When does the clock start ticking for violators?

Question

If players used drugs, that are on the banned substance list now, throughout the 1990's but stopped when the MLB drug policy was implemented in the early 2000's, are they guilty of any violations in the eyes of MLB and should MLB take any action against them now?

Mick: I am not saying it was OK to do it then but rather there was no policy in place at that time. How is it possible to retroactively apply any kind of penalty?

Mick: Until the year 1920 there was no rules banning the "spitball" which was used by many pitchers. After 1920 a rule was implemented banning the spitball. Is every pitcher that threw the spitball prior to 1920 a cheater?

Mick: If you drove through an intersection that had no stop sign ten years ago but there is one there now, did you break the law and would you pay a ticket if it were sent to you today?

Alomeu: The use of any kind of drug stinks and there is no room in baseball for it, but I don't know of any other way to approach this issue and have to agree with you.

Chipmaker and Craig: Your answers are not a "feel good" answer or an answer based on the fans "getting even" with players who may have dissapointed us by their use of drugs prior to the implementation of the MLB drug policy. However, I believe it is the right answer and response to the hundreds of questions asked about Bonds and his possible use of drugs prior the the implementation of the policy. If more people on this site understood the issues I believe they would come to agree with your responses.

All of the first seven answers represent a solid point of view and there are no right or wrong answers to a question like this. No one has to agree with the person asking the question in order to have a solid and informative response. Everyone's view point is just as important as all the others as long as it has some redeeming social value. Great answers so far and thank you.

I have selected a best answer for every question I have asked on Y/A but not this one. All of the answers are great and deserve to be selected. Please vote for one of these when you have a chance and lets come up with a winner.

Answer 1

I would say if they were illegal substances then they should be booted.

But if they were legal. and they had no rules then to prevent it then they should be fine. You can not inforce the rules of today on yesterdays game.

Answer 2

They would not be guilty in the eyes of MLB unless they'd used a substance banned at the time. The perfect poster boy for this is Mark McGwire, who admitted to using androstenedione (it would have been tough to deny considering a large bottle of it was sitting in his locker). There's no question that he used at least one of those 45 banned steroids - and likely more - but he can't be punished now since it wasn't against the rules. Your example of the spitball is a good one, in showing that you can't retrospectively punish players for doing something that wasn't against the rules when they played.

The bigger question might be the ethical one, as in, how do we judge those players who took these substances before they were banned? While I'm not a fan of performance enhancers, I don't know that you can really punish someone now - for example, by keeping them out of the HOF - for doing something ethically questionable but well within the rules as they existed. A guy like Pete Rose deserves to be banished from the game for violating a long-on-the-books rule. What to do, though, with a guy like Bonds? He seems like a jerk, and I believe he took enhancers, but has he really done anything against the rules? The second ethics creep in, the whole issue just becomes much more difficult.

To sum up - If they didn't violate an existing rule, they shouldn't be punished. If they used these banned substances after the implementation of the program, then they should be penalized as outlined in the document.

Answer 3

TO me the clock starts the day that the rules were implemented. In sports people have been trying for ever to find an advantage over the other people in their sport. You gave the spitball as an example, great example before 1920 it was legal so the players did not break any rules, after that it was illegal so if you used it you were in violation. Same goes here, before 2003 Bud has no recourse against these players, before 2005 for HgH he has no recourse, he can try all he would like to punish them to make himself look like a "do something" commissioner but it will not stick. In the court of public opinion no one is ever safe from being brought up as a cheat. The Hall of Fam eshould not look differently at these players but we know that the sportwriters will judge these guys on the "Crimes" they believe they have committed. I believe that they should not be punished unless they are found to have broke the rules AFTER the law was intact...there is no "Ex Post Facto" in this where they can be punished for committing an act before there was legislation against it. THey can be tried however for breaking the law of the US or the state/province they were in at that time. If something was against the law but not against the rules they can be punished by the Legal Authorities but still can not be punished by Baseball themselves.

Answer 4

Great question, Frizzer, you like to stir things up, don't you? : )
A star for you!

As mentioned above, you can't punish someone for breaking a law that didn't exist. However, if the MLB really wanted to be ****busters they could probably pursue it as a civil matter and hit them where it hurts, in their portfolios (I was going to say wallets but it's much bigger than that). They would have to prove that the players in question were using steroids and that in some way it damaged the game, the team or caused harm in some other way. In the litigious society that we live in, I wouldn't be surprised if someone is already trying to bring a case against the players or the MLB. Possibly fraud or misrepresentation comes to mind. Why not? We've heard of crazier lawsuits.

As a mother of a teen aged son, I don't happen to approve of steroid use in sports. My son idolizes sports stars and I think it sets a bad example as evidenced by the rampant steroid use and abuse in high school sports nationwide. It seems that good sportsmanship and team work have fallen by the wayside with the rest of yesterday's morals.

The bigger + stronger you are = the more powerful you are = the more money you can make.

JMHO

Answer 5

The commissioner can always try to invoke his "best interests of baseball" authority to impose whatever sorts of sanctions he thinks appropriate, but such would inevitably lead to very ugly fights with the MLBPA. That doesn't serve anyone's purposes, not directly, so best not to go there.

I'm big on ex post facto rules and regulations -- cannot make a violation retroactively effective. Whatever happened, happened.

Also, other than eyewitness testimony, what evidence would there be? Even testing hair only goes so far.

As for the question of substances illegal in the eyes of the law, that is properly a matter for the relevant district attorney, and not the office of the Commissioner of Baseball.

Answer 6

As an Indians fan, I find this interesting as Paul Byrd admitted to his usage of HGH but his last known usage was one week prior to the ban. In my mind, he is not in violation and should not be punished. It is indeed correct that when new laws are put on the books they do not retroactively go back and arrest offenders for what was not a crime at that time. For example: Ohio's seat belt law. Prior to the seat belt law, if you chose not to use one and you wanted to risk pirouetting through your windshield, that was your perogative. Not anymore. They see you without one now, you get fined. That is true of any law. Therefore, it makes sense to punish only from the date the law took effect. Sometimes there is even a grace period. So, regardless of it is Paul Byrd or Barroid, I vote for no punishment for anything prior to an actual rule or an actual ban.

Answer 7

The intent to cheat or gain unfair advantage over their peers was their motivation and is why they took the drugs in the first place. To say that it was okay to do it then but suddenly not now is ludicrous. They were guilty then and are guilty now of the same offense. They all should have to pay for their dishonesty.

To qualify my statement, whether these drugs were not on any kind of banned substance list, the intent of the athlete was not honorable. Those who have answered by saying it was not illegal at the time are technically correct. In my mind they are guilty of heart.

Answer 8

????