Dee Gordon PED suspension

[bluechipper]

 

so, it's not a moral issue, it's a rules issue. I agree on that......so if MLB made it legal, would it then be ok to take, HGH for example?

It is a moral issue because 1. you're breaking the rules and 2. you're taking drugs to artificially make yourself better, hurting the chances of those who want to play only by their natural abilities. Even if MLB made HGH legal, I'm sure there would still be mixed emotions by players on whether or not they felt morally right about taking drugs to artificially improve themselves.

[Thrylos]

Looks like the Twins might have a buyer for Dozier right now

[bluechipper]

 

Looks like the Twins might have a buyer for Dozier right now

I'd consider trading Dozier for Jose Fernandez. I'd probably want a couple prospects too though.

[Wookiee of the Year]

Just for kicks, I'll offer my thoughts on PEDs. Like Mike Sixel, I expect I'm in the minority.

 

As a first principle, I would note that athletes are aware of what the rules are, what they're not allowed to take, and what the penalties are, so if they violate a rule, they deserve the punishment.

 

In terms of what should be allowed, though, we have to acknowledge that what counts as a banned substance and what is allowed can be a pretty gray line. Things that are allowed include Tommy John surgery and Lasik, which are clearly artificial enhancements of ability, as well as cortisone injections, which are a steroid. I've read that several currently-prohibited PEDs could be taken with close medical supervision and administered in a way that would basically eliminate long-term ill health effects. There's no "bright line" that makes it obvious what's in and what's out.

 

So how do we draw that line? Well, who are we worried about being harmed? I agree that a level playing field is important, and I don't want any players to feel that need to take a drug with serious long-term ill health effects in order to keep up with the league. However, at the major league level, these guys all have access to professional trainers that could mitigate many of those long-term effects. It's really not the guys at the major league level I'm most worried about. Who I'm really concerned about is the college and high school athletes who think they need to start taking these drugs at an early age in order to cut it or to have any shot at playing professionally, the ones who can't afford personal trainers to closely monitor their regimens. It ultimately becomes a "please, think of the children" argument for me.

 

So where does that put us? I land with the view that if high school or college athletes have shown a proclivity for taking a substance that could have serious long-term negative health effects, it should be banned from the major league level on down. This presents a moving target--if high school athletes in the next few years start trying to administer Lasik in each other's basements and end up lasering each other blind, then we'd need to ban Lasik. That sounds crazy, but that's where I land. It presents a moving target and lives in that gray zone of "what's the difference between these things?", which I'm sure everyone will hate. But I can't come up with any other consistent position that protects against what I'm most worried about, which is widespread use by amateur athletes of substances or procedures that will help them "get ahead" in the short term, but will have vast negative health consequences down the line.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It is a moral issue because 1. you're breaking the rules and 2. you're taking drugs to artificially make yourself better, hurting the chances of those who want to play only by their natural abilities. Even if MLB made HGH legal, I'm sure there would still be mixed emotions by players on whether or not they felt morally right about taking drugs to artificially improve themselves.

 

But then it is their choice, isn't that what freedom is all about? If doctors say HGH is perfectly safe, we should all be taking it....would it then be ok? Is the line about health, or the line about some kind of "only hard work should matter" thing (which is not, I don't think, a moral argument).

 

breaking rules are ethical issues, not moral issues, btw......

[nicksaviking]

so, adults shouldn't be allowed to do things, because kids might?

 

You feel that way about alcohol? Or other legal activities?

Kids aren't told that they won't make the team or they will let their teammates down if the don't drink alcohol.

 

When it comes to protecting my kids, I really stop caring about what's fair.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Just for kicks, I'll offer my thoughts on PEDs. Like Mike Sixel, I expect I'm in the minority.

 

As a first principle, I .........

long-term negative health effects, it should be banned from the major league level on down. This presents a moving target--if high school athletes in the next few years start trying to administer Lasik in each other's basements and end up lasering each other blind, then we'd need to ban Lasik. That sounds crazy, but that's where I land. It presents a moving target and lives in that gray zone of "what's the difference between these things?", which I'm sure everyone will hate. But I can't come up with any other consistent position that protects against what I'm most worried about, which is widespread use by amateur athletes of substances or procedures that will help them "get ahead" in the short term, but will have vast negative health consequences down the line.

 

In fairness, I share this concern. But, I'm not big on banning activities for adults, that I don't want kids participating in. I'd 100% JAIL adults that provided items like this to kids, or condoned it, or whatever. Kids aren't adults, they don't technically always have a choice.

 

But, I'm not going to ban alcohol or pot or driving or whatever, just because I don't want kids doing it. I understand that not everyone will agree with this stance.

 

this isn't some whim stance, btw. I've thought a lot about stuff like this over the years, while watching my kids grow up, and watching parents trying to legislate protecting kids from all harm.......

[Mike Sixel]

 

Kids aren't told that they won't make the team or they will let their teammates down if the don't drink alcohol.

When it comes to protecting my kids, I really stop caring about what's fair.

 

So, no bike stunts, because they might get hurt doing what pros do? Where is your line, on what you'd outlaw for adults, so your kids don't copy them?

 

Like I said above, I'm not big on making things illegal for adults out of fear children will copy them......

[Shaitan]

Isn't there already an exemption if it's prescribed by a doctor? I know there is for stuff like ADHD meds anyway.

[big dog]

 

But then it is their choice, isn't that what freedom is all about? 

 

Kris Kristofferson and I believe that freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

 

Living in society has obligations that reduce your freedom, for various purposes.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Kris Kristofferson and I believe that freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

 

Living in society has obligations that reduce your freedom, for various purposes.

 

Isn't that what we are discussing, what is the line of what we want to "outlaw" and what we don't? I am going to assume you believe in some freedom......

[Dantes929]

Some may be harmless and if they simply kept the players on the field I doubt anyone would have a problem with any of it.     Performance Enhancing Drugs live up to the name of performing enhancing though and create and unfair advantage of those that use them vs those that do not.    Or does anyone think Bonds, Sosa and Mcquire would have hit 70 homers without the use.

[Willihammer]

Mike, you might remember that the entire impetus of the Congressional investigation into PED use in the first place, was because kids were taking PEDs just to keep up with the Jones's. One CDC report said half a million teens were using steroids. You might disagree with that in principle, but in practice allowing professionals to use PEDs sure seems to trickle down.

[Thrylos]

 

Some may be harmless and if they simply kept the players on the field I doubt anyone would have a problem with any of it.     Performance Enhancing Drugs live up to the name of performing enhancing though and create and unfair advantage of those that use them vs those that do not.    Or does anyone think Bonds, Sosa and Mcquire would have hit 70 homers without the use.

 

Unlike Dee Gordon, those 3 were never caught using.   Hank Aaron used PEDs as well (greenies) plus a whole other slew of athletes, including the Twins' current manager, if one wants to throw names.

 

The difference is that they were not illegal then.  They are now.  If you want to play baseball, you better not use.  That simple.  Some players still use and they risk it.  So be it.

[nicksaviking]

So, no bike stunts, because they might get hurt doing what pros do? Where is your line, on what you'd outlaw for adults, so your kids don't copy them?

 

Like I said above, I'm not big on making things illegal for adults out of fear children will copy them......

What are bike stunts? Not sure I understand.

 

No one is asking to make anything illegal. People are asking to keep the status quo. If MLB allows players to take PEDs, everyone who plays will be expected to take them. I'm not cool with them being a defacto requirement for my kids if they want to play sports. Not to mention the MLB future talent pool would crater due to the lack of participants, as the kids who don't take them will get chased out of or give up the game entirely.

[Mike Sixel]

Your argument, if I understand correctly, is that sports should make things against the rules if they would be copied by children who feel they need to do those things to participate. If not, the rest of this post can be ignored.

 

Professional skiers and bikers do SUPER dangerous stunts, publicly, on tv. Kids that copy those w/o proper protection and supervison get hurt all over the world. Should that be against the rules? If not, if protecting your children from things that are very likely to hurt them should not be against the rules, why should less public things be against the rules.

 

What is the line for the types of drugs you would allow? Pain killers of all kinds, or only some? Only things administered in a doctor's office? 

 

The thing that gets lost is that there is not some hard line of what drugs are bad or good or evil or whatever......nearly every one of these is available by a prescription, and many are used by people like you and me to recover from surgery or other injuries.

 

Why, as asked above, are some steroids ok, but not others? What is the line?

[nicksaviking]

 

Your argument, if I understand correctly, is that sports should make things against the rules if they would be copied by children who feel they need to do those things to participate. If not, the rest of this post can be ignored.

 

Professional skiers and bikers do SUPER dangerous stunts, publicly, on tv. Kids that copy those w/o proper protection and supervison get hurt all over the world. Should that be against the rules? If not, if protecting your children from things that are very likely to hurt them should not be against the rules, why should less public things be against the rules.

 

What is the line for the types of drugs you would allow? Pain killers of all kinds, or only some? Only things administered in a doctor's office?

 

The thing that gets lost is that there is not some hard line of what drugs are bad or good or evil or whatever......nearly every one of these is available by a prescription, and many are used by people like you and me to recover from surgery or other injuries.

 

Why, as asked above, are some steroids ok, but not others? What is the line?

 

Yes, if doing somersaults in the air on a motor bike is what's required to do what ever sport it is you're referencing, I'm not letting my kids do that. I would be absolutely furious if someday I had to tell my son that he can't play baseball because I don't want him taking PEDs.

 

I don't know what legal steroids your talking about, but the horse is already out of the barn on that one. We don't just go and legalize stuff just because there is something more dangerous that is legal. That sounds like a pitch from Big Pharma. No body is making things illegal, they are already illegal. We don't have to draw a line, the line has already been drawn, we can just leave it right where it is.

 

[Thrylos]

One big thing is missing here:

 

Anabolic steroids is a schedule III controlled substance in the US.  Possession is a federal crime with a penalty up to 1 year in prison.  Distribution has penalties up to 10 years.

 

So, in addition to breaking baseball rules, these guys are breaking the law.  I just wish that the Feds are starting enforcing that a bit harder,  making use = possession and start putting people in jail.

[scottz]

 

Teams need almost no reason to DL players, and in the past, have used it just for the purpose of making roster space. There is way too much room for abuse if being DL'd is the only criteria for using PEDs.

I don't understand. You think teams would more frequently abuse the DL than you admit they do now? That they would DL a non-injured player for the sole purpose of letting the player take recovery drugs prescribed by a doctor for a non-existent injury? A player wouldn't have carte blanche access to PEDs just because they were DL'ed. They would get a prescription from a doctor that would be for 7 or 10 or however many days the doctor prescribed. Baseline and follow-up blood testing could be implemented such that a player couldn't come off the DL until their pre-prescription baseline levels returned (thus, no drugs in their system). Obviously protocols would have to be developed.

 

Help me understand the concern about increases in abuse in this scenario. (And you may well be right - I just don't understand that concern at this point.)

 

 

[Dantes929]

 

Unlike Dee Gordon, those 3 were never caught using.   Hank Aaron used PEDs as well (greenies) plus a whole other slew of athletes, including the Twins' current manager, if one wants to throw names.

 

The difference is that they were not illegal then.  They are now.  If you want to play baseball, you better not use.  That simple.  Some players still use and they risk it.  So be it.

I guess I diffentiate amphetamines from steroids.     Steroids change the composition of your body.    This is more what I consider performance enhancing drugs.    I don't think greenies get those guys to 70 homers but I might be wrong.    From Ball Four I always got the impression guys used them when they were drinking all night and the drugs just got them back to feeling normal.    Of course things are different now.    No great answers but if I didn't want the bad effects of juicing I wouldn't consider it fair that others were able to.

[Comrade Bork]

For me, as long as everyone plays by the same rules it doesn't matter. No PEDS fine, pay the price if you get caught. Yes PEDS, then everyone will do it, negating the edge players think they get by sneaking them.

 

Real question though, why do leagues care about Marijuana? I've always thought that should be a team issue and personel management. It's clearly not performance enhancing and is only hurting their club.

If it is legalized would the league drop the rule the way alcohol is allowed? No one would have batted an eye if a video came out of Tunsil doing a beer bong as opposed to a gas mask...

[Willihammer]

 

I don't understand. You think teams would more frequently abuse the DL than you admit they do now? That they would DL a non-injured player for the sole purpose of letting the player take recovery drugs prescribed by a doctor for a non-existent injury? A player wouldn't have carte blanche access to PEDs just because they were DL'ed. They would get a prescription from a doctor that would be for 7 or 10 or however many days the doctor prescribed. Baseline and follow-up blood testing could be implemented such that a player couldn't come off the DL until their pre-prescription baseline levels returned (thus, no drugs in their system). Obviously protocols would have to be developed.

 

Help me understand the concern about increases in abuse in this scenario. (And you may well be right - I just don't understand that concern at this point.)

For starters, doctors were among those givingi ballplayers the PEDs in the first go-around with this. And players often sited injury recovery as the reasoning, not performance enhancement. So the notion that the drugs would be used up to the point of health recovery and not an inch further is pretty naive IMO, as well as the notion that any team would be justified in telling a player "no you're not hurt" when he insists he is. It would require a complicated system of checks and balances and even then, I'm not sold on the worthiness of it. I don't want a league full of HGH-healed, 43 year old Bartolo Colons hogging roster spots well beyond their natural decline.

[amjgt]

 

I respect guys like Jim Thome who played through that era but played the game at a high level through their natural talent combined with hard work.

 

Says who?

 

There wasn't testing back then. It was the wild west of performance enhancing drugs/supplements. I enjoyed the time Jim Thome spent here, but to just assume he wasn't taking anything is, in my opinion, naive. 

[jsimssd72]

 

For me, as long as everyone plays by the same rules it doesn't matter. No PEDS fine, pay the price if you get caught. Yes PEDS, then everyone will do it, negating the edge players think they get by sneaking them.

 

The problem is, does everyone want to play by the same rules if they were legal,  By not banning them you assume a good percentage of players will take them.  Which in turn almost forces those that don't want to put these drugs in their body to take them as well or lose their job.   Then I sure don't want my son looking up to the players that are not natural and feeling the only way he can achieve his goal of playing professionally is to take steroids or other drugs.  And at what age would kids start emulating to achieve?

[Wookiee of the Year]

 

In fairness, I share this concern. But, I'm not big on banning activities for adults, that I don't want kids participating in. I'd 100% JAIL adults that provided items like this to kids, or condoned it, or whatever. Kids aren't adults, they don't technically always have a choice.

 

But, I'm not going to ban alcohol or pot or driving or whatever, just because I don't want kids doing it. I understand that not everyone will agree with this stance.

 

this isn't some whim stance, btw. I've thought a lot about stuff like this over the years, while watching my kids grow up, and watching parents trying to legislate protecting kids from all harm.......

I'll go out on a limb and say I think your perspective is totally legitimate. I just land somewhere else.

 

It seems you start from the position of, "Why should we restrict the freedom of grown adults to do an activity [take PEDs] when they are fully aware of the costs and benefits?"

 

I prefer to start from the perspective of, "What are the societal benefits to allowing adults to do this activity [take PEDs], and do they outweigh the costs?"

 

Quick comment on your bike stunts example: I have to plead ignorance when it comes to Motocross, but I'll say that if a lot of kids end up killing or paralyzing themselves trying to mimic certain bike stunts, yes, I think those bike stunts should be made illegal. Figure skating outlaws backflips even at the highest levels of competition because they're considered too dangerous, and I don't find that morally objectionable.

 

I'm less interested in the theoretical implications of what's equivalent and more interested in real-world problems that have resulted from allowing certain behaviors.

