PDA

View Full Version : Punishment Idea For Steroid Use


RKMeibalane
01-04-2005, 03:36 PM
In the world of big-time college athletics, it is not uncommon for a school to be banned from post-season play as a result of recruiting violations, or some other rule infraction. With that in mind, I now propose this idea for discussion...

If, following steroid testing, a particular baseball team is found to have a certain number of players on its twenty-five-man roster test positive for steroid use, that team should be banned from post-season play for the season in question.

Some may think that this penalty is too harsh, but I don't. If players suddenly are faced with the idea that they could prevent not only themselves, but their teams from competing, maybe they'll think twice before trying to cheat again. I would imagine that many players are still willing to do whatever it takes to enhance their own performance as long as only they are punished if caught, but there are probably a number of players who wouldn't/couldn't deal with the fallout of having cost an entire team a post-season berth.

Thoughts?

Cubbiesuck13
01-04-2005, 03:39 PM
In the world of big-time college athletics, it is not uncommon for a school to be banned from post-season play as a result of recruiting violations, or some other rule infraction. With that in mind, I now propose this idea for discussion...

If, following steroid testing, a particular baseball team is found to have a certain number of players on its twenty-five-man roster test positive for steroid use, that team should be banned from post-season play for the season in question.

Some may think that this penalty is too harsh, but I don't. If players suddenly are faced with the idea that they could prevent not only themselves, but their teams from competing, maybe they'll think twice before trying to cheat again. I would imagine that many players are still willing to do whatever it takes to enhance their own performance as long as only they are punished if caught, but there are probably a number of players who wouldn't/couldn't deal with the fallout of having cost an entire team a post-season berth.

Thoughts?
I think that the owners of those teams would finally come around and make sure their guys were clean. I am under the impression that the reason there is a steroid issue at all is because of the owners turning a blind eye in exchange for players launging moon shots that brings out the casual fan to the games.

SaltyPretzel
01-04-2005, 03:47 PM
In the world of big-time college athletics, it is not uncommon for a school to be banned from post-season play as a result of recruiting violations, or some other rule infraction. With that in mind, I now propose this idea for discussion...

If, following steroid testing, a particular baseball team is found to have a certain number of players on its twenty-five-man roster test positive for steroid use, that team should be banned from post-season play for the season in question.

Some may think that this penalty is too harsh, but I don't. If players suddenly are faced with the idea that they could prevent not only themselves, but their teams from competing, maybe they'll think twice before trying to cheat again. I would imagine that many players are still willing to do whatever it takes to enhance their own performance as long as only they are punished if caught, but there are probably a number of players who wouldn't/couldn't deal with the fallout of having cost an entire team a post-season berth.

Thoughts?

With our luck, the Sox would be disqualified after Willie Harris tests positive.

RKMeibalane
01-04-2005, 03:52 PM
With our luck, the Sox would be disqualified after Willie Harris tests positive.
In the idea I'm propsing, it would take more than one player testing positive to result in a ban. I think twenty percent (five players) seems about right. Five is more than half of a team's starting lineup, so it seems like a reasonable cut-off number. Furthermore, if a team has more than five players test positive, than an additional year should be added to the ban for each additional player. For example, if seven Chicago Cubs players test positive, this would result in a three-year ban from the postseason.

soxfan26
01-04-2005, 03:55 PM
Thoughts?
Lifetime ban for each individual player who had tested positive.

Rocky Soprano
01-04-2005, 03:57 PM
5 players is too many. I would say if they have 2 players test positive then enforce the ban.

If they are going to crack down, then come down hard.

RKMeibalane
01-04-2005, 03:58 PM
Lifetime ban for each individual player who had tested positive. I agree with that penalty to an extent, but I'm convinced that even a lifetime ban wouldn't be enough to stop all players from using. There are always going to be those individuals who think that they're not going to caught, or that the league won't have the guts to suspend them. A punishment that impacts an entire organization seems more appropriate, because players risk becoming totally isolated from the rest of their team if they're caught. All of this is, of course, just my opinion. :cool:

SaltyPretzel
01-04-2005, 03:58 PM
In the idea I'm propsing, it would take more than one player testing positive to result in a ban. I think twenty percent (five players) seems about right. Five is more than half of a team's starting lineup, so it seems like a reasonable cut-off number. Furthermore, if a team has more than five players test positive, than an additional year should be added to the ban for each additional player. For example, if seven Chicago Cubs players test positive, this would result in a three-year ban from the postseason.
I think if the league implemented random testing with harsh punishment (year suspension for 1st offense), all this would be unneccesary. Most of the 'roid heads have huge egos and I think exposing them would be deterrent enough.

Ol' No. 2
01-04-2005, 04:04 PM
I would also suggest that for any player to be eligible for post-season play, he must have passed a drug test in the 15 days preceeding the start of post-season play (or whatever time period would allow test results to be in before the start of play). If your team is in last place - don't bother. But if you think you have a realistic chance, you'd better get all the players tested that you want to be eligible.

Foulke29
01-04-2005, 04:04 PM
So --- just some questions here:


What happens when 27 teams have the amount of people necessary to ban that team from the playoffs? Do we cancel the playoffs?

What if it's just one guy that tests positive, but he hits 75 HR or records 400 K and 30 Wins? Isn't that more of an impact than a few guys that don't really affect the team in a positive manner?

RKMeibalane
01-04-2005, 04:09 PM
So --- just some questions here:


What happens when 27 teams have the amount of people necessary to ban that team from the playoffs? Do we cancel the playoffs?
As bad as it sounds, yes. Baseball must clean itself up, and if suffering from national embarrassment is the only way to improve the game in the long run, so be it.

What if it's just one guy that tests positive, but he hits 75 HR or records 400 K and 30 Wins? Isn't that more of an impact than a few guys that don't really affect the team in a positive manner?
I actually like Ol' No. 2's idea for this situaton. Players should be tested regularly throughout the season. If Player X tests positive for any one of those, then he is banned from post-season play, should his team make it that far.

Tekijawa
01-04-2005, 04:14 PM
How about an ANNA BENSON clause where any player caught cheating, Steroids in this case, his wife has to sleep with ever one on the teams payroll.

Hokiesox
01-04-2005, 04:59 PM
What would happen if banned team decides to start handing series to division "friends" so the arch-rival can't win it?

Doesn't seem like the best idea to me.

RKMeibalane
01-04-2005, 05:05 PM
What would happen if banned team decides to start handing series to division "friends" so the arch-rival can't win it?

Doesn't seem like the best idea to me.
If teams start throwing games, they're only inviting even more punishment. That's the beauty of my little plan- no matter what a team does, that team is screwed (evil laugh).

SaltyPretzel
01-04-2005, 05:21 PM
If teams start throwing games, they're only inviting even more punishment.
Firing squad?

DumpJerry
01-04-2005, 06:42 PM
I do like the Anna Benson idea.

The problem with the idea of banning the team from the playoffs is that the teams cannot control their guys 24/7. There is simply no way they can ensure all 30+ (the number of total players on the roster all season) stay clean. Also, what if a guy tests positive who was acquired in a mid-season trade and took the 'roids prior to the trade? I suppose testing at trade time could address this, but the results take a while to come back from the lab.

This is not like college recruitment problems. The schools have total control over the recruitment techniques used.

Anyway, given the low lever of player loyalty to their teams today, I think most would not give a hoot so long as the paychecks don't bounce. I think punishing individual players is the way to go.

Cubbiesuck13
01-04-2005, 07:01 PM
I do like the Anna Benson idea.

The problem with the idea of banning the team from the playoffs is that the teams cannot control their guys 24/7. There is simply no way they can ensure all 30+ (the number of total players on the roster all season) stay clean. Also, what if a guy tests positive who was acquired in a mid-season trade and took the 'roids prior to the trade? I suppose testing at trade time could address this, but the results take a while to come back from the lab.

This is not like college recruitment problems. The schools have total control over the recruitment techniques used.

Anyway, given the low lever of player loyalty to their teams today, I think most would not give a hoot so long as the paychecks don't bounce. I think punishing individual players is the way to go.

Owners are all about making money. When the players cheat and get caught, no money will be sent their way. Do you think the Yankees will be paying Giambi? No, Positive drug tests voids the contract. Eventually, when the preasure is put upon the owners it will trickle down to the players.

I also think that colleges have a harder time controlling the recruitment because of boosters. Major supporters have been known to give a recruit money or whatnot behind the colleges back, but the college is the one who gets punished.