Do you think?

Question

Do you think that the player's union will get fed up over the Mitchell report to strike? I mean if the powers that be want more testing will the player's stand for it?

Answer 1

I don't think so. The Union's hands are tied, as the use of a steroid is not only banned in baseball, but against the law. HGH will be tested for when there is a decent test. Not all players are fighting the testing. There are a lot of players pushing for testing too. I feel, as a former half-assed minor leaguer, that the steroid era has killed the career of a lot of honest ball players who coul not compete with the steroid user. There are players, Like Curt Schilling, who want it out of baseball, as his potential records are overshadowed by the likes of others who have gained notariety by cheating.

Answer 2

If the players had a strike over this issue, this time it would really have dire consequences. After 1994, attendance was WAY down. Then all of the sudden guys were bashing the ball like crazy. It was no accident. MLB juiced the ball to win back its fans. That's the one thing overlooked in the steroids era. Sure, guys were obviously juicing, but 70 and 73 HRs also came with a baseball that was a lot more lively than even the one in the 80s. They can only juice up the ball so much. Then next time there is a strike that the fans don't like, there may be just as much coverage of soccer as there is baseball. The NFL is more popular and the NBA isn't far behind, so, yes, baseball might fool around a little more and kill itself.

Answer 3

They will not strike over the report but they will fight the implementation of the recommendations despite what will be tremendous outside pressure to work with MLB to clean up the sport.

Answer 4

I don't think they have a choice. If they don't allow more testing, our government will stick their noses in it, and things will get a lot worse.

Answer 5

They don't care about the report.

Answer 6

No.