 

And ultimately, I care less about protecting the sport and allowing athletes to reach the highest achievements at the professional level, and am more interested in protecting baseball and other sports and worthy activities for youth.

[bluechipper]

 

Says who?

 

There wasn't testing back then. It was the wild west of performance enhancing drugs/supplements. I enjoyed the time Jim Thome spent here, but to just assume he wasn't taking anything is, in my opinion, naive. 

Well I'm just going to assume he didn't since there has never been any real suspicion that I know of.

 

Don't ruin this for me.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Taking drugs is like artificially getting better. I respect guys like Jim Thome who played through that era but played the game at a high level through their natural talent combined with hard work.

I'm so tired of the "Babe Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer," argument. Medicine advances, athletes take better care of their bodies, diets improve, training improves, ect...If part of the regiment is taking prescribed drugs that prevent muscle breakdown and/or injury I'm 100% for it. Players don't have to follow modern training regiments but they won't be around as long. The game has evolved and the rules regulating what "substances," are allowed need to as well.

 

Does taking Testosterone yield an unfair advantage right now? Yes. Why? Because MLB has banned its use. Why is it banned? For no reason other than MLB has banned the use of it. The argument isn't whether he was wrong to take it while others aren't allowed, its why isn't  the use of preventative medicine allowed for players going through a 162+ game season. 

 

[bluechipper]

 

I'm so tired of the "Babe Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer," argument. Medicine advances, athletes take better care of their bodies, diets improve, training improves, ect...If part of the regiment is taking prescribed drugs that prevent muscle breakdown and/or injury I'm 100% for it. Players don't have to follow modern training regiments but they won't be around as long. The game has evolved and the rules regulating what "substances," are allowed need to as well.

 

Does taking Testosterone yield an unfair advantage right now? Yes. Why? Because MLB has banned its use. Why is it banned? For no reason other than MLB has banned the use of it. The argument isn't whether he was wrong to take it while others aren't allowed, its why isn't  the use of preventative medicine allowed for players going through a 162+ game season. 

Training improvements and taking drugs to dramatically change your body are two totally different things.

 

Why is it banned? Because it's an illegal drug that can have adverse side effects. Players would be forced out of the game if they wanted to play on their own natural talent.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Not all are healthy, and they're only healthy if administered by a doctor. That's fine for these pro guys, but if you open the door there, then it becomes acceptable and expected for minor leaguers, college players and high school players, and high school players sure as hell aren't going to be getting them from doctors, they'll be getting them from the seniors on the team who will be telling the freshman that if they don't take this stuff then they are letting the team down. The stigma and the consequences in place now are the only thing stopping a tidal wave of unregulated drugs from being pushed on our kids, and it's already scary the amount that are out there.

 

No thanks, I love the MLB, but I don't love it more than my kids.

I'm with Mike, there are a lot of things I wouldn't want kids doing, but banning those activities definitely isn't the answer. Players aren't role models and people need to move past that idea. Keeping kids away from undesirable activities is the responsibility of parents/guardians/people in positions of power in the lives of the children. Your concern makes it clear you're a good parent so it shouldn't be an issue for your kids. 

 

Can't say I agree with the tidal wave idea. The drugs are regulated. Whether or not MLB allows their use doesn't change how they're handled by the DEA.

[KirbyDome89]

 

Training improvements and taking drugs to dramatically change your body are two totally different things.

 

Why is it banned? Because it's an illegal drug that can have adverse side effects. Players would be forced out of the game if they wanted to play on their own natural talent.

The tl;dr version is that injury prevention and care have become much more important for athletes as time has gone along. Taking drugs to prevent injury or recover more quickly from them is another step forward that people seem to resist because of a silly stigma and acronym attached to the drug names. 

 

The drug we're talking about are "illegal," only in MLB. They're prescribed and used readily outside of baseball. Players who didn't take them wouldn't be forced out of the game. There are plenty of out of shape players who stick around for a long time (Glen Perkins?) just like there are players who take immaculate care of their bodies but still end up hurt. The point is that using the drugs to recover/prevent injuries should be an option.