Article: Santana Suspension Raises Concerning Questions

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

While I think Santana is an idiot for using this stuff, I don't think he's a big enough idiot to have gone to someone and specifically asked for a banned substance. He probably asked someone that has access to supplements / pills / injections to get him "something" to "give him an edge," and then didn't ask or didn't care to know if what he got could potentially get him suspended.

 

This is probably how it goes for most of the guys that get caught.

 

They want the thing that will make them better, but they don't want to know what it is.  

 

There are probably other things Santana could have taken that would have gone undetected... maybe he takes those, too. Maybe he thought he was taking something else, and the supplier gave him the "cheaper" PED.

 

If it were me as the player, I would take my supplements or whatever to MLB baseball and/or my team and have them test it before I ingest it. Keep a record of what it is, where I got it, what MLB said about it. Or just only take stuff prescribed by the team... Though from the sound of some reports about NFL locker rooms, even that might not be a safe way to avoid taking a banned substance.

 

[stringer bell]

There are plenty of unanswered questions in the Santana case.  Probably the least likely thing is that he unknowingly took steroids. 

 

The biggest question going forward is whether this drug was used to deal with his UCL injury.  If it was, the chances that he will be able to pitch well without surgery would take a dramatic drop. 

[Kwak]

 

While I think Santana is an idiot for using this stuff, I don't think he's a big enough idiot to have gone to someone and specifically asked for a banned substance. He probably asked someone that has access to supplements / pills / injections to get him "something" to "give him an edge," and then didn't ask or didn't care to know if what he got could potentially get him suspended.

 

This is probably how it goes for most of the guys that get caught.

 

They want the thing that will make them better, but they don't want to know what it is.  

 

There are probably other things Santana could have taken that would have gone undetected... maybe he takes those, too. Maybe he thought he was taking something else, and the supplier gave him the "cheaper" PED.

 

If it were me as the player, I would take my supplements or whatever to MLB baseball and/or my team and have them test it before I ingest it. Keep a record of what it is, where I got it, what MLB said about it. Or just only take stuff prescribed by the team... Though from the sound of some reports about NFL locker rooms, even that might not be a safe way to avoid taking a banned substance.

Santana has lots of money and access to the finest healthcare insurance--yet you postulate he "asks someone" to get him "something to give him an edge" and we are supposed to believe that this substance isn't prohibited? Not all Fairy Tales begin "Once Upon a Time...".

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

I'm saying that he probably knew that he was getting something illegal. But I'm saying he's probably not lying when he says he doesn't know how stanozolol got into his system. He probably paid for something less traceable (and more expensive) than that.

And I'm saying that Santana probably did not take much effort into finding out what was in the supplements he was taking. He said as much himself in his statement - that in the future he would be more careful. 

[jimmer]

I might be misreading some posts so I'm curious.  Are there people taking Santana's side on this and/or rationalizing/minimizing his actions?

 

If he needed it for medical reasons it's really simple.  take the prescription to MLB.  Let them know about it.  Then it's all good.

Edited April 6, 2015 by jimmer

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

 

 

I might be misreading some posts so I'm curious.  Are there people taking Santana's side on this and/or rationalizing/minimizing his actions?

 

I'm not taking his side, I might not be articulating that very well.

 

I think he should have been suspended 80 games for taking stanozolol. I think it was a mistake on his part to not know (if he really didn't know) everything that he took.

 

 

[eLee612]

 

It's possible that there's an ethical gray area here, at least from Ervin Santana's perspective. He might have bought some "stuff" from a buddy that told him it would help him recover from arm soreness, but then decided not to ask his buddy what was in it. Sure 'nuff, it worked. Also sure 'nuff, it was steroids.

 

Unfortunately, professional athletes aren't really afforded the luxury of that gray area... if they're going to take it, they need to know. The CBA and the Joint Drug Agreement both clearly (and extensively) lay out what what's approved ( NSF Certified for Sport Supplements ) and what's not ( MLB JDA ).

 

That being said... I do think 80 games is a little extensive (and I'm probably biased because DAMNIT I just really wanted him to work out  ). But regardless of whether the steroid induces hypertrophy or helps speed along the recovery process, it does still enhance performance and compared to those who aren't using, provides an unfair advantage. IMO. 

[eLee612]

To answer some of the questions about how/when a player is tested...

