it, the Feds demanded it. I'm no big city lawyer (or a lawyer at all for that matter) but isn't it kind of difficult to not answer a Federal Subpoena.

And also if the owners did breach a confidentiality agreement illegally, when are Sheffield, Giambi, and Bonds going to sue for libel. Maybe MLB had to give up the info. that pertained dolely to BALCO. Not every player that tested positvie (between 50-60 based on esitmates) was named, just the one's associated with BLCO.

Damon says: "I actually believe the owners want [steroids] in the game. What boosted attendenacne in baseball more than home runs...It boosted money for the owners."

Well it did Johnny, but it also boosted money for the players. Guys like Sosa, Bonds, and Sheffield made a lot of extra money by hitting those HR's. The owners weren't the only party that benefitted. And if those greedy owners were making so much money, what's their incentive to release names of its biggest stars to cause such negative PR. It blows Curt's logic out of the water.

Also, keep in mind there has been no evidence of owners urging players to juice up. There is a strict minor league drug testing policy. If owners wanted the player' to juice up, why not start them when they're 19-20 instead of waiting to 25? Lastly, any player that did juice up chose to on his own. I doubt ownership tied him down and shot them up.

Certain players chose to cheat. That's the reality. No one made them or is framing them to test positive. No one in basbeall benefits the longer this steroid issue lingers like a black cloud..

I just find it interesting how the players react to this investigation. They get so defensive it makes me wonder if certain players have something to hid.

Bob

RKMeibalane
03-19-2004, 07:59 AM
I agree. If the players have nothing to hide, what are they worried about?

More than anything, I'm dissapointed by the way certain players have reacted to this situation, even the ones who haven't necessarily been accused of cheating. Steroid use is against the rules, period. Why is it so hard for these guys to accept the fact that mistakes have been made? The sooner baseball deals with the problem, the sooner it can be solved. Ignoring the steroids issue won't make it go away.

Contrary to what Damnon thinks, steroids are not good for the game. Baseball has already been hurt by a recent work-stoppage. The steroids mess is only going to damage the sport further. However, it may be possible to minimize the damage that is done if the steroids situation is dealt with now, as opposed to much later.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I agree. If the players have nothing to hide, what are they worried about?

More than anything, I'm dissapointed by the way certain players have reacted to this situation, even the ones who haven't necessarily been accused of cheating. Steroid use is against the rules, period. Why is it so hard for these guys to accept the fact that mistakes have been made? The sooner baseball deals with the problem, the sooner it can be solved. Ignoring the steroids issue won't make it go away.

Contrary to what Damnon thinks, steroids are not good for the game. Baseball has already been hurt by a recent work-stoppage. The steroids mess is only going to damage the sport further. However, it may be possible to minimize the damage that is done if the steroids situation is dealt with now, as opposed to much later.

Agreed.

The problem is that the players union sees the steroid issue as one of power, whereas almost everyone else sees it as an issue of right and wrong. I can understand the union throwing a fit over the salary cap issue, but this is just ridiculous.

This and the rejection of the A-Rod trade have convinced me that the MLBPA are just as greedy and power-hungry as the owners.

sas1974
03-19-2004, 10:20 AM
It seems that they are most upset about the confidentiality issue. And I have to agree with them here - ONLY on the first run of tests. They said that the first run was supposed to determine the percentage of players that were juicing. If more than 5%(I think that was the magic number) of the players tested positive, then they would invoke the second wave of testing. That FIRST run should have been a double blind test. There should have been unique, random numbers set up for each sample and any information linking the sample to the player should have been destroyed.

Once it was determined that they had surpassed the 5% threshold, then the second wave of tests should be the ones that remove anonymity from the process.

Jerko
03-19-2004, 10:23 AM
Two things that really piss me off about this steroid thing.

1. Fehr trying to protect players' "right to privacy". If the rules state that certain drugs are banned, the agency who oversees those rules needs to have some way of enforcing them, like, DRUG TESTS! (gasp!)

2. Buttplugs like Tim Hudson (I think it was Hudson, if not it was Mulder) saying that "Well, we're stuck with it this way until 2006, we signed off on that" referring to the CBA. Well, you signed off on your contracts too but I don't see any players not wanting to renegotiate those! If you're going to honor signing the CBA, at least honor your own contracts. Maybe if the players were told that contract renegotiations would end, they'd re-open those CBA talks in a heartbeat to change the current "policy".

Like I said; I'd be less mad if these cheaters just "admit" they did it instead of all this double talking and legal-ese coming from their yaps. They use the same damn argument for 2 different viewpoints. Very inconsistent and hypocritical.

sas1974
03-19-2004, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Jerko
Two things that really piss me off about this steroid thing.

1. Fehr trying to protect players' "right to privacy". If the rules state that certain drugs are banned, the agency who oversees those rules needs to have some way of enforcing them, like, DRUG TESTS! (gasp!)

2. Buttplugs like Tim Hudson (I think it was Hudson, if not it was Mulder) saying that "Well, we're stuck with it this way until 2006, we signed off on that" referring to the CBA. Well, you signed off on your contracts too but I don't see any players not wanting to renegotiate those! If you're going to honor signing the CBA, at least honor your own contracts. Maybe if the players were told that contract renegotiations would end, they'd re-open those CBA talks in a heartbeat to change the current "policy".

I agree w/ you on both points and I think #2 was excellent. All of the sudden a contract is non-negotiable w/ these greedy bastards.

And MLBPA is protecting a privacy that the players don't even want(in regards to 'roids).

Dadawg_77
03-19-2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by sas1974
I agree w/ you on both points and I think #2 was excellent. All of the sudden a contract is non-negotiable w/ these greedy bastards.

And MLBPA is protecting a privacy that the players don't even want(in regards to 'roids).

First thing to know is Baseball Union Leadership (Orza) has a background with the ALCU, so privacy issue is one of the things they argue because they believe in it. If you suspect a player of cheating then test, but if you suspect nothing then you can't test. By testing everyone you are assuming the player is guilty, and must take the test to prove his innocence.

What you are seeing for Schilling and Damon is a complete lack of trust by players. This lack of trust from both sides makes MLB and MLBPA negotiations very hostile. The CBA can be reopened but once it is, everything is back on the table. So if MLBPA agrees to have a stricter testing policy, MLBPA may ask for something return. Also when was the last time a baseball player held out? They might complain about their contract status but I can't recall a baseball player who held out for any significant amount of time.

Lip Man 1
03-19-2004, 11:18 AM
I'd say the past 100 years of arrogance, stupidity, greed and vindictiveness by the owners is more then enough cause for Schilling and his ilk to feel the way they do.

After all the past 20 years with our own owner is a perfect textbook case study don't you think?

Lip

Kittle
03-19-2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by sas1974
And MLBPA is protecting a privacy that the players don't even want(in regards to 'roids).

It's interesting that the MLBPA regards hiding illegal drug use as a "privacy" issue. I'd argue that the league's right to a drug-free work environment supercedes that claim.

And I'll be that every single person on this board would be willing to pee in a cup every day for a major league player's salary.

sas1974
03-19-2004, 11:37 AM
If they do go back to the CBA, I think everything else should be off limits on both sides. This should be an addendum. There is no need to cloud the issue w/ labor demands, salary caps or any other topics.

Steroids are ruining the game for everybody involved. It's in everyone's best interest to get rid of them and get rid of those using them.

MarkEdward
03-19-2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I agree. If the players have nothing to hide, what are they worried about?

This is the same reasoning used to justify the unconstitutional Patriot Act and other privacy infringements. Do you support the Patriot Act?

Originally posted by Jerko
Two things that really piss me off about this steroid thing.
1. Fehr trying to protect players' "right to privacy". If the rules state that certain drugs are banned, the agency who oversees those rules needs to have some way of enforcing them, like, DRUG TESTS! (gasp!)

You seem to be misunderstanding the MLBPA's position. The union has agreed to drug testing. However, they oppose expanding various aspects of the testing policy. The MLBPA argues that the expansions will infringe upon their right to privacy.

2. Buttplugs like Tim Hudson (I think it was Hudson, if not it was Mulder) saying that "Well, we're stuck with it this way until 2006, we signed off on that" referring to the CBA. Well, you signed off on your contracts too but I don't see any players not wanting to renegotiate those!

Which players have wanted to re-negotiate their contract since the latest CBA?

If you're going to honor signing the CBA, at least honor your own contracts.

Well, as far as I know, every major league baseball player *is* honoring his contract. I don't see any players sitting out this spring. If one didn't honor his contract, he'd quickly be forced to play once an owner takes it up with any sensible judge.

Maybe if the players were told that contract renegotiations would end, they'd re-open those CBA talks in a heartbeat to change the current "policy".

Again, how many players have been pining for contract re-negotiations in the past two years?

Originally posted by Kittle

It's interesting that the MLBPA regards hiding illegal drug use as a "privacy" issue. I'd argue that the league's right to a drug-free work environment supercedes that claim.

Well, I don't know if the league has a *right* to a drug-free environment. Again, drug testing is a collective bargaining issue. In a unionized work environment, any policy (be it salary or drug testing or anything else) that affects the union members of the work place cannot be unilaterally imposed by management. As far as I know, even the UAW and other less-powerful unions has its drug testing policy discussed in the CBA. The MLBPA is not an exception.

Originally posted by sas1974
If they do go back to the CBA, I think everything else should be off limits on both sides. This should be an addendum. There is no need to cloud the issue w/ labor demands, salary caps or any other topics.

Well, if they did re-open the CBA, only testing policy would be discussed. Actually, Donald Fehr would agree to re-open talks, according to this article:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-selig17mar17,1,3357226.story?coll=la-headlines-sports

Kittle
03-19-2004, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, I don't know if the league has a *right* to a drug-free environment. Again, drug testing is a collective bargaining issue. In a unionized work environment, any policy (be it salary or drug testing or anything else) that affects the union members of the work place cannot be unilaterally imposed by management. As far as I know, even the UAW and other less-powerful unions has its drug testing policy discussed in the CBA. The MLBPA is not an exception.

If the league doesn't have the right and the MLBPA won't give it to them, it should go ahead and unilaterally impose the policy. If the workers don't like it, they can strike. I'd love to see that. Talk about a PR mess for the union...

You seem to be misunderstanding the MLBPA's position. The union has agreed to drug testing. However, they oppose expanding various aspects of the testing policy. The MLBPA argues that the expansions will infringe upon their right to privacy.

