 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » New steroid policy (50-100-Out)
Guvner
Strike 1 - 50 game suspension
Strike 2 - 100 game suspension
Strike 3 - Lifetime ban from baseball
Slipped under many peoples radar - no fanfare with this announcement. Sad that it takes congressional pressure on Selig and MLB for a decent agreement to be made.
New steroid policy (50-100-Out)
November 16, 2005 at 01:43AM View BBCode
http://www.cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9045036Strike 1 - 50 game suspension
Strike 2 - 100 game suspension
Strike 3 - Lifetime ban from baseball
Slipped under many peoples radar - no fanfare with this announcement. Sad that it takes congressional pressure on Selig and MLB for a decent agreement to be made.
skierdude44
November 16, 2005 at 02:07AM View BBCode
Testing for amphetamines is also coming in with this policy. It's an upgrade over the first policy and a step in the right direction. I'd like to see the penalties alittle harsher still. Maybe full season suspension for the first offense, life time ban for the second, but this is much better than that 10 game crap they had this year.
swerve
[Edited on 11-16-2005 by swerve]
November 16, 2005 at 05:38AM View BBCode
They should just go by the baseball schedule 81-162 and done. You should definitely get a full season's worth of games for a second offense.[Edited on 11-16-2005 by swerve]
drunkengoat
November 16, 2005 at 06:47AM View BBCode
The dumb folks wouldn't understand the concept of the penalties if they didn't make em nice pretty round numbers like 50 or 100.
rkinslow19
I'd support a lifetime ban for a second offense.
Also, say goodbye to greenies. They've been a part of baseball culture for nearly 50 years. I suggest reading the articles about them on ESPN.com - they're very interesting
November 16, 2005 at 10:13AM View BBCode
I'm a big fan of this change.I'd support a lifetime ban for a second offense.
Also, say goodbye to greenies. They've been a part of baseball culture for nearly 50 years. I suggest reading the articles about them on ESPN.com - they're very interesting
rkinslow19
I'd support a lifetime ban for a second offense.
Also, say goodbye to greenies. They've been a part of baseball culture for nearly 50 years. I suggest reading the articles about them on ESPN.com - they're very interesting
November 16, 2005 at 10:13AM View BBCode
I'm a big fan of this change.I'd support a lifetime ban for a second offense.
Also, say goodbye to greenies. They've been a part of baseball culture for nearly 50 years. I suggest reading the articles about them on ESPN.com - they're very interesting
yankeekid
November 16, 2005 at 01:15PM View BBCode
So if it's a lifetime ban twice...(you posted twice) would that mean if you got caught four times you get banned in your next life too?
Guvner
I'm not sure, but I think MLB conducts their own testing. I think they should contract that out to an independent agency - too many legal issues can result when you're too close to this process.
I'm also curious to know how often they test the players. In the military, everyone gets tested at random intervals every year. Generally speaking, any illegal drug detected (THC, roids, etc) and you're discharged on the 1st offense. Lots of other legal things go along with it, but the discharge process starts right there.
November 16, 2005 at 04:04PM View BBCode
I can go for a more stringent policy. 81, 162 and gone, or even gone after 2nd offense.I'm not sure, but I think MLB conducts their own testing. I think they should contract that out to an independent agency - too many legal issues can result when you're too close to this process.
I'm also curious to know how often they test the players. In the military, everyone gets tested at random intervals every year. Generally speaking, any illegal drug detected (THC, roids, etc) and you're discharged on the 1st offense. Lots of other legal things go along with it, but the discharge process starts right there.
yankeekid
November 16, 2005 at 07:39PM View BBCode
Why does no one consider life time ban first time around? I mean you are purposely breaking the rules of the game and if everyone knew there would be a lifetime ban they wouldn't use steroids.
youngallstar
I do think it should be a lifetime ban for a second offense but for now I am glad that the punishment has been stiffened
November 16, 2005 at 07:43PM View BBCode
Seems like it would cause too much legal trouble for one and your done, although I like the idea yankeekid.I do think it should be a lifetime ban for a second offense but for now I am glad that the punishment has been stiffened
yankeekid
[Edited on 11-16-2005 by yankeekid]
November 16, 2005 at 07:46PM View BBCode
How exactly would it cause legal trouble? I don't know anything about legal stuff so I didn't really consider that...[Edited on 11-16-2005 by yankeekid]
barterer2002
Last weeks Baseball Weekly quoted Matt Lawton as saying that he thought, since he'd already been tested, that he wouldn't be tested again this year and so was safe. Guess that shows a bit of randomness there.
November 16, 2005 at 08:14PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Guvner
I'm also curious to know how often they test the players. In the military, everyone gets tested at random intervals every year. Generally speaking, any illegal drug detected (THC, roids, etc) and you're discharged on the 1st offense. Lots of other legal things go along with it, but the discharge process starts right there.
Last weeks Baseball Weekly quoted Matt Lawton as saying that he thought, since he'd already been tested, that he wouldn't be tested again this year and so was safe. Guess that shows a bit of randomness there.
DougB
November 16, 2005 at 08:22PM View BBCode
I can live with 50-100-done. 10 games for 1st offense with 5th offense required for a ban was a joke. I hope they include minor league offenses with this. I don't know if they do.
yankeekid
November 16, 2005 at 08:26PM View BBCode
So they don't go back and punish the players that were already caught with an additional 40 games do they?
jetpac
November 17, 2005 at 02:27AM View BBCode
No, I think I read that if any of the 12 players that were caught this past year test positive again, it will be treated as a first offense.
yankeekid
November 17, 2005 at 02:28AM View BBCode
That's dumb. So not only do they not add to the first offense they take it way?
lvnwrth
Now, if we could just get a "one and done" policy for all the drunk drivers on the road....
November 17, 2005 at 02:47AM View BBCode
C'mon guys...give MLB credit. They've gone from putting a guy in "timeout" for using steroids to banning him if he pees hot three times. I'm okay with this. It's certainly a huge improvement from where they were.Now, if we could just get a "one and done" policy for all the drunk drivers on the road....
rkinslow19
I have read many accounts of "mistaken" steroid uses from latin players, supposedbly stemming from mis-marked foreign supplements, so I don't support the first time lifetime ban yet. However, I would be in favor of a lifetime ban in three years, once everyone "figures" out what the supplements contain.
November 17, 2005 at 08:42AM View BBCode
No, I will give MLB absolutely no credit. Their back was to the wall, and if they didn't pass this new policy, congress would have (possibly more harsh). They had no choice, and were simply trying to avoid the publicity fiasco.I have read many accounts of "mistaken" steroid uses from latin players, supposedbly stemming from mis-marked foreign supplements, so I don't support the first time lifetime ban yet. However, I would be in favor of a lifetime ban in three years, once everyone "figures" out what the supplements contain.
lvnwrth
Congress probably has no authority here. They can posture. They can even pass legislation. But the law probably wouldn't stand up to a legal challenge. Certainly Congress couldn't come into your work place, or mine (without establishing some compelling public interest) and set steroid policy. I doubt that most of our courts would feel that Barry Bonds being on steroids is an issue of compelling public interest...interest here NOT to be confused with curiousity.
Congress can have hearings. They can threaten to revoke baseball's anti-trust exemption...which they should have done long ago anyway. But in the end, this was a work place issue to be resolved between management and labor.
As for the publicity fiasco, do you really think this avoided one? Don't you think they already HAD ONE?
November 17, 2005 at 03:23PM View BBCode
Originally posted by rkinslow19
No, I will give MLB absolutely no credit. Their back was to the wall, and if they didn't pass this new policy, congress would have (possibly more harsh). They had no choice, and were simply trying to avoid the publicity fiasco.
Congress probably has no authority here. They can posture. They can even pass legislation. But the law probably wouldn't stand up to a legal challenge. Certainly Congress couldn't come into your work place, or mine (without establishing some compelling public interest) and set steroid policy. I doubt that most of our courts would feel that Barry Bonds being on steroids is an issue of compelling public interest...interest here NOT to be confused with curiousity.
Congress can have hearings. They can threaten to revoke baseball's anti-trust exemption...which they should have done long ago anyway. But in the end, this was a work place issue to be resolved between management and labor.
As for the publicity fiasco, do you really think this avoided one? Don't you think they already HAD ONE?
yankeekid
November 17, 2005 at 04:05PM View BBCode
Yes, they did already have one. But they avoided it getting worse.
alnutter2001
November 19, 2005 at 09:22PM View BBCode
One thing to add, maybe I missed it andI'm not sure if people are aware but even with the lifetime ban, 3rd time offenders can still be reinstated after 2 full seasons. That is the only part of the new policy that I don't agree with. I am glad to see this finally in place though. Should have been done a long time ago.
Guvner
I may be mistaken here, but NFL, NHL, and NBA have not been given this same monopoly waiver.
November 19, 2005 at 10:36PM View BBCode
Congress CAN step in here. They gave MLB a monopoly waiver so that no one can start a rival league. This gives them a lot of bartering power, and can hang this over MLBs head when they feel like it. They chose to step in here to recalibrate the MLB policy. They were hanging an 81/162/Out policy over Selig's head if MLB didn't negotiate something more stringent than their original policy.I may be mistaken here, but NFL, NHL, and NBA have not been given this same monopoly waiver.
DougB
November 20, 2005 at 02:43AM View BBCode
yeah and the NFL is cowering in fear of the XFL II taking over. Similarly the NBA has had to absorb the CBA as it was cutting into their fan base in the north end of a subburb of Akron.Pages: 1 2