PDA

View Full Version : Black Sox: Precedent for banning Bonds


Milw
12-05-2004, 01:26 PM
So everyone is saying Bonds can't be punished for using steroids because steroids weren't illegal at the time.

But precedent says otherwise. In 1920, Kennesaw Mountain Landis banned eight White Sox for fixing the World Series -- despite the fact that, technically, it was not officially illegal under baseball rules. Everyone KNEW it was wrong, and it was statutorally illegal -- but the same can be said for steroids!

An even more extreme example can be found in the person of Buck Weaver. He didn't do ANYTHING wrong, yet he got banned. His sin was knowing something was illegal was being done by his teammates and not telling authorities about it. But to take that to its logical conclusion, most members of today's Giants and A's rosters ought to be banned. Certainly, some of Bonds' and Giambi's teammates knew what was going on.

So when people say that baseball doesn't have the authority to ban Bonds for steroid use, it's just not true. They COULD, they just don't want to.

batmanZoSo
12-05-2004, 04:09 PM
So everyone is saying Bonds can't be punished for using steroids because steroids weren't illegal at the time.

But precedent says otherwise. In 1920, Kennesaw Mountain Landis banned eight White Sox for fixing the World Series -- despite the fact that, technically, it was not officially illegal under baseball rules. Everyone KNEW it was wrong, and it was statutorally illegal -- but the same can be said for steroids!

An even more extreme example can be found in the person of Buck Weaver. He didn't do ANYTHING wrong, yet he got banned. His sin was knowing something was illegal was being done by his teammates and not telling authorities about it. But to take that to its logical conclusion, most members of today's Giants and A's rosters ought to be banned. Certainly, some of Bonds' and Giambi's teammates knew what was going on.

So when people say that baseball doesn't have the authority to ban Bonds for steroid use, it's just not true. They COULD, they just don't want to.
Nor will they, so let us move on...

MRKARNO
12-05-2004, 04:15 PM
The MLB has no intention of starting a riot within the players' association, hence they will probably not do as much as suspend Bonds a lengthy period of time. Maybe a short period of time, but nothing truly significant in my estimation.

Milw
12-05-2004, 05:34 PM
Nor will they, so let us move on...
Move on is exactly what MLB and the Players Union want us to do. You can let it die if you want to, but I'd rather see justice served.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-05-2004, 05:41 PM
Move on is exactly what MLB and the Players Union want us to do. You can let it die if you want to, but I'd rather see justice served.
Exactly.

Some people have a moral compass that points whichever direction is the most expedient. It's precisely their attitude that allowed baseball owners to turn a blind eye to the plain obvious juicing that entered the game in a big way in the mid-90's.

It's was also this attitude back in the early 20th century that allowed baseball owners to turn a blind eye to gambling's corrupting influence on the game.

It took the Black Sox scandal to finally shake the owners into action. It will take this juicing scancal to finally shake the owners (and players union) into action this time, too... but no thanks to some of the people posting here.

DumpJerry
12-05-2004, 07:20 PM
Aren't we the real bosses of MLB? After all, it is our money that pays all their salaries and bills. If the fans did not come to the games and watch them on television, there would be no revenue to speak of.

The fans needs to rise up and demand changes. If that means lifetime suspensions for those who cheated with steroids, so be it. If there is resistance, then we should talk with our wallets. We need to keep in mind the fact that this is a game, not a life essential like air, water or food. We can live without it (we did in 1994).

Ol' No. 2
12-05-2004, 09:20 PM
Exactly.

Some people have a moral compass that points whichever direction is the most expedient. It's precisely their attitude that allowed baseball owners to turn a blind eye to the plain obvious juicing that entered the game in a big way in the mid-90's.

It's was also this attitude back in the early 20th century that allowed baseball owners to turn a blind eye to gambling's corrupting influence on the game.

It took the Black Sox scandal to finally shake the owners into action. It will take this juicing scancal to finally shake the owners (and players union) into action this time, too... but no thanks to some of the people posting here.The more I think about this, the more apt seems to be the analogy with gambling before 1919. It was going on and everybody knew it, but nobody wanted it out in the open. They would have continued to ignore it if it hadn't finally been thrust in their faces.

