And yes, that's supremely logical: If you offer practical advice to someone who stands to be accused of something he didn't do, you're therefore "defending" his unjust attackers.

Based on your practical advice that ballplayers falsely accused should prove their innocence by submitting to blood tests, it's obvious your practical advice to the blacklisted would have been to roll over for the accusers and sign statements attesting that they had not ever been a Communist or associated with Communists. Or if they were Communists, rat out others, like Elia Kazan did to Zero Mostel in front of HUAC, for one. Rather than in both cases dismissing the accusers with the contempt they deserved.

casting a net of innuendo...self-styled BTF civil libertarians...indiscriminate trashing.

I'm a horrible person, I know.

And yes, that's supremely logical: If you offer practical advice to someone who stands to be accused of something he didn't do, you're therefore "defending" his unjust attackers.

"Practical advice"? Sneering at/condemning the victim as a fool is hardly "practical advice," and spending far more time doing that than condemning the unjust attackers leads one to believe you have a lot more sympathy for the latter than the former.

And yes, that's supremely logical: If you offer practical advice to someone who stands to be accused of something he didn't do, you're therefore "defending" his unjust attackers.

Based on your practical advice that ballplayers falsely accused should prove their innocence by submitting to blood tests, it's obvious your practical advice to the blacklisted would have been to roll over for the accusers and sign statements attesting that they had not ever been a Communist or associated with Communists. Or if they were Communists, rat out others, like Elia Kazan did to Zero Mostel in front of HUAC, for one. Rather than in both cases dismissing the accusers with the contempt they deserved.

Well, I guess this is better defending the intelligence of people who leave their cars on city streets with the keys in them. (smile) But not a whole lot.

The "practical" advice I'd give to ballplayers as a group, would be to do what you want as a group, but to be fully aware of the consequences of any decision. My personal advice to the group (in this case, the union) would be to agree to random testing, on the grounds that a few incidents of diminished privacy is of far lesser consequence to a ballplayer than the loss of public confidence in the integrity of his game. You may think otherwise.

The comparison to the Hollywood blacklisting is completely spurious, since in that case the question of group action never arose. It solely related to individuals, some of whom were Communists and some of whom weren't. The problem with advising non-Communists to cooperate was that the committees wouldn't leave a sworn non-Communist statement standing on its own; they demanded names of others. And then there was the whole case of those who'd joined the Party or some of its hundreds of front organzations but had since resigned on grounds of principle, who had seen firsthand countless examples cynicism on the part of Communists that rivaled that of any witch hunter. All of these people had their own individual perspectives on the whole issue, and it's hard to imagine any One Size Fits All answer.

Put that all together, and unless I were married to, or a very close friend of someone called to testify**, I might have personally wished that everyone just spit in those committees' collective faces, and of course I would have been (and was, when it was still an active issue) completely opposed to all those contempt charges, but as a practical matter I certainly wouldn't have pretended that refusing to testify would have no consequences. I've never been too much into the "let's you and him fight" school of political advice.

And to try to draw parallels between this sorry period in our history to what we've been talking about on this thread is both ahistorical and just plain silly. If there had been One Big Hollywood Union that spoke for all actors, or if there were no players' union today, then there'd at least be some basis for comparison.

**In which case I would have strongly recommended non-cooperation on First Amendment grounds, on the ground that my wife or close friend would want to be able better to live with themselves afterwards.

casting a net of innuendo...self-styled BTF civil libertarians...indiscriminate trashing.

I'm a horrible person, I know.

In truth we all know that you're a peach of a perros, but in this case if the shoe fits, wear it.

If there had been One Big Hollywood Union that spoke for all actors, or if there were no players' union today, then there'd at least be some basis for comparison.

Uh, there was. For someone who claims knowledge of the black list, strange that you don't recall the role the Screen Actors' Guild played in kowtowing to management and the Congress on Commie witchhunting exactly the way you've cheerleaded for the MLBPA to kowtow to management and Congress on PED witchhunting now.

And yes, that's supremely logical: If you offer practical advice to someone who stands to be accused of something he didn't do, you're therefore "defending" his unjust attackers.

"Practical advice"? Sneering at/condemning the victim as a fool is hardly "practical advice," and spending far more time doing that than condemning the unjust attackers leads one to believe you have a lot more sympathy for the latter than the former.

That sort of talk would be more convincing if (once again) you could ever show that I've ever condemned or accused any non-PED user on any BTF thread. That's more than I can say for those** who continue to drag up names of players who've never been implicated in any way, on the grounds that they played in the "steroid era." And your heartfelt sympathy (and 10,000 BTF posts) would do an awful lot to console any player whose reputation was impugned by his union's decision not to allow testing.

**Though remembering some of those threads where Sosa's name has come up, I'm not including you among those. I'll give credit where it's due, and you've been among those who've admirably defended him from just this type of guilt by era association.

My personal advice to the group (in this case, the union) would be to agree to random testing, on the grounds that a few incidents of diminished privacy is of far lesser consequence to a ballplayer than the loss of public confidence in the integrity of his game.

Yes, because everyone knows that it carries great weight with the jihadists if an accused player hasn't failed a test.

