In Favor of Recognition

[Soxbadger]

And from Northsides own damn site, god I f***ing hate laziness:

 

Secondly, the ex post facto principle has been extended not only to prevent the state from punishing an act that was innocent at the time it was committed, but also from increasing retroactively the penalty for a prohibited act. Note that a government is entitled to decrease the severity of a sentence between the time an act is committed in the time of sentencing.

 

http://sol.lp.findlaw.com/2000/seling.html

 

At least im being paid for this.

 

increasing retroactively the penalty for a prohibited act.

 

So yes they can be penalized as they would have been when they committed the act, but you cant rewrite the penalty.

 

Sorry for saying that they had to have "knowledge of the penalty", I meant that if there is a penalty you cant retroactively change it. Thats why asked what the penalty was in 1992, because that was the law they had knowledge of.

 

IE Back between 1992 and 2005 the first offense was not a suspension. You cant go back and time to change the penalty to be now a 50 game suspension.

 

Edited December 19, 2007 by Soxbadger

[supernuke]

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?

 

Until someone starts offering multi year multi million dollar contracts for jumping off bridges you can't even begin to compare the two situations.

[Soxbadger]

Texsox,

 

My scale is this:

 

If some things are explicitly banned (doctoring a baseball), why are they being let off lighter than things that were not banned?

 

How is it cheating, if it wasnt against the rules?

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

And from Northsides own damn site, god I f***ing hate laziness:

http://sol.lp.findlaw.com/2000/seling.html

 

At least im being paid for this.

 

increasing retroactively the penalty for a prohibited act.

 

So yes they can be penalized as they would have been when they committed the act, but you cant rewrite the penalty.

 

Sorry for saying that they had to have "knowledge of the penalty", I meant that if there is a penalty you cant retroactively change it. Thats why asked what the penalty was in 1992, because that was the law they had knowledge of.

 

IE Back between 1992 and 2005 the first offense was not a suspension. You cant go back and time to change the penalty to be now a 50 game suspension.

I cited that specifically to address your incorrect use of "ex post facto". Note that the site I went and found (lazy man that I am) specifically tells you what ex post facto covers - and it STILL DOESN'T cover what you said it did: that knowledge of penalty is required. Or did you already forget what you posted?

 

Oh, and, here is that smoking gun about steroids you were looking for. It also covers any controlled substance without a valid perscription. That would include HGH, I believe.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

By the way, something to consider here about the law versus the rules of MLB:

 

Things like ex post facto protection cover the application of federal and state law. They do NOT cover the enforcement of workplace rules - and that is what Selig would be doing here. Therefore, regardless of what your personal view is on the Constitutional ex post facto clause or any other such thing, Selig can do whatever he pleases as far as penalizing players. He could ban them all for life if he wanted to, and there would be no remedy for the players in any criminal court. And ex post facto does not fly in civil court (per, again, one of my links).

 

The only issue here really is how far Selig will go. He COULD go as far as he wants.

 

[Soxbadger]

Northside,

 

Here is what I said:

 

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.

 

Knowledge of the penalty is required. Laws are public, therefore knowledge of the law is imputed on every individual. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

But, you must have knowledge of the penalty in that the govt can not retroactively change the penalty. That is ex post facto. You still seem to be clinging to an argument I did not make.

 

I thought it was clear the argument I was making was as follows:

 

Between 1992 and 2005 the penalties were different from the penalties post 2005.

 

The baseball players from 1992-2005 had no knowledge of the future penalties.

 

Therefore applying the post 2005 penalties would be ex post facto.

 

Yes I didnt spell it out as well, sorry, Im just posting when I have a few seconds. As soon as you commented on it, I cleared up what I meant. You have yet to respond how that is not ex post facto.

 

As for the Vincent memo:

 

HGH is not a controlled substance (I have to do further research on prescriptions)

 

The Cream (Tetrahydrogestrinone) was not made a controlled substance until 2003. (Have to do further research on prescriptions)

 

[jackie hayes]

I cited that specifically to address your incorrect use of "ex post facto". Note that the site I went and found (lazy man that I am) specifically tells you what ex post facto covers - and it STILL DOESN'T cover what you said it did: that knowledge of penalty is required. Or did you already forget what you posted?

 

Oh, and, here is that smoking gun about steroids you were looking for. It also covers any controlled substance without a valid perscription. That would include HGH, I believe.

