10 replies to this topic

[Average Reds]

When the feds gained control of the so-called "confidential" drug testing results back in 2004, I was shocked that there wasn't more blowback in terms of poisoning labor relations between owners and players.

This post in the A-Rod thread brought it all back to me:

Hell, I remember Nomar being extremely vocal regarding the same issues when testing was first mooted.

Of course, many people suspect he was one of the offenders, so his stance wasn't taken very seriously.

ARod's going to be crucified over this, but I think the players have full reason to believe their trust in the process was grossly violated.

I understand that drug testing and PED use in general is not a winning issue for the players in terms of public perception, but I can't help thinking that the events of the past week and the inevitable release of other names will have a significant impact on MLB labor relations.

To begin with, I could see the players turning on Dob Fehr and Gene Orza, because they have handled the entire issue of PED use/testing and the specific issue of how these samples have been handled about as badly as possible. Of course, it's entirely possible that Fehr could turn to the players and say "Hey, this is exactly the scenario we warned you about back in 2003." So it's possible that Fehr survives.

If Fehr goes, it's anyone's guess as to what happens nest. But if Fehr stays, I can see a return to a time when the expiration of every labor agreement meant a very strong possibility of a strike/lockout. Hell, I can just picture Fehr sitting across from the owners rep at the next bargaining session and saying "Tell me why, exactly, we should ever again trust a single word you say?"

[BCsMightyJoeYoung]

When the feds gained control of the so-called "confidential" drug testing results back in 2004, I was shocked that there wasn't more blowback in terms of poisoning labor relations between owners and players.

This post in the A-Rod thread brought it all back to me:
I understand that drug testing and PED use in general is not a winning issue for the players in terms of public perception, but I can't help thinking that the events of the past week and the inevitable release of other names will have a significant impact on MLB labor relations.

To begin with, I could see the players turning on Dob Fehr and Gene Orza, because they have handled the entire issue of PED use/testing and the specific issue of how these samples have been handled about as badly as possible. Of course, it's entirely possible that Fehr could turn to the players and say "Hey, this is exactly the scenario we warned you about back in 2003." So it's possible that Fehr survives.

If Fehr goes, it's anyone's guess as to what happens nest. But if Fehr stays, I can see a return to a time when the expiration of every labor agreement meant a very strong possibility of a strike/lockout. Hell, I can just picture Fehr sitting across from the owners rep at the next bargaining session and saying "Tell me why, exactly, we should ever again trust a single word you say?"

The fact that Orza was tipping off players for upcoming drug tests should also have a major effect I would think.

[edit: probably should expound on this]

I don't understand why this should poison player/owners relations. The big problem here is with the Union. It has bent over backwards for practically it's entire existance, to grovel to the wishes of the elite few. Now - you can argue that this was basically a "trickle down" strategy - and you might be right. However, in this instance, it could - and should - be the undoing of both Fehr and Orza. By explicitly telling it's membership that they condone (and actively support) the use of PEDs they are sending the message that clean players HAVE to use as well. If I'm one of the 75%-85% of clean players then I would be demanding the ouster of the Union's top leadership.

Edited by BCsMightyJoeYoung, 09 February 2009 - 10:13 AM.

[Fred not Lynn]

However, in this instance, it could - and should - be the undoing of both Fehr and Orza. By explicitly telling it's membership that they condone (and actively support) the use of PEDs they are sending the message that clean players HAVE to use as well. If I'm one of the 75%-85% of clean players then I would be demanding the ouster of the Union's top leadership.

This is one of the most enlightened posts on the issue I've seen yet. By tacitly condoning doping, Fehr/Orza made it inch towards becoming mandatory. As an athlete, if there's not a clearly communicated and well executed anti-doping policy in place to prevent my competitors from using drugs and as a deterrent to MY using drugs, then I'm going to have to either use drugs, or retire. That's NOT in the best interests of the MLBPA membership.

Edited by Fred not Lynn, 09 February 2009 - 11:51 AM.

[yep]

...I understand that drug testing and PED use in general is not a winning issue for the players in terms of public perception...

Bingo. And this is why, setting any moral issues aside, it is foolish to think that confidentiality is meaningful when it comes to PED tests.

If the "players" collectively wanted to end the paranoia, witch-hunts, and under-handed sensationalist outings, the best way to do it would be for individual players to voluntarily offer public tests of stored blood samples (stored to guard against not-yet-testable PEDs).

