These ballplayers should just shut up and get drug tested!! Right???

Search

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
2,200
Tokens
It never ceases to amaze me how often we are willing to sacrifice OTHER PEOPLE'S civil liberties to supposedly solve some “horrible” problem. All of you people clamoring for universal drug testing for ballplayers need to ask yourself this question ... If it could be shown that the performance of YOUR job had no effect on the safety of someone else, would YOU be willing to submit to repeated random drug testing at YOUR workplace, especially if there were no evidence that you were using?

Before answering this question, think about these ramifications...
1. These tests are not foolproof. Failing a drug test due to a false positive is a horrendous thing to have to go through. Reputations are destroyed for life. More on the danger of false positives below.
2. Numerous legal drugs contain trace amounts of substances that have been banned by various sports. For example, the over-the-counter drugs Tylenol Cold, Sudafed, and Actifed all contain ephedrine, which is a banned stimulant. We've all heard of the sad cases of athletes who have been suspended and/or have had records or awards rescinded after testing positive in cases like this.
3. Testing also produces false negatives. This is almost as damaging. Those players that are cheating, now will have gotten undeserved public acceptance.
4. Players that cheat to use steroids, will undoubtedly find ways to cheat on the steroid test. It is not hard to imagine a hidden vial in a player’s undergarments. The solution then is someone must watch the player during the urine test, you say. Sure, no problem. Would YOU submit to someone watching you?? Repeatedly? Month after month despite no evidence that you are guilty?? If you answer yes to that, you are either a liar or you're gay. I don't know about you all, but I don't think I could even open up the stinking valve!
5. Even a small percentage error in drug testing, leads to extremely skewed results. Note the following example: Say that there are 1000 subjects. Out of this group, 50 are truly guilty. If it is known that this particular drug test historically results in 2% false positives (which is a typical percentage in these tests), what percentage of test result positives are actually true positives? The answer may surprise you. In this example, 20 subjects will receive a false positive test result (2% of 1000), and 50 will receive a true positive. Therefore, 20 out of the 70 positive test results are in error!!! That is a 29% error!! And this is not even taking into account false negatives. What's even worse is that this percentage error INCREASES as the true number of "cheaters" decreases (try it yourself with new numbers if you are unconvinced). So as MLB "succeeds" in its zero tolerance policy by getting steroid users to quit, further testing becomes even MORE unreliable.

Even if drug testing could be 100% reliable and accurate, I would be completely against it. Our country is SUPPOSED to be the greatest country on the planet because we value FREEDOM more than any other nation. One of the tenants of freedom is that you are INNOCENT until proven GUILTY. Mandatory universal drug testing turns this tenant completely on its ear. Where does it end? After mandatory drug testing, do we then submit to unannounced searches of our homes and property? Does this scenario remind anyone else of a certain Reich from another era?

In my opinion, the "problem" of steroids in sports is completely overblown. Who is being harmed here? Athletes all make a decision on the sacrifices they are willing to make to succeed in their chosen profession. Some decide that they will spend hours and hours in the gym working out as their sacrifice, while others decide to sacrifice their later years, sterility, and who knows what else by using steroids. But whatever they decide only affects THEMSELVES, not you or me. If the worst thing that happens is that some records get broken, well whooptie damn doo. In the grand scheme of things, does that really matter? People are dying of malaria and famine by the millions all over the earth. Does Roger Maris's home run record really hold that much importance by comparison?

Still not convinced? Think about this – over the years our society has come up with a multitude of ways to improve our health, longevity, strength, etc. We have learned how to exercise smartly and how to use our diets to fine tune our bodies to perfection. Is this an unfair advantage then, for today’s ballplayers over yesteryear’s? Should we revoke the records set by today’s record breakers because of these advantages that they’ve had over the players from the past? Of course not, right? Well then ask yourself this – if steroids were just another food supplement and were considered completely healthy and everyone used them, would we be all upset about these long time records being broken? Would there even be a debate? Let’s stop fooling ourselves, then, that this is about juiced up players undeservedly breaking records, because ALL of today’s players are “juiced” on the advantages I just mentioned. This debate is really about how some players are upset that other players are willing to make bigger sacrifices to succeed than they are. In a truly free country, all players should be allowed to make this choice. I’ve already shown that the only one being hurt by this decision is the player himself.

Last of all, please spare me the tired excuse that accepting steroid use gives our kids a poor example to look up to. There are 10 billion poor examples out there for our kids to learn from, and another 10 billion good examples. We have no control over the multitude of examples out there. Therefore, it's up to YOU, as the parent of your kid, to impart the values on him/her that you deem to be the correct ones. If your kid's idea of the ultimate human being to emulate is Barry Bonds, then maybe it's time to have a little sit down with the lad. If you’re negligent in this very basic task of parenting, don't go blaming society if he turns out a bad seed.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,250
Tokens
Wow, I can't believe so much stupidity can be packed into one post.
icon_rolleyes.gif


Jesus Christ get a clue before you post.
 

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
2,200
Tokens
Good, well thought out rebuttal, Pancho. Jeez, I hadn't thought of that.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
524
Tokens
Although the conditions of your question do not exist in reality, even if they did I would still answer yes to it.
 

Official Rx music critic and beer snob
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
25,128
Tokens
Name some athletes who had a false positive test and had their reputation ruined.

What about the rights of the paying fans?
 

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
2,200
Tokens
Hanover, I have no problem with anyone who wishes to submit themselves to a VOLUNTARY drug test. But in light of what I've written here, can you see why someone else may have misgivings? Would you not support the right of these people to refuse?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
153
Tokens
MD,
To answer your ? in your first post, Yes, I would be in favor of drug testing in your hypothetical.

In your last post, do you realize that while you may not be against voluntary testing, the players union is, and thus no player can take the test to clear his name?

The integrity of the game is at issue; what about the players who are not taking performance enhancing drugs? Do they not have any rights?

You need to rethink your position that the problem with steroids, and ony other performance enhancing drugs, is overblown.
 

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
2,200
Tokens
Originally posted by Fair Warning...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Name some athletes who had a false positive test and had their reputation ruined.

What about the rights of the paying fans?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just about every athlete that ever tested positive has claimed innocence. While I am sure that not all of them were, can you tell me that all of them WEREN'T! The real tragedy is that since the only "proof" of guilt is the drug test, which even professional drug testers admit is imperfect, athletes who tested falsely positive are left with no real way to "prove" their innocence. So it is no surprise that we haven't heard of one that was proven to be unjustly accused.

As far as the rights of the paying fans, I fail to see how their rights are being abused in any way whatsoever. Most fans have suspected their favorite athletes to be steroid users for quite some time. Have any of them stopped going? In truth, baseball popularity (which is defined by TV ratings and ballpark attendance) has never been greater. This is in no small part due to the great home run races we've had in the last couple of years. So a strong case can be made that the use of steroids has BENEFITTED fans! It has brought them more of what they like most - home runs!

Originally posted by Stew...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>do you realize that while you may not be against voluntary testing, the players union is, and thus no player can take the test to clear his name?

The integrity of the game is at issue; what about the players who are not taking performance enhancing drugs? Do they not have any rights?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Stew,
If I gave any impression that I am a supporter of the players union, then let me attempt to clarify my position. I have not ever, in any shape or form, supported any union of any kind. I always have favored the right of individuals to rule their own lives without having to get permission from some authority figure. That being said, I do agree with the player's union that it is not in the players best interest to submit to a drug test, mostly because of all the reasons I identified in my original post. But, unlike the players union, I would not stand in the way of someone who would foolishly submit to a test as untrustworthy as this one in an attempt to clear his name.

As for the rights of the players NOT using, the only ones that can be accused of abusing their rights are the MLB rulemakers that make it illegal to use steroids. As I stated in my original post, each athlete makes a choice on the extent he or she will go to get an edge. Who am I to deny them that edge if they are not hurting anyone in the process? If someone is willing to risk his life to get an edge over me then I say Godspeed to ya, and I'll tip my hat. You make your choice and I'll make mine, and we'll each get what we deserve in the end.
 

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
2,200
Tokens
One more thing. I am willing to bet that all of you claiming that you would submit to these tests in your own workplace, have never had the "pleasure" of undergoing mandatory drug testing. It is a degrading, humiliating process that unfortunately never ends. You are never proven innocent, only proven not guilty THIS TIME. You are looked at like you are a criminal, and watched suspiciously from start to finish. It is a totally inhuman process that anyone who has gone thru can probably verify. Worst of all, if the test subjects are NOT treated this way, then the whole process is a waste of time, because cheating would be rampant. Truly a lose/lose situation if I ever saw one.
 

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
2,200
Tokens
Well I guess that settles it. Reggie already knows who is using - its everyone that has hit more homers than him and the rest of the all-time greats. So we can dispense with drug-testing then, can't we? Lets just ask Reggie which ones they are and be done with this mess.

