Home | Webstore
Latest News: OOTP 25 Available - FHM 10 Available - OOTP Go! Available

Out of the Park Baseball 25 Buy Now!

  

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Out of the Park Developments > Talk Sports

Talk Sports Discuss everything that is sports-related, like MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, MLS, NASCAR, NCAA sports and teams, trades, coaches, bad calls etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-14-2006, 06:35 PM   #541
sebastian0622
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlyons
Except that the issue of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs had continually come up in collective bargaining negotiations and each time both sides had agreed not to prohibit them. If an issue specifically comes up in collective bargaining and still doesn't have a rule against it, doesn't that actually absolve the participants of moral obligation in the matter -- at least in regards to MLB? This wasn't a gray area -- the players' union and owners had come to an agreement that steroids wasn't an issue.
Unless you're saying that baseball and the union condoned or encouraged the use of steroids, it has no bearing on my stance. It still comes down to the question of if baseball has to make explicit the prohibition of illegal competitive advantages, and why?
sebastian0622 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2006, 06:43 PM   #542
jgross68
All Star Reserve
 
jgross68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: ....is everything! OTA: .882, Member #866
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshv02
I'm trying to figure out why people think MLB didn't outlaw steriods earlier than the current CBA.

So, I'm looking at baseball's old memo outlining its Drug Policy and Prevention Program, available here http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs.htm#1991Memo .

The Memo clearly states that "[t]he possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possion, sale or use of any illlegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commission and risk permanent expulsion from the game. . . The prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steriods or prescription drugs for which the indivudal in possession of thed drug does not have a prescription." (Emphasis added)

Perhaps the Memo had to be a subject of bargaining and therefore the Memo had no effect? But, the provisions were enforced for illegal drugs...

I'm not sure why we think baseball didn't outlaw steriods until the most recent CBA. I think they just started testing but the prohibition always existed. Am I wrong?
Again, asking because I don't know: Did MLB institute a former policy on other illegal drugs and controlled substances (i.e., cocaine) with regard to testing and/or punishment for offenses between the time of the 1991 Vincent memo and the most recent CBA where steroid testing was formalized? In other words, did they deal with "drugs" and institute a formal policy by way of collective bargaining before they officially tackled steroids?

And here's another question: Is it (or was it) possible for a player to get a prescription for, say, Winstrol from a Dr. Nick-type physician to skirt the '91 memo?
Attached Images
Image 
__________________
Javier Gustavo Ruprecht Oss LXVIII
Bizarro-Gastric ReFlux Emeritus
Judo Purist and Supporter of Monkey Rodeo


Leagues: OTBL | ABC | OCHO | Off The Wall (Coming Soon!)
Blogs: The Legacy of Tony Womack | How We Got Enron! ...the musical (Now even less frequently updated!)


Topical quote for any occasion: "Never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth."
~Henrik Ibsen, "An Enemy of the People"

Last edited by jgross68; 03-14-2006 at 06:45 PM.
jgross68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2006, 06:46 PM   #543
jgross68
All Star Reserve
 
jgross68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: ....is everything! OTA: .882, Member #866
Posts: 690
Dola,
Thanks for the props, Sub!

*holds out fist for Respek Knuckles*
__________________
Javier Gustavo Ruprecht Oss LXVIII
Bizarro-Gastric ReFlux Emeritus
Judo Purist and Supporter of Monkey Rodeo


Leagues: OTBL | ABC | OCHO | Off The Wall (Coming Soon!)
Blogs: The Legacy of Tony Womack | How We Got Enron! ...the musical (Now even less frequently updated!)


Topical quote for any occasion: "Never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth."
~Henrik Ibsen, "An Enemy of the People"
jgross68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2006, 06:48 PM   #544
Hotblack Desiato
Major Leagues
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgross68
And here's another question: Is it (or was it) possible for a player to get a prescription for, say, Winstrol from a Dr. Nick-type physician to skirt the '91 memo?
Sure, if they just went in and said they had a severe case of bonus eruptus, they'd probably get a prescription along with their transdermal electromocide.
Hotblack Desiato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2006, 06:51 PM   #545
Joshv02
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: , "
Posts: 3,082
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgross68
Again, asking because I don't know: Did MLB institute a former policy on other illegal drugs and controlled substances (i.e., cocaine) with regard to testing and/or punishment for offenses between the time of the 1991 Vincent memo and the most recent CBA where steroid testing was formalized? In other words, did they deal with "drugs" and institute a formal policy by way of collective bargaining before they officially tackled steroids?