Just responding to the bolded part -- steroids have been a controlled substance since 1990 (iirc -- something like that), but HGH was not. There were some noises in Congress this summer or the summer before about making it a controlled substance, but as of 2005 (when MLB explicitly banned HGH) it was NOT a controlled substance.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just responding to the bolded part -- steroids have been a controlled substance since 1990 (iirc -- something like that), but HGH was not. There were some noises in Congress this summer or the summer before about making it a controlled substance, but as of 2005 (when MLB explicitly banned HGH) it was NOT a controlled substance.

HGH requires a perscription, correct? It may not be on the FDA's schedule of classified controlled substances, though. I'll take your word for it, because I do not know for sure. That's what that part I added the "I believe".

 

[jackie hayes]

HGH requires a perscription, correct? It may not be on the FDA's schedule of classified controlled substances, though. I'll take your word for it, because I do not know for sure. That's what that part I added the "I believe".

Yes, but not everything that requires a prescription is a "controlled substance". Here's a release from Chuck Schumer about potentially adding HGH to the (Schedule III) controlled substances list, from March 2007:

 

http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebs...d.cfm?id=270473

 

I don't know if anything happened with this.

[Soxbadger]

Its all really murky in terms of prescriptions. For the most part I cant find any real literature on when prescriptions were required for either HGH or Tetrahydrogestrinone.

 

From this article:

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...C8B63&fta=y

 

It would appear the use of Tetrahydrogestrinone prior to 2003, did not require a prescription. Because if prior to 2003 any company was able to produce or sell it, it seems that you would not need a prescription. So any usage of "the cream" prior to 2003 when it was banned by the FDA and considered a controlled substance could not have been against the rules of baseball or even against the rules of the United States.

 

HGH on the other hand seems to have needed a prescription. I cant find any date for this, but from all the articles and literature Im finding it appears HGH has been legal to use with a prescription for a while now (which suggests that it was illegal to use without a prescription). On the other hand, if any of these players who used HGH produce a prescription (if they were over 35 at the time they could have legitimately gotten it) they would be outside the scope of the Vincent memorandum.

 

Also, ive been arguing this from the stand point that the Vincent memorandum was binding. Im not sure if that is so, and would require tons of research into the CBA and all of that stuff. I do not believe that the CBA passed these rules exactly, but then again im not 100% sure.

 

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/ind...nhancing-drugs/

 

This article (which I have no clue if they are smart or not) seems to suggest that it was not binding because it was not approved by the CBA.

 

Performance-enhancing drugs were not prohibited in baseball prior to the 2002 Joint Drug Program. Fay Vincent’s 1991 memo and other commissioner proclamations were no more binding than a bill that is passed by Congress, but vetoed by the President. Arbitrators would not uphold the memo as the law of baseball. It was not until 2002 that the players and owners agreed to a testing and enforcement program. A second positive test was a punishable offense in 2004, but there was no sanction for first-time offenses until 2005.

 

Which would in the end mean that none of this stuff was even close to illegal for baseball players to use.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Doing some further research here is an interesting time line from MLB's website:

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/news/drug_policy.jsp?content=timeline

 

Event Timeline

1998: A jar of androstenedione is discovered in the locker of St. Louis slugger Mark McGwire, who is neck and neck with Sammy Sosa in the great chase at Roger Maris' all-time record of 61 homers hit during the 1961 season. McGwire admits he uses the steroids precursor and goes on to hit a then record 70 homers. Using steroids, precursors or performance-enhancing drugs is not illegal at that point in Major League Baseball.

 

Using steroids, precursors or performance-enhancing drugs is not illegal at that point in Major League Baseball.

 

August 30, 2002: MLB and the union unveil Major League Baseball's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program as an addendum to the new Basic Agreement, which is bargained at the 11th hour just as the players are about to go out on strike. The new policy calls for "Survey Testing" in 2003 to gauge the use of steroids among players on the 40-man rosters of each club. The tests will be anonymous and no one will be punished.

 

That would suggest that prior to 2002, steroids and their precursors, PEDs, etc were not illegal until 2002.

 

Which would mean all action prior to 2002 should not be considered cheating.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Soxbadger

[Gregory Pratt]

I think certain people, the strictest opponents of steroid use and steroid users mainly, put too much "emphasis" on the Vincent memo.

[Balta1701]

I think certain people, the strictest opponents of steroid use and steroid users mainly, put too much "emphasis" on the Vincent memo.

It certainly would have been nice if MLB had put as much emphasis on the memo in the 90's as we're forced to do these days. But then, the letter of the rule is the letter of the rule, whether or not it's enforced.

[Soxbadger]

The problem is that the Vincent memo was not approved by the players union.

 

It is the equivalent of George Bush writing that:

 

"From now on the use or consumption of alcohol is illegal."

 

Its great that the President came out and spoke out against alcohol, but it really does not mean jack until congress passes the law. Just like if congress came out and said "Tomorrow we are making alcohol illegal" and then Bush never signed the law.

 

Youll also notice in the memo, there is no mention of the consequences. This is because the memo was merely a statement of Fay Vincent's intentions as commissioner (its also interesting to note right after this memo he is no longer commissioner.)

 

The memo is not binding on the players because it was never agreed to under the CBA by the players union.

 

The letter really isnt a rule, its more of the commissioner trying to get a rule started...

 

(Edit)

 

I just wand to add that im not 100% sure thats what the CBA says. But from some of the articles ive linked (specifically baseball prospectus and the mlb site) it seems to suggest that 1) the vincent memo was not binding, 2) that there needed to be MLBPA approval before it became binding.

 

Every CBA is different so unless I have a copy of the CBA, its impossible to really tell.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Soxbadger

[Gregory Pratt]

The problem is that the Vincent memo was not approved by the players union.

 

It is the equivalent of George Bush writing that:

 

"From now on the use or consumption of alcohol is illegal."

 

Its great that the President came out and spoke out against alcohol, but it really does not mean jack until congress passes the law. Just like if congress came out and said "Tomorrow we are making alcohol illegal" and then Bush never signed the law.

 

Youll also notice in the memo, there is no mention of the consequences. This is because the memo was merely a statement of Fay Vincent's intentions as commissioner (its also interesting to note right after this memo he is no longer commissioner.)

 

The memo is not binding on the players because it was never agreed to under the CBA by the players union.

 

The letter really isnt a rule, its more of the commissioner trying to get a rule started...

 

That's right.

[Soxbadger]

Pratt,

 

There could be some "exigent circumstances" clause or "best interests of the game" clause that you could perhaps try and loop hole that memorandum under.

 

Im not exactly sure, so Im playing the safe route of saying that without a copy of the CBA, I dont really know what type of argument they could pull out of their hat.

 

There still is the problem that the memorandum does not discuss penalties outside of trying to rehabilitate players. Which would mean the penalty under the Vincent memorandum would be something like drug counseling and future suspensions should the player refuse to undergo treatment.

 

Not exactly a damning sentence.

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

Well written article, I just want to know why you think Jose Canseco should be in the hall.

[ptatc]

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!

 

1. Beating up guys in drunken fits, that's a dumb question of course I am against that. Who in thier right mind thinks that's fine.

2. Hitting someone with a baseball is not against the rules. The pitchers you mentioned did not crack anyone's head open with a pitch. If they threw at someone's head with the intent of injury , i would be against that. That's why the umps eject them and they get suspended by the league.

3. Taking speed is illegal and they should be prosecuted as well. I've said all along that speed is much more prevalent and changes the game more than steroids. I'm glad they are testing for it and suspending the players. The "leaded coffee" should be outlawed. Mays played before MLB had rules against it, there's nothing you can do to him now.

Ty Cobb did not break baseball rules to my knowledge, I did not see him play. Being a complete ass is not against the rules. If the law were to prosecute him that's their business.

 

If they break the rules of baseball severely enough, I personally would keep them out of the HOF. That is on an individual basis.

[Gregory Pratt]

1. Beating up guys in drunken fits, that's a dumb question of course I am against that. Who in thier right mind thinks that's fine.

2. Hitting someone with a baseball is not against the rules. The pitchers you mentioned did not crack anyone's head open with a pitch. If they threw at someone's head with the intent of injury , i would be against that. That's why the umps eject them and they get suspended by the league.

3. Taking speed is illegal and they should be prosecuted as well. I've said all along that speed is much more prevalent and changes the game more than steroids. I'm glad they are testing for it and suspending the players. The "leaded coffee" should be outlawed. Mays played before MLB had rules against it, there's nothing you can do to him now.

Ty Cobb did not break baseball rules to my knowledge, I did not see him play. Being a complete ass is not against the rules. If the law were to prosecute him that's their business.

 

If they break the rules of baseball severely enough, I personally would keep them out of the HOF. That is on an individual basis.

 

I don't want to get further into this. I just want to say, re: 2., Juan Marichal is in the HOF despite cracking Roseboro's head wide open with his bat at the plate. I'm just saying -- there are some bad, bad men in the Hall, as well as men who were overall good but did a bad thing or two. Character character character!

