Re: Could we see a strike in '11?

[Rusch33]

I see that in 2011 that the CBA in MLB is finished, and needs to be renegotiated. With the "anonymous survey" steroid leaking (A-Rod's) and the probing that goes along with it, is it possible to see the players association strike in '11 over no more drug testing? Add on that Bud Selig is slamming players for failing drug tests in an anonymous survey under his watch, and I could see a retaliation from the players assoc. If you're a player, you have to be pretty scared right now if you failed that anonymous drug test.

 

I, for one, feel that they are going too far with this, and I fear that the players might go on strike because of it.

 

Am I out of line to seeing this happening?

[javy knows my name]

I think it would be quite ironic if the substance that helped baseball regain its popularity after the '95 strike was the cause for the next one. I don't see this happening, though. What would be MLBPA's legal ground for the dispute?

[Jehrico]

I could see them hardballing the owners on other issues, but they won't dare move to have drug testing removed. If they took that stance, the owners can be aholes on every other issue and win the public opinion war. That's the absolute dumbest thing that the players association could try to do right now.

[NCCubFan]

If there is a strike I think it's more likely to be due to a stalemate over a salary cap.

[TruffleShuffle]

yeah i think a lot of people don't approve of a-rod's name being leaked, but if they strike to get drug testing removed there would be a massive public backlash against the mlbpa.

 

mlb has money coming out its ears right now and a stoppage would be dumb for everybody involved.

[DiamondMind]

If there's a strike and the Cubs haven't won by then, coupled with the steroid BS, I'm probably done with baseball. As much as I love the game, that'd be it for me at the Major League level.

[Rusch33]

yeah i think a lot of people don't approve of a-rod's name being leaked, but if they strike to get drug testing removed there would be a massive public backlash against the mlbpa.

 

By public, do you mean the media? The same group of media that has pretty much tied steroids to professional wrestling and Major League Baseball, and virtually, no one other than them does it.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how the NFL hasn't been "probed" yet for their use of PEDs, or is that just widely-acceptable in football?

[bcl412]

If there is a strike I'm not going to give up something I love because other people strike, so I would continue watching baseball. However, I think the strike of 93 is still pretty strong in people's minds and I know of a lot of people who wouldn't watch baseball again. That, along with the steroid issue would probably kill the game.

 

I don't think there will be another strike in '11. I think whatever issues that may happen will be taken care of but if it does it would not be good.

[Jehrico]

yeah i think a lot of people don't approve of a-rod's name being leaked, but if they strike to get drug testing removed there would be a massive public backlash against the mlbpa.

 

By public, do you mean the media? The same group of media that has pretty much tied steroids to professional wrestling and Major League Baseball, and virtually, no one other than them does it.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how the NFL hasn't been "probed" yet for their use of PEDs, or is that just widely-acceptable in football?

By public, we mean the media, the fans, the sponsors, the whole nine yards.

 

The NFL smarted up and took care of this issue a long time ago. They've been testing for steroids and what not for a very long time. I don't know why you think it's widely accepted in football. Remember way back when when Jim Miller got suspended for an over-the-counter supplement? That was 10 years ago. PEDs are certainly more frowned upon in the NFL and have been for quite awhile.

[javy knows my name]

yeah i think a lot of people don't approve of a-rod's name being leaked, but if they strike to get drug testing removed there would be a massive public backlash against the mlbpa.

 

By public, do you mean the media? The same group of media that has pretty much tied steroids to professional wrestling and Major League Baseball, and virtually, no one other than them does it.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how the NFL hasn't been "probed" yet for their use of PEDs, or is that just widely-acceptable in football?

By public, we mean the media, the fans, the sponsors, the whole nine yards.

 

The NFL smarted up and took care of this issue a long time ago. They've been testing for steroids and what not for a very long time. I don't know why you think it's widely accepted in football. Remember way back when when Jim Miller got suspended for an over-the-counter supplement? That was 10 years ago. PEDs are certainly more frowned upon in the NFL and have been for quite awhile.

 

Shawne Merriman disagrees with you

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, boy, that NFL is sure clean.

[Jehrico]

yeah i think a lot of people don't approve of a-rod's name being leaked, but if they strike to get drug testing removed there would be a massive public backlash against the mlbpa.

 

By public, do you mean the media? The same group of media that has pretty much tied steroids to professional wrestling and Major League Baseball, and virtually, no one other than them does it.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how the NFL hasn't been "probed" yet for their use of PEDs, or is that just widely-acceptable in football?

By public, we mean the media, the fans, the sponsors, the whole nine yards.

 

The NFL smarted up and took care of this issue a long time ago. They've been testing for steroids and what not for a very long time. I don't know why you think it's widely accepted in football. Remember way back when when Jim Miller got suspended for an over-the-counter supplement? That was 10 years ago. PEDs are certainly more frowned upon in the NFL and have been for quite awhile.

 

Shawne Merriman disagrees with you

Not sure what your point is. He was suspended for a quarter of a season, you're acting like nothing ever happened to him.

 

I'd like to see the NFL apply stiffer penalties on the first positive like that, especially with steriods instead of simple otc supplements...but that doesn't mean they haven't had an aggressive testing policy for considerably longer than MLB now.

[bcl412]

yeah i think a lot of people don't approve of a-rod's name being leaked, but if they strike to get drug testing removed there would be a massive public backlash against the mlbpa.

 

By public, do you mean the media? The same group of media that has pretty much tied steroids to professional wrestling and Major League Baseball, and virtually, no one other than them does it.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how the NFL hasn't been "probed" yet for their use of PEDs, or is that just widely-acceptable in football?

By public, we mean the media, the fans, the sponsors, the whole nine yards.

 

The NFL smarted up and took care of this issue a long time ago. They've been testing for steroids and what not for a very long time. I don't know why you think it's widely accepted in football. Remember way back when when Jim Miller got suspended for an over-the-counter supplement? That was 10 years ago. PEDs are certainly more frowned upon in the NFL and have been for quite awhile.

 

Shawne Merriman disagrees with you

Not sure what your point is. He was suspended for a quarter of a season, you're acting like nothing ever happened to him.

 

I'd like to see the NFL apply stiffer penalties on the first positive like that, especially with steriods instead of simple otc supplements...but that doesn't mean they haven't had an aggressive testing policy for considerably longer than MLB now.

 

There is testing now, if Pujols tested positive during this season I guarantee he'd be treated ten times worse than Merriman. Merriman's steroid use is barely talked about, and if his stats warranted the hall of fame he'd get it. If Pujols (or some other star tested positive for steroids it would be debated if he would get in at all, even though his number say sure fire hall of famer.)

[Outshined_One]

If Hank Aaron came out tomorrow and admitted he was on steroids in his career, there would be talk of stripping him of his records and possibly expelling him from the Hall of Fame.

 

Meanwhile, Terry Bradshaw and a large number of other guys who played for the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 1970s, many of whom are in the Hall of Fame, have admitted to steroid abuse. No one has talked about stripping them of their records. Talk about putting an asterisk next to their Super Bowl wins has been non-existent until recently (and even then, it was one writer who said it).

 

There is an enormous double standard when it comes to steroids in football and steroids in baseball. I think that's the point Beertown was trying to make.

[Derwood]

if the MLBPA asked that drug testing be removed from the next CBA they should be laughed out of the negotiating room. I don't think even Donald Fehr has balls that big

[Clem Fandango]

If players go on strike because they're fed up with drug testing, then the public will assume the message they're trying to convey is "We're tired of you not letting us take steroids, so until you do, we're not going to play"

 

And no one in their right mind would want to do that

[Jehrico]

There is testing now, if Pujols tested positive during this season I guarantee he'd be treated ten times worse than Merriman. Merriman's steroid use is barely talked about, and if his stats warranted the hall of fame he'd get it. If Pujols (or some other star tested positive for steroids it would be debated if he would get in at all, even though his number say sure fire hall of famer.)