I'm not sure how much confidence I have in either the owners or players to actually take agressive action and not try to find a rug to sweep it under. Unfortunately, I suspect their first priority is to SEEM to be doing something and not to actually DO something, and that's what we're going to get. Maybe I'm just getting cynical, but I don't think most fans care how juiced the players are, and that will allow another fig leaf.

nitetrain8601
12-05-2004, 10:41 PM
You ban Bonds then you have to ban about 50% of the league(prolly more IMHO). That means probably no baseball or very poor quality.

Flight #24
12-05-2004, 11:00 PM
You ban Bonds then you have to ban about 50% of the league(prolly more IMHO). That means probably no baseball or very poor quality.
First you have to prove it or have them admit it. That's the big difference here. But in principle, you're right. That said - do it. Make an example of someone big or a sizeable group of players.

The problem - the MLBPA won't allow it. And I don't have any expectation that they'll be swayed by public opinion on this. The only way that happens is if enough players get pissed to force their union to give on this issue.

What we will see is MLBPA saying "OK, we need better testing, so we'll trade you that for lessening the luxury tax".

BRDSR
12-05-2004, 11:00 PM
We need to keep in mind the fact that this is a game, not a life essential like air, water or food. We can live without it (we did in 1994).
Um, I have a t-shirt that says otherwise. Also, as a 9 yearold when the 1994 strike was announced, I remember shedding actual tears.

JKryl
12-05-2004, 11:11 PM
I think both MLB and the Players Assn are scared to death of this one. It would suit the purpose of both to have Sen. McCain draft legislation, and take the monkey off their back. That way they can both cry and point at the government, while creating a needed anti drug policy.

pearso66
12-05-2004, 11:20 PM
I hope Bonds and Giambi are suspended at least a year. And This has even been mentioned on the Dan Patrick show, so it sounds like reporters, even big ones, are tryin to get it out in the open that they want something big to happen, so it sounds like it will be a little tough to sweep it under the rug

Nick@Nite
12-06-2004, 07:37 AM
I think both MLB and the Players Assn are scared to death of this one. It would suit the purpose of both to have Sen. McCain draft legislation, and take the monkey off their back. That way they can both cry and point at the government, while creating a needed anti drug policy. Sounds plausible. It's easier to shift blame than to demonstrate leadership.


I hope Bonds and Giambi are suspended at least a year. And This has even been mentioned on the Dan Patrick show, so it sounds like reporters, even big ones, are tryin to get it out in the open that they want something big to happen, so it sounds like it will be a little tough to sweep it under the rugNot all reporters are being hard-line. Jayson Stark from ESPN said that this isn't the Black Sox. Thanks Jayson, we all can now wipe our brows in relief!:rolleyes:


If Bud Selig had any guts, he would hammer Giambi & Bonds. Suspend them for the season, ban them for life, whatever it takes to send the proverbial message. The chances of severe disciplinary action sticking would pretty much be slim and none, but this goes way beyond hitters corking bats and pitchers loading baseballs. This is absolutely disgraceful. Yes, it's obvious to all baseball enthusiasts that Bonds, McGuire, Sosa etc were doing something to enhance their abilities, but now the Balco scandal shows that the proof is in the pudding.


With the fallout from the Pistons-Pacers brawl, public opinion from the casual sports fan would seem favorable to swift and strict action. Of course David Stearn doesn't have a 2-ton gorilla in the form of the players union to deal with that Selig has, but that shouldn't matter if a commissioner leads with conviction instead of always hedging his bets. C'mon Bud. Let it rip, I dare ya! Doing what's right is more important than worrying about your image in the history books.

If the players union is unwilling to sanction a strict, random drug-testing policy, then the owners should lock out the players.

Ol' No. 2
12-06-2004, 01:42 PM
In every other sport that I know of, it doesn't matter if you KNEW you were taking something. If it's found in your system, you're penalized/suspended/banned/whatever. Remember Jim Miller? If they're guilty of taking steroids, it doesn't matter one bit if he thought it was flaxseed oil. And any record or performance while on banned substances is wiped out. I have NO confidence that baseball will step up to the plate on this one, but half measures will not do.

doublem23
12-06-2004, 01:52 PM
The difference between 1919 and 2004-05 is that back then the players had no representation and were still basically at the whim of their owner's every desire. It was in the "best interests of the game" (what brought in the most revenue) for the owners to sweep the Black Sox scandal under the rug ASAP and restore the public's faith in the purity of the game. Granted, Bud Selig is the walking definition of a brainless tool, but even a strong-willed commisioner would have a problem challening one of the strongest unions in the world this time.

