Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Carlos Gomez speaks out on drug testing

  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#21 Carole Keller

Carole Keller

    It’s all in the eyes of the beholder.

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,527 posts

Posted 30 May 2018 - 07:12 PM

You clamored for a quota and truly randomized dates. I guess you've changed your mind. The point I made still holds, if somebody hits their test early, even in a 2 month window, they now have a large chunk of time in which they can use. The whole point of resetting the pool and using randomized testing is that there isn't a time where a player is certain to not be tested. 
 
BTW MLB is pushing 10K tests a year so this idea of a "gaping policy," just isn't true.


Again, you’ve missed the point, unsurprisingly.

“May we teach our children that speaking out without the fear of retribution is our culture’s new north star.” ~Laura Dern
 


#22 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,641 posts

Posted 30 May 2018 - 07:27 PM

 

Again, you’ve missed the point, unsurprisingly.

You said you wanted each player tested the same number of times but randomly. I pointed out that a quota sets a scenario in which players can go extended periods of time where the threat of a test is non-existent.

 

Now you want a test sometime every 2 months, which again leads to situations of extended time where players don't have to worry about testing if they hit and early date. 

 

Oh and to boot, the current testing is apparently a sieve despite of the thousands of tests that occur throughout the year. 

 

Yeah, must be me......

  • laloesch and SF Twins Fan like this

#23 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 15,630 posts

Posted 30 May 2018 - 07:32 PM

 

You said you wanted each player tested the same number of times but randomly. I pointed out that a quota sets a scenario in which players can go extended periods of time where the threat of a test is non-existent.

 

Now you want a test sometime every 2 months, which again leads to situations of extended time where players don't have to worry about testing if they hit and early date. 

 

Oh and to boot, the current testing is apparently a sieve despite of the thousands of tests that occur throughout the year. 

 

Yeah, must be me......

 

I think the point is to make it less randomly unfair/inconsistent.(Or at least seem that way to players) I'm sure there is a way to bridge that gap and keep the testing effective.

  • Carole Keller likes this

#24 Carole Keller

Carole Keller

    It’s all in the eyes of the beholder.

  • Twins Mods
  • 21,527 posts

Posted 30 May 2018 - 07:36 PM

I think the point is to make it less randomly unfair/inconsistent.(Or at least seem that way to players) I'm sure there is a way to bridge that gap and keep the testing effective.


That was the point ... fair and effective. I just threw something out there as an example and of course it has flaws, but it can’t be that difficult to find a way that everyone is tested equally and fairly that makes testing effective.

“May we teach our children that speaking out without the fear of retribution is our culture’s new north star.” ~Laura Dern
 


#25 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,641 posts

Posted 30 May 2018 - 07:55 PM

 

I think the point is to make it less randomly unfair/inconsistent.(Or at least seem that way to players) I'm sure there is a way to bridge that gap and keep the testing effective.

It might seem that way to some players, but in reality I don't know how much more "fair," it can get other than each individual have the exact same likelihood of being randomly selected every time a test is administered. 

 

I don't particularly want to go down the "fairness," road, but there's a definite advantage to having 2 months, or any extended amount of time, in which you know you won't be subject to testing. That should be obvious. 

 

You can work on a time frame rather than a completely randomized schedule, and I said as much in my OP, but the frequency would have to increase significantly to avoid the flaws above. I'm not sure it's feasible and/or worthwhile.  

  • USAFChief, laloesch, SF Twins Fan and 1 other like this

#26 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 15,630 posts

Posted 30 May 2018 - 08:23 PM

 

It might seem that way to some players, but in reality I don't know how much more "fair," it can get other than each individual have the exact same likelihood of being randomly selected every time a test is administered. 

 

I don't particularly want to go down the "fairness," road, but there's a definite advantage to having 2 months, or any extended amount of time, in which you know you won't be subject to testing. That should be obvious. 

 

You can work on a time frame rather than a completely randomized schedule, and I said as much in my OP, but the frequency would have to increase significantly to avoid the flaws above. I'm not sure it's feasible and/or worthwhile.  

 

It would seem to me, that if you're going to do it at all, that you should do it in the most fair, consistent, and worthwhile way you can.If increasing the frequency accomplishes that, it should be worth it to the league.Now, whether the union accepts that or not I don't know, but the current system asks for this kind of controversy.

 

And there are absolutely ways to avoid it if the league is willing to pursue them.  

  • Carole Keller likes this

#27 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,641 posts

Posted 30 May 2018 - 09:35 PM

 

It would seem to me, that if you're going to do it at all, that you should do it in the most fair, consistent, and worthwhile way you can.If increasing the frequency accomplishes that, it should be worth it to the league.Now, whether the union accepts that or not I don't know, but the current system asks for this kind of controversy.

 

And there are absolutely ways to avoid it if the league is willing to pursue them.  

Agreed about the MLBPA being a hurdle. I think there are also ethical and cost efficiency issues as well. Two players served PED suspensions last year. So far 3 players have been suspended this season. We're talking about 10K + tests being administered and only a small handful of suspensions handed out. At what point does ramping up the frequency of testing to weekly, biweekly, or whatever period become nothing but an added financial burden to ownership and an unnecessary invasion into the lives of players? Even if that was the decision moving forward we're still dealing with some drugs that show elevated levels for short periods of time, hence we're right back to the issue I had with fixed interval testing. IMO the current system seems to be working. 


#28 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 15,630 posts

Posted 30 May 2018 - 09:41 PM

I guess I don't consider "cost efficiency" an issue.If the league and the players actually care about this issue that is.

 

Both express publicly that they do, so I guess I don't see the concerns you raise as being valid.Unless (and I admit this is certainly possible) both sides are perfectly content to seem like they care and institute a system that doesn't actually do much.

  • Carole Keller and SF Twins Fan like this

#29 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 22,153 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 31 May 2018 - 07:22 AM

 

It would seem to me, that if you're going to do it at all, that you should do it in the most fair, consistent, and worthwhile way you can.If increasing the frequency accomplishes that, it should be worth it to the league.Now, whether the union accepts that or not I don't know, but the current system asks for this kind of controversy.

 

And there are absolutely ways to avoid it if the league is willing to pursue them.  

This stuff has been studied, and implemented in many different organizations, and types of structures.

 

"Random" is the best method. And "random" is just that--random. 

 

Besides which, the current program is collectively bargained.

 

This is just stupid sour grapes by Gomez. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one--more Dominican players have tested positive, because they were using.

  • ashburyjohn, nicksaviking, SF Twins Fan and 2 others like this

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#30 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 15,630 posts

Posted 31 May 2018 - 07:42 AM

 

This stuff has been studied, and implemented in many different organizations, and types of structures.

 

"Random" is the best method. And "random" is just that--random. 

 

Besides which, the current program is collectively bargained.

 

This is just stupid sour grapes by Gomez. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one--more Dominican players have tested positive, because they were using.

 

I'm not justifying Gomez's accusation, I think it's probably baseless.But you open yourself up to these sorts of things with this system.  

 

If the frequency was much, much higher for everyone....what's the downside?I know cost is a concern, but it shouldn't be for MLB.Is that the only one?


#31 jimmer

jimmer

    A former AF SNCO who values integrity.

  • Members
  • 10,212 posts

Posted 31 May 2018 - 07:55 AM

I remember getting 'randomly' drug tested on the Monday following my weekend trip to Amsterdam...

Edited by jimmer, 31 May 2018 - 07:55 AM.

  • ashburyjohn and big dog like this

#32 gunnarthor

gunnarthor

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 9,365 posts

Posted 31 May 2018 - 08:01 AM

 

I remember getting 'randomly' drug tested on the Monday following my weekend trip to Amsterdam...

Slightly off topic but the only time I've been randomly selected for anything was when I followed a Somali guy threw airport security a few months after 9/11. The TSA agent told him he was being pulled over for a random inspection and the way he slumped his shoulders indicated that it wasn't the first time he'd been randomly selected. The TSA agent then quickly looked at me and said "you're getting picked too." I got through the secondary screening faster than the Somali guy.

  • ashburyjohn, big dog, IndianaTwin and 1 other like this

#33 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,187 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 31 May 2018 - 08:44 AM

My assumption is that doing random testing is to save time and money over testing everyone all the time. I think the best thing is to determine how long after use of PED a test will detect it, then test EVERY player that frequently, and do it year round. Yes, it takes more time. Yes, it costs more. Yes, it's way more incovenient for everyone. But it seems to me to be the only fair way to catch every cheater.

#34 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,641 posts

Posted 31 May 2018 - 10:14 AM

 

I guess I don't consider "cost efficiency" an issue.If the league and the players actually care about this issue that is.

 

Both express publicly that they do, so I guess I don't see the concerns you raise as being valid.Unless (and I admit this is certainly possible) both sides are perfectly content to seem like they care and institute a system that doesn't actually do much.

Two players served PED suspensions last year, and over ten thousand tests were administered. Does that number have to be 0 before we can say MLB and the players "care," about PEDs?

 

Don't you think it's a bit fallacious to say that "if they actually care they'll just increase testing?" To me that sounds a lot like the "if you don't have anything to hide, why are you worried about information security," line that is floated around when the topic of data mining/spying comes up. 

  • Craig Arko and Tomj14 like this

#35 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 15,630 posts

Posted 31 May 2018 - 10:53 AM

Two players served PED suspensions last year, and over ten thousand tests were administered. Does that number have to be 0 before we can say MLB and the players "care," about PEDs?
 
Don't you think it's a bit fallacious to say that "if they actually care they'll just increase testing?" To me that sounds a lot like the "if you don't have anything to hide, why are you worried about information security," line that is floated around when the topic of data mining/spying comes up.


Firstly I stand on firm ground having suspicions about how seriously major-league baseball cares about performance enhancers. We know they turned a blind eye for long periods of time in the past so let’s not give them some kind of nobility on this issue. And we certainly know the players don’t deserve any nobility.

Second the fallacy is not a fallacy because your analogy doesn’t fit. There are many extra ramifications to invasion of privacy of your information that don’t exist here. This is simply about drug testing and we’re talking about doing the same thing that is already been approved (by all) just with more frequency and consistency in order to remove any suspicions of malfeasance. This is not a slippery slope into invasion of privacy as your analogy indicates, it’s simply expanding the program to make it appear (or be) less directed.

#36 USAFChief

USAFChief

    Anyone got a smoke?

  • Twins Mods
  • 22,153 posts
  • LocationTucson

Posted 31 May 2018 - 12:27 PM

 

Firstly I stand on firm ground having suspicions about how seriously major-league baseball cares about performance enhancers. We know they turned a blind eye for long periods of time in the past so let’s not give them some kind of nobility on this issue. And we certainly know the players don’t deserve any nobility.

Second the fallacy is not a fallacy because your analogy doesn’t fit. There are many extra ramifications to invasion of privacy of your information that don’t exist here. This is simply about drug testing and we’re talking about doing the same thing that is already been approved (by all) just with more frequency and consistency in order to remove any suspicions of malfeasance. This is not a slippery slope into invasion of privacy as your analogy indicates, it’s simply expanding the program to make it appear (or be) less directed.

Remind me again why it appears (or is) directed.

Cutting my carbs...with a pizza slicer.


#37 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 15,630 posts

Posted 31 May 2018 - 01:26 PM

 

Remind me again why it appears (or is) directed.

 

That might be completely perception bias But I don't know. I know there are plenty of other places in which it is said that screenings are random, but they really aren't.(see: TSA)

 

And I don't even care if they are random or not, but ifthe only obstacle to assuring players that the system is fair is money, than i don't know why we are protecting the league's pocketbook.Seems like a small price to ensure integrity and fairness.


#38 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,641 posts

Posted 31 May 2018 - 01:28 PM

 

Firstly I stand on firm ground having suspicions about how seriously major-league baseball cares about performance enhancers. We know they turned a blind eye for long periods of time in the past so let’s not give them some kind of nobility on this issue. And we certainly know the players don’t deserve any nobility.

Second the fallacy is not a fallacy because your analogy doesn’t fit. There are many extra ramifications to invasion of privacy of your information that don’t exist here. This is simply about drug testing and we’re talking about doing the same thing that is already been approved (by all) just with more frequency and consistency in order to remove any suspicions of malfeasance. This is not a slippery slope into invasion of privacy as your analogy indicates, it’s simply expanding the program to make it appear (or be) less directed.

I'm not trying to portray either side as pious or absolve them of any past transgressions. 

 

Maybe it was a poor analogy. The implication wasn't that the invasion of privacy is on the same level, or that increased testing is some slippery slope, rather, it was to show that the underlying idea or driving force behind both is essentially the same. Extreme parameters are being set and a failure to meet them or comply is grounds for suspicion or admonishment. I disagree with that logic.  


#39 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Members
  • 15,630 posts

Posted 31 May 2018 - 01:37 PM

Good thing no extreme parameters are being set, so your concern is unwarranted.  

 

I'm still genuinely curious if anyone can tell me what harm (other than money)there would be an expanding the program. Just increase the frequency and guarantee that all players will have a minimum number of test during the year. They may have more but they will have at least a certain number. What would that cost other than money?

Edited by TheLeviathan, 31 May 2018 - 01:39 PM.

  • Nine of twelve likes this

#40 KirbyDome89

KirbyDome89

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,641 posts

Posted 31 May 2018 - 09:31 PM

Two tests out of 10K + were positive for PEDs last season. Two! Yet anything short of a significant increase in testing means the players and owners "don't care?" These tests "don't do much?"

 

IMO those are extreme notions. 

 

 

  • Tomj14 likes this