Up to 100 MLB juicers possibly to be exposed...

[Soul]

BTW, I heard a radio report this morning that 8/10 players implicated in the BALCO scandal tested positive in '03.

 

Which 10 players were those? The ones that Grimsley named?

 

I don't know which 10 players they were.

 

I think it's likely ESPN's source for this story is the New York Post:

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292006/sports/eight_of_balco_10_failed_steroid_test_sports_brian_costello.htm

[David]

...(double post) Edited December 29, 2006 by David

[David]

Because the breaking of that law has a direct effect on their job. I.E., they are reflecting poorly on their employer in so taking said steroids.

 

People get fired all the time for doing perfectly legal things that nevertheless reflect poorly on their employers. These players actually broke laws in the process of doing so.

 

And by the way, moral judgement always plays a big part. Like it or not, if the predominant opinion is that something you did was morally repugnant, you will be judged poorly. Ask Mike Price about this.

 

As for sneaking out to a country where they are legal-----I'm ignoring that argument because it's ridiculous and I was hoping you would stop trying to use it on your own.

 

How is it ridiculous? And who ever said anything about sneaking? That's a word that would suggest some sort of wrongdoing. You're trying to imply that simply because the players broke the law in allegedly using steroids, what they did should lead to consequences in baseball even though baseball had no rules against the use of steroids at the time. If they didn't break the law, the point is moot. It's not an argument, it's a hypothetical meant to illustrate a point that you seem to not be grasping. I don't know why you feel the need to ridicule someone who doesn't agree with you instead of just having a reasoned discussion.

 

The law and MLB need to be separated. This is my opinion. The illegality of steroids has nothing to do with it. If a player gets multiple DUIs, much worse of an offense, in my MORAL opinion, than use of a controlled substance, he keeps on playing. It makes MLB look bad, it makes his team look bad, but he keeps on playing and it has no real effect on his career as a ballplayer.

 

On the other hand, Darryl Strawberry was suspended for his involvement with illegal drugs. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of policy MLB had with regard to drugs of abuse at the time. If they had no policy, then there's clear precedent, even though the type of controlled substance in question is much different. (EDIT - but it turns out, as I suspected, they did. Thus, no such precedent was set).

 

MLB had no such policy for steroids.

 

Oh, and your point about people doing perfectly legal things getting fired because said actions reflect poorly on the company does nothing to further your argument. The company would have to have some sort of its own policy against the action.

 

-edited

Edited December 29, 2006 by David

[goonys evil twin]

How is it ridiculous? You're trying to imply that simply because the players broke the law in allegedly using steroids, what they did should have consequences in baseball even though baseball had no rules against the use of steroids at the time. If they didn't break the law, the point is moot. It's not an argument, it's a hypothetical meant to illustrate a point that you seem to not be grasping.

 

The law and MLB need to be separated.

 

MLB had rules against using illegal drugs. Guys had been suspended for using illegal drugs.

[David]

How is it ridiculous? You're trying to imply that simply because the players broke the law in allegedly using steroids, what they did should have consequences in baseball even though baseball had no rules against the use of steroids at the time. If they didn't break the law, the point is moot. It's not an argument, it's a hypothetical meant to illustrate a point that you seem to not be grasping.

 

The law and MLB need to be separated.

 

MLB had rules against using illegal drugs. Guys had been suspended for using illegal drugs.

 

That's what I was wondering.

 

MLB had rules on it, and MLB took action on it. MLB, however, had no such policy on steroids prior to a few years ago.

 

EDIT - I realize that steroids are also illegal drugs. I'm just doubting that the MLB policy was against "illegal drugs" without actually specifying which ones, since everything we've heard suggests there was no language referencing steroids in the policy back then.

[goonys evil twin]

How is it ridiculous? You're trying to imply that simply because the players broke the law in allegedly using steroids, what they did should have consequences in baseball even though baseball had no rules against the use of steroids at the time. If they didn't break the law, the point is moot. It's not an argument, it's a hypothetical meant to illustrate a point that you seem to not be grasping.

