Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Marvin Miller on Steroids, the A*Rod Scandal, and MLB


13 replies to this topic

#1 Resonance Wright


  • It's a put-on


  • 1,910 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 04:05 PM

Miller: Athletes victims of witch hunt

Marvin Miller weighs in, defending the union, and arguing that -- given the eight day span between getting the test results and having them subpoenaed -- to destroy the samples would have been "running a terrible risk of being charged with obstruction of justice".

As baseball union leaders Donald Fehr and Gene Orza face a torrent of criticism for their handling of events leading up to Alex Rodriguez's steroid admission, Players Association founder Marvin Miller defended the union's conduct and accused the federal government and major drug testing bodies of engaging in a "witch hunt" against prominent athletes.

But Miller, the 91-year-old Players Association icon, said union leaders are also now paying for their biggest mistake -- the decision to bow to public and Congressional pressure and enter into an agreement with Major League Baseball to institute mandatory testing in 2004.

"Everything I've read in the last few days is unfair and anti-union," Miller told ESPN.com Tuesday. "But that does not mean I agree that [union officials]are without blame. When they agreed on a testing program, I said, 'They're going to regret this, because you're going to see players going to jail.' "

...


"I would never have agreed to any testing program in the first place," he said. "There's no evidence that's plausible to justify testing people indiscriminately. If the government wanted to do that, they'd have to go to court for each player tested and say, 'Here's evidence of probable cause that this player is a user of an illegal product.' "

Miller took several other hard-line and potentially unpopular stands during a 40-minute interview with ESPN.com Tuesday. Among his other observations:


On the issue of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball: "I have a personal belief that there's no such thing as a magic pill or magic injection. I don't know that there's any scientific evidence that there's a performance-enhancing drug. Players take it because they think it does. That's a far cry from saying that it does. Where is the evidence that requires testing?"


On the argument that steroids should be eliminated from the game because of health concerns: "Not one but two surgeons general have said that tobacco use is the worst cause of death in the United States that can be prevented -- that we lose 400,000 people a year to tobacco-related incidents and over time it runs into the millions. Yet not only do we not outlaw tobacco, but the U.S. Congress keeps giving subsidies to the tobacco industry and everybody sits back and smiles. On the other hand, there's not one single documented death from the use of steroids. So that's a hypocritical lie."


On the dangers of taking drug test results as gospel: "Anybody who has read about urine testing for a long time knows that quite a number of false positives come up. You get a false positive and then people are questioned in another context -- 'were you a user?' They say no. And then you get a news leak -- a leak of a leak, as it were -- and it turns out that you tested positive. If you said something under oath, you could go to jail and still be an innocent person."


On why the union didn't necessarily have to bend to the wishes of membership and agree to random drug testing. "I have no doubt that was a factor in the union agreeing to it. But leadership can't just take a poll on what membership wants. You also have to judge whether this is in the best interests of the people you represent. If the entire membership voted unanimously to disband, would you do it?"


On the media's role in perpetuating steroid use by referring to the drugs as "performance enhancers": "A kid who would love to be a professional athlete reads the sports pages or watches ESPN and is told over and over again, 'These are performance enhancing drugs. They will make you a Barry Bonds or an A-Rod or a Roger Clemens,' The media, without evidence, keep telling young people all over the country, 'All you have to do to be a famous athlete with lots of money is take steroids.' The media are the greatest merchants of encouraging this that I've ever seen."



#2 Statman

  • 477 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 05:04 PM

I respect the fact that Marvin Miller made the MLB player's union the most powerful union in sports. That being said, Miller should STFU before he embarrasses him even further.

His use of the phrase "witch hunt" shows just how out of touch with reality he is. Unlike the Salem witch trials of the 17th century, PEDs users actually exist today.

Edited by Statman, 10 February 2009 - 05:04 PM.


#3 LahoudOrBillyC


  • Indian name is Massages Ellsbury


  • 3,760 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 05:21 PM

For what it is worth, I believe that I agree with Miller's main point: the player's should not have agreed to drug testing. I made this point several years ago on this forum when drug testing was first being debated. The only thing the players have to gain, I argued, was the intangible (but real) benefit of having the public believe that you are clean (after you passed the test). I feared that testing would not achieve this, and it is clear to me now that testing has not achieved this. I sense that most people seem convinced that players are still cheating, just getting smarter about it. Maybe they are. But if they are not, there is basically no way short of videotaping them 24 hours a day that the public would really believe them. Ergo, they should just stop the testing.