It's a shame, too. Bonds will get his tainted record and be able to live more than comfortably for the rest of his life while a much better player (and arguably now, man) rotted away in the independent minor leagues of South Carolina.

FarWestChicago
12-06-2004, 01:57 PM
I have NO confidence that baseball will step up to the plate on this one, but half measures will not do.I read an AP article on Yahoo late last night indicating The Tool has already decided to do absolutely nothing at all about the 'roid scandal. I'm shocked. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

:tool

I am the Master of inactivity and the lack of a moral compass. To all of you at WSI who want to ignore what's going on, I'm with you!!

Ol' No. 2
12-06-2004, 02:04 PM
The difference between 1919 and 2004-05 is that back then the players had no representation and were still basically at the whim of their owner's every desire. It was in the "best interests of the game" (what brought in the most revenue) for the owners to sweep the Black Sox scandal under the rug ASAP and restore the public's faith in the purity of the game. Granted, Bud Selig is the walking definition of a brainless tool, but even a strong-willed commisioner would have a problem challening one of the strongest unions in the world this time.

It's a shame, too. Bonds will get his tainted record and be able to live more than comfortably for the rest of his life while a much better player (and arguably now, man) rotted away in the independent minor leagues of South Carolina.That's true and it would be difficult to suspend a player. The MLBPA could file a grievance and would almost certainly win because they didn't break any MLB rules. But there is one area that the union can't touch - the record books. I could be wrong, but I don't think the union could do anything if baseball decided to wipe the tainted records from the books. Not that it's likely to happen.:angry:

DumpJerry
12-06-2004, 02:08 PM
It's funny how MLB refused to take its collective head out of the sand. The league is so bleepin' scared of any negative publicity about its precious players that they ignore real problems and now the league is looking like a bunch of fools with no credibility.

Whenever baseball fans talk about the problems in MLB, steroids, salaries/free agency, the other professional leagues are mentioned but dismissed because, well, I'm not sure why---they aren't MLB?

I think MLB needs to take a long, hard look at the most successful professional sports league in the world, the National Football League. The NFL has an extremely strict steroid policy. One positive test results in a suspension. In MLB IT TAKES FIVE POSITIVE TESTS BEFORE ANY PUNISHMENT IS HANDED DOWN!:angry: Has the NFL lost fans and credibility as a result of not hiding the fact that there was, and is, a problem? Does not appear so.

The NFL does not have massive player migrations during and between seasons which make it impossible for someone to really know who is playing on their chosen team. Why is this? I'm sure the salary cap, revenue sharing and parity play a role. You just don't hear about players holding teams hostage for more $$$ like baseball players do. Which groups of players has a better public image as role models for the kids? NFL.

Parity. Each year in MLB we pretty much know with about 75-80% accuracy which teams will do well. Large market teams do well, small (with some exceptions like the Twins) markets struggle. Schedule parity is not possible in MLB like in the NFL since there are more games and each baseball game is worth over 10 NFL games, but something needs to be done to improve competitiveness.

The NFL has a strong commissioner. We all know about Selig.

The collective bargaining agreement for MLB expires after the 2006 season, if the league develops a backbone and the union insists on protecting its bad apples, we might be in for a strike.......:(: . But, do any of us expect the league to develop a backbone? I don't.:angry:

Flight #24
12-06-2004, 02:34 PM
I read an AP article on Yahoo late last night indicating The Tool has already decided to do absolutely nothing at all about the 'roid scandal. I'm shocked. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

:tool

I am the Master of inactivity and the lack of a moral compass. To all of you at WSI who want to ignore what's going on, I'm with you!!

I think there's a notable difference between deciding to do absolutely nothing at all and recognizing that he doesn't have the ability to. Is there any doubt whatsoever that if Bud were indeed to suspend Giambi, et al that the MLBPA would immediately step and and if necessary go to court and point to the CBA to have it overturned? So the only real reason to take on that fight is to give the MLBPA a PR black eye - something i'm surprised Bud isn't dying to do.

Instead, hopefully he's going to take that chip and use it in negotiations to actually enact a policy that can slow the penetration of performanc enhancers.

