In Favor of Recognition

[Gregory Pratt]

I've hinted at it before. It's finally up over at Baseball Evolution, and so I will link to it and paste it here. It is my article about why steroid users belong in the Hall of Fame provided they have the resume for it. I tried to be thorough with it and "professional". The reason this is in its own thread is because it is more specific than off-the-cuff talk by HOF voters; it is about something different than the confessions; and I didn't want to muddy up another muddy thread. Hope no one minds.

 

Here we go. http://baseballevolution.com/guest/gregory...ecognition.html

 

Let me cut to the chase: baseball's steroid users, known or suspected, belong in baseball's Hall of Fame. The first reason for this is that the controversial have legitimate Hall of Fame numbers. Barry Bonds is baseball's all-time homerun leader. Roger Clemens is known to many as his era's greatest pitcher. Rafael Palmeiro has three thousand hits and well over five hundred homeruns. Sammy Sosa helped revitalize baseball following the strike and has over 600 homeruns. Mark McGwire is almost at the 600 homerun mark, joined Sosa in "The Chase" and was an anchor for the Bash Brothers in Oakland. Some of those named by Jose Canseco -- who I think also belongs, due to both his success on the field as well as his book's significance to the game -- deserve induction into the Hall of Fame. Ivan Rodriguez, who I occasionally refer to as "I-Roid", is the best overall catcher of his time and perhaps the greatest of all time. The list could, theoretically, continue, but I believe the point has been established. Numerous players known or widely-suspected of using steroids have collected various prerequisites for induction into the Hall of Fame; therefore, they should be recognized as Hall of Famers.

 

The counter to that argument is one I've heard so frequently I could recite it like a favorite song. "They cheated to get to where they got; ergo, they forfeit induction." That is not a view I'm unsympathetic toward. I do consider the achievements of Barry Bonds less than those of Hank Aaron or, especially, Babe Ruth. Bonds simply wasn't the pure power hitter Ruth was and he would've never, by his own admission, reached Willie Mays, let alone Aaron, "naturally" -- something he acknowledged in the 1990s, before he hit late-puberty and everything became possible with the help of luck and God.

Now don't misunderstand me -- I share the view of every sports regulating committee, most fans and the medical community that steroids are a cheater's tool. I find Bonds' transformation a grotesque, tragic one, and I've long referred to him as the Darth Vader of Professional Sports for his metamorphosis into something he was simply never meant to be because of all-too-human insecurity. I just do not believe that steroid use or "cheating" disqualifies someone from being a Hall of Fame player. That is where this conversation complicates and leads into the second, more significant reason for inclusion of these players.

 

Gaylord Perry is a Hall of Fame major league pitcher who comes up frequently in discussions of "cheaters" in baseball. Don Sutton is another Hall of Fame pitcher who is known to have "cheated," and he utilized many of the same techniques as Perry. In fact, Sutton once cracked about meeting Gaylord Perry, "He gave me a jar of Vaseline. I thanked him and gave him a piece of sandpaper."

 

Both of these pitchers are significant in the history of baseball. Perry won over 300 games and is eighth on the all-time strikeout list. Sutton is seventh on that list and won 324. They are cheaters, and that is undeniable. Everybody knew it when they were active, and everybody knew it when they voted for them. What this shows us is that there is precedent for induction of "cheaters" into the Hall of Fame, so the window is open for recent players to enter the Hall. Critics of this idea have told me, "because some people have made mistakes we should continue to make it?" I offer a two-part response.

 

The first part of my extended response is that these pitchers were certainly extremely gifted pitchers. How far they would've gotten in their careers without "cheating" is not an answer I can give, but every single scrub who rubs a little grease on the ball does not go on to win 300 games and strike out three thousand hitters. So it is with steroids, and any review of The Steroids Era at Blogspot or the Mitchell Report will corroborate that. Steroids and scuff are not magic pills turning Nook and Boone Logan into Hall of Famers at their respective positions; they undeniably enhance a player's capabilities but to what level is unclear. Evidence suggests that the enhancement is not so great.