 

--

 

As for Jose Canseco -- he's got borderline HOF numbers, and I would like to rethink my statement that he belongs. He's close, considering everything...but giving it a second look I'm not sure I WOULD pull that trigger. As for the other guys (Sosa, Mc, Clemens, Bonds, Palmeiro) I stand by it completely.

[Texsox]

Texsox,

 

My scale is this:

 

If some things are explicitly banned (doctoring a baseball), why are they being let off lighter than things that were not banned?

 

How is it cheating, if it wasnt against the rules?

 

I refer back to my post and the speeding analogy. We'll look the other way when someone speeds 5mph over or perhaps steals a couple pens from work. Speed 40mph over or steal $1,000 from the cash register and you have a different reaction. For some people doctoring the ball is slipping just past the speed limit or pocketing a pen and steroids is the 40 mph and $1000

[Soxbadger]

I understand the analogy.

 

The problem is that you keep pointing to things that are both illegal.

 

It was legal for the players to use the cream and HGH. It was illegal for the players to doctor balls.

 

The best example I can think of is:

 

Its not a crime to drink alcohol while your pregnant.

 

It is a crime to drink alcohol when your under 21.

 

The govt cant punish you harder for the first when its not even against the law...

 

And thats not to say people cant disagree with the govt or baseball, just they are the ones who make the rules, and we unfortunately have to live by it.

[Texsox]

I understand the analogy.

 

The problem is that you keep pointing to things that are both illegal.

 

It was legal for the players to use the cream and HGH. It was illegal for the players to doctor balls.

 

The best example I can think of is:

 

Its not a crime to drink alcohol while your pregnant.

 

It is a crime to drink alcohol when your under 21.

 

The govt cant punish you harder for the first when its not even against the law...

 

And thats not to say people cant disagree with the govt or baseball, just they are the ones who make the rules, and we unfortunately have to live by it.

 

I was just commenting on the structure of the debate and answering the why Gaylord Perry and not Bonds question.

 

And I don't even think it matters if they broke the rules or not in the HoF debate. If the Hall voters decide that 700 steroid enhanced home runs are not hall worthy, that perhaps 850 would be a hall worthy number, that would be an interesting debate.

 

Certainly comparing Bonds to other non steroid player would be unfair, a judgment has to be made regarding his stats. I think it would be very wrong to, for example, compare Palmeiro's steroid home run total to Reggie Jackson's non steroid. So just saying Jackson is in with 563 so Palmeiro should be in with 569 doesn't make sense to me. So is Palmeiro's totals to Frank Thomas 513 or Ernie Banks 512? Perhaps Lou Gehrig's 493.

[jackie hayes]

I think certain people, the strictest opponents of steroid use and steroid users mainly, put too much "emphasis" on the Vincent memo.

I think you put too little "emphasis" on the authority of the commissioner, and maybe too much "emphasis" on misplaced scare quotes.

[ptatc]

I don't want to get further into this. I just want to say, re: 2., Juan Marichal is in the HOF despite cracking Roseboro's head wide open with his bat at the plate. I'm just saying -- there are some bad, bad men in the Hall, as well as men who were overall good but did a bad thing or two. Character character character!

 

--

 

As for Jose Canseco -- he's got borderline HOF numbers, and I would like to rethink my statement that he belongs. He's close, considering everything...but giving it a second look I'm not sure I WOULD pull that trigger. As for the other guys (Sosa, Mc, Clemens, Bonds, Palmeiro) I stand by it completely.

 

 

Being a bad person shouldn't keep you out of the HOF. Breaking the rules to a severe enough degree should. Canseco if you deem his number worthy should get in. Steroids weren't against the rules. Someone who has been proven to break the rules Bonds, Palmeiro should have some skeptics. It's in the eye of the voter if they decide to keep them out.

 

My personal opinion stands if you've used them I would keep them out.

[Texsox]

Being a bad person shouldn't keep you out of the HOF. Breaking the rules to a severe enough degree should. Canseco if you deem his number worthy should get in. Steroids weren't against the rules. Someone who has been proven to break the rules Bonds, Palmeiro should have some skeptics. It's in the eye of the voter if they decide to keep them out.

 

My personal opinion stands if you've used them I would keep them out.

 

I would look at what they accomplished with steroids and downgrade their stats based on a little research of their height/weight and go from there. Even if it is decided they didn't break any rules, they used steroids, it enhanced their performance, and to compare them to their non juicing peers, requires some thought and adjustment. So if I now place Palmeiro in the close but no cigar category like McGruff, I think it is defensible.

 

I wouldn't keep them out based on steroids, but I think it is fair to expect better power numbers, more strike outs, etc. then their non juicing peers.