That's true, but who is it that would be treating him worse? Not the league. It'd be the press. If we're arguing about hypocrisy in the media, then I agree 100%. They never attacked guys like Merriman the way they're going after ARod. However, if we're talking about the leagues (i.e. NFL commish vs MLB commish), like in the post earlier suggesting the NFL needs to be investigated, then I don't think it's a fair criticism. The NFL wised up along time ago and started testing and punishing on their own. It took a congressional panel to be assembled to investigate MLB before the commissioners office attempted to address the issue.

 

The only thing I'd say about the NFL is they need to stiffen up those first penalties, or at least stiffen them up for steriods. Merriman got the same punishment for doing roids that some guy who one time accidentally picked up the wrong supplement from GNC gets. I don't think the NFL needs to be investigated for "looking the other way" on PEDs as it was suggested earlier.

[Jehrico]

If Hank Aaron came out tomorrow and admitted he was on steroids in his career, there would be talk of stripping him of his records and possibly expelling him from the Hall of Fame.

 

Meanwhile, Terry Bradshaw and a large number of other guys who played for the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 1970s, many of whom are in the Hall of Fame, have admitted to steroid abuse. No one has talked about stripping them of their records. Talk about putting an asterisk next to their Super Bowl wins has been non-existent until recently (and even then, it was one writer who said it).

 

There is an enormous double standard when it comes to steroids in football and steroids in baseball. I think that's the point Beertown was trying to make.

There's an amazing lack of historical context going on here.

Anabolic steriods were really first developed in the 30s, and refined in the 40s. They (specifically Dianabol) were approved by the FDA for use in '58. It wasn't until the 60s when they realized the negative side effects of abusing steriods, namely enlarged prostates and shrunken testes, among others. The International Olympic Committee didn't ban steriods until the 76 games. The government's first attempt to regulate steriods came in '79, but that didn't control much, much less ban anything. The first act that actually banned steriods for non-medical purposes was anti-drug abuse act of 1988. The whole era where athlete's "had" to use steriods to be competitive didn't arise until the mid 70s. Considering they weren't legal, and they weren't even addressed by the IOC until 1975, I don't think it's fair to single out the NFL for what was going on in the 70s. Those Steeler's teams overlapped the time when we first started to realize how bad steriods were.

 

That's not to say they get a free pass in the least, quite the contrary. Those guys were still using them after the international governing bodies addressed it. But, considering what we knew then and what was going on, I think the NFL acted much more prudently with regards to the problem than the other sports. Could they have done more, and could they have done more sooner? Yeah. They don't get a free pass. But let's not start crucifying people for doing something that was perfectly legal, within the rules, and accepted at the time. Let's learn from it and do the right thing now instead.

[radarluv1]

there is plenty for the mlbpa to argue about with drug testing - frequency, penalties, what exactly is banned, drawing of blood, etc. salary cap and revenue sharing are likelier to cause a strike imho, though i dont think it will happen.

[Jehrico]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2009/02/23/2009-02-23_mlb_players_union_head_don_fehr_says_ste.html

 

Fehr basically calling the steriod problem "fixed." He says the testing is doing what it's supposed to do, which is "fix" the steroid problem.

 

If this is the union's official stance about testing and steroids, then it's hard to imagine them making any noise about the issue during the next CBA. Considering money is and always has been the main motivator of the union, they'll probably focus on money issues and not testing, which doesn't cost them anything. I don't see them wasting collateral during negotiations on modifying the testing program, especially when you consider the PR hit they would take.

[NewUserName]

If Hank Aaron came out tomorrow and admitted he was on steroids in his career, there would be talk of stripping him of his records and possibly expelling him from the Hall of Fame.

 

Meanwhile, Terry Bradshaw and a large number of other guys who played for the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 1970s, many of whom are in the Hall of Fame, have admitted to steroid abuse. No one has talked about stripping them of their records. Talk about putting an asterisk next to their Super Bowl wins has been non-existent until recently (and even then, it was one writer who said it).

 

There is an enormous double standard when it comes to steroids in football and steroids in baseball. I think that's the point Beertown was trying to make.

 

I am not going to argue that there is a double standard because it is obvious. What I am going to suggest is this. Is it possible that the NFL sees PED use not as cheating, but as a health issue. So to help their players with rehabilitation they dont spend marketing money and press conference time calling them cheaters and saying that they are a black eye on the sport. Just a thought.

[Outshined_One]

If Hank Aaron came out tomorrow and admitted he was on steroids in his career, there would be talk of stripping him of his records and possibly expelling him from the Hall of Fame.

 

Meanwhile, Terry Bradshaw and a large number of other guys who played for the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 1970s, many of whom are in the Hall of Fame, have admitted to steroid abuse. No one has talked about stripping them of their records. Talk about putting an asterisk next to their Super Bowl wins has been non-existent until recently (and even then, it was one writer who said it).

 

There is an enormous double standard when it comes to steroids in football and steroids in baseball. I think that's the point Beertown was trying to make.

There's an amazing lack of historical context going on here.

Anabolic steriods were really first developed in the 30s, and refined in the 40s. They (specifically Dianabol) were approved by the FDA for use in '58. It wasn't until the 60s when they realized the negative side effects of abusing steriods, namely enlarged prostates and shrunken testes, among others. The International Olympic Committee didn't ban steriods until the 76 games. The government's first attempt to regulate steriods came in '79, but that didn't control much, much less ban anything. The first act that actually banned steriods for non-medical purposes was anti-drug abuse act of 1988. The whole era where athlete's "had" to use steriods to be competitive didn't arise until the mid 70s. Considering they weren't legal, and they weren't even addressed by the IOC until 1975, I don't think it's fair to single out the NFL for what was going on in the 70s. Those Steeler's teams overlapped the time when we first started to realize how bad steriods were.

 

That's not to say they get a free pass in the least, quite the contrary. Those guys were still using them after the international governing bodies addressed it. But, considering what we knew then and what was going on, I think the NFL acted much more prudently with regards to the problem than the other sports. Could they have done more, and could they have done more sooner? Yeah. They don't get a free pass. But let's not start crucifying people for doing something that was perfectly legal, within the rules, and accepted at the time. Let's learn from it and do the right thing now instead.

 

You have to separate out the historical context from the current context, though. It may have been more acceptable to do steroids in the 1970s and its legality was not completely addressed until the late 70s/early 80s. That is definitely a fair assertion.

 

However, I was referring more to the current backlash against that use. As I said above, if Hank Aaron came out tomorrow and admitted to steroid use to help him achieve the home run record, he would be strung up. Numerous people in the media and in politics would be shrieking for his records to be stripped. They would advocate him even being banned from the Hall of Fame. However, if Lawrence Taylor came out tomorrow and said the same thing about his records, there would not be anywhere close to the same kind of backlash against him.

 

The same is true today. Look at the reaction A-Rod has gotten for his steroid use and compare it to the reaction Shawne Merriman got for his steroid use. The gulf between the two in terms of media coverage and outrage is astoundingly large. Merriman did not get a free pass for his actions, but the difference in terms of public outrage is huge.

 

That's the whole point of what I was trying to get at. There is a double standard in terms of attitudes towards PED use in football and baseball. The reason for that double standard is a unclear to me, since athletes in both sports have incentive to use them for injury recovery and performance enhancement. The only thing I can really think about is the over-romanticization of baseball compared to football, but even that seems to be on shaky ground, in my mind.

[bcl412]

If Hank Aaron came out tomorrow and admitted he was on steroids in his career, there would be talk of stripping him of his records and possibly expelling him from the Hall of Fame.

 

Meanwhile, Terry Bradshaw and a large number of other guys who played for the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 1970s, many of whom are in the Hall of Fame, have admitted to steroid abuse. No one has talked about stripping them of their records. Talk about putting an asterisk next to their Super Bowl wins has been non-existent until recently (and even then, it was one writer who said it).

