Jose Canseco

[Dan Gould]

But the fact is that NO ONE on the union side said that this was what was negotiated. NO ONE on the Union side objected to changing the wording to reflect what was negotiated in the first place

This is not consistent with this...

"The agreement still needs to be ratified by the players, but there is an agreement by the negotiators to drop that language," Michael Weiner, general counsel for the players union, told the New York Times.

Yeah, actually it is consistent, if you understood the process of ratification for the Baseball Player's Union:

It is NOT a simple matter of holding a single comprehensive ratification vote.

Throughout Spring Training, each team gets a presentation from representatives of the union, and then votes to ratify. Votes are staggered throughout Spring Training. Therefore, the players still have to ratify because not all players have ratified the agreement in the first place.

Sorry if I'm offending you but arguments that are in my opinion ridiculous aren't going to get a lot of respect from me. If you based your opposition on the ability of cheaters to use masking agents to defeat tests, fine. That's a legitimate problem with all testing regimens.

But the fact is that baseball now has as legitimate a testing program as any professional sport, it carries legitimate penalties, public disclosure, and in the brief time that steroid testing has been in place, positive tests have gone down by over 70%.

*************************************

As far as what Slide is saying, I think you are wrong. Players use steroids not to stay healthier - overuse of steroids ends up creating muscle bulk that the bones and ligaments of the body are not designed to support. While steroids add muscle power, they also increase bat speed (which is, after all, the ability of the body to move the bat through the hitting zone, or a direct function of muscle strength.

[chandra]

Yeah, actually it is consistent, if you understood the process of ratification for the Baseball Player's Union:

My point was about the words 'there is an agreement by the negotiators to drop that language'. Does it not mean that they changed the language and it is a fresh agreement with the negotiators?

Sorry if I'm offending you but arguments that are in my opinion ridiculous aren't going to get a lot of respect from me.

You don't have to make it personal. We are having a legitimate and civil discussion, try to keep it at that level ( which you have done for the most part ).

I am not offended at all, but just surprised that you are increasing the heat for no good reason.

Edited March 24, 2005 by chandra

[kdd]

OK, there are a lot of questions here. First I don't believe going on the DL will stop you from being tested, there is so much bullshit and guesswork floating around about this scandal. Second, if Bonds juiced he hasn't done it in a year or two probably since the testing regiments got tougher. So if one is on steroids and then goes off does he become Giambi, become noticably smaller and hit .212 or become Bonds, hit even better and win another MVP. I know most here think Bonds is an ass but it's hard to figure out any consistent formula for those on steroids. When you stop, do you lose what you gained or do you keep the same muscle mass? There seems like there is a huge possibility that if Bonds juiced, he hasn't for at least two years now and it hasn't stopped his production one bit. Yesterday's diatribe was just venting and frustration, he'll be back the minute he is ready. As for the rest, we'll see how it all pans out. An angry ex-girlfried is going to bring him down, dubious at best. As for the homeruns, smaller ballparks. livelier balls and expansion seem to have more to do with the greater production then steroids. You still have to make contact you know.....