Will the MLBPA allow olympic-style drug testing?

[watravaler]

Obviously the end game for Selig, imo, but Don Fehr and the player's union may have something to say about it. It's a necessary step for me to come back to the game I used to love, but I think greed has tainted the union so much so that this will never happen. What say you?

[st.cronin]

I don't know too much about this subject, but I think a bigger obstacle is cost. The Olympics spend a lot of money on their program; a similar program for what is basically a year round sport played in about 30 different cities would probably cost 10 times as much.

[Anthony]

at this point the MLB needs to lockout the players or basically cut ties with the union and start over fresh with new players. this way MLB gets their salary cap and gets the olympic-style drug testing. Players Union is too strong and is anti-cooperative/productive. to me that's the only way this can work. it can't work any other way. Fehr is just doing his job, but it's not working for the game itself, and the game is more important than the players. there will always be someone who can hit a home run and someone who pitches hard enough to strike someone out. it doesn't have to be Alex Rodriguez or Johan Santana that we're watching. baseball fans care more about the numbers and stats, less so about the actual players.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't know too much about this subject, but I think a bigger obstacle is cost. The Olympics spend a lot of money on their program; a similar program for what is basically a year round sport played in about 30 different cities would probably cost 10 times as much.

Yeah, the real question is: will the owners agree to pay for it?

And let's not forget the minor leagues. Doesn't sound cost-effective to do this on players who don't generate a lot of revenue...

[RedKingGold]

Believe it or not; this is one place where Selig has actually been shrewd.

A lot of the press has been blasting Bud for putting forth the resources for the Mitchell report. However, it's release has put the focus squarely on the players accused. Thus, it is the players who are receiving much of the heat, and that puts the union is a rock and a hard place position. It was actually a pretty smart move to do that by Bud.

[watravaler]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Yeah, the real question is: will the owners agree to pay for it?

And let's not forget the minor leagues. Doesn't sound cost-effective to do this on players who don't generate a lot of revenue...

If the owners can afford to pay middle relievers $5 million per, and Aaron friggin Rowand $12 million per, they surely can afford this form of drug testing, no? The real question is, even if cost is no issue, do they want this type of testing?

[SackAttack]

If you make the switch to Olympic-style testing, you ensure that this never ceases to be an issue.

Look at Marion Jones. It was years before she got her medals taken away, and that wasn't because they caught her, but because she admitted to it after the fact.

[Atocep]

The only way the Union accepts Olympic style testing is if Congress tells them to do it or they remove baseball's anti-trust exemption. Otherwise, what Fehr and Orza will do is make concessions in regards to testing and try build them up through PR as a major accomplishment and make it seem like the next best thing to Olympic testing.

Consiering the massive amounts of money baseball is making now, I don't see cost as much of an issue. If the player's union will accept it, it will happen. I'm personally looking forward to the 18th because I love seeing Fehr get his ass chewed and put on the defensive for the way he runs the player's union.

[watravaler]

That is what I'm thinking as well...what a sham...

[miami_fan]

At what point does the finger stop being pointed at Fehr and Orza and start being pointed directly at the players themselves? I am not an expert on the inner workings of unions but based on his job description, Fehr works for the players. He does what the players tell him to do. The players are not forced to do anything he says. He is an adviser. This reminds me of the A-Rod/Yankees situation. At any point the players can contact MLB, negotiate whatever testing policy they want, and then send Fehr and Orza in to dot the i's and cross the t's.

[miami_fan]

Dola,
On the other side, any owner can make the decision that he is not going to have anyone on his team that he even suspects is using illegal drugs. I find it very telling on the owners' part that teams continue to employ and support players who have been busted.

[clintl]

In what North American professional team sport has that ever happened?

[watravaler]

None, that I know of, but one would think the clean players would be all for it...but apparently the union has them by the balls.

I think it's time...it sends the right message to the youth...and, imo, is simply the right thing to do. As a fan, I just can't accept that some players are skewing the playing field, and cheating nature, so to speak. I'm sure it happens in all aspects of life, in many different forms, but the cheaters taint the game, and when a potential solution to a significant problem is on the table, one would think everyone involved in the game would be all for it. Maybe I'm simply naive, but baseball is the only sport I watch, the only sport I "care" about, the sport I played from little league through college, and if the true fans don't demand an equal playing field, maybe it's time I spend my time "caring" about something else, like FOF!

Of course, the cheaters will always be one step ahead of the curve, so maybe it's all moot.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by clintl

In what North American professional team sport has that ever happened?

Didn't say that it has happened nor that it should. However, it is an option for both sides and would eliminate the "evil" Donald Fehr as a roadblock.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Dola,
On the other side, any owner can make the decision that he is not going to have anyone on his team that he even suspects is using illegal drugs. I find it very telling on the owners' part that teams continue to employ and support players who have been busted.

Because 1.) teams are in the end looking to make money and putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage would be stupid and 2.) The player's union would be all over this and have said owner in court if they caught wind of this.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Because 1.) teams are in the end looking to make money and putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage would be stupid and 2.) The player's union would be all over this and have said owner in court if they caught wind of this.

I understand and accept your first point. IMO that means the taint of money over a drug free sport is also on the management side in the same way as it is on the players' side.

As far as your second point, I am not sure what the legal problem would be. Teams make decisions all the time to sign and not sign players based on things other than the on the field performance. Teams are not bound to sign a player who they suspect has an alcohol or cocaine problem. I see no difference in a team not signing a player based on suspicion of PED use and a suspicion of alcohol/cocaine use.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

at this point the MLB needs to lockout the players or basically cut ties with the union and start over fresh with new players. this way MLB gets their salary cap and gets the olympic-style drug testing. Players Union is too strong and is anti-cooperative/productive. to me that's the only way this can work. it can't work any other way. Fehr is just doing his job, but it's not working for the game itself, and the game is more important than the players. there will always be someone who can hit a home run and someone who pitches hard enough to strike someone out. it doesn't have to be Alex Rodriguez or Johan Santana that we're watching. baseball fans care more about the numbers and stats, less so about the actual players.

You're an idiot. On the oft-chance that someone employs you, I look forward to them firing you and starting over, because you chose to defend your rights.

[hoosierdude]

As long as MLB and the MLBPA and their union have no say in how it is run, and that the USADA handles all the testing themselves, similar to the Olympic version of the ADA, then it can work. If the two entities of MLB and MLBPA and union have say in how it works, then it will never remove the spectre of guilt or possible tainting of results, etc..

Give the testing to the USADA as a independent third party and agree to stand by their results. Only way for baseball to get back the fans they have lost with this.

Of course, YMMV however.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I understand and accept your first point. IMO that means the taint of money over a drug free sport is also on the management side in the same way as it is on the players' side.

This isn't something unique to baseball. This what happens in all walks of life. Its naive to expect a company to potentially pass on making millions by doing what many see as the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by miami_fan

As far as your second point, I am not sure what the legal problem would be. Teams make decisions all the time to sign and not sign players based on things other than the on the field performance. Teams are not bound to sign a player who they suspect has an alcohol or cocaine problem. I see no difference in a team not signing a player based on suspicion of PED use and a suspicion of alcohol/cocaine use.

There would be discrimination charges filed against that owner and baseball as soon this got out and owners are scared to death of the word collusion. They will not do anything that is even close to a grey area on collusion after paying the union $280 million in the early 90s. Anything that owners do to drive down a player's market value will be challeneged and this would probably qualify.

I won't pretend to know what would happen in court as I'm no legal expert, but I'd assume the player's union could make an argument that is similar to employment discrimination of felons. You, I, and everyone else knows that felons are refused employment because they're felons but no company can take a public stance against hiring felons or they're going to be sued.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I see no difference in a team not signing a player based on suspicion of PED use and a suspicion of alcohol/cocaine use.

PED = performance enhancer = potential net asset
alcohol/cocaine = performance inhibitor* = potential net liability

Unless the MLB goes to a single-entity ownership structure, there will no chance that an informal blackballing would hold--the temptation to gain competitive advantage would be too great.

* cocaine can enhance performance short-term, but the addictive nature of the drug often compromises job performance over the long-term...

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This isn't something unique to baseball. This what happens in all walks of life. Its naive to expect a company to potentially pass on making millions by doing what many see as the right thing to do.

I don't expect them to do it. I said it is an option, in the same way that Blockbuster passes on the money that could be made from renting adult movies because some think it is the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by Atocep

There would be discrimination charges filed against that owner and baseball as soon this got out and owners are scared to death of the word collusion. They will not do anything that is even close to a grey area on collusion after paying the union $280 million in the early 90s. Anything that owners do to drive down a player's market value will be challeneged and this would probably qualify.

I won't pretend to know what would happen in court as I'm no legal expert, but I'd assume the player's union could make an argument that is similar to employment discrimination of felons. You, I, and everyone else knows that felons are refused employment because they're felons but no company can take a public stance against hiring felons or they're going to be sued.

I was not talking about a public stance. Just like your felon example, individual teams could just not do it again based on their "moral" stand.

My point is that either side have options that can clean up the sport. Whether those options are in the best interests of either side in a different story. Do I expect an owner to take the moral high ground while their teams are going 40-122 while other owners are winning championships and reaping the benefits that go with them? Hell no. Do I expect a player do give up on a major league career but maintain the moral high ground while someone less talented get that major league career? Hell no. But don't tell me that either side can't do it.