Baseball has a drug-testing system in place, and a first-time penalty of 50 games. But if we learned anything from the Mitchell report, it's that limited penalties don't seem to be much of a deterrent, and neither does the prospect of being publicly outed as a drug user. In fact, as more names come out, the stigma seems diminished.
It is clear that some players are weighing the possible risks and rewards and making a calculated business decision on whether to use performance-enhancing drugs. And you know what? All the evidence to date is that it pays.
Guillermo Mota tested positive for steroids and earned a suspension last season, and the Mets gave him a $5 million deal.
Jose Guillen was named in a report about HGH, and Major League Baseball generated enough compelling evidence against him to suspend him -- yet Guillen just signed a three-year, $36 million deal with the Royals. The bottom line is that players know their bottom line may well be rewarded for PED use.
But here's something that would change the equation: Individual organizations could simply make the decision to not hire or retain players suspended for the use of performance-enhancing drugs.
To continue reading this article you must be an Insider
Buster Olney
