Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s argument that MLB should push for the steroids list to be published.
“She named name!” That’s all it took for poor Elaine Benes’ new boyfriend, Ned Isakov, to be banned from the one place his father could visit. Unfortunately, Ned, like his father, was “betrayed, by people he trusted!”
While I make light of the “naming names” situation, there are some very serious issues at the heart of today’s debate. Like the Senator Joseph McCarthy Communism hearings of 1954, it’s a situation where some people wish to embark on a witch hunt of persecution against certain people, all because their names show up on a new list of names.
I find the hypocrisy in this situation to be a little unsettling. These people, who are so concerned about solving the problem of steroids, would actually be willing to violate the terms of a legal contract in order to do so… ‘and isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?‘
Even my five-year-old niece knows “two wrongs don’t make a right.” For some reason, though, some people who CLAIM to be in favor of maintaining baseball’s purity are okay with violating legal agreements to accomplish their goal. It’s quite the double-standard, as they are using a position of moral high ground as justification to violate another moral issue.
Beyond the simple question of morality you have to consider Constitutional implications. Article Five of the Bill of Rights states, “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself in any criminal case.” To translate, no person is required to perform any action that may incriminate them.
The players who submitted to this testing did so under the guarantee that the results would remain confidential. Furthermore, as Sports Geek points out in his introduction, there was no ban against the use of performance-enhancing drugs when the testing was conducted and completed. So, what would publishing this list actually gain?
If Major League Baseball were to knowingly and willingly publish that information, it would be a violation of that agreement and would expose the players unfairly to a new witch hunt. These players, who did not break any rules at the time they participated in the test, would be subjected to public ridicule and criticism all because they were lied to when they WILLINGLY participated in testing.
There is nothing to be gained from publishing this list. The players cannot be punished for their actions, since they did not break any rules at the time, and MLB cannot go back and change or prevent players from taking these substances. The only justification I could see for releasing this information is to protect the health and safety of other people. If, for example, it was found that one of the players had contracted a highly contagious blood disease, THEN you would have justification for disclosing the results.
The need for good public relations by Major League Baseball is NOT justification enough to violate the Constitutionally protected rights of these players, no matter how guilty or innocent they may be.
More than any other point, we should not forget that the American system of justice exists to protect the rights of EVERYONE, both the accuser AND the accused. The need to protect the “sanctity of baseball” does NOT supersede the need to protect the sanctity of the Bill of Rights.
I agree. There are countless situations where I entrust others to keep certain information confidential – whether it be entrusting a friend with a bit of gossip, entrusting a website with my debit card PIN, or entrusting medical information to a doctor – but no matter the circumstances of that promise, any revelation of that which I believed to be kept secret could be mentally, financially, and/or socially devastating.
Why would I, or why should we, expect these ballplayers to feel any differently? It it because they’re millionaires? Is it because they’re in the public eye? Is it because they rewrote the record books?
None of that matters. Public demand is not a sufficient reason to break a pledge of secrecy (I imagine there are plenty of people that would like to have my PIN), but absent some great public necessity (like a man having his sleeve caught in an ATM machine in a burning building), confidential information should remain private.
You make some great points! My biggest concern is that this would set a very bad precedent.
Next thing you know, everyone’s passing around Peach Schnapps, just waiting to unlock the vault for that next juicy bit of so-called “confidential” information.
The thing is, though…the names will be leaked out little by little. They already are! For the betterment of the game, we need to put this issue to rest ASAP. As a passionate fan of the game, I think releasing the list allows us to do quicker than having the name ooze out one by one!
Loyal Homer, people are also going to commit murder… that doesn’t mean we should make THAT legal.
If MLB is going to expect the Players Association to respect any of their wishes, they need to return the favor and respect the wishes of the MLBPA.
The MLB needs to maintain the confidentiality of this agreement, and when a person leaks information about it, the MLB needs to take measures against that leak.
The fact that “people are going to do it anyway” does not give MLB license to just disregard their contractually agreed upon terms.
A couple more thoughts on this topic:
1) For the most part, hasn’t confidentiality largely been maintained with regard to names on the list? Let’s keep in mind that, since the list was created in 2003, only a handful or two of the 100 or so names on the list have been named. At that pace, all the names won’t all be leaked until the 2060′s, if at all (it’s not inevitable that all names will eventually be leaked and be independently verifiable). Isn’t the possibility of protecting all of this confidential information, however remote, preferable to breaking the original promise and protecting none at all?
2) I can see how fixing the countless mistakes in judgment (by owners, players, the commissioner’s office, the players’ union, and fans) and in the testing process will be “[f]or the betterment of the game,” but I fail to see how releasing the names on the list do so. In other words, how does knowing whether or not Angel Berroa (name chosen at random) tested positive for steroids make the game BETTER?
It doesn’t.
To the point I make in my argument, there is nothing to gain from publishing the list except for an end to speculation.
No punishments can be levied, no revisions made to any record books, you’ll just have a list of players who will be black-balled.
But what are the possible outcomes of ending speculation? Players who may be under suspicion for Hall of Fame consideration can be cleared. That has a direct impact on the player, and the legacy of baseball. Records are respected again. Players are respected again. It restores respect to the entire game.
Look at the example of Gary Sheffield, who was forthcoming from the start about what he did. There is no longer any talk of his involvement AND his 500th home run was celebrated.
The intent of publishing the list is not to levy punishment, it is to end the steroids era. It is an action, an event, that baseball can make into a big deal, weather a short storm, and sail into calm waters.
I don’t think fans are very fond of technical legalities. Plus, attendance is down across baseball. The time is right for Selig to push for a change to the 2003 agreement. If he fails, it’s true that the list cannot be officially published. But if he succeeds? He ends the steroids era with a decisive action.