Bonds coming indictment is just what Selig was looking for
Michigan
Posts: 4,942 ✭
in Sports Talk
Bud has wanted to get him out of baseball somehow and an indictment by the grand jury would give him
that opportunity to remove him "in the best interests of baseball" or some such thing.
Whether the players union goes along remains to be seen.
that opportunity to remove him "in the best interests of baseball" or some such thing.
Whether the players union goes along remains to be seen.
0
Comments
<< <i>Bud needs to leave as well. >>
Absolutely.
He's gutless, spineless, and a puppet of the owners.
They need to bring in someone independent, someone who won't cave to either side and work on cleaning up baseball's image. As it is, bud thinks he's done a great job.
your constant derailment of threads is beyond annoying. Either contribute to the point or get lost.
Back to Bonds.
Baseball needs to implement a blood test, as well as save samples, so that when a HGH test does come out, they can test for it retroactively, and test everyone.
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff
Urine tests are only going to catch so much...blood tests are the way to go.
If they are clean, there's nothing to hide with the test, so they should be all for it.
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff
<< <i>They shouldn't blood test. It's an infringements of rights, hell the military doesn't even do that. I do agree for testing, but the samples should be taken right before and after games and have each franchise put up the mula for whatever testing supplies/machines and have a league official at every stadium for oversight. It would cut down on the middle man costs and would literally only need 30 or so testing machines; and have the staff be rotating so no league official and franchise can become ahem "Familiar" if you get my drift. >>
Every real job I have ever had, I had to take a drug test to become employed. And also, by accepting employment, whether I appear under the influence, or by the employer's discretion, I can be sent to take a drug test at any time, whether it is by urine, hair, or blood samples. Personally I feel, if you have nothing to hide, then you should have no problem giving a blood sample, although the player's union would never agree to that, but unions are necessary evils anyway. The ACLU also tends to agree that sending a welfare applicant for a drug test is an infringement of rights too, but as said before, if there is nothing to hide, why would you not agree?
Bud Selig does have to go, thought he was the best man for the job after the Wild Card idea came into effect, but the more I see him, the more I hear him, the more I feel like puking up last night's dinner. I heard a good one today on television, that he is thinking of trying to bar any All-Star elected pitcher from pitching on the Sunday before the All-Star game, even though some races go down to the last game of the season. His time is up, I nominate Pete Rose to take his place, he gave his all for the fans, regardless of the stage he played on!
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff
Just because there's no test currently, doesn't mean samples shouldn't be taken.
Steve
they are employees............If they want to "work" then they'd have to do it.
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff
<< <i>^^Submit for what, a test that doesn't exist? If you had read my whole post you'd see I understand the testing aspect. But making players submit samples for something that hasn't even been found to have an easily identifiable marker would be pointless in my book. >>
The problem is that the union would never, ever allow blood to be drawn and stored in some remote facility. Who is going to cover the cost of storing the blood of hundreds of ballplayers? How can you test how long ago the drug was taken? If another drug is declared illegal, will the blood be grandfathered?
And as topps mentioned, they will not allow you to take blood intended for a test that has yet to be developed.
Never will happen.
<< <i>If they are clean, there's nothing to hide with the test, so they should be all for it. >>
That way of thinking is very bad. You can surrender all of your freedoms and liberties with that argument. Why not just let every government official and police officer search your home and car whenever they feel like it? You got nothing to hide right? Welcome to Nazi Germany.
I have a problem with employers requiring blood samples. Urine is different because it is intended to be disposed of. Blood is part of our body. A hair sample is borderline. I used to take college courses on law enforcement and if I remember correctly, blood samples from citizens require a warrant from a judge along with reasonable suspicion to get the warrant (maybe somebody more familiar can help me). So, I disagree with random blood tests on players without any real evidence. If they refuse the test, they can't play ball, seems like wrongful termination. I feel this should apply to every employer in the country regarding blood tests.
Sooner or later, and it's sad, but I think it may come to that.
