Can_of_corn

Honduran ham.

I didn't. The Yanks got a year of salary relief out of that suspension.

Sorry I disagree. For the life of me I can't figure out why but the use of this stuff inexplicably drives baseball fans into a rage while everyone else shrugs.

Considering the damage PEDs use does to the brand I have no issues at all with draconian enforcement. If this was the NFL, NBA, NHL, ATP, or the PGA I would be in more favor of leniency.

For what it is worth I was using it as an expression and not the literal definition. (After I went back and checked)

Don't know the exact language. I did find this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2014/03/28/mlb-toughens-drug-agreement-provisions/7023401/ Looks like MLB and the PU came to an agreement without needing to include an arbiter.

That's the beauty of insinuation.

But that doesn't allow Gordo to insinuate that other posters are not as smart as he is.

Right now MLB is in a unique position compared to other sports. For whatever reason the fan base of baseball cares about PED use. They can not afford to look lax. I am sure that is why there is a specific rule in place for this exact event.

But we don't know that Mondesi didn't know it was in there. We are taking his word for it. If he got off, in direct violation to the agreed upon rules, then I would want to get off. After all you can't prove that I knew what was in the cough syrup. "Hey, I don't watch the news." The point is if you start making exceptions for stuff that is collectively bargained it's a slippery slope. The far more fair thing to do is just don't make exception and work off the letter of the law.

So I could go and theoretically buy the same stuff he used, knowing it contained a banned substance then argue my way out of a penalty if I get busted?

I was talking of a second player.

And if it wasn't an accident? Or the next case isn't an accident? Let them go too?

How is it not fair? The players agreed to it. What could be more fair than the proper enforcement of mutually bargained rules?

From what I understand there are provisions in the agreement that cover these cases. Given that the two side agreed to the provisions I think his shorter suspension is an example of the system working as intended. What would be the point of them coming to an agreement on how to handle these cases only to throw the agreement out the window the first time the issue actually comes up?

I'd rather they hang around just close enough they make an ill-advised Parra type deal instead of engaging in a sell off. Have to think long term.

I don't want them cold in the ground. That would mean they trade Miller and Chapman. I want them just barely close enough that they don't sell.

Did you see where Ortiz says he hasn't complained about ball/strike calls in a long time? So I guess all that jaw flapping he does every time an ump makes a strike call against him is just his sharing recipes for fondue.

He should have ejected Ortiz after how he reacted to the strike two call.

Tell that to Raffy. I do agree in Ortiz's case.

Would be nice to get some salary relief on Gallardo's deal.

Roberts? Frankly I was surprised by how many folks that are anti-steroid quickly forgive their own players for their transgressions. Going so far as to believe some rather outlandish claims.

They were using, just no one cared. I don't care if they use now, so it is just the same for me.

He gave himself away when he said how often he's been tested.

I think he means back when the reporters didn't talk about it.