Jump to content

Secret 2003 drug test, secret no more?


Gurgi

Recommended Posts

I agree 100% with Mackus. These players were GUARANTEED secrecy as part of the deal to do the drug tests in the first place.

If I sell you illegal drugs and GUARANTEE not to reveal your name, that's completely irrelevant to any law enforcement investigation into the transaction.

If MLB and the Players Union really wanted to GUARANTEE that the results of those tests would be completely confidential, they should have randomized the urine samples prior to doing the lab analysis. Anonymity isn't all that difficult to achieve if you really want to work a little at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Management can't just one day decide to make unilateral changes to collectively-bargained policies without the agreement of the union.

Baseball would've gotten their asses completely kicked in court by the MLBPA (again) if they had taken this approach.

This isn't a unilateral decision to end coffee and cigarette breaks. This is a business insisting on ending illegal activity in its ranks. They are two different things.

Given the response that congress is having, somehow I doubt that MLB would have lost that battle. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd be one thing if this was gonna be about stopping some illegal ring. But is it? The 'roids people are already out of business, baseball-wise. If it's important to lock them up, I don't mind that. But what it's mainly gonna be is Yet Another headline-driven media circus, trashing various people, and getting lots of folks up on their high horse in a self-righteous frenzy.

IMO, what we have here is a drug-enforcement rationale for doing something that's mainly gonna be another media-shark feeding frenzy. From the media's point of view, why turn the page when you can get some more cheap headlines? The whole baseball industry bought into the 'roids mess, but will this help hold the commissioner and the owners responsible for their share of it? Nope. It'll just be more hero-busting, and Bud will go on TV, looking serious and talking about how terrible it all is. He's as much to blame as anybody, but he'll try to come across as Mr. Morality. It's a farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a unilateral decision to end coffee and cigarette breaks. This is a business insisting on ending illegal activity in its ranks. They are two different things.

Given the response that congress is having, somehow I doubt that MLB would have lost that battle. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Look the collective bargaining agreement that's been ratified by both sides is what prevails here, and that agreement speaks to the issue of PEDs, testing, punishment, etc. It spells out exactly what each side can and cannot do.

Neither side is permitted to make material changes to that agreement without the other's consent. Period. Labor law is crystal clear on this issue. MLB would've gotten crushed if they had tried to do what you're advocating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd be one thing if this was gonna be about stopping some illegal ring. But is it? The 'roids people are already out of business, baseball-wise. If it's important to lock them up, I don't mind that. But what it's mainly gonna be is Yet Another headline-driven media circus, trashing various people, and getting lots of folks up on their high horse in a self-righteous frenzy.

IMO, what we have here is a drug-enforcement rationale for doing something that's mainly gonna be another media-shark feeding frenzy. From the media's point of view, why turn the page when you can get some more cheap headlines? The whole baseball industry bought into the 'roids mess, but will this help hold the commissioner and the owners responsible for their share of it? Nope. It'll just be more hero-busting, and Bud will go on TV, looking serious and talking about how terrible it all is. He's as much to blame as anybody, but he'll try to come across as Mr. Morality. It's a farce.

Really?

Mike Cameron got nailed late last year and the list of minor league suspensions continues to grow. A Giants catcher was suspended for 50 games about three weeks ago. The tests are still beatable.

Even if there was no more steroid use in baseball (which is clearly not true), why not use the info that MLB players can provide to go after the dealers who might be selling to, say, NFL players or college baseball players or, most importantly, the kids in every high school in the country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look the collective bargaining agreement that's been ratified by both sides is what prevails here, and that agreement speaks to the issue of PEDs, testing, punishment, etc. It spells out exactly what each side can and cannot do.

Neither side is permitted to make material changes to that agreement without the other's consent. Period. Labor law is crystal clear on this issue. MLB would've gotten crushed if they had tried to do what you're advocating.

From someone who works with labor unions everday of the week in the real world, I can tell you that you are 100% correct.

These are legal binding contracts that do not allow you to change the rules in the middle of the game, to my knowledge MLB wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand. What Bird Watcher is suggesting would be the biggest can of worms in labor law history (If MLB would have tried and won) and would have effected millions of workers from baseball players to carpenters. Never ever going to happen :down:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd be one thing if this was gonna be about stopping some illegal ring. But is it? The 'roids people are already out of business, baseball-wise. If it's important to lock them up, I don't mind that. But what it's mainly gonna be is Yet Another headline-driven media circus, trashing various people, and getting lots of folks up on their high horse in a self-righteous frenzy.

IMO, what we have here is a drug-enforcement rationale for doing something that's mainly gonna be another media-shark feeding frenzy.

I think that you're off base here. Law enforcement personnel have a difficult job, made extremely more difficult if you choose to forbid them from using available evidence gathered through legal subpoenas to develop their investigations.

Do you really think the guys who've stopped trafficking in steroids to ball players aren't selling HGH to any ballplayer who offers them the cash? Since there is no practical test for HGH yet, going after the traffickers is the only way to deter ballplayers from using the stuff. And yet, you'd hamstring law enforcement because of a private agreement between the drug using criminals and the MLB officials who've facilitated their law breaking?

As I said above, anonymity would have been easy to guarantee, if the sample identifications had been randomized prior to the laboratory testing. Apparently, the technicians who collected the urinalysis samples marked them the same way they would have done it if the testing were being taken subject to disciplinary action and they needed to maintain a chain of custody. It would have been trivial to have left the individual identification off the samples and to have assigned them control numbers which were totally independent of any possible association with the players contributing the samples.

If the players association made anonymity a condition of permitting the testing to occur, they were stupid for not insisting upon collection procedures which would assure the anonymity.

The samples which BALCO submitted for Barry Bonds were anonymous, but they needed to preserve a mechanism for correlating the results with his doping calendar, and the investigators were able to uncover that relationship. In the case of MLB's "anonymous" testing program, someone simply didn't think it through well enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...