Formerly dirty players could come forward and confess, talk about the error of their ways, the way that recovering alcoholics do. Clean players could rat out the guys who are tainting everyone's reputation and record. Maybe they should and maybe they shouldn't, and maybe they shouldn't have to worry about any of this, but it's unrealistic for anyone to think this is going to stop when there is an army of full-time reporters working day and night to dig up scandalous secrets that are known to exist regarding ballplayers. And if being in the spotlight is intolerable, then MLB is probably a poor career choice, like being a flight attendant if you hate flying.

If the players or player's association decides to go all-out against the leakers, then they are putting their own nuts in a vice. The players are crippled in any fight to keep this stuff secret. Unless it's genuinely false information, you're basically screwed if you're carrying dirty secrets, because you have no way to enforce the rules that is not just as incriminating as having the secret come out.

I'm not talking about right and wrong here, just talking about the reality of the situation. It's like a drug dealer having drugs stolen-- they can't call the cops. It's just part of the life. What's fair or how things should be is basically irrelevant. And unless MLB players are ready to start going on drive-bys to intimidate reporters, all they can do is just perpetually wait for shoes to drop. And drop they will.

[jtn46]

It's the players' own fault. MLB knew there was rampant PED use, but they likely believed it was simply players getting stuff from guys at their gym, they didn't realize there were elaborate, profitable labs out there breaking a lot of laws. At least some of the players knew exactly what was going on. Maybe they didn't get that people would go to prison over it, but you can't plead ignorance to the law.

MLB itself was even taking a leap to assume they were authorized to forgive illegal steroid use, but I think if MLB knew the true scope of steroid use they never would have promised that those tests would be destroyed. The MLBPA is just too powerful, and this is a good example of that. A stronger league office would have called the MLBPA on this. Let's say the players voted to strike over the issue of testing, how would that go over with the public? Wouldn't the public side almost entirely with the league in that case?

I guess it's good that the MLBPA is as powerful as it is, though, because if it weren't, A-Rod would probably be playing for us right now.

[behindthepen]

I'm reposting this excerpt from a year-old post again in this thread because it touches on the my biggest concern with MLB and this whole process. Neither the owners nor the MLBPA has gone "all-in" on solving this problem. The allegations of Orza getting involved in 2004 are not new at all, and where mentioned in the original Mitchell Report.

So yeah, on the one hand, I feel bad that the players got "duped" into taking the original test in 2003. However, they are getting what they asked for in having the names come out, because they didn't get their own house is order once it became clear this problem wasn't going away. There's no reason to believe they are making a legit effort at cleaning up.



---------------------
I think this is the most damning part. The MLBPA was basically preventing re-testing of guys who tested positive in 2003 during 2004:

2. Alleged Advance Notice During 2004 Season
I also received allegations that in 2004 some players were provided with advance notice of tests that were supposed to be unannounced. My investigation of those allegations yielded the following information.
....
Shortly after these events, the Players Association initiated discussions with the Commissioner’s Office regarding a possible suspension of drug testing while the federal
investigation proceeded.564 Manfred said the parties were concerned at the time that test results that they believed until then raised only employment issues had now become an issue in a pending criminal investigation. Ultimately, the Commissioner’s Office and the Players Association agreed to a moratorium on 2004 drug testing. While the exact date and length of this moratorium is uncertain, and the relevant 2004 testing records have been destroyed, Manfred stated that the moratorium commenced very early in the season, prior to the testing of any significant number of players. Manfred stated that the Players Association was not authorized to
advise its members of the existence of the moratorium.
According to Manfred, the moratorium lasted for a short period. For most players, drug tests then resumed. With respect to the players who the federal agents believed had tested positive during 2003 survey testing, however, the Commissioner’s Office and the Players Association agreed that: (1) the Players Association would be permitted to advise those players of this fact, since that information was now in the hands of the government; (2) the testing moratorium would continue with respect to those players until the Players Association had an opportunity to notify them; and (3) the Players Association would not advise any of the players of the limited moratorium.
Sometime between mid-August and early September 2004, Manfred contacted Orza because the Players Association had not yet notified the players involved. The 2004 season was drawing to a close without those players having been tested because they remained under the moratorium. Manfred said that he pressed Orza to notify the players as soon as possible so that they could be tested. All of the players were notified by early September 2004.
A former major league player stated that in 2003 he was tested as part of the survey testing program. He said that in September 2004, Orza told him that he had tested
positive in 2003 and that he would be tested in the next two weeks. Independently, Kirk Radomski told us that this former player had earlier told him the same thing about Orza’s statements shortly after the conversation between Orza and the former player occurred. In addition, the former player Larry Bigbie told us that the same former player had told him the same thing about his conversation with Orza.
Furthermore, according to Bigbie, in 2004 a current player admitted to Bigbie that he also had been told by a representative of the Players Association that he had tested positive for steroids in 2003.
Other players may have received similar notice, since (1) the program required that each player be tested once during the 2004 season, (2) the Commissioner’s Office and the Players Association agreed that, since the government had the names of the players who they believed had tested positive in 2003, those players should be notified and should not be tested in 2004 until that notification had taken place, and (3) that notification did not take place until late August or early September 2004, just weeks before the season ended.
Mr. Orza declined my request for an interview.

pp281-283

[Average Reds]

The fact that Orza was tipping off players for upcoming drug tests should also have a major effect I would think.

[edit: probably should expound on this]

I don't understand why this should poison player/owners relations. The big problem here is with the Union. It has bent over backwards for practically it's entire existance, to grovel to the wishes of the elite few. Now - you can argue that this was basically a "trickle down" strategy - and you might be right. However, in this instance, it could - and should - be the undoing of both Fehr and Orza. By explicitly telling it's membership that they condone (and actively support) the use of PEDs they are sending the message that clean players HAVE to use as well. If I'm one of the 75%-85% of clean players then I would be demanding the ouster of the Union's top leadership.

If the facts are as you presume and Orza did tip off A-Rod and others, then I agree comepletely that both Fehr and Orza should be gone. And even if this doesn't turn out to be true, I think they should both be gone based on the fact that they failed to protect the players by not insisting that the test results be destroyed immediately after the 5% threshold was reached.

However, I suspect that there is much more to the story than we have heard. I also suspect that the players have a significant amount of loyalty to Fehr and Orza and that they will likely survive.

Last point is this - the issue I was trying to get at isn't about right/wrong and the player's assoication's culpability in the current mess. It's about whether the players will feel, as SJH stated, that their trust in the process was gossly violated. And I think the answer to that is going to be yes.

Edit: And I see from what BTP posted that if Orza did "tip off" players who tested positive in 2003, it was at the direction of the Commissioner's Office, which would change our interpretation of events significantly.

Edited by Average Reds, 09 February 2009 - 12:50 PM.

[BCsMightyJoeYoung]

(2) the Commissioner’s Office and the Players Association agreed that, since the government had the names of the players who they believed had tested positive in 2003, those players should be notified and should not be tested in 2004 until that notification had taken place, and (3) that notification did not take place until late August or early September 2004, just weeks before the season ended.
Mr. Orza declined my request for an interview.

This is, unfortunately, rather ambiguous with regards to the notofication aspect. Is is suggesting that the affected players are being notified that they tested positive in 2003? Or are they being notified that a) they tested positive and b) were about to be tested again? That would seem to be the crux of the problem. If it's the latter supposition then Orza's off the hook. If it's the former then he has a real problem.

[behindthepen]

This is, unfortunately, rather ambiguous with regards to the notofication aspect. Is is suggesting that the affected players are being notified that they tested positive in 2003? Or are they being notified that a) they tested positive and b) were about to be tested again? That would seem to be the crux of the problem. If it's the latter supposition then Orza's off the hook. If it's the former then he has a real problem.

I think, from reading the MR, there are a number of intertwining issues.

I believe the tone that Mitchell is taking implies that yes, MLB did agree to the moratorium and notification, but they were accomodating the players who might be at risk of criminal indictment.

However, it appears that the MLBPA took advantage of that BY PREVENTING THE RE-TESTING OF ANY OF THE 2003 PLAYERS DURING 2004, at least until the very end of the season, and AFTER they had been warned.

I think it is very clear that Orza has been implicated in warning players about upcoming tests on multiple occasions. And that the players most likely to test positive in 2004 were effectively never tested.

[LoweTek]

I'm afraid I subscribe to the complicites theory. I think it's fair to say at this point that everyone knew: players, media, MLB, owners, GMs, trainers, MLBPA, us, everyone. While some disagree, I believe Canseco's estimates of usage rate more than any other source. Let's not forget here, it was CONGRESS as spurred by the IRS, DOJ, FBI and a couple of dead teenagers, who forced MLB & MLBPA to act on the issue. There were and are legitimately criminal enterprises and activities being supported by the activity. We seem to forget that beyond one's personal measure of how it makes them feel about the game of baseball, it was both illegal and against MLB rules. There was a banned substance list long before there was drug testing.

