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

[The God of Runs]

it's way too difficult to police this stuff.  It's hard enough for baseball to police this, but punishing teams for having PED users on their rosters, essentially makes all teams forced to institute a stricter testing policy.  They would have to be more vigilant about it.  Like many said, you gotta make the penalties a lot harsher.  That's the best way to deal with it. 

[Season Over]

I propose that as punishment, the Rangers must hang this in their clubhouse for the remainder of the season.

 

[mtangelsfan]

I think that until teams are allowed to test players themselves, this isn't really a good idea.  I've seen other examples used in this thread and others about companies being busted for the actions of their employees, but that is a little different.  Companies can do any kind of training, testing, auditing etc....... to make sure their employees are not breaking the law.  However, major league teams are not allowed to privately test their players.  That is a huge difference.

 

However, if a team signs a player who has already been busted for using PED's, then I do think they should be held accountable and face some sort of punishment.

[Lifetime]

Well again MT, I don't get the justification for that. Why should a team assume that because a player was caught once they'll be repeat offenders? Is there any evidence indicating this is a higher risk than signing a player that hasn't been caught?

 

I also think there is a problem holding teams accountable even if they do their own testing since it is difficult if not impossible to maintain a continuously reliable testing method. Just ask the
USADA or WADA about that. They are extremely vigilant yet they still don't catch everyone because the chemist are one step ahead of them. So, a player fails a test and then you fine the team? No, punishment and fines belong with the players, the offenders, not the teams.

[mp170.6]

However, if a team signs a player who has already been busted for using PED's, then I do think they should be held accountable and face some sort of punishment.

 

If teams were penalized for signing players previously busted for PED's, they probably won't do it.  Essentially what this means is a 50-game ban converts to a lifetime ban when the player becomes a free agent because no team will sign him.

 

Am I understanding you correctly?

[mp170.6]

I also think there is a problem holding teams accountable even if they do their own testing since it is difficult if not impossible to maintain a continuously reliable testing method. Just ask the

USADA or WADA about that. They are extremely vigilant yet they still don't catch everyone because the chemist are one step ahead of them. So, a player fails a test and then you fine the team? No, punishment and fines belong with the players, the offenders, not the teams.

 

What I don't understand is why MLB's testing program relies only on urine in many cases.  I've done employment drug screens before, and they do hair samples because the window of detection for certain drugs is much greater, up to 90 days as I recall. 

 

And unlike urine samples, hair cannot be tampered with to hide a positive result. 

[Lifetime]

Because for much of the chemicals they are looking for, urine is a good vehicle. Pre-employment tests are not looking for PED type drugs. PED's last longer in the system. MLB is doing urine and blood now (HGH does not show in urine).

[mp170.6]

Because for much of the chemicals they are looking for, urine is a good vehicle. Pre-employment tests are not looking for PED type drugs. PED's last longer in the system. MLB is doing urine and blood now (HGH does not show in urine).

 

They also test for commonly abused drugs...cocaine, marijuana, LSD, opiates, PCP, ecstasy, etc.   If they really care about this type of drug use, why not use a different method (hair) that can see further back than urine?

[Lifetime]

I know that, but that isn't the focus of the testing unless there is an suspicion (based on actions, reports, etc) or a known issue. In that case, the testing is done much more frequently - see Hamilton. 

[mp170.6]

I know that, but that isn't the focus of the testing unless there is an suspicion (based on actions, reports, etc) or a known issue. In that case, the testing is done much more frequently - see Hamilton. 

 

Hair samples can detect steroids as well. 

[Lifetime]

yes. But again, they are only looking for those drugs if there is suspicion or a known issue. 

 

And using hair samples would have to be negotiated with the union. It could end up being the test of choice with the addition of blood for HGH. 

[mp170.6]

yes. But again, they are only looking for those drugs if there is suspicion or a known issue. 

 

And using hair samples would have to be negotiated with the union. It could end up being the test of choice with the addition of blood for HGH. 

 

I'm talking about all different drugs they are searching for, PED's or not.  Why not do both urine and hair if MLB and MLBPA are truly serious about eradicating them from the game?  

[Lifetime]

I know what you're talking about and again, those aren't the focus of the testing unless there is a suspicion or a known issue. 

 

Yes, more work needs to be done to improve the testing and the penalties. We've recently seen improvements made, and under the current climate with players and owners (and MLB), it's probably going to happen sooner rather than later. 

 

Also, it doesn't make sense to do urine and hair. HGH isn't detectable in either, so blood testing has to be part of it.

[mancini79]

I agree that the team should be held accountable to some degree because they did benefit. I'm just not sure how to come up with a fair punishment. Right now the current system also encourages teams to look the other way.

[Lifetime]

This notion really puzzles me. Because the team ended up benefiting indirectly to a player's PED use, they should be penalized even though it wasn't something within their control or knowledge? How does them benefiting make them accountable? How can you possibly justify such a punishment and administer it fairly? 

[Guest]

The logic in the author's article is hilariously laughable. I couldn't tell if he was being serious about donating a PED player's salary to charity. Does that sound like a remotely realistic punishment? 

[mancini79]

When a player is fined, that money goes to a MLB approved charity. That might be the direction Dave was referring to.