Again, the "privacy" argument. If they have a problem with a reasonable drug testing policy, they have something to hide. Let them strike.

MarkEdward
03-19-2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
If the league doesn't have the right and the MLBPA won't give it to them, it should go ahead and unilaterally impose the policy.

But the MLBPA has given them that right! There is a testing policy in place in the current CBA.

If the workers don't like it, they can strike. I'd love to see that. Talk about a PR mess for the union...

The players won't even need to strike. Let's say Selig invokes this clause. Here's the time line:
1. Selig invokes clause.
2. MLBPA takes problem up with Shyam Das, baseball's neutral arbiter.
3. Das rules in favor of MLBPA. Why? Well, Selig would argue that steroid uses causes various health problems. However, prior to the 2002 CBA, these problems were already known. There hasn't been a lot of new information on the dangers of steroids in the past 30 months. Aside from this, there is a clause in the CBA allowing for "reasonable cause testing." This lets management test "problem players." Aside from these reasonings, Doug Pappas adds this; from his weblog (http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/bbblog.htm):
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.

Again, the "privacy" argument. If they have a problem with a reasonable drug testing policy, they have something to hide. Let them strike.

Allow me to use a political analogy. I, along with many others, have various problems with the privacy infringements located within the Patriot Act. Therefore, since I (and Dennis Kucinich, and the ACLU, among others) have a problem with this Act, we all must have something to hide.

The MLBPA doesn't have a problem a testing policy. They have problems with the various aspects of the policy.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Allow me to use a political analogy. I, along with many others, have various problems with the privacy infringements located within the Patriot Act. Therefore, since I (and Dennis Kucinich, and the ACLU, among others) have a problem with this Act, we all must have something to hide.

You're politically aligning yourself with Dennis Kucinich? LOL!!!

I'm not going to debate the merits of the Patriot Act, but the fact is that Selig and many of the players (union members, mind you) feel that the current steroid policy is half-assed. The reason is that the MLBPA wouldn't allow a proper policy during the last CBA. However, Fehr and Orza don't seem interested in compromising. They're more interested in retaining their power than solving the problem.

And, yes, if you have a problem with peeing in a cup at work, you have something to hide. That's a hell of a long way from "unlawful search and seizure." From what I know, MLB's policy only tests for performance-enhancing drugs. These guys can smoke all the weed and snort all the coke they want. They can get away with a hell of a lot more than the rest of us. So what are they complaining about?

Jerko
03-19-2004, 05:56 PM
Ok. As I type this, it is March 19, 2004. It's about 5 pm.

I'll check back later to see how many things MarkEdward could find wrong with that statement

I'll try one myself:

Technically, since it was leap year, the sun, stars and moon are all really aligned as if it were March 18, but since leap year is every 4 years and it's 2004, that means we've had 501 extra days IF in fact leap year started in year zero, so technically, even though it's really only a day earlier than it should be, we have to subtract those 501 days so it's not March 19, 2004 at all, it really should be November 11, 2002, but that was BEFORE the last CBA was signed; so we're really only a day off after all since nothing that happened before the last CBA was signed counts for anything anymore, so technically, since we've only had one leap year since the last CBA, today is really yesterday right now. Hey that was pretty fun.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
Ok. As I type this, it is March 19, 2004. It's about 5 pm.

I'll check back later to see how many things MarkEdward could find wrong with that statement

I'll try one myself:

Technically, since it was leap year, the sun, stars and moon are all really aligned as if it were March 18, but since leap year is every 4 years and it's 2004, that means we've had 501 extra days IF in fact leap year started in year zero, so technically, even though it's really only a day earlier than it should be, we have to subtract those 501 days so it's not March 19, 2004 at all, it really should be November 11, 2002, but that was BEFORE the last CBA was signed; so we're really only a day off after all since nothing that happened before the last CBA was signed counts for anything anymore, so technically, since we've only had one leap year since the last CBA, today is really yesterday right now. Hey that was pretty fun.

LOL!!!

Keep in mind that you're dealing with Kucinich supporter. I'll bet he's also unhappy about the alleged "mistreatment" of the captured terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.

MarkEdward
03-19-2004, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
You're politically aligning yourself with Dennis Kucinich? LOL!!!

Damn me and my liberal political beliefs! :smile: Seriously, Kucinich was the first politician that came to mind when I was thinking about who opposed the Patriot Act. I could've easily had said Russ Feingold, I suppose.

I'm not going to debate the merits of the Patriot Act, but the fact is that Selig and many of the players (union members, mind you) feel that the current steroid policy is half-assed.

These were the same people that agreed to the current policy laid out in 2002's CBA. Was it not half-assed then, but half-assed now?

The reason is that the MLBPA wouldn't allow a proper policy during the last CBA.

Source?

However, Fehr and Orza don't seem interested in compromising.

Fehr may discuss steroid changes. (http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-selig17mar17,1,3357226.story?coll=la-headlines-sports)

And, yes, if you have a problem with peeing in a cup at work, you have something to hide. That's a hell of a long way from "unlawful search and seizure."

Well, that's your opinion. Using this logic, one can argue that:
- if you have a problem with your phone being tapped, you have something to hide.
- If you have a problem with unwarranted searches of your home, then you have something to hide.
People have varying degrees of privacy. It's the CBA's job to give the players' a certain amount of privacy in regards to testing.

From what I know, MLB's policy only tests for performance-enhancing drugs. These guys can smoke all the weed and snort all the coke they want. They can get away with a hell of a lot more than the rest of us. So what are they complaining about?

I suppose that's the difference between MLB's work environment and your work environment. If your CBA (or personal contract, don't know if you're union or not) calls for testing of illegal narcotics, then you must abide by those standards.

MarkEdward
03-19-2004, 06:26 PM
By the way guys, thanks for the Ad Hominem attacks.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
These were the same people that agreed to the current policy laid out in 2002's CBA. Was it not half-assed then, but half-assed now?

Obviously, they were more concerned about reaching an agreement to avoid a strike. According to what Faye Vincent said on the radio the other day, the league's been trying to implement drug testing since the '80s (more about narcotics than steroids back then), but was unsuccessful. Doesn't the current CBA expire in just two years? That sounds more like a get-me-by contract than a long-term solution.

It's obvious to me is that the MLBPA is using their leverage to block an EFFECTIVE drug testing policy. I wouldn't mind going through a strike to correct this in '06 if that's what it takes. Fehr has said that he's "willing to listen," but we all know that's going to be the extent of it.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
By the way guys, thanks for the Ad Hominem attacks.

You have nobody to blame but yourself. :whiner:

Daver
03-19-2004, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
Obviously, they were more concerned about reaching an agreement to avoid a strike. According to what Faye Vincent said on the radio the other day, the league's been trying to implement drug testing since the '80s (more about narcotics than steroids back then), but was unsuccessful. Doesn't the current CBA expire in just two years? That sounds more like a get-me-by contract than a long-term solution.

It's obvious to me is that the MLBPA is using their leverage to block an EFFECTIVE drug testing policy. I wouldn't mind going through a strike to correct this in '06 if that's what it takes. Fehr has said that he's "willing to listen," but we all know that's going to be the extent of it.

No Fehr will negitiate drug testing,he would probably be willing to agree to random testing,in return for the abolition of the 60/40 rule and the luxury tax.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Daver
No Fehr will negitiate drug testing,he would probably be willing to agree to random testing,in return for the abolition of the 60/40 rule and the luxury tax.

I agree that the owners will have to give something back. That's pretty much a given when one's dealing with a union.

I doubt that the luxury tax will go, though, as that was a major point of this past CBA. Not like it does anything, though...

Daver
03-19-2004, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
I agree that the owners will have to give something back. That's pretty much a given when one's dealing with a union.

I doubt that the luxury tax will go, though, as that was a major point of this past CBA. Not like it does anything, though...

Judging from the FA market since the signing of the last CBA I would say that the luxury tax has done a great deal.

RichFitztightly
03-19-2004, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Judging from the FA market since the signing of the last CBA I would say that the luxury tax has done a great deal.

Using the term "a great deal" might be a little strong. I'd be inclined to say it's been a slight improvement.

WLL1855
03-19-2004, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward


Well, that's your opinion. Using this logic, one can argue that:
- if you have a problem with your phone being tapped, you have something to hide.
- If you have a problem with unwarranted searches of your home, then you have something to hide.
People have varying degrees of privacy. It's the CBA's job to give the players' a certain amount of privacy in regards to testing.


It's a pretty big stretch to link drug testing employees in the workplace to law enforcement randomly breaking into private property.

Daver
03-19-2004, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by WLL1855
It's a pretty big stretch to link drug testing employees in the workplace to law enforcement randomly breaking into private property.

Both are an invasion of privacy.

Drug testing defies the the premise innocent till proven guilty,it creates a scenario where you are assumed guilty till proven innocent.

Kittle
03-19-2004, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Judging from the FA market since the signing of the last CBA I would say that the luxury tax has done a great deal.

Or perhaps the owners are just sick and tired of paying the outrageous contracts that people like Scott Boras are demanding. You think anybody is going to give a player a guaranteed $252 million again? No way. Everybody saw what happened when Tom Hicks paid an absolutely outrageous sum of money for one superstar player: He lost a ton of money and his team got worse.

The dip in the free agent market has very little do to with the luxury tax (which, IIRC, only affected one team last year) and much more to do with an inevitable stagnation of rapidly-increasing salaries.

Not to come off as an "owner sympathizer," but I'm all for salaries plateauing. Rapidly increasing player salaries give owners the perfect excuse to raise ticket, parking, and concession prices.

Kittle
03-20-2004, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Drug testing defies the the premise innocent till proven guilty,it creates a scenario where you are assumed guilty till proven innocent.

That's one way to look at it. Another way might be that it ensures a safe work environment in some cases. For example, I'd be in favor of random drug testing for pilots and air traffic controllers.

IIRC, the minimum salary in MLB is something like $300,000/yr right now. That sounds like ample compensation for the perceived breach of the player privacy for the sake of protecting the integrity of the game. I'd have no problem with peeing in a cup every morning at work for $300,000/yr.

Daver
03-20-2004, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Kittle
That's one way to look at it. Another way might be that it ensures a safe work environment in some cases. For example, I'd be in favor of random drug testing for pilots and air traffic controllers.

IIRC, the minimum salary in MLB is something like $300,000/yr right now. That sounds like ample compensation for the perceived breach of the player privacy for the sake of protecting the integrity of the game. I'd have no problem with peeing in a cup every morning at work for $300,000/yr.