 

The law and MLB need to be separated.

 

MLB had rules against using illegal drugs. Guys had been suspended for using illegal drugs.

 

That's what I was wondering.

 

MLB had rules on it, and MLB took action on it. MLB, however, had no such policy on steroids prior to a few years ago.

 

They didn't test for drugs, but, as much as they were illegal drugs, steroids fit into the category of drugs that could get you in trouble if you were caught with them by the law.

[David]

How is it ridiculous? You're trying to imply that simply because the players broke the law in allegedly using steroids, what they did should have consequences in baseball even though baseball had no rules against the use of steroids at the time. If they didn't break the law, the point is moot. It's not an argument, it's a hypothetical meant to illustrate a point that you seem to not be grasping.

 

The law and MLB need to be separated.

 

MLB had rules against using illegal drugs. Guys had been suspended for using illegal drugs.

 

That's what I was wondering.

 

MLB had rules on it, and MLB took action on it. MLB, however, had no such policy on steroids prior to a few years ago.

 

They didn't test for drugs, but, as much as they were illegal drugs, steroids fit into the category of drugs that could get you in trouble if you were caught with them by the law.

 

OK, let's assume they, by nature of being illegal drugs, fit under the policy as you're saying. That's fine, but it raises another question. How can you prove, though, simply by means of a positive test, that anything illegal actually occured? Illegal possession itself would have to be proven, wouldn't it? A test proves that the person in question used the drug, but it doesn't really prove that the player possessed/used the drug illegaly.

 

I guess what I'm asking is, without some sort of evidence that the players who tested positive actually had the drugs in their possession within the jurisdiction of this country, can the government really go after the player? I would imagine that the positive test could be used as supporting evidence against a player when a legit case is already made against him (i.e. proof of possession, paraphernalia, etc.), but I don't see how testing positive, alone, is enough.

[fromthestretch]

This post on Baseball Musings gives some insight as to how serious of a crime it is.

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/008374.php

[David]

This post on Baseball Musings gives some insight as to how serious of a crime it is.

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/008374.php

 

Thanks for that...

 

 

Use of controlled substances is not a federal crime. The DOJ has no jurisdiction over it. Federal law enforcement has jurisdiction over possession and trafficking but not use. In fact, check the state laws on illegal drugs and I think you'll find that most -- if not all -- do not criminalize use. In the states, possession for personal use is such a low level misdemeanor that prosecution of an even smaller offense -- use -- wouldn't be worth the resources (and it might meet with very stiff public resistance).

 

There is an argument that if one used drugs then one necessarily possessed them, if not in hand then at least in the body, at least for a short period. In a legal sense that's a weak argument, but the argument has been made. But let's assume the theory is good enough to bring use under the jurisdiction of the federal courts. No US Attorney's office would pursue such a case.

 

This is more or less what I was trying to get at with the last post or two.

[Soul]

dav, there are always rules against conduct that reflects poorly on your employer. This is the point that you do not seem to grasp.

 

I just think your hypothetical is ridiculous, that's all. I didn't ridicule you-----just your assertion. Using a hypothetical that clearly isn't a possibility in this situation shows nothing. I'm aware that you think IF they didn't break the law by, for example, using in a country that allows it, then it shouldn't be punished. I suppose if Buzz Aldrin had killed Neil Armstrong on the Moon we would have had a problem too because there are no murder laws outside Earth's orbit. So what? We're talking about actual laws that might have been broken here.

 

And my point about personal conduct, reflecting on employers badly, etc. still stands. Even if you didn't break any laws, employers fire people for conduct that makes them look bad all the time. Mike Price is a valid example----Bama fired him for doing something perfectly legal (frequenting a strip club).

 

But regardless of that, we all know the feds are looking for actual crimes that might have been committed, so if they find any then that's what they'll focus on.

[David]

It's not that I think that IF they did this they shouldn't be punished.

 

It's that unless there's proof that they indeed broke the law, there's nothing. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the defendant.

