PED Suspensions Coming

[sevastras]

I travel the world for work. I can get Codine over the counter in some countries. To assume he is a smart kid and knew what he was doing is silly. If you grow up taking a certain medicine for a certain ailment, that is what you do out of habit. Also, to assume a doctor in DR should also have some responsibility is also silly. He just prescribed what he always would, if it isn't OTC, which I thought it was.

DR is known for kids taking horse steroids to try and get bigger and stronger to be a ball player, why take something that isn't going to improve your strength in the off season? It is like taking greenies in the off season

[Sessh]

Again, there is no way it can be proven. He could have a prescription, receipt, and bottle of pills. It is possible that he was instructed to buy them as cover. MLB has no way of knowing. That is why it is the responsibility of the player to only take known clean substances.

No I haven't been to the DR, but I have travelled to several third world countries. They do have Tylenol in the grocery stores. If I was a professional baseball player with millions of dollars on the line, I would be smart enough not to take anything from suppliers down there. Better yet, I would not take anything for a common cold.

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.

[weams]

There are some medication even though legal that you may not take if you choose to work at the defense contractor.

[Aristotelian]

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.

In the very best case scenario, he didn't just take cold medicine, he took an unknown cold medicine given to him by a doctor in a foreign country without permission of MLB. In the worst case scenario, which in my opinion is more likely, his dealer gives him the banned substance and says "Here's a bottle of Dominican Tylenol. If you get busted, just tell them you took this." Either way, he tested positive for a banned substance, the player is responsible, and by the terms of the rule he is hit with a suspension.

I don't know why they reduced the suspension. Maybe they are giving him the benefit of the doubt as a first offender with a convincing explanation. Seems fair enough to me. I don't understand the logic that if the suspension is reduced it follows that he should get off entirely.

[Pheasants]

The players get a list of the drugs that cannot be included in medicines. They are expected to check the ingredients of what they take for colds. Some are ok; others are prohibited. I'm sure what MLB decided was that the offence was a mistake not deliberate, but it still violated rules he should have known so he earned a punishment not total forgiveness.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

[Sessh]

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.

[Can_of_corn]

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.

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?

[Sessh]

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 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.

[weams]

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.

If it is written. And agreed to. It is right.

[Sessh]

If it is written. And agreed to. It is 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.

[weams]

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.

You don't understand - this is not a protected class this is 700 individuals that are represented by a union that they have agreed to join and has negotiated these terms.

[weams]

You don't understand - this is not a protected class this is 700 individuals that are represented by a union that they have agreed to join and has negotiated these terms.

Appeal and punishment reduction are part of what is written into the agreement. You cannot devine any fact because they were charitable.

[Sessh]

You don't understand this is not a protected class this is 700 individuals that are represented by a union that they have agreed to join and has negotiated these terms.

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.

[BohKnowsBmore]

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.

The punishment, in a reduced format, stands in this case as a means of maintaining the burden of knowing what you put in your body on the player.

[Sessh]

The punishment, in a reduced format, stands in this case as a means of maintaining the burden of knowing what you put in your body on the player.

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.