MLB prepared to ban Alex Rodriguez for life

[Rams Fan]

Commissioner Bud Selig is prepared to levy a lifetime suspension on New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez, while suspending about eight others before the weekend, two people with knowledge of the negotiations told USA TODAY Sports.

The people were unauthorized to speak publicly because no announcement is expected until Thursday or Friday.

Rodriguez, according to his attorney, David Cornwell, will appeal any suspension, regardless of the severity. The other players are expected to receive 50-game bans, and most are considering accepting the discipline without appealing, according to one of the people.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...nesis/2606319/

[blaise]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Why should MLB have to be responsible for babysitting children? Professional athletes do all sorts of things that you don't want your children to do. That doesn't mean we need to ban players for life.

This cracks me up. Everyone is going to change their tunes when 90% of NFL players turn out to be juicing.

I don't think they should be banned for life, but if a HOF voter wants to vote no on guys like Bonds and Clemens I don't care. I'm not going to feel bad for them, because ultimately they have themselves to blame.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by blaise

I don't think they should be banned for life, but if a HOF voter wants to vote no on guys like Bonds and Clemens I don't care. I'm not going to feel bad for them, because ultimately they have themselves to blame.

I don't really disagree except that they weren't banned at that time to my knowledge. I don't like steroid use. I just don't think it should matter because it doesn't alter the nature of the game. What's more is that everyone just assumes that everyone else is cheating, and that hurts the integrity of the game more than allowing players to help themselves get bigger, faster, and stronger.

Doctoring a ball changes the nature of the game. Using a non-conforming bat changes the nature of the game. Being stronger, less injured, etc. when arriving at the ballpark does not.

If players were dropping dead, that would be one thing. They aren't, though. They are healing faster and having longer careers. There is something inherently wrong with telling players "yes you're injured...yes you're going to have to retire at 36 because your body is breaking down...yes you could be healthy, pain-free, and at your peak for another decade by taking steroids under the supervision of your doctor...but we're going to make you sit there and deal with it as your body breaks down and forces you into retirement at age 35...you know...for your own good". Then, we pat ourselves on the backs before going to watch the NFL where 250 pound Linebackers running 4.5 40s smash people into oblivion...and bitch that the league has become pussified because they can't target heads.

How hypocritical can we get?

[BlackHelicopters]

My advice: start drinking heavily.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by blaise

I don't think they should be banned for life, but if a HOF voter wants to vote no on guys like Bonds and Clemens I don't care. I'm not going to feel bad for them, because ultimately they have themselves to blame.

I have no problem with A-Rod or any other playing being banned for life for breaking the rules in regards to steroids. I don't think guys like McGwire should be banned\not allowed in the HOF because at the time there was no rules in regards to that and I think the HOF voters need to quit being so high and mighty about it.

And for the record I think using steroids is cheating but if you don't ban them then I don't see how you can punish players who use them.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

I don't really disagree except that they weren't banned at that time to my knowledge. I don't like steroid use. I just don't think it should matter because it doesn't alter the nature of the game. What's more is that everyone just assumes that everyone else is cheating, and that hurts the integrity of the game more than allowing players to help themselves get bigger, faster, and stronger.

Doctoring a ball changes the nature of the game. Using a non-conforming bat changes the nature of the game. Being stronger, less injured, etc. when arriving at the ballpark does not.

If players were dropping dead, that would be one thing. They aren't, though. They are healing faster and having longer careers. There is something inherently wrong with telling players "yes you're injured...yes you're going to have to retire at 36 because your body is breaking down...yes you could be healthy, pain-free, and at your peak for another decade by taking steroids under the supervision of your doctor...but we're going to make you sit there and deal with it as your body breaks down and forces you into retirement at age 35...you know...for your own good". Then, we pat ourselves on the backs before going to watch the NFL where 250 pound Linebackers running 4.5 40s smash people into oblivion...and bitch that the league has become pussified because they can't target heads.

How hypocritical can we get?

I guess the argument would be that it changed the nature of the record books. It's obviously subjective, so how important that is is up to the voter.
Baseball's HOF is a little different in that respect because it specifically says that character should be considered, so a voter wouldn't be unreasonable to say that Sosa or Bonds corrupted the record books and that's a character issue. Or a voter could say, "I considered it and decided I don't care."

[blaise]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I have no problem with A-Rod or any other playing being banned for life for breaking the rules in regards to steroids. I don't think guys like McGwire should be banned\not allowed in the HOF because at the time there was no rules in regards to that and I think the HOF voters need to quit being so high and mighty about it.

And for the record I think using steroids is cheating but if you don't ban them then I don't see how you can punish players who use them.

Whether or not there was an explicit rule the players knew it was unethical and illegal, so to me that doesn't really matter.
Like I said, it's not the HOF or writers fault MLB was slow to react.

I agree the writers are too full of themselves, though. There's definitely something distasteful about the pompous way a lot of these guys view the process.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by blaise

I guess the argument would be that it changed the nature of the record books. It's obviously subjective, so how important that is is up to the voter.
Baseball's HOF is a little different in that respect because it specifically says that character should be considered, so a voter wouldn't be unreasonable to say that Sosa or Bonds corrupted the record books and that's a character issue. Or a voter could say, "I considered it and decided I don't care."

I can respect someone saying that they're against it because baseball records are supposed to be sacred. I disagree, but I understand it, and I respect the honesty.

What I don't respect is people hiding behind being concerned about the safety of the players. That's either wild hypocrisy or a lie. Nobody who is a fan of the NFL is losing sleep over the safety of MLB players. Nobody

[Saul Good]

The HOF is a joke on the level of the Pro Bowl, so I don't really give a shit about that part of it, anyway.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

I can respect someone saying that they're against it because baseball records are supposed to be sacred. I disagree, but I understand it, and I respect the honesty.

What I don't respect is people hiding behind being concerned about the safety of the players. That's either wild hypocrisy or a lie. Nobody who is a fan of the NFL is losing sleep over the safety of MLB players. Nobody

I agree. It's their body. That doesn't concern me.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by blaise

Whether or not there was an explicit rule the players knew it was unethical and illegal, so to me that doesn't really matter.
Like I said, it's not the HOF or writers fault MLB was slow to react.

I agree the writers are too full of themselves, though. There's definitely something distasteful about the pompous way a lot of these guys view the process.

IMHO just because MLB was slow to react that is no reason to punish the players who weren't breaking any rules at the time. Breaking the law is different but I imagine there is a significant portion of players who use illegal narcotics on a daily basis in MLB, NFL, NBA.. and I don't think that will effect them getting into the HOF.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

The HOF is a joke on the level of the Pro Bowl, so I don't really give a shit about that part of it, anyway.

Yeah, my initial point in post 2 or 3, or whatever, about the ban affecting his HOF status was mostly about MLB using it to sort of strong arm A-Rod. That's what I believe they did. They said, "If you think you might get in the HOF someday, you have to come clean and admit and take your lumps. Otherwise we're banning you."
And really that's MLBs only actual concrete influence over the HOF. The HOF laws say players on the banned list aren't eligible to come up for a vote.
So, in a way MLB was threatening him with a HOF ban in a roundabout way. And I think it was probably effective, because A Rod obviously has a huge ego and I have to believe he thinks he'll get in someday and he really wants to be in.

Whether or not roid users should, shouldn't be is a side topic.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

IMHO just because MLB was slow to react that is no reason to punish the players who weren't breaking any rules at the time. Breaking the law is different but I imagine there is a significant portion of players who use illegal narcotics on a daily basis in MLB, NFL, NBA.. and I don't think that will effect them getting into the HOF.

Agree to disagree but I think the, "it wasn't banned" angle is sort of goofy. They knew it was wrong, so whatever. The player's union fought it all and they were part of that, so they made that bed and they can lie in it. I'm not looking to make excuses for guys that knew there were risks to getting caught.

[Saul Good]

For those who think baseball records are being corrupted by steroids...

Charles Radbourn won 59 games in a season.

John Coleman lost 48 games in a season.

Matt Kilroy struck out 513 batters in a season.

Hugh Duffy hit .440 in a season.

Baseball records don't mean shit. The game has changed...and changed...and changed.

There is already a dead ball era and a live ball era...a segregated era and an integrated era...seasons with 70, 60, 84, 98, 112, 126, 140, 154, 132, and 162 game schedules...one league and two leagues...no divisions, four divisions, six divisions...postseasons with 2, 4, 6, and 8 teams...no interleague play and interleague play, etc. etc. etc.

Why so many people hold onto the idea that baseball records are somehow special when compared to other sports is beyond me.

[blaise]

One thing I know is the steroids in baseball debate is one of the least satisfying in sports and I think most people generally regret getting into it again every time they do.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by blaise

One thing I know is the steroids in baseball debate is one of the least satisfying in sports and I think most people generally regret getting into it again every time they do.

Agreed

One side rails against steroids but can't really form a coherent argument for why.

The other side can make logical arguments for allowing them but still feels dirty for doing so.