User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.4956 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I don't think he did anything wrong, should never have been tested, and doesn't have anything to apologize for. But for the sake of accuracy, he didn't exactly "come forward before being caught." He had already taken the drug test. He came forward before the test results came back, but that's not really the same thing. Presumably he knew when he had used cocaine, so he knew he was going to test positive. (Likely -- I suppose he could have rolled the dice and hoped that it missed him.)
So long as he's not hurting anyone else, it's the former, and it's not a particularly close call.
I think that reaction tells me about all I need to know about this situation. Clearly Ron was sober enough to do a decent enough job last year, so why begrudge the man his habits? He should never have been tested and it should have never, ever, been made public. I have respect for him and frankly I don't give a #### if he likes to blow some rails every other weekend.
People use drugs differently and their harm is along a spectrum: it's not a binary "he uses he must be an addict" or "he doesn't use he must be a good productive person". As a society I wish we just accept that and adjust our dialogue appropriately.
Now, for his sake and his family's sake I hope if Ron really has problems with coke that he gets help. But I'm not going to crucify the guy for using coke. He lived his life last season as he saw fit, from all available evidence he did at worst a good job managing the team, and from all appearances is not like he was blowing rails and then committing crimes that infringed on others' right to the pursuit of happiness.
Only possible reason I can see for firing him is the PR aspect, and I won't begrudge the Rangers if they do that, it's their investment and PR is a big part of that. But other than that, heck, let the man be.
edit: I will argue for testing for people whose jobs are directly involved in the safety of others: bus drivers, train drivers, carnival ride operatorts, cops, etc -- folks on jobs like this should be tested for all drugs. And don't give me some slippery slope crap. You know a dangerous situation when you see it, use reason.
I'm not sure, but in September my cousin tried reefer for the very first time; now he's doing horse.
People use drugs differently and their harm is along a spectrum: it's not a binary "he uses he must be an addict" or "he doesn't use he must be a good productive person". As a society I wish we just accept that and adjust our dialogue appropriately.
QFT.
I've never used coke and believe I am too old to start - I am admittedly in the "horse" range, but I honestly don't understand this tension/anxiety line of excuse-reasoning. Whatever happened to just jerking off?
Of all the drugs out there, cocaine seems like one that should be pretty damn low on the "reduce tension" list.
#105 was top-notch until [emphasis mine]
Which is the very definition of probable cause. Civil liberties are largely worthless when we test entire classes of people simply because they are members of those classes. So, imo, wait until you indeed "see" a reason for it, not just because of potentially dangerous situations.
Besides, if you're going to test carny operators without cause, you've got to test anyone with a driver's license.
I'm not even a cat person, and this is making me into one. I feel like joining PETA for godsakes!
Ok, sorry for the brief derail. Just upset. Saw the handle. Expressed myself. Didn't need coke to do so. And we're back to the subject.
As if I've advocated leaking test results; as if I haven't advocated strict safeguards against this. As if I've ever even argued for testing players for cocaine or any other recreational drug. As if I've ever even thought for a moment that managers should be tested for anything except competency. The only PED I can think of for managers might be fish oil.
Press leaks happen. Does that mean that you think that the entire drug testing program, including for steroids, should be scrapped because of that? Perhaps you might, but that's a minority view even among this crowd.
I've avoided this thread for one simple reason: Cocaine use by Ron Washington should be of interest solely to the Rangers, and even then, only if it affects his performance. What more is there to say about it?
Information wants to be free, Andy. If test results exist on prominent players/people someone will be willing to buy, sell or give away that result for their own purposes. You simply can't guarantee confidentiality and even if you punish the leaker severely you can't get back someone's reputation. You might think that that doesn't outweigh the need for testing, but you can't stick your head in the ground and act like people won't be people.
Also, you may think Washington's coke use is only between him and the Rangers but, clearly, society disagrees. If caught with coke, he can go to jail for a long time, so the "official" part of society has weighed in as thinking it both their business and being a very negative behavior. Ask the average joe on the street and he'll tell you, quickly, that Washington should be canned.
