 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Major league baseball's new steroid policy: Joke
Brownbeard
Don't buy the nonsense. The new policy is just a little tap on the wrist. Up to 10 game suspension? Up to? Give me a break.
Major league baseball's new steroid policy: Joke
January 13, 2005 at 03:14PM View BBCode
More of the same. What a joke. First time should be 1 year ban. Second time should be 3 year ban. Third time should be lifetime ban. Minor league positive tests should be included in that 3 strikes your out scenario. There should be random year round testing. Minimum of 3 tests per year. No salary should be paid to player during the ban.Don't buy the nonsense. The new policy is just a little tap on the wrist. Up to 10 game suspension? Up to? Give me a break.
lvnwrth
I thought, after the near shutdown a year and a half ago, that maybe the owners would assert themselves and take a little more control. WRONG! Clearly Don Fehr and the rest of the inmates are still running the asylum.
January 13, 2005 at 03:25PM View BBCode
What a farce. Hope Congress makes good on their threat to conduct an investigation unless there was a meaningful policy put in place. This is clearly NOT a meaningful policy.I thought, after the near shutdown a year and a half ago, that maybe the owners would assert themselves and take a little more control. WRONG! Clearly Don Fehr and the rest of the inmates are still running the asylum.
abarkov
January 13, 2005 at 04:17PM View BBCode
I agree with both of you completely. The problem is the MLBPA. It's really a wonder that they even agreed to those trivial consequences. The only way baseball will ever get a good steroid policy (not to mention a salary cap), is to go the hockey route and shut it down long enough that they (the owners) are legally allowed to impose their own workplace rules.
celamantia
January 13, 2005 at 05:39PM View BBCode
And, of course, this is all useless without year-round random testing of every player several times a year.
FuriousGiorge
January 13, 2005 at 06:39PM View BBCode
Several times a year! Nein! Every day! Every player must be tested before every game! And if they test positive?
Bengals
January 13, 2005 at 07:37PM View BBCode
Personaly, I support a lifetime ban the very first time. You don't deserve to play baseball if you are going to mess it up to the point where people are wondering if some player is real or not.
sfgiants4
January 13, 2005 at 08:32PM View BBCode
ya anything is better than what they had before, but i hope congress steps in and makes them make the penalties strcter before baseball is forever stained.
ABDREW
There is now year round testing but I believe it will stay random
January 13, 2005 at 10:30PM View BBCode
Originally posted by celamantia
And, of course, this is all useless without year-round random testing of every player several times a year.
There is now year round testing but I believe it will stay random
INDIANSFORLIFE
January 13, 2005 at 10:32PM View BBCode
The above is true. It is still a flawed system, but its a step in the right direction. I dont think the Players Union would have accepted anythign more drastic anyway.
ABDREW
January 13, 2005 at 10:35PM View BBCode
I agree, it is a atep in the right direction. I'll take anything form the MLBPA right now. They have to be one of the strongest unions in the country
lvnwrth
January 13, 2005 at 10:42PM View BBCode
When the next CBA expires the owners need to take a cue from the NHL, suck it up, and shut it down for as long as it takes.
INDIANSFORLIFE
January 13, 2005 at 10:55PM View BBCode
I dont know about that. I want my baseball damnit.
INDIANSFORLIFE
Maybe if Bob Wickman plays lacrosse with the ladies. That could be entertaining.
January 13, 2005 at 11:05PM View BBCode
Yuck.Maybe if Bob Wickman plays lacrosse with the ladies. That could be entertaining.
ABDREW
This time there won't be a steroid freak and bat corker to bail them out either
January 13, 2005 at 11:05PM View BBCode
The MLPA is slightly weaker than the last time negotiations happened but not even close to being weak enough to have a lockout. That would last AT LEAST one full season and kill basebqall again.This time there won't be a steroid freak and bat corker to bail them out either
Brownbeard
Hey Marshal, Wickman is pretty dumb. He might just try it. He used to try and cheat off my wife's tests in high school. They both went to a dinky school in Wisconsin. I remember hearing all the stories about him. I laughed when I saw you use his name in your post.
January 13, 2005 at 11:12PM View BBCode
1 season, 2... who cares. Shut it down. I sure as hell don't miss hockey. My life will be just fine without MLB.Hey Marshal, Wickman is pretty dumb. He might just try it. He used to try and cheat off my wife's tests in high school. They both went to a dinky school in Wisconsin. I remember hearing all the stories about him. I laughed when I saw you use his name in your post.
INDIANSFORLIFE
January 13, 2005 at 11:15PM View BBCode
Really? Thats damn funny. He seems like a stand-up type of guy to me, the kind of guy you want in the clubhouse. I guess it doesn't apply to the classroom with Wicky.
lvnwrth
I'm all for busting the union. The thing is, the owners are no longer "sportsmen" who make their livings off their franchises. Clark Griffith was probably the last of those, and how long ago did the Griffith family sell the Twins? If the Royals don't play ball, David Glass still makes a fortune from Wal-Mart. Ted Turner's AOLTimWarner stock will keep him nicely well into his old age, regardless of what the Braves do. Peter Angelos will just go back to suing asbestos manufacturers. If baseball simply shut down, I don't think any of the owners would be in financial crisis as a result. The question is, do they have the resolve to live without their "toy" for a season or two or however long it takes?
The Schillings and Johnsons and Piazzas and Griffeys and Rodriguezes are set for life. They can take their money and retire. But what about those guys who just signed their first mega-million dollar contract, and now they're locked out after one or two seasons? How long are they going to be willing to forego their paydays? And how many of the $300K
pond-scum guys are ready to give up their MLB paychecks and benefits so they can teach school, drive a truck, sell real estate, or work in the factory for 10-20% of that 300K, with significantly fewer benefits?
The only thing the players have that the owners don't have is resolve. If the owners put a zero-tolerance, lifetime ban steroid clause in the next CBA and REFUSED to budge the players would strike and the owners would have something they've never really had before...broad public support.
Nice scenario, but it will never happen, and we all know why. For all their millions and billions in the bank, the owners all want more. They care more about fattening their already overloaded wallets more than they care about doing what's right for the game.
January 13, 2005 at 11:30PM View BBCode
I would certainly miss baseball, but I'm guessing that by July 4th of the first season most of us would have figured out how to spend our time. I used to fish quite a bit. Maybe I could try that again. There's American Legion ball and Little League, where they play for fun. Or I could go watch my friends play slow pitch softball. Or I could go on a picnic with my kids, or spend time with my Mom and mow her lawn and fix her roof, instead of letting my brother do it. Life would go on without baseball.I'm all for busting the union. The thing is, the owners are no longer "sportsmen" who make their livings off their franchises. Clark Griffith was probably the last of those, and how long ago did the Griffith family sell the Twins? If the Royals don't play ball, David Glass still makes a fortune from Wal-Mart. Ted Turner's AOLTimWarner stock will keep him nicely well into his old age, regardless of what the Braves do. Peter Angelos will just go back to suing asbestos manufacturers. If baseball simply shut down, I don't think any of the owners would be in financial crisis as a result. The question is, do they have the resolve to live without their "toy" for a season or two or however long it takes?
The Schillings and Johnsons and Piazzas and Griffeys and Rodriguezes are set for life. They can take their money and retire. But what about those guys who just signed their first mega-million dollar contract, and now they're locked out after one or two seasons? How long are they going to be willing to forego their paydays? And how many of the $300K
pond-scum guys are ready to give up their MLB paychecks and benefits so they can teach school, drive a truck, sell real estate, or work in the factory for 10-20% of that 300K, with significantly fewer benefits?
The only thing the players have that the owners don't have is resolve. If the owners put a zero-tolerance, lifetime ban steroid clause in the next CBA and REFUSED to budge the players would strike and the owners would have something they've never really had before...broad public support.
