Cheater Bonds Indicted!

[Balta1701]

Why does the game need to spell out that anything banned by the law is also against the rules? Isn't it implicit by the fact that a country's legal system trumps a game's rulebook?

But...as I keep pointing out...this question is moot. Because the game in fact did spell that out. ONe might be able to argue in some abstract sense that he wasn't breaking a rule of the game if Vincent had not sent around that policy memo, but he did, and so it was clearly in MLB's rules that you could not take an illegal substance, including anabolic steroids.

[jackie hayes]

But...as I keep pointing out...this question is moot. Because the game in fact did spell that out. ONe might be able to argue in some abstract sense that he wasn't breaking a rule of the game if Vincent had not sent around that policy memo, but he did, and so it was clearly in MLB's rules that you could not take an illegal substance, including anabolic steroids.

I don't think GP is really arguing with you. He asked the question and got his answer.

 

But I agree with him that it's a fair question. The issue is whether baseball has any right to punish a player for doing something that violates the law but not the rules of MLB. I'd say that would be an unfair punishment. Obviously the legal system can still punish him.

[Gregory Pratt]

To Balta: Well, yeah, I just said he is a cheater, then.

To Jackie: right.

 

On "why it has to be spelled out" by the game: because. I wouldn't say that someone is cheating at Monopoly because they're taking steroids; there's nothing in Monopoly's rules about steroids. Unless the game and institution itself says, "Don't take steroids, it's against our rules," I don't think you're cheating at that game. You're just breaking the law.

 

It's kind of moot, since it was put out there by Vincent, but to be a cheater at a game you have to violate that game's rules, not the country's which are different.

Edited November 17, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[Balta1701]

I don't think GP is really arguing with you. He asked the question and got his answer.

 

But I agree with him that it's a fair question. The issue is whether baseball has any right to punish a player for doing something that violates the law but not the rules of MLB. I'd say that would be an unfair punishment. Obviously the legal system can still punish him.

I think the remarkable thing about this is, at least based on my understanding, MLB has precedent for this as well.

 

Before the 1919 World Series, firm rules for how gambling in baseball was to be treated were not established. But, when Landis was named commissioner, he took the job with the singular goal of cleaning up MLB. And he did so, most notably by banning the guys, despite the fact that as far as I understand it, there was no written rule outlawing their behavior, and on top of that, they were found innocent after a couple of their confessions disappeared.

 

The Black Sox scandal to my eyes clearly sets precedent that a commish can punish people for actions against the law but not against the rules of baseball, because as far as I can tell, that was what was done.

[Gregory Pratt]

The Commish can do whatever the hell he wants under the best interest of baseball clause.

Doesn't mean that I consider it "cheating" or that it should be if it's not against baseball's rules.

 

I wouldn't have banned the Black Sox; they probably would have been punished. But the game back then, and society, were so different.

Edited November 17, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[jackie hayes]

I think the remarkable thing about this is, at least based on my understanding, MLB has precedent for this as well.

 

Before the 1919 World Series, firm rules for how gambling in baseball was to be treated were not established. But, when Landis was named commissioner, he took the job with the singular goal of cleaning up MLB. And he did so, most notably by banning the guys, despite the fact that as far as I understand it, there was no written rule outlawing their behavior, and on top of that, they were found innocent after a couple of their confessions disappeared.

 

The Black Sox scandal to my eyes clearly sets precedent that a commish can punish people for actions against the law but not against the rules of baseball, because as far as I can tell, that was what was done.

There is some grey area, sure. But I'd say one of the most basic rules of the game is that you have to be attempting to win. Wasn't that at least part of the on-the-field rules, something like, 'The objective of the game is to score more runs &c'?

 

I wouldn't say the rules have to be "firm" -- something like that would be enough. And as GP said, you can always have some 'good of the game' clause. Dictatorship is a rule.

[jackie hayes]

The Commish can do whatever the hell he wants under the best interest of baseball clause.

Doesn't mean that I consider it "cheating" or that it should be if it's not against baseball's rules.

 

I wouldn't have banned the Black Sox; they probably would have been punished. But the game back then, and society, were so different.

I dunno. Fans upset about cheating/strike? Well, let's give 'em a bunch of home runs!

 

Just that now we've had so many homers for so long, it took something special to wow us again. What the hell will baseball do now, when home runs are the problem?

[Gregory Pratt]

You know what I mean. Those were the days when the mob ran everything! And there are a million other differences but yeah, there are some parallels.

 

It is true that the Commish can do n-eh-thang he (or she) wants.

[Balta1701]

I dunno. Fans upset about cheating/strike? Well, let's give 'em a bunch of home runs!

 

Just that now we've had so many homers for so long, it took something special to wow us again. What the hell will baseball do now, when home runs are the problem?

I think what he'll do is exactly what we've seen done; just enough to hopefully make it go away. And in case you didn't notice, home runs were WAY down across baseball last year. One year does not a trend make, but it's certainly worth noting.

[jackie hayes]

I know it's not exactly the same. I just find it kinda funny that 'More homers!' has always been the panacea.

 

And I agree with you, Balta -- as little as possible. I don't think the steroids scandal has really affected baseball in any way it cares about. The fans showed up after like they did before, whatever they say on the call-in shows.