Manny Banned

[awm]

My guess is... Manny has been trying to get pregnant. And it hasn't been working out. So he got a doctor to prescribe something...

 

Just another case of "Manny being Manny"?

[luke warm]

i can (barely) understand banning certain performance enhancing substances on the grounds that prolonged use has been proved to be harmful... if this was pot, prescribed or not, that doesn't fall in that category to me... pot is about as far from performance enhancing as a drug can get

Jimmy most if not all drugs can be proved to be harmful in a medical sense of the word.

 

As for Pot, I am not a doctor but I would think very long repeated use of smoking Pot, drawing smoke into my lungs, could in theory cause some harm to my body.

 

It would be interesting to x-ray the lungs of long-term pot smokers compared to non-smokers.

i never said it wasn't harmful, everything is harmful to lesser or greater degrees... i said it wasn't performance enhancing

[helene_t]

Not only are steroids generally legal in the US, they are prescribed in some cases, as I just found out today.

Right. I used to take one. Steroids are many things, not all are of the kind that make muscles grow.

[chicken]

as far as i know they got him on a secondary drug, did they? it was HCG a female fertility hormon which gets the male testosteron production back to selfsufficient work after a steroid cycle. wow, what a doctor to make this prescription plausible to poor many.

[Phil]

This started as an interesting thread, but has devolved into rants about stupid the drug-testing policy is.

 

Do we really need to reiterate how arrogant professional sports players are if they think they can cheat and not get caught?

 

Manny is just another moron in the parade.

[blackshoe]

If Manny took steroids prohibited by the sport's regulations, I agree Phil. But if the allegation that he did so is not based on hard evidence that he did so, but rather on circumstantial evidence that he took some other drug which is often associated with steroid use, but is also prescribed for other reasons, and those making the allegation did not bother to confirm with Manny or his doctor (and probably both) the reason for the prescription, then it is those making the allegation who are the morons.

[Phil]

If Manny took steroids prohibited by the sport's regulations, I agree Phil. But if the allegation that he did so is not based on hard evidence that he did so, but rather on circumstantial evidence that he took some other drug which is often associated with steroid use, but is also prescribed for other reasons, and those making the allegation did not bother to confirm with Manny or his doctor (and probably both) the reason for the prescription, then it is those making the allegation who are the morons.

That's fine, but do you really think MLB is going to ban their premier player for 1/3 of the season based on some non-banned drug, and "didn't" bother to confirm with anyone, AND, Manny isn't appealing this?

 

He's as guilty as his dreadlocks are long.

[jdonn]

If Manny took steroids prohibited by the sport's regulations, I agree Phil. But if the allegation that he did so is not based on hard evidence that he did so, but rather on circumstantial evidence that he took some other drug which is often associated with steroid use, but is also prescribed for other reasons, and those making the allegation did not bother to confirm with Manny or his doctor (and probably both) the reason for the prescription, then it is those making the allegation who are the morons.

If this other drug is not allowed then who cares why it was prescribed? It is Manny's job to know what is banned and not take anything that is, even if a doctor prescribed it. When a doctor writes me a prescription I NEVER take it without going online and educating myself about it first. Just imagine how much more important that would be if my job banned many otherwise-legal drugs and I was subjected to frequent random drug tests.

 

The earlier analogy someone made is very apt, that if your lawyer advises you to break the law then you are still responsible if you do so. "I trusted the expert" is not a valid defense.

[blackshoe]

That's fine, but do you really think MLB is going to ban their premier player for 1/3 of the season based on some non-banned drug, and "didn't" bother to confirm with anyone, AND, Manny isn't appealing this?

 

He's as guilty as his dreadlocks are long.

Well, if we were jurors in a trial, I would suggest to you that making assumptions not in evidence is not in the purview of a juror. If you insist on making those assumptions anyway, I guess we'll have a hung jury.

 

As for his dreadlocks, they're irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

If this other drug is not allowed then who cares why it was prescribed?

[/bIs[/b] this other drug prohibited? If so, why? It doesn't sound to me like it's "performance enhancing", except maybe in the bedroom, and that's not only irrelevant to the sport, it's none of the sport's business. So if the sport's bosses prohibit the drug for "guilt by association", again it's they who are the morons.

[barmar]

While leagues often use "purity of the game" and "leveling the playing field" as explanations for anti-doping regulations, it's clear to me that these are not the true reasons. Purity of the game seems unlikely because of the selective nature of the bans. And the playing field is just as level if everyone takes drugs.

 

No, I think it's obvious that it's an issue of image. Sports stars are expected to be role models. The Olympics were created because athletic prowess is considered to be a mark of human achievement. Children treat these people as heroes, and they emulate them.

 

Consider the brouhaha that arose last year when the picture of Michael Phelps smoking pot got out. It wasn't because pot is a performance-enhancing drug (in fact, it probably reduces performance), but because he let his fans down. He was no longer someone parents could tell their kids to look up to; despite still being an exceptional athlete, he now had this moral blemish.

[Phil]

That's fine, but do you really think MLB is going to ban their premier player for 1/3 of the season based on some non-banned drug, and "didn't" bother to confirm with anyone, AND, Manny isn't appealing this?

 

He's as guilty as his dreadlocks are long.

Well, if we were jurors in a trial, I would suggest to you that making assumptions not in evidence is not in the purview of a juror. If you insist on making those assumptions anyway, I guess we'll have a hung jury.

 

As for his dreadlocks, they're irrelevant.

Nope, we aren't attorneys. We can only surmise what is going on at MLB central.

 

Maybe some of us are cynical about these things, but doesn't your gut tell you that he got caught?

[jdonn]

If this other drug is not allowed then who cares why it was prescribed?

Is this other drug prohibited? If so, why? It doesn't sound to me like it's "performance enhancing", except maybe in the bedroom, and that's not only irrelevant to the sport, it's none of the sport's business. So if the sport's bosses prohibit the drug for "guilt by association", again it's they who are the morons.

Of course it is, they suspended him for using it. What in the world makes you think it's not?

[Lobowolf]

That's fine, but do you really think MLB is going to ban their premier player for 1/3 of the season based on some non-banned drug, and "didn't" bother to confirm with anyone, AND, Manny isn't appealing this?

 

He's as guilty as his dreadlocks are long.

Well, if we were jurors in a trial, I would suggest to you that making assumptions not in evidence is not in the purview of a juror. If you insist on making those assumptions anyway, I guess we'll have a hung jury.

 

As for his dreadlocks, they're irrelevant.

If we were jurors, we'd be privy to more evidence and have to make fewer assumptions. As we're not, it seems reasonable to draw rational inferences.

 

As an aside...

 

"You may consider whether a party failed to explain or deny some unfavorable evidence. Failure to explain or to deny unfavorable evidence may suggest that the evidence is true."

-California Civil Jury Instruction (CACI) #205.

[mike777]

It is pretty dumb to allow many performance enhancing drugs/operations but disallow others. I can only hope Congress would ban sports from denying people jobs or millions for taking medicine given by a doctor. Employees need to be protected. Clearly the vast majority of fans do not care enough to stop paying.

 

As has been stated often, older players take steriods and this drug for a medical reason. To heal and recover faster either from injury or after a long season of wear and tear. This drug is used often after steriod type drugs have been used to restart testerone production. That is a medical reason. If you pass stupid laws, do not be shocked when people disrespect them as it seems hundreds and hundreds of players do.

 

In preventive medicine many of us take drugs to try and stop a disease or illness before we get it, why cannot sport players try and take legal drugs to prevent medical sport issues before they happen? Example if drug xyz may help a pitcher from blowing out his arm why disallow it?

 

IMO if the drug is legal over the counter or legal if given by legal ethical prescription, it should be ok to use in sports. If a drug in general is illegal or unethicaly prescribed for a patient ban it and throw the doc in jail.

 

btw on 20-20 tonight there is a highly controversial segment on the use and side effects of steriods.

[luke warm]

If this other drug is not allowed then who cares why it was prescribed?

Is this other drug prohibited? If so, why? It doesn't sound to me like it's "performance enhancing", except maybe in the bedroom, and that's not only irrelevant to the sport, it's none of the sport's business. So if the sport's bosses prohibit the drug for "guilt by association", again it's they who are the morons.

it really doesn't matter why (although the answer appears somewhere), all that matters is that it's banned... the same sort of thing happens in the nfl all the time... the saints had their 2 defensive ends given 4 game suspensions last year for taking a banned substance... the substance was found in an over the counter pill (called star caps) and can be used to mask steroid usage

 

this case has garnered attention because a federal judge issued a stay and it will go to trial this june... the otc pill was approved by the nfl at one time but, unbeknownst to the players, the banned substance was added to the formula... the nfl knew about the change and never explicitly informed the players' union, grant and smith took the capsules and flunked the test... it's under appeal and would have surely been denied but for the lawsuit (it's the players' responsibility per the cba)... the players involved are also suing star caps, fwiw

[blackshoe]

Of course it is, they suspended him for using it. What in the world makes you think it's not?

I don't think anything in particular, I asked a question. If in fact he was charged with using the drug he actually used, then it seems that "but that drug isn't prohibited" would be a legitimate defense. Since he doesn't assert that defense, one might reasonably conclude that's how he was charged. But it's also conceivable that they charged him with using steroids, on the basis that the drug he did use is often associated with steroid use, whether or not that drug is itself prohibited. As I haven't read the actual charge, I don't assume it's the former; I don't know which it is.

[jdonn]

But it's also conceivable that they charged him with using steroids, on the basis that the drug he did use is often associated with steroid use, whether or not that drug is itself prohibited.

I don't find that conceivable at all, it wouldn't even occur to me nor does it sound at all plausible now. But I guess that's where we differ.

[Lobowolf]

I can only hope Congress would ban sports from denying people jobs or millions for taking medicine given by a doctor. Employees need to be protected.

Unlikely, from what I remember from my Sports Law class (which is at its heart a way of making Labor Law interesting).

 

The leagues' (MLB, but also NFL, NBA, etc.) drug policies stem from collective bargaining agreements, and are given a great deal of deference by courts, and to a lesser extent legislators, at least as long as they're made in good faith. The parties are expected to work out their issues between themselves. To the extent that an element of a CBA appears unfavorable to one side, it's generally assumed that it was a concession as part of an arm's-length negotiation as a result of which that party received an offsetting benefit of some sort.

 

That being said, Labor Law is not my speciality.

[Lobowolf]

But it's also conceivable that they charged him with using steroids, on the basis that the drug he did use is often associated with steroid use, whether or not that drug is itself prohibited.

I don't find that conceivable at all, it wouldn't even occur to me nor does it sound at all plausible now. But I guess that's where we differ.

"Implausible" is, to me, a gross underbid. That's like a cop writing a speeding ticket to a guy parked in a Porsche because people in Porsches often speed, THEN the judge sentencing him, THEN the guy not putting up a stink about it.

[jdonn]

But it's also conceivable that they charged him with using steroids, on the basis that the drug he did use is often associated with steroid use, whether or not that drug is itself prohibited.

I don't find that conceivable at all, it wouldn't even occur to me nor does it sound at all plausible now. But I guess that's where we differ.

Ok, not only inconceivable, but simply not the case. From the Sports Illustrated website:

A baseball source told the Globe the substance that triggered Manny Ramirez's 50-game suspension was human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), a female fertility drug that steroid users sometimes ingest to regulate their natural testosterone levels. HCG has been banned by Major League Baseball since last year and by the International Olympic Committee since 1987.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough. Though I'd still like to know why they banned it — and whether the ban was indeed the result of a collective bargaining agreement. I would hope that there's not a CBA in place that allows management to ban any drug arbitrarily, but who knows?

[Lobowolf]

I don't know how specific the CBA is on particular drugs, but I do know that drug testing and consequences are certainly discussed at great length in the negotiations. My guess would be that he wouldn't be voluntarily taking a 50-game suspension if he a legitimate grievance.

[TimG]

Fair enough. Though I'd still like to know why they banned it — and whether the ban was indeed the result of a collective bargaining agreement. I would hope that there's not a CBA in place that allows management to ban any drug arbitrarily, but who knows?

It seems reasonable to me to ban drugs that can be used to mask the use of performance enhancing drugs, similar to making illegal the use of radar detectors. Though I understand that drugs have other uses while radar detectors are pretty singular in their purpose.

 

There are multiple drugs out there for most conditions. If, as has been speculated, this drug was used for erectile dysfunction, it seems to me that there are other drugs available for the condition. Of course, I do not know if those are also banned. In the case of a condition that can only be treated with banned drugs, there ought to be a way to work with MLB in order to gain an exemption for a period of time.

 

An article that I read today (I forget now where) reported that Manny failed two tests, one in spring training and one after the start of the regular season.

[mike777]

"An article that I read today (I forget now where) reported that Manny failed two tests, one in spring training and one after the start of the regular season."

 

Given that he passed 15 previous tests this leads credence to the fact he is an older player and may in fact use steriods or similar for medical reasons, to recover after the end of a long season and to try and prevent injury in the coming season. All to enhance his performance in 2009! I note over the winter he was not employed by MLB.