 

The second part of the response is, I think, the most important: Major League Baseball never saw fit to exile Gaylord Perry or Don Sutton or Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire for their "cheating" nor did it ever give them any significant long-term punishment. Even if they had, for the sake of argument, suspended any of those players for X amount of time, provided those players continued their careers and reached Hall of Fame numbers afterward, without being "banned," there is no reason for them to not make the Hall; they'd have done their time. Except that nobody saw fit to crack down on these players "hard" -- they were allowed to do what they did and they all had notable careers.

 

That can't be emphasized enough: the league allowed them to "cheat." Why then should they be punished posthumously for what Major League Baseball allowed and encouraged and made billions of dollars off of? There are some who believe that the Hall of Fame should police the sport, and I think there's a small amount of validity to that, but overall, I find it an unwelcome descent into vigilante (read: mob) justice. Baseball did nothing while these players juiced. These users were merely playing under the circumstances of their time, and I don't believe in saying afterward, "none of it counts." To ignore their careers is to ignore reality.

 

The steroid era is a significant part of baseball that includes significant baseball players who set significant records and have created significant cases for induction into the Hall of Fame. I don't believe that they should be treated much differently, so far as induction goes, as any player from any other era. Do you have the numbers which warrant induction? Then you belong! Not with an asterisk, but with the understanding that you played in an era where offense was "easy" because of the ballparks and steroids. I believe that the Hall of Fame should, and will, create an exhibit recounting the steroid era and shedding further light on the era.

 

I don't believe that the voters should ignore steroids when inducting someone, or act as if Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were all-natural phenoms; they weren't. Should Barry Bonds be elected to the Hall of Fame, I'd expect his steroid use mentioned by someone at the ceremony. I'd expect him to be asked a question or two about it. I'd expect the people and the fans to know all about it, then and forever. But I would expect them to understand that Bonds was one of the greatest of all time and acknowledge his inclusion. Where he "ranks" in terms of overall greatness will be up for all to debate, but I object to any argument over whether or not he and others like him belong. I am simply not a fan of those who pretend that X and Y never existed because X and Y were found to have done A or B to gain an edge here and there. That goes for baseball and life in general. I don't ignore people's phone calls; I don't ignore people's emails. I don't avoid those who may have criticism of me or who I am upset with. I don't go out to "confront" those whom I have issues with; I address them. I believe in addressing reality, not running away from it, and the reality here is that the steroid era happened, was encouraged, was allowed, and does not merit exclusion.

 

Other points made by opponents of exclusion to the Hall of Fame for steroid users should be addressed, and I will do so briefly. One of the more common arguments made by these critics is that the National Baseball Hall of Fame has a "character clause" attached to it. This clause is a source of great amusement to me. Only five players were able to receive enough votes to enter the Hall in its inaugural ceremony. They were Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson. Can you guess which of these players received the most votes? It was Ty Cobb, known as the most hated man in baseball for his hyper-competitiveness and general meanness. Walter Johnson is widely regarded as the greatest pitcher of all time, and he was so revered in his time. He was also the personification of class and decency. Yet he did not gain more votes than Ty Cobb. Well, if the original voters didn't care about character all that much, I don't see where today's voters would gain justification for pretending that a player's career never occurred because he was a bad man. It is, at best, a minor thing to note. I am simply opposed to judging a Hall of Fame candidate because of "character" unless there is something of enormous significance, like a murder or child molestation. But that is not at play with "cheating" whether it relates to steroids or scuffing, especially not if it occurred with the league's consent.

 

I think there is one more opposition viewpoint to be addressed. I've hinted at it, I suppose, but I don't want to be accused of something hyperbolic, so I will be straight with it. Cheating is a known, accepted part of baseball. Players have been "cheating" by seeking every little advantage they can get for the longest time. Pud Galvin is baseball's first 300 game winner -- he might also be referred to as baseball's first steroid user. He used to inject monkey testosterone, and possibly testosterone from guinea pigs and dogs, to preserve his health. (Research Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard's "elixer" for more information). Should he be kicked out of the Hall of Fame for his hypodermic attempts at an upper hand? If you say yes, I disagree. He is a part of baseball history to be known and understood and appreciated.

 

As are the steroid users. As are those who scuff the baseball, or steal signs. The only "cardinal sin" in baseball is gambling, whether it be on baseball or throwing games. Nothing else compares within the lines. Nothing else matters, and until Major League Baseball expels people for taking steroids or "doctoring the baseball," I will continue to advocate on behalf of preserving history. The Hall of Fame's motto is "Preserving History, Honoring Excellence, Connecting Generations." I don't want that to stop because people want to pretend something didn't happen. It did. And before we can understand it, or pass judgment on it, we have to accept that it happened and take it from there. The only real reason to keep someone out of the Hall is if they are "banned" from baseball (or just aren't very good). "I don't like Barry Bonds, I detest cheating!" isn't a real reason. It is denial. And it isn't in line with baseball's past or a proper view of history.

[Balta1701]

I'm going to counter this argument with one simple line of thought. Just because other people do something or did something doesn't mean it's ok.

[ptatc]

I'm going to counter this argument with one simple line of thought. Just because other people do something or did something doesn't mean it's ok.

 

I agree with this and would also add that from a medical perspective vaseline balls will not harm your body. I am ethically against using something that can kill you or someone else. Do you think Wil Cordero's wife appreciated the telephone upside the head treatment from the rage? This type of cheating is not just Breaking the rules of a game it is endangering the life of the user and others around them.

[Gregory Pratt]

ptac, are you opposed to players who beat guys up in bars in drunken fits, or would you kick Don Drysdale/Bob Gibson out of the HOF because they wanted to crack your head open if you stood too close to the plate? Willie Mays for taking speed? Ty Cobb for being Ty Cobb!

 

I respect your disagreement. I know I'm in the minority re: baseball+steroids/HOF. For all the reasons I cited, I've come to my conclusion...but the biggest might be the after-the-fact nature of it, as well as just how f***ed up it would be for MLB to honor these guys as players and then for Cooperstown to say, Sorry, go away!

[Soxbadger]

So should players who dip be suspended? That can kill you. What about players that smoke, that is much more likely to harm some one else than "roid rage"?

 

The comment "Just because other people do something or did something doesnt mean its okay", yes thats true. But there is a reason why precedent means something, its because it sets a standard.

 

Now if they want to over turn precedent, if they want to remove players from the hall, than so be it.

 

But otherwise its pretty much a joke.

 

 

Oh and I agree with you Pratt, but Ive been on this argument for years now.

[Gregory Pratt]

So should players who dip be suspended? That can kill you. What about players that smoke, that is much more likely to harm some one else than "roid rage"?

 

The comment "Just because other people do something or did something doesnt mean its okay", yes thats true. But there is a reason why precedent means something, its because it sets a standard.

 

Now if they want to over turn precedent, if they want to remove players from the hall, than so be it.

 

But otherwise its pretty much a joke.

Oh and I agree with you Pratt, but Ive been on this argument for years now.

 

I'm with you on double standards for certain steroid users and the admission of stars into the HOF, if nothing more.

[Steve9347]

So should players who dip be suspended? That can kill you. What about players that smoke, that is much more likely to harm some one else than "roid rage"?

 

The comment "Just because other people do something or did something doesnt mean its okay", yes thats true. But there is a reason why precedent means something, its because it sets a standard.

 

Now if they want to over turn precedent, if they want to remove players from the hall, than so be it.

 

But otherwise its pretty much a joke.

Oh and I agree with you Pratt, but Ive been on this argument for years now.

However, "dipping" and getting into fights in bars does not alter one's performance and give them a physical edge over their competition and the history books.

[Soxbadger]

So then why is it okay to doctor a ball? That gives a pretty clear advantage over their competition and history books.

 

If its about cheating, then end cheating in baseball. But thats not what this is about, this is about finding a few scapegoats so that everyone can go home feeling warm and fuzzy that they did something.

 

Meanwhile, no one really focuses on trying to PREVENT FUTURE CHEATING.

 

If they care so much, then ban a player after one offense. I promise no one will be trying to beat the system if they face a possible ban. But no one really wants to end it like the Olympics do, they just want to pretend that they are doing something.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Soxbadger

[witesoxfan]

However, "dipping" and getting into fights in bars does not alter one's performance and give them a physical edge over their competition and the history books.

 

Nicotine increases the flow of adrenaline. Doesn't that make it performance enhancing?

 

And while hangovers suck, I bet Mickey Mantle was on his way to becoming a journeyman player without the aid of drinking. There's actually no basis for that claim, I just like to think that and make it an excuse to get hammered.

[Steve9347]

So then why is it okay to doctor a ball? That gives a pretty clear advantage over their competition and history books.

 

If its about cheating, then end cheating in baseball. But thats not what this is about, this is about finding a few scapegoats so that everyone can go home feeling warm and fuzzy that they did something.

 

Meanwhile, no one really focuses on trying to PREVENT FUTURE CHEATING.

 

If they care so much, then ban a player after one offense. I promise no one will be trying to beat the system if they face a possible ban. But no one really wants to end it like the Olympics do, they just want to pretend that they are doing something.

It's impossible to stay ahead of the curve to prevent cheating in baseball.

 

Why don't you cure AIDS while you're at it?

[Soxbadger]

Steve,

 

No thats an excuse for quitters.

 

Most of these players were not caught because there was NO TEST. Not because they beat the system, not because of anything more than baseball simply did not want to test because it did not want to find out the truth.

 

Does baseball use a hair test?

 

No

 

Does baseball use a blood test?

 

No

 

The 2 most reliable drug tests are not used in baseball. Why? So that players can beat them.

 

Im sorry but for $50 you can beat most urine tests, you can beat the ones given by the state of Illinois for sure.

 

You want to make a smart ass comment about AIDS, go ahead.

 

But baseball isnt EVEN TRYING to catch players.

 

(Edit)

 

The only reason there is even a Mitchell Report is that Congress started to get pissed and there were whispers of Baseball losing its Anti-Trust Exemption if it didnt cooperate. Baseball now has thrown Congress some names, shown that there was a problem, and that they will correct it. Congressmen get to say that they cleaned up the drug problem in baseball, baseball gets to say its the good guy, and everyone wins.

 

Edited December 19, 2007 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

Steve,

 

No thats an excuse for quitters.

 

Most of these players were not caught because there was NO TEST. Not because they beat the system, not because of anything more than baseball simply did not want to test because it did not want to find out the truth.

 

Does baseball use a hair test?

 

No

 

Does baseball use a blood test?

 

No

 

The 2 most reliable drug tests are not used in baseball. Why? So that players can beat them.

 

Im sorry but for $50 you can beat most urine tests, you can beat the ones given by the state of Illinois for sure.

 

You want to make a smart ass comment about AIDS, go ahead.

 

But baseball isnt EVEN TRYING to catch players.

 

(Edit)

 

The only reason there is even a Mitchell Report is that Congress started to get pissed and there were whispers of Baseball losing its Anti-Trust Exemption if it didnt cooperate. Baseball now has thrown Congress some names, shown that there was a problem, and that they will correct it. Congressmen get to say that they cleaned up the drug problem in baseball, baseball gets to say its the good guy, and everyone wins.

 

I agree with this 100%. Baseball is only as interested as it has to be to satsify its critics. It has shown over and over again it has no real interest in cleaing the game up, only in pacifying its detractors.

[whitesoxfan101]

That article is trash, as is anybody who argues steroid use is ok because everybody did it. This goes back to the most basic point of common sense, would you jump off a bridge just because everybody else did?