 

There is an enormous double standard when it comes to steroids in football and steroids in baseball. I think that's the point Beertown was trying to make.

There's an amazing lack of historical context going on here.

Anabolic steriods were really first developed in the 30s, and refined in the 40s. They (specifically Dianabol) were approved by the FDA for use in '58. It wasn't until the 60s when they realized the negative side effects of abusing steriods, namely enlarged prostates and shrunken testes, among others. The International Olympic Committee didn't ban steriods until the 76 games. The government's first attempt to regulate steriods came in '79, but that didn't control much, much less ban anything. The first act that actually banned steriods for non-medical purposes was anti-drug abuse act of 1988. The whole era where athlete's "had" to use steriods to be competitive didn't arise until the mid 70s. Considering they weren't legal, and they weren't even addressed by the IOC until 1975, I don't think it's fair to single out the NFL for what was going on in the 70s. Those Steeler's teams overlapped the time when we first started to realize how bad steriods were.

 

That's not to say they get a free pass in the least, quite the contrary. Those guys were still using them after the international governing bodies addressed it. But, considering what we knew then and what was going on, I think the NFL acted much more prudently with regards to the problem than the other sports. Could they have done more, and could they have done more sooner? Yeah. They don't get a free pass. But let's not start crucifying people for doing something that was perfectly legal, within the rules, and accepted at the time. Let's learn from it and do the right thing now instead.

 

You have to separate out the historical context from the current context, though. It may have been more acceptable to do steroids in the 1970s and its legality was not completely addressed until the late 70s/early 80s. That is definitely a fair assertion.

 

However, I was referring more to the current backlash against that use. As I said above, if Hank Aaron came out tomorrow and admitted to steroid use to help him achieve the home run record, he would be strung up. Numerous people in the media and in politics would be shrieking for his records to be stripped. They would advocate him even being banned from the Hall of Fame. However, if Lawrence Taylor came out tomorrow and said the same thing about his records, there would not be anywhere close to the same kind of backlash against him.

 

The same is true today. Look at the reaction A-Rod has gotten for his steroid use and compare it to the reaction Shawne Merriman got for his steroid use. The gulf between the two in terms of media coverage and outrage is astoundingly large. Merriman did not get a free pass for his actions, but the difference in terms of public outrage is huge.

 

That's the whole point of what I was trying to get at. There is a double standard in terms of attitudes towards PED use in football and baseball. The reason for that double standard is a unclear to me, since athletes in both sports have incentive to use them for injury recovery and performance enhancement. The only thing I can really think about is the over-romanticization of baseball compared to football, but even that seems to be on shaky ground, in my mind.

 

I think it all goes back to the numbers. Baseball's numbers are romanticized(as you said) and footballs aren't.

 

Another thing is football is a game of brute strength so people really don't care how you get that strength. Baseball is perceived as a mental game (even though it isn't as mental as people make it out to be) and bringing the artificial strength aspect into it bother's people.

 

But I think the main reason that people don't get into an uproar about steroids in the NFL is because of the helmets. First and foremost, they look like gladiators so people really don't care what they do to be strong. They just want them to be strong and hit somebody. Plus people don't know the superstars like they do in baseball (well they do but it's not the same.). I think if Payton Manning, Tony or TO came out an admitted steroid use it might just hit the uproar of someone who does it baseball. That is because people are able to put a face to these people.

[Derwood]

I actually DON'T think that Hank Aaron would be killed by the media/public if it came out that he tried steroids. He's achieved that "living legend" status and would be forgiven far more quickly than today's stars

[bcl412]

I actually DON'T think that Hank Aaron would be killed by the media/public if it came out that he tried steroids. He's achieved that "living legend" status and would be forgiven far more quickly than today's stars

 

I wonder how much likability would factor into this. Bonds, Rodriguez,Sheffield and Giambi were all kind of hated already by a lot of casual fans. There steroid use just amplified it. If someone like Jeter or Pujols admitted use. I wonder what the reaction would be.