PED Suspensions Coming

[Can_of_corn]

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.

So I could go and theoretically buy the same stuff he used, knowing it contained a banned substance then argue my way out of a penalty if I get busted?

[Sessh]

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.

[Sessh]

So I could go and theoretically buy the same stuff he used, knowing it contained a banned substance then argue my way out of a penalty if I get busted?

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.

[Can_of_corn]

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.

But we don't know that Mondesi didn't know it was in there.

We are taking his word for it.

If he got off, in direct violation to the agreed upon rules, then I would want to get off.

After all you can't prove that I knew what was in the cough syrup.

"Hey, I don't watch the news."

The point is if you start making exceptions for stuff that is collectively bargained it's a slippery slope.

The far more fair thing to do is just don't make exception and work off the letter of the law.

[Sessh]

But we don't know that Mondesi didn't know it was in there.

We are taking his word for it.

If he got off, in direct violation to the agreed upon rules, then I would want to get off.

After all you can't prove that I knew what was in the cough syrup.

"Hey, I don't watch the news."

The point is if you start making exceptions for stuff that is collectively bargained it's a slippery slope.

The far more fair thing to do is just don't make exception and work off the letter of the law.

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.

[El Gordo]

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.

Simple minded people don't want to have to struggle with the difference between the letter and the spirit. They just want things to be by the book so they don't have to think for themselves. Edited May 13, 2016 by El Gordo

[weams]

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.

It's not a law. It is negotiated work rules.

[weams]

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.

Pick me. He's a cheater.

[Can_of_corn]

It's not a law. It is negotiated work rules.

Right now MLB is in a unique position compared to other sports. For whatever reason the fan base of baseball cares about PED use. They can not afford to look lax.

I am sure that is why there is a specific rule in place for this exact event.

[MagicBird]

D-Simple minded people don't want to have to struggle with the difference between the letter and the spirit. They just want things to be by the book so they don't have to think for themselves.

That may apply in some cases, but it can also come from a mindset that recognizes that rules exist for a reason and to maintain order adherence to those rules is necessary realizing that there will always be someone trying to beat the system so all the responsibility goes on the one who is entrusted with the responsibility to adhere to the rules.

[Can_of_corn]

That may apply in some cases, but it can also come from a mindset that recognizes that rules exist for a reason and to maintain order adherence to those rules is necessary realizing that there will always be someone trying to beat the system so all the responsibility goes on the one who is entrusted with the responsibility to adhere to the rules.

But that doesn't allow Gordo to insinuate that other posters are not as smart as he is.

[Larry18]

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.

Maybe they should look at all banned substances that do have a widespread therapeutic value and figure out a different punishment for first time offenders. This would be consistent with the policy used for ADD medications.

[El Gordo]

Pick me. He's a cheater.

So you see no difference between Mondisi and Dee Gordon or Barry Bonds or Braun?

[El Gordo]

But that doesn't allow Gordo to insinuate that other posters are not as smart as he is.

I could well be speaking on behalf of simple minded people, for all you know.

[Aristotelian]

So you see no difference between Mondisi and Dee Gordon or Barry Bonds or Braun?

If I take Mondesi at his word, yes, there is a moral difference between what he did and people who cheat intentionally. From a policy standpoint, there is no difference. The problem is, the rule is not based on intentions, and you could not possibly enforce such a rule. The rule does not put MLB in the position of judging intent. It is your responsibility to take approved drugs only, and if you test positive you are gone. That is the way it is written and there is no good alternative.