PDA

View Full Version : Bud Selig's New Steroid Policy Proposal


ISiddiqui
05-01-2005, 02:52 PM
Surprised no one posted it here. For all the people clamoring that baseball isn't doing anything about the issue, they should love this proposal from the Commish. The ball is now in the union's court.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2050587
Selig's proposal: Third strike and they're out

<!-- end pagetitle --> <!-- begin bylinebox --> ESPN.com news services

<!-- begin presby2 --><!-- end presby2 -->
<!-- end bylinebox -->
<!-- begin text11 div --><!-- begin leftcol --> <!-- template inline --> NEW YORK -- Baseball commissioner Bud Selig asked players to agree to a 50-game suspension for first-time steroid offenders and a lifetime ban for a third violation under what he called a "three strikes and you are out approach" to doping.

In a letter sent this week to union head Donald Fehr, Selig proposed a 100-game ban for a second offense. He also asked the union to ban amphetamines, to have more frequent random tests and to appoint an independent person to administer the major-league drug-testing program.

"Third offenders should be banned permanently. I recognize the need for progressive discipline, but a third-time offender has no place in the game," Selig wrote to Fehr. "Steroid users cheat the game. After three offenses, they have no place in it."

Under the rules that began this season, a first offense gets a 10-day suspension, with the penalty increasing to 30 days for a second positive test, 60 days for a third and one year for a fourth. For a fifth positive, the penalty is at the commissioner's discretion.

Baseball currently has no penalties for amphetamine use by players on 40-man major-league rosters. Amphetamines are banned for players under minor-league contracts.

"Last winter, we reopened our agreement to deal with steroids," Selig wrote in the April 25 letter, a copy of which was obtained Saturday by The Associated Press. "I am asking you now to demonstrate once again to America that our relationship has improved to the point that we can act quickly and effectively deal with matters affecting the integrity of our great sport."

Reached Saturday, Fehr said the union was not yet prepared to discuss Selig's proposal.

"We'll respond in due course," Fehr said, adding he anticipated replying early next week.

Pitcher Josh Fogg (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6770), Pittsburgh's player representative, said he expects the union to hold a conference call shortly to discuss Selig's new proposal with the union membership.

"I don't think there are going to be any concessions made or anybody is going to agree to anything until we all decide," Fogg told ESPN.com. "Obviously this is a more strict program. We'll talk about it and see if it's fair and go from there."

Some players began thinking about Selig's proposal Saturday.

"That would get it out of the game -- in a heartbeat," Kansas City Royals (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=kan) pitcher Brian Anderson (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5152) said.

New York Yankees (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=nyy) player representative Mike Mussina (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4715) said he wanted to study the proposal before responding.

"I don't know if Bud's trying to get out in front and make us the good guys or the bad guys," said New York Mets (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=nym) pitcher Tom Glavine (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4122), a senior union leader.

"I happen to be able to believe that our program is a good one and if we leave it alone, it's going to do what we want it to do," Glavine told the AP in Washington. "But if everybody has their mind set on making it tougher, then you're going to have to take the time, continue to look at it and continue to look at alternatives. It's not something you can expect to happen in two weeks or two months. It's going to take a while, but I still think that it's something, that if it's deemed to be changed, you can probably get something done by next season."


Baseball players agreed during the offseason to reopen the drug agreement, which was not set to expire until December 2006. The new rules, which began in March, for the first time instituted suspensions for a first positive test for steroid use. Four players have received 10-day bans, all with relatively low profiles -- Tampa Bay outfielder Alex Sanchez (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6739), Colorado outfielder Jorge Piedra (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7400), Texas minor-league pitcher Agustin Montero and Seattle minor-league outfielder Jamal Strong (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7236).

The new agreement, not scheduled to expire until December 2008, has been criticized by many in Congress as not tough enough and several congressmen threatened to propose federal legislation.

"I continue to believe that time is of the essence in addressing this issue," Selig wrote to Fehr.

Pirates outfielder Matt Lawton (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5511) said 50 games would be a significant deterrent, but he wondered if the union would agree to such a lengthy penalty for a first offense.

"Look at Alex Sanchez," Lawton told ESPN.com. "I think he was taking something that was over the counter. He really didn't know what was going on. Ten days is one thing, but 50 days would definitely be a bigger issue. I don't think the players' union would sign off on it."

Several congressmen cited the World Anti-Doping Agency code as their ideal. It calls for a two-year ban for a first offense and a lifetime ban for a second, unless there are mitigating circumstances.

