The Congress Thread

by GuyinNY on Jan 15, 2008 10:43 AM EST

Place your thoughts on today's congressional hearings on PEDs in baseball in here. Personally, I am glad this is happening (even if there are MUCH better things for Congress to worry about). And hey, it's providing GREAT theater.

a couple of blogs : http://www.fannation.com/blogs/show/22070

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3197192&name=congressional_hearings

Poll

Good for Baseball?

Yes

12 votes

No

15 votes

Maybe So

1 votes

Yes, but there are better things for Congress to do.

23 votes

No, but Congress needed to get on this.

0 votes

51 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

cue the

"But there's a war in Iraq and global warming a falling stock market and my grandmother is sick so the Congress shouldn't have any discussions about anything else until 100% of those problems are 100% fixed" comments.

by Galt on Jan 15, 2008 11:00 AM EST reply actions

that said

I don't see what is Congress' jurisdiction to even bother with this.

by Galt on Jan 15, 2008 11:02 AM EST up reply actions

On cue

there are soooooo many things they should be doing instead of this. They always have time for grandstanding it seems.

by t ball on Jan 15, 2008 11:06 AM EST up reply actions

congress

i thought the same thing, then someone mentioned on another message board that congress has oversight because of baseball's anti-trust exemption...not sure how valid it is, but it does make some sense.

Rooting for the Yankees is like going to a casino and rooting for the house.

by djshelto on Jan 15, 2008 3:50 PM EST up reply actions

Authority

Congress has Constitutional authority to regulate anything affecting interstate commerce. This power is very broad, and is the basis for Congress' authority to accomplish a huge percentage of the legislation it passes. Regulation of major league baseball would squarely fall within the case law on the topic. If Congress lacked the power to regulate baseball, there would be no concern for antitrust rules and exemptions - to the extent a statute is passed without Constitutional authority, it is invalid.

Lord that gets me off so much

by Hot Lunch on Jan 15, 2008 9:26 PM EST up reply actions

A bit annoyed

That Mitchell said they should push for changes through the normal collective bargaining process. Really, if they want change, Congress should be strongarming the players' union, not the owners. The last thing baseball needs is for the union to get even stronger than it already is (is there a stronger union in the country?) because they 'acquiesce' to something they should be doing anyway.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 15, 2008 11:04 AM EST reply actions

Today and probably most days' political climate

How good would it look to the eyes of labor voters and "middle America" for Congress to go after the 'poor' union members while letting the rich owners off?

by cooper7d7 on Jan 15, 2008 11:30 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, but

Mitchell doesn't run for office, he could at least say it.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 15, 2008 11:35 AM EST up reply actions

Re:

This union is not like other unions, and the public sentiment towards baseball players is not one of pity. If you ever listen to talk Radio, you'll hear an awful lot of resentment for a bunch of meatheads making an average of 3.5 million or whatever per year.

I don't think the public sentiment would back up the unions....

-1 and only member of the Jed Lowrie fan club!

by Jgaztambide on Jan 15, 2008 12:05 PM EST up reply actions

True, true, true...

I should have clarified, I think the labor voters would be a bit agitated by Congress strongarming MLBPA, even if they are multimillionaires, they are still union. I also think that, middle America would be upset if Congress strongarmed the union while letting those naughty rich white men off without even a hand-slapping. Of course, neither group should give a rat's ass about this situation at all other than Congress is once again butting in the affairs of private individuals - will Shays channel McCarthy and bring every player from the 90's before the committee?

by cooper7d7 on Jan 15, 2008 12:13 PM EST up reply actions

Re:

Is there a stronger union? how about longshoremen? They're ridiculous. 100% ridiculous...

-1 and only member of the Jed Lowrie fan club!

by Jgaztambide on Jan 15, 2008 11:31 AM EST up reply actions

yup

Longshoremen might actually be stronger.
AND more corrupt.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Jan 15, 2008 3:08 PM EST up reply actions

My thoughts?

I was done with this topic years ago. I don't care and wish some of my favorites sites would quit writing about it.

"When people talk, listen completely. Most people never listen." (Hemingway)

by jmoultz on Jan 15, 2008 12:47 PM EST reply actions

ugh

I didn't realize how ready I was for this to be over until I tuned in to XM today. Good God, give me the halcyon days of aimless Johan Santana speculation.

by whichthat on Jan 16, 2008 1:13 AM EST reply actions