[blackcat_mc]

Where are you getting your information? Steroids is a banned substance and always has been in the United States. They were NOT legal in 2003 and if you were found with them you were charged with a folony.

What you are confusing is that Major League Baseball did not have steroids on their list of un-approved drugs as of 2003. I find this rediculous in itself that sports should have to say you can't use an illegal substance. If it's illegal, then why did MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL all have to say you can't use it???

It's the same argument about Michael Phelps and the Bong. People want to blow it off as it's just a little pot, everyone has done it, he's young. That's BS, it's illegal, so he should have been smart enough to not have a picture of him doing it.

As for your final comment: There are many other players that have took steroids you dont see them hitting 40+ homers a year. It's not that steroids were the only factor of hitting homeruns. I'll use Bonds an an example. How did Bonds cheat mother nature by increasing his home-run output once he turned 40 than at any other time in his career. Yeah, steroids would have made him stronger, which probably helped him hit a few more homeruns, but what it did do for him was it gave him the "fountain of youth". Physilogically, it gave him an advantage that no other player his age has ever achieved. He stayed healthy when someone like Griffey Jr.'s body broke down every year. Bonds could hit homeruns because he was able to play.

If you want proof that Steroids makes in impact, go read Conseco's book. As much as everyone thought he was a liar and only out to make a buck, he has turned out to be the only credible source on the entire steriods issue!

And again, if they weren't specifically banned by the MLB in 2003 when he tested positive for them, what is the harm. He would have been a fool not to take them.

[Stardust]

And again, if they weren't specifically banned by the MLB in 2003 when he tested positive for them, what is the harm. He would have been a fool not to take them.

I agree completely.

I guess that I may be fool enough to do something like this as well. If someone came to me and said I have this pill that will allow you to do your job better than all of your co-workers, and by being better than you co-workers, you will make 10x more money than they do, I'd be tempted to do it.

[blackcat_mc]

I agree completely.

I guess that I may be fool enough to do something like this as well. If someone came to me and said I have this pill that will allow you to do your job better than all of your co-workers, and by being better than you co-workers, you will make 10x more money than they do, I'd be tempted to do it.

Exactly.. some people are acting like they wouldn't take that pill.

[TomSportsHack]

And again, if they weren't specifically banned by the MLB in 2003 when he tested positive for them, what is the harm. He would have been a fool not to take them.

Please stop it.

Steroids are regulated under Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act and have been since 1991.
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/steroids.html

http://www.steroidsinbaseball.net/commish/vincent.html
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/sports.../baseball/

"The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a Club also may take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the Uniform Player's Contract."

The policy is there and has been there for a long time. Even though the union dragged its feet on agreeing to testing, it is a fact that A-Rod, the other 103 players on that list and an unknown number of other players violated federal drug-trafficking laws and MLB policy.

[blackcat_mc]

Please stop it.

Steroids are regulated under Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act and have been since 1991.
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/steroids.html

http://www.steroidsinbaseball.net/commish/vincent.html
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/sports.../baseball/

"The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a Club also may take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the Uniform Player's Contract."

The policy is there and has been there for a long time. Even though the union dragged its feet on agreeing to testing, it is a fact that A-Rod, the other 103 players on that list and an unknown number of other players violated federal drug-trafficking laws and MLB policy.

If there was no steroid tests in the MLB before 2003. The league couldn't do **** to players before 2006, when the MLB's drug policy was adopted. He cannot get in trouble for something which there were no rules against. I provided you all with the link to the wikipedia article. What Fay Vincent sent to the teams in 1991 was a memo saying the individual teams should "get tough" on suspected steroids users. It was as worthless as the piece of paper it was on until 2006 when the anti-steroid policy was actually adopted. Face it, A-Rod is not going to be getting in any trouble for using steroids before they were banned by the MLB.

[TomSportsHack]

I provided you all with the link to the wikipedia article.

I read your link. It doesn't say what you think it said. There's no discussion of anything prior to 2006. That does not mean that there was no policy in place prior to 2006, only that there was no testing. That does not add up to "steroids were legal in baseball prior to the current program."

The 1991 Vincent memo and the 1997 Selig memo spelled out clearly that players and other employees were barred from possessing, selling or using any illegal drug or controlled substance. Anabolic steroids are regulated under Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act and have been since 1991.

Anybody proven to be involved with the steroid trade since Vincent's directive in 1991 (Selig's memo made no changes to Vincent's original directive) could face additional discipline. And it's on the menu: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/...sion_N.htm

Thanks for playing.

[blackcat_mc]

I read your link. It doesn't say what you think it said. There's no discussion of anything prior to 2006. That does not mean that there was no policy in place prior to 2006, only that there was no testing. That does not add up to "steroids were legal in baseball prior to the current program."

The 1991 Vincent memo and the 1997 Selig memo spelled out clearly that players and other employees were barred from possessing, selling or using any illegal drug or controlled substance. Anabolic steroids are regulated under Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act and have been since 1991.

Anybody proven to be involved with the steroid trade since Vincent's directive in 1991 (Selig's memo made no changes to Vincent's original directive) could face additional discipline. And it's on the menu: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/...sion_N.htm

Thanks for playing.

Wow, I wish Bonds, Conseco, and A-Rod has gotten that memo! Things would be so different now. Not.

You want to go to the USA Today?
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/...licy_x.htm

"Evolution of the steroid policy 2002
• Before 2002, Major League Baseball had no official policy on steroid use among players. As part of a collective bargaining agreement, players and owners agree to hold survey testing in 2003. If more than 5% of results from the anonymous tests are positive, formal testing and penalties will be put into place the next year.
2003
• Baseball announces after the season that 5% to 7% of test results were positive, triggering the new policy in 2004.
2004
• Each player is tested once a year in season. A first positive test results in treatment, followed by a 15-day suspension for a second positive and up to a year suspension for a fifth positive. The result is no player is suspended for steroid use.
2005
• Baseball agrees to a new policy. Banned substances include steroids, steroid precursors, designer steroids, masking agents and diuretics. There will be one unannounced mandatory test of each player during the season. In addition, there will be testing of randomly selected players, with no maximum number. And there will be random testing during the offseason. The penalties for a positive result are, first positive, 10 days; second, 30 days; third, 60 days; fourth, one year, and all without pay."




And good job with the one-liners in your posts *******.

[JackRabbitSlim]

If there was no steroid tests in the MLB before 2003. The league couldn't do **** to players before 2006, when the MLB's drug policy was adopted. He cannot get in trouble for something which there were no rules against. I provided you all with the link to the wikipedia article. What Fay Vincent sent to the teams in 1991 was a memo saying the individual teams should "get tough" on suspected steroids users. It was as worthless as the piece of paper it was on until 2006 when the anti-steroid policy was actually adopted. Face it, A-Rod is not going to be getting in any trouble for using steroids before they were banned by the MLB.

I am pretty sure steriods are illegal. MLB doesn't have to have a policy in place for the players to understand that. That is like saying it is okay for the players to do crack because MLB didn't tell them they couldn't.

[blackcat_mc]

I am pretty sure steriods are illegal. MLB doesn't have to have a policy in place for the players to understand that. That is like saying it is okay for the players to do crack because MLB didn't tell them they couldn't.

For the league to punish him though, they had to have rules against it. They didnt

[Stardust]

For the league to punish him though, they had to have rules against it. They didnt

I think what Selig is attempting to play is that no player could use an illegal susbstance, thus his reasoning for consideration.

My thought on that is the only way he could take any action on A-Rod or any other player tested during that timeframe, is to take possesion of the tests and the results. MLB has ZERO proof. They did not conduct the tests, nor are the owners of the data. Right now, it is all on paper. There are no physical proofs of the evidence, thus I cannot see any legal action taking place. For the same reason, I cannot see how MLB would be in a position to do anything either.

[JackRabbitSlim]

For the league to punish him though, they had to have rules against it. They didnt

He could still get punished because it was illegal. Any time a player does something illegal they are subject to being reprimanded.

[Stardust]

He could still get punished because it was illegal. Any time a player does something illegal they are subject to being reprimanded.

I agree with your thought

[blackcat_mc]

He could still get punished because it was illegal. Any time a player does something illegal they are subject to being reprimanded.

I'm not sure, but I think it may be past the statute of limitations by now

edit: never mind you mean by the MLB.. possibly, we will just have to wait and see.