WARNING!!! WARNING!! Annual off-topic baseball thread!!

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

Well, let me play devil's advocate here for a moment. Should you not get the traffic ticket for running the red light because the cop cannot prove you intended or planned to run it?

I think what Rafi's saying is he was taking a nap in the back seat when the driver ran the red light.

Personally, I find it hard to believe he would risk ingesting anything on a regular basis that might return a positive result to these tests. The guy makes enough money to hire a lab to analyze everything he comes within 50 feet of.

[mick]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
So, Rafi had knowledge, or access to the knowledge of what is legal and what isn't. Maybe he's absolutley truthful when he says he did not knowingly ingest this banned substance. But he did. Case closed. Next case.

Yeah, that's my point. The assumption of guilt, the assumption of knowledge or access to knowledge, the assumption of willful ingestion are made.

Who cares where, how, why he took or got it? They don't care, even if it was the *Black helicopters*.

The Pubic wants to "Burn the witch", regardless....

They make me uneasy.
mick

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by mick
The Pubic wants to "Burn the witch", regardless....

Might want to make a minor edit there, mick.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Might want to make a minor edit there, mick.

Unless he's talking about a Coke can...?

[mick]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Might want to make a minor edit there, mick.

Thanks, but No. I won't.
It was underlined correctly.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick

What am I missing here, Mick? Palmeiro flunked a streroids test. Ergo, that flunked test showed that he cheated. You can't change that. Has anybody in any sport that has flunked one of these tests ever said anything but what Palmeiro said? [/B]

They proposed the tests.
They set the parameters.
They change the parameters.
They run the tests.

I think intent must be present, positive, planned and proven. I just don't like it one bit.
mick

[/B][/QUOTE]They changed the parameters? What change did they make to the agreed-upon test parameters? Again, I gotta be missing something here.

Mick, that just doesn't make sense to me. When you set a law with attached limits, you set the parameters. If your state says that you're DUI at 0.080, and you blow 0.083, does that mean that you're should be not guilty as long as you say "I didn't mean it"? Does that hold true at 0.150 too? Iow, how can you ever possibly prove "intent" unless you actually catch somebody sticking a needle in their butt or swallowing something?

The test is the proof. It can't be any other way.

What do you propose as an alternative to the tests currently being used for steroids and other banned substances?

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by mick

Yeah, that's my point. The assumption of guilt, the assumption of knowledge or access to knowledge, the assumption of willful ingestion are made.

Who cares where, how, why he took or got it? They don't care, even if it was the *Black helicopters*.

The Pubic wants to "Burn the witch", regardless....

They make me uneasy.
mick

Actually, I consider myself part of the angry mob; but I'm not that angry. Maybe I'm just more towards the back of the pack. This isn't something that just got leaked today because someone took a peek at Palmeiro's morning mail and steamed open the envelope from Bud's office. I understand this has been in negotiations for a while now, so he knew exactly what he was going to say today. And he did not say he was innocent; just that he didn't intentionally do it.

We could argue all day as to whether some of the substances on the list should be banned if they are not illegal, or if he should be considered a "cheater". I think your point is cheating implies intent. And only a very few (or only one) can really answer if that's true. But, the fact that he's guilty is not really in question. There's a lot of behind-the-scenes things we never see, like letters and memos from Bud's office, communications from the Players Association, and so, on explaining this drug policy, what's involved, details on testing, and lists of banned substances. Do you really think Donald Fehr and the MLPA would let any of this just slip by without getting all the details straight? I think Dan's right - with everything that's at stake, he was stupid to not make sure everything he ate, drank, inhaled and sat next to was legal.

It's a shame; from everything I've seen and heard he's a nice guy. I'm not sure he's a cheater, but he is guilty of at least two things - ingesting a banned substance and stupidity.

[mick]

They do what's right and then what?
Honest athletes are being hosed.
I've highlighted some stuff for an easier read.
mick


Nandrolone in sport.

Nandrolone is the popular name for the anabolic androgenic steroid more properly known as 19-nortestosterone. Many different androgenic anabolic steroids, including nandrolone and testosterone itself, have been used by athletes over the years, and well-established measures are in place to detect abuse.

The apparent spate of nandrolone cases in British athletics over the last couple of years has cast a shadow over the sport as well as the individuals involved. Dougie Walker, Linford Christie and Mark Richardson are among the top athletes from various countries who have produced positive tests for nandrolone, although Walker continues to protest his innocence even after completing the two-year suspension from competition that effectively ended his career, and the others also vigorously deny any wrongdoing.

This problem is not unique, either to athletics or the UK. Football, boxing, cycling, rugby, weightlifting and many other sports have seen similar cases. Nonetheless, UK Athletics has taken the lead in investigating the possible reasons for the positives.

Were the athletes cheating?

The problem was approached with an open mind, and all possibilities were considered, including the possibility of deliberate and systematic cheating by the athletes concerned. A review of the positive cases within athletics revealed that all of the athletes had reported using a range of dietary supplements, mostly from the same supplier.

A study carried out at Aberdeen University showed that administration of these supplements to athletes and to healthy volunteers training at a more modest level resulted in some positive tests. And those who tested positive recorded concentrations of 19-norandrosterone (the nandrolone metabolite whose presence is taken as evidence of nandrolone in the system) of up to about 30ng per ml of urine: anything above 2ng/ml and 5ng/ml for females counts as a positive.

Initial analysis of the supplements taken by the athletes and volunteers did not detect nandrolone or any other related steroids that could explain these positive tests. The International Athletic Federation (IAF) did not accept these results, which were, in truth, difficult to explain. But, because of the time pressures, it was not possible for the researchers to test a large number of supplements or a large number of athletes before presenting these data to the IAF.

However, when the analysis of some of the dietary supplements was repeated, using an improved method developed by the IOC-accredited laboratory in Cologne, the Aberdeen and Cologne laboratories both found tiny amounts of a number of different steroids in several of these supplements. The amounts of steroids, although sufficient to play havoc with the careers of these athletes, were far too small to have any beneficial effects on performance. The supplements did not say on the label that they contained any banned substances and the athletes involved believed them to be suitable for use.

At about the same time as these results were coming out of Aberdeen, similar findings were reported from IOC-accredited drug testing laboratories in Germany, Canada and the USA. In Italy, two athletes tested positive after taking iron tablets, and Nandrolone precursors were later found to be present in some of the tablets. In Germany, nandrolone has been found in creatine powder sold to athletes.

Strict liability still applies

There is now a considerable weight of evidence to show that not all dietary supplements can be regarded as safe, even when the label or promotional material says they are. As before, however, the principle of strict liability applies (meaning that the athlete is responsible for whatever is in his or her body, irrespective of how it got there) and athletes who test positive in these circumstances are technically guilty.

Dietary supplements are not evaluated by regulatory agencies, and inaccurate labelling of ingredients is known to be a problem. Most supplements, it has to be said, will not cause problems for the athlete, and most companies that manufacture and supply these supplements are anxious to ensure the welfare of their customers. Nonetheless, the supplements reported to have been used by athletes who gave positive tests, backed up by the Aberdeen research, were all apparently innocuous substances, which should not have resulted in positive tests, even in the high doses used by some of these athletes. Until the picture is clarified, the only safe course for prudent athletes would seem to be to avoid anything that cannot be absolutely trusted.

....

So where are we now? In some ways it does not help to know what was positive last year because the market keeps changing, with old products disappearing and new ones appearing on a regular basis. It is also true that products from the same batch – or even the same bottle – may be either clean or contaminated.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

Unless he's talking about a Coke can...?

Oh, the SCOTUS jokes never get old . . .

[Mark Dexter]

I agree with Mick in principle, that it can be very difficult to know what is and is not a steroid/banned substance (particularly in the realm of steroid precursors).

In addition, it's tough for the public to interpret all of this. We either notice someone not dressing for 10 consecutive games (unless they're on the Cubbies - then we automatically assume DL, not steroids) or information is "leaked" to the press. In either case, we don't know for what substance the player tested positive.

However (this being where I must disagree with Mick), MLB players need to be aware, and need to realize that if there's even a remote chance of a substance resulting in a positive test, they should stay away from it.

The cynic in me did come out today, though. Selig must be salivating over the fact that a big fish finally tested positive.

[mick]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
However (this being where I must disagree with Mick), MLB players need to be aware, and need to realize that if there's even a remote chance of a substance resulting in a positive test, they should stay away from it.

The cynic in me did come out today, though. Selig must be salivating over the fact that a big fish finally tested positive.

Mark,
I do not disagree with taking caution, but all *guilty* athletes do not test positive and all *innocent* athletes do not test negative.

Selig gains nothing by having a star player test positive, because baseball loses fans.

Palmeiro gains nothing by using a product with steroids, or whatever substance they will not declare, on his last year and after his milestone *3,000th* hit. Nothing!

Palmeiro can only go along with the punishment without challenges, take the force-fed high road [for the sake of the game], and be as full of humility as possible so the door to Cooperstown isn't slammed in his face.
mick

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick

Palmeiro gains nothing by using a product with steroids, or whatever substance they will not declare, on his last year and after his milestone *3,000th* hit. Nothing!

Fact remains Mick, he tested positive for the banned substance shortly after felt the need to blatantly deny in no uncertain terms to a congressional subcommittee that he used them.

Kinda like Pete Rose denying he had a gambling problem, no?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick
[/B]

Palmeiro gains nothing by using a product with steroids, or whatever substance they will not declare, on his last year and after his milestone *3,000th* hit. Nothing!

[/B][/QUOTE]How do we know Palmeiro hasn't been taking illegal substances from his very first hit right on up to his 3000th. hit?

We don't. That's the problem.

[mick]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Fact remains Mick, he tested positive for the banned substance shortly after felt the need to blatantly deny in no uncertain terms to a congressional subcommittee that he used them.

Kinda like Pete Rose denying he had a gambling problem, no?

Dan,

Not even close to the Pete Rose denials. Gambling is an addictive sickness. Steroids are used with purpose.

Wasn't that on March 14th that he flatly denied that useage?
Anyway, like I hoped to imply, maybe he really didn't know back then; maybe he got a bad batch of milkshakes like Sanchez. Or, maybe a masking substance didn't work this time or was subsequently identified.

Thing is, for me, stuff happens out of an athlete's control and I need to be shown intent.
mick

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Palmeiro gains nothing by using a product with steroids, or whatever substance they will not declare, on his last year and after his milestone *3,000th* hit. Nothing!

[/B]

How do we know Palmeiro hasn't been taking illegal substances from his very first hit right on up to his 3000th. hit?

We don't. That's the problem. [/B][/QUOTE]

Exactly, JR. We don't know.
Nor do we know anything about Babe Ruth's useage, or Marion Jones, or Muhamed Ali.
They only accuse due to test results, or if they cannot test for it [because of the *cream* or the *clear*], ban the athletes due to heresay "evidence" given by deal making felons.

Find the source, prove that it was not an accident and only then, punish the abuser.
Or, ... send to ruin the names, careers, families of the accidental user.
mick