Some in Congress were also concerned that baseball's program is administered by a committee of management and union representatives, and several wanted a ban on amphetamines, long referred to as "greenies" in baseball.

"It is time to put the whispers about amphetamine use to bed once and for all," Selig wrote. "To the extent that our culture has tolerated the use of these substances, the culture must change."

San Francisco Giants (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=sfo) trainer Stan Conte, who has been outspoken in his opposition to performance-enhancing drugs, said Selig's latest initiative should be taken as a sign that the commissioner's office is "not messing around" on the issue of steroids. Conte, whose son Nick is a catcher in the Giants' minor-league system, also expressed support for ridding the game of amphetamines.

"If players can't play without artificial means, they should find another profession and move on," Conte told ESPN.com. "Whether you like it or not, these players are role models, and there are a lot of kids looking and watching."

Selig, Fehr, Mark McGwire (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=3866), Sammy Sosa (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4344) and Jose Canseco (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=3730) were among those testified before the House Government Reform Committee on March 17. Baseball has retained the communications firm of former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer to assist on steroids and other matters as congressmen pressed for action.

"This is what can happen when you shine a little light," said Dave Marin, spokesman for committee chairman Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican. "Davis' primary goal all along has been to encourage a little more self-policing. Kudos to the commissioner."

Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the committee's ranking Democrat, said Congress will examine Selig's proposal closely.

"It is weaker than the policy Congress is considering but significantly stronger than baseball's current policy," Waxman said in a statement.

Selig disclosed the letter to Fehr in a memorandum the commissioner sent Friday to team owners, presidents and chief executive officers.

"This letter follows a personal meeting with Don and several telephone conversations during which I expressed my fervent views on the subject of the use of performance-enhancing substances," Selig wrote in the memo, which was also obtained by the AP.

"It is my strong opinion that, regardless of whatever incremental progress we may have made under the current agreement, we continue to have a serious integrity issue with regard to our current policy and our great game," Selig wrote. "Prompt, decisive and dramatic action is needed to address the use of performance-enhancing substances because of the unfairness of such use to the rest of our players who want a level playing field."

Selig said he will make alterations for 2006 to the drug-testing program for players with minor-league contracts, who are not covered by the collective bargaining agreement. Currently, the minor-league penalty starts at 15 games for a first offense and then escalates to 30 games, 60 games and one year, with a fifth offense bringing a lifetime ban.

"These changes will include tougher discipline, including a permanent ban for a third offense, stricter regulation of amphetamines and greater reliance on independent experts," Selig said.

Information from ESPN Insider Jerry Crasnick and The Associated Press was used in this report.

jeff061
05-01-2005, 03:27 PM
No way the union signs off on it. He just wants to make sure everyone knows where the bottleneck lies.

ISiddiqui
05-01-2005, 03:30 PM
It's a great gambit though. Selig has been talking about bigger penalties on steroid users for a while, but the union won't let it through, he knows that. Now with all this attention, the union has budged a bit... now he's seeing if he can get more.

Coder
05-01-2005, 03:37 PM
I think it's an excellent step in the right direction. Still not as tough as the international standards, but definately a good move. Though I doubt the Union will agree..

sabotai
05-01-2005, 04:09 PM
Smart move by Selig. I'm sure he knows this will never happen, but he makes the player union look bad (since they will reject it). And if by some weird occurence the union does accept it, then he gets what he wants. Win-win for Selig. Lose-lose for the union.

HomerJSimpson
05-01-2005, 04:24 PM
I'm a big anti-steriod guy, but the thing I worry about here is not spelling out the difference between illegal steriod (and amphetamines for that matter) users and those who test positive for legal-but-banned substances. Someone should not be suspended for 50 days because they unwittingly took an OTC with a banned substance. I know many of you can't tell the difference between "degrees" of wrongs, but there should be a distinct difference between legal and illegal drug use punishments.

Buccaneer
05-01-2005, 04:46 PM
I think it's an excellent step in the right direction. Still not as tough as the international standards, but definately a good move. Though I doubt the Union will agree..
I agree, it is an excellent step. Selig must have found some balls somewhere.

