MLB Didn't Want Romero in World Series
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
MLB Didn't Want Romero in World Series
Todd Zolecki
Major League Baseball didn't want J.C. Romero to pitch in the World Series.
They wanted to suspend him.
A first-time positive test for performance enhancing drugs carries a 50-game suspension, which may be appealed. Baseball knew the appeal process would run through the postseason, so they offered Romero a deal: take a 25-game suspension immediately, which would force him to miss the playoffs, or risk a 50-game suspension in the appeal process.
Romero wasn't about to miss the postseason. He appealed.
"We generally do not negotiate discipline in the drug area," MLB's executive vice president for labor and human resources Rob Manfred said. "If he appealed it would go beyond the World Series. We offered to reduce the suspension to avoid him being in the World Series. ... I think a scientist will tell you that the [banned] substance was no longer in [Romero's] system, but the appearance of it - you prefer to avoid. With any drug program, the goal is to remove the athlete as quickly as possible."
Asked if he believed the Phils' World Series title was tainted, Manfred said, "No."
Romero lost his appeal, which was heard by independent arbitrator Stephen Goldberg before Games 1 and 2 of the World Series. Romero earned the wins in Games 3 and 5 of the World Series. In the entire 2008 postseason, Romero went 2-0 with a 0.00 ERA (no earned runs in 7 1/3 innings) in eight appearances.
But what about that 50-game suspension?
Clearly, Romero wasn't ordering HGH from some quack doctor running an illegal pharmacy. He wasn't injecting anything into his butt. He bought a legal supplement at a retail store in Cherry Hill. I had a conversation a couple years ago with Ryan Madson about what players can and can't take. He said they were told if you buy something at GNC (or a similar store) you should be fine. I'm sure the words "GNC" and "fine" resonated with most players. In fact, I think most people walk into GNC or Vitamin Shoppe not expecting a product they buy could produce a positive drug test. In the same store Romero bought his supplement you can also buy the Myoplex shakes that several Phillies players take every day (Chase Utley is a Myoplex spokesman). Of course, players ultimately are responsible for what goes into their body. And unfortunately for Romero, that was all that mattered.
*
A look at what's in 6-OXO Extreme.
*
Jim Salisbury's story about Chan Ho Park and Marcus Giles joining the Phillies.
*
John Gonzalez, Phil Sheridan and Bob Ford chat about baseball's drug policy.
GV - I never said we couldn't criticize Romero "because we like him", but I do think you went overboard in your defense of MLB and didn't give Romero any benefit of the doubt. Especially in the face of this stupid zero tolerance policy, which is clearly political (Bud Selig trying to cover his *ss) in its severity. I mean, even IF you could Romero was responsible - 50 games? Your overconfidence in MLB made me suspicious of your loyalties (players vs. MLB not Phillies vs the world)... Until your last post. I still don't agree with your arguments but I at least I'm more confident you're not a troll.— betsy72- betsy - the MLB Policy is 50 games for the first offense. That is the rule. So they can't give him a 5 game suspension, or a warning. The rule is 50 games. It applies to the guy who knowingly takes steroids and the guy who "accidentally" takes a banned substance. Because every single person can use the "I didn't know" defense. "Oh, I'm sorry Bud, I thought that was a vitamin B12 shot that my trainer was injecting in my butt.." Well in that case, since you didn't know, its OK. Can't be. And, this isn't MLB picking on one player. The rule is the same for everybody - and its in the Collective bargaining agreement that the players union signed.— Gary Varsho
- betsy, while Gary Varsho and I may never agree on this particular topic, I will gladly vouch for him as a loyal and intelligent Phillies fan who is far more capable of rational and independent thought than most bloggers I have come across in my travels. He simply happens to have a different viewpoint on this matter, and I must admit, his opinion is likely to be viewed as more objective and less biased than mine, which, like it or not, lends his argument far more credibility than mine carries. Varsh, I got your back! I still respectfully disagree, however.— RollinsWasRight
- You're missing my point GV. I don't care if "the rule" is 50 games. When it doesn't allow for any reasonable exceptions, it's too harsh and unfair! Common sense and the evidence tells you that J.C went the extra mile to make sure he was taking something legal/acceptable. He shouldn't have to be a pharmacist! That should count for something. I mean Selig didn't allow for the WS to end with the rain even though "the rule" said that the Phillies should have technically won after 5 innings, no? He understands something about "spirit of the game." And he should have done the same here. Because critical thinking should come into every situation, as there is no black and white in this world, just different shades of gray. That is why we have judges. And that is why zero tolerance doesn't really work in any arena, even if it's political advantageous in the short term. It punishes the good and drives the bad underground to cheat just the same. Finally it is no defense that the union agreed with the policy too. They screwed this up as much as the MLB and that is part of why the MLB should have made an exception here. Not because Romero is a Philly but because he was screwed. I might not FEEL as strongly, but I would judge it the same way no matter what team Romero came from. Anyway, your philosophy is rules are rules. My philosophy is based on people and real life.— betsy72
- RollinsWasRight - I already said that I have dropped my suspicions about GV not being a fan. But I must disagree with you about objectivity. There is no such thing as objectivity. Everyone is tainted by their biases, whether they admit them or not. In this case, GV is more biased by his naive belief that "rules are rules." I'm more biased by my belief that rules are needed but must be interpreted in their whole contexts. And that every rule has its exceptions, in the case of Romero and the MLB - to preserve fairness and "the spirit of the game."— betsy72