My guess is this test leak will ultimately destroy Washington's career. Again, you may argue that he had it coming.
The part of this that surprises me the most is the discovery that people still use Yahoo.
I may have to put this place back in my media blackout..I didnt find out until last week that David Foster Wallace was long gone.
So David. If you found out your nanny or babysitter was doing coke on the weekends, but hadn't seen any change in her job performance yet, you'd continue to have her watch your baby?
Think about the children!!!!
Information wants to be free, Andy. If test results exist on prominent players/people someone will be willing to buy, sell or give away that result for their own purposes. You simply can't guarantee confidentiality and even if you punish the leaker severely you can't get back someone's reputation. You might think that that doesn't outweigh the need for testing, but you can't stick your head in the ground and act like people won't be people.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say to this, Ryan. The logical extension of what you seem to be saying is that we should do away with all forms of testing, including the current testing program**. Is that your position? Do you think that steroids testing should be scrapped altogether because of leaks?
If it is, then I can respectfully disagree with you and leave it at that. But if you agree that leaks aren't a reason to eliminate all testing, then what other position is there, other than to institute the strongest possible guards against leaking? Of course you're always going to have some leaking, but there's still a big difference in terms of what various levels of safeguarding might prevent.
Also, you may think Washington's coke use is only between him and the Rangers but, clearly, society disagrees. If caught with coke, he can go to jail for a long time, so the "official" part of society has weighed in as thinking it both their business and being a very negative behavior. Ask the average joe on the street and he'll tell you, quickly, that Washington should be canned.
Perhaps so, but what does that have to do with anything I've said? I'm against testing for recreational drugs in the first place, and against testing non-players for any sort of drugs, since there's no "PED" that's going to improve any non-player's peformance.
My guess is this test leak will ultimately destroy Washington's career. Again, you may argue that he had it coming.
I'll ask you this as politely as I can: Either retract that last sentence or provide evidence that I ever voiced any such sentiment about anyone who was in Ron Washington's position. There is absolutely no comparison between a player who's tested positive for steroids and a manager who's tested positive for a recreational drug.
Or is this one of those famous "slippery slope" arguments that says that anyone who's in favor of PED testing "has to" be in favor of testing for everything from cocaine to Coors? Is there any point at which you're able to acknowledge gradations of a position between lynch mobs and no testing at all? If there is, then what is it? And at what point, exactly, are you disagreeing with what I've actually written, as opposed to fantasies about what I might think that Ron Washington deserves?
**which IMO should be restricted solely to PEDs and not include any recreational drugs
When he comes round ....
They sing, "I'm in love. What's that song?"
I'm in love
With that song
David, your POV is that drug testing shouldn't exist in any form. That's fine and it's a legitimate position, but it's hard to find any common ground for discussion here.
In terms of safeguards against leaking, I'd be willing to let you write the rules and the penalties. Does that get my point across?
Beyond that, I think my answer to Ryan outlines my position, and there's no need to repeat it once more.
Without accepting them, I sympathize with the privacy arguments re steroids. The difference, of course, is that there's no way to hide a steroid suspension.(**) If it were 3 games, you could fudge it and say the guy has "upper buttock inflammation," or somesuch but at 50 (which it should be), there isn't a lot of room for privacy.
The Ron Washington episode is simply appalling, beginning with the idea that people's privacy and private lives should be at the mercy of the whims of bunyon's "average man on the street." The entire idea of republicanism and the Bill of Rights was precisely that their hysterias -- given wider berth now with the internet -- aren't to govern the lives and affairs of more refined, disciplined, and accomplished people. (If the latter clause sounds harsh, santitize it up with poli sci-ish language; time's short and the point's the same -- and what I wrote was precisely what the drafters of the Bill of Rights had in mind.)
(**) Understood that different rules applied to the testing regarding the Gang of 103.
But what's the analogy here, anyway? Setting aside the immediate resort to the Won't Anybody Please Think Of The Children?™ - always the sign of a bad argument - you're trying to equate a safety issue to… what, exactly? That if I should worry about my babysitter hurting/neglecting my daughter while high, that the Rangers should worry that Washington will bunt in the first inning with the cleanup hitter or something?
