PDA

View Full Version : MLB to announce new steroid policy


HawkDJ
01-12-2005, 08:41 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1965565

Nick@Nite
01-12-2005, 08:53 PM
It'll be interesting to see whether the policy has real punitive repercussions, or if it's all bark and no bite.

NonetheLoaiza
01-12-2005, 08:58 PM
It would almost have to have some teeth, wouldn't it? The reaction of the public and media almost forces the new policy to have harsh penalties for those who have tested positive. Of course, it HAS to be better than the policy they implemented not too long ago. I mean, that thing was a joke.

:tool
"Test positive for steroids the 32nd time, and we swear, if you test positive 13 or 14 more times, you WILL be suspended for a game."

bhayes520
01-12-2005, 08:59 PM
maybe there will be actual penalties

Kogs35
01-12-2005, 09:35 PM
maybe there will be actual penalties
this is deep pink

FarWestChicago
01-12-2005, 10:38 PM
this is deep pinkIs this the first appearance of the Deep Pink Police? Whether it is or not: :thumbsup:

MUsoxfan
01-12-2005, 11:04 PM
:canseco

This probably helped negotiations

Kogs35
01-12-2005, 11:14 PM
Is this the first appearance of the Deep Pink Police? Whether it is or not: :thumbsup:
i will be glad to help on the deep pink police force :D:

RKMeibalane
01-12-2005, 11:46 PM
:shammy

*Gulp*

Jjav829
01-12-2005, 11:46 PM
Jayson Stark just said on ESPN that a first positive test could mean a 10 game suspension. He also said that the new policy will include random testing, year round. He also says the players put a lot of pressure on the union because the innocent players are tired of being lumped in with the guilty players.

NonetheLoaiza
01-12-2005, 11:47 PM
Jayson Stark was just on SportsCenter and said that the new policy is definitely going to have teeth, and said he heard it could carry a 10 game suspension for first time offenders. I hope it is going to be along these lines.

EDIT: Beat me to it...

RKMeibalane
01-12-2005, 11:51 PM
Jayson Stark just said on ESPN that a first positive test could mean a 10 game suspension. He also said that the new policy will include random testing, year round. He also says the players put a lot of pressure on the union because the innocent players are tired of being lumped in with the guilty players.
I'm looking forward to reading the following on the ESPN scroll bar at the bottom of the TV screen this season:

MLB suspends Cubs OF Sammy Sosa for ten games for violating the league's steroid usage policy. The suspension cannot be appealed.

DrCrawdad
01-13-2005, 01:03 AM
I'm looking forward to reading the following on the ESPN scroll bar at the bottom of the TV screen this season:

MLB suspends Cubs OF Sammy Sosa for ten games for violating the league's steroid usage policy. The suspension cannot be appealed.

I wonder if the Cubune would come out in support and defend Sosa as they did with the corked bat?

RKMeibalane
01-13-2005, 12:48 PM
I wonder if the Cubune would come out in support and defend Sosa as they did with the corked bat?
I'm sure they'll defend him. They always do.

DrCrawdad
01-13-2005, 01:17 PM
I'm sure they'll defend him. They always do.

There seemed to me to be a change towards the end of the season last year. Once Cubbie brass decided they were going to try to trade Sosa there seemed to me to be a change in the tone and tenor of Sosa's coverage. For example, when Sosa departed early the Cubune reported the story and even offered up tape of Sosa leaving, which tape showed the time. Then Paul Sullivan intimated that Sosa used steroids.

I doubt there was a meeting on "Let's get Sosa..." but it appears that once there were clear indications that he was going to be traded, it suddenly gave Cubune reporters freeness of speech.

Jjav829
01-13-2005, 01:59 PM
This is a good day for baseball. Random testing, year-round testing, an expanded list of substances being tested for including human growth hormone and steroid precursors. Finally, baseball is beginning a long process to clean up the sport and get rid of all these freaks. I love it.

Flight #24
01-13-2005, 02:24 PM
There seemed to me to be a change towards the end of the season last year. Once Cubbie brass decided they were going to try to trade Sosa there seemed to me to be a change in the tone and tenor of Sosa's coverage. For example, when Sosa departed early the Cubune reported the story and even offered up tape of Sosa leaving, which tape showed the time. Then Paul Sullivan intimated that Sosa used steroids.

I doubt there was a meeting on "Let's get Sosa..." but it appears that once there were clear indications that he was going to be traded, it suddenly gave Cubune reporters freeness of speech.
Once it's clear that he'll be back on the team in 05, watch and see the tide turn from "Sammy the cancer", to "Motivated Sammy, ready to prove the doubters wrong".

