MLB and MLBPA Change Penalties on Substance Abuse

by Gerard on Nov 15, 2005 2:49 PM PST

[EDITOR'S NOTE: I completely missed this story yesterday until I woke up and saw it in the morning paper today. I think baseball took a great step in getting this rectified. It's just too bad that it took the threat of Congressional action for it to happen. Also, what about the folks still using human growth hormone? Can we see an addition to that, please? Then we might finally know whether or not Bonds is actually hitting those home runs clean or not. - Blez]

MLB finally woke up to the 21st century regarding substance abuse. The penalties are much more severe for abuse steroids and (finally) amphetamines.

Apparently 1st offense for steroid abuse is 50 games, the 2nd is 100 games and the 3rd is banishment for 2 years before applying for reinstatement.

The details of amphetamine abuse is I believe 40 games, 80 games and then up to the Commissioner for further penalty (please forgive me I forgot the exact details).

Testing will be performed during Spring training and then randomly 1-2 times per season. The key point is random testing during the season.

Poll

Is the new policy for substance abuse:

Too Strict

4 votes

Not strict enough

19 votes

Appropriate

49 votes

72 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 41 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The question is...

How will the amphetimine ban affect league-wide offensive numbers in the later months of the regular season?

"Damn kids" -Ron Flores

by secret ASian man on Nov 15, 2005 3:49 PM PST reply actions

not strict enough

not on the penalty side, but only 1-2 times a season? that's a joke. there should be year round testing, and it should be more frequent. and it should be done by an independent group.

i hope congress isn't satisfied with this and implements their own system across professional sports, but i doubt they have the balls.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Nov 15, 2005 3:56 PM PST reply actions

heh ...

yeah, if a player gets his second test in, say, July ... time to start popping the greenies to get him through the stretch.

Check out some awesome music ...

by devo on Nov 15, 2005 3:58 PM PST up reply actions

Agreed

And, why the hell isnt there any Blood Testing yet? HGH is banned, yet, they dont test for it!

... TimeLine? Time is not made out of Lines! It is made out of Circles. That is why Clocks are Round!!!...

by Zonis on Nov 15, 2005 3:59 PM PST up reply actions

Is blood testing...

...still the only way to test for it?

by gdubb925 on Nov 15, 2005 5:40 PM PST up reply actions

Actually

It's at least three times a season. One preseason one during spring training and each player is guaranteed to be tested at least 2 more times in a season.

"Damn kids" -Ron Flores

by secret ASian man on Nov 15, 2005 4:08 PM PST up reply actions

what's your point?

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Nov 15, 2005 4:15 PM PST up reply actions

The point of the tests is that they're random

Also, I don't think steroids flush out of your body that quickly. If it does indeed stay in your body for a long time after a cycle, you don't need a test every week to detect wrongdoing on the part of the players.

"Damn kids" -Ron Flores

by secret ASian man on Nov 15, 2005 4:17 PM PST up reply actions

You're Right

Many steroids are lipophilic, meaning they "like" fat. They don't metabolize through your body as quickly. Amphetamines may have shorter half-lives in your body, but if players are hooked on them, they won't like their withdrawal symptoms.
Because testing is random, I don't know if players will be willing to take a chance not getting caught especially if their team is in contention.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Nov 15, 2005 4:49 PM PST up reply actions

Cup peeing all around

Am I the only one bothered by the thought of Congressionally mandated drug testing? So pro sports are important enough to warrant federal laws for piss tests...how about blood tests, hair tests, DNA samples? And are lifetime bans enough when 20 years hard labor could just as easily be legislated?

OK, so there's pro sports. Schools are surely more important than that...should the feds require the drug testing of every student at a school receiving government funds? Millions of Americans get federal medical assistance. Should they all have to prove they're worthy of that support by subjecting themselves to invasive tests?

Is there any line at all? I'm a sports nut, but sports are trivial, and if we accept federally mandated drug tests for sports, how can we oppose them for more important programs? I'm all for MLB and MLBPA concurrance on programs to govern their sport...but the feds? No thanks.

Beat the Angles (they're obtuse!)

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 15, 2005 5:55 PM PST up reply actions

Antitrust exemption

So long as MLB enjoys its Congressional exemption from the various antitrust acts, Congress has every right to crank the hurdygurdy and make the monkey dance.

I am suddenly very glad I have a season pass on my TiVo for Oprah. - BobbyCrosbysGirl

by monkeyball on Nov 15, 2005 6:10 PM PST up reply actions

A does not equal B

But Congress is at least pretending to be considering action for all pro sports, not just baseball. I'm not sure why the antitrust exemption (which is judicial action sustained by legislative inaction, not affirmed by legislation, right?) matters anyway. Congress supports grain prices...does that confer ability to test all the plowmen and combine operators?

But more important than can they...should they? Like Fiats everywhere, Congressional Fiat ought to be left in the garage whenever possible (since the failure rate is staggering).

Beat the Angles (they're obtuse!)

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 15, 2005 6:19 PM PST up reply actions

You're not the only one

who is very, very suspicious of this. Congress and bosses, IMHO, want compliant, cowed workers who won't start thinking dangerous thoughts about "privacy" or "rights." I'm suspicious of authority, especially authorities that aren't accountable to anyone but themselves and their friends, like MLB owners (and most bosses, but that's another rant for another blog...).

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Nov 15, 2005 7:33 PM PST up reply actions

How exactly is the gov involved ?

What is the extent of their involvement in the steroid issue? Was it a suggestion by the govt.... carried out by Bud or are they monitoring the results and doling out the penalties? I haven't had the time to review it yet other than the headlines.

by IM4Oakgal on Nov 17, 2005 3:06 PM PST up reply actions

Amphetamines

This is from the article at sfgate.com (I posted the link in today's Link Dump)

Amphetamines
A. Suspicionless testing for amphetamines and other amphetamine-like stimulants during regular season and post-season

B. Disciplinary schedule for positive tests

First positive: Mandatory follow-up testing
Second positive: 25 games
Third positive: 80 games
Fourth positive: Discipline imposed by the Commissioner up to and including a lifetime ban, with arbitral review.

(there are also penalties for possession and distribution)

Bill King "was a genius. Off the charts. The rest of us are just pretenders." ~ Ken Korach

by Poppy on Nov 15, 2005 4:06 PM PST reply actions

Thanks for the clarification

What's interesting is that if a player develops a viral upper respiratory infection, it's common to perscribe medications such as Entex LA which contains guaifenesin (think of Robitussin for cough) and phenylephrine (similar to sudafed), which is a stimulant. I guarantee you that there will be complaints from players with (+) tests who "were treated by thier physician for a cold. Nevertheless, this has been long overdue.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Nov 15, 2005 4:24 PM PST up reply actions

false positives

With the increased penalties, I hope we don't see "false positives." One of the unspoken benefits of a lighter penalty for a first-offense is that it helps avoid an extreme injustice. Some of the Olympic situations where someone's entire career possibly could be ruined based on a cold medicine or something that might be inadvertent should be avoided.

by SA on Nov 15, 2005 5:20 PM PST reply actions

yeah

"cold medicine"
suure...

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Nov 15, 2005 5:30 PM PST up reply actions

Not to worry

As a person who is subjected to random drug testing, I have first hand experience with this. With my testing (USDOJ) they will send all initial positives to another lab for what they call a "conclusive" test. Meaning, if you first test positive from something trace like poppy seeds or cough syrup, they submit it for more testing in order to produce a conclusive positive test. Sure, mistakes are bound to happen, but I doubt the system employed by the ADA or MLB will be flakier than the USDOJ.

by eamb on Nov 15, 2005 5:35 PM PST up reply actions

But what about the testing procedure?

From what I've read, including Gwen Knapp's article in the Chron today, testing procedure is so lax that any clever player could cheat. According to the Congressional report about Palmiero, players got several hours advance notice about their test and were unsupervised when they gave their sample.

The testing needs to be done by an outside group, not MLB.

by SportySpice @ Athletics Nation on Nov 16, 2005 9:18 AM PST reply actions

Too funny SS!!!

"Carlos Pena, Staring Into the Sun Looked Like He Was Stoned On Acid" - Bill King

by saint @ Athletics Nation on Nov 16, 2005 9:19 AM PST up reply actions

Who's testing and who's reading?

That's what I want to know.

You mean to tell me that only Raffy and a few others tested possitive this year?

I bet that it was handled internally and a few sac lambs were toseed to the wolves.

Now, if an independent test company was hired/constructed by congress then this would be real.

I mean, heck, in the NFL only a punter got busted!?!?! A PUNTER!!!

"Carlos Pena, Staring Into the Sun Looked Like He Was Stoned On Acid" - Bill King

by saint @ Athletics Nation on Nov 16, 2005 9:18 AM PST reply actions

Thanks Blez, for putting this story up

I think it is a huge story but after reading Gwen Knapp's article in the Chronicle this am. I tend to now believe it may not be enough.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/16/SPG8JFP5401.DTL

I initially thought it would be adequate but, at least for amphetamine testing doesn't nearly approach the olympic standards. This is important in the sense that those who will cheat may not have much to worry about. Secondly, the NFL would penalize players who were substance abusers for "not showing up" when they were to be tested. Apparently, MLB hasn't introduced penalties for this situation. Lastly, as mentioned earlier, human growth hormone has not been added to the list. This one gets tricky but there are other endocrine tests that can be ordered to show the effects of human growth hormone abuse.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Nov 16, 2005 9:25 AM PST reply actions

I messed up the link

Here it is:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/16/SPG8JFP54O1.DTL

hopefully, this works

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Nov 16, 2005 9:31 AM PST up reply actions

Not enough?

Jeez...How much more of a suspension could they put in there. Granted, HGH should be tested for..btu the penalties are more than plenty

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Nov 16, 2005 9:40 AM PST up reply actions

I'm Not So Concerned About...

..the penalties as I am the efficacy of the tests themselves. I think MLB needs to be responsible enough to ensure that if they test their players, the players won't find easy ways to cheat.
In Knapp's article, she discusses the case of a couple ofd athletes who were able to mask their abuses despite being tested by olympic standards.
Again, if stringent testing forces athletes to basically clean up or be discouraged from cheating then the mission is accomplished-fair play.
BTW, just curious of what you thought about Gwen Knapp's article.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Nov 16, 2005 10:32 AM PST up reply actions

another interesting article

ESPN the Magazine just featured a big report on steroids in baseball. Don't know if it's on newsstands yet, but my issue arrived yesterday cause of my subscription.

death to myspace!

by malikot on Nov 16, 2005 10:10 AM PST reply actions

That ESPN The Mag...

...article was very good. I think the penalities are fair. I was happy to see the greenies being also tested . IMO, the speed was being abused by far greater numbers then the juice ever was.

by bigelephant on Nov 16, 2005 10:56 AM PST up reply actions

A's players in favor of stricter testing

Quotes from Kielty, Zito, Kendall, Macha on the A's website...

ARTICLE HERE

(sorry if that's already been posted somewhere, it's dated yesterday but I didn't see it until today)

Bill King "was a genius. Off the charts. The rest of us are just pretenders." ~ Ken Korach

by Poppy on Nov 16, 2005 11:02 AM PST reply actions

<crosses fingers>

Let's hope that the A's are on the clean side of this. Maybe the Beanebrains have steered away from drug-suspect players in anticipation of a crackdown? Who can say...

by Apricot on Nov 16, 2005 11:51 AM PST up reply actions

The ESPN Article

Was a very informative timeline of the development of steroids and provided the coverage through different people involved (FBI Agent, Distributor, Players, Commish, etc.). If you don't recieve the Magazine, I believe it is available on their website - at least it was last weekend. Check it out for a good read.

by SD Erik on Nov 16, 2005 11:47 AM PST reply actions

Good

More strict testing, hopefully no A's get caught.

The tragedy of life is not that it ends so soon, but that we wait so long to begin it.-W. M. Lewis

by doublehustle22 on Nov 16, 2005 12:11 PM PST reply actions

You know ...

if Kendall got caught, it would save us a heck of a lot of money ...

Check out some awesome music ...

by devo on Nov 16, 2005 12:13 PM PST up reply actions

Kendall takes the lesser known Anti-Roids

You know, the shots and pills that make a player weaker. I hope those are banned too.

Hard work never hurt anyone, but I'm not taking any chances.

by Alameda Greg on Nov 16, 2005 12:28 PM PST up reply actions

anti roids

weren't those the one's Jeremy Giambi admitted to taking?

death to myspace!

by malikot on Nov 16, 2005 2:25 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the way it should've been in the first place.........

I say:
1st pos test- 25 games
2nd pos test- season
3rd pos test- banned for-ev-er!
Strict? I know. This way, nobody would do it!

by iheartaz on Nov 16, 2005 1:24 PM PST reply actions

The Anti-Trust exemption

Is what keeps MLB in business, at least in it's current configuration. Otherwise, we'd see all sorts of competing major and semi-major leagues, like we've seen in football and other sports.

Which IMHO, is not a bad thing; as it would hurt teams like the Yankees most.

by Rob @ Athletics Nation on Nov 16, 2005 1:35 PM PST reply actions

amphetamines

Baseball finally brings amphetamines into light of day

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kreidler_mark&id=2225013

Shoot, greenies got mentioned at least as far back as the Pittsburgh drug trials of the 1980s, when players testified they received the stimulants from Willie Stargell, Bill Madlock and even Mays. All three men, who denied either using or supplying, later were cleared of wrongdoing by the commissioner's office. (The current commissioner, Selig, has said he first heard about greenies in the old Milwaukee Braves clubhouses of the late 1950s.)

The stimulants have been steadily mentioned ever since, too -- but almost never by anyone in the midst of his career. A retired Tony Gwynn spoke openly of baseball's amphetamine problem in 2003, estimating for The New York Times that 50 percent of position players were using them routinely, many of them before almost every game. (Gwynn subsequently was blasted by those in uniform at the time for, in their opinion, speaking out of school.) Chad Curtis spoke after his retirement about the pressure on fielders not to play the game "naked" -- that is, not to play without speed.

This is, on some levels, a straight-up medical concern for MLB and its policymakers. Amphetamines are widely understood to be much more commonly used in clubhouses than steroids, and "they are way, way more dangerous," professor -- and stimulant expert -- Charles Yesalis told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in May. "They can stone-cold kill you on the spot."

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Nov 16, 2005 1:50 PM PST reply actions

Excellent points

In fact, taking the amphetamine abuse one step further by looking at the tragic death of Ken Caminiti who abused cocaine and you certainly have a recipe for early death.
To the athlete with an addictive personality there is no end to their abuse. Somehow Tony LaRussa's comments regarding the knowlege of McGwire's use of stimulants made it sound as if MLB's secrets just need to stay "in house". By so condoning his behavior, this issue has continued to perpetuate...hopefully until now. The comments from the A's players in Urban's column makes me think that all most of these players just want is an even playing field.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Nov 16, 2005 2:19 PM PST up reply actions