(Aside: As a good libertarian, I used to make fun of paranoid parents who were fanatically worried about every possible danger to the point where they wanted the government to outlaw risk itself. I was told by people, "Wait until you have kids; you'll feel differently. Well, I did and I don't. Do I worry about my daughter and take precautions? Sure. Do I sit around seeing child molesters, toxic chemicals, and choking hazards behind every tree? No.)
But, the idea of the Republic, going back to Plato, was never to protect the right to do wrong, only to protect the right to do good. The whole philosophy behind it was to ensure the ability to pursue virtue.
The idea that the rights of a person to act badly, and have their privacy protected from censure and opprobrium, is a completely modern concept. Quite frankly, I don't think there exists any "right to privacy" outside of very limited protection against government intrusion and action.
If you are a drug-addict, or are cheating on your wife, or embezzeling from your church, and the NY Times wants to run it as a front page story, that's too bad for you (as long as it is true). If your employer thinks that your drug use, or stealing, or adultery is proof that you aren't to be trusted as an employee, again too bad for you.
Carlos Beltran must be high a lot of the time.
But what's the analogy here, anyway? Setting aside the immediate resort to the Won't Anybody Please Think Of The Children?™ - always the sign of a bad argument - you're trying to equate a safety issue to… what, exactly? That if I should worry about my babysitter hurting/neglecting my daughter while high, that the Rangers should worry that Washington will bunt in the first inning with the cleanup hitter or something?
The analogy is that someone's $500M investment is probably as important to them as your child is to you. They don't want to risk a potential drug addict screwing up their investment. For example, ignoring drug use on the team that causes poor performance b/c he doesn't want his use revealed.
I also seriously doubt you would treat cocaine (or heroin or any other hard drug) the same as if she went to a bar and had 5 or 6 beers. The addictive and abuse tendencies of hard drugs is much higher than for alcohol; as someone said already "cocaine's a hell of a drug".
I'll not retract what I said because it wasn't aimed at "you". It was aimed at anyone: perhaps you (a person) doesn't worry about the leak and the blackmail because, after all, the guy DID use coke, which is illegal, and therefore had it coming. I definitely know people like this. You could view the leaks of grand jury testimony the same way. For my money, the folks leaking investigation details should go to jail for a long time. Abuse of privilege in that sense is a far, far greater crime than taking a steroid.
I think I lie somewhere between you and, say, David on the issue of PEDs in MLB. But I don't think you can debate it without due consideration to the realities of our society. Sure, testing that was absolutely confidential would be great. But it never will be. So, you have to weigh that in the consideration of whether or not to do testing. David comes down on one side, you the other. I'll be frank and say I don't really know. I would much rather leave it up to the negotiators of the MLBPA and MLB and I don't take either the resistance to testing or the acceptance of it as necessarily indicating any position. Rather, it's a balance of positions. I would prefer a league with no PEDs but I'm not willing to ruin any lives to achieve it.
I will also say that the more extreme elements in the PED debate at both BTF and at large seem, to me, to have gone completely off the rails of reality.
I'm not sure what you're supposed to say to this either, Andy. Especially since you were responding to a comment by bunyon, rather than to a comment from me. However, I must say that it's nice to see that your obsession with massive quote blocks to ensure the proper context doesn't actually ensure that you know who you're arguing with.
If that's the case, then "someone" probably shouldn't have agreed to an industry-wide policy that essentially prevents suspending or firing a first-time offender. That industry-wide policy tells me a lot about how concerned "someone" is about this problem. The hysteria of the masses doesn't tell me anything, except that the masses tend toward hysteria.
fanatically worried about every possible danger to the point where they wanted the government to outlaw risk itself
If risk is outlawed, only outlaws will take risks.
Doesn't pretty much the entire known universe lie somewhere between Andy and David on this issue?
Hysteria metastasizes within the public much more rapidly and efficiently in the modern world.
I wasn't saying that Washington should be fired immediately. I was responding to David's:
which would mean that the Rangers shouldn't care if Washington was a serious cocaine user or not.