 

They cannot be punished by the law if there's no proof of possession. The hypothetical was simply meant to illustrate that there are ways in which one can use steroids without technically breaking possession laws. That's all. There needs to be proof.

 

In other words, a positive test isn't proof that they possessed the substance and thereby broke the law.

 

Aside from that, you mentioned rules of conduct by an employer. MLB didn't have a testing/suspension policy at the time, either. Wasn't your argument earlier that MLB didn't need to have rules on this for it to be a punishable offense in baseball?

 

As of yet, there's no way of convicting any player of possession (in which case, MLB could probably levy a punishment as, as goony stated, they had a policy with regard to being caught with illegal drugs), and there was no policy requiring drug testing or explicitly banning steroid usage. So, what do we have? Nothing.

 

Also, although it wouldn't matter if it was, the hypothetical is NOT ridiculous. Ever see the Real Sports w/Bryant Gumbel on the misconceptions about steroids?

Edited December 29, 2006 by David

[fromthestretch]

But regardless of that, we all know the feds are looking for actual crimes that might have been committed, so if they find any then that's what they'll focus on.

 

They most likely aren't looking to do anything to any player who used, except use them as leverage against companies like BALCO.

 

Right now, the primary crime they want to charge Bonds with is perjury.

[Wheelimus]

I'd assume most of the others implicated were smart enough to fess up. Sure, Giambi took heat for being honest, but he isn't looking at jail time for perjury.

[David]

I still think it's pure crap that they're releasing this information.

 

The players agreed to the testing on the basis that the results would be completely confidential. It's just wrong. Garbage.

[goonys evil twin]

I still think it's pure crap that they're releasing this information.

 

The players agreed to the testing on the basis that the results would be completely confidential. It's just wrong. Garbage.

 

That I can agree with.

[FergieJ31]

I still think it's pure crap that they're releasing this information.

 

The players agreed to the testing on the basis that the results would be completely confidential. It's just wrong. Garbage.

 

That I can agree with.

 

Yep. I imagine the MLBPA must still be reeling about this mess. I still haven't heard a public statement from a MLBPA rep since this story broke - has anyone?

 

Edit to add: http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=Aub1uQKnc6Ux997gHIvD_JQRvLYF?slug=ap-athletes-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns

Edited December 30, 2006 by FergieJ31

[Jehrico]

How is it ridiculous? You're trying to imply that simply because the players broke the law in allegedly using steroids, what they did should have consequences in baseball even though baseball had no rules against the use of steroids at the time. If they didn't break the law, the point is moot. It's not an argument, it's a hypothetical meant to illustrate a point that you seem to not be grasping.

 

The law and MLB need to be separated.

 

MLB had rules against using illegal drugs. Guys had been suspended for using illegal drugs.

 

That's what I was wondering.

 

MLB had rules on it, and MLB took action on it. MLB, however, had no such policy on steroids prior to a few years ago.

 

They didn't test for drugs, but, as much as they were illegal drugs, steroids fit into the category of drugs that could get you in trouble if you were caught with them by the law.

 

OK, let's assume they, by nature of being illegal drugs, fit under the policy as you're saying. That's fine, but it raises another question. How can you prove, though, simply by means of a positive test, that anything illegal actually occured? Illegal possession itself would have to be proven, wouldn't it? A test proves that the person in question used the drug, but it doesn't really prove that the player possessed/used the drug illegaly.

 

I guess what I'm asking is, without some sort of evidence that the players who tested positive actually had the drugs in their possession within the jurisdiction of this country, can the government really go after the player? I would imagine that the positive test could be used as supporting evidence against a player when a legit case is already made against him (i.e. proof of possession, paraphernalia, etc.), but I don't see how testing positive, alone, is enough.

I don't understand why any real baseball fan would be trying to give any players a pass for steroid use. This isn't a criminal trial, so I don't see why we would be putting them to the test of whether or not there is a shadow of a doubt that they broke a law. I really don't care either. There are more standards that apply to the judgement of behavior than what is written in the law. Call me prudish, but I believe standards, ethics, and morals hold an important place in baseball.