If only it were that easy. Truth is there are a huge number of factors that could explain the huge increase in homer numbers. How about the dilution of major league pitching for one. Back in the Babe's day, how many teams were there - eight? So that means there were maybe 80 total pitchers in the entire league. How would Barry do if he only got to face the top 80 pitchers out of the 300 or so in the league now? How about juiced balls and bats? How about smaller ballparks and parks in mile high Colorado? How about a thousand other things that are different now than then? It is almost meaningless to compare records then and now.

But this all is besides the point anyway, isn't it? I never claimed players WEREN'T using. I only stated that they ought to be able to use if they wanted, and they should never have to submit to mandatory testing. Reggie's ramblings addressed neither of these issues whatsoever.
 

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
MD - I understand your concerns over personal civil rights, and the right to privacy. In this post 9-11 era it seems like we have less personal privacy than ever. In fact I feel much the same way you do re. these matters. I don't however think the use of strength enhancing steroids is a good thing for anyone including the people who use them. Do I have the right to tell them to stop? Of course not. Should baseball itself do something more to address the issue? Yes I believe so. One reason is I believe players should be held to a higher standard than the average man in the street. When players quit benefiting from government money that subsidizes their teams and their ballparks, and when they renounce anyone's claims that their games and their products are something great for the kids in "the community," then they're free, in my mind, to break government laws and do whatever the hell they please. Here is another article about the subject:

Thursday, March 11, 2004
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The government will crack down on the steroidlike supplement taken by Mark McGwire, telling companies Thursday to quit selling androstenedione unless they can prove it's not dangerous.
Commonly called andro, the product is a steroid precursor -- the body uses it to make testosterone.
That means it poses the same health risks as directly using an anabolic steroid, the Food and Drug Administration says in warnings telling 23 manufacturers to cease their production.
"Anyone who takes these products in sufficient quantities to build muscle or improve performance is putting himself or herself at risk for serious long-term and potentially irreversible health consequences," FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan said.
The FDA's newest crackdown comes as it is facing a legal challenge to its pending ban on another dietary supplement, ephedra. That herbal stimulant, widely used for weight loss, has been linked to 155 deaths, including Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler during spring training last year.
The maker of the Stacker 2 brand of ephedra supplements, NVE Pharmaceuticals, filed suit this week in federal court in New Jersey seeking to block FDA's sales ban, which is set to begin April 12.
"We're confident that we do have a clear legal basis" for the ban, FDA spokesman Brad Stone said Thursday.
Anabolic steroids, which build muscle, are controlled substances. But andro -- because it is a precursor, not the steroid itself -- has long been marketed as a dietary supplement and been sold over the counter. U.S. law lets dietary supplements sell with little oversight to ensure they're safe.
But the FDA is citing a seldom-used provision of that law that defines as a dietary supplement natural ingredients that were on the market before 1994 -- and says manufacturers must prove that any new ingredients are safe before selling them as supplements.
Andro wasn't on the market in 1994 and thus its makers failed to follow the law's safety provision, the FDA contends.
The FDA expects its action to at least temporarily halt andro sales. Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., that would permanently end over-the-counter sales of andro, as well as the newly unmasked steroid THG, and subject them to the same prescription restrictions as apply to anabolic steroids.
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson urged Congress to pass the legislation.
In the meantime, he said, "if firms refuse to cease distributing these products, we may seize products, pursue injunctions or seek criminal actions."
Thompson had a message for those considering using andro to boost their athletic prowess: "The best and safest way to get faster and stronger is to eat well, to exercise and to avoid risky behaviors."
Andro's use skyrocketed after McGwire said he used it in 1998, the year he hit a record-setting 70 home runs for the St. Louis Cardinals. He has said he later quit the supplements.
Medical studies show andro raises testosterone above normal levels. Side effects of elevated testosterone include acne, baldness, and a drop in the so-called good cholesterol that could lead to heart disease.
Federal health officials are particularly concerned about children who use andro, especially if they're still in puberty. While they didn't have statistics on preteen use, federal drug-monitoring surveys suggest one out of 40 high school seniors and one out of 50 10th graders were using andro in 2001, the latest data available.



wil.
 

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
2,200
Tokens
Originally posted by Wilhelm...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Do I have the right to tell them to stop? Of course not. Should baseball itself do something more to address the issue? Yes I believe so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wil,
If by doing more to address the issue, you mean something like beginning an advertising campaign to denounce the use of steroids, and bringing out into the light of day their negative side effects, then I am in complete agreement with you. This is how MLB should handle this. But its important that this is done right. If MLB attempts some hokey "this is your brain on drugs" campaign, then they will fail miserably. Trying to snow people with wild made-up claims of horrible side effects is NOT the way to go. On the other hand, providing truthful and accurate information on the effects of steroids, both bad AND GOOD will serve to earn the respect of those considering the use of these drugs. Any attempt to exaggerate the negative effects will easily be seen through by our youth as a ruse, and any further attempts to sway their minds will prove fruitless. Have you talked to your kid lately? He ain't as gullible as you think.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
18
Tokens
What about the rights of the players who don't use? How many borderline players are in the minors because people who shot up have their jobs. How many players are out there who don't shoot up and would be making a lot more money because they're stats would mean that much? A lot of players want more stringent testing. I've took a piss test once in the four years I've been on my job and it sure as hell wasn't any biggy.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
153
Tokens
MD,
So what you are advocating is that MLB players should be allowed to use steroids (and other performance enhancing drugs) if they want to. What about the fact that using these drugs is against the rules? Does this not matter?

What if players were able to pick and choose what rules they followed? What would happen then, MD?

Some players would choose to use aluminum bats, that's not causing anyone any harm.

Some would choose to run directly to 2nd base, that's not causing anyone any harm.

Some pitchers would choose to only throw 2 pitches because for them it's 2 strikes and you're out.

How ridiculous do I have to make it for you to see that without everyone playing by the same rules, that there is no integrity in the game. That's the point we're at now, and you, MD, with your head firmly entrenched under the sand, think it's no big deal. Like I said in my earlier post, you need to rethink this issue. You obviously consider yourself a great thinker; think a little bit more about this and maybe look up the word INTEGRITY for I fear you wouldn't know it if it bit you in the arse.
 

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
2,200
Tokens
Originally posted by Hackerjacker...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What about the rights of the players who don't use?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How many times do I have to answer this question? Does anyone here understand what rights are? The Constitution of this great country lists all the powers of the Government. The Founders went to great lengths to emphasize that these powers were enumerated - meaning if the power isn't explicitly listed, then it does not exist. Everything that is not a power of the Government is reserved as a right of the people. A careful reading of this Document reveals that there is no power of the Government that regulates or prohibits anyone from ingesting whatever they please into their own bodies. Therefore, "doing drugs" is an inalienable right. Now, it also stands to reason that one person's right cannot trump another person's right. Therefore, a person does NOT have the right to tell another what he can or cannot put into his own body, since that would be denying the 2nd person of HIS rights. Therefore the supposed right of the first person does not truly exist.

As I posted earlier, the only ones that are trampling on the rights of these players are the Lords of MLB that have enacted rules against their use and the do-gooder Congressman that are working overtime to make them illegal. You can argue whether that is a good thing or not, but the fact remains their rights have been revoked.
 

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
2,200
Tokens
Originally posted by Stew...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What about the fact that using these drugs is against the rules? Does this not matter?

What if players were able to pick and choose what rules they followed? What would happen then, MD?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Come on Slew, is this your best argument? Your examples are all rules of the GAME of baseball. The banning of steroid use is not a rule of the game of baseball, it is a rule that the Lords of baseball imposed on all its members on what they could or couldn't do on their own free time. Even so, the rule by itself is fine by me. Any organization can come up with any rules that they so please, and if they want to discriminate against certain people, that's fine too. The problem, in my opinion, arises when the enforcement of the rule violates someone's rights. I'm not talking about the right to use steroids, mind you, but rather the right to be free from unreasonable searches. If you could propose a way to enforce this rule that wouldn't trample this basic right of all involved, then I would be willing to listen. So far I've heard no suggestions from anyone.

By the way, since when does standing up for the civil rights of a group of people about to be unjustly accused equate with showing a lack of integrity?? So many of you keep asking "What about the rights of the non-user?" Well I would ask "What about the rights of the non-user that DOESN'T want to be tested?" What about HIS rights? How is this poor shmoe being treated fairly in your world of universal testing?
 

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
well if there is mandatory testing, like all other major sports at least we have the piece of mind of knowing something is being done to help the issue. sure some might cheat, but they will now have to go through greater lengths to do it.

steriods arent safe, steriods are cheating. famous athletes using steriods sends a lot of wrong messages to the kids and the fans.

just shocked people some people support the idea of cheating and allowing fellow people to harm their bodys this way. better them than you, right MDkid? as long as you get to see more home runs and stuff (ur herr dirrr). oh ok, i got it now.
 

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
2,200
Tokens
(Note - This is my last response on this topic. I know it is long-winded (aren't all my posts?), but some of you might find some value in it. If nothing else, it'll finally prove to all of you that I am truly nuts.)

