PDA

View Full Version : New Steroid Testing passes


Trav
11-15-2005, 01:45 PM
Didn't see this anywhere. 1st failed test is 50 games. 3rd is a lifetime ban.


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cs-051115steroids,1,6021479.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

A formal announcement was planned for later Tuesday, a baseball official told the AP.

jdm2662
11-15-2005, 01:56 PM
Just saw this posted on yahoo. Looks like Donnie Boy lost his fight on his BS. Look for him to use this BS as leverage when the CBA expiries. Don't get me wrong, Bud is a tool, too. However, the arrogant prick and the some of the players thought they were above the law, which is what irked me from the get go.

D. TODD
11-15-2005, 01:59 PM
A very good step in the right direction. Now I want to see the much more prevalent and long overdue ILLEGAL amphetamine abuse by M.L.B. to be addressed as severely.

Tekijawa
11-15-2005, 02:03 PM
It'll be interesting to see how they handle the players that already have tested positive... do they get to start over or do they already have their respective strikes against them?

antitwins13
11-15-2005, 02:04 PM
I'm glad MLB is self governing itself. I was afraid congress was going to step in, and we know that would have gotten ugly.

DeadMoney
11-15-2005, 02:06 PM
This is great news for MLB. I'm interested to see what happens with the players who tested positive at the end of this year and will start serving their suspensions at the beginning of next year. Although I assume, based on when they were tested and revealed, that they will serve the 10 day suspension rather than the new 50-game one.

champagne030
11-15-2005, 02:11 PM
A very good step in the right direction. Now I want to see the much more prevalent and long overdue ILLEGAL amphetamine abuse by M.L.B. to be addressed as severely.

Doesn't appear to be as severe as the steriod policy........

Amphetamine Penalties
(There was no testing for amphetamines in previous agreement)
First positive test -- Mandatory additional testing.
Second postitive -- 25-game suspension.
Third positive -- 80-game suspension.
Fourth positive -- Commissioner's discretion, with an arbitrator being able to review.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2224832

chisoxfanatic
11-15-2005, 02:16 PM
It'll be interesting to see how they handle the players that already have tested positive... do they get to start over or do they already have their respective strikes against them?

I'd imagine they'd be using the grandfathering system.

Flight #24
11-15-2005, 02:30 PM
I'd imagine they'd be using the grandfathering system.

If not, Mike Morse is SOL since by all accounts, he's got multiple positives from a single usage a few years ago.

RockyMtnSoxFan
11-15-2005, 02:31 PM
I was really glad to read about this. After reading that article about steroids on ESPN last week, I was appalled. I would like to see more frequent tests, however. If they're only getting tested two (maybe three) time per year, there are some guys who are going to do it anyway. And there is a good chance they'll get away with it, considering how hard it is to detect some of those new drugs.

mwc44
11-15-2005, 02:36 PM
Apparently it is going to be announced later today that the new steroid violation policy for MLB will be a 50-game suspension for first-time offenders, a 100-game suspension for second-time offenders and a lifetime ban for third-time offenders.... WOW!!!!

Whatcha gonna do when they come for you...

NonetheLoaiza
11-15-2005, 02:36 PM
Thank you very much. It's about time that a new policy was implemented. Now, if only Sosa would fail a test...

chisoxfanatic
11-15-2005, 02:37 PM
As was discussed here... http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=938619#post93861

twsoxfan5
11-15-2005, 02:39 PM
As was discussed here... http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=938619#post93861

No reason to be a jerk just b/c someone didn't notice a previous post.

Madvora
11-15-2005, 02:47 PM
Thank you very much. It's about time that a new policy was implemented. Now, if only Sosa would fail a test...
I was thinking about that. Now's the time for him to retire if he wants to "get away with it." However, now's the most likely time for him to use steroids again. Nobody wants him, his numbers are way down and nobody will offer him money or love anymore. Only one way to get all that back...

SOXPHILE
11-15-2005, 02:54 PM
Eh, too little too late. In my opinion, HGH is the big problem, and that can't be detected in a urine test, only blood. The agreement doesn't include blood testing. Now, some of these HGH users can take a urine test, come up clean and say "See ! I'm clean !" and keep right on pumping that garbage into themselves while they put up inflated numbers.

Trav
11-15-2005, 03:02 PM
Eh, too little too late. In my opinion, HGH is the big problem, and that can't be detected in a urine test, only blood. The agreement doesn't include blood testing. Now, some of these HGH users can take a urine test, come up clean and say "See ! I'm clean !" and keep right on pumping that garbage into themselves while they put up inflated numbers.

Exactly. I am glad for the stricter rules but it still doesn't clean up the game. Conte (Balco guy) came out and has said that the stuff that guys were using a couple years ago can only be tested on a blood test. Imagine what they are using now.

NonetheLoaiza
11-15-2005, 03:08 PM
Exactly. I am glad for the stricter rules but it still doesn't clean up the game. Conte (Balco guy) came out and has said that the stuff that guys were using a couple years ago can only be tested on a blood test. Imagine what they are using now.

I don't think you can ever clean up the game. It's just like anything illegal like that...you can try and keep up, but someone, somwhere is always going to be one step ahead of the curve. Try and put out new types of ink or change the 20 dollar bill, someone will find a way to still make a counterfeit 20 dollar bill. So, the best hope MLB has is to rely on making the results public and forcing that player to miss a vast amount of games.

CLR01
11-15-2005, 03:12 PM
No reason to be a jerk just b/c someone didn't notice a previous post.


Who was being a jerk?

Sox35th
11-15-2005, 03:15 PM
Apparently it is going to be announced later today that the new drug violation policy for MLB will be a 50-game suspension for first-time offenders, a 100-game suspension for second-time offenders and a lifetime ban for third-time offenders.... WOW!!!!

Whatcha gonna do when they come for you...


This new policy is still garbage!! players still getting two strikes before they get a lifetime ban.....what a joke!!

You should only get one strike and you gone!! These players know what there doing and whats going into their body........

Ol' No. 2
11-15-2005, 03:23 PM
I'm sure the MLBPA only moved because of the threat of congressional action. At least they're moving in the right direction. I just hope they don't think they're done. They need to broaden the testing to include blood testing.

soxfanatlanta
11-15-2005, 03:24 PM
This new policy is still garbage!! players still getting two strikes before they get a lifetime ban.....what a joke!!

You should only get one strike and you gone!! These players know what there doing and whats going into their body........

I can understand you anger, but I do not agree. If you use the one-strike policy on PH drugs, then you most certainly need to do it for all drugs (cocaine, weed, etc). Not even the IOC does that.

To err is human, to forgive is devine.

Question, are "greenies" considered amphetimynes? If so, this is a pretty big win for Selig.

Yes, there will always be cheaters who are using the latest undetectable drug, so be it. At least this policy will help keep the "honest people honest": kind of like locking your car door.

Score one for the good guys!

soxfanatlanta
11-15-2005, 03:34 PM
Exactly. I am glad for the stricter rules but it still doesn't clean up the game. Conte (Balco guy) came out and has said that the stuff that guys were using a couple years ago can only be tested on a blood test. Imagine what they are using now.

There will always be people who are willing to try the 'bleeding edge' drugs of the day, but what can you do? Hopefully, the performance disparity between users, and non-users will be large enough for people to start wondering why player A has beefed up so much (or has grown a 3rd eye).

With this policy, you are hopefully creating a new taboo, similar to betting on games.

Just a thought

D. TODD
11-15-2005, 03:40 PM
Question, are "greenies" considered amphetimynes? If so, this is a pretty big win for Selig.



Score one for the good guys! YES defiantly! "Greenie" have long been the performance enhancing drug of choice by players. Steroids just does a better job of enhancing your performance. At least it is addressed, but I still can't see why their is a difference in the punishment. Both are cheating, only one is a more effective way of cheating.

buehrle4cy05
11-15-2005, 05:28 PM
Finally.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-15-2005, 06:21 PM
http://img.slate.msn.com/media/38/021107_BarryBonds.jpghttp://www.prosportspictures.com/images/mlb/baltimore-orioles/2005/action/05-sammy-sosa-action-2-sm.jpghttp://images.tsn.ca/images/stories/20040929/rafael_66275.jpghttp://www.cbc.ca/gfx/topstory/sports/giambi_jason0315.jpg



:DJ

Uh Oh!

Ol' No. 2
11-15-2005, 06:31 PM
http://img.slate.msn.com/media/38/021107_BarryBonds.jpghttp://www.prosportspictures.com/images/mlb/baltimore-orioles/2005/action/05-sammy-sosa-action-2-sm.jpghttp://images.tsn.ca/images/stories/20040929/rafael_66275.jpghttp://www.cbc.ca/gfx/topstory/sports/giambi_jason0315.jpg



:DJ

Uh Oh!Unfortunately, two of these guys are in no danger because they're not testing for everything. Is it just me or is Giambi starting to look like the old Giambi?