I am subject to random piss tests at work and I couldn't care less if they wanted it each morning as I walked into the door. It's part of my job. If I don't like it I can go and find another job that doesn't require it.
<< <i>
<< <i>If they are clean, there's nothing to hide with the test, so they should be all for it. >>
That way of thinking is very bad. You can surrender all of your freedoms and liberties with that argument. Why not just let every government official and police officer search your home and car whenever they feel like it? You got nothing to hide right? Welcome to Nazi Germany.
I have a problem with employers requiring blood samples. Urine is different because it is intended to be disposed of. Blood is part of our body. A hair sample is borderline. I used to take college courses on law enforcement and if I remember correctly, blood samples from citizens require a warrant from a judge along with reasonable suspicion to get the warrant (maybe somebody more familiar can help me). So, I disagree with random blood tests on players without any real evidence. If they refuse the test, they can't play ball, seems like wrongful termination. I feel this should apply to every employer in the country regarding blood tests. >>
It's so ironic that you mentioned that.
Just the other day, this came up and he said:
<< <i>Why are some people blind to the facts that have removed rights of American citizens?
That domestic surveillance without a warrant is now ok?
That law enforcement can search your residence without a warrant?
No, don't give me the whole 'if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't worry' argument - it doesn't fly.
At what point would you push back against the erosion of civil liberties? >>
It's called flip-flopping
<< <i>If they are clean, there's nothing to hide with the test, so they should be all for it. >>
<< <i>No, don't give me the whole 'if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't worry' argument - it doesn't fly. >>
BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
An employer, however, has full right to know their employees are clean and not doing anything illegal. Said employee doesn't want to play by those rules, they can seek employment elsewhere.
Stown, your obssession with my posts is disturbing.
You cannot begin to compare the rights of a private individual to the rights of an employee.
Get a job, twit.
<< <i>For private citizens, the government shouldn't be allowed to come into your home and do whatever they want.
An employer, however, has full right to know their employees are clean and not doing anything illegal. Said employee doesn't want to play by those rules, they can seek employment elsewhere. >>
gotta agree with that.
<< <i>
The problem is that the union would never, ever allow blood to be drawn and stored in some remote facility. Who is going to cover the cost of storing the blood of hundreds of ballplayers? How can you test how long ago the drug was taken? If another drug is declared illegal, will the blood be grandfathered?
And as topps mentioned, they will not allow you to take blood intended for a test that has yet to be developed.
Never will happen. >>
They also said the player's union would 'never' allow for steroid to happen...yet it is. It's the natural evolution of the game, albeit an unsavory one.
Cover the cost of storing the blood? You're more concerned about that than the players being clean?
What are you afraid of, that your heroes may turn out to be cheats?
<< <i>For private citizens, the government shouldn't be allowed to come into your home and do whatever they want.
An employer, however, has full right to know their employees are clean and not doing anything illegal. Said employee doesn't want to play by those rules, they can seek employment elsewhere.
Stown, your obssession with my posts is disturbing.
You cannot begin to compare the rights of a private individual to the rights of an employee.
Get a job, twit. >>
Again with the name calling. Why can you not have a civilized conversation without resorting to calling someone a name? Are you just completely incapable because you are so overwelmed with being proven wrong every time?
Anyways..
Oh, so it's okay to discriminate now? It's the same concept, axtell. You allow one and eventually, the other will follow because you are setting a precedent. In other words, today it is illegal to take a worker's blood without probable cause. You cannot limit it just to MLB, it will be for all workers across the country without any probable cause; it will be "just because we say so". Then, it will trickle down to the private citizen, again without probable cause. Or can you not see the eventual reprocussion that will follow?
<< <i>They also said the player's union would 'never' allow for steroid to happen...yet it is. It's the natural evolution of the game, albeit an unsavory one.
Cover the cost of storing the blood? You're more concerned about that than the players being clean?
What are you afraid of, that your heroes may turn out to be cheats? >>
What a bush league argument. Rather than selectively choosing your arguments, refute the entire post.
<< <i>The problem is that the union would never, ever allow blood to be drawn and stored in some remote facility. Who is going to cover the cost of storing the blood of hundreds of ballplayers? How can you test how long ago the drug was taken? If another drug is declared illegal, will the blood be grandfathered?
And as topps mentioned, they will not allow you to take blood intended for a test that has yet to be developed.
Never will happen >>
<< <i>
Oh, so it's okay to discriminate now? It's the same concept, axtell. You allow one and eventually, the other will follow because you are setting a precedent. In other words, today it is illegal to take a worker's blood without probable cause. You cannot limit it just to MLB, it will be for all workers across the country without any probable cause; it will be "just because we say so". Then, it will trickle down to the private citizen, again without probable cause. Or can you not see the eventual reprocussion that will follow? >>
Employers have done drug testing for years...how is this any different? And how is this discrimination? And you call me paranoid? You think because MLB will do blood tests that EVERYONE will someday be required to do it?
<< <i>What a bush league argument. Rather than selectively choosing your arguments, refute the entire post. >>
Nothing wrong with speaking to certain points of your post. I am sure tests can be done long after the blood has been drawn, but, since I am no medica expert, I won't comment on it. Perhaps someone with knowldge in that area can speak to it?
<< <i>
<< <i>
Oh, so it's okay to discriminate now? It's the same concept, axtell. You allow one and eventually, the other will follow because you are setting a precedent. In other words, today it is illegal to take a worker's blood without probable cause. You cannot limit it just to MLB, it will be for all workers across the country without any probable cause; it will be "just because we say so". Then, it will trickle down to the private citizen, again without probable cause. Or can you not see the eventual reprocussion that will follow? >>
Employers have done drug testing for years...how is this any different? And how is this discrimination? And you call me paranoid? You think because MLB will do blood tests that EVERYONE will someday be required to do it? >>
You are not only comparing apples to oranges but also missing the point, as usual. You are asking for every baseball player to submit blood work, without probable cause, to be stored until a test for HGH comes out. You say it's okay for any employer, not just for MLB but all forms of employment, to take all employees' blood (without probable cause), store it until a test comes out (regardless of how many years it takes), and then deal with the failed tests. How many employers are you aware of that require blood tests, ax? And not just for testing today but for in the future...
Which leads me into private citizens. The current national employment rate is around 95%. By allowing all employers to take blood and keep it just in case future tests can identify illegal substances, you are just about looking at EVERYONE being required submit a sample without probable cause.
In regards to you being paraniod, that wasn't me who brought it up but thanks for admitting to reading this thread, where it was being discussed. HAHAHAHAHA!
<< <i>What a bush league argument. Rather than selectively choosing your arguments, refute the entire post. >>
Nothing wrong with speaking to certain points of your post. I am sure tests can be done long after the blood has been drawn, but, since I am no medica expert, I won't comment on it. Perhaps someone with knowldge in that area can speak to it? >>
That's the whole point. You don't know what you are talking about yet act like you do
the problem with that logic axhole is called chain of custody. If a sample is taken today and stored for 3 years what makes you think that in those 3 years the evidence could not have been tampered with, or more importantly certain components could break down into other things. It is idiocy to expect a union to allow a blood sample be taken and then stored away for testing at some future date. too many things can go wrong. a simple compound that is legal today could in fact transform into somthing else if not stored properly. when the time comes and the union and management negotiate such testing it will be done. to sit here and specualte why some are in favor and some are against is folly.
understand now?
Steve
I don't see MLB ever taking and storing blood for testing at a later date when and if the technology becomes available to detect things that are not detectable now but I think at some point that bloodwork will be part of the contract, even if it's only annually along with a physical. The employer can set the rules and if the players want to really clean up the game they will agree.
People are tired of cheaters.
<< <i>I don't see MLB ever taking and storing blood for testing at a later date when and if the technology becomes available to detect things that are not detectable now but I think at some point that bloodwork will be part of the contract, even if it's only annually along with a physical. The employer can set the rules and if the players want to really clean up the game they will agree.