And if steroids are his bag, there'll be some article about how the tests aren't necessarily 100% accurate, etc. And you know if he comes to ST looking like Sammy ca.1993, there'll be no mention of anything except "He's in the best shape of his career, and looks to have regained some of his speed".

mjharrison72
01-13-2005, 03:22 PM
This is a good day for baseball. Random testing, year-round testing, an expanded list of substances being tested for including human growth hormone and steroid precursors. Finally, baseball is beginning a long process to clean up the sport and get rid of all these freaks. I love it.My problem is this: Why random testing? Why not use probable cause and test the most freakishly large first? I can just see that "randomly" Barry Bonds will be the last to be tested. Like he's baseball's golden child or something. Plain and simple... they should start by testing the people with the highest power numbers, and separate the juicers (cheaters) from the real professional athletes.

Jjav829
01-13-2005, 04:16 PM
My problem is this: Why random testing? Why not use probable cause and test the most freakishly large first? I can just see that "randomly" Barry Bonds will be the last to be tested. Like he's baseball's golden child or something. Plain and simple... they should start by testing the people with the highest power numbers, and separate the juicers (cheaters) from the real professional athletes.I can see your point. It's not perfect, but it's a nice step in the right direction. They at least have random testing in place, and hopefully that makes some of these steroid freaks ease off the juice. There is still a long ways to go though before the system is perfect.

Ol' No. 2
01-13-2005, 04:22 PM
My problem is this: Why random testing? Why not use probable cause and test the most freakishly large first? I can just see that "randomly" Barry Bonds will be the last to be tested. Like he's baseball's golden child or something. Plain and simple... they should start by testing the people with the highest power numbers, and separate the juicers (cheaters) from the real professional athletes.I assume everyone is going to be tested at least once during the season, and it's the timing that's going to be random. Whether he's tested first or last makes little difference, because it's the possibility that they could be tested that will deter them from using. In fact, if they test everyone only once, testing him early could be viewed as a green light to start using again right afterward.

IMO, they should also test everyone on playoff rosters right before the playoffs, and disqualify anyone who tests positive.

RKMeibalane
01-13-2005, 04:26 PM
There seemed to me to be a change towards the end of the season last year. Once Cubbie brass decided they were going to try to trade Sosa there seemed to me to be a change in the tone and tenor of Sosa's coverage. For example, when Sosa departed early the Cubune reported the story and even offered up tape of Sosa leaving, which tape showed the time. Then Paul Sullivan intimated that Sosa used steroids.

I doubt there was a meeting on "Let's get Sosa..." but it appears that once there were clear indications that he was going to be traded, it suddenly gave Cubune reporters freeness of speech.
As Flight #24 pointed out, I think that had more to do with the fact that he was on the trading block than anything else. Unless something extradoniary happens within the next few weeks, Sosa will still be with the Cubs in 2005, and so the Cubune will begin their annual practice of talking about how he's re-dedicated himself to the game, etc. More than that, I'm convinced that if he does test positive, the Cubune will find some way to avoid publishing a report in their paper, much like they did when Wrigley Field was falling apart last summer.

PHG will need to bring out the "Media Bias Snail" again.

mjharrison72
01-13-2005, 04:27 PM
IMO, they should also test everyone on playoff rosters right before the playoffs, and disqualify anyone who tests positive.I agree.
You know, it's funny, when it comes to drug testing for most members of the workforce, I feel it's an invasion of privacy, and I feel if drugs are a big enough problem, there should be other indications, such as poor work performance, that should serve as cause for termination. But when drugs enhance performance, I come down on the other side of the table... it really slights those who come by their talent and ability naturally and honestly. I hope they straighten things out.

Flight #24
01-13-2005, 04:44 PM
I can see your point. It's not perfect, but it's a nice step in the right direction. They at least have random testing in place, and hopefully that makes some of these steroid freaks ease off the juice. There is still a long ways to go though before the system is perfect.
Random testing is better for the average user, who may not be scrutinized as much and/or may not have the dramatic change that a Bonds/Sosa has. It's more of a deterrent to know that anyone can be tested at any time.

Ideally, you'd be subject to testing for cause as well. But I think that you'd need to spell out what "probable cause means", and my guess is "I know it when I see it" isn't going to be enough.

mjharrison72
01-13-2005, 05:01 PM
Random testing is better for the average user, who may not be scrutinized as much and/or may not have the dramatic change that a Bonds/Sosa has. It's more of a deterrent to know that anyone can be tested at any time.

Ideally, you'd be subject to testing for cause as well. But I think that you'd need to spell out what "probable cause means", and my guess is "I know it when I see it" isn't going to be enough.Though I'm sure this was not the agreement with the MLBPA, the league should have the right to test any player at any time for any reason. If they agree steriods are clouding the game and agree to testing, what would be wrong with such a policy?