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.
At its bottom you find the sorts of things that central baseball and, apparently, arbitrator Frederic Horowitz have now found in the agreement between baseball and the players. In their reading, it presents a system in which paid witnesses are deemed so reliable that their claims don't need to be verified, in which bad intentions are the same as bad acts, and in which—clearly contrary to spirit of the deal and even to the nature of doping regimens—uses of particular substances can be treated as isolable offenses, each subject to its own penalty.
All of this gives baseball the power to circumvent the negotiated penalty structure and lay long bans on any player alleged to have used a variety of substances, or perhaps even to have used more than once. It essentially makes contracts conditional, fully guaranteed only so long as the commissioner believes that the player is thinking sufficiently pure thoughts.
I dunno. It's not like A-Rod was the only player who was penalised for his connection to Biogenesis. Was he the only one not to fail a drug test?
ARod was the only one to use multiple substances over multiple years. Don't you see that? Nobody else ever did that. His use of three (count them, THREE!) performance enhancing drugs over three years shocks the conscience.
I think Ryan Braun was the only one in the group who ever failed one.
We're back to needing to know whether a lesser deal was ever offered, whether MLB escalated its punishment protocol once A-Rod determined to fight. It could be that MLB always saw this outcome as a possibility, given A-Rod's competitive instincts, and never offered him a comparable deal to Braun or Peralta because they wanted to use A-Rod's propensity for hapless chancing against the MLBPA.
With A-Rod, you've mostly got Yankee fans celebrating his suspension.
When I think "immoral shitshow", one thing immediately comes to mind: Deadspin.
The players seem to want a testing regime, so the MLBPA's officials had the job of creating one that protected them. Horowitz' ruling has demolished a structure that was too vague — badly drafted — and was probably designed to allow for subsequent interpretation and compromise. But A-Rod's determination to 'clear his name' on the basis of (a), as opposed to going quietly like the other Biogenisoids, made that impossible.
I don't know any Yankee fans celebrating his suspension. It does highlight the preposterously unfair nature of the "Yankee tax" but everyone knows you can't discuss such things in polite company.
I don't know any Yankee fans celebrating his suspension.
The ONLY thing you talk about is the Yankee tax. I don't think the politeness of the company would alter your willingness to bring up that topic one bit.
The entire topic has jumped the shark.
An ode to YR.
Anywho, while I also veer libertarian on most things involving the control of one's own body, there's a basic workplace safety issue here. If X and Y are roughly equivalent players and X takes steroids and they make him a better ballplayer, then Y has a choice to either lose his spot or take steroids to keep up.
Has there ever been a s##tshow that was deemed moral?
That seems like a very specific, unprovable assertion
However, the union and management did agree to testing in the 80's, something even Marvin Miller endorsed.
I don't know any Yankee fans celebrating his suspension. I
My libertarian/baseball-fan struggle runs something like this:
A) Hey, it's a labor agreement between two private parties, who am I to #####?
B) But wait a sec, the federal government put a heavy thumb on this scale, through public shaming (from the State of the Union Address to Novitzky's various crusades/bargains to the show trials of disfavored stars for non-drug charges) & also explicit threat of legislation.
C) Also, there's a weird element of hysteria/hypocrisy about using a legal-when-prescribed drug to recover more quickly from workouts, in an era of improvement surgery & after multiple eras of greenies. Makes me uncomfortable to endorse pharmacological prejudice. But,
D) I like my baseball at 4.30 runs per game much more than 5.00, even if
E) I attribute a lot of the post-94 spike to expansion & smaller ballparks. Therefore,
F) Uh, profit?
F) Uh, profit?
As if the clean players should somehow be reprimanded and scolded because they want the PED users tested and punished. How dare them for wanting cheating players held accountable.
Enough with Deadspin. Their writers try to be so hip and cool with the curse words and the sexual innuendo and the cute double meanings; they come across as a group of sophomoric, childish Animal House wannabees. That's all fine and well if you're pledging to the local frat house, but we should expect a more serious and sophisticated approach from a "serious" news organization.
Enough with Deadspin. Their writers try to be so hip and cool with the curse words and the sexual innuendo and the cute double meanings;
This is great if you read it in Phil Hartman's Frank Sinatra voice.
As if the clean players should somehow be reprimanded and scolded because they want the PED users tested and punished.
How would you know, MLB rarely discloses details as it violates the confidentiality agreement.
I would not be surprised in there was a department at the MLB offices designated for and tasked with violating the confidentiality agreement(s).
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.6960 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed