Papi, Manny tested positive for roids in 2003 survey tests

This is getting ridiculous. This has to stop. Two things need to happen:

1) They need to release all 107 names. I don't care that they are "sealed". It's not fair that A-Rod, Barry, Sammy, Manny and Papi are all outed and 102 others are protected. They all have to be named.

2) The lawyers who are leaking the names must be outed and made to pay for leaking sealed data.

7 months ago Orlando Rays 15 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Agreed with #2

If they went through with #1, we could be looking at a labor stoppage in the future over what should be a dead issue at this point.

by GomesSweetGomes on Jul 30, 2009 12:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I said they had to admit it, not that they needed to be punished.

I’m okay with the provision that they don’t get punished for testing positive in the 2003 survey testing. But it’s completely unfair that a few have to live with the stigma while 102 others can just go on with their daily lives as if nothing happened. Plus, it would take away from the fun of those lawyer trolls who are releasing names one or two at a time every couple of months.

We know something you don't know
And if we don't share then we don't grow
Unabomber set the whole world on fire

by Orlando Rays on Jul 30, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that it's unfair to the few

Believe me as a long-time Bonds defender it really irks me that a few are singled out for the crimes of many. However, the owners agreed to keep the results confidential. If they unilaterally broke the agreement, it would only add to the mistrust between them and the MLBPA at a time when salaries are finally starting to come under control via market forces.

I know may fans don’t care about this sort of thing, and see it as necessary to rid the game of PED’s, but I think to the players it would be as simple as another broken promise, subject matter be damned.

by GomesSweetGomes on Jul 30, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless they can prove the owners are behind the leaks, that a load of hooey.

We know something you don't know
And if we don't share then we don't grow
Unabomber set the whole world on fire

by Orlando Rays on Jul 30, 2009 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I must have misunderstood what you wrote

When you said ‘They need to release all 107 names’ I thought you meant ‘they’, as in the owners.

by GomesSweetGomes on Jul 30, 2009 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would completely agree that if a journalist came across the entire list, that they should leak it.

I just dont agree with attorneys doing it.

by GomesSweetGomes on Jul 30, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

don't blame the lawyers for the poor steroid users having to live with the stigma...

it was their decision to cheat, it was their action, no one else. they knew full well before taking any PED’s what the consequences could be if they got caught. fact is they got caught, and i personally applaud anyone who is taking the risk of getting disbarred to leak a name to the general public who has EVERY RIGHT to know who cheated during games that we paid to see.

by davidsmarch on Jul 30, 2009 4:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Um...no

1. No, there is no right to know. Sports is entertainment, and nothing more. You have no more ‘right’ to know about this than you have the right to know which singers lip-sync or have their voices digitally enhanced. If you don’t like it, your only recourse it to take your entertainment dollars elsewhere. If it really bothers you enough that you’d want to violate someone’s privacy, you probably should boycott baseball.
2. Any lawyer who would reveal this info deserves disbarrment. The only redeeming quality of lawyers is that you’re supposed to be able to trust them with your secrets. If a lawyer can’t be trusted to keep their mouth shut, they need to find a new line of work.

by GomesSweetGomes on Jul 30, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if you break the rules, you deserve to be exposed

i don’t care if the players were able to negotiate something into the CBA to the contrary. you continue to judge the situation by the book, and that’s perfectly ok, continue to be a robot. i look at it like a fan, these players have a responsibility; cheating is contrary to that responsibility, hence they deserve to be exposed.

by davidsmarch on Jul 30, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What rules do you speak of?

Because if the players were able to negotiate something, then those are the rules that apply. Expecting lawyers to keep their oaths of attorney, and expecting the owners to abide by an agreeement the freely entered into doesn’t make me a robot….It’s called pragmatism.

by GomesSweetGomes on Jul 30, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's called being a blind lemming...

just b/c someone negotiates something into a contract doesn’t mean it’s morally correct, there’s a “whistle blower” clause in the law just for that circumstance.

by davidsmarch on Jul 30, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

While you are at it

don’t you think it is time that we also out all the drug-enhanced players of the 1950s-70s. We know about Mays, Gibson and Koufax, and we also know, by his own admission, that Aaron used illegal enhancements at least once. We also know that such substances were standard fare in every major league locker room. We know too that Mays introduced others to his particular favorite drug enhancer by the testimony of John Milner who was one such recipient of Mays’ largesse. So perhaps quite a few more need to come clean so the sanctimonious hypocrites can identify the “cheaters” and immoral players they so dearly love to malign.

And I insist that henceforth, whenever a player from any earlier era is mentioned, his name be prefaced either by “cheater” or “drug-enhanced performer” on the one hand or “suspected drug-enhanced performer/cheater” on the other.

by bobr on Jul 30, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

absolutely, out them all

anyone who cheated should have it known, only then will the playing field be fair and all accountability taken. player perception has a lot to do with HOF credentials, some players should not benefit by having their secrets kept while others suffer, they should all suffer for their digression, equally. i am not a sanctimonious hypocrite, i have never claimed to be above reproach, please don’t infer anything personally about me you have no right to.

by davidsmarch on Jul 30, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Davidsmarch IS Jim Garrison IN .... Big Papi: The True Story Behind Steroid Nation

by Suttree on Jul 30, 2009 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whistleblower clauses are for when people unwittingly discover wrongdoing

Here the owners knew damn good and well going into their agreement with the players that some players were likely to test positive. In order to get the union to agree to testing, they chose to keep the results confidential. If they had a problem with the agreement at the time they made it, they should have taken their moral stand 6 years ago.

In no way is going back on your word an honorable thing. In my book, it makes you a spineless individual who is not to be trusted.*

I should note that the owners have acted completely appropriately here, in that they have not released the records, execpt when they were involuntarily seized by federal agents. Some may argue that they should have destroyed the results earlier, but just like the owners, if the players wanted the results destroyed immediately, they should have bargained for it.

If expecting people to keep their word, and expecting attorneys to keep their oath of attorney makes me a lemming, so be it. However, I personally believe you’re the one who is being unrealistic in imposing your moral code on the universe.

by GomesSweetGomes on Jul 31, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs