YankeesRedSox.com

It seems wrong to define someone as a cheater retroactively.

If the substance wasn't banned at the time of consumption, then there can be no violation.

Mitchell, by that logic, murder isn't banned by MLB as far as I'm konw, but it is illegal. Should murder be ok in baseball?

Ok, a bit extreme I understand, but you get my point. Where do you draw the line? I believe steroids (maybe not HGH) were illegal during the time the Mitchell report investigated.

I'm pretty sure murder is one of the conditions under which a club can void a contract, but I see your point.

And, steroids were illegal in baseball since at least the 2002 agreement, nobody noticed because the penalties were a joke.

But Mitchell raises an interesting question. What happens to players who are found by the Mitchell Report to have cheated pre-2005 policy? Steroids were illegal in the game, but back then the first test resulted in counseling.

just put their names out there and let their market value drop

Andy,

Here's the basis of logic - it comes from law school. You can't define someone to be a criminal retroactively. You cannot penalize someone for something they did prior to it being a no-no.

Felonious conduct is addressed in every employment contract I've ever read or approved, Andy. Every single one of the hundreds I've read.

So - while you may think murdering Joba is OK to do for throwing at a Sox player, it will defintitely get you out of the game of baseball for more than a few games.

Mitchell, how did you know about my intentions? Wow, I need to have a better cover.

Back to the point, perhaps I don't understand your explanation. If it was illegal (state/fed) but not addressed in baseball, then what? Doesn't state/fed law have any impact in baseball?

I guess this is moot as I do think Steroids were illegal as far back in baseball as the early 90's, but it wasn't discussed. Peter, I know you usually have access to old cba's and other stuff, any ideas? I recall steroids being in either the by-laws or some constitution of MLB back in the early 90's.

No clue, I can just trace it back to 2002.

Well, you got to figure that Tejeda and Bonds are on the list. What do you think would happen to A-Rod's $350 million if he were on the list?

Andy, I know what you're thinking because I live in Red Sox nation and I hear "your" thoughts everywhere (eek).

Anyway, my point is that if HGH (or ABC or XYZ or whatever) wasn't a banned substance by MLB - and it was purchased legally from a mail order supply house, then MLB and the owners really have no "basis" for a complaint. No cause of action.

That's all I was saying.

Does it mean that I like it? Nope, it doesn't. It just means that the owners and the league basically are powerless to do or even say anything. If they did, it would be tortious (fancy word for saying that their words and actions would be actionable in a civil court by the player's union or any individual player).

As the great Bugs Bunny would say: "Thatthatthat's all folks".

Mitchell, that explanation makes sense. I wasn't being clear though. What I meant to say was if steroids are illegal (in life in general) and baseball players were ordering them via a mail order supply house, then they are still illegal.

In other words, there is no legal means to have steroids (other than a doctor prescribing them). With that said, perhaps I am not aware of how mail order supply houses work. Do they have DR's on hand to prescribe drugs?

Of course I decided to reply and only now am I reading your "thatsallfolks" comment.

I guess our discussion is moot as Bud Selig will deal with this matter.

Corey-

I think we will know if he is by how quickly he signs. You know Boras wants to milk this thing for a couple of months, so a signing in the next few weeks is almost an admission of guilt in my mind.