A- Rod admits to steroid use in 2003

[Moranis]

The baseball HOF is a museum that chronicles the history of baseball. Steroids, for better or worse, are part of that history. The appropriate measure is not to bury baseball's head in the sand and forget that Bonds, ARod, Rose, or whoever simply didn't exist. They should be in there, warts and all, and let the public decide how to view them. The only fair way to do the Hall of Fame is to let all that would qualify and put them in a separate wing or something. They'd have to make some notation about the era in the organization of the Hall.

If they played in the 90s and 00s, they should be in with the caveat that "this was the era that encouraged the proliferation of performance-enhancing substances. View accomplishments with that in mind" etc. or something like it.

The HoF is for the most talented members of the sport.  If you are cheating to become that, then you shouldnt be rewarded. Tainted numbers dont belong among the clean ones. and while you may not be able to determine all of the dirty athletes, you should be able to exclude the dirty members that you can identify

As the famous quote goes, "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying."  And for the record, steroids were not illegal in the sport of baseball until the Union agreed that they should be banned and tested, which just so happens to be after ARod's admitted usage.

Uh...Some of the steroids used WERE ILLEGAL IN THE US. That means illegal in the game of baseball.

HGH on the other hand, is illegal without the proper prescriptions. 

The steroids that A-Rod took are not legal in the US.  They are not legally sold here. Thus, they were illegal

It doesn't matter if the drugs were illegal in the eyes of the Law, because MLB didn't care to punish its players.

It wasn't illegal in the eyes of MLB, and that's all that mattered at the time during the steroid era.

exactly.  It is illegal to drive over the speed limit, I guess that means it is illegal to drive over the speed limit in the NFL, yet somehow you don't see players suspended for getting speeding tickets.  And yes I realize speeding has nothing to do with the actual field of play, I was just using a very simple analogy to prove the point.  It also works the other way, drinking alcohol is not illegal, yet if a player showed up drunk to a game he would likely be fined and suspended because it is illegal in the sport.

Steroids have been specifically prohibited by baseball since 1991.

    On June 7, 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team and the players union that stated: "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids." The seven-page document didn't cover random testing -- that had to be bargained with the union -- but it did outline treatment and penalties.

MLB Commissioner Bud Selig reissued the policy in 1997. 

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/06/steroids-in-bas.html

The employer can't unilaterally implement employment rules in a collective bargaining setting.  Until both sides agreed, they couldn't be banned.  I have no doubt the commissioner wanted and tried for years to ban steroids, but it wasn't until the testing in 2003 that the Union finally caved and it was thereafter that steroids were banned by the sport.

[Bankshot]

These people that actually believe what A-Rod said in his interview about only taking PED's from 2001-2003 are adorable.

Yup.  He said he took them because of all the pressure playing in Texas and having to live up to that fat contract. Well Texas is not a high pressure place to play.  Wouldn't you think there would be even more pressure playing in New York with an even bigger contract?  I believe he took something (HGH?) while in NY too.  Makes sense when you think about his "pressure" excuse.

[BballTim]

Steroids have been specifically prohibited by baseball since 1991.

    On June 7, 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team and the players union that stated: "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids." The seven-page document didn't cover random testing -- that had to be bargained with the union -- but it did outline treatment and penalties.

MLB Commissioner Bud Selig reissued the policy in 1997. 

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/06/steroids-in-bas.html

The employer can't unilaterally implement employment rules in a collective bargaining setting.  Until both sides agreed, they couldn't be banned.  I have no doubt the commissioner wanted and tried for years to ban steroids, but it wasn't until the testing in 2003 that the Union finally caved and it was thereafter that steroids were banned by the sport.

  That statement didn't sound like he was implementing a new rule, he was just explaining the league's view of an existing rule. If illegal drugs were already prohibited and there was no distinction such as "non performance-enhancing illegal drugs are prohibited" then illegally possessed steroids were banned from the time the illegal drug ban went into effect.

  Of course, I'm no lawyer. That's just my interpretation.

[Brickowski]

Didn't the league agree with the union that the 2003 drug testing would be "anonymous?"

So folks think that MLB should have violated that agreement and turned over the names of the 103 baddies to the appropriate authorities for criminal prosecution?  That would have beeen great for business LOL-- quite apart from the fact that MLBPA's leadership would have hit the roof and there would have been no further union cooperation in the league's belated attempt to ban steriods and HGH.

You don't mess with the MLBPA.  It is by far the strongest of the players' unions, thanks to Marvin Miller and others.  Baseball also has the most to loose from excessive meddling by the government: the reserve clause.

[crownsy]

Didn't the league agree with the union that the 2003 drug testing would be "anonymous?"

So folks think that MLB should have violated that agreement and turned over the names of the 103 baddies to the appropriate authorities for criminal prosecution?  That would have beeen great for business LOL-- quite apart from the fact that MLBPA's leadership would have hit the roof and there would have been no further union cooperation in the league's belated attempt to ban steriods and HGH.

You don't mess with the MLBPA.  It is by far the strongest of the players' unions, thanks to Marvin Miller and others.  Baseball also has the most to loose from excessive meddling by the government: the reserve clause.

brick, thats not exactly what happened, its kind of fasinating actually, i saw the whole chain of events yesterday on espn.

apperntly, the samples WERE anonymous, what they did was they did double blind testing, and assinged each guy at one lab a number, and at another a letter. these two labs were not allowed to contact each other (and in fact the report i saw suggested that neither knew the other one had run the same test), and thus no one knew who was who, as each lab had only one list.

The problem was two fold. Number one, for some reason the labs (who are independant labs, we'll get to that in a minute) didn't destroy the lists and samples as ordered by baseball and the MLBPA. this may have something to do with the, ummm.. shady practices both were involved in that we'll get into next.

So, at this point, the list and samples exist while they shouldn't, but no one has seen both lists so no one knows whos on it. they just see "sample A or 1" ect.

The problem came when BOTH labs got caught in the balco sting. The feds raided both labs, and found the two lists. They then put the two lists together, and came up with the names cross matched from both lists, something that should not have been possable. if one of the two labs haden't been dirty, or had followed orders to destroy even one of the lists, no one would know who was who.

But since the feds got both lists, something that was never supposed to happen, they easily cracked who was who, and told baseball and the MLBPA "hey, we have a list of x players who did steriods, and the raid was good. we wont release them unless we need them for trial however".

Now, as to who released it, I agree, Alex has a case against them. The only question is, how does he prove who leaked it? was it a fed source? the MLB? even the MLBPA?

But he defintly has a case if he can find someone to sue :/

[Moranis]

Steroids have been specifically prohibited by baseball since 1991.

    On June 7, 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team and the players union that stated: "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids." The seven-page document didn't cover random testing -- that had to be bargained with the union -- but it did outline treatment and penalties.

MLB Commissioner Bud Selig reissued the policy in 1997. 

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/06/steroids-in-bas.html

The employer can't unilaterally implement employment rules in a collective bargaining setting.  Until both sides agreed, they couldn't be banned.  I have no doubt the commissioner wanted and tried for years to ban steroids, but it wasn't until the testing in 2003 that the Union finally caved and it was thereafter that steroids were banned by the sport.

  That statement didn't sound like he was implementing a new rule, he was just explaining the league's view of an existing rule. If illegal drugs were already prohibited and there was no distinction such as "non performance-enhancing illegal drugs are prohibited" then illegally possessed steroids were banned from the time the illegal drug ban went into effect.

  Of course, I'm no lawyer. That's just my interpretation.

I don't see that as an interpretation of an existing rule at all, I believe it was a new policy that the Commish's office was trying to get enforced, it just could never get the Union to support it, so it wasn't formally adopted for over a decade.  Selig pushed incredibly hard to implement a steroid ban, he just didn't get lee way, until the CBA that was negotiated in the early 2000's was passed.  That CBA set up the anonymous test parameters, for which ARod was tested, and for which a high enough percentage of players failed to trigger an actual ban and testing program.  It wasn't until the Union agreed that steroids and other PED's were actually banned. 

[BballTim]

Steroids have been specifically prohibited by baseball since 1991.

    On June 7, 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team and the players union that stated: "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids." The seven-page document didn't cover random testing -- that had to be bargained with the union -- but it did outline treatment and penalties.

MLB Commissioner Bud Selig reissued the policy in 1997. 

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/06/steroids-in-bas.html

The employer can't unilaterally implement employment rules in a collective bargaining setting.  Until both sides agreed, they couldn't be banned.  I have no doubt the commissioner wanted and tried for years to ban steroids, but it wasn't until the testing in 2003 that the Union finally caved and it was thereafter that steroids were banned by the sport.