#4 Statman

  • 477 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 05:30 PM

For what it is worth, I believe that I agree with Miller's main point: the player's should not have agreed to drug testing.


The players only agreed to drug testing after it was made clear by Congress that they were going to possibly introduce legislation mandating PED tests for professional baseball athletes. The players union feared a harsh IOC-type test and penalty and thus agreed with the owners to reopen the collective bargaining agreement to permit testing.

#5 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 2,948 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 05:49 PM

For what it is worth, I believe that I agree with Miller's main point: the player's should not have agreed to drug testing.

I disagree. Not only should the players have agreed to testing, THEY should have been the ones damanding it. It's THEIR bodies that doping puts at risk, and its THEIR careers that are stolen when their numbers don't match up right against competitors who are doping. A strong anti-doping policy is in the PLAYER'S best interest, first and foremost!

#6 CaptainLaddie


  • dj paul pfieffer


  • 19,556 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 06:00 PM

No, it's not. Sadly. Most guys are out to make as much money as they can for themselves. That's it. And if PEDs can make them X more dollars over the long term, then that's it.

They are making the choice to damage their health for millions of dollars, a choice that isn't as easy to make when it's in front of you.

#7 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 2,948 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:47 PM

No, it's not. Sadly. Most guys are out to make as much money as they can for themselves. That's it. And if PEDs can make them X more dollars over the long term, then that's it.

They are making the choice to damage their health for millions of dollars, a choice that isn't as easy to make when it's in front of you.

Except that it's a zero sum deal. If one guy is "allowed" to damage his health for millions, they'll all eventually damage their health for millions - and not a one of them is ahead. In other words, doping won't make a guy an extra cent if everyone is doing it.

Therefore it is in the best interest of the players to ensure than NO ONE does it.

#8 brs3


  • sings praises of pinstripes


  • 3,054 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:00 PM

I disagree. Not only should the players have agreed to testing, THEY should have been the ones damanding it. It's THEIR bodies that doping puts at risk, and its THEIR careers that are stolen when their numbers don't match up right against competitors who are doping. A strong anti-doping policy is in the PLAYER'S best interest, first and foremost!


This is it. I have the utmost respect for the older folks, especially if they help create one of the strongest unions on the planet. That being said, I think Marvin Miller is out of touch. Regardless of whether steroids provide an edge or not, steroids have all kinds of dangers likeheart disease, tumors, mental problems and my personal favorite the potential to make you impotent. All things equal, a brainless athlete trying to get an perceived edge in the low minors even college or high school risks the ability to even have kids. Securing their family's future with fat wallets by getting an edge means nothing if you can't even procreate. Players should have some sense to consider these things above everything else.

#9 Resonance Wright


  • It's a put-on


  • 1,910 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:30 PM

It's all game theory. It's only zero sum if everyone, or no one, does it. As long as some do and some don't it is not zero sum.

#10 mclusky

  • 766 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 12:11 AM

Therefore it is in the best interest of the players to ensure than NO ONE does it.

It is of course in the interest of the players that no one takes steroids, but that is not the same thing as agreeing to a drug-testing program overseen by major league baseball.

The players have rights to privacy, presumption of innocence, and protection from self-incrimination. The players essentially gave these rights away when they agreed to the testing regime. What did they get in return?

Did they get any bargaining concessions from their employers? Nope.
Did they get the public and the media to stop thinking of them as a bunch of drug cheats? Nope.
Did they head off vindictive government prosecutions of their high-profile members? Nope.
Did they get a drug-free sport? No one knows.

Hence Miller's point is absolutely spot on. The players agreed to testing in order to clear the air; now five years later there is pressure on them for more testing and more draconian measures. When do you think that cycle stops? When the players agree to 24/7 video surveillance as Lahoud suggests? Maybe they should commit ritual suicide upon the first accusation raised on ESPN.

Edited by mclusky, 11 February 2009 - 12:11 AM.


#11 paulftodd


  • 133% banned


  • 1,470 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 12:45 AM

Miller: Athletes victims of witch hunt

Marvin Miller weighs in, defending the union, and arguing that -- given the eight day span between getting the test results and having them subpoenaed -- to destroy the samples would have been "running a terrible risk of being charged with obstruction of justice".


Only the samples and records from the 10 involved in the BALCO investigation were subpoenaed. The rest could have been destroyed per prior agreement.

Except that it's a zero sum deal. If one guy is "allowed" to damage his health for millions, they'll all eventually damage their health for millions - and not a one of them is ahead. In other words, doping won't make a guy an extra cent if everyone is doing it.

