Should MLB Players agree to Blood testing?
Do you guys think that Major League Baseball should start blood testing players? That is the only method of catching HGH. Or just let them do it and cheat their way through the league?
I personally think they should blood test, and start it next season. If they dont blood test, it would pressure the clean players to use it to keep up so they dont lose their position on the team.
I personally think they should blood test, and start it next season. If they dont blood test, it would pressure the clean players to use it to keep up so they dont lose their position on the team.
Clear choice for players on HGH
The choice is stark but clear for the members of the Major League Baseball Players Association: Either they can agree to blood testing, or their sport will be dirty.
They can either agree to blood testing, to give baseball some shot at detecting human growth hormone, or the would-be cheaters will start streaming through the loophole like it's Interstate 70 on a clear Sunday morning.
They can either agree to blood testing, or they will be right back where they were in 1999 and 2000, with many of them faced with a decision they'd rather not face: Take a performance-enhancing drug to keep up with the cheaters, or risk losing their jobs.
They can either agree to blood testing, or they run the risk of having their own accomplishments -- for the entire generation -- tainted, under question, just as we wonder about the records of the players set from 1988 through 2004.
It's really up to them.
The high ground is there for commissioner Bud Selig to take. He could win the public relations war on this issue and put pressure on the union leadership by screaming for blood testing and the indefinite storage of samples. However, there are on-going collective bargaining talks, and raising this issue now might be like throwing a grenade into the CBA conversations.
Personally, I don't think so. I think the commissioner should be shouting about this, because when push comes to shove, I don't think the players -- most of whom, I absolutely believe, want a clean sport and a level competitive playing field -- will support the longstanding stance against blood testing by Don Fehr and Gene Orza. Most observers feel that the reason the union buckled twice on the testing issue is the pressure placed on it from Congress, but I don't think that's the case.
The reason the leadership buckled is that they know the players want a clean sport. And so the players, again, are back to the same place: They can either adopt blood testing, or they can embrace a system that everybody knows how to beat. Which they will not do. Henry Waxman reportedly told baseball months ago it would be smart to save its testing samples. The same thing was written here in February. Folks in Congress are rattling their sabers again over this issue, writes Howard Bryant.
Some of Jason Grimsley's old teammates can't see him being a snitch, as David Boyce writes. He's not that kind of guy, Todd Jones says.
A key figure in the Barry Bonds BALCO deal is told not to participate in the Mitchell Investigation, as Jack Curry and Murray Chass report. I've heard from a lot of different folks that the Mitchell Investigation is not generating a whole lot from their respective employees; we'll see. If the investigators really want info, they should be talking to clubhouse kids -- batboys.
Could this be a sign Bonds won't be long for the Giants? One of the members of his posse was booted by the team.
Tim Brown has news that Major League Baseball might suspend Grimsley even though he apparently just retired, which could be an analogy for the sport's handling of the issue.
The choice is stark but clear for the members of the Major League Baseball Players Association: Either they can agree to blood testing, or their sport will be dirty.
They can either agree to blood testing, to give baseball some shot at detecting human growth hormone, or the would-be cheaters will start streaming through the loophole like it's Interstate 70 on a clear Sunday morning.
They can either agree to blood testing, or they will be right back where they were in 1999 and 2000, with many of them faced with a decision they'd rather not face: Take a performance-enhancing drug to keep up with the cheaters, or risk losing their jobs.
They can either agree to blood testing, or they run the risk of having their own accomplishments -- for the entire generation -- tainted, under question, just as we wonder about the records of the players set from 1988 through 2004.
It's really up to them.
The high ground is there for commissioner Bud Selig to take. He could win the public relations war on this issue and put pressure on the union leadership by screaming for blood testing and the indefinite storage of samples. However, there are on-going collective bargaining talks, and raising this issue now might be like throwing a grenade into the CBA conversations.
Personally, I don't think so. I think the commissioner should be shouting about this, because when push comes to shove, I don't think the players -- most of whom, I absolutely believe, want a clean sport and a level competitive playing field -- will support the longstanding stance against blood testing by Don Fehr and Gene Orza. Most observers feel that the reason the union buckled twice on the testing issue is the pressure placed on it from Congress, but I don't think that's the case.
The reason the leadership buckled is that they know the players want a clean sport. And so the players, again, are back to the same place: They can either adopt blood testing, or they can embrace a system that everybody knows how to beat. Which they will not do. Henry Waxman reportedly told baseball months ago it would be smart to save its testing samples. The same thing was written here in February. Folks in Congress are rattling their sabers again over this issue, writes Howard Bryant.
Some of Jason Grimsley's old teammates can't see him being a snitch, as David Boyce writes. He's not that kind of guy, Todd Jones says.
A key figure in the Barry Bonds BALCO deal is told not to participate in the Mitchell Investigation, as Jack Curry and Murray Chass report. I've heard from a lot of different folks that the Mitchell Investigation is not generating a whole lot from their respective employees; we'll see. If the investigators really want info, they should be talking to clubhouse kids -- batboys.
Could this be a sign Bonds won't be long for the Giants? One of the members of his posse was booted by the team.
Tim Brown has news that Major League Baseball might suspend Grimsley even though he apparently just retired, which could be an analogy for the sport's handling of the issue.
