Should teams share the blame for PED use?

[Griffey012]

I was having a Reds/Cards discussion yesterday with a buddy that took a turn into a much more interesting conversation. We were talking about how awesome of a surprise Ludwick has been this season and how he has really carried the Reds with Votto being out. I made a sarcastic comment that he is probably on the juice (it was a joke, not an accusation by any means), which turned into a conversation about whether or not teams should get punished for players P.E.D. use.

Think about it, if a team like the Reds is in the playoff chase, loses their star player, and out of nowhere a nobody or somewhat of a has been busts out and carries the offesne, gets busted for P.E.Ds, the star player comes back, the team sails into the playoffs. Or a team like the Giants is being carried by a has been who is hitting .350 out of nowhere, and the guy is busted for PEDs.

It is hard to say the team would have been as good with the PED guy carrying the offensive load than without it.

This leads me to the question: Should teams also get punished when playing with players busted of using PEDs?

I tend to think they should, because the team as a whole is getting an unfair advantage over other teams and possibly in the standings. And teams should do a little more due diligence when a 39 year old fat Bartolo Colon, who is still fat, is having his best season since 2005. However, the method of punishing teams would be hard to determine. Maybe just a nice fine would suffice.

What are your thoughts?

[jojo]

Player suspensions punish the team. It's a deterrent.

If a GM has a good reason to suspect a player is juicing, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to invest in him given the likelihood, he may be suspended for a third of the season.

[traderumor]

I was thinking of this morning as in "vacating wins" in games where a suspended player played, but then I thought that wouldn't be very practical since you wouldn't really have a "start date" and it would seem patently unfair to assume it had been going on all season. It probably would be, but I'm not sure making that assumption would be fair to the team. But, what if an arbitrary "wins taken away" penalty, like 5 games, would be an improved deterrent?

I think a higher financial penalty would be a higher deterrent, like losing pay for the entire season for a player. Since the player is willing to take this risk for the reward of money, increase the risk of loss and it might be a greater deterrent.

[backbencher]

Originally Posted by jojo

If a GM has a good reason to suspect a player is juicing, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to invest in him given the likelihood, he may be suspended for a third of the season.

There is no "likelihood" that a player who is juicing will be caught, much less suspended.

And there are GMs who owe their reputations and careers, at least in part, to investing in players in whom there is "good reason" to have suspicion.

[LoganBuck]

Originally Posted by traderumor

I was thinking of this morning as in "vacating wins" in games where a suspended player played, but then I thought that wouldn't be very practical since you wouldn't really have a "start date" and it would seem patently unfair to assume it had been going on all season. It probably would be, but I'm not sure making that assumption would be fair to the team. But, what if an arbitrary "wins taken away" penalty, like 5 games, would be an improved deterrent?

I think a higher financial penalty would be a higher deterrent, like losing pay for the entire season for a player. Since the player is willing to take this risk for the reward of money, increase the risk of loss and it might be a greater deterrent.

I know MLB could subtract the players WAR from the team in question. Please let them catch Cairo.

[Griffey012]

Originally Posted by jojo

Player suspensions punish the team. It's a deterrent.

If a GM has a good reason to suspect a player is juicing, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to invest in him given the likelihood, he may be suspended for a third of the season.

They only punish the team moving forward. It doesn't mean it negates the additional benefits they received from playing most of a season with a juiced up player. i go back to the hypothetical udwick example...without him during this stretch without votto, the reds may not even be in first. or without melky are the giants even in the wild card hunt?

with as big of a crapshoot as the playoffs can be, you can win it all without your best player if he is suspended

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by Griffey012

They only punish the team moving forward. It doesn't mean it negates the additional benefits they received from playing most of a season with a juiced up player. i go back to the hypothetical udwick example...without him during this stretch without votto, the reds may not even be in first. or without melky are the giants even in the wild card hunt?

with as big of a crapshoot as the playoffs can be, you can win it all without your best player if he is suspended

How do you know when that guilty player started? They will probably state that they started the day of or the day before they got tested. I'd guess that no one will admit to the real start date and there is probably no way it can be discovered by MLB. This isn't that bicycling outfit who passes judgment w/out tangible evidence.

[westofyou]

Yes Marge Schott should have been suspended when Hal Morris was juicing, Schotzie should have had a timeout when Spugs corked his bat (Lord knows he was likely on the juice too)

[paintmered]

I'm not advocating it, but if you really wanted teams to police their players, make them lose the 25-man roster spot while the player is suspended.

(Never mind the injury concerns for the remaining players that would result from this rule...allow me to be draconian in peace.)

[Captain Hook]

Someday medical science will be so advanced that steroids and other PEDs will be so safe and have such a positive impact on the human body that nearly everyone will take them.What will professional sports leagues do then and how will it change the way we look at this current time in history?

[Griffey012]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

How do you know when that guilty player started? They will probably state that they started the day of or the day before they got tested. I'd guess that no one will admit to the real start date and there is probably no way it can be discovered by MLB. This isn't that bicycling outfit who passes judgment w/out tangible evidence.

The way things are currently set up there is just not really anything that disincentivizes teams from using players on the juice. The players get the punishment. Obviously if a guy like Braun gets suspended 50 games that is a huge blow to a team. But when we have 4th outfielders and washed up starting pitchers turning in pretty great years, the team really just reaps the benefits and doesn't suffer punishment. Because if a guy like Cabrera or Colon weren't on the juice, they either would have probably not been on the team (Colon) or not played full time (Cabrera).

It doesn't have to be some punishment based on the duration of time juicing, it could be a standard penalty for any failed test of a player on the active big league roster. Maybe there is no simple solution, but I have to feel like if the MLB really wanted to stop PED's once and for all, getting the teams involved and not just the players would help.