PDA

View Full Version : MLB: Schilling, Damon misinformed, discouraging



ring403
03-18-04, 07:28 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=mlbsteroidresponse&prov=st&type=lgns

JERSEY CITY, New Jersey (Ticker) - Major League Baseball responded Thursday to critical comments made by a pair of Boston Red Sox, calling them misinformed and discouraging.
In contrast to their normal practice, MLB officials Rob Manfred and Bob Dupuy issued their response during a Thursday afternoon conference call.
"Curt suggested that there was a problem in terms of his ability to trust Major League Baseball's joint drug program," Manfred added. "This distrust is placed on ignorance of the facts."

Soriambi
03-18-04, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by ring403
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=mlbsteroidresponse&prov=st&type=lgns

JERSEY CITY, New Jersey (Ticker) - Major League Baseball responded Thursday to critical comments made by a pair of Boston Red Sox, calling them misinformed and discouraging.
In contrast to their normal practice, MLB officials Rob Manfred and Bob Dupuy issued their response during a Thursday afternoon conference call.
"Curt suggested that there was a problem in terms of his ability to trust Major League Baseball's joint drug program," Manfred added. "This distrust is placed on ignorance of the facts."

I didn't understand Schilling's comment in the first place. I don't get why they can't trust the owners, as I would think that the owners would try to hide something before they would fake a player's drug use...maybe if they're trying to get rid of a contract or something..? I didn't understand that...However, I wish that MLB had given some support to this statement, rather than just saying Damon and Schilling are ignorant to the facts. Maybe they did and it wasn't quoted, though.

ring403
03-18-04, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Soriambi


I didn't understand Schilling's comment in the first place. I don't get why they can't trust the owners, as I would think that the owners would try to hide something before they would fake a player's drug use...maybe if they're trying to get rid of a contract or something..? I didn't understand that...However, I wish that MLB had given some support to this statement, rather than just saying Damon and Schilling are ignorant to the facts. Maybe they did and it wasn't quoted, though.

Yesterday, Shilling seemed to suggest that MLB had somehow violated the players' confidentiality. I'm not sure what he meant.

Soriambi
03-18-04, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by ring403


Yesterday, Shilling seemed to suggest that MLB had somehow violated the players' confidentiality. I'm not sure what he meant.

Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. Schilling was vague (at least the quotes I heard were) talking about that, and then MLB comes back and says that those arent the facts, when we don't even know what facts he was referring to. It would have been nice if MLB had clarified exactly what Schilling was talking about and why he was incorrect, or if Schilling had specifically pointed to an incident or incidents which he felt violated the confidentiality of the players.

silverdsl
03-18-04, 08:02 PM
I found Schilling's comments a little confusing myself, even after he expanded on some of those remarks on SoSH. The CBA protects any player who test positive to a ridiculous degree at least the first time they test positive so the only way that a player would be known as a steroid user would be if they tested positive multiple times or if they had to undergo testing separate from MLB such as if they were to try out for the Olympics. So why would he not trust MLB's system for doing the testing? I think that players have to be tested at least once more within a week of a positive test so that would clear up any false positives and if the names of players who test positive don't become known publically there would be nothing to gain from owners falsifying test results.

What is clear is that he intensely mistrusts the owners, which is probably true of more than a few players if they feel that they've been screwed over by ownership somewhere along the line.

-Deborah

DaPip1998
03-18-04, 08:17 PM
IIRC, the system MLB had in place last year was that any steroid testing was to be COMPLETELY anonymous and if more than 5% (I think that was the threshold) tested postive, the more stringent testing policy automatically kicked in-in which the tests would not be anonymous and any players failing would have to face penalties.

About a month ago, there were rumors that the tests done last year were NOT anonymous and there were threats of leaks coming from the lab that did the testing. I believe that is what Schilling was referring to-the promise of last year's tests being anonymous when in fact they may not have been.

BoSoxGirl75
03-18-04, 08:41 PM
Is the leak of steroid test results you mention the potential leaks of those involved with the balco case? I thought I either heard or read that the fed could try to get that information for that case. I really don't know much about this aspect of the steroid issue.

I am 100% for random, mandatory steroid testing with strict consequences. I really feel that this is hurting the game of baseball. I think that the players who are for strict testing policies should stand up to the union or do whatever they have to do to get this done. These athletes need to understand that whether they like it or not they are "role models" to young children out there.

Is it right for these young future ball players or just fans of the game to see that some players have gotten far by cheating? Actually disregard cheating and just for the fact that steroids are dangerous in the long term. I am not saying that steroids help a player hit home runs, as I believe a player must already have the talents to hit a ball. I do believe that steroids help bulk a player up which gives them more power to help them hit more home runs.

I just find the whole situation extremely disappointing. I hope Selig invokes that clause to at least attempt to do something about this. With the powerful players union I doubt his clause would be able to be implemented....I just think its a sad situation.

elston32
03-18-04, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by DaPip1998

About a month ago, there were rumors that the tests done last year were NOT anonymous and there were threats of leaks coming from the lab that did the testing. I believe that is what Schilling was referring to-the promise of last year's tests being anonymous when in fact they may not have been.

Actually what Schilling is referring to is that the Feds diong the investigation of BALCO have supoenaed the test results from last yeary's SUPPOSEDLY CONFIDENTIAL steroid test, thus making said results no longer confidential.

Here are some specific quotations from Schilling and an article on the on the matter:


"'I don't trust the Major League Baseball ownership group to handle drug testing for Major League Baseball," the Red Sox right-hander was quoted as saying in a Hartford Courant story published Wednesday.

'We had a drug test last year that we were told was absolutely confidential,' Schilling told the Courant. 'Come to find out a year later it isn't. That's the ownership in a nutshell. I don't trust them to do any of that stuff.'

'If we can find an independent third party to handle drug testing, I'm all for it. I don't care, I'll [urinate] as many times a year as you need me to [urinate],' Schilling said.


Two third-party companies administered last year's survey tests -- Comprehensive Drug Testing and Quest Diagnostics. The results for certain players have been subpoenaed by a grand jury in California. The subpoenas are returnable April 8."

Since the release of all MLB players test results would be a violation of each individual players privacy, that is the mistrust in MLB management to which Schilling refers.

See the full article quoted here: :link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1761707

OilCan
03-18-04, 09:13 PM
My understanding was that the initial test was supposed to be anonymous, i.e. no players names were attached to specific samples. Simply a test to arrive at a percentage. Now, it turns out names were attached, for sample tracking and chain of custody reasons. This is what's allowing the government to subpoena results for specific players.

Unfortunately I don't have a link for this info, it's a summary of different articles I remember reading. I think that's what Schilling's upset about.

YankeePride1967
03-18-04, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by OilCan
My understanding was that the initial test was supposed to be anonymous, i.e. no players names were attached to specific samples. Simply a test to arrive at a percentage. Now, it turns out names were attached, for sample tracking and chain of custody reasons. This is what's allowing the government to subpoena results for specific players.

Unfortunately I don't have a link for this info, it's a summary of different articles I remember reading. I think that's what Schilling's upset about.

Well under the plan Bud Selig wants the first offense would be a 15 day suspension. So I think if that happens, people will know anyway.

OilCan
03-18-04, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by GoRocket


Well under the plan Bud Selig wants the first offense would be a 15 day suspension. So I think if that happens, people will know anyway.

Well, yea, I'm not talking about Selig's new plan, I'm talking about the test last year. I think he feels MLB has a credibility problem, and he doesn't trust them to administer future tests in accordance with whatever agreement they come up with.

Rich
03-18-04, 10:32 PM
As much as it pains me to say this, I understand where Schilling is coming from.

SuperMario66
03-18-04, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Rich
As much as it pains me to say this, I understand where Schilling is coming from.

