Hey all,

TheRiot4Life's fanshot the other day on Jake Fox at new positions got me thinking....

I don't know about anyone else but I feel like after watching tonights game, maybe we need to think about starting Jake Fox at catcher in the Washington series after the break.

Yeah, he's had limited experience at the plate, but I don't know if this team should start out the 2nd half of the season with good ol' Koyie Hill. Sure, the guy's a great story but he's a below average offensive guy at-best, with above average defense--one of the main reasons he is on this roster.

There will be the argument "whatever we get from out catcher, especially Koyie, is an added bonus". Well the way this team has played offensively, we need all the help we can get. Geovany's injury hurts that much more because of the way his bat was starting to come around--driving the ball with authority, plus, his defense was improving also.

So the question is: Is it worth risking a little defensive prowess (Will there be THAT much of a noticeable difference?) at the catcher's position to get Jake's bat in the lineup? There doesn't seem to be any FA catcher available that would be of better help than what we have in Koyie or any minor leaguer we bring up. Plus, we sure as hell shouldn't be trading for one at this juncture. Another thing that might need to be taken in to consideration is that if Jake DOES begin to catch on a regular basis, would his offense begin to suffer?

What's your take? Eh?

Back in 2005, Bud Selig had introduced a new steroid policy that was thought to have been thee solution. Turns out, it still doesn't scare some players enough.

Some players seem more worried about having bad statistics and disappointing their franchise, fan base, and MLB. They don't seem to be worried about MLB's image, as a whole.

As a refresher, Bud Selig's current steroid policy (won't even get into amphetamines) that was ratified by owners and players in 2005 is as follows:

Steroid Penalties

• First positive test -- 50-game suspension, up from 10 days.

• Second positive test -- 100-game suspension, up from 30 days.

• Third positive test -- Lifetime ban, with player having right to apply for reinstatement after two years and an arbitrator being able to review reinstatement decision. Under the previous agreement, the earliest a player could be suspended for life was for a fifth positive test.

• In addition, a conviction for possession carries a 60-to-80 game penalty, while a second offense carries a 120-game to one-year penalty. A third offense nets the offender a lifetime ban. If a player is convicted for distribution, he will be suspended 80-to-100 games, while a second offense equals a lifetime ban.

Source: 2005 ESPN Article

In light of Alex Rodriguez's admission, even though he supposedly stopped in '03, do you feel as if this policy needs to be ammended?

I feel like this policy won't hold up. It's not scary enough. Players are still going to try to find ways around being caught. I can say with a good deal of confidence that there are still many players, in the minors and majors, that are still succeeding at beating the system.

There was some discussion in another thread as to what changes should be made to the current policy. Cubbie-Tim and a few others came up with ways to amend or change the it.

They are as follows:

(Almost) Zero-Tolerance Policy:

• Any player found to have taken steroids (Prior to the 2008 Season) will not be punished should their name arise through past tests, reports, etc. (Alex Rodriguez, 104 unnamed players, etc.)

• First Offense: Any player that tests positive after October 2008, will be suspended for 3-years and will be forced to relinquish the money to be made in the remaining year(s) of the contract

What about lifetime banishment, only after first offense?

• Second Offense: Lifetime banishment, name, stats, records, etc. expelled from Major League Baseball

• Also (from Cubbie-Tim): Any team with a player who fails a test cannot replace the player on the roster that season

What do you think? Sure, it might not be ideal and might have trouble being ratified by both the Players Union and Owners, but I feel like the current policy doesn't cut it.

Do you agree that the MLB needs to solidify their stance on PED's and construct a new policy?

If you were put in charge of coming up with a new steroid policy for Major League Baseball what would it be? Would you be harsher? More lenient?

-------

If you're sick of steroid talk, walk right on by. I thought this would be a good thing to discuss.

Go at it, if you wish.

ESPN (Video Inside)

A-Rod has admitted that the allegations made against him by SI are truthful.

Tidbits:

"When I arrived in Texas in 2001, I felt an enormous amount of pressure. I needed to perform, and perform at a high level every day," Rodriguez told ESPN's Peter Gammons in an interview in Miami Beach, Fla. "Back then, [baseball] was a different culture. It was very loose. I was young, I was stupid, I was naïve. I wanted to prove to everyone I was worth being one of the greatest players of all time.

He's gained some respect back... but man, what a blow.

It's becoming more and more clear that steroids were a lot more prevalent than what everyone first thought.

"The more honest we can all be, the quicker we can get baseball [back] to where it needs to be," he said.