Catching Up
One of the reasons I haven’t posted in a while is that there’s not very much going on. Of course there’s the usual spring training stories: young guys and non-roster invitees battling for roster spots, nagging veteran’s injuries, watching the new guys, etc. But those are not really noteworthy stories and I didn’t think I could contribute anything new and exciting to them so I just let them go.
The other big story this spring is the steroid controversy. This thing just keeps getting bigger and bigger (pun intended). Every time things seem to settle down something happens. Last week congress got involved with the House Government Reform Committee calling a hearing. Several players were invited to attend. Many of the invited players declined and were subpoenaed to appear (makes you wonder what the word invitation means according to congress).
Considering the timing of this hearing I have to question the intention of congress in this matter. If they were really concerned about they could have called this hearing for the off-season. Nothing major has happened to make the situation worse (Jose Canseco’s very public accusations don’t count). In fact, the hearing takes place in the aftermath of MLB’s new testing policy. Though I think the policy could be stricter than it is I also think congress should have waited to see the results of the policy before deciding to take control of the matter.
At the same time I have to question “Commissioner” Bud Selig’s response. In my view fighting the subpoenas is an admission of guilt. The action itself says “we have something to hide” and slaps the law in the face by saying steroid use is an internal matter.
And why does Jason Giambi‘s Balco testimony matter here? He testified in a different hearing about something. So what? Why should that prevent him from testifying here?
And why wasn’t Barry Bonds called?
And why are they even entertaining the notion of immunity for Canseco? He’s man enough to admit his steroids use to make money. Shouldn’t he be man enough to discuss the issue and face the music for his actions?
There are just too many questions here. We’ll all have to wait and see how things develop.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I understand Giambi’s point of view. He’s looking at a situation where anything he says can be held against him in a court of law and/or find him on the wrong side of breach of contract. I don’t blame him at all for not wanting to testify for the committee.
However, when Congress calls a hearing the personal risk of one potential witnesses should not dictate whether that witness is called ot not. The only question to be answered in such a case is “will this witnesses testimony help this committee accomplish it’s goal?”. In this case I’d have to say that Giambi’s testimony would help. Of course, he’d still be able to excercise his 5th amendment rights which could lead to not getting very much out of him but that shouldn’t be swaying the committee (about calling Giambi) either since I think we’ll be hearing alot of the players invoke those rights.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Giambi’s poistion (or at least his lawyers’) is that if he has to say anything without being granted immunity, those admissions could later be used to prosecute him. It also could end up giving Steinbrenner ammunition to void his big fat contract, even though the Yankees took out the steroid rider.
That said, I’m kind of glad Congress is stepping in because it forces Selig and the players association to do something. The new rules are better, but they’re still pretty weak.