When Did Amphetamines Use Become Cheating In MLB?

by giantsrainman on Apr 22, 2011 8:15 PM EDT

I can think of 5 possible answers and I am interested in which this community thinks is the correct one.

1) It has always been cheating since the very first time a WWII vet returned to MLB and popped one to restore his focus and improve his energy.

2) In 1971 when the Controlled Substances Act outlawed their use in the US without a valid prescription.

3) In 1991 when Fay Vincent's Drug Policy Letter declared that the use of any illegal drug was strickly forbidden by any MLB or MiLB personnel including players.

4) In 2006 when the MLB and the MLBPA agreed to randomly test and punish for their use.

5) It has never been cheating as even today it is easy to get a "therapeutic use exemption" to use them.

Poll

When did amphetamines use become cheating in MLB?

It has always been cheating since the very first time a WWII vet returned to MLB and popped one to restore his focus and improve his energy.

4 votes

In 1971 when the Controlled Substances Act outlawed their use in the US without a valid prescription.

23 votes

In 1991 when Fay Vincent's Drug Policy Letter declared that the use of any illegal drug was strickly forbidden by any MLB or MiLB personnel including players.

22 votes

In 2006 when MLB and the MLBPA agreed to randomly test and punish for their use.

48 votes

It has never been cheating as even today it is easy to get a "therapeutic use exemption" to use them.

6 votes

103 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I voted for number 4.

But I think it’s a silly rule.

by IM4Oakgal on Apr 22, 2011 8:38 PM EDT reply actions

So your mindset is more along the lines of 5 but you recognize that the powers to be have decided otherwise. Am I reading your correctly?

by giantsrainman on Apr 22, 2011 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Cheating becomes cheating when the rules of the game say it's so.

That was in 1991.

Blogger and Editor, Rational Pastime Blog. Twitter: @RationalPastime.

by J-Doug on Apr 22, 2011 9:29 PM EDT reply actions

Pot Use Was Also Prohibited In This Same Policy Letter

So has smoking a joint been cheating ever since?

by giantsrainman on Apr 22, 2011 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions

No, because

that’s not intended to improve performance.

by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 22, 2011 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Where Did Vincent's Letter Label Any Drugs As PEDs?

It did not. The stated purpose of the policy was a simple work place illegal drugs policy like any other business. Nowhere nohow did this Policy Letter even attempt to create a PEDs policy or even recognize that any drugs might be PEDs.

by giantsrainman on Apr 22, 2011 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions

If it's against the rules and taken to enhance performance, then it's cheating.

It doesn’t matter if any substances are specifically labeled cheating. All that’s required is 1) malicious intent and 2) rule violation.

Blogger and Editor, Rational Pastime Blog. Twitter: @RationalPastime.

by J-Doug on Apr 25, 2011 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Just What Is "Malicious Intent"?

Is it “malicious intent” to give in to your teammates and not play “naked”? Is it “malicious intent” to not want to get out mililitered by the teams and players you are playing against?

by giantsrainman on Apr 25, 2011 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions

Problem is, it had already been ruled in arbitration multiple times that the commissioner did not have the power to do this. Fay Vincent’s letter had about as much impact on the rules as me writing a letter to the IRS stating that the tax code doesn’t apply to me.

--
Dan Szymborski
Dan's Stuff is on: BTF, ESPN, Twitter

by D.Szymborski on Apr 23, 2011 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions

Did it?

I might have to look harder, but I haven’t found any examples of the union directly challenging the policy.

Blogger and Editor, Rational Pastime Blog. Twitter: @RationalPastime.

by J-Doug on Apr 25, 2011 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions

MLBPA never challenged Vincent’s letter because baseball never actually attempted to institute it as a policy (there would have been no need to fight with MLB over drug policy later if it had actually been a policy). Going back to my letter telling the IRS that I’m not covered by the tax code, they won’t bother me about it either, until such time I actually act on my letter.

Even Vincent didn’t really think it was a policy, as he said later:

“I sent it out because I believed it was important to take the position that steroids were dangerous, as were other illegal drugs,” Vincent said. “As you know, the union would not bargain with us, would not discuss, would not agree to any form of a coherent drug plan. So my memo really applied to all the people who were not players.”

Baseball had some drug powers that existed under the CBA, but any new powers or policies had to be negotiated with the union to have any force. And considering this was both right after collusion and with Bowie Kuhn messing up a drug-testing agreement years before, the MLBPA was in no mood to even start to discuss a testing regimen.

--
Dan Szymborski
Dan's Stuff is on: BTF, ESPN, Twitter

by D.Szymborski on Apr 25, 2011 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Can’t change a rule like that without first running it through collective bargaining.

Proud father of Barry Bonds.

by Sabertooth on Apr 29, 2011 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions

Regardless, when something is illegal it's still an issue

I voted for #2.

Players’ performance was enhanced by the drugs. To the extent that this was purposeful on their part and not naive, I can’t say.

Columnist at Beyond the Box Score

by Bill Petti on Apr 23, 2011 9:39 AM EDT reply actions

True, But This Same Issue Is Also True For Marijuana.

by giantsrainman on Apr 23, 2011 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Marijuana degrades performance

It has the opposite effect on concentration that amphetamines do.

__________________________________________________
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden

by Russ on Apr 25, 2011 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions

that just like

your opinion, man…

"they're still shitty"

by Help!I'maRock! on Apr 28, 2011 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I think this poll correctly describes the dilemma and the gulf between

cheating and “against the rules.”

See Data Differently: Beyond the Box Score | @justinbopp
My designs are now available to print! Check them out.

by Justin Bopp on Apr 26, 2011 10:25 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Excellent question and very well phrased

I agree.

Due to a virgin birth, his mother never loved him :'( but it didn't matter because his friends were there for him. For One thousand Years he laid dormant until the white sox discovered his frozen body in the jungles of Mexico.

by hotspur on Apr 28, 2011 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions

I voted for 4

But I suspect, in my heart, I know it’s 3. I will have to think some more about my steroid vote.

I’m surprised 26% of respondents think that a very large fraction of players in the 70s (likely including some legends) were cheaters.

by hotspur on Apr 28, 2011 4:54 PM EDT reply actions

There was no rule against using until punishments were put in place

My vote is #4 but #5 is also reasonable. And I really couldn’t care less what the government thinks on the issue. My answer is the same for the steroids poll.

by James Kannengieser on Apr 28, 2011 6:38 PM EDT reply actions