Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013

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.

70 comments

MLB Didn't Want Romero in World Series

POSTED: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 9:51 AM
(JERRY LODRIGUSS / Staff Photographer)

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.

70 comments
Comments  (70)
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:09 PM, 01/09/2009
    betsy, I agree with your general feeling. I think baseball should concern itself with what is in the best interests of the GAME, not the business, not the people who work for the league. I also am of the opinion that if they had handled themselves that way from day 1, they wouldn't need to worry about what Congress thinks, and I would like to think if were to operate in the best interests of the game now, Congress would lay off. Congress is not interested in a relief pitcher who shops at GNC and got shafted by the manufacturer, and misinformed by his nutritionist and trainer; Congress is interested in the gross marketing and promotion of guys who take anything under the sun, legal or illegal, to hit a few more home runs, or throw their fastball a little bit harder. Congress cares about "anabolic steroids" and HGH, not trace amounts of nondescript, perfectly legal chemicals that happen to be present in a vitamin supplement or whatever he took. I, too, wonder, if the Commissioner does not have either the power, the courage, or the mental capacity to evaluate and make judgement calls, then who does? Because someone needs to run the show, or else there is no need for personnel at all. As for objectivity, let's just call it a difference of opinion.
    RollinsWasRight
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:13 PM, 01/09/2009
    Varsho - if that is the defense of the ruling, then MLB should NEVER have admitted publicly that it was this supplement that caused him to test positive, and that it was not a case of a player willfully trying to flout the system.
    RollinsWasRight
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:16 PM, 01/09/2009
    Excellent analysis RWR! And yes, I'll agree to a difference of opinion. Although my opinion is more right:) See ya!
    betsy72
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:18 PM, 01/09/2009
    Betsy - one point you keep forgetting is that we've only heard JC's side of the story. And of course he is going to come out guns blazing in his own defense, just as Roger Clemens did. But its also not as simple as a positive test and Bud suspends him. He was able to appeal and go to an arbitrator. Now, you can argue that maybe the arbitrator is on the side of baseball and its still not fair. But we don't know that, because of the privacy rule, we don't know how many of these cases go to arbitration and are found in favor of the player - because when that happens, nobody knows. They only tell us about the ones who get suspended. My guess is that in some cases the arbitrators vote in favor of the player, otherwise I am sure the union would make a stink about it. Just like players going to arbitration for $$, sometimes they vote in favor of the team and sometimes the player. We can only assume from that example that the arbitrators are unbiased in their decisions. What you're also leaving out is, what if JC is lying? What if he knew what was in there? Again, we defend him because we like him, but we don't know for sure.
    Gary Varsho
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:21 PM, 01/09/2009
    Bottom line: there is an approved list of supplements MLB players can take. JC took another, not on the list. His decision, his risk, his punishment as a result. You can't cry foul, or I didn't know.....is his command of the English language really that bad?
    Mark1npt
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:28 PM, 01/09/2009
    Again, to Mark's point, the supplement is intended to increase the level of testosterone in you body. Its not like it was a multi-vitamin that went from A-Zinc and then some and JC just didn't know about the "and then some".. He was playing with fire on this one.
    Gary Varsho
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 6:53 PM, 01/09/2009
    Betsy, you have every right to your opinion, but your credibility is completely shot. We can afgue about whether there is such a thing as true objectivity, but to simply throw out the concept of objectivity and rules is just absurd and it taints all your posts. Rules are the way you ensure (as much as is possible) that everyone is treated the same. In an ideal world, such cases would be decided blindly, without even knowing the player's name or team. Just the facts would matter. As I stated earlier, if we had been presented these facts with no knowledge of who the player or team was, I have no doubt whatsoever that we'd all be fine with the finding and the penalty. You can make whatever argument you want as a fan, and take comfort that you are being loyal, but just don't pretend for a minute that your argument is grounded in reality. And that's really my point: Once you state flatly that there is no possibility of being objective, your cred is zero.
    bobby
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:03 PM, 01/09/2009
    Betsy, Varsho, and RWR thank you all very much. Your posts here were very entertaining, illuminating, and, for me, time well-spent. In a fair world you guys/gal would receive royalty checks from the Inquirer for having drastically improved its product. Too bad sports talk cannot conduct itself as professionally as you all have done here. I won't taint your excellent work with my opinion, but let me offer this: Betsy your appreciation for nuance makes you Captain James T. Kirk in my book versus Varsho/RWR's logical Mr. Spock or "just the facts, ma'm" Joe Friday. You three as a triumvirate Baseball Commissioner would be a vast improvement over what we now have. Bravo! Please, all three of you find your way into sports talk or TV.
    Scoop
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:02 AM, 01/10/2009
    J.C. Romero should not be suspended for 50 games for taking a supplement from GNC. MLB is making the rules up as they go along. MLB is a $6 Billion enterprise that should have the wherewithal to list and distribute all banned substances to every player in the game. That list should include drugs and supplements that are available legally in GNC stores. It's on MLB to identify illegal drugs and get the word out. A player like Romero needs to be responsible for what goes into his body, but the message on over-the-counter supplements was not clear. MLB intentionally overlooked the steroid issue for years, and now they are doing a poor job of explaining what drugs can get you suspended. The fact is MLB will never be proactive until Bud Selig dies or is fired. I'm looking forward to that day because that guy is a fool.
    GHOSTPHAYCE
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:30 PM, 01/10/2009
    Perhaps Senator Specter can launch an investigation of MLB and get the World Series awarded to the the NY Mets or the Tampa Bay Rays ? There is just no room for cheating in professional sports.
    rixxk


View comments: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5
About this blog
The Phillies Zone is the place for up-to-the-minute Phillies coverage from the Inquirer.

Matt Gelb Inquirer Staff Writer
Bob Brookover Inquirer Baseball Columnist
Philly.com Sports Videos
Blog archives:
Past Archives: