Dee Gordon PED suspension

[biggentleben]

 

That may be the theory. In practice, players will use the substances to push harder and farther, even in the face of injury. The problem with the substances is that they present players with the moral dilemma of risking their long term health in order to keep up with those who choose to accept the risk.

 

That part isn't hard to regulate, though. Power lifting circuits have done it well. You have extensive testing for true performance enhancers and also for those that are recovery oriented. However, to have those recovery medications, they must have a prescription and their levels must register in the range that prescription would create (something someone much smarter than I has figured out is fairly measurable). How this isn't able to be measured and/or regulated in baseball is beyond me.

 

Let's be completely honest with this - it's possible that these things could be brought in to help the health of players while also being regulated, but both the bringing in of the medications and the regulation of them would have to be negotiating points in what is already shaping up to be a fairly contentious CBA coming up this coming offseason. That is why this is an issue.

[TheLeviathan]

I'd be fine with those changes ben, I'm not opposed to players being allowed to take something for recovery under a doctor's supervision....but it is a slippery slope if the rules aren't well defined.  Part of the issue here is the PED policy is a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel, but I imagine that's a result of CBA negotiations.

 

It may be hard to get a nuanced policy, but maybe some of these suspensions will inspire both sides to take it more seriously.

[biggentleben]

 

I'd be fine with those changes ben, I'm not opposed to players being allowed to take something for recovery under a doctor's supervision....but it is a slippery slope if the rules aren't well defined.  Part of the issue here is the PED policy is a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel, but I imagine that's a result of CBA negotiations.

 

It may be hard to get a nuanced policy, but maybe some of these suspensions will inspire both sides to take it more seriously.

 

I would hope so. I'm also hearing some player scuttle that the Mejia stuff opened the eyes to players on the chance of one substance to end a career by failing three tests before it would leave your system, so the PED policy will definitely be part of the CBA negotiations, but I highly doubt that it will be a logical, intelligent discussion as there is too much to lose on both sides.

[chaderic20]

 A couple topics I want to address that have come up in here:

 

1.  That statement that professional athletes aren't role models.  We may not want them to be role models, and they themselves may not want to be role models, but unfortunately we don't get to decide that, and neither do they.  As long as kids look up to them, which I don't think anyone would argue is not the case, then by definition, they are role models.

 

2.  The idea that owners could use a positive drug test to get out of a bad contract.  Well they can only do so if a player has a positive test.  So, that's kinda the whole point of allowing owners to void contracts. If they are allowed to do that, it is a MAJOR disincentive for the player to use PEDs.  And I don't see how owners could abuse this since as far as I know there's no way for them to force a positive test.  The owners have no control over the outcome of the test.  The player is still in complete control of their contract.  If you don't want it voided, don't take PEDs. It's as simple as that.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

2.  The idea that owners could use a positive drug test to get out of a bad contract.  Well they can only do so if a player has a positive test.  So, that's kinda the whole point of allowing owners to void contracts. If they are allowed to do that, it is a MAJOR disincentive for the player to use PEDs.  And I don't see how owners could abuse this since as far as I know there's no way for them to force a positive test.  The owners have no control over the outcome of the test.  The player is still in complete control of their contract.  If you don't want it voided, don't take PEDs. It's as simple as that.

Did you not follow the A-Rod case, the Braun case, the Josh Hamilton case, etc.?  There are a lot of ways for teams to get involved without actually tainting the player's test.  Does MLB go out of its way to purchase evidence about Biogenesis if their star client is Reynaldo Rodriguez rather than Alex Rodriguez?  Do the Brewers try to obscure the chain of custody issues around Braun's failed test if they want out of his contract?  (Or do they help to create chain of custody issues to begin with?) Hamilton wasn't PEDs, but again the team was taking some active stances.

 

And all of this stuff happened WITHOUT the incentive to void $100+ million in future liabilities.  If you give one side those kind of extreme incentives, you're just asking for trouble.

 

It's a whole big can of worms that honestly isn't worth the trouble.  A few players would definitely lose some money, but Jhonny Peralta did just fine after his failed test.  Melky Cabrera and Nelson Cruz eventually did fine too.  I suspect Ervin Santana would have probably gotten a similar payday on the open market after his suspension (especially if it came midseason -- can you imagine a FA pitcher hitting the market just before the trade deadline?).

 

Add to it that it's still no deterrent for players on more modest contracts.  And teams wouldn't decide whose contract to void based on any sense of fairness or culpability, but entirely on how it would affect their bottom line.  What's the point of that?

[chaderic20]

You're missing the point though, that all of those players failed a drug test.  The point of the punishment is to make taking drugs so risky for the player that no player in their right mind would do it.  If you can show me one instance where a team was able to manufacture a failed drug test, I'll agree with you.  But until then my point remains:  If you don't want your contract voided, don't take drugs.

Also, as you said, many players have done just fine for themselves after failed drug tests.  So, this probably isn't even giving the owners that much leverage.

As for players hitting the market at the trade deadline, I don't think this has been stated, but I've been working on the assumption that the team has the option to void the contract, not that a failed test automatically voids the contract.  So, if a team doesn't want their star player to hit the open market, they can choose not to void the contract.  At that point, they have then assumed the risk that the player isn't what they thought they were getting when they signed the contract.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

You're missing the point though, that all of those players failed a drug test.

A-Rod didn't fail a drug test.

 

Actually, none of the Biogenesis guys (including Peralta and Cruz) failed a drug test.

[biggentleben]

 

You're missing the point though, that all of those players failed a drug test.  The point of the punishment is to make taking drugs so risky for the player that no player in their right mind would do it.  If you can show me one instance where a team was able to manufacture a failed drug test, I'll agree with you.  But until then my point remains:  If you don't want your contract voided, don't take drugs.

Also, as you said, many players have done just fine for themselves after failed drug tests.  So, this probably isn't even giving the owners that much leverage.

As for players hitting the market at the trade deadline, I don't think this has been stated, but I've been working on the assumption that the team has the option to void the contract, not that a failed test automatically voids the contract.  So, if a team doesn't want their star player to hit the open market, they can choose not to void the contract.  At that point, they have then assumed the risk that the player isn't what they thought they were getting when they signed the contract.

 

As spycake stated, the PED suspension doesn't require a drug test necessarily, as seen in the Biogenesis case. Also, there are multiple indicators in the current testing that the MLB uses that could bring about a false positive. The current testing protocols utilized by Major League Baseball were essentially repealed in the mid- to late-1990s by powerlifting due to numerous evidenced false positives by the scientific community around powerlifting. Baseball doesn't want to have their testing challenged in the same way, so you haven't heard about the false positives that these tests can show.

 

Regardless, drinking and driving even after having 1-2 beers over the course of a few hours is still technically impaired driving, yet a whole lot of people do it, and if they get pulled over and are over the legal limit, they're given the opportunity to get their driver's license back and in some states even have a first DUI fall off the record after classes and so many years without a second instance. Why would we want to be more forgiving of someone who quite literally could have killed multiple other people on the road but not to a guy who was attempting to make the most of his ability to earn a tremendous income?

 

Also, one last thing. I suggest reading up on the studies MLB is doing into PED manipulation on the Rule 5 draft. There is actually incentive for teams to have players get suspended for PEDs in some circumstances...

[Mr. Brooks]

The discussion on voiding contracts is moot because it would have to be collectively bargained.

The players union would never even consider it. It would be a deal breaker, non starter.

[biggentleben]

 

The discussion on voiding contracts is moot because it would have to be collectively bargained.
The players union would never even consider it. It would be a deal breaker, non starter.

 

So many things around PEDs would be wonderful, but the CBA will never allow them due to the nature of the negotiations. I would not consider voiding contracts as something desirable whatsoever in the game. There's a reason we have free agency and the CBA issues we do now, and it's the way owners treated players like pieces of meat for the first 100 years of the game. Returning to that status is not coming.

[chaderic20]

So the Biogenesis guys wouldn't have their contracts voided if they never failed a test.  Whatever the criteria are currently for a PED suspension, whether it's a failed test, or just other overwhelming evidence (ARod), I would be in favor of their contract being voided, or I'd be willing to compromise and say void the contract on second offense.

 

The drunk driving thing biggentelben brings up is actually a good analogy.  Someone gets a DUI, their license (aka, their "contract" with the state that allows them to drive) is voided.  They have the opportunity to get it back after they prove they've cleaned up.  Same goes for ballplayers whose contracts are voided.  They still have the opportunity to get a new contract, it's not a lifetime ban.

 

As for false positives, that's what the appeals process is for (I do think that absolutely nothing should happen to a player until all appeals and such are resolved, it shouldn't even be publicized that a player is in the appeals process).  If you drop your appeal, I take that as an admission of guilt, because if I was falsely accused of something, and stood to lose millions of dollars because of it, I would appeal and fight it as far as I could. And I know testing isn't perfect, but it's never going to be.  It's always going to be a cat and mouse game.  We can't wait until testing is 100% accurate before doing anything.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

If you drop your appeal, I take that as an admission of guilt, because if I was falsely accused of something, and stood to lose millions of dollars because of it, I would appeal and fight it as far as I could.

I am pretty sure most of these players fight it as hard as they can, but there isn't much fighting that can be done.  Unless perhaps you have a sample of a legal substance that you can show tests positive for the same drug, and even then you'd have to prove that tainted legal substance was what caused your failed test. It's almost impossible.  Dropping an appeal or declining to appeal is more of an admission that it's almost an impossible task, rather than an admission of guilt.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

So the Biogenesis guys wouldn't have their contracts voided if they never failed a test.  Whatever the criteria are currently for a PED suspension, whether it's a failed test, or just other overwhelming evidence (ARod), I would be in favor of their contract being voided, or I'd be willing to compromise and say void the contract on second offense.

It appears you're not terribly familiar with what happened in the Biogenesis case.  Not only were there no failed tests, but MLB knowingly purchased stolen documents in that case, paying $100k to known criminals in return, and potentially impeding a government investigation at the same time:

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9977389/major-league-baseball-purchase-biogenesis-documents-impeded-florida-department-health-investigation-sources-say

 

And this was without any mechanism to void contracts for PED violations in the CBA.  This was staight-up to leverage a handful of suspensions.

 

Personally, I don't want to see what MLB and teams would do if they were given that additional massive incentive of saving $50-100+ million on a failed PED test.  For one thing, teams would be less incentivized to discourage PED use by their players, and more incentivized to overlook questionable substances, practices, and characters, which would impact more than just the expensive veterans whose contracts are worth voiding.  Heck, you might actually create perverse incentives at contract signing time -- teams would be more likely to sign suspected 'roiders or previous offenders, maybe even to front-loaded deals, knowing they had a "get out of jail free" card to void the deal on the next failed test.  (As Ben noted upthread, we may already be seeing this creep into the Rule 5 draft -- teams are probably more likely to draft a suspected PED user because a suspension would free up the roster spot and effectively reduce the Rule 5 requirements.)