Greg Anderson - Jerk or Hero?

[Can_of_corn]

Hmmmmm....so because it's hard to do they shouldn't bother testing? I don't see that sort of logic going anywhere but to a big ol' mess.

I can't say for sure whether Bonds is being treated fairly or being singled out; I haven't read all the details of the case and I'm not all that interested.

But it seems to me pretty likely that he knowingly broke the law. So no matter if he's being singled out by a "rogue IRS agent" or being justly investigated, it seems to me he's getting what he deserves.

Not because its hard, because its pointless. You will only catch a fraction of the folks doing it. Why should some kid from the DR get busted for steroids because he wasn't rich or educated enough to get the good stuff?

As for Bonds "getting what he deserved" I am of the school that the American taxpayer is not getting what they deserve. I do not want my government spending millions of dollars and thousands of manpower hours while trampling over the rights of hundreds of folks over a perjury charge.

[RShack]

IMO, nobody looks good here.

I think Barry is a jerk and I feel no empathy for him. At the same time, if you scratch the surface of what the Feds are doing, it definitely has elements of a witch hunt. Now, if we agree that we should be in the business of burning witches, then IMO Barry is as good a target as anyone.

I just think there's lots of unfortunate things happening on both sides of this one.

[geschinger]

Not because its hard, because its pointless. You will only catch a fraction of the folks doing it. Why should some kid from the DR get busted for steroids because he wasn't rich or educated enough to get the good stuff?

It doesn't have to be that way. I'm not a fan of the philosophy of ignoring problems simply because we can't stop everything. If they put enough resources into testing and are constantly improving what they can detect it will be enough of deterent for most.

As for Bonds "getting what he deserved" I am of the school that the American taxpayer is not getting what they deserve.

I do not want my government spending millions of dollars and thousands of manpower hours while trampling over the rights of hundreds of folks over a perjury charge.

This is a much broader issue and letting Bonds get away with perjury isn't going to save the taxpayer any money. I'm sure if they want to they could negotiate a sentence that includes a big fine to cover a lot of the costs once he is found guilty. I hear you about wasting taxpayer money but if not Bonds prosecutors would be going after some other big name for something else. It's what they do.

[mweb]

Sure they did. How else was the prosecutor going to make a name for himself?

In this regard the government had as much of an obligation to go after Bonds as for example the government had to go after Jeffrey Skilling's scalp with the Enron situation.

You prefer a game where everyone is juicing? I think it's good thing that players aren't forced to do things that are illegal and terrible for them just to even the playing field and that just was not possible without some kind of testing regime.

The prosecutor making a name for himself has nothing to do with getting testing, but it seems like you were saying that in jest, so if so, good one.

I don't prefer a game where everyone is juicing, but I'm not naive enough to think the game is anywhere close to clean even with the testing. Anyone who wants to take steroids can still do so and beat the testing. I also don't care if people want to take steroids just like I don't care if someone wants to smoke weed. That's just my philosophy on that type of stuff, I don't expect many to agree with it.

[mweb]

Put a testing regime in place and back it with signficant funding and it's only a matter of time until anything can be tested for.

I have no sympathy for Bonds because his situation is self inflicted... We need to remember that he isn't being prosecuted for steroid usage. When one is testifying under oath, tell the truth... It is such a simple concept that it amazes me that anyone would have sympathy for someone who either doesn't grasp the concept or choses to ignore it.

It's absolutely not a matter of time until anything can be tested for, not even close. The cheaters will always be ahead of the testing. What they can do is keep the samples and test them in the future when they get caught up to whatever was in vogue, then punish the guys if they're still playing.

[mweb]

The pro-Bonds people thinks it's all about him being raked over the coals. But it's not. Marion Jones spent 6-months in jail for admittedly lying before the Federal Grand Jury into the BALCO steroid investigation. Others have gone to jail into the investigation for the exact same thing of lying to the Grand Jury.

Jason Giambi admitted to using steroids in front of the same Grand Jury and served no jail time.

Game of Shadows, a must read.

Bonds also admitted to using, just not knowingly. I honestly don't know, did that somehow hurt the governments case? I don't see why it would.

Do you think Tejada will or should go to jail? How about Ray Lewis when he was in trouble for obstructing justice in what I would consider a much more important matter.

