PDA

View Full Version : Reinsdorf says Fehr is to blame for 'roids


DumpJerry
04-13-2008, 11:52 PM
Interview right now on Channel 5. He says it was Fehr's opposition to testing that caused the problem to grow and grow. He said the owners wanted to do back when and Fehr blocked it claiming the players' privacy. He also said Kenny told him when he was playing for Toronto, the players wanted to get tested, but Fehr told them not to do it.

Viva Medias B's
04-13-2008, 11:57 PM
NBC 5's "Sports Sunday" just aired a one-on-one interview between Peggy Kusinski and Jerry Reinsdorf. It was all about the White Sox. The two big things I took out of it was a) the pressure to win is on the players and not KW or OG and b) Donald Fehr is the biggest reason steroid usage ran rampant in baseball. On the latter, Reinsdorf said that Fehr opposed testing for steroids for a long time and that baseball could have cracked down on players using PEDs much sooner had Fehr not opposed the testing.

EDIT: Oops! It looks like Dump Jerry beat me to the punch. Mods, please merge.

TDog
04-14-2008, 12:00 AM
Interview right now on Channel 5. He says it was Fehr's opposition to testing that caused the problem to grow and grow. He said the owners wanted to do back when and Fehr blocked it claiming the players' privacy. He also said Kenny told him when he was playing for Toronto, the players wanted to get tested, but Fehr told them not to do it.


He does make a good point. But I think any union would have opposition to substance testing and wouldn't allow it if they had the power to do so.

WhiteSox5187
04-14-2008, 12:00 AM
I think Jerry is absolutely 100% right about Donald Fehr stalling testing...I also thought it was funny how he said "I'm the funniest guy you'll ever meet." He'd be a lot more liked if he showed THAT side of him.

FourStarsTwoBars
04-14-2008, 12:01 AM
Fehr definately does not work for the best of baseball

TDog
04-14-2008, 12:12 AM
Fehr definately does not work for the best of baseball

No. He has a fiduciary responsibility to the members of the players' union.

Nellie_Fox
04-14-2008, 12:46 AM
He does make a good point. But I think any union would have opposition to substance testing and wouldn't allow it if they had the power to do so.

No. He has a fiduciary responsibility to the members of the players' union.But he was working against the interest of the majority of players by opposing testing. That put players in the position, at least in their own minds, of having to use PED or lose their jobs.

Lip Man 1
04-14-2008, 12:47 AM
Comcast Sports Chicago Monday had Chuck Garfine's interview with Jerry where he first mentioned this. He also said MLB will have difficulty getting an HGH test done because of Fehr. (Gene Upshaw has already gone on record as saying he would not allow NFL players to be blood tested for HGH, but I digress...)

JR also said that he has a good relationship with Frank Thomas but even if Kenny and Frank don't, Frank will still have his number retired and a statue done.

JR also said in Garfine's interview that he has no intention of selling because he's having to much fun and "wants to outlast the Sun-Times..."

Lip

Ziggy S
04-14-2008, 12:49 AM
But he was working against the interest of the majority of players by opposing testing. That put players in the position, at least in their own minds, of having to use PHD or lose their jobs.
Hmm, if a ballplayer had one of those, he'd be a professor at a university or a psychiatrist. Those professions don't pay as much, but the job security and longevity are out of this world.

Nellie_Fox
04-14-2008, 12:53 AM
Hmm, if a ballplayer had one of those, he'd be a professor at a university or a psychiatrist. Those professions don't pay as much, but the job security and longetivity are out of this world.Thank you for pointing out my gaffe. It has now been fixed in the original post, but (even though I have to power to fix it in your post as well) I'll leave it in the quote as a monument to my own error. That way, it will have longetivity. :tongue:

IceczMan
04-14-2008, 01:04 AM
Fehr is giving a speech followed by a Q and A at my law school on tuesday. Any suggestions for possible questions?

TDog
04-14-2008, 01:06 AM
But he was working against the interest of the majority of players by opposing testing. That put players in the position, at least in their own minds, of having to use PHD or lose their jobs.

Fehr wouldn't have opposed the players voting for testing. If he did, that would have been irresponsible and the union would have grounds to void his contract. I haven't heard any such claim from anyone representing players. Fehr appears to have presented arguments against testing to convince the players not to vote for it. There probably wasn't anyone on the other side articulating the case for it beyond a statement from management.

I don't use drugs, alcohol tobacco or anything and I don't particularly like working with people who do. I still wouldn't want to face mandatory drug testing by my employer. If others were getting an advantage at the job though illegal substances, I would be able to intellectually understand why I should favor testing. Still, I would have to be willing to give up a privacy right and open the door for the possibility of being slandered with false positives to vote for mandatory drug testing.

Navarro's Talent
04-14-2008, 01:08 AM
Comcast Sports Chicago Monday had Chuck Garfine's interview with Jerry where he first mentioned this. He also said MLB will have difficulty getting an HGH test done because of Fehr. (Gene Upshaw has already gone on record as saying he would not allow NFL players to be blood tested for HGH, but I digress...)

JR also said that he has a good relationship with Frank Thomas but even if Kenny and Frank don't, Frank will still have his number retired and a statue done.

JR also said in Garfine's interview that he has no intention of selling because he's having to much fun and "wants to outlast the Sun-Times..."

Lip

When that day comes, nothing will stop me from being at the Cell.

hawkjt
04-14-2008, 01:11 AM
Ask him point blank if the union blocked testing in the early 90's.

I am convinced that testing was a victim of the acrimonious strike of 94. They flat out put it aside to reach a compromise that was so tough to reach..neither side wanted to give anything up...and management would have had to give something to the union to get it done and they blinked.

Union and Fehr have 70% of the blame..other 30% is probably management.

But JR would never admit that. I thought it was a good interview...he is still feisty.

Lefty34
04-14-2008, 01:43 AM
But he was working against the interest of the majority of players by opposing testing. That put players in the position, at least in their own minds, of having to use PED or lose their jobs.

That line of thinking would be a little shaky in any real attempt by MLB or the US Supreme Court (because Fehr and the MLBPU at large would probably appeal to the Supreme Court) to remove Fehr and institute testing. Though I agree with you totally on this point. I remember driving home from U of I when the Mitchell Report was first published, and Fehr held a "press conference" to address the report: it turned into Fehr saying "I am all for the privacy of players and they should all consult individual counsel about drug testing" (i.e. "No comment, go **** yourself"). He tried to artfully dodge the direct questions asked about drug testing and possible steroid use amongst the Union members, but ended up making Buddie Boy look like The Champion of Steroid testing (hard to do) IMO.

However one must think about the other repercussions of extensive drug testing in baseball: what about the everyday players who, on an off or getaway day, hit the pipe a little bit to settle their nerves for the long plane trip or to celebrate a career day? Obviously these guys are all world-class athletes (save for David Wells) who take care of their bodies to no end, but we have all seen the pictures of athletes at local bars and clubs absolutely hammered drunk (Roy Oswalt and Jake Peavy last semester at KAM'S, thank you very much [I made my GF get autographs, of course]), and it would be somewhat foolish to think some don't go the "extra mile" to get that perfect buzz.

IMO, if such a comprehensive blood test was included in the collective bargaining agreement, a huge number of players would be suspended for the use of recreational drugs, which might be why Fehr and others are so adamant about blocking such testing. This, of course, is all speculation by a pessimistic college student, but I believe my thoughts do have some merit.

Trav
04-14-2008, 07:57 AM
I can't believe JR expects anyone to buy that the owners in general, and the commissioner specifically, are not just as much to blame as the MLBPA. They are probably more to blame actually. The top of the MLB has a history of underhandedness and I don't understand why they are getting a pass.

dickallen15
04-14-2008, 08:15 AM
I can't believe JR expects anyone to buy that the owners in general, and the commissioner specifically, are not just as much to blame as the MLBPA. They are probably more to blame actually. The top of the MLB has a history of underhandedness and I don't understand why they are getting a pass.
I agree. I like Reinsdorf a lot, but to blame Fehr is ridiculous. He's just doing his job. Didn't Reinsdorf sign Jose Canseco in 2001 when it was quite obvious what he had been doing, was playing for an Independent League team and no other team would touch him? The other thing is, what percentage of guys would have been caught or quit using had testing been in place? I have always been under the impression that the makers have been able to stay a step or 2 ahead of the tests for years, that you almost had to be an idiot to get caught.

The Immigrant
04-14-2008, 08:25 AM
JR also said in Garfine's interview that he has no intention of selling because he's having to much fun and "wants to outlast the Sun-Times..."

Now that is funny.

Trav
04-14-2008, 08:53 AM
I agree. I like Reinsdorf a lot, but to blame Fehr is ridiculous. He's just doing his job. Didn't Reinsdorf sign Jose Canseco in 2001 when it was quite obvious what he had been doing, was playing for an Independent League team and no other team would touch him? The other thing is, what percentage of guys would have been caught or quit using had testing been in place? I have always been under the impression that the makers have been able to stay a step or 2 ahead of the tests for years, that you almost had to be an idiot to get caught.


A piss test is an IQ test, as they say.

kevin57
04-14-2008, 01:46 PM
The union, the owners, the players, and yes, to an extent, the fans share blame for the roids scandal. None took it seriously when it was raging everywhere, and even now, they're temporizing on it. Shame.

EndemicSox
04-14-2008, 01:53 PM
Fehr is giving a speech followed by a Q and A at my law school on tuesday. Any suggestions for possible questions?

Will the union always oppose olympic-style drug testing, and if so, why...

Lefty34
04-14-2008, 02:04 PM
I have always been under the impression that the makers have been able to stay a step or 2 ahead of the tests for years, that you almost had to be an idiot to get caught.

Yes, that is true. Apparently, there is a concoction of steroids out there (called "gear" by the creators) that is actually broken down by the test itself. Coupled with that the gear is supposedly oral as opposed to needle-needing, and it can be mixed with almost anything so it can pass through customs or under a trainer's nose and they wouldn't know the difference.

My question is: where is all this supposed testing that the MLB and MLBPA are talking about? I was looking at the Mitchell Report on Wikipedia and they have every person who allegedly took steroids listed along with what they allegedly took. And from looking at it I could see that Winstrol and Deca-Durabolin. The thing about this is, according to most people in the know, an athlete is pissing out traces of those two drugs for at a couple months after taking them, so where was this supposed testing and why weren't these catchable people caught? Anyway just my two-cents.

jabrch
04-14-2008, 02:40 PM
IMHO, Blame goes to everyone...

Most of it goes to the players - rules are rules

The union enabled it - no reason to REALLY do what is in your memberships best interest as long as you are protecting your wallets

Ownership and management never did enough to stop it - why kill the golden goose?

The media ignored it - didn't want to lose their interviews

Fans buried our heads in the sand and ignored it - too busy enjoying HR Derby.

I'm sure other parties deserve blame too. I didn't hear JR's interview, but if he put all (most) of the blame on Fehr and didn't take a chunk on behalf of the owners, I feel like he is not being intellectually honest.

The Immigrant
04-14-2008, 02:50 PM
Fehr is giving a speech followed by a Q and A at my law school on tuesday. Any suggestions for possible questions?

"Are you hiring?" would be a good one to start.

Droso5
04-14-2008, 02:56 PM
"Are you hiring?" would be a good one to start.

And a patridge in a Fehr tree?

TDog
04-14-2008, 03:23 PM
Will the union always oppose olympic-style drug testing, and if so, why...

Management will always oppose Olympic-style drug testing, so the point is mute.

Say a player hits a pinch-hit home run to end a game, pulling victory from the jaws of defeat, as they say. He tests positive after the game. They can't take his medal away as they took away Ben Johnson's medal and world record and achievement from the glory of Canada. They would take his home run away. They would have to take the win away. And if the pitcher tested positive after the game as well, to which team would the game be forfeited.

If the consequences were adjusted, if achievements, statistics and records were to stand despite positive tests, there remains ample reason for any labor union to oppose such an intrusion into honest players' privacy. Without getting political, the American justice system traditionally has put protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty. Donald Fehr could probably articulate an an answer to why, but if you firmly believe Olympic-style testing should be instituted in major league baseball, his answer won't convince you otherwise.

All fans -- the great majority, at least -- want a clean game. Baseball is no dirtier than any other professional sport. (I don't understand why people don't seem to care about how clean other sports are, but I digress.) Baseball also has a stronger union than any other sport, probably stronger than auto workers and longshoremen these days. If I am a union member, I am not going to look at "the good of the game" over what I see as my personal interests, even if I am clean.

As a disclaimer, I am not pro-union. I have never in my life belonged to a labor union, even when I was teaching in East Chicago and was a victim of the strike of 1978-79.

Flight #24
04-15-2008, 10:28 AM
Fehr wouldn't have opposed the players voting for testing. If he did, that would have been irresponsible and the union would have grounds to void his contract. I haven't heard any such claim from anyone representing players. Fehr appears to have presented arguments against testing to convince the players not to vote for it. There probably wasn't anyone on the other side articulating the case for it beyond a statement from management.
.
That assumes that the rank and file who are in favor of testing control the union. I'm fairly certain that as long as Fehr has the support of the stars, many of whom are the ones using the junk, he'll maintain his position.

IMO it was a combination of Fehr presenting against testing and the guys who use vocally supporting him in being anti-testing. I wouldn't be surprised if either Fehr or guys "assisting" him talked to players about how PEDs = salary growth at the top and that pulls up guys at the middle to bottom, so they're good for the players overall.

(of course, the increased stratification of salaries results as well, but I firmly believe that Fehr operates for the max benefit of the upper class of players,not the entire population.)

Scottzilla
04-15-2008, 11:28 AM
I saw the teaser for the interview but didnt get to catch it. What was the question where JR aked to turn the camera off?

Hitmenof77
04-15-2008, 11:30 AM
Fehr definately does not work for the best of baseball


Umm he's not suppose to. He's in the charge of the player's union. Not baseball. He works for the best interest of the players.

Hitmenof77
04-15-2008, 11:33 AM
That assumes that the rank and file who are in favor of testing control the union. I'm fairly certain that as long as Fehr has the support of the stars, many of whom are the ones using the junk, he'll maintain his position.

IMO it was a combination of Fehr presenting against testing and the guys who use vocally supporting him in being anti-testing. I wouldn't be surprised if either Fehr or guys "assisting" him talked to players about how PEDs = salary growth at the top and that pulls up guys at the middle to bottom, so they're good for the players overall.

(of course, the increased stratification of salaries results as well, but I firmly believe that Fehr operates for the max benefit of the upper class of players,not the entire population.)

But it's the rank and file who make up most of the union reps and board of directors. Very few stars are the player reps. I don't think ARod, Jeter, Bonds, etc were ever player reps or served on the board.

TDog
04-15-2008, 04:25 PM
But it's the rank and file who make up most of the union reps and board of directors. Very few stars are the player reps. I don't think ARod, Jeter, Bonds, etc were ever player reps or served on the board.


It used to be that players didn't want to be player reps and player reps were frequently traded after angering their team's ownership. I don't know if things have changed. Curt Schilling at an especially contentious time was a player rep, quite involved and vocal about his feelings toward management.

On a lot of teams, and the recent Giants is the most extreme example, the stars are not popular people and do not exert influence.

Frontman
04-15-2008, 04:40 PM
As much as I appreciate Jerry bringing a World Series Championship to Chicago, he as well as the other owners have no biz pointing at Fehr and the Union as being at fault for steroids. There is plenty of blame to go around.

russ99
04-15-2008, 04:51 PM
As much as I appreciate Jerry bringing a World Series Championship to Chicago, he as well as the other owners have no biz pointing at Fehr and the Union as being at fault for steroids. There is plenty of blame to go around.

While I certainly don't absolve Reinsdorf of wrongdoing, once steroids were widespread, Don Fehr and the union did an awful lot to keep any kind of strict testing/punishment to be adopted. So IMO he should get a fair share of the blame.

Where the owners and Bud were much more at fault was much earlier when they knew that steroids were rampant in the league and did absolutely nothing. As long as the homers kept flying out and the turnstiles were spinning, they didn't care.

Flight #24
04-15-2008, 10:07 PM
But it's the rank and file who make up most of the union reps and board of directors. Very few stars are the player reps. I don't think ARod, Jeter, Bonds, etc were ever player reps or served on the board.

I'm not talking about who's the player reps, I'm talking about who's the power. Not always the same thing, especially if/when the union management is listening more to the stars than the rest.

Not that easy for the Neal Cotts' of the world to stand up to the ARods, especially when the ARod's have Fehr's backing.