Rules violations
Eat it steroid apologists who defend steroid usage by these players with the following argument - well it wasn't banned by baseball at the time. There are a number of reasons that it doesn't matter. Many which I have already addressed. One is that Baseball shouldn't have to make rules regarding substances that are banned by federal law. It should be understood that you can't administer anything to yourself that is banned by federal law without a prescription.
And there's one of the key words. Prescription.
Which brings me to 1971.
It's an important year for baseball.
MLB is within its rights to discipline players for steroids and HGH for the pre-ban time period because of 1971. According to the Mitchell Report a drug policy was written in MLB that prohibits using any prescription medicine without a prescription. From all reports, virtually none of the players named had a prescription from a doctor.
So, based on this 1971 rule, steroid and HGH users were in violation of MLB's rules and regulations.
In 1991, just to be safe, then commissioner Fay Vincent added steroids to the prohibited substance list.
All of the above notwithstanding, I put the following question to the steroid apologists out there - If administering these drugs wasn't really cheating because, as you like to say, it wasn't against baseball's rules (which, apparently it was), then why did the players do all of this in a clandestine manner? Why sneak around? Why deny it when caught if there's nothing wrong with what you're doing?
Stumble It!
5 comments:
It doesn't matter anyway. It's all against federal law, which, last I looked, has jurisdiction over ML ballplayers just as much as it does racketeerers and tax evaders.
A point I have repeatedly made as well. It bothers me that the apologists keep saying that it wasn't against the rules of baseball when -
A) it was
B) Federal Law supersedes any rules of business.
It's some weird mass stupidity that bothers me.
That is what drives me nuts about all of this. Not only is it illegal on a national level, but Vincent explicitly banned them. But everyone talks like his directive didn't count. The ESPN chattering heads made me want to talk a sledgehammer to my screen. Especially Skip Bayless, who made the insane comment today that Pete Rose betting on his team to win was more, more damaging to baseball than a slew of players using drugs to increase their performance.
And Bayless wasn't the only one of that sentiment. I think it helps the voters justify to themselves why they should be allowed to put a bunch of cheaters in the Hall.
OMG I laugh every time I hear that argument. These players committed a crime to improve their performance on the field. Does baseball really need to spell it out for these idiots that you cannot commit a crime to improve your play? Do they honestly think we are going to buy that garbage excuse? I'm pretty sure there is no rule in baseball barring a player from carrying a .45 Glock onto the field and putting a bullet in the head of the opposing players in order to win. I'm also pretty sure that it's cheating if one did so. Incredible.
Post a Comment