Baseball Takes Steroids Seriously

Warren said:

MLB and the players union have announced their new "get tough" policy

for

Quoted message said:

those caught using steroids.

The first positive test will get you a 10-day suspension.

If you get caught 4 times you're out for a whole year.

-WG

$$$$$$$$$$$$$talks

In article <[email hidden]>,

Warren said:

MLB and the players union have announced their new "get tough" policy for
those caught using steroids.

The first positive test will get you a 10-day suspension.

If you get caught 4 times you're out for a whole year.

-WG

I think you might have gotten the header wrong, Warren. I think it
should read: "Baseball seriously takes steroids."

Damn, ten whole days... Heh. Oh well, it's a step.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I think you might have gotten the header wrong, Warren. I think it
should read: "Baseball seriously takes steroids."

Damn, ten whole days... Heh. Oh well, it's a step.

They should make it for at least as long as it takes the drugs to clear your
system.

On 1/13/05 6:00 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Warren said:

MLB and the players union have announced their new "get tough" policy for
those caught using steroids.

The first positive test will get you a 10-day suspension.

If you get caught 4 times you're out for a whole year.

-WG

I think you might have gotten the header wrong, Warren. I think it
should read: "Baseball seriously takes steroids."

Damn, ten whole days... Heh. Oh well, it's a step.

4 times?? 4 TIMES??????? And you get a year vacation?!?!?!?!?!

A paid vacation no doubt...

What is interesting to me is that they are essentially passing
on the penalty phase to the endorsement arena. That is, if
you get busted for steroids the primary cost will be the
damage done to your endorsement income. This puts established
players at the greatest risk.

I will also note that they are still limiting their testing
to steroids, not other performance enhancers. It is clear
that they do not want to look for things they know they will
find.

-------
The issue of amphetamines came up during the talks between
owners and players, said Rob Manfred, management's chief
labor negotiator.

"Stimulants are a complicated area," Manfred said. "Are they
performance enhancing? How should they be regulated? That's
something that we've put to the health policy advisory
committee to look at because we weren't prepared to deal
with it."
-------

Pretty lame.

Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:23:05 GMT, Steve <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 1/13/05 6:00 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Warren said:

MLB and the players union have announced their new "get tough" policy for
those caught using steroids.

The first positive test will get you a 10-day suspension.

If you get caught 4 times you're out for a whole year.

-WG

I think you might have gotten the header wrong, Warren. I think it
should read: "Baseball seriously takes steroids."

Damn, ten whole days... Heh. Oh well, it's a step.

4 times?? 4 TIMES??????? And you get a year vacation?!?!?!?!?!

"The objective is not to penalize for the sake of penalizing," Mr.
Fehr said. "I will be very surprised if over time this doesn't take
care of the problem completely."

Chuckle of the Day. For the many that don't really care, Fehr is the
executive head of the Major League Baseball players' union.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob Schwartz said:

What is interesting to me is that they are essentially passing
on the penalty phase to the endorsement arena. That is, if
you get busted for steroids the primary cost will be the
damage done to your endorsement income. This puts established
players at the greatest risk.

I will also note that they are still limiting their testing
to steroids, not other performance enhancers. It is clear
that they do not want to look for things they know they will
find.

Then do you suppose there will be no testing for masking agents? If you
leave that out of the equation, it makes the whole thing even more
pointless.

Quoted message said:

-------
The issue of amphetamines came up during the talks between
owners and players, said Rob Manfred, management's chief
labor negotiator.

"Stimulants are a complicated area," Manfred said. "Are they
performance enhancing? How should they be regulated? That's
something that we've put to the health policy advisory
committee to look at because we weren't prepared to deal
with it."
-------

Pretty lame.

Indeed.

I wonder how being all jacked up on speed would be beneficial to a
baseball player (at least while he's in a game).

"That's why there isn't a repo man I know who doesn't do speed..."

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Tom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A paid vacation no doubt...

Wrong, a suspension means no salary. Figuring the MLB avg salary is around
2.5 million and that players only get paid during the season. That figures
to about $100K per week. A 10 game suspension is going to cost that player
$150K. Even within the context of a 2.5 million dollar salary that is not
something to be taken lightly.

I still think it is weak, but a better program than in previous years.

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob Schwartz said:

What is interesting to me is that they are essentially passing
on the penalty phase to the endorsement arena. That is, if
you get busted for steroids the primary cost will be the
damage done to your endorsement income. This puts established
players at the greatest risk.

I will also note that they are still limiting their testing
to steroids, not other performance enhancers. It is clear
that they do not want to look for things they know they will
find.

Such as? Steroids are the drug of choice in MLB
Dave

Dave H said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob Schwartz said:

What is interesting to me is that they are essentially passing
on the penalty phase to the endorsement arena. That is, if
you get busted for steroids the primary cost will be the
damage done to your endorsement income. This puts established
players at the greatest risk.

I will also note that they are still limiting their testing
to steroids, not other performance enhancers. It is clear
that they do not want to look for things they know they will
find.

Such as? Steroids are the drug of choice in MLB
Dave

Dumbass -

Amphetamines.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Jack Daniels bourbon whisky (Bosox).

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...> > I will
also note that they are still limiting their testing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to steroids, not other performance enhancers. It is clear
that they do not want to look for things they know they will
find.

Then do you suppose there will be no testing for masking agents? If you
leave that out of the equation, it makes the whole thing even more
pointless.

What steroids can still be "masked"?

-WG

In article <[email hidden]>,

Warren said:

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...> > I will
also note that they are still limiting their testing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to steroids, not other performance enhancers. It is clear
that they do not want to look for things they know they will
find.

Then do you suppose there will be no testing for masking agents? If you
leave that out of the equation, it makes the whole thing even more
pointless.

What steroids can still be "masked"?

-WG

Oh, that was in reference to Bob's comment: "not other performance
enhancers."

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Thanks Curtis -- I F-ed up the borbon thing with the blue collar Jack
Daniels whisky.

You're right -- it is Tennessee whisky and not bourbon per se (e.g.,
Makers Mark).

In any case, whisky is one of MLB's drug of choice after cheap, blue
collar, watered-down lager.

-Ken

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(My favorite comment of theirs is that 'it is a whiskey, not a
bourbon'. Since if you are splitting hairs, about the only real
whiskeys are either bourbon or rye, I'm not sure what that means.
Scotch, of course, is whisky, as is usually Irish. So the bourbon
makers trumpet that they are the number one selling whiskey, which
means only that they outsell rye.)

Scotch whisky.

Irish whiskey. American also whiskey, because the people making it were
Irish immigrants.

Peter

Peter Allen said:

Irish whiskey.

This is the dividing point. In my experience, most Irish sources tend
toward 'whisky' and like the Scotch aficionados, use 'whiskey' for the
broader designation encompassing Scotch, Irish, bourbon, rye and any
other similar liquor. Some do use 'whiskey' and in general the Irish
whisky drinkers are less dogmatic about the issue.

Several sources mention that the original Irish source is spelled
without the e, coming from the original gaelic form of aqua vitae.
OTOH, it evidently went through several forms before 'whisky', so I'm
not sure it that locks in 'whisky' or not. Not willing to fight over
it. I'll drink to either.

As my preferences start are single barrel bourbons, then blended
bourbons, then rye and end with a few Irish whiskies, such as
Tullamore Dew, I am clearly on the side of whiskey. I try single malts
about once a year (my father-in-law has about half his bar in them)
just to check that my tastes haven't changed any.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell said:

As my preferences start are single barrel bourbons, then blended
bourbons, then rye and end with a few Irish whiskies, such as
Tullamore Dew, I am clearly on the side of whiskey. I try single malts
about once a year (my father-in-law has about half his bar in them)
just to check that my tastes haven't changed any.

Dude has his head screwed on right.
Only rule for whisky: find one that you like and then drink it for the
rest of your life.

Either part is just as good as the other.

Please take a minute to vote on this steroid poll for a research
project I'm doing:

http://www.sportsmogul.com/vbulletin2/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=12

Thanks!

Clay