The Wimperoo
11-15-2005, 07:32 PM
Until they add blood testing to this they aren't going to catch anyone but the idiots who are too stupid or don't have enough cash to use the good stuff. HGH and who knows what else has been developed that can only be detected through blood tests is what will be used by the big name guys who still want to roid up.

soxfanatlanta
11-15-2005, 08:06 PM
I can understand you anger, but I do not agree. If you use the one-strike policy on PH drugs, then you most certainly need to do it for all drugs (cocaine, weed, etc). Not even the IOC does that.

To err is human, to forgive is devine.

Question, are "greenies" considered amphetimynes? If so, this is a pretty big win for Selig.

Yes, there will always be cheaters who are using the latest undetectable drug, so be it. At least this policy will help keep the "honest people honest": kind of like locking your car door.

Score one for the good guys!

Before anyone makes me eat crow...

The IOC states a two year ban for the 1st, and a lifetime ban for the second. MLB pales in comparison, but I still think it's great progress from the old policy. And you know blood testing will be a major point at the next collective barganing negotiations.

RKMeibalane
11-15-2005, 08:10 PM
Goodbye, Mr. Bonds. :cool:

ChiSoxRowand
11-15-2005, 08:52 PM
And you know blood testing will be a major point at the next collective barganing negotiations.

Speaking of that, when are the next CBA negotiations? Next year right?

Paulwny
11-15-2005, 08:52 PM
Even if there aren't any blood tests, a player would really have to think twice about using. The'd be throwing their careers away and millions of dollars if caught.

New testing procedures and methods will be developed to find steroids. It'll take time for someone to develop a way to cheat the testing.

Why take the risk?

doublem23
11-15-2005, 09:03 PM
Yawn.

The MLB steroid policy is still more to see who's dumb enough to get caught rather than who actually is doping.

row18
11-15-2005, 09:33 PM
Didn't read the entire thread, sorry if posted.

What will happen to players who test positive in the last year of their contracts with less than 50 games left to play?

Will a team want to pick up such a player if they still have to "serve" a number of games?

CLR01
11-15-2005, 11:00 PM
Are the suspensions with pay or without?

Gosox1917
11-15-2005, 11:38 PM
Are the suspensions with pay or without?

I am assuming without from what I read in the MLB.com article when Johnny Estrada, was quoted "Now with a 50-game suspension, there can't be any loopholes in the testing or margin for error. There can't be any mess-ups. You're dealing with guys who have to take care of their families and 50 games is a good chunk of the season." I'll leave that comment alone. Also, from what I read in the article, and in this thread it may have been covered, all players are given a clean slate i.e. if Palmeiro is tested positive again, he would be suspended for 50 games.

Trav
11-16-2005, 10:24 AM
Didn't read the entire thread, sorry if posted.

What will happen to players who test positive in the last year of their contracts with less than 50 games left to play?

Will a team want to pick up such a player if they still have to "serve" a number of games?

Going by past suspension policy, the player would serve his suspension on the new team. Hermanson served two games this year for something that happened last year, I believe.

voodoochile
11-16-2005, 10:40 AM
This new policy is still garbage!! players still getting two strikes before they get a lifetime ban.....what a joke!!

You should only get one strike and you gone!! These players know what there doing and whats going into their body........

Yeah, like the players association would ever agree to a policy like that. :rolleyes:

It has to be similar to other pro sport drug policies which it now is in terms of salary lost and time served. You also have to give guys at least a few strikes because some of them truly are stupid and fail to read labels on supplements that contain ingredients that are illegal under the policy. Still not sure if I believe him, but that is supposedly what cost Jim Miller his suspension when he was on the Bears.

soxfanatlanta
11-16-2005, 01:02 PM
You also have to give guys at least a few strikes because some of them truly are stupid and fail to read labels on supplements that contain ingredients that are illegal under the policy.

Yes, there are players that are not the sharpest tools in the shed, but is that not what the appeals process is for?

It's really all about money though isn't it? If a player who is putting people in the seats gets banned, then everybody loses money, the player, the owners, the TV networks, etc. If a track runner gets the boot, who really cares?

(don't be mad if you love Tim Montgomery or somebody like that, ok?)