Speaking of the NFL crackdown, Ricky Williams has been reinstated, if the Dolphins don't want him, I'll bet a bidding war for him will develop very shortly.
I hear his agent is very busy these days.
quote:Originally posted by Orlando:
Of course I understand that as long as a player is throwing/hitting/fielding well enough to assist in wins and putting bodies in seats, the owners aren't as concerned as parents who would rather our children not put questionable substances into their bodies.
I think this is a very wise and key point. If its someone else's kid, who the heck cares?
I have a friend who is a big-wig in the atomic metal bat industry. He once told me that a big argument they use with governing bodies (e.g. NCAA, HS sports, LLs, etc...) as to why their bats shouldn't be banned is because everyone loves the home run, the big smash. It puts fans in the seats. It gets parents all excited and more kids participate.
Extrapolate on that with the performance enhancing substance use we're discussing here and you can see why everyone has been slow to curb it. Lots of home runs and 98 mph fastballs puts butts in the seats. Who the heck cares if some HS kid mimics it because he sees it as his ticket? Everyone knows it will happen (to someone else's kid!), but no one can prove its true and therefore everyone turns a blind eye and is 'clean' legally speaking. Thats the attitude, unfortunately.
Every once in a while, a "leader" comes along and takes a stand. Bart Giammatti did it with Pete Rose and the game didn't suffer without one of its greatest players...why can't someone from MLB or the union do it now? I promise I'll go to more games if the game is cleaned up, home runs are down, fastballs are a little slower but more base-stealing and sacrifice bunts emerge and 'strategy' returns to the game.
How about you?
Justbaseball - not gonna happen.
The stakes are way too high.
Any "serious" crackdown on this stuff (as Coach May suggested) would cost players - the Union - a gaggle of lawyers and team ownership a fortune.
Coach May's approach IMO - is the absolute correct way to go - but it isnt gonna happen. Not when a relatively select few stand to lose Billions (not millions).
I also believe that what PG said was very accurate. It is a very complicated situation. We see the solution as simple - but actually implementing the solution is where the nightmare begins.
At best - it will be slow and gradual - to prevent any shock to those that are reaping the massive monetary benefits.
IMO
The stakes are way too high.
Any "serious" crackdown on this stuff (as Coach May suggested) would cost players - the Union - a gaggle of lawyers and team ownership a fortune.
Coach May's approach IMO - is the absolute correct way to go - but it isnt gonna happen. Not when a relatively select few stand to lose Billions (not millions).
I also believe that what PG said was very accurate. It is a very complicated situation. We see the solution as simple - but actually implementing the solution is where the nightmare begins.
At best - it will be slow and gradual - to prevent any shock to those that are reaping the massive monetary benefits.
IMO
Some say that baseball is merely a microcosm of society.... if that's the case, then perhaps as long as drugs are used by society (e.g., anti-aging clinics) that they will also continue to be part of baseball...
Does anyone remember names such as Keith Hernandez, Steve Howe, Daryl Strawberry, Dave Parker, and Doc Gooden et al., from another troubling era? Does anyone remember the doom and gloom that was predicted back then?
Right now, maybe the threat of the scarlett letter is the only obstacle holding some back...
Does anyone remember names such as Keith Hernandez, Steve Howe, Daryl Strawberry, Dave Parker, and Doc Gooden et al., from another troubling era? Does anyone remember the doom and gloom that was predicted back then?
Right now, maybe the threat of the scarlett letter is the only obstacle holding some back...
Definately, CD, but those were recreational drugs that, arguably, shortened their careers. (I certainly know Whitey saw to it that it shortened Hernandez' career with the Cardinals!)
Now it's using drugs to establish or lengthen a career, while players playing it straight (no pun intended) are getting shafted.
And the elephant in the room is that it's OK to develop a Super-race to entertain the masses.
Now it's using drugs to establish or lengthen a career, while players playing it straight (no pun intended) are getting shafted.
