« Comments on FIU's Dean Search | Main | Koppelman on Taylor's "A Secular Age" »
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Baseball, Steroids, and Jurisprudence
Here is a question for the jurisprudes and the crim law types:
In 1991, baseball established by rule that it was against the rules of the game to use a range of drugs, including steroids. There was no testing, no enforcement mechanism, and no determinate punishments for using steroids. That was the state of affairs until the start of the 2006 season, thus it was the state of affairs from 2001-03, when Alex Rodriguez has admitted to using steroids and when he tested positive. Of course, the commissioner did have catch-all "best interests of baseball" powers, so punishment was possible through that power. But absent testing, there arguably was no way ever to find out that someone was using steroids.
So, my question: Has Rodriguez "cheated" or "broken the rules" of baseball (put aside societal laws against steroid distribution, possession, or use) given the legal state as described. Is a stated legal prohibition that is not, as a matter of law, enforceable or punishable, a legal prohibition that can be violated?
Posted by Howard Wasserman on February 11, 2009 at 06:31 PM in Culture, Howard Wasserman, Sports | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0111685bee58970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Baseball, Steroids, and Jurisprudence:
Comments
it seems to be all about competition, winning at all costs, so it's hard to blame players that shoot up;
is their job to be sports stars or is it to "play the game?"
Posted by: Joe | Feb 14, 2009 5:40:44 PM
This is the same question as "do you have a right without a remedy", right? Did MLB have a right to expect that A-Rod would not use whatever substances he used? They didn't have a remedy against him if he did.
That's my attempt at a Hohfeldian conversion. It doesn't actually answer the question, but maybe it reframes it in a more familiar way?
Posted by: Jason W. | Feb 11, 2009 8:52:25 PM
Yes.
But there is a real question whether baseball's 1991 "rule" against steroids was a valid legal prohibition at all. It was pronounced in a memorandum from Commissioner Fay Vincent to the MLB clubs. It wasn't published. It wasn't in the rule book. It wasn't ratified by the union. It isn't even clear that it was ever distributed to players. Indeed, even most close students of the game learned about it for the first time from the 2007 Mitchell report.
That validity of the pre-2003 "rule" strikes me as the hard question, not whether the violation of an unenforceable rule is cheating.
Posted by: AF | Feb 11, 2009 8:48:45 PM
Yes.
Posted by: James Grimmelmann | Feb 11, 2009 7:05:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.