Explain this.

[Rkiivs]

The way I see it Kenny physically hurt another person while Raffy only hurt himself. So, yeah, Kenny got the higher penalty. If Raffy gets burned again though it'll be a different story.

[garf112]

I believe the original post posed the question: Why is a team allowed to add a player to its roster when someone tests positive for steroids, while a team that has a player suspended for other reasons must go with a 24 man roster?

Don't know the answer... just wanted to get the thread back on topic.

[ZAZ]

I'd like someone to explain how the Player's Union fought for years to allow players to use illegal drugs w/o punishment. However, they regularly allow for contracts that let the team walk away from a player if he hurts himself playing basketball or riding a motorcycle or something like that. I guess Donald Fehr considers a player's rights to break the law much higher than the player's rights to physical activity in the off season. How ironic and sick is that?

[Tokugawa]

I believe the original post posed the question: Why is a team allowed to add a player to its roster when someone tests positive for steroids, while a team that has a player suspended for other reasons must go with a 24 man roster?

Don't know the answer... just wanted to get the thread back on topic.

Thanks.

The question wasn't about the length of punishment, but just about the whole steroid testing regime in general, that really doesn't seem to punish either players or teams all that harshly.

Regarding the punsihments, however the difference between assault and steroid taking is that steroid taking is a form of cheating. By analogy to the business world someone who commits assault may simply have to pay a fine and be reprimanded by the company, in most cases they wont be fired, but insider trading, a form of corporate cheating, is punished far more harshly, with a definate sacking and often criminal sanctions.

Slightly odd analogy but perhaps you see the point.

[theclefe]

I believe the original post posed the question: Why is a team allowed to add a player to its roster when someone tests positive for steroids, while a team that has a player suspended for other reasons must go with a 24 man roster?

Don't know the answer... just wanted to get the thread back on topic.

I think it is just a blacket policy for steroid punishment, as ffurther offenses incur longer punishments. You can't expect an MLB team to play a full year a player short.

With other supensions, the guidelines are arbitrary so Selig could allow teams the ability to replace a player. Short of an Artest incident, I doubt the suspensions handed out would be long enough to make a team uncompetitive.

[rotterdam_82]

I believe the original post posed the question: Why is a team allowed to add a player to its roster when someone tests positive for steroids, while a team that has a player suspended for other reasons must go with a 24 man roster?

Don't know the answer... just wanted to get the thread back on topic.

I think it is just a blacket policy for steroid punishment, as ffurther offenses incur longer punishments. You can't expect an MLB team to play a full year a player short.

But it's not a full year is it, it's a paltry 10 games.