I have always believed the 2003 "Baseline Testing" was nothing more than a ruse to give players time to get clean or get better (undetectable by then present testing means) drugs. FWIW, IMO the quoted 6-8% positive test result stunk of complete BS from the day it was announced. They knew some of the biggest names in the game would be implicated. The purpose of the entire approach was advance damage control and nothing more. Allegations now surfacing about Orza's actions pretty much confirm it. If Orza's motive was in fact to try to get enough false positives to get below the 5% future mandatory testing threshhold, it would have been a PR and legal nightmare for baseball (not that it isn't anyway). Can you imagine if they claimed less than 5% tested positive in '03 and as a result would have no future testing program? They would have been laughed out of the Capitol Hill hearing room. When players started foolishly lying to Grand Juries and to Congress, the cat was out of the bag. It was a criminal matter now. Criminal matters trump collective bargaining agreeements.

In the past few days, players and former players interviewed on network shows I have heard have variously stated it was the players who for years encouraged the MLBPA to institute a testing program. Danny Hocking, who was a player rep for the Twins during the initial Baseline Testing, said the reason they didn't go forward prior to '03 was because they were concerned that by giving in on this issue it would weaken the MLBPA negotiating position on other issues. He actually said (parphrasing), "...next they'll institute a salary cap, change arbitration, whatever they want..." How delusional. If even partly true however, that some (presumably clean) players called for testing prior to Congress getting involved, it is mildly encouraging.

I think it sucks. I wish there were a solution but Deep Throat had it right. There is just too much money involved. Until the penalties are harsher (first offense=season suspension without pay and contract year lost, second offense=death penalty) and testing means not limited, it will not go away. If I hold out one hope it is that this most recent series of disclosures leads all involved to be forced to accept just such harsher penalties and more thorough testing.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

This isn't getting nearly enough attention, IMO. The real story here is the actions of the league and the union, yet the only thing anyone is talking about (MLBTV, ESPN, local news, posters here and elsewhere, ect ect) is ARod. If you ask me, ARod is mostly irrelevant. The guy cheated, he's been caught. Great. But there is a much bigger problem than the game's best player being dirty. We've known for a long time that MLB was complicit with steroid use in its sport. Or at the very least that it was willing to turn a blind eye and not even ask how bad it was. Personally, I don't see a difference there. But these allegations about Orza take it to a whole new level. If this turns out to be true, the league itself was actively helping to keep it quiet and to keep its star players out of the spotlight.

Someone needs to answer for that.

The other side of this issue is actually the more interesting one for me, and may be the part that has the longest lasting repricussions is that it seems that the league went back on its word and crossed the union to get a testing program into place. MLB managed to avoid a strike during the last labor negotiations and still got their foot in th door with regards to PED testing and instituting punitive measures. Their motives are up for debate and there's very little reason to believe it was more noble than feeling the public pressure and wanting to try and create a positive spin. But regardless, they got their foot in the door.

You can argue that this actually weakened the union a little and gave the league the beach head they needed to build some momentum going into the next negotiations. I've seen it suggested that the union will sit back, cross their arms and say "Why should we believe a word you say?" and wait for the league to fold to their demands. But now that this is all out in the open, the union can't go back. They can't try to remove the testing program or punative measures. They've actually lost a little of the power they had in the past.

I'm wondering if this will lead to the league muscling their way into a position of more power going forward. I think we're already seeing the maneuvering for position and the first moves in what will likely be a very long chess match leading up to the next labor negotiations. Orza's response to the allegations that he tipped off ARod:

"It makes juicier stuff to suggest there were tip-offs," Orza told the Times. "But there weren't. I don't care about the press coverage. It's irrelevant."

http://mlb.mlb.com/n...0...sp&c_id=mlb

and Arod's response to Orza which was just shown on MLBTV:

"Gene [Orza] was very specific in 2004. We had a meeting in September or August don't quote me on the date... But he said there's a government list. There's 104 players on it, you might or might not have tested postive."

could be seen as the league and the union both jockeying for position on the issue. I think it's going to be absolutely fascinating seeing how this plays out in the next few months or even years. And honestly, if the fans get loud enough, I can see the union's power dwindling a bit by the next labor negotiations.

There will undoubtably be a lot of finger pointing from both sides, but really the union is fighting a losing battle, IMO. We, as fans, mostly want a clean game. And the union has not been on that side of the issue to this point.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 09 February 2009 - 05:45 PM.