Jenrry Mejia

[Hrbowski]

How stupid can you be?

Mejia.tiff

Mejia.tiff

[gunnarthor]

The thing that bugs me about this is that the team isn't punished - only the players.  The Mitchell report said PED use was a league wide problem - players and owners - yet only players get hosed.  I hate PED use but Mejia grew up in a dirt poor region of the world and this was his way out - and a way to help his family.  Now the Mets will just look for the next Mejia and hope he's better at getting around the testing procedures.  

[Thrylos]

 

The thing that bugs me about this is that the team isn't punished - only the players.  The Mitchell report said PED use was a league wide problem - players and owners - yet only players get hosed.  I hate PED use but Mejia grew up in a dirt poor region of the world and this was his way out - and a way to help his family.  Now the Mets will just look for the next Mejia and hope he's better at getting around the testing procedures.  

 

So, should the Twins get punished for Santana? 

How about for the guy who is their AA hitting coach now? 

Where do you draw the line? 

 

They did not have mandatory steroid distribution.  The players have a choice and it is up to them.   The teams are not their legal guardians or whatever....

 

[Don Walcott]

Santana was busted before he ever played a game for the Twins.  His suspension actually hurt the Twins, and the Twins got no benefit from trotting him out there on roids. 

 

I do think that teams that benefit from roiders on their rosters should be punished.  Best example was the Giants riding Melky Cabrera in 2012, and only making the playoffs (and winning the WS) because of his MVP roided up performance before he was caught.  Shameful.

[Thrylos]

 

Santana was busted before he ever played a game for the Twins.  His suspension actually hurt the Twins, and the Twins got no benefit from trotting him out there on roids.

 

you do realize that after his first suspension, Mejia did not play a single game for the Mets, correct?  So the Mets were hurt by his last 2 suspensions according to the same logic...

[drjim]

I just don't see how you can punish a team unless they knowingly sign a steroid guy and/or supply them.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I just don't see how you can punish a team unless they knowingly sign a steroid guy and/or supply them.

You don't punish the team because they are culpable in the actual act.  You punish the team because you want to make it each team's duty to investigate the possibility of steroids use and to educate against it.  Those teams that end up having players that test positive could be guilty of not acting with due diligence (i.e. outright player defiance and subterfuge would not implicate them).

[gunnarthor]

 

you do realize that after his first suspension, Mejia did not play a single game for the Mets, correct?  So the Mets were hurt by his last 2 suspensions according to the same logic...

That's a bit of twisted logic.  The Mets didn't have to pay his salary or suffer any punishment at all.  They were able to put another person on the roster to replace him, didn't lose payroll or a draft pick. 

 

The Mitchell Report - which the league adopted - said that everyone, players and teams, were to blame for the PED crisis yet only players get punished.  In the ARod situation, the team was actively rooting for him to be busted so they wouldn't have to continue to honor the contract they signed with him, knowing full well he was roiding when they signed him.

 

The players agreed to this procedure so it's on them but it isn't fair - the players get all the risk while teams suffer no risk and can get (potentially) significant benefits. 

[Hrbowski]

 

The thing that bugs me about this is that the team isn't punished - only the players.  The Mitchell report said PED use was a league wide problem - players and owners - yet only players get hosed.  I hate PED use but Mejia grew up in a dirt poor region of the world and this was his way out - and a way to help his family.  Now the Mets will just look for the next Mejia and hope he's better at getting around the testing procedures.  

You think everyone takes steroids?

[spinowner]

I'd like for teams who have benefited from steroid use by a player to experience consequences for it. But I can't think of an equitable way to do that. 

[nicksaviking]

you do realize that after his first suspension, Mejia did not play a single game for the Mets, correct? So the Mets were hurt by his last 2 suspensions according to the same logic...

Well these were completely different situations. The Mets now DON'T have to pay him, but even if they did, they could non-tender him any way.

 

The Twins were punished by having to pay a guy who juiced for a different team, and they had no recourse even though they're on the hook for three more years.

