It wasn't a proposal - it was the commissioner's Policy.

Ther Union has no say in the Comissioner's policy. That policy refers to rules and punishments for breaking the rules.

What the Union did not agree to was Testing for the drugs. Vincent could not get player testing done without their approval. As an example of how opposed the players union was to any sort of testing, Rob Dibble was shot down at a meeting of players and their Union reps when he suggested that players not only be tested for drugs, but also screened for illnesses and disorders (like cancer, which John Kruk would later be diagnosed with)...Dibble has claimed this a number of times in a number of forums. He mentioned it earlier today on his radio show with Kevin Kennedy on XM radio.

The wording of Fay Vincents 1991 policy -
The Commisioner's policy made the possesion and use of any drug (including steriods) illegal. The punishments for use of those drugs was left to the discretion of the Commish.

A number of players have been suspended by the Commissioner for using Cocaine and other drugs...
A couple of examples of people punished under the 1990 Drug Policy (which the 1991 policy amended)
Dwight Gooden was suspended for use of illegal drugs in Septemember of 1994 by Bud Selig for the remainder of the 1994 season and the entire 1995 season.
Darryl Strwaberry was suspended for violation of the drug policy on Februrary 6th, 1995 for 60 days. He's suspender again for 140 days on June 18th, 1999. He's suspended again for 1 year on February 28th, 2000.

the 1919 World Series Fix? what do you mean by immediately? If you mean right after the series ended (as the Movie Eight Men Out implies) during the offseason...

Incorrect - the scandal didn't break until the during the height of the pennant race in 1920.
The players were not banned until after they faced a Grand Jury in the following offseason of 1920 (to make sure that the play of baseball was interrupted by players being unavailible to play) and were aquitted of all charges. They were not banned until 1921 - almost a full 2 years after they threw the series (and after an unknown number of other games during the 1920 season were thrown by some of those same players - according to Happy Felsch)

Keep in mind the hard evidence for Bonds just came out. Selig really can't continue to turn a blind eye to this as he has done in the past.
He's been really careful at making sure the descions he makes doesn't impact the owners negatively.
Let's not forget that Selig lead the owner's 18-9 vote of No Confidence against Fay Vincent after his Policy concerning Steroids and because of the owner's unhappiness in Vincent's role during the 1990 lockout.
Selig also let multi-punished and convicted drug abuser Steve Howe off with reduced punishmnets for violating the policy in the early 90's.
Plus, he overturned Vincet's banishment of Steinbrenner.
Fay Vincent banned Steinbrenner for life for paying Howie Spira, a small-time gambler, $40,000 for "dirt" on his outfielder Dave Winfield after Winfield sued Steinbrenner for failing to pay his foundation the $300,000 guaranteed in his contract. Selig (a friend of the Boss) overturned that lifetime ban.

Having an owner as a Commissioner is a huge conflict of interest, and Selig becoming Commish should never have happened.

At this point, with the facts coming to light - he may be forced into doing something to save some of his tarnished reputation.

http://www.baseballplayamerica.com/page4.html
Again, it was not "banned" in baseball... at least to those involved in the CBA. The ones in the CBA are the only ones we really care about.

As far as the Black Sox Scandal, I'm not going to go into anymore because I really haven't read too much about it, nor really care to right now (especially since there seems to be a couple different stories out there). My original point was that 1919 or 1920 or whatever is waaaay before Pete Rose was even born.

Nismo - Yes, the Black Sox was before Rose. But my point for mentioning the Black Sox is because those players got banned by the Commissioner for doing something which wasn't against the rules at the time they did it.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if Steroids weren't specifically mentioned as being Illegal at the time they were used.

For all intents and puposes, the Commissioner said he would punish those players with Drug problems - including steriods.

Now that makes the use of Steroids illegal - if they were not the commissioner wouldn't punish them for using it.
ESPN Mag report on the Memo

I believe you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Those guys threw the World Series as a team. They were busted and taken care of appropriately sometime within the next year. Rose was dumb enough to do something related to that 70+ years later. Bonds, McGwire, Giambi, Palmeiro, etc. took a drug themselves that wasn't banned. That's why nothing will come of this. Again, I ask, are they going to ban McGwire for taking Andro that's now banned or all those players busted for taking other drugs like cocaine? Is Palmeiro, Giambi and Sheffield now banned? It doesn't look like they are. Hey, I'm all for it if they do because it messes with the integrity of the game, but you got to do it to all players.
That's funny because that was the first article I found when I looked this up. I was like, why hasn't anything else came about this after reading that. Then, I found Mr. Vincent's comments and realized that it was ESPN just trying to make something more than it is. I'll take Vincent's comments over ESPN any day, especially since he wrote the memo.

Nismo - I'm not comparing the 1919 Sox to Bonds.

But as for the team comment
Again - to point out - McMullen only had 2 at bats during the Series going 1-2 with a single, no playing time in the field
Weaver knew of the fix, but claimed to not be a part of it. His numbers during the series support that claim.

Back to the point - Here is my argument:
The Commissioner can punish players for commiting acts which are not expressly prohibited by major league baseball.

The 1919 Sox are merely an example of that argument.

Now you jump ahead to asking if Players are going to be banned for drug use - Using Steroids is more like Corking a bat or doctoring a ball - except instead of doing it to the equipment you are using you are doing it to your body. Players are not suspended indefinately for a first time offense (See Slammin Sammy Sosa's Superball Sin) but they are punished to some extent. And they always have their name attached to the offense (see George Brett and the Pine Tar rule - Gaylord Perry and the Spitball)

edited to add: I don't recall actually saying or posting anywhere that Bonds should be banned for using steroids. Don't put words into my mouth. Bonds does deserve a lengthy suspension for his use of steriods overe the past 7 years (and a suspension of other players who have used that are still active is appropriate as well) That being said: end of edit

An example needs to be made - and Selig's failure to do anything about the subject has lead to more rampant use of performance inhancing drugs. The reward for using steroids far outwieghed the risk of being caught.

Referring to Vincents comment about the 1991 policy - I hadn't seen or heard that anywhere before - yet I have heard from a number of other sources (though not in print) that Steroids were banned in 1991 although baseball wasn't allowed to test for the substance.

The whole idea of saying that the Black Sox got banned even though gambling wasn't illegal yet when they did it implies that you're arguing that Bonds and Co. should get banned too if it's proven that they took the juice. If you're not saying that, then I don't know what we're arguing anymore because that was my original stance. You can't put an asterisk, can't ban them, can't do anything because steroids weren't banned during that period.

BTW, you don't have to explain to me that steroids is cheating. I'm always the first to say that everytime this topic comes up. Maybe someone like off2cjb will come in here an argue the other side of the coin because I'm on your side for that.

I wasn't arguing that using steroids is or isn't cheating. I've read enough of your posts to know that you think using steroids is cheating.

But, you are missing my point -
I'm not implying that Bonds should be banned. I'm not saying that any specific punishment should be imposed on Bonds.

I just wasn't making my argument as clear as I thought.
Here was what I posted originally as the start of my argument:
My argument is The Commissioner of baseball can impose a punishment onto players for committing acts which the rules of baseball did not explicitly prohibit at the time they committed those acts

Your argument, which you implyed to start and which you have refined, claryified and repeated in your last post is that the Commissioner can not do anything to those players because steroids were not illegal.

I've never suggested what the punishment should be, and to say that I've been implying a punishment means you haven't been understanding my argument

To prove my argument I cite an example in baseball history where that happened. The infraction and punishment are irrelevant to the point of my argument, except in that the infraction was not explicitly prohibited at the time and the Commissioner still gave them some sort of punishment.

I used the specific example of the 1919 White Sox because of this statement:
You implied that players who use drugs are not punished. Read back a couple of posts, and you'll see that is not true. They are punished, although not suspended for life from baseball (with the exception of Steve Howe, whom Selig un-suspended the year after replacing Vincent - a reason why i don't think Bonds will be banned from baseball for this)

You further imply that Pete Rose could only have been punished because what he did was already illegal.

My point in using the Black Sox was to show that they were punished for something which was not illegal at the time they did it (gambling on baseball games and conspiring to fix games for money). How they were punished is irrelevant to my argument.

That they were punished at all proves my argument.

Good article:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ag1toGfDEObTlGb7Ygl78xERvLYF?slug=jp-bonds031506&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Feds investigating if Bonds committed perjury

Now we're getting somewhere.

Down with Barroid.

I wanna see Barry in an interview with Dan Patrick.

Dan asks a question; Barry goes berserk, spinning into an unchecked 'roid rage, foaming at the mouth, and ripping Dan Patrick's limbs literally off his body.

Okay, that would suck because I like Dan Patrick, but man, wouldn't that kind of video be sweet?

I bet it would make the Top Ten on SC . . .