And the elephant in the room is that it's OK to develop a Super-race to entertain the masses.
I understand all the points made here and even agree with those points. However…
Regarding Byrd…
First of all, I don’t believe he tested positive or he would have received a suspension.
Second, if he has done something illegal, has he been charged with anything?
Third, his option was picked up and he is the type of pitcher who it’s hard to prove he has gained any physical advantage or power over his career.
Fourth, There are laws that protect employees and they are different from one state to the next. Then there are federal laws regarding employment.
Fifth, Baseball does not operate under standard business practice.
Here is a copy and paste from an attorney commenting on this subject.
Some background on employment law: most people are employed “at will,” meaning they can get kicked for any reason, so long as it’s not one of a few legally barred ones (i.e. race, gender, disability, etc.) Baseball players, however, get individually negotiated contracts (with certain restrictions from the union based on terms of collective bargaining), which lay out specifically when they may be dismissed and the contract voided. Included therein is typically a “morals clause,” where the club is allowed to void for bad behavior like violating the league’s drug policy which is collectively bargained.
It’s true that the law generally favors enforcing the language found in contracts. However, as with all things legal, there are always plenty of principles and exceptions which may serve to confuse what may otherwise seem like a straightforward application of the contract language. While the language of the contract itself may provide for dismissals based on bad behavior, there are several arguments from equity (lawyer talk for “that’s not fair!”) which favor the player in any legal battle.
Another comment copied and pasted….
Bonds is going to break Hank Aaron’s record. It’s often remarked that Bud has been waiting for someone, anyone, in law enforcement to rid him of this troublesome Giant. Unfortunately, when you look at what Bonds is potentially on the hook for, it seems Bud may be waiting for a long time.
Bottom line… This is very complex. If a player doesn’t test positive and is not legally charged with anything, what grounds is there for punishing anyone? MLB has some very powerful legal people as does the Players Union.
Maybe the biggest problem is the legal system rather than baseball. OJ has been a free man, at least temporarily!
Regarding Byrd…
First of all, I don’t believe he tested positive or he would have received a suspension.
Second, if he has done something illegal, has he been charged with anything?
Third, his option was picked up and he is the type of pitcher who it’s hard to prove he has gained any physical advantage or power over his career.
Fourth, There are laws that protect employees and they are different from one state to the next. Then there are federal laws regarding employment.
Fifth, Baseball does not operate under standard business practice.
Here is a copy and paste from an attorney commenting on this subject.
Some background on employment law: most people are employed “at will,” meaning they can get kicked for any reason, so long as it’s not one of a few legally barred ones (i.e. race, gender, disability, etc.) Baseball players, however, get individually negotiated contracts (with certain restrictions from the union based on terms of collective bargaining), which lay out specifically when they may be dismissed and the contract voided. Included therein is typically a “morals clause,” where the club is allowed to void for bad behavior like violating the league’s drug policy which is collectively bargained.
It’s true that the law generally favors enforcing the language found in contracts. However, as with all things legal, there are always plenty of principles and exceptions which may serve to confuse what may otherwise seem like a straightforward application of the contract language. While the language of the contract itself may provide for dismissals based on bad behavior, there are several arguments from equity (lawyer talk for “that’s not fair!”) which favor the player in any legal battle.
Another comment copied and pasted….
Bonds is going to break Hank Aaron’s record. It’s often remarked that Bud has been waiting for someone, anyone, in law enforcement to rid him of this troublesome Giant. Unfortunately, when you look at what Bonds is potentially on the hook for, it seems Bud may be waiting for a long time.
Bottom line… This is very complex. If a player doesn’t test positive and is not legally charged with anything, what grounds is there for punishing anyone? MLB has some very powerful legal people as does the Players Union.
Maybe the biggest problem is the legal system rather than baseball. OJ has been a free man, at least temporarily!