- betsy - you have it wrong. Its according to JC's side of the story that he went the extra mile. There are 3 sides to every story - his/MLB's/the truth. Everyone has a "story" behind their actions. And if MLB takes every single case, and believes every story and hands down punishments based on those stories, then we are back to where we were before the rule was implemented. So, they can't have a gray area - it has to be black and white. These are million dollar athletes - not 5th graders where we have to be "fair" or worry about their fragile psyche. And we're not talking about a criminal case in the court of law where you only "reasonable doubt". The evidence show a positive test, the rule for a positive test, first offense, is 50 games. Are poeple going to find a way to cheat - absolutely. Does it appear from this story that it was JC's intention to cheat - no. But its a gray area where they meet, and once you allow for one guy to get off on a technicality, every player after him will have the JC defense, which can't be. Do I think Bud Selig is a total waste of space? Yes. Do I think he is a horrible commisioner and almost ruined my experience at Game 5 because of his decision to play through that mess - yes. Did the MLBPA make a mistake with agreeing to this policy - maybe? But they had to because of the pressure of congress and the media to "clean up the game". So, this is what you get.— Gary Varsho
- Actually, betsy, the way Selig handled Game 5 WAS according to the rule book. For a hundred years, the score of that game would have reverted to what it was after 5 innings if the home team had not come to bat, but that rule was just changed after '06 or '07. The problem is that Selig was obviously going to make them play through that monsoon UNTIL the Rays tied it to allow him to exercise that rule. Otherwise they were going to play until the Phillies won it in the worst, most unfair conditions, rather than go against the rule book (even though he and representatives of both clubs had already agreed two days earlier to throw the rule book out the window in regards to postponements/suspensions/etc.).— RollinsWasRight
- Wow. And I thought I was cynical. No such thing as objectivity? I fancy myself a little more in control of my own thoughts and emotions than that; that I can perceive, acknowledge, and compartmentalize my biases in order to formulate an objective, rational opinion. I feel I have formed an objective opinion about this matter (anger at Selig not withstanding - but that goes far beyond J.C...my opinion of Selig is NOT objective or unbiased, admittedly); however, my point was that, in the eyes of others, my opinion would lack credibility because it would be "perceived" as a biased opinion due to my being a Phillies fan.— RollinsWasRight
- betsy - I would never want you on a jury if I was on trial - because you can't think objectively. If you allow bias to cloud the way you judge everything, you can never be fair. Its the typical - "Not my kid" syndrome - where it always has to be someone elses fault.— Gary Varsho
- Also, I didn't read anywhere that Varsho expressed a firm and irrefutable belief that all rules are rules and all shall be enforced to the letter in every situation. That would be a "naive belief that 'rules are rules'"... his contention seems to be that in this unique instance, Major League Baseball has no choice BUT to uphold the rule exactly as it is written lest they risk rendering the rule powerless, or worse, losing face in front of Congress. He never said that every rule is just, fair, and to be upheld without argument or exception.— RollinsWasRight
- I think I have finally convinced RWR.— Gary Varsho
- Not even remotely. :) I completely understand your argument; I still disagree.— RollinsWasRight
- I stand by my opinion that objectivity is a myth. Not sure why that is "cynical." In fact this stance is more hopeful than believing that people live in a vacuum detached from any context of fairness (as GV argues when he says being fair is treating baseball players like 5th graders -- What?!?*). But I am not sure we need to continue this philosophical debate about objectivity on a baseball blog. That being said, I couldn't disagree more with what GV says about baseball needing to be black and white and people getting off on technicalities, etc. Selig is supposed to make considered judgements in these situations. Isn't that his job? Otherwise a computer could spit out decisions on these cases. By the way RollinsisRight - I love your post at 1:45 and this is precisely the context that leads to me to believe that MLB/Selig does not have the interest of its fans or the spirit of the game with this decision against Romero. I could care less whether they "lose face" before Congress. Why should we the fans care about that? That's their bias. *I would argue that having rules like this w/o exceptions DOES treat the players like 5th graders.— betsy72
- Betsy - let me lay it out in a different way. Say for example, Player X was knowingly taking a banned substance, while at the same time taking this supplement or having knowledge of this supplement. He then tests positive for the banned substance, and uses the defense that it must be the supplement that made him test positive, and he didn't know the ingredient was in the supplement. And, since there is no proof that he took the banned substance on purpose, MLB lets him off on the JC Romero defense. This is what would happen if you don't make it black and white. Because we all know, cheaters will find a way to cheat. The guy who invented JC's supplement knows what he is doing, and I'm sure there are trainers and players who know what he is doing as well and would take every opportunity to get around the rules.— Gary Varsho
- Sorry GV, you haven't changed my mind. Your argument is simplistic and leaves out important details of JC's case. THAT is why a computer or a blogger cannot decide these cases. I know it would be easier that way, but that is not the world works (or should work). Too bad we have to rely on Selig though. Anyway, I have to get back to work.. I'm sure the debate can continue w/o me!— betsy72
