Not sure what this means… is it three strikes?

He tested positive for testosterone in 2011 while with the Rays. They included it in the 2012 report because that's when he served his (reduced) suspension.

So who wants to guess the player who is being treated for hypogonadism?

So who wants to guess the player who is being treated for hypogonadism?

Wang?

johnson

Wang?

No offense.

I'm going to guess one of the Colorado Rockies; they have to keep their balls humidified.

Not sure what this means… is it three strikes?

The three strikes rule is dumb, dumb, dumb. There's no reason that three positive tests is special.

There should be escalating suspensions. There should probably be lifetime bans. But I think the lifetime bans should be handed out at the Commissioner's discretion, though not until after the third positive test (or at least the second positive test).

There's no reason that three positive tests is special.

This one goes to eleven. I generally prefer two strikes and you're out. One chance to royally screw up, then we figure he will never ever get the message. But, hey, this is baseball so it's three strikes.

I think PED punshiments should be flexible, and that its should be baseball's official policy to consider certain circumstances. Even a second offense from a AAAA player who's originally from a developing country and supporting an extended family is less blameworthy than a first offense from an established starter. There are really giganitic economic differences in players' lives, and I think the punishments should understand and account for that. After all, if baseball wasn't a hugely financially rewarding, few players would risk their long term health for on-field glory.

There are really giganitic economic differences in players' lives, and I think the punishments should understand and account for that.

Different punishments based on the wealth/success of the player?

Yikes. I can't imagine that working out very well.

Even a second offense from a AAAA player who's originally from a developing country and supporting an extended family is less blameworthy than a first offense from an established starter. There are really giganitic economic differences in players' lives, and I think the punishments should understand and account for that.

Understanding and condoning are two different things. If part of the justification for testing is to prevent fringe players from feeling like they have to use drugs to succeed, then giving those same players a slap on the wrist when caught is counter productive. You'd be encouraging use among those players if they felt like they could get away with little punishment.

Bye Manny. I hope.

Manny is still being Manny.