PG,
If MLB had a commissioner like Bart Giamatti, who put what he objectively viewed as the best interests in baseball ahead of special interests, do you think there would be such silence?
MLB has more resources than most and the ability to evaluate risk and to make decisions based on risk, based on law, and based on revenues/business.
Let's not make that $7,500,000 more than it is.
For everyone of us, we won't make that in a lifetime.
For MLB, it is interest on their checking account.
Knowing that Byrd and others are taking positions on the 25 man roster when they have admitted using HGH is gnawing. Knowing they are doing that when there are hugely talented players in the minor leagues who are subjected to far more rigorous and penal drug requirements is, for me, almost nauseating.
We know the Indians have several very talented pitchers in Milb. They are likely clean because of the testing requirements of those with no power.
What is the fairness to those guys who are trying to prove themselves based on skills and hard work as opposed to a MLB guy who isn't subjected to the same testing, who is protected by the union, and who has a salary that permits him to purchase more HGH than he can use.
If we are looking to protect the "best interests of baseball," aren't those who are clean because they are powerless invited?
Your opinions are amongst the most powerful and influential on this site and I respect them greatly. But, when I balance in my own mind some pitchers I have seen in the Indians minor league sytem with the issues Byrd hid before being forced to confront them, I don't have any problem saying I would pay to see a kid like Chuck Lofgren and would never pay to see Paul Byrd.
For me, Byrd's "performance" cannot be separated from his admission of the purchase and use of HGH.
If MLB had a commissioner like Bart Giamatti, who put what he objectively viewed as the best interests in baseball ahead of special interests, do you think there would be such silence?
MLB has more resources than most and the ability to evaluate risk and to make decisions based on risk, based on law, and based on revenues/business.
Let's not make that $7,500,000 more than it is.
For everyone of us, we won't make that in a lifetime.
For MLB, it is interest on their checking account.
Knowing that Byrd and others are taking positions on the 25 man roster when they have admitted using HGH is gnawing. Knowing they are doing that when there are hugely talented players in the minor leagues who are subjected to far more rigorous and penal drug requirements is, for me, almost nauseating.
We know the Indians have several very talented pitchers in Milb. They are likely clean because of the testing requirements of those with no power.
What is the fairness to those guys who are trying to prove themselves based on skills and hard work as opposed to a MLB guy who isn't subjected to the same testing, who is protected by the union, and who has a salary that permits him to purchase more HGH than he can use.
If we are looking to protect the "best interests of baseball," aren't those who are clean because they are powerless invited?
Your opinions are amongst the most powerful and influential on this site and I respect them greatly. But, when I balance in my own mind some pitchers I have seen in the Indians minor league sytem with the issues Byrd hid before being forced to confront them, I don't have any problem saying I would pay to see a kid like Chuck Lofgren and would never pay to see Paul Byrd.
For me, Byrd's "performance" cannot be separated from his admission of the purchase and use of HGH.
The players union has been brought up several times here. The players union is supposed to be "protecting players". Is the PU really protecting the players or is the PU protecting the players contract $$$.
If MLB and team owners have taken the position to sweep performence enhancing drugs under the rug because it puts fans in the seats, why would the players union go along? If players are damaging their bodies(via drugs) to enhance performence and in turn makes more money for MLB & team owners at the expense of the players health, why is PU ok with it?
If the PU truly had the players long term interest at heart they would demand more drug testing; test their
urine,blood,boogers,skin whatever it takes. Why does the PU sit back and watch players get taken advantage of inadvertantly by MLB & owners because of its drug policies? Players may choose to take perf enhancers, but isn't it the MLB policy that has allowed it to happen? OR is it the PU policy, or is it both?
Who is running the show at the PU??? If the majority of players were clean Why wouldn't those dues paying members be lobbying for a fair playing field? Why wouldn't that same majority be in full support of regular blood testing and stiff penalties for violations? I find it difficult to understand.