I think giving a valued employee a second chance is probably wise. But, the fact that he knew he was subject to testing and used anyway indicates to me that he has some sort of problem. If he does it again, with the enhanced scrutiny and immediate threat to his career, then he's an addict and I wouldn't want him anywhere near my business.
I'm not sure what you're supposed to say to this either, Andy. Especially since you were responding to a comment by bunyon, rather than to a comment from me. However, I must say that it's nice to see that your obsession with massive quote blocks to ensure the proper context doesn't actually ensure that you know who you're arguing with.
Got it, and sorry if that mishap offended you.
I would (for cocaine, at least).
They're also disgustingly overreported by the media, which makes absolutely no effort to fact check claims by the DEA and public interest groups.
No wonder you always deride the slippery slope argument; you don't understand it. That is not the slippery slope argument. The slippery sloe argument is not that an individual can't draw an arbitrary line; the slippery slope argument is that implementing A will lead to B, whether you personally want to stop at A or not.
Look, I adore business, entrepreneurship, risk and all of it, but IMHO, you're glorifying it well beyond what it deserves. Continually placing privacy rights in the context of someone's "business" doesn't really change those rights.
And, it's your call, you've apparenly earned it, but I'm not sure snorting a few lines is really the marker you treat it as. Institutions by the dozen drug tested around the clock and look what happened -- the leaders were people like Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, Dick Fuld, and on and on. Criminals. While the big corporate bureaucracies were worrying themselves silly with pittances like pot use and snorting a couple of lines, their top offices became manned by criminals.
The bigger problem seems obvious.
Well, perhaps after reading what I just wrote, you now might.
You're pro-testing for PEDs;
As you also seem to be, based on your last paragraph of this same post of yours.
I had never cottoned on that you oppose it for recreational drugs or for non-players.
Well, now you do. I've stated this several times before, but I don't expect memories to be that perfect.
I'm not sure I get that; coke use in society certainly creates more trouble than steroid use amongst baseball players.
No question. But that's a problem for the overall society to address, not baseball. I'm talking about testing in baseball.
But, no matter. You do definitely seem to disregard the issue of privacy or view at as such a low priority that it may as well not exist.
I see privacy as one of many considerations, not to be dismissed (which is why I favor strict safeguards for leaking names) but not to override every other concern. And again, testing is something to be decided upon jointly, not something that should be unilaterally imposed. Within that framework, I favor random testing with no advance warning, since otherwise the tests would be meaningless. But only if that's been collectively agreed to in advance.
I'll not retract what I said because it wasn't aimed at "you".
It certainly seemed that way, but I'll accept that explanation, especially given your past record here.
It was aimed at anyone: perhaps you (a person) doesn't worry about the leak and the blackmail because, after all, the guy DID use coke, which is illegal, and therefore had it coming. I definitely know people like this. You could view the leaks of grand jury testimony the same way. For my money, the folks leaking investigation details should go to jail for a long time. Abuse of privilege in that sense is a far, far greater crime than taking a steroid.
No argument with any of that.
So's alcohol. The fact that one is legal and one isn't has nothing to do with the properties of the substances themselves, but is a historical/geographical accident.
EDIT: in any case, what's the point of asking me a question if you refuse to believe my answer?
Not in the least. I didn't say, "Andy isn't smart enough to design safeguards"; I said that there's no such thing. The only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead - and in the Internet age, I'm not even sure that's sufficient.
Well, your response gets my point across very well: There's no form of drug testing that you'd find acceptable, and that there's no common ground for discussion.
Or is this one of those famous "slippery slope" arguments that says that anyone who's in favor of PED testing "has to" be in favor of testing for everything from cocaine to Coors?
No wonder you always deride the slippery slope argument; you don't understand it. That is not the slippery slope argument. The slippery sloe argument is not that an individual can't draw an arbitrary line; the slippery slope argument is that implementing A will lead to B, whether you personally want to stop at A or not.
So I guess that means that since baseball tests for cocaine, the inevitable next step is that it's going to start giving breathalyzer tests at 4:00 every morning. Got it.
Would you be an outlaw for my love
If it's so, well, let me know
If it's "no", well, I can go
I won't make you
How strong are the "strongest possible guards" against leaking information? The threat of prison time and of being disbarred didn't stop Troy Ellerman from leaking the grand jury transcripts in the BALCO case.
Just because you phrase it in such stern, serious language doesn't mean the "strongest" protection is actually worth much.
Is it even possible to test solely for PEDs and not recreational drugs once you take a urine sample? To test for PEDs don't you basically have to check everything to see if any levels are out of whack or if anything shows up that shouldn't be there?
What if I think your going to a papist church means you bow to a foreign institution before your own country and therefore can't be trusted. Is it OK (in your morality) for me to not hire or even fire you when I find out you don't have the proper protestant virtues?
I am not being snarky - I suspect your ancestors (like mine) faced this line of thinking in the past.
Yes, generally speaking. Different PEDs and recreational drugs will result in different chemicals and levels in the urine. Depending on the substance you're testing for, however, you may run into cases where the set of chemicals you need matches the set of chemicals you would need to detect another substance - just at different thresholds.
Geez, it's not even June.
How strong are the "strongest possible guards" against leaking information? The threat of prison time and of being disbarred didn't stop Troy Ellerman from leaking the grand jury transcripts in the BALCO case.
Just because you phrase it in such stern, serious language doesn't mean the "strongest" protection is actually worth much.
Then by that standard, you have to be opposed to all drug testing. Or would there be some way of doing it that would meet your approval?
Is it even possible to test solely for PEDs and not recreational drugs once you take a urine sample? To test for PEDs don't you basically have to check everything to see if any levels are out of whack or if anything shows up that shouldn't be there?
Not being a scientist, I wouldn't know. But if that's the case, then it's all the more reason to institute sufficient safeguards against leaking the results---or, from where you sit, it's all the more reason to do away with all drug testing.
What would you consider to be sufficient safeguards? Keep in mind that the normal "sufficient safeguards" haven't been sufficient to prevent leaking of grand jury testimony, or the leaking of names on the list siezed by the government and distributed to unknown persons. In both cases, the existing safeguards were considered to be sufficient, until they suddenly weren't.
Awesome. I wonder if "papistry" is a word. You could throw it in once in a while too.
What would you consider to be sufficient safeguards? Keep in mind that the normal "sufficient safeguards" haven't been sufficient to prevent leaking of grand jury testimony, or the leaking of names on the list siezed by the government and distributed to unknown persons. In both cases, the existing safeguards were considered to be sufficient, until they suddenly weren't.
Hard to know that from the outside, but I'd want to start by knowing what the safeguards are today. I'd also want to know things such as: Who has access to these records? Who hires those people? What sort of background checks did those people being hired undergo?
The counterpoint to this, of course, is to reverse the question. Are you so convinced that 100% file security is impossible that your only answer is to eliminate all drug testing? If that's not your position, why not?
I'm sure that if
I took even one sniff
That would bore me terrifically too
Yet I get a kick out of you
I'm sure glad someone quoted this. I always, always, always hear this song in my head as the Cleavon Little version. He's a pretty good singer.
Well, when you've got a wife who was born in Germany in 1959 to a 50 year old former German Army officer and an unknown mother, you can imagine the possibilities for filling in the blanks.
I have no problem with MLB and the MLBPA agreeing to testing as part of the CBA, so you're asking the wrong person. Since you're the one pushing the sufficient safeguards line, however, it is your responsibility to determine exactly what level of risk you would accept with respect to the leaks, and to determine whether or not it is possible to implement a system that reasonably allows for the support of that level of risk
Incidentally, 100% file security is impossible, especially since it's not just a matter of controlling the files, but also the samples, and the words and actions of any person involved in the process of evaluating and recording of test results. If you're going to have testing, you're going to have to accept that there will always be a possibility of the results being leaked.
I have no problem with MLB and the MLBPA agreeing to testing as part of the CBA, so you're asking the wrong person.
So am I then correct in assuming that you're comfortable with less than 100% file security?
