[luke warm]

blackshoe, on May 8 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

jdonn, on May 8 2009, 11:15 AM, said:

If this other drug is not allowed then who cares why it was prescribed?

Is this other drug prohibited? If so, why? It doesn't sound to me like it's "performance enhancing", except maybe in the bedroom, and that's not only irrelevant to the sport, it's none of the sport's business. So if the sport's bosses prohibit the drug for "guilt by association", again it's they who are the morons.

it really doesn't matter why (although the answer appears somewhere), all that matters is that it's banned... the same sort of thing happens in the nfl all the time... the saints had their 2 defensive ends given 4 game suspensions last year for taking a banned substance... the substance was found in an over the counter pill (called star caps) and can be used to mask steroid usage

this case has garnered attention because a federal judge issued a stay and it will go to trial this june... the otc pill was approved by the nfl at one time but, unbeknownst to the players, the banned substance was added to the formula... the nfl knew about the change and never explicitly informed the players' union, grant and smith took the capsules and flunked the test... it's under appeal and would have surely been denied but for the lawsuit (it's the players' responsibility per the cba)... the players involved are also suing star caps, fwiw

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on May 8 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

Of course it is, they suspended him for using it. What in the world makes you think it's not?

I don't think anything in particular, I asked a question. If in fact he was charged with using the drug he actually used, then it seems that "but that drug isn't prohibited" would be a legitimate defense. Since he doesn't assert that defense, one might reasonably conclude that's how he was charged. But it's also conceivable that they charged him with using steroids, on the basis that the drug he did use is often associated with steroid use, whether or not that drug is itself prohibited. As I haven't read the actual charge, I don't assume it's the former; I don't know which it is.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on May 8 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

But it's also conceivable that they charged him with using steroids, on the basis that the drug he did use is often associated with steroid use, whether or not that drug is itself prohibited.

I don't find that conceivable at all, it wouldn't even occur to me nor does it sound at all plausible now. But I guess that's where we differ.

[Lobowolf]

mike777, on May 8 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

I can only hope Congress would ban sports from denying people jobs or millions for taking medicine given by a doctor. Employees need to be protected.

Unlikely, from what I remember from my Sports Law class (which is at its heart a way of making Labor Law interesting).

The leagues' (MLB, but also NFL, NBA, etc.) drug policies stem from collective bargaining agreements, and are given a great deal of deference by courts, and to a lesser extent legislators, at least as long as they're made in good faith. The parties are expected to work out their issues between themselves. To the extent that an element of a CBA appears unfavorable to one side, it's generally assumed that it was a concession as part of an arm's-length negotiation as a result of which that party received an offsetting benefit of some sort.

That being said, Labor Law is not my speciality.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on May 8 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

blackshoe, on May 8 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

But it's also conceivable that they charged him with using steroids, on the basis that the drug he did use is often associated with steroid use, whether or not that drug is itself prohibited.

I don't find that conceivable at all, it wouldn't even occur to me nor does it sound at all plausible now. But I guess that's where we differ.

"Implausible" is, to me, a gross underbid. That's like a cop writing a speeding ticket to a guy parked in a Porsche because people in Porsches often speed, THEN the judge sentencing him, THEN the guy not putting up a stink about it.

[jdonn]

jdonn, on May 8 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

blackshoe, on May 8 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

But it's also conceivable that they charged him with using steroids, on the basis that the drug he did use is often associated with steroid use, whether or not that drug is itself prohibited.

I don't find that conceivable at all, it wouldn't even occur to me nor does it sound at all plausible now. But I guess that's where we differ.

Ok, not only inconceivable, but simply not the case. From the Sports Illustrated website:

Quote

A baseball source told the Globe the substance that triggered Manny Ramirez's 50-game suspension was human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), a female fertility drug that steroid users sometimes ingest to regulate their natural testosterone levels. HCG has been banned by Major League Baseball since last year and by the International Olympic Committee since 1987.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough. Though I'd still like to know why they banned it — and whether the ban was indeed the result of a collective bargaining agreement. I would hope that there's not a CBA in place that allows management to ban any drug arbitrarily, but who knows?