  That statement didn't sound like he was implementing a new rule, he was just explaining the league's view of an existing rule. If illegal drugs were already prohibited and there was no distinction such as "non performance-enhancing illegal drugs are prohibited" then illegally possessed steroids were banned from the time the illegal drug ban went into effect.

  Of course, I'm no lawyer. That's just my interpretation.

I don't see that as an interpretation of an existing rule at all, I believe it was a new policy that the Commish's office was trying to get enforced, it just could never get the Union to support it, so it wasn't formally adopted for over a decade.  Selig pushed incredibly hard to implement a steroid ban, he just didn't get lee way, until the CBA that was negotiated in the early 2000's was passed.  That CBA set up the anonymous test parameters, for which ARod was tested, and for which a high enough percentage of players failed to trigger an actual ban and testing program.  It wasn't until the Union agreed that steroids and other PED's were actually banned. 

  You might be right. My thought was that if illegal drugs were already banned, claiming that steroids were illegal drugs would mean that they were banned under existing rules. Kind of an end-around.

[Moranis]

Steroids have been specifically prohibited by baseball since 1991.

    On June 7, 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team and the players union that stated: "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids." The seven-page document didn't cover random testing -- that had to be bargained with the union -- but it did outline treatment and penalties.

MLB Commissioner Bud Selig reissued the policy in 1997. 

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/06/steroids-in-bas.html

The employer can't unilaterally implement employment rules in a collective bargaining setting.  Until both sides agreed, they couldn't be banned.  I have no doubt the commissioner wanted and tried for years to ban steroids, but it wasn't until the testing in 2003 that the Union finally caved and it was thereafter that steroids were banned by the sport.

  That statement didn't sound like he was implementing a new rule, he was just explaining the league's view of an existing rule. If illegal drugs were already prohibited and there was no distinction such as "non performance-enhancing illegal drugs are prohibited" then illegally possessed steroids were banned from the time the illegal drug ban went into effect.

  Of course, I'm no lawyer. That's just my interpretation.

I don't see that as an interpretation of an existing rule at all, I believe it was a new policy that the Commish's office was trying to get enforced, it just could never get the Union to support it, so it wasn't formally adopted for over a decade.  Selig pushed incredibly hard to implement a steroid ban, he just didn't get lee way, until the CBA that was negotiated in the early 2000's was passed.  That CBA set up the anonymous test parameters, for which ARod was tested, and for which a high enough percentage of players failed to trigger an actual ban and testing program.  It wasn't until the Union agreed that steroids and other PED's were actually banned. 

  You might be right. My thought was that if illegal drugs were already banned, claiming that steroids were illegal drugs would mean that they were banned under existing rules. Kind of an end-around.

Gooden was suspended for cocaine use in the mid-90's, so perhaps you may be correct.  I think one of the big issues is a lot of the PED's and even steroids are not illegal (you just need a prescription, which isn't really that hard to get).  And thus the insertion of steroids into the existing drug policy just doesn't mesh.  Rules in collective bargaining settings have to be negotiated and inserted into the CBA.

[yall hate]

Gooden was suspended for cocaine use in the mid-90's, so perhaps you may be correct.  I think one of the big issues is a lot of the PED's and even steroids are not illegal (you just need a prescription, which isn't really that hard to get).  And thus the insertion of steroids into the existing drug policy just doesn't mesh.  Rules in collective bargaining settings have to be negotiated and inserted into the CBA.

Yea they arent hard to get.  Just ask Paul Byrd...a dentist gave him HGH.  that makes sense.

A-Rod's steroids were illegal though (not sold in US)

[Moranis]

Gooden was suspended for cocaine use in the mid-90's, so perhaps you may be correct.  I think one of the big issues is a lot of the PED's and even steroids are not illegal (you just need a prescription, which isn't really that hard to get).  And thus the insertion of steroids into the existing drug policy just doesn't mesh.  Rules in collective bargaining settings have to be negotiated and inserted into the CBA.

Yea they arent hard to get.  Just ask Paul Byrd...a dentist gave him HGH.  that makes sense.

A-Rod's steroids were illegal though (not sold in US)

you don't think ARod could have legally bought them in Canada, or whereever.  You see that is the problem with steroids, and drugs in general, they aren't illegal everywhere.  That is why the ban had to be negotiated with the Union and made a part of the C.B.A.  Steroids were not banned by baseball until that happened.