12/21/24
January 13, 2005
New MLB steroid-testing agreement : adds penalties for first-time offenders and increases penalties overall -- small incremental increases, that is, nothing really huge.
posted by lil_brown_bat to baseball at 06:54 AM - 14 comments
toothless, again, in the hope of avoiding the *
posted by garfield at 11:25 AM on January 13, 2005
How is it toothless? There is suspension and public identification of a first-time violator, a one-year ban for a fourth-time offender. Year-round testing that will absolutely include one test, and may include more. You may say these don't matter, but suspension of an important player for ten games could keep a potential contender out of the playoffs. Public identification would be a disaster for any player. Year-round random testing keeps anyone from feeling secure that they're safe to start up a steroid regimen after a first test during spring training. Please explain why you think this is toothless.
posted by rocketman at 11:58 AM on January 13, 2005
I just think 10 games is a slap on the wrist. Period. How much pay is that? Its like paying for one big team dinner. A player should lose half a year's wages. Gotta make it sting, or else its just for show. Regarding the public identification, players go through public humiliation all the time, and it really doesn't affect most of them, save the mega-stars with endorsement deals. So, as threatening a gesture this is, it might even bring a player's name into the public consciousness, from where it was absent prior. Not a clearly defined punishment, in my opinion.
posted by garfield at 12:38 PM on January 13, 2005
It certainly has more teeth than the 5 failed tests, which you knew were coming, and then you get the first time suspension. This iteration of it could be harsher, but it's miles better than the previous deal. The players really had to give in on this one. or the PR would have killled them. Garfield, it might indeed bring players to the public conscience, but that may not be so good. I would imagine endorsement deals getting dropped left and right for even the first time offender. The athletic apparel and equipment companies probably would not want to be associated with known steroid users.
posted by pivo at 12:57 PM on January 13, 2005
I was thinking the same as Garfield when I first heard this. But, I guess it is better than nothing. Say I buy a baseball team. Can I legally have them tested once a month? Or would that be a legal nightmare? Not that the owners care. For all I know they do not mind their players being juiced up.
posted by jasonspaceman at 12:59 PM on January 13, 2005
If I were an owner, I wouldn't want to catch my players juicing up. Because then I'd have to do something about it, and the optics of such an operation are not good.
posted by chicobangs at 02:05 PM on January 13, 2005
jason, the rules are set though collective bargaining between the players and owners, so nothing can be unilaterally imposed or imposed by one owner on his team's players (unless those players consent to have an extra clause added to their individual contracts).
posted by billsaysthis at 02:30 PM on January 13, 2005
if everyone is on bonds case y dont we take babe ruth out of the hall of fame babe did use muscle enhance pills and cream on himself but no one want to admit it because bonds is a black person so they goin nail him how about we nail mark maguire or giambi
posted by dhdefrag3x at 06:05 PM on January 13, 2005
babe did use muscle enhance pills and cream on himself but no one want to admit it because bonds is a black person so they goin nail him You're kidding me right?
posted by jasonspaceman at 07:41 PM on January 13, 2005
That's probably true if by "muscle enhance pills" you mean booze and by "cream" you mean hookers...
posted by chris2sy at 07:53 PM on January 13, 2005
dave pinto brings up a good point regarding false positives. i would hope that they would do a second test (at the very least) should someone test positive before handing down any suspensions.
posted by goddam at 08:30 PM on January 13, 2005
goddam: in other sports, athletes submit multiple samples, so there's a backup sample. I'm not sure how it works, if it's taken at the same time or what, but if an athlete tests positive, they perform a second test on the backup sample. For a recent (and very rare for its sport) case, see here.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:40 PM on January 13, 2005
instead suspendin them for 10 games they should suspend them for 20 games
posted by dhdefrag3x at 12:21 PM on January 14, 2005
The public identification is a good step though...identifying the first time offenders like that so they are publicly savaged and torn apart sounds okay. The out of season testing is good. But yeah it falls short of the first time offender = two-year ban and subsequent lifetime ban penalties you see elsewhere... What about adding a 25% penalty against their salary for first time offenders so you hit them in the pocketbook too?