Ol' No. 2
12-06-2004, 02:43 PM
I think there's a notable difference between deciding to do absolutely nothing at all and recognizing that he doesn't have the ability to. Is there any doubt whatsoever that if Bud were indeed to suspend Giambi, et al that the MLBPA would immediately step and and if necessary go to court and point to the CBA to have it overturned? So the only real reason to take on that fight is to give the MLBPA a PR black eye - something i'm surprised Bud isn't dying to do.

Instead, hopefully he's going to take that chip and use it in negotiations to actually enact a policy that can slow the penetration of performanc enhancers.The MLBPA COULD file a grievance and probably win. But WOULD they? Think about it. The PR hit would be HUGE. Do they really want to be in the position of defending proven cheaters? And it would not surprise me if the rank-and-file would be opposed to it. I don't think the mini-revolt in the Sox clubhouse last spring was an isolated insurrection. I think most players want to see steroids eliminated. I suspect many that are using are only doing it because they feel like they have no choice, and deep down, they resent it.

Flight #24
12-06-2004, 02:56 PM
The MLBPA COULD file a grievance and probably win. But WOULD they? Think about it. The PR hit would be HUGE. Do they really want to be in the position of defending proven cheaters? And it would not surprise me if the rank-and-file would be opposed to it. I don't think the mini-revolt in the Sox clubhouse last spring was an isolated insurrection. I think most players want to see steroids eliminated. I suspect many that are using are only doing it because they feel like they have no choice, and deep down, they resent it.
I can 99.9% guarantee that they would go straight to court on this with the players behind them. They'll tell the players that they're protecting their interests but will work on toughening the existing policy. They'll tell the public that they've put a policy in place and will toughen it but will certainly not allow someone to be punished retroactively for something that a)wasn't technically against the CBA at the time, and b)is covered under the existing CBA.

I have no doubt, none - zip zilch zero that this is exactly what would happen. Remember, this is the same guy who stood up in front of a congressional panel and said that he couldnt' commit to changes to the CBA to strengthen the program and that still philosophically opposes the concept of testing "without cause". This is not a guy who's that concerned about public opinion. He knows that while he may get a bad rep, the players will always be somewhat insulated because they're who the fans actually cheer for. So he can be the hardass/bad guy and try to push improved drug testing to become something the owners end up providing financial concessions for.

TornLabrum
12-06-2004, 08:01 PM
The difference between 1919 and 2004-05 is that back then the players had no representation and were still basically at the whim of their owner's every desire. It was in the "best interests of the game" (what brought in the most revenue) for the owners to sweep the Black Sox scandal under the rug ASAP and restore the public's faith in the purity of the game. Granted, Bud Selig is the walking definition of a brainless tool, but even a strong-willed commisioner would have a problem challening one of the strongest unions in the world this time.

It's a shame, too. Bonds will get his tainted record and be able to live more than comfortably for the rest of his life while a much better player (and arguably now, man) rotted away in the independent minor leagues of South Carolina.
The difference between 1919 or even Pete Rose and Bonds/Giambi is that betting on and/or throwing ball games is not part of the CBA. Drug use is.

TDog
12-06-2004, 09:13 PM
The difference between 1919 and 2004-05 is that back then the players had no representation and were still basically at the whim of their owner's every desire. It was in the "best interests of the game" (what brought in the most revenue) for the owners to sweep the Black Sox scandal under the rug ASAP and restore the public's faith in the purity of the game. Granted, Bud Selig is the walking definition of a brainless tool, but even a strong-willed commisioner would have a problem challening one of the strongest unions in the world this time.

It's a shame, too. Bonds will get his tainted record and be able to live more than comfortably for the rest of his life while a much better player (and arguably now, man) rotted away in the independent minor leagues of South Carolina.

"The best interests of the game" always has been a subjective concept. Landis eventually considered it in the best interests of the game to ban Dickie Kerr (who pitched two great games in the 1919 World Series) because he played baseball in Mexico after a contract dispute with Charles Comiskey. He also considered it in the best interests of the game to keep Josh Gibson and anyone else who was black from playing Major League Baseball.

In the case of Bonds and Giambi and even Sosa, it was in the best interests of the game to have them do well to attract fan interest. Juice the baseball in the 1920s. Juice the players in the 1990s. The baseball powers that be are partially complicit here.