Friday, January 14, 2005
Just Say No
Before John McCain had a chance to dial up his righteous indignation, MLB and the MLBPA agreed to a tougher drug policy. Of course, just about anything is going to be tougher than what they had. The three big improvements, as I see it, are an actual suspension for a first positive test, year-round, random tests, and the inclusion of HGH, steroid precursors, and masking agents.
La Russa was quoted on NPR this morning, saying this is the "Cadillac" of professional sports' drug policies. Weeelll, sort of. Yes, a positive test results in a ten-day suspension, which is probably about eight games. The NFL's first positive test punishment is a four game suspension (minimum) and the NBA is five games. But the NFL has a 16-game regular season. At the very least, a player is out for 25% of the year. The NBA's season is half as long as MLB's, and the suspension works out to six percent of the regular season. A first positive test in Baseball results in a suspension for about five percent of games. Now, if this were the high jump, you'd be looking at a two year suspension. And if you're in the NHL, well, they just don't care.
As I've said before, the worst punishment is public humiliation. Who wants to be known as the first guy suspended for steroids? According to Jayson Stark, Selig could commute the suspension to a fine and not "out" the player. Although, I can't imagine that word of a fine wouldn't somehow leak, and then MLB would be in a world of hurt. The players will probably police themselves more with the threat of being labeled "A CHEATER" hanging over their heads than losing a few thousand dollars (see: Moss, Randy).
Under the previous agreement, each player was tested once a year (start of Spring Training though the end of the season). In 2003, the tests were anonymous-only if more than five percent of players tested positive would the rest of the agreement kick in. (I remember hearing that some White Sox wanted to refuse to take the test, thus driving up the percentage of positives, to ensure the policy was put into effect. I guess the union wasn't listening to them back then.) Of course, the five percent threshold was met and last year was the first year of identifiable testing. The problem was, the players more or less knew when they were going to be tested, and once they were, they could just start using again. The year-round tests are a vast improvement over once-per-season, "telegraphed" testing. Most players will still be tested just once a year, but hopefully, it really is unannounced.
Human Growth Hormone is finally on the banned substances list. But, see, it's a hormone. Everybody has it in their system already. And there's not a reliable test for it. Nice gesture, though. And there's nothing re: stimulants. I'm sure there's a difference between No-Doz and Greenies, but since I get the shakes after one cup of coffee, I'm not the most qualified person to talk about uppers. MLB is going to have it's work cut out; there's always going to be some chemist in a lab, cooking something up. Maybe they should contact Victor Conte-if you want to catch a cheater, hire one.
Finally, how far off base was union leadership? I have to wonder if some players aren't seriously questioning Don Fehr and Gene Orza's motivations for ignoring the majority of their constituency. Why bother having an advocate if he won't act in your best interest?
So, what's the over/under on how many pitchers lose velocity next year?
La Russa was quoted on NPR this morning, saying this is the "Cadillac" of professional sports' drug policies. Weeelll, sort of. Yes, a positive test results in a ten-day suspension, which is probably about eight games. The NFL's first positive test punishment is a four game suspension (minimum) and the NBA is five games. But the NFL has a 16-game regular season. At the very least, a player is out for 25% of the year. The NBA's season is half as long as MLB's, and the suspension works out to six percent of the regular season. A first positive test in Baseball results in a suspension for about five percent of games. Now, if this were the high jump, you'd be looking at a two year suspension. And if you're in the NHL, well, they just don't care.
As I've said before, the worst punishment is public humiliation. Who wants to be known as the first guy suspended for steroids? According to Jayson Stark, Selig could commute the suspension to a fine and not "out" the player. Although, I can't imagine that word of a fine wouldn't somehow leak, and then MLB would be in a world of hurt. The players will probably police themselves more with the threat of being labeled "A CHEATER" hanging over their heads than losing a few thousand dollars (see: Moss, Randy).
Under the previous agreement, each player was tested once a year (start of Spring Training though the end of the season). In 2003, the tests were anonymous-only if more than five percent of players tested positive would the rest of the agreement kick in. (I remember hearing that some White Sox wanted to refuse to take the test, thus driving up the percentage of positives, to ensure the policy was put into effect. I guess the union wasn't listening to them back then.) Of course, the five percent threshold was met and last year was the first year of identifiable testing. The problem was, the players more or less knew when they were going to be tested, and once they were, they could just start using again. The year-round tests are a vast improvement over once-per-season, "telegraphed" testing. Most players will still be tested just once a year, but hopefully, it really is unannounced.
Human Growth Hormone is finally on the banned substances list. But, see, it's a hormone. Everybody has it in their system already. And there's not a reliable test for it. Nice gesture, though. And there's nothing re: stimulants. I'm sure there's a difference between No-Doz and Greenies, but since I get the shakes after one cup of coffee, I'm not the most qualified person to talk about uppers. MLB is going to have it's work cut out; there's always going to be some chemist in a lab, cooking something up. Maybe they should contact Victor Conte-if you want to catch a cheater, hire one.
Finally, how far off base was union leadership? I have to wonder if some players aren't seriously questioning Don Fehr and Gene Orza's motivations for ignoring the majority of their constituency. Why bother having an advocate if he won't act in your best interest?
So, what's the over/under on how many pitchers lose velocity next year?