[DaveW]

Punishing the team is not a wise idea. It's not the teams job to babysit these guys, if an adult wants to cheat, let him cheat when he knows the potential downside.

[gil4]

 

The Mitchell Report - which the league adopted - said that everyone, players and teams, were to blame for the PED crisis yet only players get punished. 

We are definitely post-Mitchell report now. Wasn't part of the criticism of the teams based on the fact that players who were using performance enhancing drugs were not being punished?  My sense is the teams are now doing their part and there are just a few players trying to get around it.  What do you think the teams should be doing now that they are not already doing?

[Eris]

There is an interesting discussion about this on the Mets blog 

 

http://metsmerizedonline.com/2016/02/are-we-rushing-to-judgment-on-mejia.html/

 

This link is from my son, who is a Mets fan.

 

One other factor to consider is that boldenone has a very long detection time.  Here are two links

 

This one giving a detection time of 4-5 months

https://www.steroid.com/steroid_detection_times.php

 

However, this article indicates that esters of boldenone can remain detectable for 16-18 months

http://www.evolutionary.org/equipoise-boldenone-undecylenate

 

Therefore, before we condemn Mejia, we would need to know more about the test that was administered.  For example, is it a yes/no (detect / not detect) test,  or did the test measure concentrations of boldenone in the body?  Until this information is known, there exists the possibility that Mejia tested positive twice for the same violation.  Otherwise we are left to ponder the question of how someone could be so stupid as to throw away millions of dollars in career earnings especially knowing he would be subjected to repeat testing.

 

I think historically, one of the biggest resistances to the testing of PED had been objections from the player association.  Here is an interview with Tom Glavine about this in 2002.

http://savannahnow.com/stories/053002/SPTbravesextra.shtml#.VsCfAvkrJUY

 

The current rules on PED drugs could be improved.  But it is very complicated.  We treat marijuana use (probably not a performance enhancer) as the same level of offense as steroids (definitely a performance enhancer).  I think teams should have the right to terminate the contracts of players who have violated league rules (e.g., Ervin Santana).  But what about teams who benefit?  There should be consequences for them as well.  The only way to eliminate the abuse entirely is to have testing procedures that are mandatory for everyone and frequent enough to eliminate all PED.  However, even then, there are challenges as with HGH or testosterone which could probably, with enough effort, be dosed in ways that are virtually non-detectable.  Another issue becomes what about people who are framed?  Where there is enough money or prestige involved, people will eventually bend rules to their benefit.  Because I can sit behind my computer an imagine a situation where someone pays off a bartender or hires an escort, maybe its is just a overly exuberant fan, or a jealous/hated teammate who doses a drink with a banned substance, eventually this will happen.

 

 

 

[spinowner]

 

We treat marijuana use (probably not a performance enhancer) as the same level of offense as steroids (definitely a performance enhancer). 

 Because marijuana is not a performance enhancer my assumption is that the reason players agreed (by ratifying the current CBA) to be suspended for using it is to give the appearance to the public that they are good citizens for not using illegal drugs. However, this is going to become more of a sticking point in the near future. Recreational marijuana use is legal in several states and foreign countries and medical use is legal in many more. I'm guessing that marijuana testing will be eliminated from the CBA before too long.

[drjim]

 

 Because marijuana is not a performance enhancer my assumption is that the reason players agreed (by ratifying the current CBA) to be suspended for using it is to give the appearance to the public that they are good citizens for not using illegal drugs. However, this is going to become more of a sticking point in the near future. Recreational marijuana use is legal in several states and foreign countries and medical use is legal in many more. I'm guessing that marijuana testing will be eliminated from the CBA before too long.

 

I don't think testing for recreational drugs is allowed for players on the 40 man.

[Mike Sixel]

they should just legalize steroids and other "performance enhancing drugs" anyway. Some of these will be in common usage once we decide that the benefit of healthier bodies outweighs any costs.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

One other factor to consider is that boldenone has a very long detection time. 

 

I'd guess that Mejia will appeal, with that as a piece of evidence (although I read somewhere that such "duplicate" failed tests explicitly still count as a new violation, per the JDA?).

 

What's weird, though, is why this was publicly announced *during* his current suspension.  Even though he is still subject to testing, I would think they could privately inform the player and team and go through the appeals process quietly first, considering they had another 4 months before he could even start his "rehab" assignment.

[Blackjack]

 

The Twins were punished by having to pay a guy who juiced for a different team, and they had no recourse even though they're on the hook for three more years.

Thats what drives me crazy, the Twins, or any other team, should be able to void a contract if they find out a player is a roid user.  And make him pee in a bottle during his pre-signing physical. 

 

Santana's performance this year as a non-roid user is another question mark for 2016 and yet the Twins are obligated to pay him.

[drjim]

 

Thats what drives me crazy, the Twins, or any other team, should be able to void a contract if they find out a player is a roid user.  And make him pee in a bottle during his pre-signing physical. 

 

Santana's performance this year as a non-roid user is another question mark for 2016 and yet the Twins are obligated to pay him.

 

I agree that teams should have the option to void a contract of a steroid guy. Don't agree with the additional drug testing.

[biggentleben]

 

The Twins were punished by having to pay a guy who juiced for a different team, and they had no recourse even though they're on the hook for three more years.

 

He juiced for the Braves?! Damn. Wish he'd have done that more because whatever it was didn't work well in the dose he took.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Thats what drives me crazy, the Twins, or any other team, should be able to void a contract if they find out a player is a roid user.  And make him pee in a bottle during his pre-signing physical. 

 

 

I agree that teams should have the option to void a contract of a steroid guy. Don't agree with the additional drug testing.

 

No way.  Voiding entire contracts on suspension would open the door for massive shenanigans for teams looking to get out of bad deals.  Probably not teams actively spiking a player's protein shake or whatever (although the way MLB behaved at times in the Biogenesis affair suggest it's not that far-fetched), but simply turning a blind eye to a suspect personal trainer, generally poor control efforts in the Dominican, etc.  Teams should have a big incentive to help keep their players clean, and no potential "reward" greater than some forfeited salary for a positive test.

 

Also, with how often players are tested now, making contracts voidable or allowing drug testing as a condition of signing really shouldn't matter.  It's highly unlikely Ervin Santana was juicing in this manner for 10 years and just now got caught, meaning it's unlikely that the Twins bought "damaged goods" or that a drug test administered on his FA signing day would have any more significance in his market value than his other drug tests performed throughout the year.

[drjim]

 

No way.  Voiding entire contracts on suspension would open the door for massive shenanigans for teams looking to get out of bad deals.  Probably not teams actively spiking a player's protein shake or whatever (although the way MLB behaved at times in the Biogenesis affair suggest it's not that far-fetched), but simply turning a blind eye to a suspect personal trainer, generally poor control efforts in the Dominican, etc.  Teams should have a big incentive to help keep their players clean, and no potential "reward" greater than some forfeited salary for a positive test.

 

Also, with how often players are tested now, making contracts voidable or allowing drug testing as a condition of signing really shouldn't matter.  It's highly unlikely Ervin Santana was juicing in this manner for 10 years and just now got caught, meaning it's unlikely that the Twins bought "damaged goods" or that a drug test administered on his FA signing day would have any more significance in his market value than his other drug tests performed throughout the year.

 

I think the number of situations that would result in a voided contract are really small. Perhaps only Santana and A-Rod in recent memory.

 

And it would require an additional step of appeals.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think the number of situations that would result in a voided contract are really small. Perhaps only Santana and A-Rod in recent memory.

Perhaps.  But if it would be rare, then why advocate for the change?  Can't it just continue to be a cost of doing business?  Also, your examples are based off of who has been suspended under a system without the possibility of voiding contracts.  My point is, if there exists a possibility to void a contract, teams could turn a blind eye to bad characters or situations.  They obviously wouldn't or shouldn't under the current system.

 

 

And it would require an additional step of appeals.

 

If the suspension was upheld, on what grounds could voiding the contract be appealed?  If the team tried to void it but was denied, this would just make more situations as drawn-out and ugly as the A-Rod brouhaha from awhile back.

 

Plus, a voided contract would mean MLB teams would immediately start bidding on the player again as a free agent.  The player might get less money than before, but the optics of getting busted and then getting courted by multiple teams and signing another big contract are probably bad for the sport as a whole.  (And the player might not get that much less money.  Ervin Santana could tuned up in indy ball and hit the market just before the July trade deadline and would have had a decent argument for getting the same prorated contract, possibly without a draft pick attached.)

[nicksaviking]

I agree that teams should have the option to void a contract of a steroid guy. Don't agree with the additional drug testing.

I agree that one or the other should solve any issues. Though if a team wants to ask a player to take a drug test I think it's a fair request, as long as the league makes it known that teams are to hold the player harmless if they refuse and it can have no bearing on a pending signing.

[nicksaviking]

He juiced for the Braves?! Damn. Wish he'd have done that more because whatever it was didn't work well in the dose he took.

Whether it wirked or not, the Twins paid the price and the Braves benefited at the minimum of a draft pick.

[biggentleben]

Whether it wirked or not, the Twins paid the price and the Braves benefited at the minimum of a draft pick.

Ok. I won't speak to whether he did anything or not while with the Braves or if it was an offseason issue, but I guess I struggle with how you'd even be able to put anything on the previous team in a free agent case or in any case, frankly.

[drjim]

 

Perhaps.  But if it would be rare, then why advocate for the change?  Can't it just continue to be a cost of doing business?  Also, your examples are based off of who has been suspended under a system without the possibility of voiding contracts.  My point is, if there exists a possibility to void a contract, teams could turn a blind eye to bad characters or situations.  They obviously wouldn't or shouldn't under the current system.

 

 

 

If the suspension was upheld, on what grounds could voiding the contract be appealed?  If the team tried to void it but was denied, this would just make more situations as drawn-out and ugly as the A-Rod brouhaha from awhile back.

 

Plus, a voided contract would mean MLB teams would immediately start bidding on the player again as a free agent.  The player might get less money than before, but the optics of getting busted and then getting courted by multiple teams and signing another big contract are probably bad for the sport as a whole.  (And the player might not get that much less money.  Ervin Santana could tuned up in indy ball and hit the market just before the July trade deadline and would have had a decent argument for getting the same prorated contract, possibly without a draft pick attached.)

 

I'm not a strong advocate for this, but does seem to be a next logical step to protect teams a little bit and provide added disincentive to juice. I also suspect the player's union wouldn't go for it and could be more a problem than a good thing for increased and more thorough testing going forward. I'm probably a little more advocating this because the Twins got especially hosed by a juicer.

 

Your point about being a free agent again is good, but also would help explain why it just wouldn't happen all that often.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm not really sure the Twins got especially hosed, though.

 

- they saved some money

 

- they had ready replacements (Pelfrey & May) who pitched effectively in Santana's absence, suggesting it didn't significantly affect their end-of-season win total

 

- they got a very standard Ervin Santana performance in the second half, suggesting his previous record (and thus his contract) wasn't greatly inflated by PEDs

 

- they ultimately didn't miss him for the postseason either

[Blackjack]

 

 It's highly unlikely Ervin Santana was juicing in this manner for 10 years and just now got caught, meaning it's unlikely that the Twins bought "damaged goods" or that a drug test administered on his FA signing day would have any more significance in his market value than his other drug tests performed throughout the year.

Only time will tell.  Lets see how he does this year. Why would he all of a sudden start taking steroids?? How often are players tested??? Is every player tested every year? Or is it just a random sample of players off each team?? My guess is that he was playing Russian roulette, taking steroids occasionally and finally got caught. For the Twins sake and the fact they're committed to him for three more years, I hope I'm wrong.