[geschinger]

The prosecutor making a name for himself has nothing to do with getting testing, but it seems like you were saying that in jest, so if so, good one.

In jest... And just to be clear when I said the government actions helped get us testing I'm not referring to the prosecution of Bonds... I believe that the show the Congress put on swayed the public opinion enough that the union had no choice but to acquiesce to testing.

I don't prefer a game where everyone is juicing, but I'm not naive enough to think the game is anywhere close to clean even with the testing. Anyone who wants to take steroids can still do so and beat the testing. I also don't care if people want to take steroids just like I don't care if someone wants to smoke weed. That's just my philosophy on that type of stuff, I don't expect many to agree with it.

I agree with you on the weed, other players would not be at a disadvantage and feel like they are forced to smoke it to stay on a level playing field to compete therefore I wouldn't put much resources into programs to weed out the weed users.

There will always be ways to beat any system and I don't think we should allow perfect to be the enemy of good.

It's absolutely not a matter of time until anything can be tested for, not even close. The cheaters will always be ahead of the testing. What they can do is keep the samples and test them in the future when they get caught up to whatever was in vogue, then punish the guys if they're still playing.

I disagree, I think if it became a big priority and had adequate funding that testing could eventually detect anything available today. There will always be demand and innovation for new ways to cheat so testing will have to continue to evolve but I do not see any reason why with the proper resources it couldn't be good enough to be an effective deterrent. I'd also be for the ability to go back and test samples as testing methodology improves.

[mweb]

In jest... And just to be clear when I said the government actions helped get us testing I'm not referring to the prosecution of Bonds... I believe that the show the Congress put on swayed the public opinion enough that the union had no choice but to acquiesce to testing.

I agree with you on the weed, other players would not be at a disadvantage and feel like they are forced to smoke it to stay on a level playing field to compete therefore I wouldn't put much resources into programs to weed out the weed users.

There will always be ways to beat any system and I don't think we should allow perfect to be the enemy of good.

I disagree, I think if it became a big priority and had adequate funding that testing could eventually detect anything available today. There will always be demand and innovation for new ways to cheat so testing will have to continue to evolve but I do not see any reason why with the proper resources it couldn't be good enough to be an effective deterrent. I'd also be for the ability to go back and test samples as testing methodology improves.

I'm not talking specifically about athletes smoking weed or using steroids, I'm talking about people in general. It's not something I have an issue with.

I don't think you have much to support your position on the testing being at the same level as the new drugs. Swarms for instance don't even have enough testosterone to be detected in a test, yet they produce similar results to steroids.

Going back is the only way to catch everything, and that may not even work for everything.

[geschinger]

I'm not talking specifically about athletes smoking weed or using steroids, I'm talking about people in general. It's not something I have an issue with.

I somewhat agree in that I don't care if an individual decides they want to do either. If Bonds were to decide he wants to juice up I'd have no problem with him doing so as long as he's not allowed back into MLB while juicing. My issue is putting people in a position where they have to do something they wouldn't otherwise do just to even the playing field.

I don't think you have much to support your position on the testing being at the same level as the new drugs. Swarms for instance don't even have enough testosterone to be detected in a test, yet they produce similar results to steroids.

There isn't at this point... But what if the incentives were there for researchers to focus on creating new tests where the creators would make as much money developing tests as researchers do coming up with new ways to cheat. In that environment I have faith that there would be some real innovation in testing.

Going back is the only way to catch everything, and that may not even work for everything.

But players would never know what may or may not be testable in the future. Wouldn't that be a decent deterrent?

[mweb]

I somewhat agree in that I don't care if an individual decides they want to do either. If Bonds were to decide he wants to juice up I'd have no problem with him doing so as long as he's not allowed back into MLB while juicing. My issue is putting people in a position where they have to do something they wouldn't otherwise do just to even the playing field.

There isn't at this point... But what if the incentives were there for researchers to focus on creating new tests where the creators would make as much money developing tests as researchers do coming up with new ways to cheat. In that environment I have faith that there would be some real innovation in testing.

But players would never know what may or may not be testable in the future. Wouldn't that be a decent deterrent?

You can't create a test for what you don't know exists, so even with more funding, the cheaters would be ahead of the tests. Even more so if blood testing isn't allowed, which would be hard to get the union to go along with.

They would know just as they know now what can be tested for.

