Invalidate this statement for me:
“It doesn’t matter if Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa took steroids in 1998 because steroids weren’t agaisnt the rules of Major League Baseball in 1998.”
I’ve heard people say that steroids weren’t against the rules in MLB until a few years ago. I always thought that steroids have been against MLB’s rules for a long time (at least twenty years). But, since there was no testing program for MLB players until recently, there was no way to catch someone breaking this rule. I can’t find a cite to prove that. Can someone help me?
Baseball did not begin steroid testing until 2003. Cites are plentiful in articles about today’s Congerssional hearings. Here’s one from the CBC which says (emphasis added by me):
For what it’s worth, steroids were not a controlled substance in the United States until 1991.
This has bothered/pissed me off about this whole mess.
Why the hell should every damn controlled/illegal substance have to be individually identified as illegal in baseball and any of their “agreement” documents?
For chrissakes, heroin is illegal, are players allowed to use it if its not in the collective bargaining agreement?
How about a nice simple policy.
Anything already defined by the FDA as a controlled substance is automatically illegal in baseball.
Any substance the FDA has not yet examined and/or approved is by default illegal in baseball until FDA examination and determination is complete.
(that’s to screw over designer drug users).
Any other substance not covered in 1 & 2, determined to be “performance enhancing” by MLB and MLBPA, is also illegal in baseball.
Players must submit to urine and blood testing.
DONE. No f**cking lawyers, no bs, a nice simple bullet proof plan.
I mean, pot is illegal. If my employer were to fire me for smoking pot, I’d have a case to sue them. (Assuming I wasn’t firing up a big spliff at my desk, or showing up for work stoned out of my gourd.) It’s the job of the government to enforce drug laws. It’s NOT the job of your employer.
If baseball wants players to stay away from specific drugs they should list them. Other sporting organizations don’t seem to have a problem with that; why should baseball? The IOC and various international amateur athletic federations have comprehensive lists of banned substances; what, the millionaires who run MLB can’t put a list together?
That’s preposterous; it means almost ANYTHING would be illegal, including a zillion things that aren’t harmful at all. By the logic, hmeopathic remedies - which are 100% water - would be illegal. Prescription drugs would be illegal, even if you had a prescription. You’d be banning people for taking over the counter medications.
A rule that has such open-ended definitions wouldn’t last eight minutes in court; it fails any sort of test of law, logic, or common sense. There is now way it would survive, legally speaking. If they want to ban substances, you can be general in definition, but you still have to SAY what you want to ban.
What’s so hard about a list?
"No Major League player shall use any of the following drugs:
Any illicit drug whose possession is classified as a felony or criminal offense under the laws of the United States or Canada, including cocaine and all its forms, heroin or other opiates, marijuana, LSD, ectasy, (fill in other illegal drugs,)