Eaglesfan27
05-01-2005, 04:46 PM
Smart move by Selig. I'm sure he knows this will never happen, but he makes the player union look bad (since they will reject it). And if by some weird occurence the union does accept it, then he gets what he wants. Win-win for Selig. Lose-lose for the union.
Agreed. I hope the union actually accepts it.

sterlingice
05-01-2005, 08:23 PM
"I don't know if Bud's trying to get out in front and make us the good guys or the bad guys," said New York Mets (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=nym) pitcher Tom Glavine (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4122), a senior union leader.
This is the kind of crap that drives me batty about the players union. Yes, he's trying to win some PR points but who loses if you adopt a stronger policy?

SI

finkenst
05-01-2005, 09:01 PM
This is the kind of crap that drives me batty about the players union. Yes, he's trying to win some PR points but who loses if you adopt a stronger policy?

SI
the players who cheat?

I think there needs to be some mitigating circumstances built into it... like the aforementioned legal vs. illegal, etc.

Galaxy
05-01-2005, 09:36 PM
Selig knows with this policy proposal, the union has to work with him on this. Or else, I expect Congress to get involve again if they can't work things out.

SackAttack
05-01-2005, 10:38 PM
the players who cheat?

I think there needs to be some mitigating circumstances built into it... like the aforementioned legal vs. illegal, etc.

I don't. If the sport bans a substance, then legal or not, it should be subject to whatever policy is ultimately implemented.

However, I think what it boils down to is that Tagliabue's testimony basically humiliated Selig, and he wants to show both Congress and the public at large that he can be a tough guy when it comes to rooting out steroids, too. He proposes something that has mass public appeal, so even if it never happens, he gets hailed for trying to save the sport.

I mean, think about it, a month ago the "policy is toughened" and "we need to let it play out and see how it works before we make any drastic changes" were his repeated stances in front of Congress. I think this is pretty clearly calculated to protect the antitrust exemption.

HomerJSimpson
05-02-2005, 07:00 AM
I don't. If the sport bans a substance, then legal or not, it should be subject to whatever policy is ultimately implemented.



Really? So you you'd be against differing penalties for going 10 miles an hour over the speed limit versus 35? Or having a baggy of marajuana versus several tons? There shouldn't be some difference to the penalty for illegal steriods versus a substance found in cold medicine?

I'm glad most of you are not judges. "He jay-walked? DEATH PENALTY!!!"

JonInMiddleGA
05-02-2005, 07:24 AM
Really? So you you'd be against differing penalties for going 10 miles an hour over the speed limit versus 35? Or having a baggy of marajuana versus several tons? There shouldn't be some difference to the penalty for illegal steriods versus a substance found in cold medicine?


But there, at least, you appear to be talking about judicial differences, rather than differences set by the owner(s) of a private business.

If I've got, say, a "no-illegal-drug-use" policy in place at my business, I really don't give a damn if you're caught with heroin, crack, weed, or whatever - I'm going to fire your ass either way. What the courts do with you is their business, what I do with my business is, well, my business.

HomerJSimpson
05-02-2005, 02:41 PM
But there, at least, you appear to be talking about judicial differences, rather than differences set by the owner(s) of a private business.

If I've got, say, a "no-illegal-drug-use" policy in place at my business, I really don't give a damn if you're caught with heroin, crack, weed, or whatever - I'm going to fire your ass either way. What the courts do with you is their business, what I do with my business is, well, my business.

Right, but the problem here is a mix of illegal and legal substances. Common sense would say the punishment should be different between the two. One involves commiting a crime to be guilty of, the other could be as simple as a substance not be listed on a label.

Ksyrup
05-02-2005, 03:04 PM
The first "real" known player got suspended today: Juan Rincon of the Twins. Very important part of their bullpen for a couple of years now.

Ksyrup
05-02-2005, 03:07 PM
Selig has been talking about bigger penalties on steroid users for a while,
He has? Really? You mean the Bud Selig who went before Congress and said the policy in place deserves a chance and will work?

When he was challenged in front on Congress, he should have taken the challenge and put Fehr on the spot then and there. At least it wouldn't have looked so obvious and desperate.

Warhammer
05-02-2005, 03:07 PM
Right, but the problem here is a mix of illegal and legal substances. Common sense would say the punishment should be different between the two. One involves commiting a crime to be guilty of, the other could be as simple as a substance not be listed on a label.

Actually, what Jon in the Middle applies here. In this case, Selig's business is baseball. If he does not want to have any difference in punishment between the two offenses that is his business.

It is a lot like dress codes at work. No facial hair means no beard, moustace, and no long side burns.

ISiddiqui
05-02-2005, 04:22 PM
He has? Really? You mean the Bud Selig who went before Congress and said the policy in place deserves a chance and will work?

When he was challenged in front on Congress, he should have taken the challenge and put Fehr on the spot then and there. At least it wouldn't have looked so obvious and desperate.
Through the late 90s, Selig has been making noises about a steroid testing policy. They agreed to a policy with the union and went to defend it to Congress. Selig is just outlining a plan here. It REALLY wouldn't have gone over well if they agreed to a steroid policy and then Selig goes in front of Congress and rakes Fehr over the coals there. This way it ain't blatently showing up and embarassing anyone.

Ksyrup
05-02-2005, 04:45 PM
Yes, but according to those in the know, he lost significant face with the teams' front offices for failing to put it on Fehr, and now, he's just showing himself up. He's still putting Fehr on the spot one way or the other. And he could have very easily made the point that the current system is new and should be allowed to work, but that he'd have no problem agreeing to something stronger if the players would. If my memory serves me correctly, that's what each of the players agreed to when questioned, anyway (or something reasonably close to that).

HomerJSimpson
05-03-2005, 07:57 AM
Actually, what Jon in the Middle applies here. In this case, Selig's business is baseball. If he does not want to have any difference in punishment between the two offenses that is his business.

It is a lot like dress codes at work. No facial hair means no beard, moustace, and no long side burns.

Some how you and Jon both are missing what I am saying. I'm not saying what he has to do (legally are some such), I'm saying what he should do. I am in no way saying that has a private enterprise baseball HAS to show a difference between legal and illegal substances, but they SHOULD because the two are not the same. Again, one ties the employee (and baseball) in with a crime, the other does not.

Crapshoot
05-03-2005, 09:14 AM
Selig is essentialy a shit- nothing new there. I particularly enjoyed the character assasination by Tim Kurjikan and what not last night - reminded me why I don't watch BBTN anymore (him and the Krukster- grr...). Legal OTC supplements (which is what Rincon said he took) are hardly worthy of this drama.

SackAttack
05-03-2005, 11:49 AM
Right, but the problem here is a mix of illegal and legal substances. Common sense would say the punishment should be different between the two. One involves commiting a crime to be guilty of, the other could be as simple as a substance not be listed on a label.

Doesn't matter. The employer in any business has the right to set standards. You will not do such and such, and you will not use X, Y, or Z while under my employ.

Just because X is performance-enhancing and Z is recreational doesn't mean I'm going to be easier on you if you're breaking company policy with the latter rather than the former. If I've told you no steroids, no coke, and no marijuana, and I catch you using any of the three, I'm going to throw the book at you for being stupid enough to use a substance - ANY substance - that you were told is explicitly off limits.

HomerJSimpson
05-03-2005, 01:57 PM
Doesn't matter. The employer in any business has the right to set standards. You will not do such and such, and you will not use X, Y, or Z while under my employ.

Just because X is performance-enhancing and Z is recreational doesn't mean I'm going to be easier on you if you're breaking company policy with the latter rather than the former. If I've told you no steroids, no coke, and no marijuana, and I catch you using any of the three, I'm going to throw the book at you for being stupid enough to use a substance - ANY substance - that you were told is explicitly off limits.

Dude, again, where in the heck did I say her doesn't have a right? Can you please point to any statement I made that said he couldn't. I said he SHOULDN"T.

I think there is a big difference between taking illegal steriods and taking a cold medicine for the sniffles. The rule as written would suspend someone 50 days for either. That is STUPID! Again he CAN do so, because it is not illegal to be stupid (which is proven on this message board daily), but he SHOULD use his tiny brain and do what is right instead of just what he CAN do.

HomerJSimpson
05-03-2005, 02:01 PM
And just to make clear (thought it generally does not help), I'm not saying you shouldn't be punished for banned substances that are not illegal. The current rules should hold for those, and the higher level ban should be inplace for illegal substances.

judicial clerk
05-03-2005, 03:06 PM
Harold Reynolds said that amphetamine use is way more rampant than sterid use. I think that Selig is opening up a whole new can of worms by including this. of course, if you have to eat a shit sandwich, i guess it is better to eat it all at once rather than save half of it for left-over night.

Ksyrup
05-03-2005, 03:24 PM
Some interesting developments recently:

1. Tom House has come out saying he and approximately 7-8 pitchers on every team were using performance-enhancing drugs as far back as the mid-60's.

2. Juan Rincon becomes the 4th Hispanic/Latin American to test positive out of 5, and there are now cries that the list of banned substances wasn't given to these players in Spanish.