I'll tell you what, why don't we put this debate in terms that are more likely to hit home with most of you. Let's say that our wonderful benevolent Government decides tomorrow to legalize gambling in the United States. Everything is great at first, but before long it becomes apparent that a select few gamblers seem to be winning the majority of the big pots and have been getting the best lines at Pinny. One such gambler, Billy Walters, has long been suspected of using the semi-legal drug (available only by presciption) known as Brainfast. Brainfast, an experimental drug for several years, has been used to treat brain injury victims, Mongoloids, and Congressman to help speed up their subnormal brain activity.

Recently, however, Brainfast and it's newly unmasked sister drug Brainquicker, have been finding their way into the black market. The ability of users to think much quicker has been a major boon in the gambling industry, where the ability to calculate the odds on a 5-team parlay faster than the next guy allows them to get their money down on the line that is only available to the sharpest and quickest amongst us. The difference of a couple of seconds can mean millions more in profits over time.

Unfortunately, it is also known that Brainfast, taken over long periods, leads to incessant and uncontrollable whining, and decreased scrotum size in our later years. Therefore, a clamor to outlaw Brainfast has erupted by those in the gambling community that refuse to sacrifice their golden years for short term gain. They have demanded an equal playing field and want all gamblers tested for Brainfast. The Government, never one to drag it's feet when someone demands some freedoms be abolished, quickly abliges.

All internet gamblers are now required to report to a government approved physician for a monthly urine test AND must also report to a government approved "casino physician" before entering a casino. Upon passing the test, the gambler is issued a special password enabling him to log on to the government approved gambling website or to enter the casino. After some initial grumbling and whining from the extremist civil rights advocates, the multitude is quieted.

The serenity is soon broken again, though, when it is discovered that trace amounts of Brainfast are also found in such dietary staples such as coffee, cheeseburgers, and spam. WELL ... asking a coffee drinker to give up his coffee is like asking an allergy sufferer to give up his ACTIFED! As if this didn't cause enough of a stir, next it's discovered that the test for Brainfast has a small % error associated with the test. It is ONLY a 2% error, so most gamblers don't care. Things like that, they reasoned, only happen to "other" people. Unfortunately, these "other" people have now been effectively banned from the gambling community. No book wants their business and no casino will let them in the door without "proof" that the positive drug test was false.

Meanwhile, Mr. Walters and others of his ilk, hire big shot lawyers to find loophole after loophole in the testing laws. Other "cheaters" are more daring and cheat their way through the tests. When the smoke finally clears, it's discovered that up to HALF of the positive test results may be in error due to false positives, coffee drinkers, and test cheaters. The Government, always one to enjoy a good cover-up, bury these findings in some 10,000 page report that no-one will ever read.

And so it goes. The non-user never gets what he wants (an equal playing field), but probably gets what he deserves (one more lost freedom).

Truly a pathetic story. But you know what? After re-reading what I've written, I now realize this is a waste of my time. When people need to be BEGGED not to sacrifice their freedoms - freedoms that our great great grandfathers fought and died for - something is truly wrong. What's worse is these same people are not only willingly sacrificing freedoms, they are DEMANDING that they be abolished, and are ridiculing anyone who would have the audacity to talk them down off the ledge.

When I started this thread, I knew I was opening up a controversial topic and was expecting plenty of resistance. What I didn't expect, though, was that the resistance would be so universal. This is truly depressing to me. I would have expected GAMBLERS - OF ALL PEOPLE, to realize the importance of freedoms, and to know the pain of freedoms lost. Has our neverending fight with the powers in Congress to allow us to do what we please with our own money been forgotten already?? Can you not see the parallel here?

Just remember this - long after this crisis is past, as all crisis's do, everything will return to normal. Everything, that is, except one very notable exclusion - the freedom that was sacrificed in the name of the crisis is now gone forever. What no-one ever seems to grasp in this country is that when we willingly push to abolish a freedom that is unimportant to us but may be important to someone else, they in turn now have the right to push to abolish a freedom that is important to YOU. And over time we all end up net-losers.

So please reserve comments on what I've written. I'm sure someone can find some minor flaw in my parable here. Someone will undoubtedly claim that this case is different for this reason or that - as all cases are. If you cannot see the bigger picture, yet, after all I've written, then you never will. I am done arguing it. My only hope is that we Americans figure it out before it is too late. Judging from what I've read here, I'm not optimistic.



Those that would willingly sacrifice freedom for the illusion of security (or for fewer home runs), will get and deserve neither. (Benjamin Franklin)
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,106,907
Messages
13,439,498
Members
99,345
Latest member
08winlink
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com