Saltzer’s Shots: How to Punish Teams Whose Players Used PEDs

[AngelsWin.com]

By David Saltzer AngelsWin.com Senior Writer

 

While most of the discussions around the current PED scandal have revolved around what to do with the individual players who allegedly took PEDs, there has been some healthy discussion about what to do with the teams whose players actually took the drugs. It’s a legitimate issue because the PED scandal cuts at the purity of the game which lies at the heart of baseball. The numbers, the records, the history of the game are all tainted as a result of the scandal.

 

Some fans have called for reversing or removing the stats from the players involved in the scandal. While this would seem the most Solomonic, in reality it cannot happen. One cannot say how the seasons would have played out simply be removing a certain player’s numbers. With all the permutations on in-game moves, trades, free agent signings, etc. make this solution impossible. No one would have the wisdom to truly discern how a season would play out without the stats from those who cheated. As much as fans would like to be rid of the illgotten records, we are unfortunately stuck with them.

 

But that does not mean that teams who signed players with PEDs should get off scot-free. Those teams and those fans received unjust rewards as a result of the cheating. They won games that they shouldn’t have won, made playoff appearances that they didn’t legitimately earn, sold seats and merchandise, etc. As such, they should be punished.

 

I believe that teams who have Major League players caught using PEDs should have two direct consequences. The first is that the teams should be forced to donate the salary for any player suspended for using PEDs into MLB’s Reviving Baseball in the Inner Cities (RBI) charity. Second, I believe that any team who has a player caught using PEDs should lose their draft picks for the first three rounds in the following year’s draft and be forced to draft last in every subsequent round, regardless of their record (and receiving the lowest signing bonuses as computed for their draft slots for both the domestic and international pools). If multiple teams are caught at the same time, a coin toss would decide the order for picks, but all would be given the least amount in signing bonus money. And, if teams have multiple players caught at the same time, they should lose picks for 3 more rounds for each subsequent player caught. (Please note: I do not think that these punishments should be given for teams with Minor League players caught using PEDs—that should be handled differently).

 

The first punishment is necessary to preserve the integrity of the team. Let’s face it, there is a strong and justifiable belief that Major League Baseball and the Yankees were pushing for a lifetime ban for A-Rod just to help the Yankees get out of a bad contract. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant at this point: it’s the perception that matters.

 

Buck Showalter already pointed out that banning A-Rod would in fact help the Yankees to avoid the luxury tax and allow them to go on a free-agent spending spree with the potential windfall money saved from A-Rod’s contract. This would disrupt the competitive balance of the game, much to the detriment of a team like the Orioles which cannot afford to spend like the Yankees. It is very logical to assume that many teams made trades or signings as a result of the current economic realities. Allowing the Yankees to completely upset that would be a major disruption to all teams, and would give them a tremendous advantage predicated on A-Rod’s cheating. As a result, MLB should want all teams to appear honest and fair about their dealings in this scandal, and the best way to protect the integrity for all teams is to donate the salaries to a worthy charity.

 

By donating the salary money to the RBI charity, baseball would also be taking a step to counteract one aspect of the PED scandal: the long-term effect on the popularity of the sport. With the rise of numerous other sports, not as many kids today are growing up playing baseball. This is especially true in inner cities, where access to fields, equipment, coaching, etc. is more limited. In the long run, that will decrease the potential market for the game in a generation or two which is bad for the long-term economics of the game. By giving the salary money to the RBI charity, the teams would be taking a step to further increase the sport’s future fanbase.

 

As for stripping teams of the following year’s draft picks, this is a fair solution to a difficult challenge. Much like steroids give players a boost in the present by potentially robbing from their health in the future, the teams that benefitted from the cheating will get to keep their records in the present but at the expense of the future. And, much like there is no certainty as to how much benefit an individual received from taking the steroids, there is no certainty as to how much of a loss it would be to a team to draft picks in their first three rounds. As we all know, there have been plenty of great players picked in later rounds, so, it does not deprive a team of all hope. But, what this does do is provide a punishment for the teams that received an illgotten benefit.

 

Normally, our legal system does not punish people for the criminal acts of another. However, there are plenty of exceptions to that such as those who act as accomplices and co-conspirators. For example, all the members of a conspiracy, such as the manufacturing and distribution of illegal drugs (think “Breaking Bad”) can be punished for the criminal acts of all the other members of the conspiracy as long as they derived a benefit from the act or the crime was done in furtherance of the conspiracy. They can be punished for the acts of others in the conspiracy, whether or not they knew of the other parties or criminal acts, as long as they derived some benefit from them. (Now before people jump all over me, I’m only using this as an example and do not believe that steroids are as bad as the meth depictions in the TV show). 

 

It’s fairly obvious that for a long time baseball turned a blind-eye towards PEDs. Worse yet, baseball profited from PEDs with increased revenue. This must stop. Teams should be actively discouraged from having players using PEDs because it allows a few players to tarnish the sport for the majority. Teams should have every reason to actively discourage their players from using PEDs. Stripping teams of their draft picks would be a substantial incentive towards being more proactive about not using PEDs and preserving the game’s image. Teams should have an active interest in what happens in their clubhouses and with their players, and should not be allowed to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that they have no knowledge.

 

There is one potential down-side to making teams forfeit their draft picks and reducing their signing bonuses. In an unfortunate way, this could encourage teams to seek out players lower in the draft who might be more prone to using PEDs to make it into the Major Leagues. Hopefully, teams would realize that this would not work as the players would earn larger and larger contracts that would have to be paid if the player were ever caught cheating. But, if that did not stop the problem, repeat violations could result in more severe losses, such as losing draft picks for more rounds in order to deter a team from seeking out that type of player.

 

I know that this cannot happen right now in light of the current scandal. None of this is in the current CBA and would have to be negotiated with the players union. However, if I were the commissioner, I would want to see the teams whose players have been caught using PEDs receive a consequence, and these are the consequences I would desire.

 

Now it’s your turn to sound out on whether or not you think teams should be punished for having players using PEDs and if so, what the punishment should be. 

[Lifetime]

No I don't think teams can or should be punished. Yes they have benefited at some unknown amount, but unless there is some evidence of complicity or negligence on the part of the team, you can't punish them. There's no justification for punishing the team that way. The mere fact that the team or its fans may have benfitted from the cheating of one or more of their players does not justify punishing them. That idea is dumbfounding to me. You seem to be assuming that since a player on their team cheated, and they ultimately benefited to some degree (which cannot be quantifies in any reasonable manner), then they are therefore conspirators in the cheating. And no, just because a person has a relationship to a conspirator or an illegal enterprise, and may have benefited from it indirectly, they cannot be punished for the crimes committed by that conspiracy or illegal enterprise without proof of complicity.

[Turd Ferguson]

I don't think you can punish the team directly.  I think any PED suspension should carry with it a postseason ban though.  It doesn't make sense that a guy like Cruz can serve his susepnsion during the regular season and then come back to contribute in the postseason.

[nate]

Great idea, David.  

[fan_since79]

Commissioner's statement just released says A-Rod used PED's, HGH, and testosterone over multiple seasons.

 

They're talking about it on ESPN Radio now.

[markb]

You can't punish the teams unless you can prove they were somehow complicit in the PED use.  I suppose if the league were to put testing responsibility in the hands of each individual team, that this would be the opportunity to do that.  I have no idea about the legalities in doing such a thing.

 

I realize this is supposed to be addressed in the following passage:  

 

"Normally, our legal system does not punish people for thecriminal acts of another. However, there are plenty of exceptions to that suchas those who act as accomplices and co-conspirators. For example, all themembers of a conspiracy, such as the manufacturing and distribution of illegaldrugs (think “Breaking Bad”) can be punished for the criminal acts of all theother members of the conspiracy as long as they derived a benefit from the actor the crime was done in furtherance of the conspiracy. They can be punishedfor the acts of others in the conspiracy, whether or not they knew of the otherparties or criminal acts, as long as they derived some benefit from them. (Nowbefore people jump all over me, I’m only using this as an example and do notbelieve that steroids are as bad as the meth depictions in the TV show). "

 

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure conspiracy requires prior agreement and willful furtherance of a plan. 

[nate]

I am not going to argue this all again but I think the whole complicity argument is bullshit.  The team benefited therefore they should be punished.

[Lifetime]

ya, that's completely fair. 

 

Do you have any legal precedence for such a punishment due solely on benefiting from an illegal act or enterprise?

[nate]

Fines levied on major corporations based on Sarbanes Oxley violations.  They are not usually complicit on the highest levels of the company however because one of their employees screwed up or committed fraud they are fined.

 

This is my last post on the subject, we already went round and round on it.

[Lifetime]

right, a completely different thing with quantifiable benefits - which by the way, the company is fined due to what is deemed as negligence on their part - as company directors for something that is done inside the business of the company, they have a legal responsibility for the actions that someone does in the course of doing their business. If someone in their company did something illegal outside of the business, to directly benefit themselves, that the business indirectly benefited from, they would not be fined or held accountable unless they knew about the illegal activity and did not report it (you know, became complicit)

[nate]

They are fined much more than the "quantifiable benefits"

[Lifetime]

OK, but I didn't say otherwise so what's your point?

[markb]

Sarbanes-Oxley explicitly states that senior executives are personally responsible for the accuracy of the financial reports.  

 

That's why I suggested if there was a way to place testing liability in the hands of each individual team, then you have grounds to punish the organization when the testing system fails.  

[James]

Nate is getting hooked in even though he said he wouldnt. 

[nate]

That's all you keep saying is that it is impossible to quantify so they can't do it.  I am making the point that even when it is quantifiable they still get fined much more.

 

Also by your standard the current system is broken.  How do you quantify how much a player gained from the roids?  Why is it just 50 games, for some maybe it should be 5 then, right?  Hell how can you quantify it so they shouldn't be punished at all.

[nate]

Nate is getting hooked in even though he said he wouldnt. 

 

I know, dammit.  Gonna just stay outta this forum lol.

[Amazing Larry]

I know, dammit.  Gonna just stay outta this forum lol.

You're in The Vortex!

[Lifetime]

That's all you keep saying is that it is impossible to quantify so they can't do it.  I am making the point that even when it is quantifiable they still get fined much more.

 

Also by your standard the current system is broken.  How do you quantify how much a player gained from the roids?  Why is it just 50 games, for some maybe it should be 5 then, right?  Hell how can you quantify it so they shouldn't be punished at all.

You can't quantify how much a player gained, that's my point. You cannot take away games, change records etc. when you can't quantify what the net gain was. You cannot even reasonably estimate it.

 

The point with executives and companies being fined,  the company is fined due to what is deemed as negligence on their part - as company directors for something that is done inside the business of the company, they have a legal responsibility for the actions that someone does in the course of doing their business and it is their responsibility to vet and verify their reporting. 

[fan_since79]

I know, dammit.  Gonna just stay outta this forum lol.

i'm working on a thread that shows how we could still make the playoffs. it should be up soon.

 

Nobody can argue with me since it's all hypothetical.

[Lifetime]

Sarbanes-Oxley explicitly states that senior executives are personally responsible for the accuracy of the financial reports.  

 

That's why I suggested if there was a way to place testing liability in the hands of each individual team, then you have grounds to punish the organization when the testing system fails.  

I think this is a difficult matter to assess guilt. The only way a team could be held accountable is again, negligence. A testing system could fail to discover violations but still not be attributed to a failure on the part of the team. Clearly, testing occurs now, and the methods of testing and discovery have improved immensely over the last few years, but there are still ways to fool the system as we well know. So if a player passes the club administered test, following best practices and guidelines but is later found to have been in violation of the drug policy via other means - like we have now - how can you then assess blame and punishment on the team. If the testing procedures, when followed properly, were always reliable, then I think you could make a case for it, but outside of negligence to properly administer the testing, I don't think a team would be accountable. 