If there had been One Big Hollywood Union that spoke for all actors, or if there were no players' union today, then there'd at least be some basis for comparison.

Uh, there was. For someone who claims knowledge of the black list, strange that you don't recall the role the Screen Actors' Guild played in kowtowing to management and the Congress on Commie witchhunting exactly the way you've cheerleaded for the MLBPA to kowtow to management and Congress on PED witchhunting now.

Oh, for God's sake, Chip. The Screen Actors' Guild was split into a million different factions, purged its membership rolls, and as a result was scarcely representative of all actors. Has anyone seen the players' union do this over the issue of drug testing, or over any other issue? Has anyone recommended this? Do you think I have? (Jesus, you probably do think that.)

My personal advice to the group (in this case, the union) would be to agree to random testing, on the grounds that a few incidents of diminished privacy is of far lesser consequence to a ballplayer than the loss of public confidence in the integrity of his game.

Yes, because everyone knows that it carries great weight with the jihadists if an accused player hasn't failed a test.

Yes, just as everyone knows that the union's stonewalling on the issue of testing during the "steroid era" had no effect on public opinion among the non-jihadists. You were either Ray diPerna or you were a jihadist , with no possible room in between.

HGH, the intended performance enhancer which does not work, and still damages the health for those not born with a natural deficiency or suffering from a serious health condition (such as AIDS). Remind me why it is more loosely regulated than cocaine or marijuana.

As a fan, I find the culture of players bulking up artificially unaesthetic, and I really do not see what interest players have in the league permitting artificial bulking up without performance improvement and with health risk. The whole thing is worse than having to watch Randy Johnson pitch naked.

The whole thing is worse than having to watch Randy Johnson pitch naked.

I would like to know where you had this experience, so that I can stay far, far away from there.

I have seen Randy Johnson pitch clothed on numerous occasions, and I have been accused of having a fertile imagination. As Johnny Cash sang, it all goes down in your mind.

Oh, for God's sake, Chip. The Screen Actors' Guild was split into a million different factions, purged its membership rolls, and as a result was scarcely representative of all actors. Has anyone seen the players' union do this over the issue of drug testing, or over any other issue? Has anyone recommended this? Do you think I have? (Jesus, you probably do think that.)

It's hilarious that you could write this, and then in the very next post (responding to Ray), write this:

Yes, just as everyone knows that the union's stonewalling on the issue of testing during the "steroid era" had no effect on public opinion among the non-jihadists.

SAG failed to stand up to the witch hunters. Instead, it rolled with them. Sadly, one of the reasons the SAG leadership supported, or at the very least acquiesced, to the witch hunt, was because they were sympathetic with management's belief that the industry would suffer in the court of public opinion for the perception that they were sheltering Reds.

And here you are, condemning the MLBPA for stonewalling instead of rolling with the witch hunters to avoid similar damage in the court of public opinion for the perception that they were sheltering PEDs (users).

SAG failed to stand up to the witch hunters. Instead, it rolled with them. Sadly, one of the reasons the SAG leadership supported, or at the very least acquiesced, to the witch hunt, was because they were sympathetic with management's belief that the industry would suffer in the court of public opinion for the perception that they were sheltering Reds.

Some were sympathetic to the witch hunters. Others, like Bogart and Edward Dmytryk, were just plain scared of them. Some were merely confused. But short of an absolute Hollywood united front to stand up against those congressional committees---which never was going to happen, given the number of Reagans and Taylors and Coopers and Menjous who were sympathetic to the committees---there were going to be people naming names no matter what. In truth, that Hollywood witch hunt (and blacklist) was 100% unavoidable in the real world of the Hollywood of the 40's and 50's.

And here you are, condemning the MLBPA for stonewalling instead of rolling with the witch hunters to avoid similar damage in the court of public opinion for the perception that they were sheltering PEDs (users).

Which also is, unfortunately, the truth. They stonewalled instead of confronting the issue, and indeed did suffer in the court of public opinion. And as a result, who knows how many players continued to juice, who might have otherwise been deterred for fear of automatic penalties? Who knows if some of our prominent HoF candidates might have been among them? And how many players who didn't juice are still the objects of guilt by generational association?

Beyond the fact that your advocacy of stonewalling on the part of the players is easy for an outsider to say (nobody's going to care about your PED use), this rather comically equates the right to one's political opinions and associations---a fundamental right that was trashed by the SAG---with the right of a ballplayer to take PEDs without any way of anyone's knowing it.

Of course by now the union has come to see that the players are better off with testing, as the "they all did it" stereotyping is gradually receding into the past. Whether it chooses to draw parallels with its own recent experience, rather than relying on the Hollywood 10 historians to give them advice, is up to them. I know what I'd advise them, and you know what you'd advise them, and neither of us has a vote in the matter.

My personal advice to the group (in this case, the union) would be to agree to random testing, on the grounds that a few incidents of diminished privacy is of far lesser consequence to a ballplayer than the loss of public confidence in the integrity of his game. You may think otherwise.

???? A "few" incidents of diminished privacy???? The testing regime requires that every single player be tested multiple times per season. That's thousands of incidents every year, not "a few."

???? A "few" incidents of diminished privacy???? The testing regime requires that every single player be tested multiple times per season. That's thousands of incidents every year, not "a few."

Andy will argue that it's only "a few" incidents per player. Per year. Of "diminished" privacy.

He tends to take positions based on whimsy rather than on any core principles, and so he ends up twisting himself into a pretzel trying to explain why situation A (SAG) is different from like situation B (the MLBPA).

this rather comically equates the right to one's political opinions and associations---a fundamental right that was trashed by the SAG---with the right of a ballplayer to take PEDs without any way of anyone's knowing it.

What's comical is your shamefaced spin here when it comes to the witchhunting parallels.

If I were as intellectually dishonest as you've just proven to be, I'd say that you're comically equating the right to belong to a subversive organization bent on destroying America with the right of ANYONE to not surrender his blood on demand - a fundamental right to privacy that you want the MLBPA to trash.

New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1210 is titled unattended motor vehicle and states:

(a) No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, removing the key from the vehicle, and effectively setting the brake thereon

the right to belong to a subversive organization bent on destroying America

Aw, lay off the libertarians. They're so small in number there's no need to create hysteria.

You still rolling with that handle, Bivens? I thought you said at the time it was only temporary.

I'm waiting for new inspiration before I change it.

???? A "few" incidents of diminished privacy???? The testing regime requires that every single player be tested multiple times per season. That's thousands of incidents every year, not "a few."

Andy will argue that it's only "a few" incidents per player. Per year.

Which of course it is. But then I realize that every time Alex Rodriguez got his finger pricked, Derek Jeter would howl in sympathetic pain.

(Or if Jeter didn't, I'm sure that you, David and Chip would more than make up for it. Oh, the agony.)

Of "diminished" privacy.

Which, if you recall, is to be agreed to voluntarily by the union, not imposed upon it from the outside. Since I would assume that might be a distinction worth noting, I'm not exactly sure what your objection is.

-----------------------

this rather comically equates the right to one's political opinions and associations---a fundamental right that was trashed by the SAG---with the right of a ballplayer to take PEDs without any way of anyone's knowing it.

What's comical is your shamefaced spin here when it comes to the witchhunting parallels.

First we have the spectacle of one character whose BTF handle two years ago might as well have been "What about Reverend Wright?" lecturing me about witch hunting;

then we have a libertarian who preaches 24/7 about the right of private organizations to set their own rules howling at me because I write that a particular private organization should consider voluntarily accepting one set of rules for its membership;

and now we have a third party of unknown political sentiments trying to construct tortured parallels between the Hollywood 10 (who each served a year in jail and lost their livelihoods for over a decade) and a baseball player whose union has voted to allow him to be randomly tested for possible PEDs. Pardon me if I have a hard time taking any of this too seriously.

Which, if you recall, is to be agreed to voluntarily by the union, not imposed upon it from the outside. Since I would assume that might be a distinction worth noting, I'm not exactly sure what your objection is.

Well, I think you should submit to a random, unannounced search of your home a few times a year so that people can be sure you're not hiding any kidnapped children in there. Note that I'm not advocating that this "diminished privacy" be imposed on you, just that you agree to it voluntarily, so that the crazy people -- I'm not one of them but they're out there -- who think you might be hiding children in your basement can be appeased.

So Andy, we all should have assumed McGwire drug-free until his recent confession? That every player who has neither tested positive nor confessed is drug free? That Barry Bonds inadvertently rubbed what he thought was linseed oil on his skin?

It's not innuendo to point out known facts about Reyes and his condition and his associations, particularly when I'm not trying to impugn him at all. I dont think the government should be making war on any drugs. Prohibition always creates an underground.

But I do care about the erosion of ballplayer rights because it will erode my rights as well.

You can disagree with that all you want on grounds of either privacy or scientific illiteracy, and that's fine.

All right, then, you are scientifically illiterate and you are quick to throw away somebody else's privacy rights, while always being very protective of your own.

The only possible reason for blood testing is to test for a substance that doesn't do anything. Instead of getting involved in a meaningless PR ploy, they should simply say that hGH doesn't do anything, and until somebody can show that it does, we aren't going along with this hysteria.

There's probably no way for players to eliminate the latter class of morons (who seem to take particular delight in speculating about players in inverse proportion to any actual evidence of their drug use), but IMO the less ammunition you give to them, the better.

And since you're not the one being asked to give blood, it is an easy position for you to say.

My personal advice to the group (in this case, the union) would be to agree to random testing, on the grounds that a few incidents of diminished privacy is of far lesser consequence to a ballplayer than the loss of public confidence in the integrity of his game. You may think otherwise.

Except of course, as we keep pointing out, again and again and again, through all the hysteria and witch hunting, baseball just keeps growing and growing. So then, in order to prevent something (loss of interest) which is not happening and has shown no signs of happening, the players should surrender their privacy rights with respect to a a substance which doesn't do anything in the first place -- instead of taking a principled stand that it is both a waste of time and money, and a violation of their rights.

and now we have a third party of unknown political sentiments

That's our Andy, always questioning motives when the lengthy filibuster of quoting and the outright dissembling doesn't suffice after he's been trapped in a corner.

Just to give the Hawaiian time zone something to get worked up about while I sleep, though I'm afraid that by this time our Honolulu Hero has me on his ignore list. (And BTW how many "troll" charges does it take to qualify for that?):

You can disagree with that all you want on grounds of either privacy or scientific illiteracy, and that's fine.

All right, then, you are scientifically illiterate and you are quick to throw away somebody else's privacy rights, while always being very protective of your own.

At this point I should probably pull out one of Nieporent's slippery slope arguments and ask you why the current testing for steroids is any less invasive than what's been considered for HGH. Or is being forced to pee in a cup somehow less of a "privacy" intrusion than getting a simple blood sample? Is it just that you're afraid of needles, or are you against the current steroid testing policy as well?

The only possible reason for blood testing is to test for a substance that doesn't do anything. Instead of getting involved in a meaningless PR ploy, they should simply say that hGH doesn't do anything, and until somebody can show that it does, we aren't going along with this hysteria.

That's a reasonable argument, and if that's the scientific consensus then that's a compelling case against any proposed current HGH testing. But are you then willing to change your mind if and when "somebody can show that it does," or if other PEDs are developed that can be shown to improve performance and are detectable only through blood samples?

There's probably no way for players to eliminate the latter class of morons (who seem to take particular delight in speculating about players in inverse proportion to any actual evidence of their drug use), but IMO the less ammunition you give to them, the better.

And since you're not the one being asked to give blood, it is an easy position for you to say.

Since I've given blood well over 100 times in my life, I doubt that the thought of a itty bitty needle would terrify me. But then I've seen cartoons of elephants running from mice, so I guess I should allow for ballplayers being afraid of a pinprick.

And of course it's easy for some armchair philosopher to tell a non-drug using player to refuse a test, knowing full well that his reputation is likely to be left hanging there at some point in the future by the "How do we know?" crowd.** Heaven forbid giving an innocent player a chance to provide some concrete evidence that he hasn't been using PEDs.

**Yes, I know that you and your buddy Ray don't care one way or the other whether any given player has juiced, but that "How do we know" rhetoric is also the currency of many of those nasty steroid witch hunters whom neither of us approve of.

Except of course, as we keep pointing out, again and again and again, through all the hysteria and witch hunting, baseball just keeps growing and growing. So then, in order to prevent something (loss of interest) which is not happening and has shown no signs of happening, the players should surrender their privacy rights with respect to a a substance which doesn't do anything in the first place -- instead of taking a principled stand that it is both a waste of time and money, and a violation of their rights.

Wonderful argument, but it doesn't exactly address the issue of individual players who don't use PEDs and who get grouped with those who do. I doubt if hearing their names thrown about on twice as many cable shows as they might have been 10 or 15 years ago is much consolation.

------------------------

and now we have a third party of unknown political sentiments

That's our Andy, always questioning motives when the lengthy filibuster of quoting and the outright dissembling doesn't suffice after he's been trapped in a corner.

What motive is there in saying that I'm agnostic about your political sentiments? Unfortunately robinred's tied up in a meeting, and so I have no idea whether you're a truther or a birther or any one of a million points on the spectrum in between. All I can deduce about your political opinions from what you've written in this thread is that you were against HUAC and McCarthy, which puts you in full agreement with me.

and now we have a third party of unknown political sentiments

Why do his political sentiments matter?

Andy, I think Chip is a liberal. Not that it matters.

Since I've given blood well over 100 times in my life, I doubt that the thought of a itty bitty needle would terrify me. But then I've seen cartoons of elephants running from mice, so I guess I should allow for ballplayers being afraid of a pinprick.

I have been told that my veins are "difficult," whatever that means.

About three in five times when I give blood (for donation or for a doctor), I get substantial bruising and mild tenderness that lasts for a couple of days. It's a minor enough nuisance that it doesn't deter me from donating fairly regularly, but I do try to have them use my right arm instead of my left one. It is enough of a nuisance that I wouldn't want to put up with it at my place of employment, particularly to allow my employer to test for a substance that is questionable as a performance enhancer.

That said, even when I don't have that somewhat frequent complication, it's not like I enjoy the needle. You don't have to be terrified of a needle in order to prefer not having to deal with it.

You don't have to be terrified of a needle in order to prefer not having to deal with it.

This whole sidetrack about "fear of the needle" is just Andy's latest attempt to change the subject, because the fundamental rights issue got too uncomfortable for him.

That said, even when I don't have that somewhat frequent complication, it's not like I enjoy the needle. You don't have to be terrified of a needle in order to prefer not having to deal with it.

They need to draw blood from a vein, and not a pinprick on the tip of a finger to test?

You don't have to be terrified of a needle in order to prefer not having to deal with it.

This whole sidetrack about "fear of the needle" is just Andy's latest attempt to change the subject, because the fundamental rights issue got too uncomfortable for him.

What "fundamental right" is involved in a union's voting to allow its members to be tested? If it's a right to "privacy," how is blood testing any different than urine testing, other than it involves a needle instead of a cup? Or is it that a person's blood is somehow more sacred to his private identity than his pee? I'd love to know your reasoning on that particular issue.

Or is this just that you're opposed to all forms of random testing? And if that's the case, isn't the union just as guilty of Big Brotherism as I am, when it didn't oppose testing for PEDs? Is anyone allowed to favor random testing of any kind without being consigned to your personal Hall of Witch Hunters?

They need to draw blood from a vein, and not a pinprick on the tip of a finger to test?

Yeah, I can see where that prospect might terrify Major League baseball players, at least those who are under 8 years old.

Drawing blood is a invasion of your body. I dont like urinalysis, either, but nobody's sticking a foreign object in my body to get it.

I'm very experienced at drawing blood, so if someone wants to schedule an inaugural bbtf meetup for those in favor of blood testing, I'll bring some clean needles.

Unfortunately robinred's tied up in a meeting

Yes, I was meeting with Ray to discuss his findings on Megan Fox's thumbs. I am pretty sure Chip is a liberal.

Drawing blood is a invasion of your body. I dont like urinalysis, either, but nobody's sticking a foreign object in my body to get it.

I'm glad I didn't mention my next proposal on the slippery slope: dental implants that transmit your every move to Obama. If you favor blood testing, you must favor that Socialist Government in Washington knowing what you're up to at every moment!

I'm very experienced at drawing blood, so if someone wants to schedule an inaugural bbtf meetup for those in favor of blood testing, I'll bring some clean needles.

Well, are you a Yankee fan, and do you take Medicare?

Unfortunately robinred's tied up in a meeting

Yes, I was meeting with Ray to discuss his findings on Megan Fox's thumbs. I am pretty sure Chip is a liberal.

That's good to know, so I guess this is a case of one of Stalin's agents attempting to carry out a liquidation of yet another deviationist. You never know what you're likely to find in the BTF box of chocolates.

"THEY CAME FIRST for the cocaine, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a doper.

THEN THEY CAME for the anabolic steroids, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a juicer.

THEN THEY CAME for the stimulants, and I didn't speak up because I didn't use greenies.

THEN THEY CAME for the hGH, and I didn’t speak up because I was clean.

THEN THEY CAME for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

That Niemoller parody just about measures the level of those slippery slope arguments we've been hearing around here, bobm, though at least Chip has confined his comparisons to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. I suppose we should be grateful for such a civilized show of restraint on his part.

How long until employers require blood testing as terms for employment?

No charge for the blood drawing. It'd be my pleasure to do it.

Yankee blood isnt green, is it?

Yankee blood isnt green, is it?

Just red, white and blue, Alex, like the American flag that Yankee haters routinely spit on. But you knew that.

What "fundamental right" is involved in a union's voting to allow its members to be tested?

Your position here, as far as I can tell, is: "Since I'm not advocating that government impose blood testing on the players (I just think they should agree with it to satisfy the crazies) the entire issue of privacy is irrelevant."

But if one holds privacy concerns in high regard (such as you do with, say, abortion), one should give weight to privacy, and have respect for it, even in non-government considerations. But you have none. You have no respect for it in this situation. You don't care about it at all. That's why I said earlier that you have no core principles, and you basically operate on whim. If one is carefully considering whether to agree to testing, one who respects privacy should give careful consideration to privacy issues -- even if one ultimately decides that in weighing all the factors it's still best to agree to testing. But you don't give careful consideration; you completely disregard privacy as a consideration. You mock the very notion.

Andy, perhaps my head is in the sand but I don't see that MLB is at some crossroads. Fans seem to be ignoring the steroid issue (I would go so far as to say there is no issue barring HOF discussions) and the status quo seems perfectly acceptable to players.

Would you really recommend to players that things are about to get bad and they need to do this radical step to keep their standard of living or is this more about doing the right thing?

Or is this just that you're opposed to all forms of random testing? And if that's the case, isn't the union just as guilty of Big Brotherism as I am, when it didn't oppose testing for PEDs?

It did oppose testing for PEDs. Then Congress said, "Agree to it or we'll impose it on you," so it made the best of a bad situation, agreeing on its own terms rather than Congress's.

Is anyone allowed to favor random testing of any kind without being consigned to your personal Hall of Witch Hunters?

A player can favor testing for himself, if he wants.

Drawing blood is a invasion of your body. I dont like urinalysis, either, but nobody's sticking a foreign object in my body to get it.

On the other hand, watching you as a needle is stuck in your arm isn't as psychologically intrusive as watching you as you urinate, paying careful attention to make sure you aren't engaging in some kind of flim-flamery.

That Niemoller parody just about measures the level of those slippery slope arguments we've been hearing around here, bobm, though at least Chip has confined his comparisons to the House Committee on Un-American Activities. I suppose we should be grateful for such a civilized show of restraint on his part.

See what I mean about you pretending slippery slopes don't exist, even when people advocate them right in front of you, as someone did earlier?

What "fundamental right" is involved in a union's voting to allow its members to be tested?

A return to the comical false construct. Once again, it's like asking what "fundamental right" was involved when private employers simply wanted to record for posterity their employees' past political views.

Andy, perhaps my head is in the sand but I don't see that MLB is at some crossroads.

I agree with this. I think most fans' basic view is:

Bonds is gone and is a pariah.
They are testing.
Guys are getting caught and punished, including Manny Rmairez.
Let's move on and watch some baseball.

As I noted, the only player I have heard speak out in favor of blod testing is Lance Berkman. There may be others I missed, but I don't see this as a huge deal in MLB right now.

Andy, perhaps my head is in the sand but I don't see that MLB is at some crossroads. Fans seem to be ignoring the steroid issue (I would go so far as to say there is no issue barring HOF discussions) and the status quo seems perfectly acceptable to players.

Would you really recommend to players that things are about to get bad and they need to do this radical step to keep their standard of living or is this more about doing the right thing?

Finally, a non-hysterical response.

At this point I don't see MLB at a crossroads wrt PEDs. And with the PED properties of HGH generally being discredited for those who already have significant muscle mass, I don't see any particular point of instituting testing for that, especially since such a test hasn't been perfected.

OTOH I do think that the players' union (and obviously, Selig and the ownership) should be keeping current with the development of the newer "designer" forms of PEDs, and also with new methods of detection. The world doesn't stand still. And to the extent that these new types of PEDs can only be detected by blood sampling, I would hope that the entire organizational structure of baseball, both the owners and the players, would be far more proactive in deterring these new PEDs (whatever they are and whenever they may emerge) than they were during the "steroid era."

To that end, I do think that it would be proactively wise for baseball to require players to inform the commissioner's office of the names and certified credentials of all their doctors and trainers. Many of the steroid problems arose from their association with shady characters like Conte and Anderson. Keep that type of bogus "trainer" and "health consultant" away from the players, and the PED problem becomes somewhat easier to address.

When you arrive at that point, then I think you can discuss the selective use of steroids and other verboten drugs as limited time, prescribed aids in injury recovery. If some form of steroids are the only way to keep a player on the field, then I don't see anything particularly wrong with that. But the entire regimen should be completely under the control of an MLB certified doctor, not some character from the bodybuilding cult.

As a generic point, I think that complete public confidence in the integrity of the game is far more important than the "privacy" concerns raised by random blood testing. But I also agree that you should cross that bridge when you come to it. Obviously testing for its own sake is not the issue.

See what I mean about you pretending slippery slopes don't exist, even when people advocate them right in front of you, as someone did earlier?

Of course your particular slippery slope is more like a cliff, since all it takes to be activated is one person's random opinion, however far out. It's as if I argued that since libertarians such as yourself are generally against government run programs, you "have to" be against maintaining an army or a police force.

engaging in some kind of flim-flamery.

The Whizzinator is a very apt metaphor for the absurdity of the notion that drug testing is legitimate.

As a generic point, I think that complete public confidence in the integrity of the game is far more important than the "privacy" concerns raised by random blood testing. But I also agree that you should cross that bridge when you come to it. Obviously testing for its own sake is not the issue.

Well, as a generic point, I think that "public confidence" in the "integrity" of the game is far less important than privacy concerns raised by random blood testing.

(I love Andy's use of scare quotes, refusing to even admit that privacy exists as an issue. It's not enough for him to say that his values are more important than other people's; he has to pretend that the other ones don't even exist.)

To that end, I do think that it would be proactively wise for baseball to require players to inform the commissioner's office of the names and certified credentials of all their doctors and trainers. Many of the steroid problems arose from their association with shady characters like Conte and Anderson. Keep that type of bogus "trainer" and "health consultant" away from the players, and the PED problem becomes somewhat easier to address.

Teams could refuse to employ personal trainers and consultants, and can deny them access to club facilities, but I don't see how teams could keep players from training with these people in the off season and the like.

As a generic point, I think that complete public confidence in the integrity of the game is far more important than the "privacy" concerns raised by random blood testing.

Love the scare quotes.

Obviously testing for its own sake is not the issue.

Agreed. Instead, you're advocating testing to appease a lynch mob. And you can claim all you want that you're not part of the lynch mob, but the fact that you've been calling accused users "juicers" for years now says otherwise. Kind of like how you get upset when someone purposely says "Democrat Party." Or when one calls Obama a socialist. Labels are revealing.

I don't care what excuses the players and their union give...take the damn test...or fight for the use all forms of "enhancing" drugs. Their opposition to the testing is weak sauce...

As a generic point, I think that complete public confidence in the integrity of the game is far more important than the "privacy" concerns raised by random blood testing. But I also agree that you should cross that bridge when you come to it. Obviously testing for its own sake is not the issue.

Well, as a generic point, I think that "public confidence" in the "integrity" of the game is far less important than privacy concerns raised by random blood testing.

(I love Andy's use of scare quotes, refusing to even admit that privacy exists as an issue. It's not enough for him to say that his values are more important than other people's; he has to pretend that the other ones don't even exist.)

David, it'll be a cold day in Hell before you ever concede that the integrity of the game even enters into the discussion of PEDs, whether you employ quotes around the words or not.

But if it'll make you feel any better, from here on you can charge me a Diet Coke for every time I put privacy in quotes.

Obviously testing for its own sake is not the issue.

Agreed. Instead, you're advocating testing to appease a lynch mob.

I guess that "lynch mob" doesn't need any additional scare quotes. What's good for Clarence Thomas is good enough for Ray DiPerna.

And you can claim all you want that you're not part of the lynch mob

You'd think that we were on the old Groucho Marx show, and you'd heard that the duck was wearing a "lynch mob" sign taped to his bill.

, but the fact that you've been calling accused users "juicers" for years now says otherwise.

Why don't you tell me the names of some of those "accused" juicers I've been accusing of juicing. Are you talking about "How do we know?" Sosa? Or "How do we know?" Bagwell? What about "How do we know?" Thome?

Funny, but unlike some of your allies here, I've never once used that sort of slimy rhetorical tack on those three, or on any players who've never had a single person accuse them of juicing, or had a single piece of concrete evidence introduced against them.

But I get it. To you, Bonds is merely an "accused" juicer until he's convicted in a court. To you, there's no substantive distinction between the evidence against Bonds and the evidence against Sosa. And anyone who begs to differ from that is simply part of a lynch mob.

Kind of like how you get upset when someone purposely says "Democrat Party."

Which of course I've never noticed that you had a problem with. But what DO you call a steroid user, if not a "juicer"? I've tried to think of a more dignified term that works "challenged" into it, but my imagination fails me.

Andy - So you accuse some players of using without evidence (e.g., you accused McGwire based solely on his Congressional testimony), but not other players. Big whoop. So do the jihadists. They accuse Luis Gonzalez without evidence, but not Ken Griffey or Albert Pujols.

Andy - So you accuse some players of using without evidence (e.g., you accused McGwire based solely on his Congressional testimony), but not other players. Big whoop. So do the jihadists. They accuse Luis Gonzalez without evidence, but not Ken Griffey or Albert Pujols.

Ray, your real argument isn't that I've accused "some" players "without evidence," it's that I accused Bonds (only after the BALCO revelations), McGwire (only after both the Canseco book and his congressional testimony), and Clemens, on the basis that I see the overall credibility of his accusers on the circumstances surrounding his use of HGH to be greater than the credibility of Clemens'own story. All of the other players I've "accused" have either admitted their PED / HGH use or they've been tested positive.

That's sure one hell of a "jihad." And yet from all that, in your eyes I'm still a part of a witch hunting lynch mob. Talk about "hysteria"!

ask you why the current testing for steroids is any less invasive than what's been considered for HGH. Or is being forced to pee in a cup somehow less of a "privacy" intrusion than getting a simple blood sample? Is it just that you're afraid of needles, or are you against the current steroid testing policy as well?

Drawing blood is different. You can get a vast amount more information from blood. But mostly, I am opposed to stupidity. If you are going to get on your high horse to test for hGH, then why not also test for snake oil, monkey glands and unicorn blood?

I am sick to death of policy being made based on the bleating of the uninformed and the professionally stupid.

That's a reasonable argument, and if that's the scientific consensus then that's a compelling case against any proposed current HGH testing.

Victory.

But are you then willing to change your mind if and when "somebody can show that it does," or if other PEDs are developed that can be shown to improve performance and are detectable only through blood samples?

If the facts change, my reactions to the facts change.

ask you why the current testing for steroids is any less invasive than what's been considered for HGH. Or is being forced to pee in a cup somehow less of a "privacy" intrusion than getting a simple blood sample? Is it just that you're afraid of needles, or are you against the current steroid testing policy as well?

Drawing blood is different. You can get a vast amount more information from blood.

Undoubtedly so, but isn't that the whole point of testing in the first place? Are you afraid that a blood sample is going to also reveal a player's political affiliations? Or more seriously, do you assume that some secret blackmailer is going to be seeing the results of those tests and using them against a player whose blood shows HIV positive?

That's a reasonable argument, and if that's the scientific consensus then that's a compelling case against any proposed current HGH testing.

Victory.

Fine, if you want to call it that, though testing right now for HGH has never been what this was all about AFAIWC. And read the rest of what I've written on that subject, subsequent to what you just cut and pasted.

But are you then willing to change your mind if and when "somebody can show that it does," or if other PEDs are developed that can be shown to improve performance and are detectable only through blood samples?

If the facts change, my reactions to the facts change.

I realize this, which is why I take your arguments far more seriously than I do those of some of the others here, your occasional rhetorical flourishes and swords of Ignoring aside.

Or more seriously, do you assume that some secret blackmailer is going to be seeing the results of those tests and using them against a player whose blood shows HIV positive?

I think, more seriously, that any player who has any disease or abnormality of the blood, STD or otherwise, that can be detected by a blood test better be ready to have it revealed to the public when (not if) the results are leaked.

mjs is correct, and then some.

The amount of private information which can be garnered from a blood test is immense, and is growing every day.

MLB cannot be trusted to guard anything; and the government has no qualms about grabbing anything, so long as they can grab headlines at the same time.

And to do all this, in the name of hGH testing??


it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?

Why don't you tell me the names of some of those "accused" juicers I've been accusing of juicing. Are you talking about "How do we know?" Sosa? Or "How do we know?" Bagwell? What about "How do we know?" Thome?

Funny, but unlike some of your allies here, I've never once used that sort of slimy rhetorical tack on those three, or on any players who've never had a single person accuse them of juicing, or had a single piece of concrete evidence introduced against them.

Setting aside your evidentiary standards (MacNamee? Really?), you keep dishonestly ignoring the difference between accusing Bagwell (et al) and pointing out that the people who sanctimoniously proclaim his innocence in contrast to, e.g., Bonds are full of it.

There's a difference between a presumption of innocence, to which the Bagwells and Clemenses are entitled, and a declaration of innocence, which requires proof. If you declare, "Bagwell is innocent," then "How do you know?" is not a rhetorical question insinuating guilt, but a request that you prove your claim.

Drawing blood is different. You can get a vast amount more information from blood.

Undoubtedly so, but isn't that the whole point of testing in the first place? Are you afraid that a blood sample is going to also reveal a player's political affiliations? Or more seriously, do you assume that some secret blackmailer is going to be seeing the results of those tests and using them against a player whose blood shows HIV positive?

I think, more seriously, that any player who has any disease or abnormality of the blood, STD or otherwise, that can be detected by a blood test better be ready to have it revealed to the public when (not if) the results are leaked.

Because so many years have passed I may be misremembering the details, but isn't this basically what happened to Arthur Ashe and forced him to publicly reveal that he had AIDS?

DB

Wouldn't one of you fine members of the bar rush to help the injured player sue, should such a leak violate his privacy? If the tests are for PED's, and someone leaks that a player has a condition that's outside the bounds of the testing, wouldn't that be grounds for a lawsuit?

I think what happened with Ashe was that there were going to be stories about how crappy he looked so he had to go ahead and proactively revealed he had AIDS.

Not that Andy would be in favor of something like this being leaked. Even if he were, I'm sure he has the good sense to execute an Andaround and say he's just reporting that there are in fact people out there that exist that are in favor of it and he totally wasn't actually trying to take a position in favor of it.

If the tests are for PED's, and someone leaks that a player has a condition that's outside the bounds of the testing, wouldn't that be grounds for a lawsuit?

Probably.

Assuming you could ever learn who was responsible for the leak.

Assuming that they had enough money to make it worth suing.

Assuming that the money they ever get would compensate for the loss of privacy.

Andaround. His next handle?

So how do they get the blood for the HGH tests? Pinprick in the finger, or big fat, bruising needle to the inner elbow vein?

Fingersticks only good for sugar and hemoglobin. You'd need at least one good tube to run a drug test..and you can draw tubes with a very small needle..and i could do that outta the back of your thumb if thats all you have.

Besides, it's not the size of the needle but the person wielding it.

@171 So, the same regime which allowed the players to successfully sue for the leaks in the original confidential testing.

Sign me up.

The concerns about privacy have about nothing to do with what sort of blood draw is required.

I think what happened with Ashe was that there were going to be stories about how crappy he looked so he had to go ahead and proactively revealed he had AIDS.

Not that Andy would be in favor of something like this being leaked. Even if he were, I'm sure he has the good sense to execute an Andaround and say he's just reporting that there are in fact people out there that exist that are in favor of it and he totally wasn't actually trying to take a position in favor of it.

All I can say to that, Prince Fielder, is that you can kiss my fucking ass.

And if that little bit of impropriety gets me banned by His Honor the thread closer, I don't give a flying fuck. I'd wear it as a badge of honor to be banned from a site that lets comments like that go unrefuted. Circle jerk is far too polite a term to describe the sort of crap that some of you routinely indulge in. This whole fucking take no prisoners mentality has pretty much reduced much of BTF to little more than a Comments section of a tabloid newspaper. AFAIC that comment of Prince Fielder nicely sums up the general level of debate here.

AFAIC that comment of Prince Fielder nicely sums up the general level of debate here.

Yes, you just did a wonderful job in #177 improving the "level of debate."

I'd wear it as a badge of honor to be banned from a site that lets comments like that go unrefuted.

Every thread you get involve in nowadays essentially consists of

A) You trying to figure out how to make it a thread about whatever political issue is sticking in your craw that day
B) You then yelling that everyone has to argue specifically what points you wish to discuss
C) Once you get #####-slapped by everyone in arguments, you suddenly announce that your position isn't really your position and you're just a messenger that the particular position happens to exist

I'll gladly retract what I said if anyone can refute any of this. God, even cool-headed guys like Ryan Jones who are your allies against the libtards know what I say is true (see http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/forums/viewthread/2221/P200/#1123016 just today)

You feel the community doesn't respect you? Fine, stand behind one of your points for once. Explain why your position that baseball players should volunteer for blood testing just to show that they're not using snake oil is any different than requesting suspected communists signing loyalty oaths and do it without any Andarounds. Even ####### Kevin, an absolutely reprehensible human being, could get a few people to stand up on his behalf once in a while.