Since you're the one pushing the sufficient safeguards line, however, it is your responsibility to determine exactly what level of risk you would accept with respect to the leaks, and to determine whether or not it is possible to implement a system that reasonably allows for the support of that level of risk
To determine the exact point of allowable risk is a combination of will (which I'd have) and technical expertise (which I don't have), along with the ground rules I would be operating under. Give me absolute authority to set the rules and make me answer to nobody, and you'll get one thing; make me subject to various levels of restrictions and you'll get another. It's really no different than observing that the rules surrounding the testing itself are going to in part determine the sort of results you get.
So, in other words, when you waxed poetic about "strict safeguards" and "strongest possible guards against leaking," you really didn't understand what you were talking about. And then when people tried to point that out to you, rather than acknowledging the point you proceeded to throw some other question back at them.
You couldn't have carefully factored "safeguards" into your position if you didn't really understand anything about them.
For Andy, that's a feature, not a bug.
I've never said otherwise, and I recognize the limits of what can reasonably be done to ensure total file security. I do suspect, however, that I'm willing to accept less risk than you, given your aggressive pushing of the apparent need for more extensive and intrusive testing (EDIT: despite the extensive number of leaks to date from a system with supposedly strict safeguards).
The counterpoint to this, of course, is to reverse the question. Are you so convinced that 100% file security is impossible that your only answer is to eliminate all drug testing? If that's not your position, why not?
So, in other words, when you waxed poetic about "strict safeguards" and "strongest possible guards against leaking," you really didn't understand what you were talking about.
If by that you mean I don't know all the details of the safeguards they have today, of course you're correct. I also didn't know everything about running a book shop in 1984, and quiet as it's kept, you may not have known much about running a law firm when you graduated from law school. No matter how much we disparage the concept, we all have to "learn on the job." What matters most, beyond a certain level of intelligence and familiarity with the concepts of the position, is the attitude you bring towards it, and a willingness to listen.
And then when people tried to point that out to you, rather than acknowledging the point you proceeded to throw some other question back at them.
Ray, do you EVER try anything besides making some tangential polemical point? I directed the question to Ryan, who in turn answered it without getting all hot and bothered about it. I then further elaborated on my answer in response to him. It's called "dialogue," and you might try it sometime when you run out of ways of picking fights over nothing.
I don't know; I'd have to look up that word first. I'm sure your application of it to me is outrageous, though.
"Unknown French chambermaid" is how I usually refer to my wife's birth mother, but of course in the case of adoption the name of that birth mother is kept from the child. She still doesn't know her birth mother's identity.
I'm not sure I completely agree with this. As far as on-field problems, I'd agree that cocaine isn't likely to be much of an issue. However, the Rangers are in the business of selling entertainment, much of it "family focused" I would assume. A manager with a coke problem could be a big hurdle to go over for a team that hasn't been overly successful in the recent past. Additionally, cokeheads generally exhibit "compromised" decision-making such that if one is hooked, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that he'll end up making some sort of a mess before he and your organization part ways. Finally, MLB has had serious coke issues in the past and it seems reasonable for them to be concerned from a business perspective, particularly when you couple the previous coke problems with the current "drug problems."
To be clear, there is exactly zero evidence that Washington has any kind of a serious coke problem, and therefore zero reason that Washington should be let go based on a single failed test. My point, however, is that I can see not wanting my field manager to be a user simply from a business perspective- even though I have a pretty limited moral objection. As such, I think it's reasonable to test so as to insure that no serious problems exist (I probably wouldn't but it's still reasonable to my mind).
Of course, if you can't keep your tests secret- and it appears that you can't- that changes the calculus substantially.
I've never said otherwise, and I recognize the limits of what can reasonably be done to ensure total file security. I do suspect, however, that I'm willing to accept less risk than you, given your aggressive pushing of the apparent need for more extensive and intrusive testing (EDIT: despite the extensive number of leaks to date from a system with supposedly strict safeguards).
That's little more than conjecture on your part, isn't it? At this point you're effectively asking me to disprove a negative, and there's little I can say to counter that, short of giving us both parallel jobs in MLB's file security system and seeing what comes of it.
Sorry to report, but this is little more than corporatist mumbo-jumbo.
There are two ways to handle the "PR problem." One is what's happening: test for it for no reason and with no cause, s
shvthandle the test results, let them slip into public knowledge causing foreseeable hysteria, and then resort to corporatist goodyspeak in hopes of calming the hysteria down.
The other is not testing for cocaine use at all. Not a soul would have known Washington snorted some lines, not a soul would have cared.
Guess which is better.
Which part? That there is no such thing as a leak-proof system, or that you would accept a greater degree of risk than I would? If you're talking the latter, then I agree - it does contain a certain amount of conjecture. If it's the former, then I disagree - there is no such thing as a leak-proof system, especially given the size of a system needed to support the level of testing you seem to want for an sytem as big as the entirety of organized baseball. You can do what you can to minimize the risk of leaks (up until the point where it becomes unworkable either due to economic or time restrictions), but you can't eliminate the possibility of leaks.
That's little more than conjecture on your part, isn't it? At this point you're effectively asking me to disprove a negative, and there's little I can say to counter that, short of giving us both parallel jobs in MLB's file security system and seeing what comes of it.
Which part? That there is no such thing as a leak-proof system, or that you would accept a greater degree of risk than I would? If you're talking the latter, then I agree
That's exactly what I was talking about.
I am not being snarky - I suspect your ancestors (like mine) faced this line of thinking in the past.
Maybe, in limited circumstances. If you are running a specifically sectarian institution, Protestant Church, school, charity, magazine, etc., then you are within your rights to not hire me b/c of religion. Or if my religion had some restrictions that prevented me from doing my job.
Religious belief is a different form of morality than "natural law" offenses (lying, killing, stealing, adultery etc.). I believe a Protestant or Muslim is in error regarding their religion, and it may well be sinful (depending on their knowledge and state of mind) but it is not the same as actions that are evidently wrong, and knowably so, just from the natural law.
Unless he legitimately had a problem. In which case everyone finds out when he does something monumentally stupid. There were no drug tests in '85 but MLB still ran into problems.
If the testing is premised on identifying legitimate problems, and not on firing anyone who might fail- which appears to be the case in this instance- I can see their legitimacy from a business perspective.
And you're well within your rights to say that there's some conjecture involved. However, given the positions you've stated, hinted at, or quoted from others, it seems that you would support a more extensive set of PED testing than currently exists. That more extensive set of testing would necessarily result in an increase in complexity in the operation and maintenance of the program, which would also result in more points of weakness in the system, and up the possibility of leaks.
I think it's really difficult to read Andy's writings and come away with the conclusion that he cares one iota about privacy concerns and potential leaks.
I have to ask, how could this possibly be true?
What do you mean?
The quote is obviously accurate, but that's not at all incompatible with wanting to ensure that secrets remain secrets. I wouldn't blame David if he'd been selected to run the Social Security Administration and proceeded to try to dismantle it, because that's how he'd rightfully interpret his mandate, given his previously stated views on the subject; I'd blame the people who selected him.
If you were in those reporters' position, you (meaning the generic "you") might well report those leaks yourself, and your paper might well print them. As I said, "that's what reporters do." Just as many union representatives see their job as defending the interests of their members, without any consideration for the greater good of society; and just as Johnny Cochran slept with a clear conscience, in spite of having helped spring a killer loose on society.
The question is what you do to prevent all this, since in all of these cases, there are competing interests. Ray and David would prevent leaks by abolishing all testing. Ryan accepts the need for testing but thinks that his methods of preventing leaks would be stricter than mine. I've reiterated that this is little more than conjecture on his part, and we can go back and forth on that particular point forever. At this point it seems to come down to little more than trying to prove that I'm a big bad meanie who doesn't care if people's reputations get trashed unfairly. Short of announcing that I've formed the Barry Bonds for the Hall of Fame committee, I'm not sure I'm ever going to convince certain people of anything to the contrary, but somehow I still manage to sleep with a clear conscience, though God knows how.
The point is that you waved your hands above about "strict safeguards" while knowing it wasn't reasonable to think there would be any, since "that's what reporters do."
