BuzzerBeater Forums

Why would the players union object I wonder? Big bucks always trumps right and wrong.

Regular blood testing would be a fairly unprecedented invasion of privacy

Drug testing as a condition of employment is not unheard of. Adherence to league rules and policies is a condition in every major league contract.

Players are already drug tested. Blood testinog, however, is abnormal as a condition of employment, and it raises a great deal of legitimate privacy questions.

Yeah that's a nice thought experiment and all but in the end it would obviously benefit nobody. (also it'd be illegal due to drug laws)

The better approach would be for MLB to end its hypocrisy regarding PEDs, as its current position is "whatever's profitable is OK" because they either have to take a moral stance or take no stance at all. imo, the line should be drawn at supplements which cause harm to a player's body. (with necessary considerations for legality, of course.)

Steroids have more to do with injury recovery and playing into advanced age than they have to do with sheer performance, anyways. The media has sensationalized it because the media is for idiots. Barry Bonds was huge when he did roids because he worked out like a maniac - the roids just allowed him to pull it off in his late 30s. He hit homers not because of steroids, but because he was Barry Bonds, one of the greatest hitters to ever grace the planet. Steroids just let him keep being Bonds when he should have been declining.*

The question is, does MLB want players risking long-term health for short-term gains in injury recovery and old-age fitness? Honestly, the jury's out. Anabolic steroids, like anything, have positives and negatives, but the health risks are pretty well documented** and that's enough to ban them imo. That's MLB's call, though. The league has sponsorship deals with corporations involved with cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, sugary/carbonated drinks, the Internet, cars, and a lot of things with gigantic health risks, so I'm not counting on it to put down a great foot of morality on this one, but rather to meekly appease the fans and fatten their pockets.


*whoa, I now have an entirely different outlook on BB's "career extension" trainers

**I know there's dissenting opinion on this - if anyone disagrees, I seriously really want to hear your argument, I want to learn more about this but I haven't had the chance, and especially as someone who gets frightened by high school bio concepts much less academic hard science, it can be hard to get past the sensationalism and pseudoscience

Last edited by RiseandFire at 11/6/2011 10:45:53 AM

(13921795)
Don't test this guy, who I've been "training" since he was 18. His hair's always been like that!

So basically you are saying PEDs are ok as long as everyone is able to do them?

Personally, I think blood testing may be intrusive but it isnt mandatory, these players can always take their HS degree and go get a job at McDonalds instead of making millions. This way their rights can stay protected as well as the rights of all the kids and young adults who want to be baseball players but dont want to take steroids are PEDs. If we make it ok for them to use as long as everyone is allowed then every kid who dreams of being a major leaguer had better start juicing now or the guy who's head will never stop growing (Re: Bonds) will take your spot.

I have never and will never be the guy who says 'If they are going to cheat anyway, may as well make it legal'.

I would pose a question then. If a player were suspected or caught throwing games for money or betting against his team with bookies, what should the punishment be? Can the player say that what he does with his money or who he associates outside of work with is his own business? Is punishing a player for hanging out with known gamblers an infringement of his rights? (MLB rules).

Maybe Pete Rose should have just got 50 games?

Last edited by Heathcoat at 11/7/2011 12:46:34 PM