I don't think we are in a "prove" situation here.Originally Posted by RedEye
I don't think we are in a "prove" situation here.
We should be given what people are accusing others of.
RedEye (07-17-2013)
In terms of evidentiary argument, the burden of proof is on the accuser -- or the speculator, as it were. Listing of ISO numbers isn't even close to crossing that threshold.
“Every level he goes to, he is going to compete. They will know who he is at every level he goes to.” -- ED on EDLC
So call it a "speculative" or a "wondering" situation. Without some sort of smoking gun, it's just insidious gossip IMO.
“Every level he goes to, he is going to compete. They will know who he is at every level he goes to.” -- ED on EDLC
That's life. The game is different today, and this reality. I am sure GMs and other FO types have these same discussions when assessing players. They have to consider these things when assessing a player's worth. We should have the same discussions when assessing and discussing a player's performance, generally.
Does it make a GM a bad person if they decided not to pursue a FA if they had a feeling that the person had an elevated probability of being a user?
It would make a GM a bad person if they publicly stated that is why they didn't and there wasn't a positive test. And I bet that GM would be facing some sort of punishment for making the statement too. Be it from baseball or a lawsuit.
No, it most certainly isn't "life." IMO we need to insist on a higher level of argument and better critical thinking skills. But I know I am fighting a lonely battle there.
GMs can have all kinds of discussions about players that aren't ethical. Doesn't mean we should all sink to that level.
“Every level he goes to, he is going to compete. They will know who he is at every level he goes to.” -- ED on EDLC
You think that it is unethical for a GM to consider potential PED usage when evaluating a player for acquisition?
Depends on the evidence he has.
“Every level he goes to, he is going to compete. They will know who he is at every level he goes to.” -- ED on EDLC
That's ridiculous.
What's ridiculous? How can I comment on whether something is unethical if I don't know what it is?
It's a good point about what would you do if you were a GM.
Redeye, Doug, anyone else...
If you were a GM, and Davis was a free agent after this year and you were pursuing him or even had an agreed upon framework for a deal....
Would you put out any feelers, any investigation, anything at all through the back channels to see if your new employee was a risk for breaking the PED policy?
Bear in mind, if he were to get caught, the media would have a field day saying "How could you not have known".
RedEye,
Let's say the Orioles call Walt tonight and propose to trade Davis for Leake and some prospects. Would Walt be within his bounds to then send out feelers to see if there is any connection to PEDs for Davis?
A background check for drug use and/or criminal behavior would probably be part of the standard procedure in that situation (I don't actually know this, but it makes sense that it would be). If concrete evidence turned up that a player had indeed used PEDs, then yes, I think it would affect my decision about whether or not to sign him. I would not, however, consider statistical analysis as sufficient for that purpose.
Beat me to it, kal.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote