11/05/24
May 09, 2006
The devil is in the details: apparently a technicality creates an option for the Major League Baseball Players' Association to end the new MLB drug policy and revert to 2005 rules.
posted by lil_brown_bat to baseball at 09:01 PM - 35 comments
They wouldn't dare. The PR hit would cripple the union.
posted by chicobangs at 10:55 PM on May 09, 2006
Baseball without labor distractions is hard to fathom anymore. And I agree about the PR hit on the MLBPA.
posted by igottheblues at 11:16 PM on May 09, 2006
Can the Players' Association negotiate a quid pro quo arrangement so that owners, coaching staff and league officials also have to submit to workplace drug testing? /runs and hides
posted by owlhouse at 11:20 PM on May 09, 2006
We all know that what's good for the goose is never good for the gander. You do as they say, not as they do.
posted by igottheblues at 12:40 AM on May 10, 2006
This is totally off topic, but I am pretty severely dyslexic and when I see MLBPA, I always read it as NAMBLA.
posted by Joey Michaels at 02:30 AM on May 10, 2006
I am a strong supporter of the baseball strike!
posted by Stealth_72 at 07:04 AM on May 10, 2006
I think every major North American sport should lock itself out for a year, then come back with the realization they're here for us, not the other way around.
posted by SummersEve at 07:12 AM on May 10, 2006
I am a strong supporter of the baseball strike! Why the hell for?
posted by jerseygirl at 09:30 AM on May 10, 2006
I'm practically to the point where I could care less if all these professional sports leagues dry up and go away. All these labor agreements, ridiculous drug policies, skyrocketing costs. It's only entertainment, plain and simple, and I wish Congress would focus their attention on more pressing matters. They just can't wait to get a few more celebrities at the hearings so they can add to their autograph collections. I think everyone here could come up with a few pages of big issues facing this county that are far more urgent than this. It ruins much of the enjoyment of following the sport(s).
posted by dyams at 09:33 AM on May 10, 2006
Dyams My pops is in the same boat as you. He hasn't watched the NFL or NBA in about 10 years, he wouldn't watch the yanks until YES was included on basic cable and he still refuses to go to games. His sports season is dominated by Michigan University football and basketball and he'd watch more college baseball if it go more TV time. Because of this you never see him have these ridiculous "Millionaire vs Billionaire" arguments.
posted by HATER 187 at 09:38 AM on May 10, 2006
Living in a country ruled by laws, I can't imagine why we are asking unions or owners to enforce punishment for violations. If illegal steroids or any other illegal substance is discovered, the appropriate law enforcement people should be notified. Any subsequent investigation, prosecution or punishment should then be doled out by the proper legal entity. The rest of the country works this way, why not sports? Does their anti-trust waver include illegal activities?
posted by drevl at 10:13 AM on May 10, 2006
The rest of the country works this way, why not sports? Because steroids, as a whole, aren't illegal to possess or use. Many of the banned substances on the WADA list (dunno about MLB) are perfectly legal; not a few are medically necessary for conditions such as asthma. I almost wish that MLB and the other pro leagues had never gotten into the business of banning harmful performance-enhancing drugs. Their involvement and their failure to clearly express their policies and the reasons behind them (it's for a level playing field...uh, no wait, it's something else...) have confused the issue in the minds of so many people. The average joe doesn't know whether it's a fairness issue, a legality issue, a gettin'-high issue, a health issue, or what. The original justification for drug testing in sports rested on one premise and one only: that there are substances that are both performance-enhancing and harmful to one's health. That is, IMO, the only justification on which sports drug regulations can exist. Illegal recreational drugs and prescription drug use are, as you point out, covered by other laws. And it ain't about fairness or a "level playing field", either; if it were, the up-and-coming athletes who can afford lotsa steak-protein would get "leveled" to the level of those who can only afford ramen noodles, or vice versa. It is about preventing a situation in which athletes have a strong incentive to do something that will benefit themselves in the short term, but will have harmful long-term effects -- to avoid a situation in which an athlete has to choose between taking a harmful substance or not being able to be competitive with those who are taking it. That is the justification for athlete drug testing, and all testing policies that are not aimed at protecting athletes' health are crap.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:27 AM on May 10, 2006
Why am i a strike supporter? Because I think Baseball players (all professional athletes, but baseball are the worse) are way to overpaid (I think athletes should be paid on the difficulty/ personal injury potential scale - football #1, hockey #2, basketball #3 and baseball earn about what McDonald's head fry guy would earn). Too much illegal drug use. The commissioner is too big a wimp to punish anyone or strip records/titles from offenders, etc... Sick of hearing about the "As The World Turns" of baseball. It is worse than a Soap Opera. Just go away.
posted by Stealth_72 at 10:29 AM on May 10, 2006
Why am i a strike supporter? Because I think Baseball players (all professional athletes, but baseball are the worse) are way to overpaid I see. Do you have any idea what a "strike" is?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:31 AM on May 10, 2006
umm, is that when a ball is thrown and the guy misses?? The reason for striking I can care less about, which is usually for mo' money. I just want them not playing and taking up valuable air time from some other sport that doesn't have half as many drama queens in. Let the Media focus their attention somewhere else.
posted by Stealth_72 at 10:36 AM on May 10, 2006
If players are overpaid, where would you have their excess salary go? Because "In my pocket" is never going to be a realistic answer.
posted by yerfatma at 10:38 AM on May 10, 2006
The original justification for drug testing in sports rested on one premise and one only: that there are substances that are both performance-enhancing and harmful to one's health. That is still, sort of, the basis of the WADA Code (see section 4.3.1). There is a rather large loophole, though, which is probably a separate discussion. And the WADA code has no sway over MLB, of course. welcome back, lbb
posted by Amateur at 10:47 AM on May 10, 2006
This is totally off topic, but I am pretty severely dyslexic and when I see MLBPA, I always read it as NAMBLA. That is just so wrong, Joey.
posted by wingnut4life at 10:49 AM on May 10, 2006
lil brown bat is totally right... and the way these new drugs are designed and adminstered the health risks could end up being very minimal. So could drugs not only be legal, but relied upon in the future? I don't care about such drugs in football, basketball or hockey. But i do in baseball only because i always loved that i could look at my dad's heroes and kind of compare them to mine. The history books were sacred. But since that's about to change, i guess that argument doesn't hold water anymore.
posted by SummersEve at 11:01 AM on May 10, 2006
That is still, sort of, the basis of the WADA Code (see section 4.3.1). There is a rather large loophole, though, which is probably a separate discussion. Yeah, and not to go there, but my cite of WADA was not to use them as an examplar of an organization that is (any more) driven by a concern for athlete safety/health. I think they've strayed significantly, but that is, as you say, a whole 'nother discussion. And the WADA code has no sway over MLB, of course. Yup, which I should have said more in my "let's have some clarification!" rant. I cited WADA simply because the pro sports leagues also had anti-recreational drug policies that in most (all?) cases preceded the anti-PDA policies...adding yet another measure of confusion. good to be back, btw
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:18 AM on May 10, 2006
I can understand the prohibition on illegal recreational drugs as necessary for PR reasons. It brings bad publicity on league for players to be caught repeatedly with illegal substances. If popularity is the reason for continued profitability, it makes sense to have policies in place to protect the league's image.
posted by bperk at 11:44 AM on May 10, 2006
I echo the sentiments of lbb and SE. Look not for the moral authority in these agreements, it should be about maintaining the integrity of the product, not some bird-brained ideal.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:56 AM on May 10, 2006
The reason for striking I can care less about, which is usually for mo' money. I just want them not playing and taking up valuable air time from some other sport that doesn't have half as many drama queens in. Let the Media focus their attention somewhere else. So you just don't like baseball. Period. Thanks for stopping by a baseball thread.
posted by jerseygirl at 12:15 PM on May 10, 2006
LBB, Steriods used without a doctor's prescription are illegal. They are not prescribed generally in ways that work to 'enhance performance' for athletes.
posted by sfts2 at 12:52 PM on May 10, 2006
this is bad but mlb will do the right thing and screw the players union they will actually start a new policy
posted by luther70 at 04:34 PM on May 10, 2006
The reason for striking I can care less about, which is usually for mo' money. I just want them not playing and taking up valuable air time from some other sport that doesn't have half as many drama queens in. Let the Media focus their attention somewhere else. So you just don't like baseball. Period. Thanks for stopping by a baseball thread. Nice. Funny lady in bike shorts once said to me, something like, "Dang...I've been sheeshed." Stealth...sheesh.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:42 PM on May 10, 2006
On another note: MLB might have finally found another organization that is more powerful and more corrupt. I, for one, would like to see this particular hot-oil-muckfest.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:43 PM on May 10, 2006
wingnut4life: Dude, tell me about it. I can't believe I would damage NAMBLA's reputation by equating them with the MLBPA. :P
posted by Joey Michaels at 01:26 AM on May 11, 2006
Please no strike now.... the Tigers are not in last place. Keep playing, Please keep playing! It would be nice if MLB just had a policy & it was one of the "rules" just like Strike 3!!!!!! I equate this potential open door on the drug policy to debating about making strike 4 the new rule.
posted by directpressure at 10:45 AM on May 11, 2006
Steroid use without a prescription is technically illegal. But that's a law that simply is almost never prosecuted. Legal authorities are simply not interested in prosecuting individuals for steroid use. Sports leagues who want to get rid of drugs in their sports negotiate a testing procedure with their players. The players would never agree to such testing if there was any possibility that they would go to jail for testing positive, even if it's a substance taht people are sent to jail for, such as coke or pot. I believe that applies to most employees who get tested at their workplace; they may get fored if they test positive, but they don't get arrested. As far as anybody who doesn't like how much baseball players get paid, may I suggest you turn your ire towards capitalism and local governments? Nobody in this country gets paid what they're worth; they get paid by what the someone is willing to pay them in the marketplace. (And the marketplace is affected when teams get their ballparks subsized). Are baseball players underpaid compared to actors, who can get #25 million a picture. Are they underpaid compared to CEOs, who can get hundreds of millions of dollars even when their company does badly? Do you avoid going to see the movies or buying from pructs made by companies who wildly overpay their executives (and, in fact, don't get their high salaries because of a marketplace, but because the game is fixed by a board of directors that is closely linked top executuves determing how much those executives get paid)?
posted by spira at 11:45 AM on May 11, 2006
WHO Cares let em JUICE UP... WHo doesnt wanna see 100 HRS in a year and a 650ft bomb into a neighboring buildings window. I say the MLB should supply the roids... and monitor the players with counter active drugs that limits the negative effect on the body. I mean shit, they shoot em up with every type of pain killer so that they can play is that not a performance enhancing drug??? Even more so then steriods cause they allow a player to play who wouldnt be able to because of pain and injury. jerseygirl... i am not condoning drug use so dont throw the book at me! BUT YA DIG
posted by Robb Dubbs at 03:54 PM on May 11, 2006
WHO Cares let em JUICE UP... WHo doesnt wanna see 100 HRS in a year and a 650ft bomb into a neighboring buildings window. Yeah, while we're at it, why don't we just have pitching machines to do the pitching, and some other machine to do the batting, and we can all sit back in the stands and drink beer. That machine will hit the ball a thousand feet, and that's what it's all about right? How far the ball is hit? Don't need no players. Now that's baseball. BUT YA DIG jerseygirl might (although I doubt it), but I don't. All of Dick Pound's self-aggrandizing witch-hunts aside, there is a real problem posed by harmful performance-enhancing drugs in sports. Think if it was you, or your kid, or your kid brother, or someone you care about. You've grown up participating in a sport, you've gotten pretty damn good at it, and you've got a chance to compete at an elite level...only, guess what, you've gone as far as you'll be able to go, unless you take some substance that will give you that little edge now, but that stands a good chance of making you bald and/or trashing your liver and/or trashing your heart and/or making you unable to reproduce down the road. What do you do? Trash your health on the chance of a lot of money and a few years' glory? Or say, "oh, okay, I guess I don't get to play this game any more," and take your bat and ball and go home? Your talk about monitoring and some imaginary "counter active drugs" is smoke. It's a made-up solution and it solves nothing.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:50 PM on May 11, 2006
lil brown ring ur an idiot and totally missed the point..
posted by Robb Dubbs at 09:29 AM on May 12, 2006
lil brown ring ur an idiot and totally missed the point.. You mean the one on top of your head?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:57 AM on May 12, 2006
It looks like this will get enough attention so as not to be an issue. I hope. I can't be the only one that wishes they could just play the games without any of these distractions.