Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    28,981
    vCash
    1500

    If MLB were really interested in removing PEDs

    They'd give just as much incentive to owners to not sign suspected players as they give players (allegedly) for not taking PEDs.

    As it stands now, it's a one-way street. There is no downside to signing a player who might be using PEDs. If he gets caught, great! No need to pay him. If he doesn't, great! We'll be the beneficiary of all those great numbers!

    But if MLB was really interested in cracking down on PEDS, which they are not, they would require the team of a player who failed a drug test to pay the equivalent of that player's salary to all the teams in in their division who didn't have a player test positive.

    This way, if a player tests positive, money comes out of the player's pocket, money comes out of the owner's pocket, and the competing teams benefit. If this system were in place today, i wonder if the Mets would have been so willing to pay Bartolo Colon $20 million over 2 years?

    Hmmmmmm.....
    Last edited by fanofclendennon; 12-12-2013 at 01:09 PM.
    FELLOW SATINISTS INCLUDE:
    FoC, YS, Harry, Zmaster, Gotta, ArkansasMetsFan, KingsnQueens7, The-rock-man, Wrigheyes4MVP, Vendetta, Jim Labruno


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    America
    Posts
    26,228
    vCash
    1500
    The problem is, the owner doesn't know what all they are doing while they are away. Holding the owner to some sort of responsibility could work though, because then the team might take it more seriously.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    28,981
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by jlohm1 View Post
    The problem is, the owner doesn't know what all they are doing while they are away. Holding the owner to some sort of responsibility could work though, because then the team might take it more seriously.
    They'll certainly think twice before signing someone with a checkered past.
    FELLOW SATINISTS INCLUDE:
    FoC, YS, Harry, Zmaster, Gotta, ArkansasMetsFan, KingsnQueens7, The-rock-man, Wrigheyes4MVP, Vendetta, Jim Labruno


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,794
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by fanofclendennon View Post
    They'd give just as much incentive to owners to not sign suspected players as they give players (allegedly) for not taking PEDs.

    As it stands now, it's a one-way street. There is no downside to signing a player who might be using PEDs. If he gets caught, great! No need to pay him. If he doesn't, great! We'll be the beneficiary of all those great numbers!

    But if MLB was really interested in cracking down on PEDS, which they are not, they would require the team of a player who failed a drug test to pay the equivalent of that player's salary to all the teams in in their division who didn't have a player test positive.

    This way, if a player test positive, money comes out of the player's pocket, money comes out of the owner's pocket, and the competing teams benefit. If this system were in place today, i wonder if the Mets would have been so willing to pay Bartolo Colon $20 million over 2 years?

    Hmmmmmm.....
    While I disagree, I agree.

    Penalizing the employers would give more parties a vested interest in having 'clean' players.

    Everytime a major league player is suspended for drug use the MLB should donate some (significant) amount to anti-drug charities.

    Have the penalties go all the way to the top.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    America
    Posts
    26,228
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by fanofclendennon View Post
    They'll certainly think twice before signing someone with a checkered past.
    Plus, a team could have more influence over a particular player than MLB would. Like if a team does their own drug testing (if the player union would allow it) then it would be more effective.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    28,981
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by jlohm1 View Post
    Plus, a team could have more influence over a particular player than MLB would. Like if a team does their own drug testing (if the player union would allow it) then it would be more effective.
    Now you're cooking with fire. If I knew that one of my players could end up requiring me to pay my competitors, you're darned right I'd be more proactive in making sure they're clean.
    FELLOW SATINISTS INCLUDE:
    FoC, YS, Harry, Zmaster, Gotta, ArkansasMetsFan, KingsnQueens7, The-rock-man, Wrigheyes4MVP, Vendetta, Jim Labruno


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,772
    vCash
    1500
    I get what you're trying to do, but you can't really good someone else accountable for what an adult does of their own free will.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,794
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    I get what you're trying to do, but you can't really good someone else accountable for what an adult does of their own free will.
    Of course you can

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/agent

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,772
    vCash
    1500
    The key words there being "agrees and is authorized to act on behalf of another." That doesn't describe this situation.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10,232
    vCash
    1500
    i wish they weren't so serious.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,772
    vCash
    1500
    What?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,794
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    The key words there being "agrees and is authorized to act on behalf of another." That doesn't describe this situation.
    My point, though, being that we can, and do, hold some accountable for the actions of others.


    And it'd be very simple for the MLB to institute a rule to that effect (so long as it was agreed to by all parties - which would not be simple at all)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,772
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by filihok View Post
    My point, though, being that we can, and do, hold some accountable for the actions of others.


    And it'd be very simple for the MLB to institute a rule to that effect (so long as it was agreed to by all parties - which would not be simple at all)
    We do it when one person is going to act on behalf of another. You can't just hold an employer responsible for the actions of their employee, though. You punish the people that actually do wrong.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    15,183
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    i wish they weren't so serious.
    This...sick of the whole pretentious, sanctimonious nonsense that comes with the steroid witch hunt.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10,232
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    What?

    Baseball is out of control when it comes to PEDs. Here's how you deal with PED in sports- 1. Put in a testing system. 2. Have a punishment system. 3. STFU about PEDs
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •