I understand it breaks confidentiality, but IMO the one-time releasing of the names, as opposed to the slow trickle, is better for the game. BTW, free=no consequences for positive test. (this was the testing that set the parameters) IMO, it will also make HOF voting easier, giving voters more info on who used, so they can make informed votes.
My quick, off the cuff reaction is No. One should not promise something then betray that promise later – otherwise future promises are totally meaningless.
Your definition of “free” conflicts with your last sentence. If voters are using the results of the test to (presumably) punish players who tested positive, then that supposedly free test no longer = no consequences.
The test should be private. The slow trickle should be stopped by aggressively seeking the sources of the leak and firing them.
End of story: the answer is no. The MLB told the players’ union the test was confidential, so they can’t and shouldn’t release the results without the permission of the MLBPA. It’s a “free test,” but before that there was no testing at all and this was required to get a stronger testing program implemented.
Of course not. It would be unethical (broken promise) and illegal (broken contract).
I agree it won’t happen, due to the confidentiality. I vehemently disagree that they don’t deserve to be “punished” for not getting in HoF. Watching roundtable on it last nite, it was said that the players weren’t being “punished”, just not bestowed an honor.
I have passed the point where self-righteousness about PEDs is more offensive to me than using PEDs. I would like to see more baseball writers “punished” for cashing paychecks despite a 12-year-old’s writing skills and a 6-year-old’s grasp of logic and argument.
And I still agree with that. But I don’t think MLB should break its own contract. Players were cheating, but the MLB had been turning a blind eye to that for years. This testing was agreed to so the league could show there was a problem and finally institute a real testing regimen (and later stiffen the penalties for being caught). From what I remember, you don’t think much of unions or representation for workers, but it’d be stupid as well as dishonest for MLB to break its word to the players’ union. And I think it’s been years since any of the names on the list were leaked, so I don’t see that as an active concern.
Yeah. The leaks and any potential release of the names are far worse then any steroid use.
I’m actually strongly PRO-union. But you’re correct the “leaks” have been “patched” in recent years.
Is there a viable way to pass the names on to HOF voters?
You seem to use a different definition of “confidential” than most.
If the “free” tests were followed by a rigorous testing regimen, wouldn’t one expect that a significant portion of the users were then caught by that regimen?
It seems to me the question at heart here is how do we deal with the steroid issue at the HOF? Today I heard a really good argument on the radio (Phil Mackey on KSTP radio in St. Paul/Minneapolis). He says the HOF needs to document and explain the steroids era extensively in some way. I agree. In my view Bobby Bonds, et al, shouldn’t get plaques, but the entire era, including that great 1998 home run derby, and the renewal of Roger Clemens in Toronto should be explained.
storyteller-So I guess my answer is,“No”, fair enough.
Chronos-They aren’t tough enough in your opinion? (I think short of blood testing, it’s the best we have)
Notassmart-I agree with Mackey’s solution.
Breaking a contract is not illegal. It is a civil matter. Of course, it, too, is unethical.