 

Here is what I do know. Some players either flat out broke the law, or skirted the law (by going to Mexico in your hypothetical) in order to gain an unfair advantage. They knew they were doing something unfair. That's why so many of them will not speak up on their own, because deep down inside they knew what they were doing was wrong. Getting paid millions of dollars to play baseball and be a celebrity is a privilege, not a right, and those afforded that privilege should be held to a higher level of ethics and morals in their conduct of the game in order to preserve the integrity of the game. Anyone who intentionally worked around the law (whether it's federal or not, doesn't matter) in order to gain an unfair advantage deserves what they have coming to them. I don't care if you could justify on a technicality that what they did wasn't a chargeable offense under the law or under baseball rules.

[Warren Brusstar]

BTW, I heard a radio report this morning that 8/10 players implicated in the BALCO scandal tested positive in '03.

 

Which 10 players were those? The ones that Grimsley named?

 

I don't know which 10 players they were.

 

I think it's likely ESPN's source for this story is the New York Post:

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292006/sports/eight_of_balco_10_failed_steroid_test_sports_brian_costello.htm

 

Here are the ten that were subpoenaed during the BALCO scandal:

 

Barry Bonds

Gary Sheffield

Jason Giambi

Marvin Bernard

Benito Santiago

Armandos Rios

Randy Velarde

Jeremy Giambi

Bobby Estalella

AJ Pierzynski

 

Only Pierzynski was never called to testify.

[CP_414]

BTW, I heard a radio report this morning that 8/10 players implicated in the BALCO scandal tested positive in '03.

 

Which 10 players were those? The ones that Grimsley named?

 

I don't know which 10 players they were.

 

I think it's likely ESPN's source for this story is the New York Post:

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292006/sports/eight_of_balco_10_failed_steroid_test_sports_brian_costello.htm

 

Here are the ten that were subpoenaed during the BALCO scandal:

 

Barry Bonds

Gary Sheffield

Jason Giambi

Marvin Bernard

Benito Santiago

Armandos Rios

Randy Velarde

Jeremy Giambi

Bobby Estalella

AJ Pierzynski

 

Only Pierzynski was never called to testify.

 

Is it wrong to hope AJ tested positive?

[wekse]

BTW, I heard a radio report this morning that 8/10 players implicated in the BALCO scandal tested positive in '03.

 

Which 10 players were those? The ones that Grimsley named?

 

I don't know which 10 players they were.

 

I think it's likely ESPN's source for this story is the New York Post:

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292006/sports/eight_of_balco_10_failed_steroid_test_sports_brian_costello.htm

 

Here are the ten that were subpoenaed during the BALCO scandal:

 

Barry Bonds

Gary Sheffield

Jason Giambi

Marvin Bernard

Benito Santiago

Armandos Rios

Randy Velarde

Jeremy Giambi

Bobby Estalella

AJ Pierzynski

 

Only Pierzynski was never called to testify.

 

Is it wrong to hope AJ tested positive?

 

 

not at all

[JC]

This post on Baseball Musings gives some insight as to how serious of a crime it is.

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/008374.php

 

Thanks for that...

 

 

Use of controlled substances is not a federal crime. The DOJ has no jurisdiction over it. Federal law enforcement has jurisdiction over possession and trafficking but not use. In fact, check the state laws on illegal drugs and I think you'll find that most -- if not all -- do not criminalize use. In the states, possession for personal use is such a low level misdemeanor that prosecution of an even smaller offense -- use -- wouldn't be worth the resources (and it might meet with very stiff public resistance).

There is an argument that if one used drugs then one necessarily possessed them, if not in hand then at least in the body, at least for a short period. In a legal sense that's a weak argument, but the argument has been made. But let's assume the theory is good enough to bring use under the jurisdiction of the federal courts. No US Attorney's office would pursue such a case.

 

This is more or less what I was trying to get at with the last post or two.

 

The bolded statement above just isn't true, accept for marijuana, which isn't what is at issue here. The problem with "use" prosecutions is that a person must use it "knowingly or intentionally". The defense that someone slipped you a mickey, so to speak, pretty much kills any such prosecution. Other than that, he is mostly dead on.

 

Oh, yeah. As far as US Attorneys and federal prosecutions go, unless you have an eye witness, video tape, confession on tape and an ordained priest as a witness, they generally don't take stuff to trial. (Any AUSAs out there?)

[SouthSideRyan]

Of the BALCO 10, Velarde didn't play in '03, so that would seem to trim it to 8 of 9.

[Guest]

This post on Baseball Musings gives some insight as to how serious of a crime it is.

 

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/008374.php

 

Thanks for that...

 

 

Use of controlled substances is not a federal crime. The DOJ has no jurisdiction over it. Federal law enforcement has jurisdiction over possession and trafficking but not use. In fact, check the state laws on illegal drugs and I think you'll find that most -- if not all -- do not criminalize use. In the states, possession for personal use is such a low level misdemeanor that prosecution of an even smaller offense -- use -- wouldn't be worth the resources (and it might meet with very stiff public resistance).

There is an argument that if one used drugs then one necessarily possessed them, if not in hand then at least in the body, at least for a short period. In a legal sense that's a weak argument, but the argument has been made. But let's assume the theory is good enough to bring use under the jurisdiction of the federal courts. No US Attorney's office would pursue such a case.

 

This is more or less what I was trying to get at with the last post or two.

 

The bolded statement above just isn't true, accept for marijuana, which isn't what is at issue here. The problem with "use" prosecutions is that a person must use it "knowingly or intentionally". The defense that someone slipped you a mickey, so to speak, pretty much kills any such prosecution. Other than that, he is mostly dead on.

 

Oh, yeah. As far as US Attorneys and federal prosecutions go, unless you have an eye witness, video tape, confession on tape and an ordained priest as a witness, they generally don't take stuff to trial. (Any AUSAs out there?)

"Honest, I thought it was flaxseed oil..."

[TXCubsFan]

BTW, I heard a radio report this morning that 8/10 players implicated in the BALCO scandal tested positive in '03.

 

Which 10 players were those? The ones that Grimsley named?

 

I don't know which 10 players they were.

 

I think it's likely ESPN's source for this story is the New York Post:

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292006/sports/eight_of_balco_10_failed_steroid_test_sports_brian_costello.htm

 

Here are the ten that were subpoenaed during the BALCO scandal:

 

Barry Bonds

Gary Sheffield

Jason Giambi

Marvin Bernard

Benito Santiago

Armandos Rios

Randy Velarde

Jeremy Giambi

Bobby Estalella

AJ Pierzynski

 

Only Pierzynski was never called to testify.

 

Is it wrong to hope AJ tested positive?

 

NO! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[Careless]

How is it ridiculous? You're trying to imply that simply because the players broke the law in allegedly using steroids, what they did should have consequences in baseball even though baseball had no rules against the use of steroids at the time. If they didn't break the law, the point is moot. It's not an argument, it's a hypothetical meant to illustrate a point that you seem to not be grasping.

 

The law and MLB need to be separated.

 

MLB had rules against using illegal drugs. Guys had been suspended for using illegal drugs.

 

That's what I was wondering.

 

MLB had rules on it, and MLB took action on it. MLB, however, had no such policy on steroids prior to a few years ago.

 

They didn't test for drugs, but, as much as they were illegal drugs, steroids fit into the category of drugs that could get you in trouble if you were caught with them by the law.

 

Hopefully this will be the last time...

 

1991 - Vincent Memo - Baseball's Drug Policy and Prevention Program

Memo by then Commissioner Fay Vincent to all clubs

June 17, 1991

Format - PDF

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This memorandum sets forth Baseball's drug policy and the principle components of our drug abuse program. As in the past, the health and welfare of those that work in Baseball will continue to be our paramount concern. No less compelling, however, is the need to maintain the integrity of the game. Drug involvement or suspicion of drug involvement is inconsistent with maintaining these objectives.

 

.....

 

This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription

Steroids were specifically banned in 1991.