I do as well - I think he sees ways in which the current CBA might get twisted around and take different form. I can't say I wouldn't have trouble trusting some of the owners and people in the commissioners office. Wouldn't you?

Soriambi
03-19-04, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by SuperMario66


I do as well - I think he sees ways in which the current CBA might get twisted around and take different form. I can't say I wouldn't have trouble trusting some of the owners and people in the commissioners office. Wouldn't you?

Yeah. If they were told that it was anonymus, and it wasn't, there is something wrong there. I don't think it should be anonymus, but that's what they agreed to, so they should have kept to their own rules.

SuperMario66
03-19-04, 12:25 AM
As far as the anonimity thing goes - I understand they were trying to get a percentage estimate, but even then I would think there would be a little aprehension. Who is to say that it was completely anonymous. If you don't have anything to hide, great. But they either need to make testing public (to an extent) or not do it at all.

Winfield31
03-19-04, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by Rich
As much as it pains me to say this, I understand where Schilling is coming from.

I wouldnt trust most of the owners either. These are the same owners that complain they dont have money to compete, and then pocket the money that the Yankees hand out to them every year instead of using it to build a better team. I think as Yankee fans we should all understand that the owners arent exactly honest...or they could just be REALLY stupid, but either way, I think Curt has somewhat of a point.

Yankees1962
03-20-04, 01:34 AM
Schilling has no point except a big mouth with ignorance about the drug testing system to back him up. I see that Glavine and Leiter have come out and basically taken the same stance that MLB officials have in regard to Schilling's remarks.

YankeeFan1
03-20-04, 09:44 AM
I think that Damon's point about the owners being reluctant to confront the steroid issue because they want those home runs to attract fans has some validity. However, Schilling was clearly ignorant about how the drug testing process worked. His comments opened the door for MLB to attack the union in that press conference. No wonder Schilling and MLBPA refused to respond. Hopefully, this is the last we hear from Schilling for a while. Remember he was the only player who came out against the union when it refused to devalue Alex's contract for the Red Sox.It would be better if more knowledgeable players commented on this matter.

Here is Leiter and Glavine's response to Schilling:

Baseball's steroid controversy took another peculiar turn Friday when two of the Mets' staunchest union supporters actually agreed with baseball officials about something.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-spmets203716146mar20,0,2508912.story?coll=ny-baseball-headlines

SuperMario66
03-20-04, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Yankees1962
Schilling has no point except a big mouth with ignorance about the drug testing system to back him up. I see that Glavine and Leiter have come out and basically taken the same stance that MLB officials have in regard to Schilling's remarks.

I don't base anything on the opinions of Glavine and Leiter.

Chico E
03-20-04, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by SuperMario66


I don't base anything on the opinions of Glavine and Leiter.

I'd be inclined to say the same about Schilling. IF he could find an opinion and stick with it, that is. First, "99.9% of players" who would be all for cup pissing becomes "93%" (maybe someone pointed out to baseball's unofficial spokesman that perhaps those who tested dirty the first time around got their feelings hurt by being left out of his sweeping generalities?) Then the "owners" can't be trusted seems to become all the owners except, uh, the one paying Schilling. Then there's the whole 'what I said wasn't what I meant' bull****. Please.

ring403
03-21-04, 06:53 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/story/175608p-152926c.html

Dweeb of the Week

CURT SCHILLING
For saying an "independent third party" should handle drug testing even though MLB's collective bargaining agreement already states an independent lab will handle the testing. So much for Schilling's credibility on this subject. If the Red Sox pitcher wanted to speak up he should have had his facts straight. On the other hand, Schilling has been known to shoot his mouth off. No one should be surprised.

StaceyRosie
03-21-04, 11:30 AM
Hee I just read that in the paper about 20 minutes ago.

derekjeter916
03-21-04, 05:57 PM
Schilling is probably a fairly intelligent guy, but he needs to know when to keep his mouth shut. When reading the article about his comments, nothing he was saying made any sense.