| 0 |
Subject: Senate hearing on Steroids
Posted by: Gary
- [3017299] Wed, Mar 10, 2004, 11:13
Senate hearing on Steroids is being screened on ESPN currently and Selig is speaking. |
| 1 | Gary
ID: 3017299
Wed, Mar 10, 2004, 11:49
|
Sorry, it is ESPNEWS that the hearing is being shown.
|
| 2 | BMBags
ID: 271331420
Wed, Mar 10, 2004, 12:07
|
So what is this senate hearing supposed to accomplish?
Can they force MLB to change their policies?
PS. I love how the senator from NH pronounced Selig as Sellig and he had no choice, but to just continue on and ignore it. rofl
|
| 3 | Ref
ID: 17259109
Wed, Mar 10, 2004, 12:23
|
With baseball's antitrust tag, perhaps they do have leverage to make them change it?
|
| 4 | Khahan
ID: 31201711
Wed, Mar 10, 2004, 14:22
|
I don't see where the government at any level feels they can dictate baseball's drug policy.
Its just not a government issue and is something government needs to stay out of.
If a baseball player is found using illegal steriods, he should face the same penalties any other person would under federal/state/local laws.
But outside of that, it is 100% up to baseball to decide what further action should be taken within the sport itself.
|
| 5 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Wed, Mar 10, 2004, 14:30
|
Khahan, it's because baseball has an antitrust exemption from the government. If baseball wanted to give that up (highly doubtful), I'm sure Congress would be more inclined to mind their own business about what rules baseball wanted to have or not have.
|
| 6 | Perm Dude
Dude
ID: 30792616
Wed, Mar 10, 2004, 14:31
|
I was just about to post that, KKB. Baseball's exemption means that Congress, pretty much whenever they want, can butt in.
|
| 7 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Mar 10, 2004, 17:48
|
KKB This is just a memory I haven't checked, but I believe that in the last labour agreement, MLB agreed that it 'would not oppose' any attempt by Congress to remove the anti-trust exemption, or some similar wording.
Toral
|
| 8 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Wed, Mar 10, 2004, 18:45
|
Toral, as recently as last year, MLB was far in favor of keeping antitrust status on the basis that they could contract teams, amongst other things.
|
| 9 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Wed, Mar 10, 2004, 23:59
|
Congress just said today that you either do something or we will. Selig said baseball wants to do the stricter NFL-like tests that that league and their player union agree on but the MLB player union will not do so.
|
| 10 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 3333014
Sat, Apr 30, 2005, 17:14
|
Selig getting tough? Sure looks like it, IMHO.
Selig calls on player's union to accept "three strikes and you're out" steroid policy. He's also calling for more frequent random tests, an independent person to administer the tests, as well as a ban on amphetamines (currently only banned at the minor league level).
If nothing else, he's certainly putting pressure on the player's union and if they don't accept the proposals, the fans might begin to turn on them.
|
| 11 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Mon, May 02, 2005, 13:48
|
Juan Rincon of all people got caught using steroids! I can't believe the union will accept Selig's proposal, but if they do, that should go a long way toward ridding the game of them.
Of course there will be a few that think they have to use them or won't be playing at all and will take that chance, but for the most part, it should take care of the issue with the prominant players I'd think.
Selig is going to look good either way by going public and the union will look bad if they don't accept it. Selig must have hired a better assistant, because this is the first time I can remember him doing something bright in awhile. There may have been a time since the retiring of #42 in all of baseball, but I just can't seem to remember it.
|
| 12 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 392542110
Mon, May 02, 2005, 14:03
|
Rincon is the biggest name yet to test positive...maybe not a big name to the general public but a decent fantasy player.
I think the new proposal by Selig is a good move. Puts the pressure back on the players union to explain why they won't accept it. This is really the time to try and get something done as they are under the microscope and it will be very difficult for the union to turn down a reasonable plan.
While a lot of people thought the congressional hearing was worthless, I do not think any of these plans that the major sports leagues are now submitting would have been submitted without that pressure.
|
| 13 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 392542110
Tue, May 03, 2005, 17:36
|
Interesting admission from Tom House today that MLB players were using steroids as early as the 60s and 70s. If what he says is true the numbers from the current crop of players (90s - 00s) become a little more valid though they are probably still inflated over previous eras because of the improvements of recent PEDs.
If professional sports are completely cleaned up I wonder if we see a decline across the board in offensive numbers, records, size of the players, etc...? My feeling is steroid use is still wide spread and players know what drugs to take and when to take them to not be detected. I really suspect the NFL where the recent crop of players are just head shoulders larger than their predecessors. 20 years ago William "The Fridge" Perry was thought of as a freak show and now he would barely be an average lineman.
|
| 14 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Tue, May 03, 2005, 18:59
|
The interesting thing about his admission is that HGH and steroids were wide spread among pitchers.
Might be a wash.
|
| 15 | KrazyKoalaBears
Leader
ID: 517553018
Tue, May 03, 2005, 21:31
|
Juan Rincon: "What I can share with you today is that I would never knowingly compromise my position within Major League Baseball or jeopardize my relationship with the Minnesota Twins organization or the relationships that I enjoy with my teammates."
Gee, where have I heard that line before? Oh, that's right, from pretty much everybody who has tested positive to date. Do these players really think the public is buying this crap that it's all just a big mistake? That they took something they didn't know was illegal? If so, then they're dumber than I previously thought.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|