 

The current JDA, which expires December 1st 2016 (along with the CBA) requires mandatory testing for all players:
- on reporting to spring training, happens in conjunction with the pre-season physicals (urine sample and blood test)
- at least one additional "at random" urine sample during ST

 

On top of that, there are the random samples, both the player selected and the time they're tested being random:
- 3,200 urine samples during the season
- 350 samples during the off season
- 260 random blood tests in season
- 140 blood out of season.
No limit on how many times Russian Roulette calls your number... so a player could be selected 5 times or not at all (for the random sample - everyone gets the ST testing).

 

In terms of "innocent until proven guilty" - every player has baseline values calculated with three negative tests. HOWEVER, if someone drops a hint ("Reasonable Cause Notification") that player X is juicing, they're required to be tested within 48 hours.

 

 

If he needed it for medical reasons it's really simple.  take the prescription to MLB.  Let them know about it.  Then it's all good.

 

 

On the question of legit use and going to the doctor to get a prescription...

 

A Player authorized to ingest a Prohibited Substance through a valid, medically appropriate prescription provided by a duly licensed physician shall receive a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”). ... A Player seeking a TUE must notify, or cause the issuing physician to notify, the IPA of the existence of the prescription. Whenever requested to do so by the IPA, the Player shall provide, or cause the issuing physician to provide, documentation supporting the issuance of the prescription.

 

 

/Report.  

[Squirrel]

 

I might be misreading some posts so I'm curious.  Are there people taking Santana's side on this and/or rationalizing/minimizing his actions?

 

If he needed it for medical reasons it's really simple.  take the prescription to MLB.  Let them know about it.  Then it's all good.

I think some posters are just trying to examine all sides of this, exploring every possibility despite the probability, or improbability.  I don't think this necessarily means they are defending anything, just trying to sort through everything.

[shs_59]

There should be some form of rule, that allows the Twins to Void the entire contract.

 

Because they had no clue Santana was on Steroids.

 

Essentially, MLB should allow the Twins to RIP up said Contract and Effectively Making Ervin a Free Agent immediately.

[shs_59]

*** ^ I only say this because he has not pitched a single professional Inning with the Twins yet.

 

As soon as he pitches that first regular season game, then its all on you as an organization.

 

Man I really hope the Twins Front Office has some sort of running dialogue with the MLB or MLB PA to try to explore every possible angle.

 

I'm Not even mad about the player, i'm more mad about the Money and the loss of the Draft pick.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I could definitely see a clause like that at the outset of a contract. I'm more concerned about buyers remorse after the fact. That's what going on with A-Rod and Hamilton right now. That said, wasn't it George Steinbrenner that got suspended for digging up dirt on what was at the time one of his biggest FA signings? I'm guessing the rules are there b/c certain owners had no problems in the past of crossing lines they had no business crossing.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

 

I could definitely see a clause like that at the outset of a contract. I'm more concerned about buyers remorse after the fact. That's what going on with A-Rod and Hamilton right now. That said, wasn't it George Steinbrenner that got suspended for digging up dirt on what was at the time one of his biggest FA signings? I'm guessing the rules are there b/c certain owners had no problems in the past of crossing lines they had no business crossing.

 

The thing with Steinbrenner was that he hired a gambler to follow Dave Winfield around and "dig up dirt" on Dave because Winfield had sued the Yankees for breach of contract. Apparently, Steinbrenner also leaked stories to the press about Winfield that turned out to be false.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Steinbrenner#Dave_Winfield_controversy

 

[big dog]

Steinbrenner hired someone described as a gambler to investigate Dave Winfield, after Winfield sued the Yankees for breach of contract. Fay Vincent wanted to suspend him for 2 years, Steinbrenner negotiated an agreement to step away from the Yankees instead.  I've never been sure how much of the suspension was related to the actual investigation, vs. the use of a gambler, vs. just wanting to get rid of Steinbrenner for various reasons, but your point stands in any case.  This wasn't long after he got his felony conviction, called Reggie a liar, apparently put a fake cast on his hand during the World Series and claimed two Dodger fans had attacked him, etc.

 

So anyway, I agree with your point- if contracts are to be voided, the process needs to be extremely clear and narrowly focused.

[TheLeviathan]

 

So anyway, I agree with your point- if contracts are to be voided, the process needs to be extremely clear and narrowly focused.

 

Well it could be fairly easy, a failed drug test is administered by the league so the league is in charge of the entire process. It's not like a team can dig dirt on a player and use that against them, but there could be a rule in the next CBA that all contracts are subject to being voided in the event of a failed drug test.  

 

It'll never happen because the players association talks a tough game about drug abusers but has fought the process tooth and nail despite many of their own members agreeing with changes.  But I think the option should be on the table for teams in an event like this.  Other than preposterous conspiracy theories there is really no way for a team to know, with certainty, a guy is cheating but for league drug screenings.  There should be some sort of protection on the backend against that risk given that players aren't screened nearly as regularly as they should be.

[tobi0040]

 

Well it could be fairly easy, a failed drug test is administered by the league so the league is in charge of the entire process. It's not like a team can dig dirt on a player and use that against them, but there could be a rule in the next CBA that all contracts are subject to being voided in the event of a failed drug test.  

 

It'll never happen because the players association talks a tough game about drug abusers but has fought the process tooth and nail despite many of their own members agreeing with changes.  But I think the option should be on the table for teams in an event like this.  Other than preposterous conspiracy theories there is really no way for a team to know, with certainty, a guy is cheating but for league drug screenings.  There should be some sort of protection on the backend against that risk given that players aren't screened nearly as regularly as they should be.

 

I agree completely.  I would like to see the players to band together on this and push the union for rights for teams to void these deals in the event of a failed test (PED only).   After all it is the non-cheating players that are hurt the most by cheaters.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Am I the only one who thinks allowing deals to be voided like this would be a terrible idea?

 

Teams would have a MASSIVE incentive for some of their players to fail a test.  Like, $175 million worth, in the case of Albert Pujols right now.

 

Even if you think the teams are generally trustworthy and wouldn't resort to foul play, it's just a bad idea to give people/organizations incentives like that for negative outcomes.  (Similar to insurance awards too -- you get an amount equivalent to what you directly lost, but you don't get a lottery type windfall.)

[tobi0040]

 

Am I the only one who thinks allowing deals to be voided like this would be a terrible idea?

 

Teams would have a MASSIVE incentive for some of their players to fail a test.  Like, $175 million worth, in the case of Albert Pujols right now.

 

Even if you think the teams are generally trustworthy and wouldn't resort to foul play, it's just a bad idea to give people/organizations incentives like that for negative outcomes.  (Similar to insurance awards too -- you get an amount equivalent to what you directly lost, but you don't get a lottery type windfall.)

 

The testing authority is independent from the team though.  So it would be quite the conspiricy IMO for a team to go out and get a player to fail a test.  Not to mention teams would likely influence the other way if they could (not wanting say, Ryan Braun to test positive and miss 80 games). To my knowledge no team has been accused of trying to hide a falied test.  They usually find out about the same time the rest of us do.

 

If you limit it to PED's versus drugs of abuse I would be 100% for it.  GM's and owners have tough enough jobs as it is drafting and signing the right guys.  They see a guy, make a huge investment like Ervin Santana based on his numbers and performance he put up in the past that was probably aided by illegal drugs.  One of the things that stood out for the Twins was his durability.  Well, we aren't going to get that durability.

 

The margin for error is very low for teams like the Twins.  We can't afford 5 year deals that are a total sham.  Baseball should try and protect their product. Not to mention,  voiding these deals would be a deterrent for the scumbags to begin with.

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2015 by tobi0040

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

I think it is a good thing (for the players, and by extension baseball in general) that contracts are guaranteed - that being said, I think the compromise should be made before a contract is signed.  

 

The players already get a physical prior to signing, why not include a drug test with that? If they fail either one, the contract gets torn up before it is signed.

 

The tricky thing then becomes, does the player have a right to privacy on the test results? Like, if someone has a contract offer to sign with the Giants, and fails the drug test, does the whole league know that's why the contract was voided?

 

Or could a team choose to sign a player even if they had a positive test, with the understanding that they are suspended for the first half of the year (or longer?) It brings a new meaning to the term "Rehab assignment" . . .

[tobi0040]

 

I think it is a good thing (for the players, and by extension baseball in general) that contracts are guaranteed - that being said, I think the compromise should be made before a contract is signed.  

 

The players already get a physical prior to signing, why not include a drug test with that? If they fail either one, the contract gets torn up before it is signed.

 

The tricky thing then becomes, does the player have a right to privacy on the test results? Like, if someone has a contract offer to sign with the Giants, and fails the drug test, does the whole league know that's why the contract was voided?

 

Or could a team choose to sign a player even if they had a positive test, with the understanding that they are suspended for the first half of the year (or longer?) It brings a new meaning to the term "Rehab assignment" . . .

 

Here is the issue for me.  What Ervin tested positive for only stays in the system for 3 weeks.  So in this scenario you can take it every off-season to help your arm and body recover (what i suspect he was doing) and then simply not take it 3 weeks before you sign a deal and have a test.

 

 

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

 

Here is the issue for me.  What Ervin tested positive for only stays in the system for 3 weeks.  So in this scenario you can take it every off-season to help your arm and body recover (what i suspect he was doing) and then simply not take it 3 weeks before you sign a deal and have a test.

That's a good point. Was Ervin's positive from a random test, or from a test that all players take at the start of Spring Training?

 

For a free agent, they'd have to be clean for three weeks before they sign a deal - - not knowing when they will get an offer, would they risk taking something and letting the market pass them by? I suppose someone as established as Santana could wait and cycle through several rounds of whatever drug he wanted, just hoping that the random off-season tests don't catch him; then pick a date a month in the future so he can stop using in time to pass a test.

 

I think a lot of players wouldn't have the luxury of time to wait... I suppose they could sign early and use after they sign the contract.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

The testing authority is independent from the team though.  So it would be quite the conspiricy IMO for a team to go out and get a player to fail a test.

They wouldn't need to compromise the testing authority.  Spiking a player's creatine shake would suffice, no?

 

Still sounds a little far-fetched, but I don't even want that to be an option or a temptation.  The team already saves the salary for the suspension period -- that's enough.  First offense is half a season, second offense is full season -- those are significant money savings in free agent deals.  And third offense is a lifetime ban, which is an effective voiding of the contract.

 

Teams shouldn't get a "get out of jail free card", a do-over to re-evaluate whether signing the player was a good idea in the first place, for any reason, with the benefit of hindsight, due to one failed PED test.

 

Consider it one of the risks of signing players on the FA market, and like other FA risks, it varies from player to player (and from team to team, how well you know/evaluate players too).

[tobi0040]

 

They wouldn't need to compromise the testing authority.  Spiking a player's creatine shake would suffice, no?

 

Still sounds a little far-fetched, but I don't even want that to be an option or a temptation.  The team already saves the salary for the suspension period -- that's enough.  First offense is half a season, second offense is full season -- those are significant money savings in free agent deals.  And third offense is a lifetime ban, which is an effective voiding of the contract.

 

Teams shouldn't get a "get out of jail free card", a do-over to re-evaluate whether signing the player was a good idea in the first place, for any reason, with the benefit of hindsight, due to one failed PED test.

 

Consider it one of the risks of signing players on the FA market, and like other FA risks, it varies from player to player (and from team to team, how well you know/evaluate players too).

 

I view this as a very black and white thing.  You go to a job interview and lie about your experience, they can fire you later if they find out.  George O'Leary comes to mind. The guy said he had a degree that he did not have. 

 

Ervin Santana's stats are a lie.  He is not who we spent $50M on.  He was "durable" because he was cheating. He didn't lose velocity as games progressed, as he aged, etc. becase his body was artificially healing better than everyone else.  Those stats are a lie as well.

 

The risk of losing money should be on the player that ponders cheating, and not just the lost money during the suspension.  Not the team.  The teams don't know who is cheating or not, players that cheat know they are cheating.

 

 

Edited April 7, 2015 by tobi0040

[TheLeviathan]

 

Teams shouldn't get a "get out of jail free card", a do-over to re-evaluate whether signing the player was a good idea in the first place, for any reason, with the benefit of hindsight, due to one failed PED test.

 

Consider it one of the risks of signing players on the FA market, and like other FA risks, it varies from player to player (and from team to team, how well you know/evaluate players too).

 

That would be an awfully hard thing to do and it is a little far-fetched to be taken seriously as a flaw with the argument.  It's far more likely that many players are deliberately orchestrating situations like Santana's where they dope up knowing they won't be tested in order to cash in big time at the expense of their team and other players.

 

I think one of the things that might help avoid the unlikely situation you're talking about, though, is more frequent testing.  If players are tested more frequently by independent agencies they'll be better able to narrow the window in which their test was dirty, thereby allowing them to raise a grievance if they think there was some Belicheckian plot with a towel guy in the weight room. 

 

And, going further, even if there was a sudden pile of aging, bad contract guys magically testing positive - that would raise the red flag the other direction.  But right now that's not the problem, the problem is we have guys knowingly cheating their way into contracts that hurt the teams they sign with.  There needs to be something teams can do to counter that to punish those offenders.

[teekz]

Isn't Ervin from the Dominican? What kind of regulatory system do they have down there? I get that we have the FDA here but I doubt they have as rigid of a system there. Might be easier to pick up something like that down there. Not that it is an excuse, just saying.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Ervin Santana's stats are a lie.  He is not who we spent $50M on.  He was "durable" because he was cheating. He didn't lose velocity as games progressed, as he aged, etc. becase his body was artificially healing better than everyone else.  Those stats are a lie as well.

