Sessh

Fair enough. Ultimately though, I don't think this is a reasonable/valid approach. For this point in the process? Like I said, it's better, but needs work as this situation shows. I think accident forgiveness should be a part of this policy provided a first offender can adequately prove to MLB that it was accidental and no intent was present. In today's baseball climate, being called a "cheater" is a heavy burden to bear and very hard to get rid of and I think we need to be careful who we slap this label on.

Oh, my bad. If that player is a first time offender and can prove to MLB that there was no intent and MLB finds in their favor, then yes. MLB doesn't have to find in their favor, after all.

It isn't right for Mondesi or anyone to be punished for a first offense when he is able to prove to MLB that it was an accident with zero intent and he is still punished, then yes, it's not right. Punishing someone without proof of intent is something I have a problem with for a first offender.

Yeah and no one should ever speak out against them when a situation proves them to be inadequate or unfair. That's all I am doing.

I said first offense multiple times. Did you not read that part? If he is dumb enough to get popped a second time, that's all on him.

It's an accident which Mondesi proved to MLB meaning there was zero intent and it was a first offense. Whatever. I guess rules are always right 100% of the time even when they are proven to be wrong. Punishing someone for a proven accident for a first offense in a case where his image is tarnished to even the slightest degree over it is ridiculous.

Accidents happen and should be forgiven if proven for at least the first time. Some will now look at Mondesi as a cheater over this and that's not right.

I understand that. I am saying the terms are not fair. The policy is going in the right direction, but it is far from a finished product. He proved to MLB that there was no intent and it was 100% accidental and the policy still dictates that he be punished for a first offense, it is a flawed policy. I understand perfectly well what was agreed to, but this case proves it is still not right. Better, but not right.

That's ridiculous. Mondesi is more a victim in this case than an offender and had no choice but to agree to it. He isn't a cheater, yet he's being punished like one. That is not right I don't care what is written. It's amazing rules are ever amended at all if they are right as soon as they are written.

I understand that's how it's written and of course he agreed to it, but it's still not right to punish someone for something like this when no intent was proven for a first offense. Accidents happen to all of us and to now have the word "cheater' associated with his name in the slightest over this is ridiculous. I am perfectly aware of how it's written, but it's still not right.

Well, it seems I was wrong about the medicine he took after all. I thought someone would have checked MLBTR by now, but he apparently took something called Subrox C which is an OTC medicine. I am surprised no one checked MLBTR before now, but my fault for assuming someone did and I should have looked myself. It says there that Mondesi proved that he took the substance unintentionally which is why MLB reduced his penalty. If it was proved that it was an accident (which it was) and it was a first offense (which it was), there should be no penalty. If he is stupid enough to do it a second time, well that's just too bad. For a first offense that was proven to be unintentional and accidental with zero lack of intent, though? No way he should be penalized for that. The policy should be more forgiving than that in situations like these.

Maybe it was proven to some extent which is why the suspension was reduced, but yeah, it could have happened that way. I would think if MLB thought that, they wouldn't have reduced his penalty at all and just told him to deal with it. Obviously, there was some uncertainty or doubt that Mondesi did this on purpose. It would be quite a reach to declare that Mondesi decided taking large amounts of cold medicine was a good way to use PEDs. If this drug policy is such that a player can't even take cold medicine without being afraid of being labeled a cheater, there is something very wrong with the drug policy. As fans, we don't know the details of the situation, but it certainly is telling that his suspension was reduced instead of upheld as is.

What he probably took was a medicine called Mucovibrol C which contains Ambroxol and Clenbuterol . It is perfectly legal in the DR and available only by prescription. If it can be proven this is how he ingested Clenbuterol and it was truly an accident, he should get no penalty for this first offense. I see no reason to be unreasonable with all of this. Yes, he messed up; no, he did not gain a performance enhancing effect whatsoever from taking this provided he took it in the prescribed doses.

The edge of the zone especially when a mid to upper 90's fastball is involved. In video games, it's always when the ball is right at the edge of the strike zone; "on the black". I remember one such comment I heard in a baseball video game was something like "99 on the black; someone call the cops, you can't hit that!" Anyway, thanks for the clarification on that.

Oops, mlb baseball lingo.

That's interesting. It's odd then that there's so much talk of "painting the black" as being a virtue for pitchers. "Painting the black" is described as throwing the ball over the edge of the plate on mlb's "basic baseball lingo" page as well. Odd as well considering throwing the ball over the plate is a strike. I guess this is another one of those gray areas. I've always heard that "painting the black" of the plate was a good thing and I've never once seen or heard that disputed.

I see it now. The edit wasn't there when I replied. I didn't mean for that to come off as an insult as it most certainly wasn't.

It's not an insult at all, but years of baseball knowledge aren't necessary for this. The black edge of the plate is clearly visible and the ball clearly touches it. There is no dirt between the ball and the black, therefore it touched it. I don't know why you would take that as an insult? It's pretty clear in the photo. The same edge is on the other side only not as prominent (covered with a little dirt).

I see, then I stand corrected on what Palmer said. However, the photos you posted show clearly that it was on the black and so does the pitch FX. Anyway, I don't wanna argue with you again, bud. Especially not on something like this, so we'll just agree to disagree.

It seems so. I'm not sure what you think that black line that goes along the outside edge of the plate is if it's not the black of the plate, though. The ball brushes that black line. I can't see how you say it's two inches off the black.

I see it brush the black in the photos you showed, but I still say it's too close to take. He said it didn't touch the black? It's low if it's anything and it might be. Even on that fourth picture of the pitch FX, the "3" circle is both in line with the outside corner line on the pitch FX (on the black) and like 1/4th of the ball is above the knees. Strike two was on the black as well. Two and three are the same pitch as far as the outside corner goes, but the third was lower.

The second and third pictures clearly show it brushed the black of the plate.

It showed it low and away, but the ball was very close to the point on the edge in that corner of the strike zone. The overhead showed the ball barely touch the black, but it did touch and Palmer noted as much. Like I said, it really could have gone either way, but it was too close to take with two strikes.

I guess Palmer was wrong too, then? He went on about it for a few seconds about how the edge of the ball touched the black. If it touches the black, it can't be two inches outside.

Yes, Palmer said as much when we saw the overhead view of the pitch. It was clearly on the black of the plate which was not consistent with what K zone showed. The edge of the ball was both on the black and at the knees. It could have gone either way, but it was way too close to take.