And here's another question: Is it (or was it) possible for a player to get a prescription for, say, Winstrol from a Dr. Nick-type physician to skirt the '91 memo?
I'm not sure I understand the legality of it all...

So, Strawberry is repeatedly testing positive for cocaine use. I think that is pursuant to the 1991 memo, but I can't tell. It is my understanding that drug testing is typically a "mandatory subject of bargaining", so without a drug testing agreement as part of the CBA baseball couldn't test.

I'm pretty sure that the CBA's prior to the current one didn't mention drug use, and a quick look at the 1997 CBA confirms that...
__________________
Brookline Maccabees. RIP
Joshv02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2006, 06:51 PM   #546
Sublimity
Hall Of Famer
 
Sublimity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: This thread.
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian0622
I think that is a convenient excuse to support your given position on the matter, honestly.

The ultimate problem with your stance is that you cannot regulate that which you do not know.

Should baseball right now have a policy on the books about genetic engineering? That's becoming feasible, and will likely impact sports in the next generation, so maybe we'd agree that baseball should come out with a policy. Cool.

Well, what about mechanical arms and limbs and robotics? It's very possible that robotic arms will be around within the next century that could perform in pro sports, no? Cool. So baseball makes policy about mechanical limbs.

This may seem far-fetched and tangental, but both are possible, and both are forseeable, and both are applicable to your stance that baseball needs policies on this stuff before it becomes an issue on the diamond. The above two policies may be feasible. But, what if genetic engineering is made illegal? Would baseball still have to explicity outlaw it in advance? Why? And what about that problem that is entirely unforseeable? The problem that is completely unheard of until it is discovered--the cancer on baseball that is latent until it is revealed during or after its effects on the game?

I don't think it's necessarily relevant to baseball's treatment of Bonds that baseball was aware of illegal steroids yet didn't make an explicit policy for them. Must baseball make explicit that illegal competitive advantages are against the rules? I don't see that as necessary now nor as practical moving forward. I think it's a cop-out used to try to exonerate Bonds.

The bottom line is that, if Bonds knowingly took steroids, he knowingly gave himself an illegal competitive advantage and gave others an illegal competitive disadvantage. He put himself in a position to exalt himself illegally above law-abiding baseball players. I see baseball's steroid policy or lack thereof doing very little to affect that fundamental moral deficiency.
That's the kind of thing that will be known about before the player either tries to make it into MLB or has the procedure done. If genetic engineering becomes possible and people start modifying genes to make people biggerstrongerfaster, then MLB and all sports will have to sit down and decide what to do about it. But if someone is genetically engineered, there's no rule against it, and he hits 250 HRs a year with a batting average of .750, they can't kick him out without, say, honoring his contract. The problem with this example is that you can't stop being genetically engineered. So with steroids, once they made it against the rules, a player had to stop because testing and punishments were done. If a new rule comes in and says "no steroids" then someone tests positive, that's there fault. If a new rule comes in and says "no genetically engineered players" you can't stop breaking the rule.

Similar problem with mechanical limbs. But if a player considers either entering baseball with that or considers getting that done, baseball will have to come up with a policy. If they stay silent on it, and the player starts setting records, they can't suddenly reverse course, bar him from the game, and wipe out his records.

I don't need baseball to come up with specifics. But saying "don't take illegal performance enhancing drugs or you'll face these penalties" isn't exactly rewriting Shakespeare.

To modify one of your analogies (and I think we both agree that these -- yours and mine both -- are bad for arguments), let's say players start coming in with mechanical limbs, and they play for a while. Then the mechanics of it all get much better and the players with the new enhancements are much better, and baseball decides on a policy of no mechanical enhancement. You can't go back and wipe out the records of the players who had the old system. They did nothing wrong. They played within the set rules of the game. Just for more accuracy with the example, let's say having the procedure of attaching the mechanical limbs was illegal in the US, but legal in Russia, and this applies to the older, accepted version and the newer version. So players go to Russia and get the enhancements, and come back, and baseball lets them play. Let's even say they hide the fact that they have mechanical limbs from the public because of stigma or whatever. But everyone knows the enhancements are possible and people are getting them in Russia. Some players are rumored to have had mechanical enhancements, some players even write books about it later. You still can't punish the players who weren't breaking any written baseball law. Still not a perfect analogy, but no analogy ever is.

If baseball wanted the ability to punish players for taking these drugs, they should have made it policy and announced that it wouldn't be tolerated. I'm not sure when people first started noticing and using steroids, so let's say for argument's sake it was the mid 80s (I think it was around there). That means baseball knew this could be a potential issue, but aside from a memo floated in 1991 that said "we don't want this happening" nothing was done about it.

Now they have decided they don't want it, and they started testing and set down punishments. Barry Bonds has not violated this policy. In that case, you can't punish him for it. Just like if Alex Sanchez had been given a ten-game suspension with 5 games left in the season before they upped the penalties, they couldn't extend the five game-suspension he had left to the new, longer penalty. He wouldn't have violated the new policy, he violated the old policy. Well, if the book is true, Bonds violated a policy that didn't exist, and can only be punished through penalties that never existed. What penalty can they punish him with, anyway? Anything they would do to Bonds would be a completely arbitrary decision.

Also, Jose Canseco openly admitted to steroid use. Nothing has happened to his place in baseball history. His records are still there, he is eligible for the Hall of Fame. How can they now go after Bonds for what Canseco admitted when they didn't do anything to Canseco? The thing I hate most about this whole ordeal is they are focusing on Bonds because he is chasing records. If he were a mediocre player, nobody would be arguing for this. So much for everyone wanting consistency.
__________________
mrs ria: I hereby dub Sublimity the Glorious Upholder of the 5B3.

Current leading vote-getter in the Worst Poster in OT History poll.
Sublimity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2006, 06:53 PM   #547
Sublimity
Hall Of Famer
 
Sublimity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: This thread.
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgross68
Dola,
Thanks for the props, Sub!

*holds out fist for Respek Knuckles*
Respek given.
__________________
mrs ria: I hereby dub Sublimity the Glorious Upholder of the 5B3.

Current leading vote-getter in the Worst Poster in OT History poll.
Sublimity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2006, 07:02 PM   #548
mlyons
Hall Of Famer
 
mlyons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshv02
I'm not sure I understand the legality of it all...

So, Strawberry is repeatedly testing positive for cocaine use. I think that is pursuant to the 1991 memo, but I can't tell. It is my understanding that drug testing is typically a "mandatory subject of bargaining", so without a drug testing agreement as part of the CBA baseball couldn't test.

I'm pretty sure that the CBA's prior to the current one didn't mention drug use, and a quick look at the 1997 CBA confirms that...
The penalties for drug use would have had to arisen from the CBA, I think. There were penalties for things such as cocaine use, but not for steroid use. These penalties and testing regimes were in place before the 1991 memo, by the way -- Steve Howe was suspended for the 1984 season after repeatedly testing positive for cocaine, for example. The problem with the memo is that the language contained within it was modified during the next CBA negotiations, meaning it was superceded by the official rules coming out of that CBA.
__________________
Things can always be worse.
mlyons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2006, 07:04 PM   #549
mlyons
Hall Of Famer
 
mlyons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian0622
Unless you're saying that baseball and the union condoned or encouraged the use of steroids, it has no bearing on my stance. It still comes down to the question of if baseball has to make explicit the prohibition of illegal competitive advantages, and why?
I think explicitly considering whether or not something should be against the rules and deciding to not make it against the rules counts as an implicit endorsement of it. Your view may differ.
__________________
Things can always be worse.
mlyons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2006, 07:07 PM   #550
sebastian0622
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlyons
I think explicitly considering whether or not something should be against the rules and deciding to not make it against the rules counts as an implicit endorsement of it. Your view may differ.
Yeah, our views differ on that. Not putting it in the rules explicitly could be the result of anything from bureaucracy to ingorance to apathy, not necessarily endorsement.
sebastian0622 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2006, 07:13 PM   #551
Joshv02
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: , "
Posts: 3,082
Blog Entries: 2
Considering the 1991 memo, I don't it a fair reading to think silence on steriod testing was due to apathy or ignorance. Seems like it was not agreed to by the union despite being a subject of bargaining.

I don't know, that may move me a little more to Mylon's side, though I still have qualms.
__________________
Brookline Maccabees. RIP
Joshv02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2006, 07:16 PM   #552
sebastian0622
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshv02
Considering the 1991 memo, I don't it a fair reading to think silence on steriod testing was due to apathy or ignorance. Seems like it was not agreed to by the union despite being a subject of bargaining.
That could certianly be construed as apathy, though. Baseball wanted it, the players' union didn't, I think...?

In that case, it's entirely feasible that the owners saw it as a problem, but the players association was ignorant or apathetic to it to the point of thinking that the extra tests were more of a nuisance than the idea that steroids were affecting the game.
sebastian0622 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2006, 09:56 PM   #553
Cyclone792
All Star Reserve
 
Cyclone792's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 572
On the whole CBA/steroids issue, I'm in agreement with Sublimity and mlyons, and this may help others understand why ...

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=2634

One thing of interest to note: MLB could only penalize players who violated the drug policy if that player was "convicted, pleads guilty or pleads no contest to charges of using, selling or distributing such drugs." From the looks of it, unless Barry Bonds is convicted, pleads guilty or pleads no contest to actual federal charges of using, selling or distributing steroids prior to MLB banning them in the CBA, then MLB is powerless to do anything unless he has a positive test once their testing program was implemented.

Anyway, I haven't seen this posted in this thread ... so this may help ...

Quote:
Q. Where can I find a copy of MLB's drug testing rules?

A. They're part of Major League Baseball's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program, set forth as Attachment 18 to the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The CBA, in .pdf format, can be downloaded here.

Q. Who administers MLB's drug program?

A. A four-member Health Policy Advisory Committee (HPAC). The Commissioner's Office and the MLBPA each appoint two members, a lawyer and a doctor with expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of substance abuse. If the HPAC deadlocks 2-2 on an issue, the two doctors on the Committee jointly appoint a third doctor to cast the deciding vote. Members of the HPAC serve indefinite terms and can be removed at any time by the party which appointed them, so they're not likely to stray too far from the wishes of their sponsors.

Q. Which drugs are covered by the testing program?

A. Players are forbidden from "using, possessing, selling, facilitating the sale of, distributing, or facilitating the distribution of any Drug of Abuse and/or Steroid." "Drugs of Abuse" include the usual illegal substances (cocaine, LSD, marijuana, heroin, Ecstasy, GHB, PCP); "Steroids" include all anabolic androgenic steroids on the federal Schedule III controlled-substances list. Any substance added to the federal controlled-substances list is automatically added to the banned list, and the HPAC can ban additional substances by unanimous vote. Last year the steroid tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) was added to the list after it was banned by the Food & Drug Administration. The HPAC is currently considering whether to add ephedra, implicated in last year's death of Steve Bechler, to the banned list.

The HPAC also agreed to "encourage Congress to revisit the question" of whether androstenedione should be added to Schedule III. That's already happening: On Tuesday, Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-NY) held a press conference at Major League Baseball's offices to announce the proposed Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. The bill would classify additional substances, including androstenedione, as Schedule III steroids subject to MLB's ban, and would double the criminal penalties for distributing anabolic steroids within 1,000 feet of a sports facility.

Q. How did the steroid testing program operate in 2003?

A. In 2003, all players were subject to two tests for steroids, the second between five and seven days after the first. The Commissioner's Office was also allowed to conduct random testing of up to 240 players. The tests were administered during spring training and the regular season--but not during the postseason or off-season, an omission which brought severe criticism from anti-doping advocates. Players who tested positive for steroids were not subject to discipline. If 5% or fewer of the players had tested positive, this same policy would have been in effect for 2004, but because between 5% and 7% tested positive, future positive results will bring sanctions.

The HPAC is also empowered to order the immediate (within 48 hours) testing of any player whom it has "reasonable cause to believe" has used, possessed, sold or distributed steroids within the past 12 months. "Reasonable cause" isn't defined in the drug policy agreement, but the term is usually interpreted to require a "particularized and objective basis" for suspicion. Specific, credible allegations against a named player might qualify; armchair speculation, or a general desire to "rid baseball of steroids," clearly wouldn't. The March 3 Washington Post reported that MLB may soon seek to invoke the "reasonable cause" provision in response to allegations that Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Marvin Benard, Benito Santiago, and Randy Velarde had received steroids from BALCO.

Q. How will the steroid testing program operate in 2004?

A. The testing itself will be conducted the same way: two tests per player, between five and seven days apart, no testing during the off-season. Any player who tests positive will be placed on the "Clinical Track." He will be evaluated by the HPAC's two medical representatives, who will prescribe a course of treatment. The names of players on the Clinical Track will remain confidential. If the recommended treatment program renders the player unavailable to his club, he receives full salary for the first 30 days' absence, half pay for days 31 through 60, and no pay thereafter.