My rant is over...
If MLB and team owners have taken the position to sweep performence enhancing drugs under the rug because it puts fans in the seats, why would the players union go along? If players are damaging their bodies(via drugs) to enhance performence and in turn makes more money for MLB & team owners at the expense of the players health, why is PU ok with it?
If the PU truly had the players long term interest at heart they would demand more drug testing; test their
urine,blood,boogers,skin whatever it takes. Why does the PU sit back and watch players get taken advantage of inadvertantly by MLB & owners because of its drug policies? Players may choose to take perf enhancers, but isn't it the MLB policy that has allowed it to happen? OR is it the PU policy, or is it both?
Who is running the show at the PU??? If the majority of players were clean Why wouldn't those dues paying members be lobbying for a fair playing field? Why wouldn't that same majority be in full support of regular blood testing and stiff penalties for violations? I find it difficult to understand.
My rant is over...
TD, that's a very good, but dismaying point.
Why isn't there a movement from the clean players to drive out the guys on PEDs? If an enhanced player is setting records, extending a career, signing for serious money, it's certainly in a current player's interest to, shall we say, redistibute that PT, spot on the stats, and salary.
No Narc Rule....or too many involved and it would wipe out the majors?
Why isn't there a movement from the clean players to drive out the guys on PEDs? If an enhanced player is setting records, extending a career, signing for serious money, it's certainly in a current player's interest to, shall we say, redistibute that PT, spot on the stats, and salary.
No Narc Rule....or too many involved and it would wipe out the majors?
the PU is run by the playersquote:by TD: If the PU truly had the players long term interest at heart they would demand more drug testing ... Who is running the show at the PU???
I find it difficult to understand.
I see the nfl re-instated Ricky Williams
quote:I see the nfl re-instated Ricky Williams
Yet another disappointing event in pro sports. I'm all for 2nd-chances, but 3rd/4th/5th chances let everyone know that the league is not serious. Its not a "right" to play pro sports...its a privelege earned by a few and like driving, should be taken away if abused.
quote:Your opinions are amongst the most powerful and influential on this site and I respect them greatly. But, when I balance in my own mind some pitchers I have seen in the Indians minor league sytem with the issues Byrd hid before being forced to confront them, I don't have any problem saying I would pay to see a kid like Chuck Lofgren and would never pay to see Paul Byrd.
infielddad,
All the opinions I've given in this thread are based on just one thing. I'm not sure if I've been very clear. But here it is again...
It's easy to set back and say here is what they need to do... The problem is this is a very complex issue that deals with billions of dollars. It is not as easy as grounding my children. There is no one person, including the commissioner who has the power or ability to change this overnight.
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm in favor of what any player or team is doing.
I too would rather pay to see Chuck Lofgren. However, the past kind of proves that enough people are going to pay to watch Byrd also. In fact, sometimes the most notorious or hated draw the most interest. That's a problem worth solving in itself.
Just to be clear, I hate all this steroid stuff. I hate the fact that players have used it. I hate the message it's sending to young players. I hate the fact that it has smeared the great game of baseball. I just think it's a very complex issue and can't be solved with simple solutions by anyone, including all of us who post here. And I think it is very obvious that all of this is headed in the right direction. It's better now than it was only a couple years ago.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
Just to be clear, I hate all this steroid stuff. I hate the fact that players have used it. I hate the message it's sending to young players. I hate the fact that it has smeared the great game of baseball.
PG - I may be too idealistic. I also hope what I'm about to say comes across in the genuinely respectful and admirable way it is meant towards you.
I believe that as an owner of a company that routinely deals with and comes face-to-face with HS/teenage players trying to fulfill a dream that your comments were a very important statement for you to make. I congratulate you for it and I agree with infielddad when he said:
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
Your (PG's) opinions are amongst the most powerful and influential on this site and I respect them greatly.
I'll second that and again say, Thanks!
You also said:
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
I just think it's a very complex issue and can't be solved with simple solutions by anyone, including all of us who post here. And I think it is very obvious that all of this is headed in the right direction. It's better now than it was only a couple years ago.
I also realize the practicality of that statement and agree with you. Sometimes a leader (e.g. Giamatti) steps forward and takes a risk and does the correct, yet unpopular thing. Maybe we have too many trying to play the role of "leader" in MLB right now...for their own special interests...but I believe that someone will step forward, eventually.
Again, thanks for showing your own brand of leadership on this. I think it was very valuable for you to have done that.
justbaseball,
Thanks, that is very flattering, especially coming from you.
But the truth is my opinions mean no more or less than the opinions of others. It's just nice to be able to give an opinion without getting slammed. Sometimes on here it's hard to accurately state your thoughts without it coming out like you're disagreeing or arguing.
One thing we are unanimously in agreement about is that this stuff stinks up the game that we love.
Thanks, that is very flattering, especially coming from you.
But the truth is my opinions mean no more or less than the opinions of others. It's just nice to be able to give an opinion without getting slammed. Sometimes on here it's hard to accurately state your thoughts without it coming out like you're disagreeing or arguing.
One thing we are unanimously in agreement about is that this stuff stinks up the game that we love.
Well, a bit more stuff to stink up the game we love.
Jose Guillen gets 3 years and $36,000,000 from the Royals.
At the same time, there is talk he will "receive" up to a 15 game suspension for the purchase of over $20,000 of HGH from 2002 to 2005 in violation of baseball rules(funny, a minor leaguer making $1,250 would get 50 games.)
Last night, ESPN's Steve Phillips talks about how this is a non issue, that baseball is at an all time high in revenues and attendance and this just isn't important to the "fans" who are turning out in record numbers.
When, when, when is someone in baseball going to put sport and competition before the pocket book?
When is someone in MLB going to make a comment that says this just isn't tolerable?
When is ESPN/MLB going to say Phillips comments are not tolerable?
Where is there a leader anywhere in MLB?
Jose Guillen gets 3 years and $36,000,000 from the Royals.
At the same time, there is talk he will "receive" up to a 15 game suspension for the purchase of over $20,000 of HGH from 2002 to 2005 in violation of baseball rules(funny, a minor leaguer making $1,250 would get 50 games.)
Last night, ESPN's Steve Phillips talks about how this is a non issue, that baseball is at an all time high in revenues and attendance and this just isn't important to the "fans" who are turning out in record numbers.
When, when, when is someone in baseball going to put sport and competition before the pocket book?
When is someone in MLB going to make a comment that says this just isn't tolerable?
When is ESPN/MLB going to say Phillips comments are not tolerable?
Where is there a leader anywhere in MLB?
Right after hell freezes over. Always follow the money trail. We've become a society where the definition of ethics and morality have become very gray. In baseball are morality and ethics anything more than part of the cost of doing business balanced off against the return on investment?quote:When, when, when is someone in baseball going to put sport and competition before the pocket book?
When is someone in MLB going to make a comment that says this just isn't tolerable?
When is ESPN/MLB going to say Phillips comments are not tolerable?
This isn't just a baseball problem. Baseball is just part of society. Does it get harder to raise kids telling them to do the right thing, when they see those who don't do the right thing being rewarded?
infield dad
i know where your coming from. unless you have a son in the minors, people don't even know of the double standard baseball sets. and they have no vested interest like a parent.
if they all played by the same rules as milb there wouldn't be a scandel. the owners wouldn't/couldn't put up with it. but it is the all mighty dollar that pulls the sled.
i know where your coming from. unless you have a son in the minors, people don't even know of the double standard baseball sets. and they have no vested interest like a parent.
if they all played by the same rules as milb there wouldn't be a scandel. the owners wouldn't/couldn't put up with it. but it is the all mighty dollar that pulls the sled.