Punishing the teams with PED users

[nate]

We know that MLB will never change the win/loss records but what about this?

 

Showalter is pissed because suspending ARod for a long period helps the Yankees... what if MLB required teams to pay into a PED fund of some sort, used for charity, drug testing, etc the amount that they normally would be paying the suspended player?

[Lifetime]

Not going to happen and shouldn't happen. Unless a team is shown to be complicit in the PED use, you cannot effectively punish the team. 

[nate]

Who cares if they were complicit... they benefited from a cheater and should be punished.

[Lifetime]

Again, you can't hold them accountable for an action that ultimately benefits them when they had not participation or effect on that action. You can't "punish"  the team for something they did not do. 

[OregonLAA]

There should be a penalty for a team if they sign a guy who was caught using once and he is caught again while on their team (Colon). They should forfeit wins or money or something. Teams can only gain in those situations. The Colon thing is effing ridiculous

[katie]

They should take away home runs of players that are suspended. Yesterday's game would be a tie.

[nate]

Again, you can't hold them accountable for an action that ultimately benefits them when they had not participation or effect on that action. You can't "punish"  the team for something they did not do. 

 

If one person cooks the books for a major corporation without the knowledge of the company, the SEC still fines them.  This is no different.

[HaloMagic]

There should be a penalty for a team if they sign a guy who was caught using once and he is caught again while on their team (Colon). They should forfeit wins or money or something. Teams can only gain in those situations. The Colon thing is effing ridiculous

Colon hasn't been caught again. There is no evidence he is cheating this season.

[Lifetime]

There should be a penalty for a team if they sign a guy who was caught using once and he is caught again while on their team (Colon). They should forfeit wins or money or something. Teams can only gain in those situations. The Colon thing is effing ridiculous

First, on its face this is not a fair assessment of the team. The team cannot control whether or not one of their players uses PED's. If they are not complicit, trying to punish or penalize them is a ridiculous proposition.

 

Second, has Colon been caught again while on the Athletics? Not that I've heard. But if he had, how is that the responsibility of OAK? They should be punished because the player they signed was caught before and therefore they are accountable if he does it again? That really makes sense to you?

[Inside Pitch]

I don't know how they could go about doing it without really screwing things up or creating controversy, but if MLB ever did punish a team for the actions of a player then you might see teams take a more serious stance on PED usage. 

 

Why shouldn't a team that signs a guy who has previously admitted to taking PEDs be forced to suck it up and absorb a cap figure hit if he goes off the rails -- they surely benefit from his cheating, right??  I'm not saying they should be forced to pay the guy, but I see no reason why that team shouldn't be held accountable tax wise.

 

The Yankees situation is unique because precious few teams are near luxury tax thresholds.   Arod getting banned is a massive benefit to them....MLB needs to consider that carefully IMO.  Perhaps this Arod situation can set some precedent.

[Mudville]

If one person cooks the books for a major corporation without the knowledge of the company, the SEC still fines them.  This is no different.

Really?

[shellback]

Again, you can't hold them accountable for an action that ultimately benefits them when they had not participation or effect on that action. You can't "punish"  the team for something they did not do. 

think rewarding a multime times busted for steroid or hgh use with a lucrative contract constitutes participation?

[nate]

Again, you can't hold them accountable for an action that ultimately benefits them when they had not participation or effect on that action. You can't "punish"  the team for something they did not do. 

 

So they can benefit from it but cannot be punished... got it.

[Lifetime]

If one person cooks the books for a major corporation without the knowledge of the company, the SEC still fines them.  This is no different.

No Nate, it's not the same thing at all. 

 

As a comparison, let's say a company hires an experienced high level executive paying them millions of dollars per year. The company has a drug policy that requires them to take regular random drug tests which the executive passes every time. Then sometime later, so evidence that said executive has not only been using drugs while under their employment in violation of company policy, but has obtained those drugs illegally trying to evade detection. The company finds out and terminates him for violating company policy voiding his contract. Should the company be held responsible for this executive's drug use and be forced to pay/donate a significant portion of the remaining contract funds to some sort of charity? It's ridiculous. It's not the company's (or team's) fault this person broke the law and violated company policy while employed there. Yes, they "benefitted" from the person getting caught in that it allowed them to get out from under that big contract, but that doesn't mean they should be punished. 

[Inside Pitch]

Has LT ever been wrong?

 

This one time at band camp.....

[nate]

No Nate, it's not the same thing at all. 

 

As a comparison, let's say a company hires an experienced high level executive paying them millions of dollars per year. The company has a drug policy that requires them to take regular random drug tests which the executive passes every time. Then sometime later, so evidence that said executive has not only been using drugs while under their employment in violation of company policy, but has obtained those drugs illegally trying to evade detection. The company finds out and terminates him for violating company policy voiding his contract. Should the company be held responsible for this executive's drug use and be forced to pay/donate a significant portion of the remaining contract funds to some sort of charity? It's ridiculous. It's not the company's (or team's) fault this person broke the law and violated company policy while employed there. Yes, they "benefitted" from the person getting caught in that it allowed them to get out from under that big contract, but that doesn't mean they should be punished. 

 

That companies performance is not determined by the physical condition of that executive.  Baseball is.

[AZMike]

We know that MLB will never change the win/loss records but what about this?

 

Showalter is pissed because suspending ARod for a long period helps the Yankees... what if MLB required teams to pay into a PED fund of some sort, used for charity, drug testing, etc the amount that they normally would be paying the suspended player?

I think having the salary that would have gone to the player go into an MLB-managed fund, similar to what happens with the luxury tax revenues.

 

As it stands now it's ridiculous a team has to pay the salary of a player who is not playing but merely injured, but they don't hvae to pay salary if a player is out due to being caught cheating. 

[Lifetime]

I don't know how they could go about doing it without really screwing things up or creating controversy, but if MLB ever did punish a team for the actions of a player then you might see teams take a more serious stance on PED usage. 

 

Why shouldn't a team that signs a guy who has previously admitted to taking PEDs be forced to suck it up and absorb a cap figure hit if he goes off the rails -- they surely benefit from his cheating, right??  I'm not saying they should be forced to pay the guy, but I see no reason why that team shouldn't be held accountable tax wise.

 

The Yankees situation is unique because precious few teams are near luxury tax thresholds.   Arod getting banned is a massive benefit to them....MLB needs to consider that carefully IMO.  Perhaps this Arod situation can set some precedent.

MLB has no legal grounds to fine teams for a player's indiscretions if the teams are not complicit. It's amazing to me that people are even suggesting such a thing and think it would hold up to legal challenge.

[Lifetime]

So they can benefit from it but cannot be punished... got it.

LOL! absolutely they can. Their "benefit" was happenstance, not a result of them doing something wrong (or right). They just got lucky. You can't punish them for getting lucky. 

[nate]

LOL! absolutely they can. Their "benefit" was happenstance, not a result of them doing something wrong (or right). They just got lucky. You can't punish them for getting lucky. 

 

It is called a culture of compliance.

[shellback]

luck is bullshit. the teams need to forfeit wins.

[Lifetime]

That companies performance is not determined by the physical condition of that executive.  Baseball is.

how do you know? Maybe that executive's decisions and relationships were effected by that drug use - both good and bad? Is that now the companies fault because they gained some benefit through activities they weren't aware of, did not approve of, and were not complicit in any way?

[eaterfan]

Punishing teams will probably lead to teams actually trying to prevent PED use but also covering it up when they find out about it.

[Inside Pitch]

MLB has no legal grounds to fine teams for a player's indiscretions if the teams are not complicit. It's amazing to me that people are even suggesting such a thing and think it would hold up to legal challenge.

 

 

Not talking about fines at all.  

 

Just saying perhaps they need to force the team to take on the luxury tax implications.   They signed the player, they benefit from his performance while juicing, they accept the luxury tax ramifications.  To me that seems like a fair middle ground.  

 

Because there is nothing currently in the CBA, I think the Yankees will be able to get over should A-Banned, gets booted.  But it may be something they should consider adding in the next CBA,.

[Lifetime]

Has LT ever been wrong?

troll