[Ohtaniland]

They will sweep this under the rug and move forward like they always do. The handful of players suspended today are the poster children for hundreds of users who weren't tested or caught the past two decades. Revenue is absolutely paramount!  

[Lifetime]

They will sweep this under the rug and move forward like they always do. The handful of players suspended today are the poster children for hundreds of users who weren't tested or caught the past two decades. Revenue is absolutely paramount!  

bullshit hamiltown. They can't go back and makeup for the hundreds of users (or whatever unknown number) who weren't tested or caught. All they can do is continue to improve testing methods and follow leads outside of testing and punish when evidence warrants it. Nothing is getting swept under the rug. 

[Turd Ferguson]

Sweep under the rug?  I'm not sure how you can say any of this has been swept under the rug.  These reports have been out there for weeks and the suspensions are significant.

 

Meanwhile, the NFL has had 15 guys suspended already in 2013 for PEDs.  Name one.

 

I'm a lot less offended by what MLB has done to clean up its game then I am with the media's incessant scrutinization of any whisper of MLB PED use while turning a blind eye the use of PEDs in its bellcow the NFL.

[Dave Saltzer]

Sweep under the rug? I'm not sure how you can say any of this has been swept under the rug. These reports have been out there for weeks and the suspensions are significant.

Meanwhile, the NFL has had 15 guys suspended already in 2013 for PEDs. Name one.

I'm a lot less offended by what MLB has done to clean up its game then I am with the media's incessant scrutinization of any whisper of MLB PED use while turning a blind eye the use of PEDs in its bellcow the NFL.

I think your post proves why so many, myself included, are focusing on this scandal and want to come down hard on players and teams so that MLB doesn't end up like the NFL. Every time they do wimpy of ishments and go soft on both the players and teams they take MLB one step closer to the NFL. It is pretty sad when many people think that NFL stands for National Felons League rather than National Football League. I do not want to see that happen to the game of baseball that I live so much.

[mp170.6]

I typically like Dave's articles but the logic is sorely missing in these last two articles.  This one in particular reeks of totalitarianism, even though just a couple days ago you denounced the bankers in this country as being too big and too powerful.  Now you want MLB to have the power to drop the hammer on whomever they like for reasons that make no sense.  You can't have it both ways.  If you hate corporate America having the autonomy to do their own thing without regulatory oversight, you can't sit here and suggest MLB become any more powerful than they already are.  Other thoughts:

 

1.  Why do you presume teams are "accomplices and co-conspirators"?  How do you know teams don't help MLB bust a player for PED violations?

 

2.  Your proposal removes any incentive whatsoever for teams to report their suspicions of PED violations.  Why would they report anything if a conviction is going to cost them in the draft?

 

3.  Donating salary has little punitive effect.  That money is already budgeted for payroll, so a team is no worse off having to donate.  Most of the players being suspended under the drug agreement are no-names earning very close to the minimum salary.  Jesus Montero gets $503,300 this year from the Mariners.  With a 50-game suspension he loses (50 / 162) * 503300 = $155,339.  Teams eat millions of dollars every year from bad contracts.  That's bubble gum change to a MLB team. 

 

4.  Two of the players suspended today are free agents.  There's no salary to donate or draft picks to confiscate.  How is that fair to the other teams?

 

5.  A player gets traded to another team, then busted for PED's a week later.  Why would it be fair to punish his new team?   Why would it be fair to punish his old team?  Maybe they traded him away because they suspected he was using PED's?

 

6.  MLB is responsible for administering the drug testing program.  When they FAIL to detect PED's in a player's urine and blood samples, why should teams be punished for MLB's incompetence? 

 

 

 

I look forward to your answers.