You are bringing this to a matter of prefrence now,and that is outside the issue.

Pilots and Air traffic controllers are federally regulated,baseball players are not.

If I was asked to pee in a cup every morning when reporting for work I would tell my employer to go piss up a rope,it is my right as a citizen.

gosox41
03-20-2004, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by sas1974
I agree w/ you on both points and I think #2 was excellent. All of the sudden a contract is non-negotiable w/ these greedy bastards.

And MLBPA is protecting a privacy that the players don't even want(in regards to 'roids).

Some players want this privacy. Obviosuly the steroid users do. So do guys like Schilling and Damon who I have no reason to think juice up, but may change my opinion soon if they continue this doubletalk and whining.

As much as I think ownership can be scum, they're far from the only party in basbeall that is greedy and money hungy.

Bob

gosox41
03-20-2004, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
First thing to know is Baseball Union Leadership (Orza) has a background with the ALCU, so privacy issue is one of the things they argue because they believe in it. If you suspect a player of cheating then test, but if you suspect nothing then you can't test. By testing everyone you are assuming the player is guilty, and must take the test to prove his innocence.

What you are seeing for Schilling and Damon is a complete lack of trust by players. This lack of trust from both sides makes MLB and MLBPA negotiations very hostile. The CBA can be reopened but once it is, everything is back on the table. So if MLBPA agrees to have a stricter testing policy, MLBPA may ask for something return. Also when was the last time a baseball player held out? They might complain about their contract status but I can't recall a baseball player who held out for any significant amount of time.

Based on what you said, in order to test them you have to assume some level of guilt. How do you suspect a player of taking steroids. If MLB starting singling out which players to test there'd be a ton of lawsuits. They probably wouldn't touch guys like Sammy or Barry (which to me are candidates just because of their weight gain and increase in power numbers) but will go after smaller fish to look like they're trying (guys like Benard).

So how is MLB going to get away with determining who is a 'suspect' to test? It will open up a ton of lawsuits and libel claims, something the ACLU or Orza deep down want to see because it gives them more $$$ and power.

The best way is to test everyone. Every player should know steroids are against the rules. Every player knew last year that the tests were coming during spring trainning. Yet 7% (according to sources) still failed the test.

The only names that have come out of this are those involved in BALCO because the Feds are involved. If you're doing illicit activity and the Feds are investigating you there is not much anyone can do in the way of privay, especially if you're famous.

It sucks, but the easy way to solve this is to not take steroids when you know with 100% certainty you are going to be tested.

From here on out whenever the Union complains about a person's privacy or comparing steroids to cigarrettes, I lose more and more respect for what they stand for. They're are other Union jobs in this country where employees are subjectied to drug tests and suffer consequences if they fail. The main issue to me is that steroids are against the rules and the MLBPA is pulling out every trick in the book to avoid exposing how many real cheats there are out there.

Bob

gosox41
03-20-2004, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
But the MLBPA has given them that right! There is a testing policy in place in the current CBA.



The players won't even need to strike. Let's say Selig invokes this clause. Here's the time line:
1. Selig invokes clause.
2. MLBPA takes problem up with Shyam Das, baseball's neutral arbiter.
3. Das rules in favor of MLBPA. Why? Well, Selig would argue that steroid uses causes various health problems. However, prior to the 2002 CBA, these problems were already known. There hasn't been a lot of new information on the dangers of steroids in the past 30 months. Aside from this, there is a clause in the CBA allowing for "reasonable cause testing." This lets management test "problem players." Aside from these reasonings, Doug Pappas adds this; from his weblog (http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/bbblog.htm):




Allow me to use a political analogy. I, along with many others, have various problems with the privacy infringements located within the Patriot Act. Therefore, since I (and Dennis Kucinich, and the ACLU, among others) have a problem with this Act, we all must have something to hide.

The MLBPA doesn't have a problem a testing policy. They have problems with the various aspects of the policy.

my company has as legal drug testing policy that tests for a lot more then just steroids. Can I sue them? Is this illegal? Should I feel violated?

The fact that testing has been agreed to in the CBA means the playes should deal with it. They did agree to it, afterall. You don't hear owners complaining when a player signs a big contracg and then gets fat and lazy. The players are whining about something they agreed to.

The fact is names came out because the feds are investigating BALCO. The last thing the ownes want is this bad PR especialkly around their stars.

The union is trying to use privacy as a way of avoiding tests. If a player fails the test the 3 or 4 times before he can actually suffer his f irst suspension, then of course it's going to come out. These players are in the limelight. If a player fails and suspended fans are going to wonder why do-and-so isn't on the roster and the media will look into it and report back what it finds.

It may be different where I work (I only would get a couple of tests before suffering some sort of consquence) but the nmedia and people in general could care less about where I am. The only people that care when I'm not at work are my boss and co-workers.

Bob

gosox41
03-20-2004, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Daver
You are bringing this to a matter of prefrence now,and that is outside the issue.

Pilots and Air traffic controllers are federally regulated,baseball players are not.

If I was asked to pee in a cup every morning when reporting for work I would tell my employer to go piss up a rope,it is my right as a citizen.

It sonds like Congress wants to get involved in regulating baseball's drug policy. If that happens, I'm sure the players will be less happy then if they just tried to negotiate with the owners.

It's an election year and this is becoming a hot issue (though in the grand scheme of politics there are more important issues out there) and many fans don't want to hear the players union whine and complain. obviouskly some agree, but overall if I were the MLBPA I wouldn't want the governemnt anywhere near my business.

Bob

Daver
03-20-2004, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
It sonds like Congress wants to get involved in regulating baseball's drug policy. If that happens, I'm sure the players will be less happy then if they just tried to negotiate with the owners.

It's an election year and this is becoming a hot issue (though in the grand scheme of politics there are more important issues out there) and many fans don't want to hear the players union whine and complain. obviouskly some agree, but overall if I were the MLBPA I wouldn't want the governemnt anywhere near my business.

Bob

Congress can want to get involved all they want,but they have no legal action that they can take.Congress is making noise to make noise,it gives the media something to talk about.

Kittle
03-20-2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Daver
If I was asked to pee in a cup every morning when reporting for work I would tell my employer to go piss up a rope,it is my right as a citizen.

My point was that just about everybody here would have no problem peeing in a cup at work every morning if they made a major league baseball player's salary. I'll bet you would as well.

MLB players are compensated more than well enough to make up for the alleged "inconvenience" and "invasion on privacy" that steroid testing imposes. If the league wants to randomly test for steroids, they have nothing to complain about if they have nothing to hide.

Daver
03-20-2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Kittle
My point was that just about everybody here would have no problem peeing in a cup at work every morning if they made a major league baseball player's salary. I'll bet you would as well.

MLB players are compensated more than well enough to make up for the alleged "inconvenience" and "invasion on privacy" that steroid testing imposes. If the league wants to randomly test for steroids, they have nothing to complain about if they have nothing to hide.

The bill of rights does not support your opinion,you know the part where it says innocent until proven guilty?

As far as I am concerned,compensation has absolutely nothing to do with the issue,Congressmen are well compensated too,and they do not have random drug testing.

Kittle
03-20-2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Congress can want to get involved all they want,but they have no legal action that they can take.Congress is making noise to make noise,it gives the media something to talk about.

They may. They could always accuse the MLBPA of being an accessory to steroid posession/use. They could charge them with obstruction of justice. I'm not sure if the charges would hold up in court, but they certainly COULD do something if they wanted.

The fact that MLB *and* Congress are both coming down on the union suggests that more stringent testing will be implemented at some point. If not soon, then certainly by the next CBA.

sas1974
03-20-2004, 12:01 PM
I think the point that people are missing is the fact that steroids are an ILLEGAL DRUG, in addition to the fact they are performance enhancers.

Kittle
03-20-2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The bill of rights does not support your opinion,you know the part where it says innocent until proven guilty?

As far as I am concerned,compensation has absolutely nothing to do with the issue,Congressmen are well compensated too,and they do not have random drug testing.

Perhaps not from a legal standpoint, but the fact that these guys are getting paid millions every year and are still whining about drug testing certainly isn't going to garner support from the public. I suppose that a judge would be less sympathetic to these crybabies if this went to court as well.

The reality is that there is already significant drug testing in sports. The NFL and NBA have MUCH more stringent policies than MLB, so the precedent is already there. When the next CBA comes up, things are going to change. If the MLBPA wants to talk MLB to court over this at that time, they'll lose.

Kittle
03-20-2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
From here on out whenever the Union complains about a person's privacy or comparing steroids to cigarrettes, I lose more and more respect for what they stand for. They're are other Union jobs in this country where employees are subjectied to drug tests and suffer consequences if they fail. The main issue to me is that steroids are against the rules and the MLBPA is pulling out every trick in the book to avoid exposing how many real cheats there are out there.

Well said.

WLL1855
03-20-2004, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
I think the point that people are missing is the fact that steroids are an ILLEGAL DRUG, in addition to the fact they are performance enhancers.

This is an excellent point. Replace the word "steroids" with "cocaine" or "heroin" in any of these arguments and any kind of defense against drug testing players becomes laughable.

MarkEdward
03-20-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
my company has as legal drug testing policy that tests for a lot more then just steroids. Can I sue them? Is this illegal? Should I feel violated?

Well, I suppose that depends. Are you in a union? If so, is drug testing provided for in your current CBA? If it is, then you don't have much of a case. If you're not in a union, then drug testing is probably provided for in your personal contract. If it's not, and they're testing you without/against your consent, then you probably have a case.

The fact that testing has been agreed to in the CBA means the playes should deal with it. They did agree to it, afterall.

The players are dealing with it. As far as I know, there were no players that refused to take the test. Therefore, the players are abiding by the policies set forth in the current CBA.


The union is trying to use privacy as a way of avoiding tests.

The union isn't trying to avoid testing. They agreed to a testing policy in the last CBA. Fehr and Orza aren't trying to eliminate this policy. The union just has problems with some aspects of the policy. Among them, they don't want Bud Selig and management unilaterally imposing rules against the players.

It may be different where I work (I only would get a couple of tests before suffering some sort of consquence) but the nmedia and people in general could care less about where I am. The only people that care when I'm not at work are my boss and co-workers.

I think you and I disagree here. You seem to be saying that since baseball players are huge entertainment figures, they should have less civil liberties because of their status in society. I'd call this discrimination. Baseball players, like factory workers or plumbers or electricians, work in a unionized environment. Because of this, whenever certain conflicts arise between management and workers (like drug testing or salary restraints), these problems must be hammered out in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. This is true for the UAW, for any factory work-force, and baseball players.

Daver: good posts.

MarkEdward
03-20-2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by WLL1855
This is an excellent point. Replace the word "steroids" with "cocaine" or "heroin" in any of these arguments and any kind of defense against drug testing players becomes laughable.

Well, there's a bit of a difference. Steroids are illegal *without a physician's prescription.*

Also, for what it's worth, the MLBPA isn't arguing for the legalization of steroids.

gosox41
03-20-2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The bill of rights does not support your opinion,you know the part where it says innocent until proven guilty?

As far as I am concerned,compensation has absolutely nothing to do with the issue,Congressmen are well compensated too,and they do not have random drug testing.

Money has nothing to do with it, but the fact that the players signed the CBA has a heck of a lock to do with it. Stop whining, and start pissing boys, Take it to court after 2006 if you think you have a legal issue to stand on and let's see what happens.

Until then the players need to shut up because their fellow union members were too stupid to quit taking the one illegal substance they knew they were going to be tested on.

Sounds like a rather stupid play to me. Maybe Schilling should be upset at the 7% of the players who failed a test knowing it was coming anyway thus causing more testing.

Bob

Kittle
03-20-2004, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, there's a bit of a difference. Steroids are illegal *without a physician's prescription.*

OK, then replace "steroids" with "vycodin," "oxycotin," or "morphine."

Also, for what it's worth, the MLBPA isn't arguing for the legalization of steroids.

No, they simply strong-armed MLB (by threatening to stike) into an ineffective, half-assed testing program that allows players to test positive several times before any disciplinary action is taken.

gosox41
03-20-2004, 02:10 PM
[i]



I think you and I disagree here. You seem to be saying that since baseball players are huge entertainment figures, they should have less civil liberties because of their status in society. I'd call this discrimination. Baseball players, like factory workers or plumbers or electricians, work in a unionized environment. Because of this, whenever certain conflicts arise between management and workers (like drug testing or salary restraints), these problems must be hammered out in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. This is true for the UAW, for any factory work-force, and baseball players.

Daver: good posts. [/B]

My point here was that if a player gets suspended from juicing up it's going to be a lot harder to hide it from people then if I were suspened from work for doing the same thing. The reality is that most likely if a player is suspended for violating a drug test it will get reported on. Whether that's fair or not also goes into the First Amendment. But more people are going to kow about this player's private life.

If he doesn't want that too happen, might I suggest passing a test that youy know is coming up. All you need to do is avoid sticking a needle in your butt. It's not like these guys actually need to use many cognitive abilities.

But as loing as these guys are in the spotlight it's going to be hard to keep it quiet that they failed a drug test. I think MLB is keeping it in private, wtih the exception of the Federal subpoena for BALCO. I haven't heard 60+ names of the people that failed the test last year.

Bob

gosox41
03-20-2004, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, there's a bit of a difference. Steroids are illegal *without a physician's prescription.*

Also, for what it's worth, the MLBPA isn't arguing for the legalization of steroids.

Nor are they doing much to keep their union members off of it. Do they are about their healthy? The integiry of the work they do? Or is it just about money??

Bob

Kittle
03-20-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
I haven't heard 60+ names of the people that failed the test last year.

What was that sound? I think it was MLBPA's "privacy" argument being thrown out the window.

gosox41
03-20-2004, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Kittle
What was that sound? I think it was MLBPA's "privacy" argument being thrown out the window.

I'm guessing that MLB could not do much to fight of the Federal subpoena's.

What Schilling and Damon (and probably others) fail to realize is that this is not good for ownership either. It''s bad PR that could ultimately lead to hurting everyone where it hurts most...in the wallets.


There's no financial gain in having Bonds, Sheffield, Giambi, and hopefully Sosa etc. come off as drug using cheats. It hurts the integerity of the game (not to mention what effect it's having on kids who actually use these players as role models)

Bob

MarkEdward
03-20-2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
Nor are they doing much to keep their union members off of it. Do they are about their healthy? The integiry of the work they do? Or is it just about money??

Bob

Do you believe the union should be in the business of policing the lives of players? Should the union be attempting to ban chewing tobacco because of its adverse health affects?

As far as I know, steroids aren't addictive drugs.So no, I don't believe the MLBPA should be establishing clinics for those with steroid "problems." However, I do think the union should teach its members about the dangers of steroids and how using can affect one's long-term health.

As for the privacy issue, Major League Baseball (not the MLBPA) has been talking with the U.S. attorneys to stop the BALCO subpoenos. I'd think that this is a relatively big step in MLB-MLBPA relations. One of the most important facets of the current testing policy is its strong confidentiality clause. Rob Manfred, in this article (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1762718), says that MLB will stick by this clause. From what I understand, the subpoenas have little to do with the actual BALCO trial, and there's a good chance that they'll be thrown out. This is pure speculation on my part, but once the BALCO trial passes, both sides will begin to look into changing the testing policy.

One more thing, in regards to the Josh Hamilton suspension. It's being assumed that he was suspended for non-steroid drug problems (like cocaine or LSD). In the past, he was suspended for violating the Joint Drug Treatment and Prevention Program. I don't think Hamilton's case has anything to do with steroids (I got most of the info from Pappas's blog, by the way).

Hope this answered some of your questions, Bob. This post was sort of all over the place, and I hope I was able to help a bit.

WLL1855
03-20-2004, 08:25 PM
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Steroids/anabolicsteroids4.html#addictive

Here's the answer to the addiction question - "sometimes".

The information on the NIDA web page should be mandatory reading for all the parties involved in this dispute.

MarkEdward
03-20-2004, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by WLL1855
http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Steroids/anabolicsteroids4.html#addictive

Here's the answer to the addiction question - "sometimes".

The information on the NIDA web page should be mandatory reading for all the parties involved in this dispute.

That's really shoddy reasoning on the part of the NIDA. Their argument is pretty much "steroids are addictive because people use them even though they know of the health risks involved." I'd like to see some more evidence before calling steroids an addictive drug.

Kittle
03-21-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Do you believe the union should be in the business of policing the lives of players? Should the union be attempting to ban chewing tobacco because of its adverse health affects?

Smokeless tobacco isn't a performance-enhancing drug. Neither is cocaine, heroin, marijuana, or a slew of other "recreational" drugs that MLB couldn't care less about testing for at this point.

Kittle
03-21-2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
I'm guessing that MLB could not do much to fight of the Federal subpoena's.

What Schilling and Damon (and probably others) fail to realize is that this is not good for ownership either. It''s bad PR that could ultimately lead to hurting everyone where it hurts most...in the wallets.


There's no financial gain in having Bonds, Sheffield, Giambi, and hopefully Sosa etc. come off as drug using cheats. It hurts the integerity of the game (not to mention what effect it's having on kids who actually use these players as role models)

Bob

Unfortunately, the MLBPA doesn't give a damn about that. They're more interested in protecting their power than the integrity of the game.

As I've said before, the union is no better than the owners.

Lip Man 1
03-21-2004, 02:29 PM
From Steve Rosenbloom's column in Sunday's Tribune:

Funny thing about the Senate steroids crusade: NFL wonks testified how tough they are on steroids, while baseball union chief Donald Fehr is made out to be the bad guy for doing his job in cutting a good deal. Yet the BALCO investigation allegedly found checks from football players and track and field athletes, not baseball players.

I don't care if Fehr perpetually looks like the before picture for Metamucil. He seemed like the only honest guy in the hearing.

Lip

hftrex
03-21-2004, 03:00 PM
Rosenbloom's a moron.

Lip Man 1
03-21-2004, 11:26 PM
Hftrex says: "Rosenbloom's a moron..."

Another brilliant, thought provoking, reasoned argument about why he's 'wrong...' LOL

Lip

RichFitztightly
03-22-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
That's really shoddy reasoning on the part of the NIDA. Their argument is pretty much "steroids are addictive because people use them even though they know of the health risks involved." I'd like to see some more evidence before calling steroids an addictive drug.

From the March 15, 2004 issue of Sport Illustrated Dr. Gary Wadler, professor at New York University School of Medicine, offered his insight into steroid use. He was never asked specifically if they were addictive but revealed some possible withdrawl symptoms that would leave one to believe that addiction is possible.

quote from Dr. Wadler: If he goes [off steroids] cold turkey...he may experience a withdrawal syndrome, depending on dose, duration of use and if he is taking othe drugs to diminish the side effects. In the first week or two he may experience joint pains, headaches, flulike symptoms. After that, the effects are more psychiatric: irritability, restlessness, mood swings, and depression.

This is no smoking gun and it doesn't appear that steroids are addictive in the sence that nicotine and cocaine are addictive. It seems more likely that steroids are addictive in the same way marijuana is addictive.

MarkEdward
03-22-2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by RichFitztightly
From the March 15, 2004 issue of Sport Illustrated Dr. Gary Wadler, professor at New York University School of Medicine, offered his insight into steroid use. He was never asked specifically if they were addictive but revealed some possible withdrawl symptoms that would leave one to believe that addiction is possible.

This is no smoking gun and it doesn't appear that steroids are addictive in the sence that nicotine and cocaine are addictive. It seems more likely that steroids are addictive in the same way marijuana is addictive.

Just from reading these two blurbs about the addiction qualities of steroids, it seems as though steroids have the same withdrawal affects as some prescription medicines. Anecdotally speaking, I've been taking Paxil off and on for the past year. If I'm off it for an extended period (four days or more) I become extremely light-headed as well as quiet and un-energetic. Even with these affects, I wouldn't say that I'm addicted to Paxil.

RichFitztightly
03-22-2004, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Just from reading these two blurbs about the addiction qualities of steroids, it seems as though steroids have the same withdrawal affects as some prescription medicines. Anecdotally speaking, I've been taking Paxil off and on for the past year. If I'm off it for an extended period (four days or more) I become extremely light-headed as well as quiet and un-energetic. Even with these affects, I wouldn't say that I'm addicted to Paxil.

I wouldn't say it's addictive either, but somebody could make that case. I don't think marijuana is addictive either, but Rashaan Salaam said he was addicted to it. I think it'd be more psychologically addictive than anything, and that depends on the person in question. Anecdotally speaking myself, I've known 6 people who were on steroids and none of them was ever addicted to it. My point for including those blurbs was just to add a little more information to this. I'm sure some mope somewhere down the line would make a case that the psychiatric withdrawal symptoms were too much for him to stop juicin'.