Some questions for the PED Truthers

7/29/13 in MLB   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

Blog Photo - Some questions for the PED Truthers?The Biogenesis situation continues to meander towards its eventual conclusion, whenever that is. The general reaction has been a mix of applause for "getting the cheaters," bemoaning that this happened, and just general high horse moralizing. I'm admittedly not this gung-ho about PEDs. If someone gets caught, then yes they should be suspended. I'm fine with the 50/100/life system, but I could deal with 100/200/life or something like that as well.

However, I have a few questions for the PED truthers. I don't feel I can debate this further until I get these answers. My two primary questions are the following.

What does baseball have to do to make you feel they are doing "enough" to combat PED usage?

What do players have to do for you not to automatically suspect them of using PEDs solely because they are professional baseball players?

The problem is I suspect that for the truthers, the answer to these questions is "nothing." Nothing ever seems to be enough for baseball, even with the strong arm tactics they used in the Biogenesis case, and even with the Ryan Braun suspension, which was over what the CBA states. At the same time, if there's nothing the players can do, then how can we and the sport ever move forward?

I have some other questions.

What is an acceptable length of suspension to you? Is it not obvious how unrealistic and unfair a lifetime ban is after just one offense?

Do you not notice how baseball in one of the three sports, along with track and cycling, that test for PEDs the most, and how there is a correlation between that and their reputations about drugs?

How have PEDs helped Bartolo Colon? His fastball tops out at 92 mph, and he's as fat as he ever was.

In the same vein, is every mid-30s player who has a good year going to be assumed to be using? I'll give you Colon because of his previous positive test, but everyone else too?

Do you care about how football players test positive, get a four game suspension, and everyone moves on without moral outrage?

Why is it only certain players drug use matters? Ryan Braun and Alex Rodriguez are treated like History's Greatest Monsters, but what about David Ortiz? He was on the Mitchell Report. What about Andy Pettite? He admitted to using HGH, but nobody seems to care.

Does the Hall of Fame have to pretend the 1990s and early 2000s didn't exist? Is it really fair to be denied enshrinement because you were big and hit homers in that period? How can you assume certain players were clean or dirty when there's no evidence in either way?

Finally, how far do you want baseball to go? Is there anything short of someone at MLB spying on players 24/7 that will satisfy?

I'll be curious to see what the answers are. That is, if anyone is willing to answer.
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

7/30/13   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

orangemen90 wrote:
This is going after the dealers that sell drugs in the neighborhood...but the rich guys get better drugs delivered in different methods...

As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you going to answer the questions?

7/30/13   |   orangemen90   |   5785 respect

This is going after the dealers that sell drugs in the neighborhood...but the rich guys get better drugs delivered in different methods...