11/21/24
January 10, 2012
Mattingly Suggests MVP Revote if Braun Guilty: If Milwaukee Brewers left fielder Ryan Braun is not successful in appealing his positive test for a banned substance, Los Angeles Dodgers manager Don Mattingly said it would "make sense" to hold a new vote for last season's National League MVP. "In the end, I hope [after] the appeal it's something that was a mistake," Mattingly said. When asked about a revote, he replied, "I don't know. It makes sense though, a little bit. It's not 10 years later, it's a month later." Dodgers center fielder Matt Kemp was second in MVP voting.
I'm waiting for that asterisk. Then again, baseball is still waiting for its first asterisk. They don't ever do this, so this is a hot stove fill-in story for LA, I guess.
posted by yerfatma at 12:48 PM on January 10, 2012
They could disqualify him after the fact like Reggie Bush and the Heisman trophy. It certainly seems unfair that a steroid-assisted season would result in Braun getting the MVP. Where is the disincentive to cheat here?
posted by bperk at 09:50 AM on January 11, 2012
They could disqualify him after the fact like Reggie Bush and the Heisman trophy.
Well, if they didn't do it for Ken Caminiti's MVP award in 1996 (after he admitted to using steroids years later), I don't see any reason they'd do it here.
It certainly seems unfair that a steroid-assisted season would result in Braun getting the MVP.
Braun tested positive in October, after the regular season and after the voting had been completed for the MVP award. There is no indication that he was using any illegal substances during the regular season.
As well, it's been reported that the drug he was taking was not a performance-enhancing one, but for a "private medical issue". (The rumours are that it was for an STD, possibly herpes.)
Where is the disincentive to cheat here?
The 50 game suspension.
posted by grum@work at 11:59 AM on January 11, 2012
There is no indication that he was using any illegal substances during the regular season.
Is there any indication that he wasn't using in the regular season? Had he been tested numerous times throughout the season, including the last game of the regular season? They test such a small number of times that it makes timing the beginning and ending of drug use difficult. Anyway, I don't see why he should get the benefit of the doubt. If it isn't definitive whether or not he wasn't using in the regular season, we should assume that he was.
If a player could win an MVP award one season, but would have to give up 50 games the following season, how many players wouldn't take that bargain?
posted by bperk at 01:18 PM on January 11, 2012
bperk: If a player could win an MVP award one season, but would have to give up 50 games the following season, how many players wouldn't take that bargain?Uh... most of them? Negotiating as a "former MVP" level player may mean literally millions of dollars more a year on your next contract. Losing 50 games in a season is not unheard from simple injury.
I haven't before and still don't get the shame and stigma of PEDs. I drink coffee every day and feel like I can't do my programming job without it; hell, the whole western working world fetishizes coffee as a job requirement, yet really what we're talking about is doping out the entire workforce to squeeze a few extra pennies of productivity out of the staff.
In Braun's case- and some other players' cases- it sounds like medically prescribed private treatments can trigger a failed test. Not that the dimbulbs of the press corp would understand this distinction, but even if it's some new designer drug that speeds his muscle recovery time by 20%... so what? Why, exactly, is purity so damned important in sports?
posted by hincandenza at 01:41 PM on January 11, 2012
Had he been tested numerous times throughout the season, including the last game of the regular season?
He has been tested for the past 8 seasons, in both the major leagues (5) and the minor leagues (3).
I don't know exactly when the random tests were given to him, but I'm pretty sure that it didn't happen on the last day of the season.
It would be almost impossible (and definitely illogical) to test every player after every game of the season, so by your doubting mind then every player in MLB should be assumed as a PED user.
Anyway, I don't see why he should get the benefit of the doubt. If it isn't definitive whether or not he wasn't using in the regular season, we should assume that he was.
I know what I'm getting you for Xmas this year.
posted by grum@work at 03:14 PM on January 11, 2012
Why, exactly, is purity so damned important in sports baseball?
FTFY, since no one cares about football.
Because the baseball writers' favourite old-timey players are having their records broken by modern players who aren't as chummy with them as the writers want them to be.
And, to be specific, the purity they want in the sport is from stuff that their heroes might not have taken. Amphetamines? That's okay.
posted by grum@work at 03:34 PM on January 11, 2012
It would be almost impossible (and definitely illogical) to test every player after every game of the season, so by your doubting mind then every player in MLB should be assumed as a PED user.
No, just the players who test positive, and I don't have to assume because they have been caught. What I don't think is necessary is to minimize the time frame when they might have been using to their benefit. How is it logical to assume that Braun just so happened to take PEDS right before his failed drug test, but wasn't doing it at any other time during the season? That is rose-colored glasses territory.
I don't believe in the purity stuff, but I think it is crappy that players like Clemens and Bonds who probably took PEDS (but before it was against the rules of baseball) get a worst rap than the players who are caught now when it is actually against the rules.
posted by bperk at 04:03 PM on January 11, 2012
Grum, as someone who's near 50 and has worked with baseball writers, I'd say it's spot-on. Some still believe Maris has the HR record and will never consider the Sosa-McGwire-Bonds group; they don't realize one still has to make contact with the ball ... having good eyes help.
This seems like a whine to help Kemp. I thought Mattingly was above that level ... my respect for him has declined.
posted by jjzucal at 04:13 PM on January 11, 2012
How is it logical to assume that Braun just so happened to take PEDS right before his failed drug test, but wasn't doing it at any other time during the season? That is rose-colored glasses territory.
Well, he passed the test(s) during the regular season.
The test that he failed was for the playoffs, only done by players actually in the playoffs.
If he's passed the tests for the previous 8 years (including tests taken during the regular season in 20111), but failed a test in October, it seems logical to me to assume he failed during that test because he took it at that time.
posted by grum@work at 05:56 PM on January 11, 2012
Except you don't know when he was tested in the regular season. He could have been tested only in the beginning of the season. Then it really means nothing that he didn't fail one until October. It's not like players are being tested weekly.
posted by bperk at 08:49 AM on January 12, 2012
My position on Braun is that he's completely innocent of wrongdoing until the appeals process is exhausted and a punishment is assessed. Mattingly should have stayed out of it at this point. If Braun was his player, he'd be pissed another manager was talking about him that way.
posted by rcade at 09:33 AM on January 12, 2012
Except you don't know when he was tested in the regular season.
Neither do you. I'm not sure why your assumption is more "right" than mine. At least mine has 8 prior years of clean tests behind it.
posted by grum@work at 09:51 AM on January 12, 2012
Mine is better.
Mine is better.
Mine is better.
Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine.
posted by bperk at 12:18 PM on January 12, 2012
That's it. I'm not sharing my toys with you any more.
posted by grum@work at 12:50 PM on January 12, 2012
Mattingly is secretly pissed that he didn't use any performance enhancers. That's my theory.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:15 PM on January 13, 2012
So if there were a revote, would the Dodgers suddenly make the playoffs in 2011? Because while Kemp had a great year, the Dodgers finished in third place with 82 wins. And if you revote, do voters now consider that Pujols is the MVP because hey, the Cardinals did win the World Series last year?
Not that last-place teams haven't produced MVPs, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a re-vote would give Kemp the trophy, which is presumably Mattingly's motivation. And a revote is a bad idea; if they can't rewrite history for botched homerun calls, or that botched 'safe' call in Armando Galaragga's perfect game*, then how can they changed the MVP after the fact? The voters aren't doing instant run-off voting; Kemp got 16 2nd place votes, but that might very well have been voters saying "Braun's our clear MVP, but we'll give Kemp our 2nd place vote for a non-playoff team, just as a way of acknowledging his year without giving him the MVP". It doesn't necessarily follow that if the vote had been held at the end of the season and Braun's drug test failure happened then, that Kemp would have been the clear winner.
Lastly, this is stupid of baseball and the media. I'd already completely forgotten about Braun's failed test until they freakin' reminded me. If you don't want PEDs to stain the game, stop bringing them up all the time!