If the player cooperates and doesn't test positive again, that's the end of the matter. If he tests positive or fails to comply with his treatment program, he will be transferred to the "Administrative Track." Once on the Administrative Track, penalties start accruing:

First failure to comply with treatment: 15- to 25-day suspension, up to $10,000 fine. A player who complies with his treatment plan but subsequently tests positive for a second time is subject to a 15-day suspension and $10,000 fine. Penalties for subsequent positive tests escalate along the pattern set forth below.

Second failure to comply with treatment: 25- to 50-day suspension, up to $25,000 fine

Third failure to comply with treatment: 50-75 day suspension, up to $50,000 fine

Fourth failure to comply with treatment: Suspension of one year or more, up to $100,000 fine

Fifth or subsequent failure: Additional sanctions "consistent with the concept of progressive discipline."

In addition, while MLB won't reveal the details that led to a player's placement on the Administrative Track, it will announce that the player was suspended for violation of the drug program. (Here's the announcement of Josh Hamilton's suspension.)

Q. What about other drugs?

A. The players are not tested for marijuana, cocaine or other illegal drugs. A player who is convicted, pleads guilty or pleads no contest to charges of using, selling or distributing such drugs is subject to discipline as follows:

Use of marijuana: No suspension; progressive fines, not to exceed $15,000

Use of other drugs:

First offense: 15- to 30-day suspension, up to $10,000 fine

Second offense: 30- to 90-day suspension, up to $50,000 fine

Third offense: One-year suspension, up to $100,000 fine

Fourth offense: Two-year suspension

Fifth or subsequent offense (the Steve Howe level): Further penalties "consistent with the concept of progressive discipline."

Sale or distribution of drugs:

First offense: 60- to 90-day suspension, up to $100,000 fine

Second offense: Two-year suspension

Third or subsequent offense: Further penalties "consistent with the concept of progressive discipline."

Q. Can a player volunteer to be tested more often, if he says he's clean and wants to clear his name?

A. No. The terms of the testing policy were negotiated by MLB and the MLBPA and can't be varied by an individual player. Cynics have suggested that some of the more public "offers to be tested" by players were made with full knowledge that the offer could not be accepted.

Q. Why did the owners have to negotiate the terms of the testing policy with the MLBPA in the first place? Why can't an owner simply refuse to sign any player who won't take, and pass, a drug test?

A. Because an arbitrator ruled against them on this issue in 1986. Before the 1985 season, the Los Angeles Dodgers tried to add a mandatory drug-testing clause to all player contracts. They backed down, but a number of clubs tried again after the season, following the breakdown of talks over a joint drug program. The MLBPA filed a grievance, which was sustained by arbitrator Thomas Roberts on July 30, 1986. Roberts held that drug testing had to be negotiated with the MLBPA, not with individual players.

Q. What could the MLBPA do if a player said he'd pay his own doctor to test him for steroids every week of the season, and authorized the doctor to release the results to the public?

A. During the last labor negotiations, drug testing was one of the few issues which clearly divided the players. Some were willing to submit to regular testing, resenting the implication that by not doing so they must have something to hide. Others, including the MLBPA leadership, viewed the matter as a civil liberties issue: No one should be compelled to, in effect, prove that he's not taking drugs when there's no reason to believe he is. Last March, 16 members of the Chicago White Sox threatened not to take their drug tests, which would automatically have counted as positive tests, in hopes of triggering the penalty provisions. They were talked out of doing so by Gene Orza of the MLBPA.

If a player really wanted to pay for his own drug testing, the MLBPA would lean heavily on him not to do so, fearing that the gesture could effectively gut the drug testing plan by putting intolerable public pressure on other players to follow suit. But if peer pressure wasn't enough, the union couldn't stop him. The union would, however, file an immediate grievance if there was any evidence the player had been pressured by, or received any inducement from, his club or MLB to undergo additional "voluntary" testing.

Ultimately the players control the MLBPA. If a majority of players, meeting behind closed doors, truly want more drug testing, they need only instruct their representatives to negotiate a new agreement. But the louder the Commissioner's cries for broader testing grow, the less likely the players are to accept any such change.
__________________
Jason

POTD: Co-Commish and Glacier Bay Ice Pirates
Cyclone792 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:29 PM.

 

Major League and Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of Major League Baseball. Visit MLB.com and MiLB.com.

Officially Licensed Product – MLB Players, Inc.

Out of the Park Baseball is a registered trademark of Out of the Park Developments GmbH & Co. KG

Google Play is a trademark of Google Inc.

Apple, iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

COPYRIGHT © 2023 OUT OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENTS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2020 Out of the Park Developments