Rollins talks PEDs and privacy; Myers, Pedro and the waiver wire
A federal appeals court in California yesterday reached a decision about baseball that had implications regarding the privacy rights of every American—another example of sports and society intertwining. Phillies union rep Jimmy Rollins weighed in on the situation today. The case demonstrated the conflict between civil liberties and the effort to rid baseball of performance-enhancing drugs. Drug testing for one’s employer is an infringement on personal privacy, of course, though one many of us are willing to endure. In this particular case, the court ruled that U.S. Attorneys had gone too far in sezing a list of 104 players who had failed an ostensibly anonymous drug test in 2003. Most of you know this background, but quickly: The tests were meant to gauge how many players were using performance-enhancing drugs; because more than five percent tested positive, a full testing program was instituted the following season. The prosecutors were investigating whether 10 players, including Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi, had testified accurately in a case against the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative. During a 2004 raid of the company that oversaw drug tests for those players, the prosecutors stumbled across the 2003 list, and seized it. That’s how A-Rod, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez and Sammy Sosa were outed as PED users of one kind or another. As a journalist and citizen, I’ve been of two minds on this: I like when the truth comes out, but these players were obviously violated. When the court ruled that the prosecutors were wrong to seize the list, they reached a decision that could limit the government’s ability to get its hands on your medical information. At the risk of getting all Ron Paul on ya, that strikes me as a good thing. Here’s some of what Rollins had to say: “The leaks didn’t surprise me. If a President’s cabinet leaks to the media, anything will come out this day in age. But to my eyes, this was an easy case. How do you rule any other way? We took the test with the assumption it was protected.” Rollins also said that he did not see a conflict between cleaning up the sport and maintaining personal privacy. “No, they don’t have to be in conflict,” he said. “You just have to respect the way things are done. In 2003, the rules were different and it was meant to be kept private. Now, it’s okay to name players who test positive, because the rules have changed.” *** Back to on-field matters, Brett Myers is expected to make his next appearance for Reading on Saturday. Pedro Martinez starts tomorrow at the Bank, and Charlie Manuel said this afternoon that the next few Pedro starts will be key in determining what the guy can contribute. “We’ll get a real good read on him in a couple more starts,’ Manuel said. “That’s when he’ll get stretched out. The next two starts will really determine where we can take him in the game, and where he can take us. *** In talking with Ruben Amaro yesterday and his assistant GM Scott Proefrock today, I’m not getting the feeling that the Phils are likely to make a trade before the Sept. 1 postseason eligibility deadline. But one also has to keep in mind with the Phils that they are always on the hunt for ways to tweak the club—that’s the Pat Gillick influence—so if something appealing comes up five seconds from now, the team could jump on it. But they don’t see any glaring positions of need. They expect to get Greg Dobbs back, and the biggest question mark (you get one guess, rhymes with Lad Bridge) is a problem they’re more likely address internally, if they address it.
Rollins talks PEDs and privacy; Myers, Pedro and the waiver wire
Andy Martino
A federal appeals court in California yesterday reached a decision about baseball that had implications regarding the privacy rights of every American—another example of sports and society intertwining. Phillies union rep Jimmy Rollins weighed in on the situation today.
***
Charlie on J.A. Happ: "I think that Happ should definitely be Rookie of the Year." Agreed.