People are tired of cheaters. >>
Now that's significantly more reasonable and possible.
However the players union is very strong. without the players there is no baseball. blood testing will only come about thru negotiation if at all.
Steve
you first say:
<< <i>In other words, today it is illegal to take a worker's blood without probable cause. You cannot limit it just to MLB, it will be for all workers across the country without any probable cause; it will be "just because we say so". Then, it will trickle down to the private citizen, again without probable cause. Or can you not see the eventual reprocussion that will follow? >>
then say (because someone other than I said blood tests are a good idea):
<< <i>Now that's significantly more reasonable and possible. >>
in response to:
<< <i><< I don't see MLB ever taking and storing blood for testing at a later date when and if the technology becomes available to detect things that are not detectable now but I think at some point that bloodwork will be part of the contract, even if it's only annually along with a physical. The employer can set the rules and if the players want to really clean up the game they will agree. >>
So when I say blood tests, you say BAD! It will trickle down to the private citizen! Someone else says it, you say 'that's reasonable'?
To quote you,
FLIP FLOP.
<< <i>stown-
you first say:
<< <i>In other words, today it is illegal to take a worker's blood without probable cause. You cannot limit it just to MLB, it will be for all workers across the country without any probable cause; it will be "just because we say so". Then, it will trickle down to the private citizen, again without probable cause. Or can you not see the eventual reprocussion that will follow? >>
then say (because someone other than I said blood tests are a good idea):
<< <i>Now that's significantly more reasonable and possible. >>
in response to:
<< <i><< I don't see MLB ever taking and storing blood for testing at a later date when and if the technology becomes available to detect things that are not detectable now but I think at some point that bloodwork will be part of the contract, even if it's only annually along with a physical. The employer can set the rules and if the players want to really clean up the game they will agree. >>
So when I say blood tests, you say BAD! It will trickle down to the private citizen! Someone else says it, you say 'that's reasonable'?
To quote you,
FLIP FLOP. >>
Obviously you can't read, can you ax. You said to store blood for an infinate time period for a test that hasn't even been developed yet. He said a yearly sample, which would be included in contracts going forward, which would be tested at the time of the blood drawing. And please note, I said that's more reasonable and possible than your wild, scatter brained suggestion.
Nice try, thanks for playing, please drive through.
It's apparent you thought ANY blood testing was a bad idea when you responded to my post:
<< <i> In other words, today it is illegal to take a worker's blood without probable cause. You cannot limit it just to MLB, it will be for all workers across the country without any probable cause; it will be "just because we say so". Then, it will trickle down to the private citizen, again without probable cause. Or can you not see the eventual reprocussion that will follow? >>
Then someone other than me suggested blood testing was inevitable, to which you said that was 'reasonable'.
You didn't qualify your initial rejection on the basis of holding blood (and it's done in cycling, by the way). You out and out rejected it for fear of blood testing without cause trickling down to the private citizen.
FLIP FLOP.
Say goodnight junior, your mommy's calling you to bed.
Goose, myself and stown all agreed that blood testing would be ok if and when it was negotiated during contract and samples then taken. Not before and then stored for an indefinate time period like you suggested. what part of that did you not undersdtand?
like I said the other day, you are like a mule that has blinders on. All you see is what you want to see and then you think if you say it enough times it becomes fact.
let it go man, you are constantly geting owned here.
Steve
<< <i>Give up Axtell you got OWNED yet again.
Goose, myself and stown all agreed that blood testing would be ok if and when it was negotiated during contract and samples then taken. Not before and then stored for an indefinate time period like you suggested. what part of that did you not undersdtand?
like I said the other day, you are like a mule that has blinders on. All you see is what you want to see and then you think if you say it enough times it becomes fact.
let it go man, you are constantly geting owned here.
Steve >>
<< <i>While I am against blood being forced from a person, I do think it is reasonable if it is agreed upon in a labor contract. That would be consentual. >>
Well of course, then it would have been agreed upon. But it's not.
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff