I would really like to see steroids eliminated from baseball, but clearly the players' union is going to fight any further regulation. Purely as a hypothetical, I've been thinking about a strike or lockout. I can't decide if I would be willing to go a season without baseball if it meant a legitimate testing policy, so I wanted to see what everyone else thinks. So if MLB could institute an effective testing policy only by staring down the union with a full-season lock-out, would that be a cost worth paying? Thoughts, opinions?

I'd rather watch Extreme Baseball, where every performance enhancing drug is allowed, then a mini-league of 160 pound accounting types (hi Kap! )

 

600 foot homeruns! The drug companies could sponsor the teams. Kind of like WWF meets the MLB

Shut it down! Clean it up! Bring it back!

 

It's the only way!

Why should the baseball workplace be any different than my workplace. If the SEC found out I was insider trading, they would ban me from the industry no questions asked. Why are baseball players special?

Establish a clear and strict testing and punishment policy. None of this supposed 'random' testing where the athlete knows if and when he will be tested ahead of time so that he can temporarily clean up and then go back on.

Make it effective starting the 2006 season, giving them time to clean up. From what I understand, there was no MLB ban on juice, so you can't very well test everyone today, not fair.

Once everyone knows the new rules, if they screw up, punish them hard.

Why should the baseball workplace be any different than my workplace.  If the SEC found out I was insider trading, they would ban me from the industry no questions asked.  Why are baseball players special?

What if your employer didn't drug test and suddenly one day they showed up at your office and ask you to piss in a cup? Now if you're not a drug user, you might say I have no prblem with it, I'm clean. But if you were a user?

What if your employer didn't drug test and suddenly one day they showed up at your office and ask you to piss in a cup?  Now if you're not a drug user, you might say I have no prblem with it, I'm clean. But if you were a user?

But if given a reason to suspect that I might be on drugs they have every right to demand a test. And when someone shows up to camp 20 pounds heavier or puts up numbers that they have never done before, it falls under the same category. Also many places reserve the right to test at anytime, the company I work for being one of them. My company could shove a cup in front of me right now, and its either pee or be fired.

Why should the baseball workplace be any different than my workplace.  If the SEC found out I was insider trading, they would ban me from the industry no questions asked.  Why are baseball players special?

If insider trading was not against the rules, then it was, they wouldn't ban you retroactively. Spitballs were legal, then not. They didn't put * on the records of the spitball pitchers. If you were convicted of assault would they ban you for life?

 

Finally, should the penalty be worse for steroids or heroin? Steroids or pot? Steroids or corking a bat?

 

I would adopt a banned for life for using steroid rule for the player's protection.

If insider trading was not against the rules, then it was, they wouldn't ban you retroactively. Spitballs were legal, then not.  They didn't put * on the records of the spitball pitchers. If you were convicted of assault would they ban you for life?

 

Finally, should the penalty be worse for steroids or heroin? Steroids or pot? Steroids or corking a bat?

 

I would adopt a banned for life for using steroid rule for the player's protection.

Always with the 20 questions

But if given a reason to suspect that I might be on drugs they have every right to demand a test.  And when someone shows up to camp 20 pounds heavier or puts up numbers that they have never done before, it falls under the same category.  Also many places reserve the right to test at anytime, the company I work for being one of them.  My company could shove a cup in front of me right now, and its either pee or be fired.

Was that ever MLB's policy on roids though? Were players told that if they were suspected of juicing, they could be tested for it at any given time or face consequences?

Was that ever MLB's policy on roids though? Were players told that if they were suspected of juicing, they could be tested for it at any given time or face consequences?

Honestly I don't care what MLBs policy was. It was nonexisistant. They have fostered an atmosphere where you don't know what is real and whats not, that threatens the integrity of the game.

 

They need to institute a real goddamned policy and quick being the players unions b****. It is a joke that an illegal activity has been protected by MLB all of these years. If anyone committs and illegal activity at their job, they shoudn't need some stupid clause that saids we won't tolerate illegal activity. I don't care about the lawyers BS in all of this. MLB needs to grow a pair, hell they needed to grow a pair 30 years ago when football players were dropping dead from this stuff.

Honestly I don't care what MLBs policy was.  It was nonexisistant.  They have fostered an atmosphere where you don't know what is real and whats not, that threatens the integrity of the game.

 

They need to institute a real goddamned policy and quick being the players unions b****.  It is a joke that an illegal activity has been protected by MLB all of these years.  If anyone committs and illegal activity at their job, they shoudn't need some stupid clause that saids we won't tolerate illegal activity.  I don't care about the lawyers BS in all of this.  MLB needs to grow a pair, hell they needed to grow a pair 30 years ago when football players were dropping dead from this stuff.

Ultimately, I agree with you, but I also believe that it is unrealistic.