Jose Bautista's "Random" Drug Testing

[BaltimoreTerp]

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/25/jose-bautistas-drug-testing-seems-something-less-than-random/

But the upshot: Bautista spoke at a banquet the other night and noted that in the past two years--the two years which coincided with his tremendous uptick in homers--he has been given sixteen drug tests. In the two years before that he had three total.

First of all, it's pretty funny to see how "random" things like drug tests are in real life, assuming he isn't exaggerating. Also, since whenever Bautista's name pops up it is closely followed by the PED question, this could help cool that discussion down a bit.

[oriole]

Its hard to ignore. Does he think its a common occurence to have average power and then BOOM have league leading power? Its not impossible but no, its not common at all. Spectulation should be present, I hope it would be in this situation. He is an anomoly and he's got to realize that.

[TakebackOPACY]

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/25/jose-bautistas-drug-testing-seems-something-less-than-random/

First of all, it's pretty funny to see how "random" things like drug tests are in real life, assuming he isn't exaggerating. Also, since whenever Bautista's name pops up it is closely followed by the PED question, this could help cool that discussion down a bit.

I don't want to get into the particulars of Bautista. I have no idea whether he's using. And I agree that it's not fair to some individuals that every accomplishment like his comes with these doubts. But the underground industry is all about beating the testers. Balco was so successful in helping set track and field world records because they had the cream and the clear that were, at the time, undetectable through testing. So, unfortunately for him, speculation isn't going to go away just because he's being tested a lot.

[SammyBirdland]

I blame the players union that he is a member of. They protect the bad guys at the expense of the good guys.

Even now that we'll FINALLY have HGH testing, they won't be randomly testing anybody from opening day till the end of the World Series. They will only test during the preseason and off-season unless they have other reasonable cause, such as obtaining evidence he placed an order for the substance.

source

[weams]

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/25/jose-bautistas-drug-testing-seems-something-less-than-random/

First of all, it's pretty funny to see how "random" things like drug tests are in real life, assuming he isn't exaggerating. Also, since whenever Bautista's name pops up it is closely followed by the PED question, this could help cool that discussion down a bit.

TESTING

A. Performance Enhancing Substances and Stimulants

1. In-Season Testing. During each championship season covered by this Program (which, for purposes of this Section only, shall commence with the first spring training voluntary reporting date and conclude with the final day of the post-season), all Players shall be tested for the presence of Performance Enhancing Substances and Stimulants as follows:

(a) Each Player shall be tested within five days of reporting to spring training. Collections under this Section 3.A.1(a) will be made in conjunction with the Clubs’ spring training physicals, to the extent practicable for the collecting entity and taking into consideration the facilities utilized by the Club for its spring training physicals.

(b) All Players will be selected for an additional unannounced test on a randomly selected date.

2. Additional Random Testing. In addition to the testing conducted pursuant to Section 3.A.1 above, an additional 1200 tests shall be conducted of randomly-selected Players at unannounced times for the presence of Performance Enhancing Substances and Stimulants. Of these additional tests, the IPA may conduct tests at unannounced times during the off-season (i.e., the period not covered by the Section 3.A.1 definition of the championship season); provided, however, that any off-season tests shall only be for the presence of Performance Enhancing Substances. The IPA will determine how many tests to conduct during each off-season to serve the purposes of the Program, but shall not conduct, in the aggregate, more than 375 off-season tests pursuant to this Section 3.A.2 during the period commencing with the Effective Date of this Program and ending on the day prior to the first spring training voluntary reporting date for the 2011 championship season, and shall not conduct, in the aggregate, more than 500 off-season tests during each Subsequent Term.

3. Testing for Performance Enhancing Substances and Stimulants ordered by the Treatment Board under Section 3.C below or as part of a Treatment Program established under Section 4.E below may be conducted on a continuing basis when determined by the Treatment Board to be appropriate. Such tests, and the follow-up tests conducted pursuant to Section 5 below, shall not count against the number of tests permitted pursuant to Section 3.A.1 and 3.A.2 above.

8

Testing will be conducted only pursuant to a scientifically-validated urine test. If a scientifically-validated urine test becomes available for a Prohibited Substance, testing will be conducted for that substance. Consistent with the terms of the Program, and unless otherwise specified, the schedule and timing of the testing shall be determined by the IPA. Each Player shall remain subject to additional tests regardless of the number of tests taken by the Player during any calendar year.

B. Drugs of Abuse

Except as set forth in Section 3.A or Section 5.B (as to Stimulants) or Section 3.C or Section 4.E, Players shall not be subject to testing for the use of any Drug of Abuse.

C. Reasonable Cause Testing

In the event that either Party has information that gives it reasonable cause to believe that a Player has, in the previous 12-month period, engaged in the use, possession, sale or distribution of a Prohibited Substance, the Party shall provide the other Party, either orally or in writing, with a description of its information (“Reasonable Cause Notification”), and the Player will be subject to immediate testing or a program of testing, as determined by the IPA, to commence no later than 48 hours after the Reasonable Cause Notification was provided. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a Party receiving Reasonable Cause Notification disputes the existence of reasonable cause, that Party shall have the right to commence a proceeding before the Panel Chair, as defined in Article XI(A)(9), within 48 hours after receipt of the Reasonable Cause Notification, and the Panel Chair will determine whether reasonable cause exists to subject the Player to testing. No reasonable cause testing of the Player will occur until the completion of the proceeding before the Panel Chair. The proceeding before the Panel Chair may be conducted by conference call at the request of either Party, and shall be completed within 48 hours from the time the Panel Chair was notified of the existence of the dispute. The Panel Chair shall issue his decision within 24 hours of the completion of the proceeding, and if the Panel Chair finds reasonable cause to exist, the testing or testing program

[OrangeJerseys]

I don't see how being a professional baseball player correlates to "real life" Those random tests are for performance enhancing drugs. Better performances should get scrutinized more than average ones.

As for real life, I work for the state of CA. I know several folks who have been randomly tested multiple times over the last few years and others that haven't been tested at all, nor have I. In my opinion random test should certainly be random, but they should not randomize who gets tested, only when they get tested. Everyone should get the test.

[SrMeowMeow]

I don't see how being a professional baseball player correlates to "real life" Those random tests are for performance enhancing drugs. Better performances should get scrutinized more than average ones.

As for real life, I work for the state of CA. I know several folks who have been randomly tested multiple times over the last few years and others that haven't been tested at all, nor have I. In my opinion random test should certainly be random, but they should not randomize who gets tested, only when they get tested. Everyone should get the test.

For the last time, look at the Mitchell Report. There is no skillset that correlates strongly with steroid use. People think that steroids equals HR power, but even that relationship is hotly disputed. Random testing should be random.

[OrangeJerseys]

For the last time, look at the Mitchell Report. There is no skillset that correlates strongly with steroid use. People think that steroids equals HR power, but even that relationship is hotly disputed. Random testing should be random.

I disagree. These aren't recreational drugs they are testing for. They are performance enhancing drugs. Naturally, better performances are more likely the result of those drugs than average or mediocre ones.

[square634]

I disagree. These aren't recreational drugs they are testing for. They are performance enhancing drugs. Naturally, better performances are more likely the result of those drugs than average or mediocre ones.

I think that this is pretty clearly false if you think about it. In the world population of athletes, there are more below average and average talents than superior talents (in comparison to the rest of MLB. Obviously we are already talking about the elite top .1%). Therefore, if PED use rates are equivalent across groups, you'd expect to see more below average/average players taking PEDs.

[Lucky Jim]

I disagree. These aren't recreational drugs they are testing for. They are performance enhancing drugs. Naturally, better performances are more likely the result of those drugs than average or mediocre ones.

Why? Drugs are just as likely to improve a AAAA player into a less-marginal MLBer or a raise a marginal MLB player into a league-average guy (in fact, those players have greater incentives given the difference between minor league and major league compensation and perks.)

[SammyBirdland]

Why? Drugs are just as likely to improve a AAAA player into a less-marginal MLBer or a raise a marginal MLB player into a league-average guy (in fact, those players have greater incentives given the difference between minor league and major league compensation and perks.)

Rhyne Hughes might be a good example for reference.

[OrangeJerseys]

Why? Drugs are just as likely to improve a AAAA player into a less-marginal MLBer or a raise a marginal MLB player into a league-average guy (in fact, those players have greater incentives given the difference between minor league and major league compensation and perks.)

I didn't mean that any or every outstanding performance is more likely a result of PED's just that divided into two groups, one of outstanding and one of average or mediocre performances, that PED use is more likely to be found in the better of the two.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I didn't mean that any or every outstanding performance is more likely a result of PED's just that divided into two groups, one of outstanding and one of average or mediocre performances, that PED use is more likely to be found in the better of the two.

This isn't that simple, though. Because of the structure of the sport and the severe divide in the rewards between being good in AAA and being mediocre in the majors, it is more likely that a marginal player will take the risk to get and keep a major-league job than an established player would to become a star.

[Lucky Jim]

This isn't that simple, though. Because of the structure of the sport and the severe divide in the rewards between being good in AAA and being mediocre in the majors, it is more likely that a marginal player will take the risk to get and keep a major-league job than an established player would to become a star.

Exactly.

[RVAbird]

I didn't mean that any or every outstanding performance is more likely a result of PED's just that divided into two groups, one of outstanding and one of average or mediocre performances, that PED use is more likely to be found in the better of the two.

My gut says this is fallacious and, at the least, there's no evidence to support it.

You would have to prove that A) "Performance Enhancing Drugs" are effective in quantifiably enhancing statistical production, and that B) the percentage of outlying performances aided by PEDs is higher than that of mediocre or replacement level performances. No evidence exists to strongly suggest either and I have a suspicion that both (more likely B) may be false.