Some thoughts about David Ortiz' comments on season-long bans

[vasprtsfn]

I have not been on here in a while, so I do not know if there is a thread already on this. David Ortiz said that players who test positive for steroids should be banned for a year. I absolutely support really tough punishments for the users, but I believe that players who know about teammates using steroids and do not come forward are just as guilty. These players who know who is using, and then hide behind "what goes on in the clubhouse is private" are absolutely slime.

[SilentKiller]

I'm pretty comfortable with the system in place. I see no reason for a change.

[Mattingly]

I have not been on here in a while, so I do not know if there is a thread already on this. David Ortiz said that players who test positive for steroids should be banned for a year. I absolutely support really tough punishments for the users, but I believe that players who know about teammates using steroids and do not come forward are just as guilty. These players who know who is using, and then hide behind "what goes on in the clubhouse is private" are absolutely slime.
I would say that if David Ortiz is referring to tests that "count", meaning that if a player failed, he would risk suspension, I would agree, given that such a failure leading to a susension were already in place. If Ortiz wants such a suspension in place, it would have to be in the 2007-11 CBA that's linked to in my sig line.

I believe that guilt by association, as in looking the other way in a regular work situation, can be looked upon negatively, but when a union spells out the rules as to if/when a player can or cannot be suspended, and under which circumstances, and for how long a suspension, then those rules would have to either be in place currently, or be added to the next 2012-16 CBA.

As disappointed as I am with Alex Rodriguez' steroids usage, including his only coming clean after it was reported by Selena Roberts, I am very upset that those so-called anonymous test results were not discarded, and that the names of the other 103 players are still not known.

I don't know about you, but I find it very strange that we could have 103 guys out of 750--25 players per team times 30 teams--could all be anonymous. Yet only one of those players' names is known.

[spark240]

I don't know about you, but I find it very strange that we could have 103 guys out of 750--25 players per team times 30 teams--could all be anonymous. Yet only one of those players' names is known.

Well, obviously Rodriguez' name, specifically, was purposely "leaked." If I remember correctly, Roberts was asked whether she knew other names from the list, and she declined to answer. I would presume that she, and others, do know other names. Roberts obviously has an interest in Rodriguez' name coming out to promote her upcoming book; indeed, it's conceivable that she wrote the book upon receiving the leaked list.

In any event, I would think it's safe to assume that many, and perhaps all, of the names on the list will emerge eventually.

I am very upset that those so-called anonymous test results were not discarded, and that the names of the other 103 players are still not known.

Isn't it kind of contradictory to, on the one hand, lament the failure to preserve full confidentiality, and on the other to wish for the completion of the failure? If Rodriguez was in any sense wronged by this turn of events, is it not more wrong to do the same thing to the rest of the players?

Just a thought... probably academic, since as I said, I do expect much more steroid information to come out eventually. Other considerations aside, I think it's best for the league and the game to get everything out as quickly as possible.

[DodgerBlue8188]

I absolutely support really tough punishments for the users, but I believe that players who know about teammates using steroids and do not come forward are just as guilty. These players who know who is using, and then hide behind "what goes on in the clubhouse is private" are absolutely slime.

Nobody likes a snitch. I'm not saying it's right but people who came out and snitched would likely be treated differently.

[dominik]

Great thing from David: Normally athletes don't comment on doping because they don't want to piss of their competitors ands teams.
It's a brave act to stand up against cheaters. Only the athletes plus better testing can change the situation.

I like what he did, there must be more pressure on cheaters. Other sports have 2 year ban on first incident and life long at the second, so one season would not be overly hard.

[KCGHOST]

Well, we got to post #3 before the thread was hijacked.

I'm okay with the current system, but if they raised it to a year I wouldn't object.

[sturg1dj]

I'm with Mike Golic who said whatever is fine as long as they are consistent. Same punishment and same rules for everyone.

[Brooklyn]

I have not been on here in a while, so I do not know if there is a thread already on this. David Ortiz said that players who test positive for steroids should be banned for a year. I absolutely support really tough punishments for the users, but I believe that players who know about teammates using steroids and do not come forward are just as guilty. These players who know who is using, and then hide behind "what goes on in the clubhouse is private" are absolutely slime.

I don't support punishing players who know about teamates and don't come forward. It isn't their place to rat on a teammate. It is there place to keep their own noses clean.

I do support better, more frequent testing. I'd like to hear a player come out in support of blood testing so they can test for HGH. After the black eye that baseball has been through, that could have been largely avoided with earlier testing, you would think they would learn their lesson and stay on top of the most recent testing methods.

They'll likely keep inventing new drugs that can't be detected on the current tests. But baseball needs to do what it can to stay on top of them. At the current pace they are always years behind in the testing. Olympics and Cycling use blood testing, why can't baseball?

