Information, news and links related to Political Science classes at TCC and Chipola.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Anyone got roid rage?
I recently heard that Barry Bonds has been indicted for lying to a grand jury about the use of steroids. Should the government have been involved in the first place, it is a matter of the MLB, so why isn't it left up to them?
There is no doubt that steriod use has occured in baseball, many players have admitted so. But Bonds has until now escaped legal ramifications despite evidence that he has used performance enhancers; what is interesting is that it has not been proven that he has used them recently, but it is likely that he did so several years ago, however, these substances were not deemed illegal in the MLB, so the question being posed by his people is: how can you strip him from his accolades if by definition he did not break any rules by (supposedly) using these substances?
>Should the government have been involved in the first place, it is a matter of the MLB, so why isn't it left up to them?
Steroids are illegal under the law, so the government should be involved in enforcing the law.
Until the story broke this week, there wasn't any publicly-available credible evidence that Bonds used steroids. This evidence, however, included a positive test.
Really? I had no idea that steriods were illegal under all circumstances besides prescription by a doctor. People that decide to use steriods for weightlifting as a recreational activity get away with it, it would seem.
If Barry Bonds really took steroids then his records should have an asterisk beside them and Major League Baseball should have done a better job of having random drug test instead of waiting for something like this to happen?
I don't think MLB has the ability (and probably not the right) to put an asterisk beside a record when the thing in question (steroids) didn't violate MLB rules at the time.
Since steroids were not baned at the time then there was no reason but an asterisk, but Barry Bonds might have used them during that time and that would have been alright. However,if he did lie to the grand jury that is another issue.
6 comments:
There is no doubt that steriod use has occured in baseball, many players have admitted so. But Bonds has until now escaped legal ramifications despite evidence that he has used performance enhancers; what is interesting is that it has not been proven that he has used them recently, but it is likely that he did so several years ago, however, these substances were not deemed illegal in the MLB, so the question being posed by his people is: how can you strip him from his accolades if by definition he did not break any rules by (supposedly) using these substances?
>Should the government have been involved in the first place, it is a matter of the MLB, so why isn't it left up to them?
Steroids are illegal under the law, so the government should be involved in enforcing the law.
Until the story broke this week, there wasn't any publicly-available credible evidence that Bonds used steroids. This evidence, however, included a positive test.
Really? I had no idea that steriods were illegal under all circumstances besides prescription by a doctor. People that decide to use steriods for weightlifting as a recreational activity get away with it, it would seem.
If Barry Bonds really took steroids then his records should have an asterisk beside them and Major League Baseball should have done a better job of having random drug test instead of waiting for something like this to happen?
I don't think MLB has the ability (and probably not the right) to put an asterisk beside a record when the thing in question (steroids) didn't violate MLB rules at the time.
Since steroids were not baned at the time then there was no reason but an asterisk, but Barry Bonds might have used them during that time and that would have been alright. However,if he did lie to the grand jury that is another issue.
Post a Comment