Therefore it is in the best interest of the players to ensure than NO ONE does it.



Certainly, and if only 7% of players used steroids, the other 93% would want to have testing to eliminate the cheaters from taking money out of their pocket or stealing their job. This leads me to believe it was much more prevalent since if you have success using, then you may not be so confident w/o using, even if the playing field is level. It was obviously in the non-users interests to vote for steroid testing. Too bad they were in the minority, or so it would seem.

#12 SoxFanPJ


  • call me Chester


  • 3,851 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 01:36 AM

It is of course in the interest of the players that no one takes steroids, but that is not the same thing as agreeing to a drug-testing program overseen by major league baseball.

The players have rights to privacy, presumption of innocence, and protection from self-incrimination. The players essentially gave these rights away when they agreed to the testing regime. What did they get in return?

Did they get any bargaining concessions from their employers? Nope.
Did they get the public and the media to stop thinking of them as a bunch of drug cheats? Nope.
Did they head off vindictive government prosecutions of their high-profile members? Nope.
Did they get a drug-free sport? No one knows.

Hence Miller's point is absolutely spot on. The players agreed to testing in order to clear the air; now five years later there is pressure on them for more testing and more draconian measures. When do you think that cycle stops? When the players agree to 24/7 video surveillance as Lahoud suggests? Maybe they should commit ritual suicide upon the first accusation raised on ESPN.


Miller is just spouting the hard line labor argument. Don't give an inch unless you can extract enough concessions out of management to make it worth it. I was listening to former Major leaguer and current Padres broadcaster Bob Scanlan on the radio today, he made the point that he felt he and other players who sat in on union meetings long before the steroid thing really exploded wanted to do something about the issue but never really spoke up. He was expressing a sense of guilt over not taking on the issue long before now from a players perspective.

I think the majority of players don't want to be associated with using steroids or feel the temptation or pressure to use steroids. In the end drug testing is the best thing for the players, there was always going to be short term bumps in the road and some players were going to get screwed, but the alternative of no testing regime would have been worse for the sport.

#13 mclusky

  • 766 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 11:10 AM

I was listening to former Major leaguer and current Padres broadcaster Bob Scanlan on the radio today, he made the point that he felt he and other players who sat in on union meetings long before the steroid thing really exploded wanted to do something about the issue but never really spoke up. He was expressing a sense of guilt over not taking on the issue long before now from a players perspective.

And for all you or I know he may feel guilty because he was a user as well. Lets just say I'm highly skeptical of things like this coming out of the mouths of ex-ballplayers now trying to make their living in the media. They are not players anymore, they have no stake in the union; their job now is to add their voices to the media echo chamber of righteous anger.

I think the majority of players don't want to be associated with using steroids or feel the temptation or pressure to use steroids. In the end drug testing is the best thing for the players, there was always going to be short term bumps in the road and some players were going to get screwed, but the alternative of no testing regime would have been worse for the sport.

But again, that's a logical leap. I would say that ALL players would rather not be associated with steroids, ALL players would rather not feel the temptation to use them. But to the point at issue, it is difficult to see how the testing program has accomplished that. What it has succeeded in is giving us a regular diet of steroid controversy, which is good business for the media, good business for the experts and the testing labs, good business for prosecutors and politicians out to make names for themselves. Basically all of the organizations that are telling the players, it's for your own good.

#14 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 2,948 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 02:14 PM

The players have rights to privacy, presumption of innocence, and protection from self-incrimination. The players essentially gave these rights away when they agreed to the testing regime. What did they get in return?

Did they get any bargaining concessions from their employers? Nope.
Did they get the public and the media to stop thinking of them as a bunch of drug cheats? Nope.
Did they head off vindictive government prosecutions of their high-profile members? Nope.
Did they get a drug-free sport? No one knows.

The problem is that the MLBPA treated it as a bargaining chip, not a legitimate issue. Had MLBPA initiated the call for strict doping-control, they would have had more control in how it was implemented. MLBPA should have, and should now, insist on an anti-doping policy consistent with international standards - run by an inpdependent third-party agency. Not to worry, I think it's only going to be a matter of time until Congress madates that anyway.

And yes, baseball is definitely getting the short end of the stick here. The NFL somehow eludes scrutiny. I guess having a former owner of a drug-riddled team as President of the United States might have had something to do with that. I suggest that "W"'s knowledge of the doping culture of the Texas Rangers led to him identifying doping in sport as a legitimate problem in the US during his State of the Union address, which really was the starting point of where we are at with this today.



Reply to this topic



  


2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users