[spark240]

Well, we got to post #3 before the thread was hijacked.

:confused:
It's not "hijacking" to let the conversation develop. Matt's comments followed upon the OP, mine upon his.

In any case, it seemed that the OP's main remark was not so much the length of first-offense suspension (50 games or 1 year), but rather,

I believe that players who know about teammates using steroids and do not come forward are just as guilty.

Maybe vas is just frustrated and angry, as many fans are.

I don't see how the league could in practice pursue penalties for players with unreported knowledge of violations. How would anyone know who knew what when? It's hard enough to attain consistent enforcement of the penalties for using steroids.

There could be an anonymous-tip hotline. Certainly some players who do know things about other players are willing to drop a dime that way; that's how Braves prospect Jordan Schafer was busted for HGH last year.

[White Knight]

...but I believe that players who know about teammates using steroids and do not come forward are just as guilty.

That is the most outragious thing I have ever heard on this site. So you support rats is what you're saying? So if you and your workmate worked on an ice cream truck and he snuck a scoop because he was hungry, you would rat him out? That's the lowest of the low. If it's not your business and it isn't hurting you, shut your mouth (unless it's something huge like seeing your workmate rape or murder someone).

[rockin500]

That is the most outragious thing I have ever heard on this site. So you support rats is what you're saying? So if you and your workmate worked on an ice cream truck and he snuck a scoop because he was hungry, you would rat him out? That's the lowest of the low. If it's not your business and it isn't hurting you, shut your mouth (unless it's something huge like seeing your workmate rape or murder someone).
most outrageous? there have been much bigger whoppers than that. It could, perhaps reasonbly, be argued that by staying silent, they are aiding and abetting the steroid users to keep on breaking the law. Not to mention, that theoretically that juicing player may end up taking your job, which DOES hurt you. I dont necessarily agree with those ideas, just throwing it out there.

[White Knight]

most outrageous? there have been much bigger whoppers than that. It could, perhaps reasonbly, be argued that by staying silent, they are aiding and abetting the steroid users to keep on breaking the law. Not to mention, that theoretically that juicing player may end up taking your job, which DOES hurt you. I dont necessarily agree with those ideas, just throwing it out there.

It's not a major law that's being broken. It's still a slap on the wrist if you or I are cought with steroids. Night in jail and a fine, if that. Is staying silent on seeing some guy walking in the park smoking pot aiding and abbetting? How about seeing a jaywalker? How about if you see your fellow co-worker on his cell? After all, you're not supposed to be using your cell in many jobs while at work (waiters, clerks, etc.).

As for that juicing player taking your job, perhaps if you're Jeter and a 22 year old kid in AAA who's awesome and who's a SS is juicing, then and only then might a player say anything.

Personally, I'd boo a rat, but wouldn't boo the user.

[YankeeDJW]

That's the lowest of the low.

You have some pretty low standards than.

I personally wouldn't rat someone out for sneaking a scoop of ice cream, but saying that it is the "lowest of the low" makes no sense. I don't think you could back that view up from a moral standpoint, while there are several arguments that could be made that support such action. When it comes to baseball and steroid users, if a teammate feels that a player is hurting himself, hurting his team, hurting the sport, and hurting thousands of kids who look up to him, would coming forward be considered the "lowest of the low"? My answer is no. I am not going to go as far as to say a player has a moral obligation to publicly come forward or that they are just as guilty for remaining silent, but I think approaching the player in private wouldn't be unreasonable. Either way, I see nothing "low" about exposing someone who is illegally enhancing their abilities.

[SupCompleteNerds]

All I'm thinking is, why not a lifetime ban? Huh? Since he thought it was only for one season, he isi obviously a user himself.

[White Knight]

You have some pretty low standards than.

I personally wouldn't rat someone out for sneaking a scoop of ice cream, but saying that it is the "lowest of the low" makes no sense. I don't think you could back that view up from a moral standpoint, while there are several arguments that could be made that support such action. When it comes to baseball and steroid users, if a teammate feels that a player is hurting himself, hurting his team, hurting the sport, and hurting thousands of kids who look up to him, would coming forward be considered the "lowest of the low"? My answer is no. I am not going to go as far as to say a player has a moral obligation to publicly come forward or that they are just as guilty for remaining silent, but I think approaching the player in private wouldn't be unreasonable. Either way, I see nothing "low" about exposing someone who is illegally enhancing their abilities.

Approaching a player and giving him advice (like telling him steroids is wrong and he should stop) is absolutely fine with me. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about rats. Ratting a teammate out to a manager or owner. In the good old days, no one sang or else you got whacked.