Pre-emptive strike?
Baseball commissioner Bud Selig, who looked foolish during a congressional hearing trying to explain baseball's lax policy on steriods, has proposed much stiffer penalties: 50 games for the first offense, 100 games for the second, lifetime ban for the third. And add amphetamines to the banned substance list.
The players' union is likely to balk, both at the extent of the penalties and the addition of amphetamines. Those were made famous, and public, as "greenies" in Jim Bouton's book "Ball Four." Even players who have publicly called for stiff penalties for steroid use have hedged when asked about banning amphetamines.
So what is Selig trying to do, knowing the proposal is not likely to be accepted? Remember, this is a man who once sold used cars. He could be trying to repair the baseball office's tattered image by shifting the burden to the union, making it the bad guy when it refuses. Or it could be a negotiating ploy, with the acceptable numbers more like 25 games for the first offense, 50 for the second and one season for the third, plus amphetamines would not be added.
Either way, skeptics will have a field day, and rightly so.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Selig has just about exhausted all his credibility -- if not political capital -- within and outside of baseball, except maybe among his clique of owners. This doesn't help. When every move you make seems politically motivated, the suspicion of your motivations drown out any good intentions you may have.
It could be he's forcing the players' union's hand, and that's great. I'm all for that. But, more likely, this was a knee-jerk announcement made to save face after the NFL came out of its congressional hearings looking like model citizens while baseball has mud on its face on the steroid issue. And Bud knows it's a "nonstarter" from the players' union's point of view. If they are able to negotiate a policy with half the teeth, as Bill suggests, then I'd be delightfully surprised ...
And I'd wonder how many minutes it'll take for the next undetectable steroid to come onto the black market.
Posted on May 2, 2005 4:59 PM
C'mon, Jeff, you trying to tell me that baseball has a bigger steroid problem than the NFL? I'm not buying that for a second. Size and strength are a much bigger advantage in football and since NFL players don't have guaranteed contracts, there's a much bigger incentive to cheat.
The difference is that, unlike in football, baseball has a strong union that can and will resist any efforts to institute a stronger drug policy. Given that obstacle, I actually think MLB is doing a decent job of responding to this steroid mess - after nearly two decades of closing their eyes to it.
Posted on May 2, 2005 10:19 PM
Bruce, no doubt, the NFL has plenty of players juicing. But does that make it a bigger problem? Not if the public perception -- and congress' perception -- is that the league has it under control, or fans simply have more tolerance for steroid use in football. Baseball's getting busted for its look-the-other-way policy; I don't think football is. The NFL also has better relations b/w players and owners. That's why I say Selig threw that grand proposal out there knowing full well Donald Fehr would reject the idea outright.
Posted on May 3, 2005 1:38 PM
For some reason, baseball gets held to a higher standard by both the public and Congress, while the NFL gets a free pass. Part of it is that baseball traditionally has done a lousy job of public relations, but I'm not completely sure why the NFL's warts always get glossed over, while MLB's get scrutinized.
I agree with you that Selig really put the pressure on Fehr with this proposal. I give him a lot of credit for that. Now, the union can either accept stricter penalties or say no and lose big in the court of public opinion.
Posted on May 3, 2005 4:17 PM
Selig's proposal is being painted as a negotiating starting point. But it seems so out of line with what Fehr (who I don't hold in very high regard either) would be willing to agree to that I expect him to dismiss it out of hand. We'll see. Fehr says he's willing to talk.
Posted on May 4, 2005 1:19 PM