[NorthSideSox72]

That article is trash, as is anybody who argues steroid use is ok because everybody did it. This goes back to the most basic point of common sense, would you jump off a bridge just because everybody else did?

Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, is it really necessary to call a poster's article trash? He put a lot of thought and effort into it. I don't agree with it either, but I wouldn't call it "trash".

 

Or did you not realize that GP wrote it?

 

[Soxbadger]

Well Ill go ahead and back Pratt on this one,

 

Whitesoxfan101,

 

No this has nothing to do with "if some one else jumped off a bridge would you."

 

No one is saying that what these players did was "Okay because some one else did it." The argument is: The Hall of Fame has never penalized players for cheating before, baseball has purposefully subverted drug enforcement and even promoted drug use, baseball has made millions and "saved itself" on the back of the drug use, and now baseball wants to play the holier than thou card.

 

It isnt about if other people did it, its okay, its about basic ideas of justice. An ex post facto law is basically the most unjust law, it was so repulsive to our founders that in Article 9, limits on Congress, it is explicitly listed as prohibited.

 

These players were not caught by baseball. They were not punished by baseball. There are some questions as to what exact rules were even in place for baseball for certain substances. To go back and punish players now with rules that were never there, with penalties they had no idea they might face, is ex post facto. It goes against the basic notion of justice, that you should have notice of the crime and the consequences of it.

 

 

 

 

[YASNY]

It's well thought out, well wriitten article. The only thing I see that is crap is the post that refers to it as crap. Not much thought put into that one. Just a knee jerk reaction.

[Gregory Pratt]

I agree with this 100%. Baseball is only as interested as it has to be to satsify its critics. It has shown over and over again it has no real interest in cleaing the game up, only in pacifying its detractors.

 

Let me concur and use this as a small jumping off point to ask a question I asked in the article but would like to re-ask in slightly different terms: is it not unjust to punish people after-the-fact for things nobody punished them for at the time and which were celebrated even though everyone knew years and years ago that they weren't "natural" feats? Would it not be hypocritical for the league to, after-the-fact, after having celebrated these players as reinvigorating the game and using their feats and images to make billions of dollars say, "Oh, hey. You know those things everybody knows about? Everybody knew about? That we didn't care about before? That we don't have positive steroid tests for? Yeah. Those things mean you should leave the game and never make the Hall. Get out! Oh, and by the way...we don't have any serious testing programs and sometimes tell people...but we will crucify you and your career at the altar of public opinion just to get them off of our backs!" Well, that's just what I think MLB would be doing and I am in full support of Mitchell's argument in favor of "amnsesty" or at least leniency, and definitely with the Hall.

 

That article is trash, as is anybody who argues steroid use is ok because everybody did it. This goes back to the most basic point of common sense, would you jump off a bridge just because everybody else did?

 

I never argued that "steroid use is okay because everybody did it" and I don't think I even approached that. I agree that a logical fallacy but note that it isn't my logical fallacy. Truthfully, I don't think you read the article...I think you read the title and the post after, then extrapolated wildly. I have nothing further to add in response.

[jackie hayes]

Nicotine increases the flow of adrenaline. Doesn't that make it performance enhancing?

 

And while hangovers suck, I bet Mickey Mantle was on his way to becoming a journeyman player without the aid of drinking. There's actually no basis for that claim, I just like to think that and make it an excuse to get hammered.

That's all the basis I need.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well Ill go ahead and back Pratt on this one,

 

Whitesoxfan101,

 

No this has nothing to do with "if some one else jumped off a bridge would you."

 

No one is saying that what these players did was "Okay because some one else did it." The argument is: The Hall of Fame has never penalized players for cheating before, baseball has purposefully subverted drug enforcement and even promoted drug use, baseball has made millions and "saved itself" on the back of the drug use, and now baseball wants to play the holier than thou card.

 

It isnt about if other people did it, its okay, its about basic ideas of justice. An ex post facto law is basically the most unjust law, it was so repulsive to our founders that in Article 9, limits on Congress, it is explicitly listed as prohibited.

 

These players were not caught by baseball. They were not punished by baseball. There are some questions as to what exact rules were even in place for baseball for certain substances. To go back and punish players now with rules that were never there, with penalties they had no idea they might face, is ex post facto. It goes against the basic notion of justice, that you should have notice of the crime and the consequences of it.

For an attorney, your understanding of the phrase "ex post facto" seems a little odd. Steroids were banned by baseball in 1992 or so, and further, it was per se illegal to use or possess them without a validly-acquired perscription. Therefore, they broke the rules AND the law. If the law or the rule were put in place AFTER the act, then it would be ex post facto.

 

All that said, I actually do agree with the general idea that the focus should be on preventing future acts. The Mitchell report is causing just that, it seems - we are being told that testing will be tougher now. But we shall see how far it actually goes.

 

[Soxbadger]

When was HGH banned?

 

Because my understanding is 2005, not 1992....

 

The Cream was banned by the FDA in 2003, not sure what baseball's rule says on steroids say but my understanding is that FDA ban is what triggers the MLB ban.

 

There are some questions as to what exact rules were even in place for baseball for certain substances.

 

Perhaps actually read my post before you start spouting off?

 

Now if you want to go after players caught for anabolic steroids, prescription drugs, go ahead.

 

Also a key part of ex post facto, which you conveniently glossed over is that they must know the PENALTY.

 

What was the penalty for taking steroids in 1992?

 

I dont believe it was being suspended from baseball for life.

 

So yes, if you completely take my post out of context and say that I argued anabolic steroids were ex post facto. But I pretty clearly said "some substances", ie HGH. Which is what many of the Mitchell report are being accused of.

 

I figured my audience of fellow baseball enthusiasts would know these facts.

 

Oh here is an article about how in 2005 the police entirely changed:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2224832

 

If baseball wants to penalize players on the pre-2005 scale (10 game suspensions), for taking drugs that were illegal prior to 2005, I dont think anyone would really have a problem with it.

 

As recently as 2002, players weren't tested for steroids at all unless there was cause. As recently as 2004, there was no suspension for a first offense. And as recently as March, Selig could fine a player who failed a steroid test $10,000 instead of suspending him for 10 days.

 

Well actually the first offense was no suspension prior to 2004....

Edited December 19, 2007 by Soxbadger

[NorthSideSox72]

When was HGH banned?

 

Because my understanding is 2005, not 1992....

Perhaps actually read my post before you start spouting off?

 

Now if you want to go after players caught for anabolic steroids, prescription drugs, go ahead.

 

Also a key part of ex post facto, which you conveniently glossed over is that they must know the PENALTY.

 

What was the penalty for taking steroids in 1992?

 

I dont believe it was being suspended from baseball for life.

 

So yes, if you completely take my post out of context and say that I argued anabolic steroids were ex post facto. But I pretty clearly said "some substances", ie HGH. Which is what many of the Mitchell report are being accused of.

 

I figured my audience of fellow baseball enthusiasts would know these facts.

There was a post made here a few days back that made it clear that ALL performance-enhancing substances were banned in '92. I think Balta posted it. In any case, I do not know when/if HGH was specifically mentioned.

 

Ex post facto does not require you know the penalty - you are simply wrong about this. Here are three different citations for that definition, none of which stipulate pre-knowledge of a penalty. You still don't seem to get what it means, which is amazing to me. If we use your argument that a person must know the exact penalty at stake for a given crime, virtually every criminal could get off. In reality of course, case law is very clear on one fact - ignorance of the law is not a valid defense for breaking it.

 

Its kind of funny you now decide you just meant HGH. If HGH were considered OK by baseball before 2005, then I agree no one should be penalized for acts before then. But I get the impression that all performance enhancers were covered. I'll go find that post.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

When was HGH banned?

 

Because my understanding is 2005, not 1992....