It would be like if you advocated that I spend my entire savings on lottery tickets, and then when I didn't win you shrugged your shoulders and said, "Well, what did you expect? Almost nobody wins."
You wrote that someone who believes in and worships the same deity that you do may be sinful in their belief. I'm asking for clarification.
Don't you get lonely up there on that cross? At least the view must be nice, as you look down on all of us.
Identical twin sisters who have problems remembering who's who.
OK.
A Muslim doesn't recognize Jesus Christ as God. Almost all forms of Christianity teach that you can only achieve salvation through Christ. So, if one does not accept Christ as God, at least implicitly, before you die, you won't be saved. In that sense, Muslims don't worship the same God I do.
There are exceptions to the need for explicit belief, e.g. if you live in a place where you've never heard of Christ, these are termed "invincible ignornance" in Catholic theology.
As for Protestants, most of them hold beliefs that are incompatible with what I believes, and my Church teaches, to be the truth, or they don't believe in certain essential things. Whether these beliefs/non-beliefs rise to the level of sinfullness depends on their level of knowledge and their intentions.
If one is a Chick level fundamentalist spouting insults towards the Blessed Mother and ridiculing the Mass and Eucharist, you are pretty clearly sinning.
It would be like if you advocated that I spend my entire savings on lottery tickets, and then when I didn't win you shrugged your shoulders and said, "Well, what did you expect? Almost nobody wins."
Yes, Ray, I think I realize that to you the only good drug testing is no drug testing. You can congratulate me on my insight.
-------------------------------
Don't you get lonely up there on that cross? At least the view must be nice, as you look down on all of us.
The better question might be why you and your friends here spend so much energy trying to prove the unprovable about one obviously demented Primate. When I was your age I had to work for a living.
Not practicing what your church believes doesn't equate sinful. You would need to provide evidence of Scripture to describe that as sinful. Or do you believe that the church is more important than the scripture?
For the sake of snapper's long term health, I should hope so.
In any case, all of you are wrong, and borderline polytheists. The good news is, we don't care. HTH.
Didn't say anyone won't be saved. No one can know who will or won't be saved. The same is true of any sinner. We know that murder or adultery is sinful, we don't know what may happen before death (even at the last instant) to cause repentance. Some people theorize that God comes to everyone before death and gives them a last chance.
Jews are an interesting case b/c of the special role they play in Christianity. In Catholic teaching, Judaism is not an error, in the same sense Islam or Protestantism is an error. It was right and valid in its time, but was supposed to be replaced with the coming of Christ.
Not practicing what your church believes doesn't equate sinful. You would need to provide evidence of Scripture to describe that as sinful. Or do you believe that the church is more important than the scripture?
The Catholic (and Orthodox) Church do not believe in Scripture as sole authority. It is one of three equal sources, along with tradition and the Church. Tradition and Church teaching is that Christ established a Church on earth to interpret Scripture (the Catholic Church authorized the books of the Bible after all) and teach morality.
To the extent people ignore the teachings of the Church, they act wrongly. The extent to which those acts are sins depends, again, on their knowledge of Church teaching, and their intent in acting. The core teachings on morality (natural law, e.g. 10 commandments) are binding to all mankind (unlike disciplinary teachings, e.g. no meat on Good Friday, which are only binding on Church members).
Monumentally stupid like blowing a .26 12 hours before the penultimate game in a tied pennant race? (**)
The only "problems" MLB ran into in 1985 was a few guys getting arrested for cocaine use ... thus exposing them as cocaine users. Arrests have been exposing players and management types as wife-beaters, assaulters, drunk drivers, and the like for years. Do you support no-cause testing for those things, too?
(**) Miguel Cabrera
:-) Of course.
As I'd expect. Judiasm is not a universalist religion (it doesn't call for converting others), so you naturally wouldn't care.
IIRC, Judaism doesn't really have a definitive teaching on the afterlife, does it?
Good stuff.
Not contradictory. One's a general principal. The other a statement about individuals. You can't know who, individually, might be saved. You can know the general "rules of the game".
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main