i'm not convinced that this case would have served cert and been the case that saves us all from folks prying into our private medical records. what is concerning is we have yet another article about this mess in baseball with no one asking players the obvious question: what was the players union doing during this entire time and are this generation of players, and the next, prepared to have the burden of doubt constantly on them?— mrkagey- Wally, I understand that players go through slumps. You could always bet your house that the guys you mentioned - Rollins, Howard and Werth – would have a prolonged slump or two during each season. Before this season, I wouldn’t bet mine on Raul having one. He’s been a model of consistency since he became a regular eight or nine years ago. So, what’s going on with him? He is not used to this, especially in August, one of his best months. I believe is a .350 career hitter. My point was that since that guy wrote his piece, he’s been struggling big time. Maybe he’s still bothered by the comments. Maybe he still hurt or, like I said, he got old in a hurry. That happened before to good players, like the ones I mentioned in my previous post.— EL Zorro
- "they don't see any glaring needs", were they watching the other night, when they were down 3-2 in the top of the ninth,[against the pirates, when happ pitched] and charlie sent matt stairs up to ph? you have 3 players on your bench batting under 200, and you don't see any "glaring needs"? for all the talk about "the back of the bullpen" having 3 benchplayers who can't even hit 200, is going to as much of, or an even bigger problem in the playoffs.— dfrancis1958
- I kown PK, I had a few of them.— EL Zorro
- Hey, Zorro - A groin injury is nothing to sneeze at...OUCH! PK— PhillyTheKid
- Well, Jimmy certainly wasn't "on them" before the All-Star break! PK— PhillyTheKid
- Peven: if someone said "Take this test, we won't tell anyone" and then they tell EVERYone, you don't feel like that is an infringement of your privacy, of your trust?!? I guess you miss the good ol' days of communist Russia and approve of the Patriot Act's chiseling away of our Constitutional rights.— Bazalite
- Andy: Who are some of the projected call-ups for September? I know Taylor is injured but who else may get a look? Mayberry Jr. is one I would think.— pizano13
- The inability to score with RISP is a bigger problem than the closer situation. Most games, the team shouldn't even be in a save situation. Let's focus on where the real problem is for this team.— grumpifrog
- Wally-"With all the things to complain about with this team???"- this team is 22 games over .500 and may, by the end of the evening, have the best record in the NL. They're also the defending champs with an ace at the top of the rotation and the World Series MVP. Yes, there are some issues- Lidge, the bench is struggling aside from Francisco-but isn't it time to look at the glass as half full? This team is as good as anyone in the NL.— KMG
- Andy: I have to disagree with your comment that "drug testing for one's employer is an infringement on personal privacy, of course..." When you are aware prior to taking a job that there is a drug test required, you have a choice: take the test or don't take the job. In this case, the Players Association and MLB collectively bargained and agreed on anonymous testing. It's no longer an infringement on your privacy when your bargaining unit has agreed to the testing. As to J-Roll's comments about the leak, he's right: once two or more people know something, it's liable to be leaked. The problem, according to the court decision, is that the government overstepped its authority in taking the entire list rather than just the information on the 10 players who allegedly lied about their involvement in BALCO. I read the court decision and it is eye-opening in its discussion on the gathering of evidence in electronic form and the potential for more situations like this occurring in the future. Big Brother is not only watching, he's gathering data as well.— Alan621
- Zorro -- Man what are you thinking? Forget the numbers and look at what is in front of you. The mans in a slump. Why is it alright for Howard or Rollins or Werth to go for extended periods of time without any real offensive output and yet Raul is not. The man is 37 not 57 How about this: Martinez = 38, Eyre = 37, Stairs = 41, Park = 36, Cairo = 35, Bako = 37, & Ibanez = 37. Seven players who should all be released by your qualifications. WITH ALL THE THINGS TO COMPLAIN ABOUT WITH THIS TEAM IBANEZ SLUMP IS NOT ONE OF THEM.— Wally 24
- pajamas, good argument if not for the fact that the drugs these players were taking were illegal, which would supercede anything an employee would allow or disallow.— Master Dreamz
- I agree Mustang. How bad has Stairs looked?? That pitcher threw him a cookie/meatball that should have landed well into the river and he barely gets a piece of it. He has looked awful, i vote for no more at-bats for the big fella.— davemarsh
I am glad I had no idea what the first few posts were even refering to. Thanks Andy for changing the headline. With each successful rehab start, Myers has to be looked at internally as the guy that will be toeing the rubber come October. Of course Lad Bridge (I am going to use that sweey name from now on) is gonna get the confidence vote. What else could Chollie do? Anyone with a set of eyes can see Bridge don't look right. Myers does, though.- Can we get rid of all of the sludge from this World Championship team before the playoffs begin? Bruntlett, Stairs, and anyone else that is not a WS Champion caliber player. It made me sick watching Eaton get his ring. Phils, please clean up the roster!
- Great post El Zorro, very interesting facts. I was curious about what he has done since his injury - scary.— SmartAlec
- Lol, yes the original headline was scary!— SmartAlec
- Now that we are talking about PEDs, did anybody else notice Ibañez’s decline in production since that blogger insinuated he could be cheating? I’m not saying he was or is, but it’s very interesting. It could be a coincidence. He also got hurt, so it could be that. Like Mike Kern says, I don’t know… Are the comments working on his head? He was really upset at the time. Is he that hurt emotionally or physically? Or it’s that he got old in a hurry, like Dale Murphy, Robbie Alomar and Carlos Baerga, to name just three? I know Pat had his usual prolonged slumps, but Ibañez’s seems worst to me –not to mention more alarming- because you expected it from the former #1 pick, but not from Raul, who is been a model of consistency since he became a starter. He is a career .290 hitter in the second half. The last 20 games he is hitting .203, with only 16 hits, 1 HR, 5 RBI and 23 K in 79 Abs. His .592 OPS is what you expect from a weak-hitting middle infielder or catcher. He hit .254 in June, .258 in July and so far he is hitting .203 in August. After the All Star break he’s hitting. .234 with only 5 HR, 19 RBI and 35 K in 128 AB. Yesterday, he looked really awful striking out 3 times. Something is going on here.— EL Zorro
- Good fix on headline, now go to work on the penfix.— mick314
- While probably in the small minority of baseball fans, I have always felt that this whole business of performance enhancing drugs and its' effect on professional baseball was a bit disingenuous. If substances aren't (or weren't) specifically banned, how can everyone now-- after the fact, get all upset at professional athletes who were taking drugs or stimulants or HGH or whatever you want to call it- to improve their games, when there did NOT exist prohibitions to their use?? It is like changing the rules of the game in the 7th inning. Now that everyone knows what the rules are and rules have finally been adopted by Major League Baseball-- fine and dandy. But let's not be too upset re: this kind of "drug use" before 2003 when there was NO prohibitions on their use.— pajamas
Comment removed.
P Even- here's why drug testing might be an infringement of personal privacy. Courts all the way to the Supreme Court have ruled that employer drug testing must be restricted to drugs that affect an employee's performance on the job. Therefore the presence of alcohol or LSD in an employee's system is information that an employer is entitled to because it will likely affect that employee's performance. The employer, upon getting this information, is permitted to act upon it. However, let's say a male employee was taking a medication to increase his sperm count because a fertility clinic had determined that the likely reason his wife was not getting pregnant was that his sperm count was too low. Is the employer entitled to that information? Absolutely not because it has no effect on the employee's performance on the job. This isn't just a hypothetical case. It actually happened that an employer got this information and it was disclosed to many of the employees of the company. The employee sued for invasion of privacy and collected - not millions of dollars, just a few thousand as I recall. The employee was embarressed by this disclosure (I would be. Wouldn't you?) so the damage was real. The point that the court supported that Rollins was referring to was that, since the players were not doing anything that was against baseball rules at the time they were tested in 2003 they are entitled to the same protection of their privacy that you and I are. As Rollins pointed out quite correctly, a player who fails a drug test today has broken a baseball rule that his contract requires him to obey. Therefore, disclosure is permitted under the law. The point is that even highly paid athletes get the same protection you and I should get. And we should all support that principle because as soon as their privacy rights are trampled on yours could be next.- hahaha, i'm glad i missed that headline or else i think i might have started to cry.— davemarsh
- A number of products have been developed to protect those in the water from attacks by sharks. (web-Page) http://scuba.diver2007.googlepages.com/home (Blog) http://scuba2009-blog.blogspot.com/— lw2008
- Why is drug testing an infringement on personal privacy? I say its ok for the employer to know if the employee is taking illegal drugs. Is having a metal detector at the entrance an infringement?— P Even
- Yes, I was panic-stricken. The headline was horrid.— PattiA
- What a BS article. Way to put a misleading headline on a story— Malcolm65
- "this day in age"? (It's day AND age.)— Neal Obstat
- Tonight, again, the Phils had 3 on ,no outs. Got 1. Now I know teams do this, but their RISP must be one of the worst in the League . Yet they still win. As to PEDS, I hope it is not catching.— KGKoons
- That was quick— ndinardi79
- John E. Cat and jjenkins: Point well taken. Headline changed.— Andy Martino
- John E. Cat and jjenkins: Point well taken. Headline changed.— Andy Martino
- John E. Cat and jjenkins: Point well taken. Headline changed.— Andy Martino
- good job out of that headline writer!— buddyspitz
- reading "Rollins on PEDs" made my heart jump— jjenkins
- performance enhancers john— bdawkisgod
- Comment removed.
