The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
You said it was a "myth" that Fay Vincent's 1991 memo banned steroids in MLB.


[/ QUOTE ]

I claimed it was a myth that Fay's memo unilaterally banned steroids. I think that claim is obviously correct, and you have even conceded as much.

[ QUOTE ]

We have both now read the memo and I conclude that the memo clearly bans steroids (that are not prescribed) from MLB. Do you agree, or not?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said that all along. My entire point was that the commonly accepted myth is that the memo banned steroids.

You didn't even realize until today that prescription steroids were not banned, nor did the ESPN article you cited include the critical qualifier that reference ONLY steroids WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION.

[ QUOTE ]

Do you retract your claim that it is a "myth" that the memo banned steroids?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said all along, if you care to review the posts, prescription steroids were not banned by the memo, when you initially indicated that all steroids were banned.

You come to the exact same conclusion, and want me to retract that claim? Bollocks!

Let's go back to the starting point..... You claimed Bonds is a cheater because he violated the rules as laid out in this memo.

Please, explain how Bonds violated this rule???

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

[Redbean Semantication]Actually, Bonds has never been caught violating the policy. He may have violated the policy 100 times and just managed to escape detection.[/Redbean Semantication]

[/ QUOTE ]

"A player shall be considered in violation of the policy if he fails a MLB administered steroid test, or similarly refused to take a MLB administered steroid test." - 2003 MLB CBA agreement

Call it semantics all you want, but they aren't MY semantics, they are the players and the owners...as the union and the league explicitly agreed that a player would only be considered in violation of the policy if they tested positive or refused to take a test.

Barry Bonds has never violated the MLB steroid policy. This is indisputable fact.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
nice change of topic again (a wrong one BTW)

can you ever stay on point?????????

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, let me know the "point" you'd like to limit the discussion to, and we'll stay within those boundaries.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Claiming Bonds is innocent is like claiming OJ is innocent

[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise, equating a three-run homer to a double homicide is just plain ridiculous.

[bottomset]

memo's change league rules? so if Selig had a memo saying the AL was getting rid of the DH it'd be official(the DH is banned if you will)? could he ban pretty much anything he wants via memo, or just specific stuff?

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Claiming Bonds is innocent is like claiming OJ is innocent

[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise, equating a three-run homer to a double homicide is just plain ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMFAO

Now I get why you appear so baffled by this "debate". You think somebody accused Bonds of hitting a three-run homer!

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Claiming Bonds is innocent is like claiming OJ is innocent

[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise, equating a three-run homer to a double homicide is just plain ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMFAO

Now I get why you appear so baffled by this "debate". You think somebody accused Bonds of hitting a three-run homer!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly, as that would require two of his teammates getting on base.

But what does baffle me is someone equating a man who entertains people by hitting a baseball for a living to the commission of a crime in which two human beings were brutally and savagely murdered.

Anyone who equates those two situations as similar just hasn't got any goddamn sense.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
memo's change league rules? so if Selig had a memo saying the AL was getting rid of the DH it'd be official(the DH is banned if you will)? could he ban pretty much anything he wants via memo, or just specific stuff?

[/ QUOTE ]

The memo was more or less the commissioner opening the dialog for future CBA negotiations regarding illegal substances. Revisionist historians will have you believe that this was the "banning of steroids" by MLB, despite them not being defined, nor the method of detection being described, nor most importantly....the agreement of the union.

A 7-page memo addressing the issues of the time with the increase in substances of abuse, such as cocaine and heroin, which glancingly mentions non-prescription steroids twice with no further clarification.

Even if one does consider it "making the rule", then it was superceded months later by the new CBA.

When the eventual CBA was hammered out after the memo, it had all sorts of provisions for illegal substances, but no mention of steroids, as it only addressed schedule I and II substances.

The simple fact is that from this memo emerged the "Major League Baseball Drug Prevention Program", which explicitly defined banned substances, the method of detection, and the penalties for violation.

Steroids were NOT amongst the banned substances in the MLB drug program.

This program functioned for another 12 years under MLB and the commisioner's control before in 2003, Schedule III substances, including steroids, were officially added to the banned substance list.

So, in reality, steroids were not addressed by rule until 2003 when Schedule III substances were added to the banned substance list, explicitly defining which substances were banned, along with the manner in which they would be detected, and the manner in which violators would be addressed.

For example, a player called up to an MLB team in 1995 upon qualifying for MLBPA would be given a copy of the MLB rulebook and a copy of the CBA. He would not be given a copy of a 4-year old memo that contained statements that never made it into the CBA.

And when he cracked open his CBA and got through reading it, he wouldn't see the word steroid mentioned, nor would he find any steroids on the banned substances list.

[MyTurn2Raise]

Red Bean....do you have reading comprehension skills?

who said that OJ's killing equated to Bond's use of performance enhancing substances?


that's right...no one


what has been said is that the amount of evidence v Barry is similar to that v OJ

it's also been said that your 'defense' of Bonds is simlar to that of Cochran defending OJ


but, congrats in trying to discredit the other side by completely misportraying the other side yet again
you sure pwned that imaginary point

[THAY3R]

Is that why OJ was found liable in civil court, yet they havn't even gotten enough evidence on Barry to even have an indictment?