Sessh

The scandals and witch hunts do far more damage to the brand than the drugs themselves. Why should there be leniency everywhere except MLB?

I know, but you don't seem to allow for accidents and would punish them all the same. Is that how you would prefer to be treated when you have made or make an honest mistake or would you prefer for someone to be understanding? If there's no intent, I see no reason to get draconian with this.

I'm not sure I would word it quite like that, but I see your point.

I know it, bud. I was just taking your expression a step further.

Yes, but it's not as black and white as that. There are times where a unique situation calls for a unique point of view and being able to think outside the box and assess a situation based on that unique situation. I don't think MLB is going to let anything get carried away, but he proved to MLB that there was no intent and that it was an honest mistake which apparently means nothing to some people. Some just love the witch hunt and will reject the facts in order to continue it. Again, accidents happen; we're all human beings and fallibility is fundamental to who we are as human beings. There is no cure and it cannot be overcome and this need to be absolute with everything isn't a good thing because not all things neatly fit into the box that was created for it.

I only said "law" because that's the terminology CoC used.

The letter of the law ignores the spirit of the law and that is a problem. Things aren't as absolute as that and it's not always as easy as a "one size fits all" situation. He proved to MLB that he didn't know, so that is more than simply taking his word for it. He proved it to MLB and I would imagine that is not an easy thing to do. It is much easier to prove if you are playing in the same sport and made aware of the same baseball related info that everyone else is. I don't doubt for a second that teams aren't made aware of who was popped on other teams. Even if you don't watch the news, is it reasonable to assume that word of mouth never got around to you? I don't think so; everyone cares about this whether they want to or not especially the players and organizations. I don't think it's a slippery slope at all. I at least have faith that MLB will be tough to convince in regards to "no intent" and if they decide that is the case, then it's most likely the case.

That would be up to MLB to decide. Do you not trust them to make the right call and to be able to see through something like that? Furthermore, would you get crates of cold medicine shipped to your house if you wanted to use PEDs? There are far more effective ways to do that and far more covert substances to use. Obviously, Clenbuterol is tested for and if there was suddenly a wave of positive tests for it with the excuse of taking a cold medicine, I think that would be snuffed out pretty quickly.

I should further clarify that I'm not saying anyone here specifically is calling Mondesi a cheater, but there are fans that will based on the fact that he was suspended. That's really all that's necessary these days. I know players deny knowingly doing anything all the time, but actually proving that to MLB is another matter altogether. I think if you can prove that and have no prior offenses, it should be explicitly reflected in the outcome of the situation. A reduced suspension is still a suspension and implies more guilt than actually exists. It is nice that Mondesi wasn't stripped from being able to play in the postseason if it comes to that, so that's another good thing to take from this. IMO, it's still not good enough though.

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.