PED Suspensions Coming

[weams]

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.

Then you will probably not like any agreement that comes with the new CBA.

[Can_of_corn]

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.

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

[Can_of_corn]

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.

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

[Sessh]

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

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.

[weams]

This is not like a law that is passed by a majority representative government that you need to abide by even if you disagree with these are work terms. No protest.

[Sessh]

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

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.

[BohKnowsBmore]

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.

See, I can buy that incremental reforms to make the process better/more fair are possible, but when you come out swinging against collectively bargained procedures as "ridiculous"" or "not right," it's hard to have a reasonable discussion. Accepting that there is logic in the current process, but stating your belief that it could be more forgiving in certain circumstances is a much better route to a reasonable discussion IMO. Both sides of the CBA had lawyers and reps going back and forth that got us to where we are now, so starting with a base position that what we have is somehow devoid of logic is silly (again IMO).

[Sessh]

this is like a law that is passed by a majority representative government that you need to apply to even if you disagree with these are work terms

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.

[weams]

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.

Fair enough. We have all heard your opinion.

[Sessh]

See, I can buy that incremental reforms to make the process better/more fair are possible, but when you come out swinging against collectively bargained procedures as "ridiculous"" or "not right," it's hard to have a reasonable discussion. Accepting that there is logic in the current process, but stating your belief that it could be more forgiving in certain circumstances is a much better route to a reasonable discussion IMO. Both sides of the CBA had lawyers and reps going back and forth that got us to where we are now, so starting with a base position that what we have is somehow devoid of logic is silly (again IMO).

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.

[Aristotelian]

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.

He gave them an explanation that wasn't falsified. That is hardly "proving" anything.

[BohKnowsBmore]

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.

But this gets back to my last post, then. The responsibility is on the player to know what they are putting in their body. If intent was all that mattered, we would potentially have a lot of guys buying OTC things or claiming to have bought OTC things and not worrying about what the ingredients are. The punishment exists regardless of intent to make it abundantly clear to players that the onus is on them to have trainers, doctors, whoever clear anything they are not sure about.

As I mentioned in the post you quoted, I'm not opposed to the idea that improvements can be made. Maybe in the case of Mondesei, there could be some alternative approach (a one-strike policy that you alluded to, for example) should a player be able to prove there truly was not intent and it was a mistake. That actually does sound like something I could get behind, assuming there was a feasible way to fact-check. But what exists and what you are suggesting are both parts of a continuum of logical approaches. I have no issue with you asserting that your approach/opinion provides a more fair process (even drastically more fair). I simply take issue with your suggestion that the current approach falls outside of the continuum of reasonable/valid approaches.

[Can_of_corn]

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.

I was talking of a second player.

[Sessh]

I was talking of a second player.

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.

[Sessh]

But this gets back to my last post, then. The responsibility is on the player to know what they are putting in their body. If intent was all that mattered, we would potentially have a lot of guys buying OTC things or claiming to have bought OTC things and not worrying about what the ingredients are. The punishment exists regardless of intent to make it abundantly clear to players that the onus is on them to have trainers, doctors, whoever clear anything they are not sure about.

As I mentioned in the post you quoted, I'm not opposed to the idea that improvements can be made. Maybe in the case of Mondesei, there could be some alternative approach (a one-strike policy that you alluded to, for example) should a player be able to prove there truly was not intent and it was a mistake. That actually does sound like something I could get behind, assuming there was a feasible way to fact-check. But what exists and what you are suggesting are both parts of a continuum of logical approaches. I have no issue with you asserting that your approach/opinion provides a more fair process (even drastically more fair). I simply take issue with your suggestion that the current approach falls outside of the continuum of reasonable/valid approaches.

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.