“For example, what if a doctor comes up and says he has developed stem-cell that can regenerate rotator cuff. So just imagine if you used these things on somebody who’s healthy and an elite athlete.

Well, what would happen? It'd be nice to know this.

Here's the thing about a lot of these drugs / medical advances / PEDs / whatever:

Outside of a handful of Whateverites and libertarians, there's a fairly strong consensus against allowing any sort of PED that would give any sort of added advantage to an already healthy athlete.

But OTOH that same drug can often be simply a way to restore a player to his normal state. The hypothetical stem-cell case that's mentioned in the quote would be one example of this. If it were merely used to repair a torn rotator cuff and spare a pitcher a year of lost playing time, who would be against that?

I know that it's not easy to sort all this out in advance and draw the line at the precise point between "restoration" and "enhancement" (not to mention the definitional problem), but I'd still rather see an attempt being made than to go through cycle after cycle of what we've been through with steroids.

And a real agreement on truly random and unannounced blood testing would be one starting point. Without that, you're working with one hand tied behind your back.

But OTOH that same drug can often be simply a way to restore a player to his normal state. The hypothetical stem-cell case that's mentioned in the quote would be one example of this. If it were merely used to repair a torn rotator cuff and spare a pitcher a year of lost playing time, who would be against that?

Steroids are currently used for restoration in the medical world - why can't an unhealthy athlete use them under a doctor's directive?

Steroids are currently used for restoration in the medical world - why can't an unhealthy athlete use them under a doctor's directive?

That's a good question. The problem that I've always had with steroids is that their use by ballplayers has always had the rogue quality to it: Injections in bathroom stalls; shady characters always in the background; no up front presentation of a case for restorative use; etc. But OTOH if you had a MLB-certified group of truly independent doctors, with no previous affiliation with any player or team, who would consider requests for a strictly time-limited use of steroids for injury restoration, then that would be another thing altogether.

But the way it was during the "steroid era," you had nothing like that. Instead you had the Cansecos and the Contes and the Mexicans. A rational policy which allowed for supervised steroid use for restoration only, but placed strong penalties for any use that went beyond that, might have spared us much of what we've had to go through.

Why are drugs that "enhance" performance bad but surgical procedures (LASIK) ok?

Why are drugs that "enhance" performance bad but surgical procedures (LASIK) ok?

You can work that one out with your priest if you really can't see the ethical distinction. We've had that discussion here about 100 times already.

We've had that discussion here about 100 times already.

I know, and I have yet to see you come up with a valid argument as to why one is bad and the other is perfectly fine.

We've had that discussion here about 100 times already.

I know, and I have yet to see you come up with a valid argument as to why one is bad and the other is perfectly fine.

That's certainly true when it comes to convincing you and a handful of others here on BTF. Fortunately, the baseball world extends a bit beyond that, and it doesn't need another 500 post thread to see the difference between a Canseco and a lasik patient.

That's certainly true when it comes to convincing you and a handful of others here on BTF. Fortunately, the baseball world extends a bit beyond that

The rest of the world also understands that greenies aren't coffee, despite whatever Jim Bouton said about that one time he took a greenie.

it doesn't need another 500 post thread to see the difference between a Canseco and a lasik patient.

Actually, we need another massive thread tying together steroids and other PEDs, racism, and the discography of Pavement, with maybe a subthread on libertarianism. I'm shivering in anticipation.

I'm developing stem cells that synthesize and secrete steroids

Actually, we need another massive thread tying together steroids and other PEDs, racism, and the discography of Pavement, with maybe a subthread on libertarianism. I'm shivering in anticipation.

And bowel movements, you can't forget bowel movements. And mayonnaise.

That's it! I figured it out. The music of Pavement is clearly a performance-enhancing drug, and the true danger to the intgerity of sport.

Back to the (sort of) topic at hand. MLB will never, ever, keep up with the "drug curve." They can't.

If you just look at motivations, MLB wants to keep the image of the sport OK (which discourages too aggressive testing frankly) and has a token care about "fairness", "ethics", and so on. For players it is all about huge amounts of money in their pocket and being able to "win" at their sport - for a bunch of hypercompetitive people. Plus there are many more players (and those working with and for the players) than will ever be working for enforcement. All that ignores the fact testing almost always trails the original advance.

Sure they will play lip service to it and some BTF and MSM folks will get their undies in a bunch, but it is largely a fools errand to ever try to "clean up" the sport, no matter what you think of the ethics of LASIK vs. Greenies vs. HGH vs. Steroids vs. Mike Crudale.

Sure they will play lip service to it and some BTF and MSM folks will get their undies in a bunch, but it is largely a fools errand to ever try to "clean up" the sport, no matter what you think of the ethics of LASIK vs. Greenies vs. HGH vs. Steroids vs. Mike Crudale.

Of course we'll never "clean up" the game by any sort of a Platonic standard (whatever that is), but do you think that what we had 10 years ago is preferable to what we have today, and that we should just give up trying to do anything?

I know what the So What?ers and the libertarians think---just let them inject, swallow, snort or rub whatever they want---but since you're a newcomer here, what's your take on that?

MLB must stay ahead of drug curve

I thought only hipsters cared if the drugs they took were trendy or not.

I know what the So What?ers and the libertarians think---just let them inject, swallow, snort or rub whatever they want---but since you're a newcomer here, what's your take on that?

Not really a newcomer (been around since Primer days), but recently I have started commenting more often (and I changed my handle). Anyway I separate the real law and baseball rules in my mind, so breaking the real law (by doing steroids) before it was against baseball rules doesn't really bother me on a baseball level (and, you know, maybe the authorities should think about enforcing the real laws a bit better).

Now that it is against baseball rules then hey follow the rules or face the punishment. Other than that it is all good - though I wouldn't do that to my body, I watch closely what I put there. So you could say I am closer to the libertarians than many, but I think there is a difference between my opinions and theirs.

Thanks, Bitter Mouse. Just wanted to know where you were coming from.

And a real agreement on truly random and unannounced blood testing would be one starting point. Without that, you're working with one hand tied behind your back.

As a devoted civil libertarian I have to say, then let them work with one hand tied behind their backs, otherwise your probable caused is based on testing people because they belong to a class (of professional baseball players). I don't believe the union should have the right to waive its members' constitutional rights, though I understand there's strong sentiment in these parts to let your employer compel you to eat orangutan turds as long as that's part of a collective bargaining agreement.

I don't believe the union should have the right to waive its members' constitutional rights

Contrary to popular belief, the MLBPA leadership does what its members tell it to do. I know that will bring howls of derision from steroid hawks and libertarians alike, but screw it. So the real question is whether a hypothetical majority of MLB players who support testing should be able to waive the constitutional rights of a hypothetical minority who are opposed. Not to mention the rights of future members of the class who will have no say in the matter because they are not yet in the union.