[geschinger]

You can't create a test for what you don't know exists, so even with more funding, the cheaters would be ahead of the tests. Even more so if blood testing isn't allowed, which would be hard to get the union to go along with.

They would know just as they know now what can be tested for.

Very true, you'll never have a test that will be effective forever. It would have to be a constantly evolving regime. I also wouldn't rule out technology getting to the point where we could have something for drug testing similar to heuristic technology used in computer anti-virus software where tests could flag things even those that have never been seen before.

[Spoonless]

I have one question to all those players who say "It wasn't against the rules at the time," would you be as lenient if a player committed murder? After all, killing another human being isn't prohibited by the collective bargaining agreement.

That's quite possibly one of the stupidest analogies I've seen. I normally respect your opinions, but steroids and murder are nowhere close to the same thing. I'd be as lenient about steroid use as I would be about any other illegal drug that wasn't against the CBA, be it cocaine, marijuana, amphetamines. To compare it to murder on the basis that they're both crimes is just plain dumb.

[Flip217]

Not because its hard, because its pointless. You will only catch a fraction of the folks doing it. Why should some kid from the DR get busted for steroids because he wasn't rich or educated enough to get the good stuff?

As for Bonds "getting what he deserved" I am of the school that the American taxpayer is not getting what they deserve. I do not want my government spending millions of dollars and thousands of manpower hours while trampling over the rights of hundreds of folks over a perjury charge.

I think your heart's in the right place, but I couldn't disagree with you more. It's certainly not pointless, and you don't have to catch 100% of the people doing it to make worthwhile.

As for why a kid from the DR should get busted, the question can be flipped on its head -- why should he get a pass?

Your concern for the taxpayer is noble, and I don't want to get too heavy into this argument b/c it can get political so quick. But that line seems to get tossed around whenever the government is doing something that some people disagree with. In some people's eyes the gov will always be wasting money....

[Objectivity]

That's quite possibly one of the stupidest analogies I've seen. I normally respect your opinions, but steroids and murder are nowhere close to the same thing. I'd be as lenient about steroid use as I would be about any other illegal drug that wasn't against the CBA, be it cocaine, marijuana, amphetamines. To compare it to murder on the basis that they're both crimes is just plain dumb.

Fine. Replace murder with something else that isn't included in the collective bargaining agreement, but still against the law. Wife beating? DWI?

You're missing my point. All these players are saying steroids weren't banned at the time they were being taken (whether the player in question was a user or not). That whole line of logic is total crap. It doesn't matter if the CBA mentioned PEDs or not, their use was a federal crime. Whether their employer banned their actions or not is irrelevant to the fact that any law enforcement agent with authority and evidence could arrest any of them at any point for breaking the law.

Not that any union would ever allow it, but the simplest solution to this problem now and years down the road for things we haven't even thought of yet is simple. Place a line in the CBA that says anything done in violation of local, state or federal law is against the CBA and that anyone breaking any law should be punished in the sport in an appropriate manner in addition to any punishment given by the courts.

Not only would this take care of drug users, it would also provide a public deterrent for people who beat their wives (again, not forbidden by the CBA) or drive under the influence of alcohol (also apparently permissable under the CBA).

[Spoonless]

Fine. Replace murder with something else that isn't included in the collective bargaining agreement, but still against the law. Wife beating? DWI?

You're missing my point. All these players are saying steroids weren't banned at the time they were being taken (whether the player in question was a user or not). That whole line of logic is total crap. It doesn't matter if the CBA mentioned PEDs or not, their use was a federal crime. Whether their employer banned their actions or not is irrelevant to the fact that any law enforcement agent with authority and evidence could arrest any of them at any point for breaking the law.

Not that any union would ever allow it, but the simplest solution to this problem now and years down the road for things we haven't even thought of yet is simple. Place a line in the CBA that says anything done in violation of local, state or federal law is against the CBA and that anyone breaking any law should be punished in the sport in an appropriate manner in addition to any punishment given by the courts.

Not only would this take care of drug users, it would also provide a public deterrent for people who beat their wives (again, not forbidden by the CBA) or drive under the influence of alcohol (also apparently permissable under the CBA).

Forgive my ignorance of federal drug laws, but I thought that the possession, dispensing, or distribution of illegal substances were the crimes, and that the presence of the substance in your system is not a crime.