Should teams be allowed to void contract because of steriod use?

[konck]

I mean a guy in contract year can roid up or use what ever can pass by at the time.
Then he signs a 5 of 6 year deal and puts the roids away so basically his stats were
a farce for money. I say use roids lose contracts you have to keep the playing field even for those that dont want to risk death for dollars.

[konck]

But im talking hard roids I dont see some things like Deer Antler Velvet as life threatening.

[Grits n' Gravy]

No. They know what their guys are on. They can release them but should be on hook for salary.

[Dutch]

Signing an athlete comes with risk of steroid use. Teams have to assume the risk.

[MUHerd37]

Yes they should be able to void the contract. Roids are an illegal drug.

[rake922]

Players shouldn't be allowed to enhance their performance. Water and food should be banned. Practice should be banned because it enhances players performance

[Optional]

Clubs should be able top void contracts if usage is found later.

But I think you are wrong about 'strong roids' and 'life threatening'. Biggest trouble in convincing young men not to take them now is that people think the latest products are very good for your body without a history or proven bad side effects. (partly as they are too new of course)

When it comes to the stuff that promotes the body producing the compounds they want, rather than injecting the compounds themselves, at least.

[pavyracer]

The moment you test positive for roids you should get banned for life. That means contract is also voided at the spot.

[King Mayan]

If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying.

[tto827]

The moment you test positive for roids you should get banned for life. That means contract is also voided at the spot.

What about false positives?

[InTheDrink]

anyone who says yes is naive as fuk

see the news about schilling saying the red sox wanted him to juice? i dont take what that asshole says about anything as gospel but its not ridiculous to think

so basically a team can try to pump their players up and if the player gets bagged his life is potentially ruined and the team tells him to get fukked and moves on with life

[k13]

No.

But contracts should not be guaranteed.

[pavyracer]

What about false positives?

If there is a false positive the player can always sue and present his case in court.

[Brock Landers]

100% yes they should. Not sure why that hasn't been bargained into their agreement. I'm sure it will be next time.

[SportsMushroom]

who do you think provides the roids to the players?

they probably secretly put it in the gatorade

[OMGRandyJackson]

anyone who says yes is naive as fuk

see the news about schilling saying the red sox wanted him to juice? i dont take what that asshole says about anything as gospel but its not ridiculous to think

Its actually quite the opposite...anyone that says no is naive as fuk.

If you read anything more than the headline for the Schilling story than you would know that it was not the red sox, but a trainer, and not the head trainer or important ones. MLB conducted an investigation and nothing was found.

Signing an athlete comes with risk of steroid use. Teams have to assume the risk.

Absolutely not. Teams can choose to assume the risk but do not HAVE to assume the risk. Melky is a perfect example of this. Toronto signed him, choosing to accept the risk that he will be a complete dud. Now lets say Melky never tested positive and Toronto still signed him and he was a dud. Why should Toronto be on the hook having no knowledge of his shenanigans with previous clubs?

Think of these two situations:

If I have player A who is average, does not use steroids, and in his last 2 contract years improves, and has a great final year, and I sign him for big bucks. I have now accepted the risk that the final year may be a fluke but that he should (provided he stays healthy) play better than his average years. Player A does not live up to his monetary value, and that is my fault as the GM and the scouts fault.

If I have player B who is average, and in his last 2 contract years improves, and has a great final year, and I sign him for big bucks, I accept the risk that the final year may be a fluke but that he should (provided he stays healthy) play better than his average years. Player B does not live up to his monetary value, and it is discovered he used steroids in his final two years, that is not my fault as GM or scout failures.

If you still have trouble seeing this, think of it this way. You work in sales, selling windows. You call house to house trying to make sales and are paid by commission. You quickly discover a way to cheat the system and put in false sales orders to receive commission. Also this way to cheat the system is not simple or glaring, it was a definite attempt (and was successful) to manipulate the system. You decide to do this because you will make a lot of money quickly, and by the time the company discovers this, you will have moved on to another company. You leave the company, 6 weeks after starting your scheme, and the company discovers your errors 2 weeks later. Does the company owner go "Well I should have assumed the risk that some people would cheat and now that they have, thats too bad because I assumed the risk and knew what I was getting". No way. The owner goes "Get the legal department, its time to get our money back from this fraud".

The fact of the matter is, good stats = better contracts. Steroids usually equal good stats, thus better contracts for the player. When a team signs a player to a contract they are expecting a certain performance from the player using his past history. If his past history was built on steroids, that is a misrepresentation of his past history and is therefor fraudulent. Therefore absolutely a contract should be voided if the player is caught using steroids.

Obviously players will never agree to contracts with wording of "use steroids and this contract is void." But start looking out for contracts with "any lie or misrepresentation of information to a team doctor can result is contract being voided" and other similar clauses to get around specifically saying testing positive for steroids will void the contract.

I have yet to see one valid reason why a club should not have the right to void a steroid using player's contract. In fact I do not understand how any of you can say no it should not be voided and offer "team should have known, or team should accept the risk" as your only reasons.

Why should a team assume and accept the risk that a player is on steroids going into this contract?

[OMGRandyJackson]

100% yes they should. Not sure why that hasn't been bargained into their agreement. I'm sure it will be next time.

Because you have an extremely strong union and an ownership group that is not willing to endure a lockout over such an issue. Remember baseball was absolutely devastated by the strike. Baseball wants nothing to do with a work stoppage. Plus the amount of players this really is an issue for is minimal.


Also the guys thinking that teams supply steroids need to get a wake up call. You can sit here all day saying everyones on them and every club house will give them to you etc. But lets call bullshit when we see it. Thats bullshit. Teams have been FORCED to clean up. Thats why people like Arod's cousin exist.

You need to remember steroids are illegal unless prescribed. And prescribing them to someone so that they become a better baseball player is not an acceptable legal reason to prescribe. Teams would take far too much liability if they were the ones giving it to their players.

[Chi_archie]

Yes the Teams get the money back from the players and contract is voided

as long as the owners are ok, with giving the fans back all the money from tickets to fans that went to games while the roided up player was playing and gave the tv and radio companies back all the money they got for games televised with cheating players in it.

[lunchbawks]

Teams and trainers should teach their players proper safe steroid use. Baseball is boring without them

[lakerboy]

they should just let everyone juice by rule. it makes things easier for all of us. so sick about steroids ec.

[InTheDrink]

if archer got any sharper id have gotten cut reading that post

[OMGRandyJackson]

Yes the Teams get the money back from the players and contract is voided

as long as the owners are ok, with giving the fans back all the money from tickets to fans that went to games while the roided up player was playing and gave the tv and radio companies back all the money they got for games televised with cheating players in it.

Why?

they should just let everyone juice by rule.

I use to think like this but the problem is, steroids ARE REALLY REALLY dangerous to your health. And to tell a kid growing up, hey u wanna make it big and be good? Well your only chance is this juice and all the bad health effects youre gonna experience in 40 years from now.

[tony_come]

Which Sbr pros are on roids?

Most professional athletes are using em

[TheGoldenGoose]

anyone who says yes is naive as fuk

see the news about schilling saying the red sox wanted him to juice? I dont take what that asshole says about anything as gospel but its not ridiculous to think

so basically a team can try to pump their players up and if the player gets bagged his life is potentially ruined and the team tells him to get fukked and moves on with life

^^^^^ this

[TheMoneyShot]

But im talking hard roids I dont see some things like Deer Antler Velvet as life threatening.

This is an interesting question and thread. But konck... you have to understand... any type of roid will give you an advantage. Back in the day... athletes were taking Primobol because the word is... it doesn't effect your natural testosterone inside your body. Puts on raw size without the bloating... and it makes you quicker, faster, stronger. They weren't even looking to test it. Once you hit 34, 35, 36... you notice a huge loss in muscle mass. You aren't strong anymore... and you're on the decline. Some of these athletes probably start seeing this at 30 or 31 because they are up against younger athletes... 20-24 in their prime. It's hard to compete with them.

Personally, I don't see how these athletes are covering up the testing? Or how one person is selected and the others aren't? I could give you a long list of athletes who were using them. Even when Doug Weight was on the St. Louis Blues... he was using them. A lot of people couldn't tell... typically any athlete who is around 5'11'' 200 lbs 6-7% body fat is on a roid.

Athletes will always cheat. If you do a cycle... and you know how you felt being on them... and then how you performed OFF OF THEM... you'll find a way to take them again.

[OMGRandyJackson]

Personally, I don't see how these athletes are covering up the testing?

There is two ways, (not counting cheating the actual test IE: using fake piss):

1. Masking Agent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masking_agent

2: Brand new steroid. While testing is constantly getting better, Steroids are constantly being created. A lab creates a new steroid that is cannot be tested currently and sells it to a small client list. THis is why your seeing some organizations keeping samples for years and testing them later because eventually the steroid will become detectable.

[TankHankerous]

Maybe this answer is too obvious but what about having a "steroid clause" in the contract? That way both parties understand the implications of failing a drug test involving PEDs.

[OMGRandyJackson]

Maybe this answer is too obvious but what about having a "steroid clause" in the contract? That way both parties understand the implications of failing a drug test involving PEDs.

Players union too strong. Will never happen. I think youll see a full season ban on first test before players union even considers this.

[mebaran]

I mean a guy in contract year can roid up or use what ever can pass by at the time.
Then he signs a 5 of 6 year deal and puts the roids away so basically his stats were
a farce for money. I say use roids lose contracts you have to keep the playing field even for those that dont want to risk death for dollars.

What? You do realize that anabolic steroids have no known long term health effects, right? There hasn't been a single medical journal to prove otherwise. Especially if you're using them under the supervision of a doctor, or team of doctors, there is almost no risk of misuse/abuse...

Plus, I don't understand how a guy can't take anabolic steroids, but can take a cortisone shot for joint pain (cortisone is a steroid).

[OMGRandyJackson]

What? You do realize that anabolic steroids have no known long term health effects, right?

Other than all the studies that have shown anabolic steroids cause long term HEART problems....

Plus so what if there is no "long term health effects", there is enough risk for health problems during use even under doctor supervision

[InTheDrink]

Which Sbr pros are on roids?

Most professional athletes are using em

Tony I'm on fukkin Viagra. Not cuz I need it but it gives me that added edge when I need to lay some serious fukkin pounding.

Tony is that within the rules?

Tony come

_

[Optional]

Which Sbr pros are on roids?

Most professional athletes are using em

Roids are so 2010

GHRP-6 is what they use today. Well, probably yesterday seeing as anybody can get it at almost any gym if you ask around the cut looking guys now.

[Da Beer Guy]

Void the contract? LOL they are the ones hooking them up with the steroids

[mebaran]

Other than all the studies that have shown anabolic steroids cause long term HEART problems....

Plus so what if there is no "long term health effects", there is enough risk for health problems during use even under doctor supervision

No. There are no long term side effects. Ask your doctor next time you are there if there are any medical journals that have proven such a thing. His answer will be no. There's a reason anabolic steroids are used in medicine today...because it works (and it works extremely well at that). HIV/AIDS patients are often prescribed steroids in order to gain muscle mass that has been lost.

However, there are health effects while you're on them, but they are minor, and they ALL disappear after you stop taking them. So, under the supervision of a physician, you would go on a 12 week cycle of use, probably have testicular shrinkage, extra hair growth, acne, increased appetite, etc, but once you cycle off of it correctly, all side effects go away.

The risks you're referencing ONLY occur when steroids are abused (taken for more than 12-16 weeks at a time, not cycling off of them with estrogen correctly, using sub-par "street" anabolics, etc). Just like anything else, too much can and WILL hurt you...but it is perfectly safe if taken with care and supervision.

For the record...one year since I was curious I looked up how many deaths were attributed to steroid use in the U.S. I can't remember what year (probably 2009 or 2010), but there were 6 deaths. I thought that number was in 1,000s like the other numbers that were listed, but it wasn't 6,000. It was 6. Go to the CDC website and look for yourself.

Also for the record, I have never taken, or thought about taking, steroids, but I feel there is so much misinformation and leftover propaganda from the 70s and 80s that portray steroids like they're heroin. If you're arguing their use in sports....that can be debated. But why are they a controlled substance when more people die from huffing gasoline?