Yeah, that's a pretty binary view which I don't share, either the assumption that a failed PED test = career-long PED user, and failed PED test = performance is a lie.

 

I have no problem with requiring a PED test as part of the standard physical before finalizing a FA contract, I guess.  But Santana's case is definitely an outlier in that regard (has any FA ever been suspended before playing a game with his new team?).

 

Anything more than that is giving the teams too much of an out for decisions that are probably only tangentially affected by the player's PED use, in my opinion.  I'd rather encourage and reward teams to be effective in factoring PED likelihood and effects into their pre-contract player assessments, than give major financial relief to teams that fail to do so (not to mention the aforementioned incentives to foul play).

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

That would be an awfully hard thing to do and it is a little far-fetched to be taken seriously as a flaw with the argument.  It's far more likely that many players are deliberately orchestrating situations like Santana's where they dope up knowing they won't be tested in order to cash in big time at the expense of their team and other players.

Ervin clearly doesn't fit such a rationalization, if he presumably tested positive AFTER signing his biggest contract ever at age 32.  (And in any case, tested positive after $55 million in pre-Twins career earnings.)

 

I don't think either side is going to be filled with perfectly rational actors, which is why I don't want one side to have a massive financial incentive ($100+ million!) to see a player fail a PED test.

 

I would definitely increase the frequency of testing before I would even entertain the notion that contracts should be voidable after one positive PED test.

Edited April 7, 2015 by spycake

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

This is all purely speculation, and that's all we'll get because beyond the generic press releases, there will be no details publicized about what Santana took, why he took it and what his goals were.
 

This is exactly what Buster Olney told Patrick Reusse, too. All we know is that Santana tested positive. The who, what, when, where, why---all else is speculation. To edit: I would guess Santana did it to keep his UCL running, but yeah it's just a guess.

 

Olney also floated the idea that maybe Santana was so fired up about his contract that his drug-taking was driven by his desire to pitch lights-out and prove his worth. A nice positive spin. Maybe Bonnes could lure Olney away from ESPN to write for Twins Daily. And like the original article said, maybe the arm rest will do Santana some good. And.. the brilliant poster who said getting Santana back will be like making a trade at the deadline.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Hosken Bombo Disco

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

I would definitely increase the frequency of testing before I would even entertain the notion that contracts should be voidable after one positive PED test.

 

I think there is reason to be suspicious of his PED use last year given the injury and I'd venture to guess there have been many career year, soon to be free agents that likely had similar benefits.

 

I understand your concern with how teams might react to having the power to void contracts, I agree that shouldn't go unchecked.  Step one needs to be more testing and I agree that drug testing should be a part of every FA physical.  Those are good first steps.

[tobi0040]

Ervin clearly doesn't fit such a rationalization, if he presumably tested positive AFTER signing his biggest contract ever at age 32. (And in any case, tested positive after $55 million in pre-Twins career earnings.)

 

I don't think either side is going to be filled with perfectly rational actors, which is why I don't want one side to have a massive financial incentive ($100+ million!) to see a player fail a PED test.

 

I would definitely increase the frequency of testing before I would even entertain the notion that contracts should be voidable after one positive PED test.

I think we tend to agree in most cases. Just not this one!

 

I am all for more drug testing, but don't see any risk whatsoever to this incentifying teams to somehow rig a drug test. I just don't see a team attempting that. If one ever did, they would find it extremely difficult to ever attract another free agent. So I guess I don't much care that teams have an incentive here

 

You make a fair point about one failed test doesn't mean his entire career is a lie. But I would rather a team make the call based on the situation at hand. In this case the twins could elect to opt out or keep the existing deal.

 

i think the current rules amount to a crapshoot for teams. It impacts teams and non cheating players negatively, while providing an incentive to players to cheat, as contracts are irrevocable.

 

FWIW, I also think players that lie about their age should be penalized harshly. If a team gives a 27 year old a 5 year deal and then find out he is 29, they should have the option of voiding the last two years of the deal as they thought they were getting ages 27 thru 32. Not 29 thru 34

 

At the end of the day a 16 year old that is really 18 is taking the job and livelihood away from a legitimate 16 year old. similarly and less dramatic, Ervin likely cost someone money this offseason. Roster spots are fixed and payrolls are probably relatively fixed as well.

Edited April 8, 2015 by tobi0040