Originally Posted by KC_Connection
There's nothing backed by precedent about a 162 game suspension for PED use in the sport of baseball. It's entirely new territory no matter how anybody attempts to explain the reasoning behind the punishment.
This statement is simply flat-out wrong.
There is precedent for punishing a player for 50 games even without a positive test. Check.
There is precedent for punishing a player for a first-time use for two different kinds of substances and having the punishments run consecutively instead of concurrently. Check.
There is precedent for punishing for a cover-up. Check.
Your only objection seems to be that 162 games is too convenient of a number (which was the arbitrator's call by the way, Selig wanted no hard limits, and 211 games), but what if it was 175, and they said 25 games for the cover-up instead of 12? Then its suddenly ok? Why couldn't they just round it to one season and call it good?