Nice scenario, but it will never happen, and we all know why. For all their millions and billions in the bank, the owners all want more. They care more about fattening their already overloaded wallets more than they care about doing what's right for the game.
FuriousGiorge
No, here's why it won't happen: CBA, in case you didn't know, stands for COLLECTIVE bargaining agreement. The owners can't do anything unilaterally, it is a part of the agreement between owners and players.
One of the main things the MLBPA accomplished in the 70's was to get labor negotiations placed under the jurisdiction of arbitrators. This is not an uncommon practice, it helps to solve problems between labor and management in many fields without having nasty strikes all the time. If the baseball owners were to unilaterally make changes to the CBA, an arbitrator would come in and tell them that they couldn't do that. Of course, they know enough about this process to realize that that's impossible but the average fan still seems to think the owners are the Lords of the Realm and can do any damn thing they please. Even if they wanted to impose their iron will on the MLBPA (and I love the fact that fans somehow think that the owners are a more benevolent force than the players) they are not legally allowed to do so.
January 14, 2005 at 01:06AM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
If the owners put a zero-tolerance, lifetime ban steroid clause in the next CBA and REFUSED to budge the players would strike and the owners would have something they've never really had before...broad public support.
Nice scenario, but it will never happen, and we all know why. For all their millions and billions in the bank, the owners all want more. They care more about fattening their already overloaded wallets more than they care about doing what's right for the game.
No, here's why it won't happen: CBA, in case you didn't know, stands for COLLECTIVE bargaining agreement. The owners can't do anything unilaterally, it is a part of the agreement between owners and players.
One of the main things the MLBPA accomplished in the 70's was to get labor negotiations placed under the jurisdiction of arbitrators. This is not an uncommon practice, it helps to solve problems between labor and management in many fields without having nasty strikes all the time. If the baseball owners were to unilaterally make changes to the CBA, an arbitrator would come in and tell them that they couldn't do that. Of course, they know enough about this process to realize that that's impossible but the average fan still seems to think the owners are the Lords of the Realm and can do any damn thing they please. Even if they wanted to impose their iron will on the MLBPA (and I love the fact that fans somehow think that the owners are a more benevolent force than the players) they are not legally allowed to do so.
lvnwrth
Sorry I mispoke and caused you such chagrin. I should have said, "Their next CBA PROPOSALl..."
I stand by the rest of what I said. If the owners put that in their PROPOSAL the players would never accept it, and it would have broad public support.
At some point in time with no meaningful negotiations, the owners get an impasse declared and then they can unilaterally impose work conditions for those willing to work.
Arbitration or no, unions can be broken. Look at the umpires. Granted, Don Fehr isn't as stupid as Richie Phillips, but the fact remains...unions can be broken.
January 14, 2005 at 02:03AM View BBCode
No, here's why it won't happen: CBA, in case you didn't know, stands for COLLECTIVE bargaining agreement. The owners can't do anything unilaterally, it is a part of the agreement between owners and players.
Sorry I mispoke and caused you such chagrin. I should have said, "Their next CBA PROPOSALl..."
I stand by the rest of what I said. If the owners put that in their PROPOSAL the players would never accept it, and it would have broad public support.
At some point in time with no meaningful negotiations, the owners get an impasse declared and then they can unilaterally impose work conditions for those willing to work.
Arbitration or no, unions can be broken. Look at the umpires. Granted, Don Fehr isn't as stupid as Richie Phillips, but the fact remains...unions can be broken.
Duff77
January 14, 2005 at 02:53AM View BBCode
The players will never agree to anything more strict. They only agreed to what they did because of fierce negative press on the subject. But push them to actually have to, ya know--GIVE UP STEROIDS--and I promise you they'll balk. It'll be a game of chicken, too--which will hurt the game more? A prolonged walkout by the players or continued BS drug enforcement policies. In the end, I think the BS drug enforcement will win out, because in the end, most fans just aren't that bothered by it.Pages: 1