 

The Cream was banned by the FDA in 2003, not sure what baseball's rule says on steroids say but my understanding is that FDA ban is what triggers the MLB ban.

Perhaps actually read my post before you start spouting off?

 

Now if you want to go after players caught for anabolic steroids, prescription drugs, go ahead.

 

Also a key part of ex post facto, which you conveniently glossed over is that they must know the PENALTY.

 

What was the penalty for taking steroids in 1992?

 

I dont believe it was being suspended from baseball for life.

 

So yes, if you completely take my post out of context and say that I argued anabolic steroids were ex post facto. But I pretty clearly said "some substances", ie HGH. Which is what many of the Mitchell report are being accused of.

 

I figured my audience of fellow baseball enthusiasts would know these facts.

 

Oh here is an article about how in 2005 the police entirely changed:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2224832

 

If baseball wants to penalize players on the pre-2005 scale (10 game suspensions), for taking drugs that were illegal prior to 2005, I dont think anyone would really have a problem with it.

Well actually the first offense was no suspension prior to 2004....

Ah, I see you changed your post. If there was a specific penalty that did not involve discretion by Selig, then you are correct that acts during that period can only be penalized at those levels. No one argued otherwise, that I have seen.

 

[YASNY]

Ah, I see you changed your post. If there was a specific penalty that did not involve discretion by Selig, then you are correct that acts during that period can only be penalized at those levels. No one argued otherwise, that I have seen.

 

I guess that's a legitimate point of view. However, Fay Vincent did in fact establish the fact that illegal substances were not accepted by MLB, regardless of the fact that specific penalties were not spelled out. The point being, that those that used were still breaking the law and the rules of ML baseball.

[Soxbadger]

Northside,

 

If you can find that, Id love to see it.

 

All I have is baseball saying that they cant ban different types of steroids, and that they arent specifically covered.

 

http://www.biopsychiatry.com/dhea/legal.html

 

"It is difficult, from a collective bargaining perspective, to explain to people why they should ban a substance that the federal government says you can buy at a nutrition center," said Rob Manfred, executive vice president for labor relations at Major League Baseball.

 

And here is the smoking gun:

 

http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=2634

 

Q. Which drugs are covered by the testing program?

 

A. Players are forbidden from "using, possessing, selling, facilitating the sale of, distributing, or facilitating the distribution of any Drug of Abuse and/or Steroid." "Drugs of Abuse" include the usual illegal substances (cocaine, LSD, marijuana, heroin, Ecstasy, GHB, PCP); "Steroids" include all anabolic androgenic steroids on the federal Schedule III controlled-substances list. Any substance added to the federal controlled-substances list is automatically added to the banned list, and the HPAC can ban additional substances by unanimous vote. Last year the steroid tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) was added to the list after it was banned by the Food & Drug Administration. The HPAC is currently considering whether to add ephedra, implicated in last year's death of Steve Bechler, to the banned list.

 

Steroids include all anabolic androgenic steroids on federal schedule III.

 

As noted above:

 

The cream does not appear until 2003

 

HGH does not appear until 2005

 

Prior to those points they were legal in baseball.

 

Perhaps your own research will net different results.

 

Yasny,

 

Yes but those substances were not illegal until 2003 and 2005 respectively. And therefore not banned by baseball until put on the FDA's list.

 

Therefore they broke no law at the time, which to my understanding is ex post facto.

 

But perhaps Northside will enlighten us on his treatise of what ex post facto means, and how even though these substances werent banned before 2003 and 2005, we should still punish players who used them during that time period.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Soxbadger

[Texsox]

Most of these discussions assume that there is cheating and not cheating and there is no sliding scale of cheating. But perhaps there is one, and on that scale, is the discussion. It is difficult to defend some sort of cheating and not others. But like speeding, we allow 5 mph and come down hard on 40 mph. Perhaps many people see artificially altering their bodies as a far worse offense then a drop of Vaseline™ or a corked bat. Others see it as the same and that we should allow all cheating.