southsider2k5 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4491366/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Do we really need congress involved in this? Why not turn them over to the police for criminal charges? Why not do the right thing and suspend these guys immediately? Oh yeah 70 home runs puts asses in the seats to buy $5.50 beers. How silly of me to even think the integrity of the game means anything to the players, owners, or the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Do we really need congress involved in this? Why not turn them over to the police for criminal charges? Why not do the right thing and suspend these guys immediately? Hell, someone has to do something about it and it doesn't look like the players, owners or Selig is willing to do anything about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 No one is helping me pass my damn math class, but I don't want congress getting involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Do we really need congress involved in this? Why not turn them over to the police for criminal charges? Why not do the right thing and suspend these guys immediately? Oh yeah 70 home runs puts asses in the seats to buy $5.50 beers. How silly of me to even think the integrity of the game means anything to the players, owners, or the league. Because you can't do those things..... The bottom line is, the union must give in on this. They need to stop making it a collective bargaining issue. I am not sure how much pressure Congress could actually put on them, but something needs to get them to move. My concern is that McClain's threats are empty, because I am not sure what they could actually do that would hurt the players or their union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Do we really need congress involved in this? Why not turn them over to the police for criminal charges? Why not do the right thing and suspend these guys immediately? Oh yeah 70 home runs puts asses in the seats to buy $5.50 beers. How silly of me to even think the integrity of the game means anything to the players, owners, or the league. If MLB cant police itself then maybe it needs to have someone do it for them. 70 homeruns is all well and good but not if players are breaking the law to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 There are 2 distinct issues here. 1) Legality of steriods, because most of these are designer drugs, they are not technically illegal, and you can not prosecute some one for doing something wrong prior to it being illegal. Therefore what has happened in the past is irrelevant, unless there is proof a player using an illegal substance and is within the statute of limitations. 2) What can congress do? Most simply, whatever they feel like. If they want to make an issue of steriods and baseball, baseball will not have a foot to stand on. The Govt can get the DEA on it, having them investigate locker rooms, having them look into illegal steriod sales, etc. Some steriods are a controlled substances, so if congress wanted they could start sending players to jail provided they catch them in possession. As for what they could do to the union, off the top of my head: Fine them, or more than likely go after them for other reasons that are not drug related. The Union is standing against United States public policy (drug abuse is illegal), and most court decisions usually do not support such sentiments. And the labor union will have its biggest problem with trying to say that this has to stand because it was in the labor agreement, seeing as eventhough its a valid contract, you cant enforce a term of a contract that term is illegal. IE: I sign a contract to be employed by MLB, but they will only pay me under the counter, and part of my payment is in illegal drugs. Courts would just laugh if I said that they had to stand with that contract because it was validly entered into and with consideration. If I was the Union, I would inquire into how far the govt. is going to push this issue, and if they say they are going to keep it up, I would immediately change the steriods policy. Otherwise it is possible that the entire MLBPA could be dissolved, and I promise if they have to start over again, there will be a salary cap. SB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 11, 2004 Author Share Posted March 11, 2004 Congress has one big power play over baseball. The antitrust exemption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Hell, someone has to do something about it and it doesn't look like the players, owners or Selig is willing to do anything about it. I think the owners and Selig really want testing, but they cant do anything about it. The player flat out refuse to be tested (or at least Fehr says the players dont want it). MLB NEEDS congress to step in. On a side note: I am really sick of Fehr. He thinks he is God's gift to man kind. Fehr and the players are dont look at issues fairly. They think "me me me". Not "what is best for the game". In 100 years when baseball no longer exists because it was run into the ground, an author will write that this all started because the union demanded to much power and that run it into ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Fehr is on an island on this subject what a jerkoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Fehr's problem is that he thinks, or maintains, that this issue is a bargaining chip. Steroid testing should not be considered a concession by the MLBPA. If only 5 to 7 percent of the players are using steroids, then you would have to assume that the other 93 to 95 percent would be in favor of it, so they knew that they would not be competing at a disadvantage for their livelihood. The MLBPA has a pretty damn good record against the owners. Let's see how well they do vs. the United States Congress. :fyou Donald Fehr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 This whole steroid/performance enhancing drugs thing is a mess. There's so many different aspects that come into it. I think Selig did exactly what he wanted to do today. He got in front of the cameras, said how much he hates steroids, but the MLPBA is stonewalling on it. He made the union the bad guy, and Fehr's comments only made Selig look better. Another problem with this issue is that 5-7% failed when they basically knew testing was coming. I know some probably took the ones you can't get out of your system for a year, but I'm sure the number that took juice was actually higher since some of them cycled out of it. I don't believe there's a test for Human Growth Hormone, which I personally think is the major problem in MLB, not anabolic steroids. That's why I don't think certain players are lying when they say "I don't take steroids" because they're technically right. It's my guess (I'm by no means a doctor, but a guy who works out and sees what guys at the gym do to themselves) the monster players over the last 5 years, such as Giambi, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire (SP?), etc... were probably using HGH. But, since there's no test it's virtually impossible to prove. I would love to see Congress get involved, but they've been talking about federal regulation of boxing for years and nothing has happened, so I won't hold my breath for them to get involved in baseball. Baseball is probably considered interstate commerce, so Congress should have substantial power in regulating them. This is just a quick 2am guess while trying to recall my Constitutional Law classes from my first year, so I could be missing some nuiances that make that statement completely wrong. But, The House just passed legislation which would prohibit people from suing the fast food industry for making them obese, and it's being debated in the Senate. Now I'm sure this will be challenged on due process grounds or something of that ilk, but it is an example of what Congress attempts to pass in an attempt to regulate certain industries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.