MLB to introduce new drug testing policy

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1965565



I wonder what the players will want in return come CBA time.

Good.

About time somebody kicked some ass.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1965565



I wonder what the players will want in return come CBA time.
probably nothing. the federal government threatened to come down hard on the union on this one so they didn't have any leverage.

Its about time. :handclap:

it is a very strong step in the right direction -- and nice to see a player get suspended after his first offense and not his 5th

I would like to see longer suspensions for the first, second and third offense, but the fact that these players will be publicly identified is good enough for now.

this is essentially the equivalent of the nfl system isn't it?

This is good. Now let's see what happens to those over inflated stats in the next few years.

This is crap. No, actually, it's worse than crap, because at least with crap you can grow something for the future. As an equivalent punishment for our forum, might I propose the following punishments for foul language or overall stupidity:

Scratch that second one, I don't want to be alone...

(Stan gets off a good one! Aw, I'm just joshin'. Hey, I'm allowed every now and then, right?)

Seriously, here would be the crimes for inappropriate language:

1st offense: one minute ban
2nd offense: two minute ban
3rd offense: six minute ban (the factorial increase starts to pay dividends here)
4th offense: one hour ban, disallowed from using smilies for one week

-------------------------------------

Actually, I'm getting a little carried away. Perhaps it is a step in the proper direction if nothing else. The suspensions might be a tap on the wrist, but I don't think any player wants a scarlet letter on their door. I suppose I don't understand steroids as well as I should to have such a strong opinion. If we were talking about something in which a player is believed to gain a temporary competitive advantage, perhaps I could see the validity in policing its use. Corking a bat is a temporary competitive advantage. Putting an emory board in your glove is a temporary competitive advantage. As I understand (subjective statement alert), using steroids is cumulative. Is a steroid user going to regress when he stops using? It doesn't appear so.

Note I've made a couple of presumptions here: 1) I'd need a professional opinion on the short-term advantages of steroid use, and 2) that any perceived advantages are indeed advantages. For example, a certain player might be more muscular, but that doesn't mean he's better than he was previously - conventional wisdom has dictated so and weaponomega is on board, but how do we know for certain that steroids improve performance? Because a player is physically larger? Since when do physically larger players become better hitters? Why does anybody believe that? Because it seems like it must be true, or because we've observed it's true? Your best friend might have a smile on his face, but you don't know if it's because he had sex last month, ran over the cat on his way in, or just heard a funny joke. It's too hard to quantify the net impact of residual steroid use on the game.

Furthermore, how random is "random" in regard to the frequency of the test? Will these tests detect historical use or simply short-term use? How short is "short-term?" It seems that the frequency of the tests should be at least shorter than the duration which steroids are present in urine at concentrations detectable in laboratory analyses. I don't think these are unimportant questions.

Stanley, this is essentially on par with the nfl, and nobody has criticized them, and the nhl has no testing at all.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1966196

there is a chart comparison. Slap on the wrist my ass. The NHL is in the stone age still, and the nba is what i call a slap on the wrist. MLB and NFL are on essentially the same page and I'll bet you dollars to donuts steroid use is far more frequent in the nfl than in baseball. Its just that baseball has a special place among the people's hearts that no other sport in north america can occupy, and because of this people care a lot more. This is why baseball faces more scrutiny than any other sport on any topic.

Still no testing for amphetemines or human growth horomones, just means the players switch from one type of steroid to the other. What a crock. It's going to take 4 times before a player gets suspended for a year? What kind of crap is that? Bud Selig can talk about a "zero-tolerance" policy all he wants but he knows well and good just who and how many players are on steroids and he's afraid of losing big name players. It's funny how FIFA and the european soccer leagues have the World Anti-Doping Agency breathing down their neck to test for anything and everything. (9 month bans for cocaine use on the first use, missing a test is as good as a positive) Yet they don't seem to care about any of the American sports such as the NFL or MLB.

Stanley, this is essentially on par with the nfl, and nobody has criticized them, and the nhl has no testing at all.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1966196

there is a chart comparison. Slap on the wrist my ass. The NHL is in the stone age still, and the nba is what i call a slap on the wrist. MLB and NFL are on essentially the same page and I'll bet you dollars to donuts steroid use is far more frequent in the nfl than in baseball. Its just that baseball has a special place among the people's hearts that no other sport in north america can occupy, and because of this people care a lot more. This is why baseball faces more scrutiny than any other sport on any topic.
FOTS,
I didn't give the NFL policy an iota of thought, and quite frankly, I'd be a little alarmed if MLB's new policy was dictated by the policies in another sport without a full understanding of what it is they're trying to measure. If I were MLB, I could see the value of having a comparison to another sport's testing policy, from a perception standpoint.

Regardless, I have many unanswered questions about steroids, and they're not at all related to the sport. Where can I get some? Uh,...I mean, how to they affect the body? How long are they persistent? Can laboratory analyses determine the difference between regular and "recreational" use?

I know well-meaning fellow posters will supply spot answers to these questions, but know that the questions are mostly rhetorical in nature, to show that we're really buying the cow presuming but not knowing if it will produce milk. Advising me that steroids make people really ripped doesn't help, but thanks in advance fellow board members (trying to cut off mundane responses at the pass).

It's an improvement but it's not that much:

Stricter penalties - if you don't get caught, who cares? also it takes four positive tests to be suspended for 1 year...

Year-round random testing - it's still only a minimum of 1 time a year, spread over 12 months.

Testing for more substances- it's called keeping up with the times... and they won't test the latest either.

It's something, which is about all that can be said about it. It's better than nothing, but its a weak test that doesn't even detect amphetamines or some kinds of steroids. Those that use steroids than can be detected will just switch. This is a political move more than anything, since congress was threatening to get involved.

Still no testing for amphetemines or human growth horomones, just means the players switch from one type of steroid to the other. What a crock. It's going to take 4 times before a player gets suspended for a year? What kind of crap is that? Bud Selig can talk about a "zero-tolerance" policy all he wants but he knows well and good just who and how many players are on steroids and he's afraid of losing big name players. It's funny how FIFA and the european soccer leagues have the World Anti-Doping Agency breathing down their neck to test for anything and everything. (9 month bans for cocaine use on the first use, missing a test is as good as a positive) Yet they don't seem to care about any of the American sports such as the NFL or MLB.
thats because american sports don't give a crap about them.