ST Alpha - "These were confidential in nature to find out if further legitimate testing would go forward." (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 164

In response to "I've never understood this... If MLB knew about 104 players who tested positive, why did they ignore those test results?" by mrfuzzy

These were confidential in nature to find out if further legitimate testing would go forward.

Posted by Will Hunting (aka JoeMetz) Feb 26 '09, 12:45

baseball was only supposed to know #'s of players, not names. The union hosed up and didn't have the test listings destroyed when they could becuase they were trying to winnow down the # of players so further testing wouldn't result.

If Donald Fehr & Gene Orza survive this, they're teflon.

Responses:

From a legal perspective, was a crime commited? Would league or union officials be liable if they could identify the person and did nothing about it? -- nm - mrfuzzy Feb 26, 12:47 3
- [deleted]
- Most likely, but no one here's looking into legality for whatever reasons. - Will Hunting Feb 26, 12:49 1
  - Here's the deal though...without the promise on anonymity...no player would have agreed to this test under any circumstance. - Jim Feb 26, 12:51

Post a message top

These were confidential in nature to find out if further legitimate testing would go forward.

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.