Could minor-league players sue over steroids?

[BaltimoreTerp]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3554767

Obviously Reilly is writing to make a point, but it brings up an interesting question. Could a player actually have a case in something like this?

I mean, it would have to be a player like the ones mentioned, as they would never be allowed to play again, but with a good enough lawyer there could be a good argument against MLB as well as the Players' Association.

(Paging Mr. Angelos...Mr. Angelos...:laughlol:)

[Lucky Jim]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3554767

Obviously Reilly is writing to make a point, but it brings up an interesting question. Could a player actually have a case in something like this?

I mean, it would have to be a player like the ones mentioned, as they would never be allowed to play again, but with a good enough lawyer there could be a good argument against MLB as well as the Players' Association.

(Paging Mr. Angelos...Mr. Angelos...:laughlol:)

In the rarified air of Stanford Law School this is "an interesting idea." Which means not-practical, not-realistic. And as Stanford isn't the most grounded corner of the academic universe, that's sort-of like Baron Von Munchausen calling a story a "little far fetched."

Question one would be well-nigh impossible to prove.

Question two would, arguably, apply to every industry in the country which turns a blind eye to some illegal activity which "aids" performance (truck drivers/speed, I-Bankers/coke, etc.) And there are lots of those, I'd think.

Question three? Well, all it says is that the MLB labor agreement can't be deemed collusive or anti-competitive. If someone can't challenge the draft, I'm guessing they can't challenge the MLB drug policy.

Was drug-testing part of the labor agreement? Of course. Think that's an obstacle? Maybe a small one?

Any real lawyers out there can feel free to correct me.

[BaltimoreTerp]

In the rarified air of Stanford Law School this is "an interesting idea." Which means not-practical, not-realistic. And as Stanford isn't the most grounded corner of the academic universe, that's sort-of like Baron Von Munchausen calling a story a "little far fetched."

Question one would be well-nigh impossible to prove.

How? It's a generally accepted fact that they improve certain aspects of training, especially when it comes to recovery time.

I think that's the EASIEST question to answer.

Question two would, arguably, apply to every industry in the country which turns a blind eye to some illegal activity which "aids" performance (truck drivers/speed, I-Bankers/coke, etc.) And there are lots of those, I'd think.

Doesn't make it right, especially when it can be argued that the league, by ignoring the problem, accepted criminal activity while passing-over those who followed the rules.

Question three? Well, all it says is that the MLB labor agreement can't be deemed collusive or anti-competitive. If someone can't challenge the draft, I'm guessing they can't challenge the MLB drug policy.

It wouldn't be arguing collusion, though. It would be MLB breaking both their own rules and federal laws, and separately the union not looking out for the health of it's members (both the major-league and minor-league unions, since I believe they are separate).

Was drug-testing part of the labor agreement? Of course. Think that's an obstacle? Maybe a small one?

Any real lawyers out there can feel free to correct me.

The latest one, and only after coercion.

[Lucky Jim]

How? It's a generally accepted fact that they improve certain aspects of training, especially when it comes to recovery time.

I think that's the EASIEST question to answer.

Doesn't make it right, especially when it can be argued that the league, by ignoring the problem, accepted criminal activity while passing-over those who followed the rules.

It wouldn't be arguing collusion, though. It would be MLB breaking both their own rules and federal laws, and separately the union not looking out for the health of it's members (both the major-league and minor-league unions, since I believe they are separate).

The latest one, and only after coercion.

1. The fact that you think proving steroids improve performance to a legal certainty will be easy shows you know little about how class actions work. Let me clarify - it would be difficult to pin down how steroids increase baseball performance. The actual cause-effect relationship and it's relation to MLB promotion is problematic. Who cares if 30 year olds are hitting 35 homeruns in the minors? They've been doing that forever and not been promoted. You're going to have to show some causation, I would imagine, in order to find any liability. This - no matter how many times you regress it - is going to be very difficult to show.

2. Whether it makes it "right" or not is irrelevant. The question is does it create liability. Leaving it up to folks whether they do a drug or not doesn't necessarily create liability.

3. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The point here is that the league isn't liable for its employment practices if they've been collectively-bargained. It would be a collusion argument - in that players would be arguing that they were excluded because of the league's complicity.

MLB didn't break any laws. It simply didn't police those laws. There's a huge difference. That you don't see this only further shows you really don't understand how these things work.

Are you saying that drug testing was never a part of the labor agreements until the latest one? Or that PED testing wasn't? Because that's not the same thing. If the league has an antitrust exemption and it chose - through collective bargaining - to allow PEDs, I'm not sure how that different than actually addressing the issue.