[Lobowolf]

I don't know how specific the CBA is on particular drugs, but I do know that drug testing and consequences are certainly discussed at great length in the negotiations. My guess would be that he wouldn't be voluntarily taking a 50-game suspension if he a legitimate grievance.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on May 8 2009, 02:36 PM, said:

Fair enough. Though I'd still like to know why they banned it — and whether the ban was indeed the result of a collective bargaining agreement. I would hope that there's not a CBA in place that allows management to ban any drug arbitrarily, but who knows?

It seems reasonable to me to ban drugs that can be used to mask the use of performance enhancing drugs, similar to making illegal the use of radar detectors. Though I understand that drugs have other uses while radar detectors are pretty singular in their purpose.

There are multiple drugs out there for most conditions. If, as has been speculated, this drug was used for erectile dysfunction, it seems to me that there are other drugs available for the condition. Of course, I do not know if those are also banned. In the case of a condition that can only be treated with banned drugs, there ought to be a way to work with MLB in order to gain an exemption for a period of time.

An article that I read today (I forget now where) reported that Manny failed two tests, one in spring training and one after the start of the regular season.

[mike777]

"An article that I read today (I forget now where) reported that Manny failed two tests, one in spring training and one after the start of the regular season."

Given that he passed 15 previous tests this leads credence to the fact he is an older player and may in fact use steriods or similar for medical reasons, to recover after the end of a long season and to try and prevent injury in the coming season. All to enhance his performance in 2009! I note over the winter he was not employed by MLB.

[Winstonm]

Don't you know that when the bust comes, the story is always that the dope belongs to my cousin, not to me.

[kenberg]

I guess there are three distinct questions:

1. Should some substances be banned?
2. Is the current list reasonable?
3. Is it likely that a player has inadvertently used a banned substance?

1. The answer to one is an easy yes, I would think. If any substance is allowed there will always be people who will take the most godawful things, putting others at a disadvantage. Setting up a sport in that way would be grossly immoral.

2. Beats me, but that is an issue that needs discussion in general, not as a defense in a specific case.

3. In a silly sort of way it is possible. We probably all know bridge players who will huddle before playing a stiff. They don't know that it is improper. If a director explains that it is, then they will perhaps know for fifteen minutes that it is improper but then they again do not know. Athletes make a lot of money (a news flash, I know). They can afford to pay good money to doctors to get the very best care and they can choose a doctor who takes seriously the importance of keeping the athlete on the right side of the drug list. Or they can choose a doctor who is perpetually surprised. Oh, this is banned? Really? Who would have known? Golly gee.

[Aberlour10]

Another "fallen hero" in todays european sport headlines. Current world best one-day race rider in cycling Tom Boonen has tested positive for cocaine,second time in 12 months.. only a few weeks after his tremendous ride in the most important classic Paris-Roubaix. Season for season all this cycling stars assure in solemn pledges: "Now, we are clean and we will stay so". Nobody belives it anymore, they remain a "Circle of Cheaters".

Robert

[kgr]

Aberlour10, on May 9 2009, 06:36 PM, said:

Another "fallen hero" in todays european sport headlines. Current world best one-day race rider in cycling Tom Boonen has tested positive for cocaine,second time in 12 months.. only a few weeks after his tremendous ride in the most important classic Paris-Roubaix. Season for season all this cycling stars assure in solemn pledges: "Now, we are clean and we will stay so". Nobody belives it anymore, they remain a "Circle of Cheaters".

Robert

Not sure if this one was cheating or too much decompression. It was taken in his off season, while probably not even training was done.
 
About the other case that was discussed here: The just started to do doping tests in America. In a couple of years you will better accept it.