- 12/17/2011, 02:31AM ET
Mrlns Fn said 12/17, 02:31 AM
If a player tested positive for a banned substance during the playoffs but not during the regular season, it would be unfair to strip that player of an award which he won based off his regular season stats.
If the argument was about a Divisional/League Championship award or even the World Series MVP award, maybe we would have to look at things differently.
But the NL/AL MVP awards are based off regular season achivements, and a positive test during the playoffs does not in any way reflect on that players' regular season.
Not only that, but revoting for the MVP award would set a strange and ugly precedent.
For example, if Ryan Braun were to be stripped of his NL MVP award, we would then have to go back through the history of MLB and revote for all the other awards which were won by known PED users.
How far back would we go? Who all would we include? Proven PED users? Admitted PED users? Only those who failed drug tests?
What about Barry Bonds? He never failed a drug test, but he admitted it.
What about players who we only strongly suspect of having used PEDs?
It would get ugly and must be avoided.
williewilliejuan said 12/17, 12:39 PM
This is yet another example of MLB doing the wrong thing and giving itself a black eye when it comes to their commitment to dealing with PEDs. This isn't a case of going back to take the award away from a past winner. When you break it down, you see that MLB awarded the MVP award to someone they already knew had failed a drug test. The truly sad part about this incident is it didn't have to be this way.
Braun took his drug test during the playoffs and was notified of the positive result in October. The MVP award winner was not announced until late November, nearly a month later. That's plenty of time to conduct a 2nd test. That's plenty of time for Braun to explain any medications he had taken that may have influenced the results (allegedly for swinging the Hebrew Hammer somewhere that wasn't kosher). That's plenty of time to resolve the issue before handing out the award.
If it turns out that Braun broke no rules, no re-vote is needed. However, if Braun violated the policy against PEDs, the voters should have been given the opportunity to factor that into their voting.
MLB should have resolved the positive test before awarding the MVP and revoted if necessary.
Mrlns Fn said 12/18, 11:09 PM
If we're talking only about the Ryan Braun case, then no, it's not about MLB going back and revoting for past winners.
But by revoting for the 2011 NL MVP award, MLB would be extablishing a precedent that would call for a revote on past winners, and that's where things get murky.
You're right; MLB DID award the MVP to someone they already knew had failed a drug test. But that's because the voting had been done BEFORE the playoffs and the award just wasn't handed out until afterward. In the meantime Braun failed his test.
Which brings us to where we are today - should MLB have a revote in situations like this?
The answer is no.
Let's look specifically at the Braun case.
As of right now, we've heard that his testosterone levels were too high in the original test, and depending on who you believe, a second test was administered and this second test didn't show any elevated testosterone levels.
So obviously MLB has to wait for this process to be over before stripping Braun of his MVP award. It would be hasty and unwise to take back the award now before the whole story has been made known.
MLB should NOT revote for MVP in these cases.
williewilliejuan said 12/19, 09:43 AM
MLB has a huge credibility issue when it comes to PEDs. This incident was a golden opportunity to show that they now take it seriously and they blew it.
To be clear, no one is advocating taking back awards that have already been granted. However, in the narrow circumstances where a failed test occurs after voting has taken place, but before the award is granted, MLB shouldn't ignore it.
Braun received the results of his failed playoff test in the same month as he took it. It doesn't take very long to get those results back (in fact, reports have it that the results of a 2nd test are already back).
It also doesn't take very long for Braun to tell the league what medications he's on - something he should have done before taking the test. Either they violate policy or they don't (if history is any judge, they do). In any case, it doesn't take very long to decide whether he violated league policy.
I agree with you that MLB should finish the process, but they could and should have done it quickly if they cared about the integrity of their awards. If Braun violated league policy, the voters should be given an opportunity to reconsider their votes before the award is granted.
Mrlns Fn said 12/20, 02:36 AM
One of the major problems with having a revote is that if the votes were to be cast again, we could be making the exact same mistake all over again.
No one knew Braun was (allegedly) cheating.
Say there was a revote and the award gets handed the second time to Matt Kemp. What happens if a year from now Matt Kemp fails a drug test?
Would we then strip him of the award and have the BBWAA vote a THIRD time? And then what if went to another player who at some point down the road failed a drug test?
For example, A-Rod won the MVP in 2003, before we knew he was a cheater. But if there were to be a revote for that particular award, who could you even give it to? Out of the top 10 in MVP voting that year, 5 other guys are associated with PEDs -Tejada, Man-Ram, Giambi, Big Papi and Nomar.
So 60% of the top 10 in 2003 was either juicing or allegedly taking PEDs.
Do we really want to bother with the possibility of 5 or 6 revotes as news comes that that Player A is dirty, Player B is dirty, Player C is dirty too, etc...
That many revotes would make a mockery of the award and would completely diminish it's already fading prestige.
Say NO to revotes.
williewilliejuan said 12/20, 03:08 AM
You have basically made the "slippery slope" argument as a reason not to re-vote. It's an interesting argument, but it's a complete red herring. There is no slippery slope because the restrictions on a re-vote would be well-defined: If the award has already been handed out, there is no re-vote. Period.
There would never be a situation where multiple re-votes would occur. There would only be a re-vote if evidence of a failed test is discovered after voting, but before the award is announced. If Kemp fails a drug test a year from now there is no re-vote. The 2003 MVP award would not be re-voted. None of Bonds MVP awards would result in a re-vote.
The distinction between these situations is clear: In none of those other scenarios did MLB have proof that the player had failed a drug test at the time the award was announced.
You are concerned that a re-vote would make a mockery of the MVP award. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Allowing the MVP award to be granted to a player that MLB knows to have failed a recent drug test makes a mockery of the award. A re-vote seeks to correct that.
A limited use of a re-vote could help to restore the legitimacy of MLB awards.
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia