Infractions and violations in professional USA Sports: Should they all be prosecuted?

[Grandpa Troll]

The U S Government is getting more and more involved in imposing its will on major league sports.

I am amazed how flagrant many violations are, no, not because they are getting more and more publicity, but because the sports have not governed themselves.

Money is the root of all evil and this just reemphasizes such!

If a player is a big time money maker, it seems they often, not all the time, just often get a pass.

Do you armchair experts feel we have too much involvement in matters related to sports by the U S Government?

Do you feel the various branches of sports should govern all the sundry infractions and let law enforcement entities stay away?

Thanks for honest answers one and all!

Grandpa Troll

[SlowwHand]

I kind of wonder why government is involved at all.
As far as rulings on records and such, it really is slippery. Gaylord Perry is in the HOF and he threw spitballs. That was illegal, and he admitted it. "Greenies" were wide-spread at one time. That being said, I doubt A-Rod and others will make it to the HOF now. Records are a real problem. Think of Clemens, 7 time Cy Young winner. Bottom-line, I don't know.
Somehow this seems worse than spitballs and greenies. At some point a line should be drawn. Punishments need to hurt.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, there is a punishment scheme in place. IMO, it isn't baseball's role to prosecute players. If they violated the laws of the US, the US should go after them. But baseball's needs are different. I mean, in the NFL, a player who is caught doing steroids gets a 4 game suspension (1/4th of the season). No one is crying over that. But baseball's penalty for a first timer is worse (50 games, which is closer to 1/3rd of the season). To go after those who used prior to the penalties being in place is just vindictiveness and I don't think it needs to be done.

[Grandpa Troll]

Well, there is a punishment scheme in place. IMO, it isn't baseball's role to prosecute players. If they violated the laws of the US, the US should go after them. But baseball's needs are different. I mean, in the NFL, a player who is caught doing steroids gets a 4 game suspension (1/4th of the season). No one is crying over that. But baseball's penalty for a first timer is worse (50 games, which is closer to 1/3rd of the season). To go after those who used prior to the penalties being in place is just vindictiveness and I don't think it needs to be done.

Imran

Is there a Statue of Limitations?

Also, was it spelled out that "Now we have testing" and everyone from here forth is under scrutiny or was it not even addressed?

Thanks

[rah]

I think in baseball yes to both.
The union agreed to testing everyone to determine if testing was necessary. The threashold was met and testing was instituted with the penalties quite clear. There were no surprises on that note. Everyone was aware.
The orignal test was supposed to be anonymous (kind of like a statue of limitations since prior use was supposed to not be punishable.) But the union wasn't happy about the results and supposedly was trying to challange some of the tests to make the results not reach the threashold so testing wouldn't be deemed necessary. (this is speculated from stories) If they had just destroyed the test results quickly, (how hard is that) this wouldn't be an issue and all the old violators would have gotten off scott free. Now they're squealing that they had pre knowledge that the government was going to ask for the results so they didn't destroy them. Hmmm if I thought that was the case it would have been incentive to destroy the results as quickly as possible, so that story doesn't ring true to me. Unless the ultimate goal was to out those violators despite previous intentions and promises.

[-Jrabbit]

I think it's more likely that MLB retained the results (on advice of counsel) specifically because they were under threat of Congressional investigation. They knew they had to be able to prove they were capable of self-policing, good guardians of the public trust, etc.

[snoopy369]

I am going to say 'no', but it's not a definitive no. Baseball, and the federal government, need to make a fundamental decision: is baseball a business, or a governmental arm. It's presently sort of both. It has some immunity from normal business laws, such as anti-trust laws, which recognize that it is something greater than a normal business, and in some sense society has some interest in it; in another sense, it operates more (and more) like a normal business nowadays, with owners expecting to turn a profit (which was not always the case). I think it needs to go all the way one or the other - either be a non-profit social body (where owners do not expect to turn a profit, but can write off losses on their taxes etc.) or be entirely a business (removing the anti-trust exemption or converting it into something more like the NFL, where the league is the business and the owners are shareholders, if I understand it correctly).

In the former, congress is permitted in; in the latter, the league polices itself. As it currently stands, I suppose the league should police itself, so long as the league isn't essentially one big drug conspiracy, and no substantial laws are being broken (ie, the BALCO investigation I'm all for, but not investigating individual drug USERS, which Congress would never do, nor even the local district attorney in most cases).

[rah]

I think it's more likely that MLB retained the results (on advice of counsel) specifically because they were under threat of Congressional investigation. They knew they had to be able to prove they were capable of self-policing, good guardians of the public trust, etc.

MLB or the Players Association.
It was my understanding that the Players association had the results. If I was them, unless I had an order in hand not to, I would have destroyed the records before they could be siezed.
It would have been easy to argue that the agreement to accept testing was based on anonymity and turning over the records would have violated that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Disagree.

If a player breaks the rules that a sport has been laid down, that should be the extent that they have to face the law. It's in the interests of the sport to keep itself clean. If a sport is perceived as corrupt, then they will lose the interest of the folks involved.

That being said, it's disappointing for ARod and Clemens. Most of their contemporaries did not use steroids, and they didn't need to use them either. That's what the most senseless thing is, they would have both made the HOF without them.

[-Jrabbit]

Disagree.

If a player breaks the rules that a sport has been laid down, that should be the extent that they have to face the law. It's in the interests of the sport to keep itself clean. If a sport is perceived as corrupt, then they will lose the interest of the folks involved.

Two problems with this:
1. The rules were not laid down at the time of the testing. Steroids were against the law, but not against the rules of the game.
2. As Imran pointed out, once it (finally) became clear that players were using steroids in the late 90s, the sport enjoyed a significant increase in attendance fueled by excitement over Sosa, McGwire et al. during that same timespan.

Most of their contemporaries did not use steroids, and they didn't need to use them either.

I disagree with the above statement. If over 100 players still tested positive in 2003 -- after plenty of advance warning that testing was coming -- I think it's highly likely that half or more of all MLB players dabbled in performance enhancers. They had time, opportunity and motive, while the sport did nothing beyond issuing meaningless memos to prevent/stop it.

It's just speculation on my part, but baseball has a long-established culture of "if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying." It was true for spitballs and amphetamines. I don't see steroids being significantly different in that regard. Most people are followers who will do things just to "keep up with the Joneses" -- especially with multimillion dollar contracts at stake.

[snoopy369]

Or at least half of the top performers - perhaps not those that WOULD have been top performers, but assuming steroids improve performance, it would alter that dynamic...

[-Jrabbit]

I don't think performance level is really a factor. After all, we're talking about usage, not effectiveness. AAA players want to make the majors, benchwarmers want to start, starters want to be stars, stars want to be superstars...

[snoopy369]

I'm saying that people who might have been at the 40th percentile who took steroids now are at the 60th percentile (say). Thus, a sample of the top performers will find MORE than a sample of all performers because it is self selecting; while if you sampled people who without steroids would have BEEN in the top echelon, that might not be true.

[-Jrabbit]

Hmm, mathematically likely, I guess. But on the other end of the scale, you'll find minor leaguers who 'roided their way into the majors, replacing marginal MLB players who didn't cheat...

[Ben Kenobi]

1. The rules were not laid down at the time of the testing. Steroids were against the law, but not against the rules of the game.

Doesn't change the fact that they are performance enhancing.

2. As Imran pointed out, once it (finally) became clear that players were using steroids in the late 90s, the sport enjoyed a significant increase in attendance fueled by excitement over Sosa, McGwire et al. during that same timespan.

Then why don't they switch to metal bats if it's all about the long ball?