On the DL During a Suspension

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Edison Volquez has been suspended for steriod use but he is on the DL and will serve his suspension while on the DL. I think it's a crock of shit really but does anyone think that he should serve his suspension when he gets back from the DL? Or should the rule stay the same to were you can serve a suspension while on the DL?

 

[Turd Ferguson]

The way I look at it is that he's unable to play right now, due to injury. Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense for him to go ahead and serve a suspension in which he's supposed to be punished (with the penalty being that he cannot play for 50 games) while being away from the game due to injury. I mean, if you're looking at it from the "glass half full" perspective, he may have taken PEDs to try to get back from injury faster, so you can sort of sympathize with him. He may not have known that whatever he took was banned. At the same time though, what if he was using them to get primed for a hot start off the DL, and what if he was using back when he had his unbelievable first season for the Reds? I think the 50 game suspension should absolutely be in effect once he gets activated from the DL.

 

[Slyfox696]

Being on the DL should have no effect on his suspension. I mean, think of it this way...if he was an everyday player not on the DL, he would lose roughly 45 games. As a starting pitcher not on the DL, he would have lost 10. So, already, you can see that position played changes the effect of a suspension.

The point of the suspension is merely to prevent a player to participate with a performance edge. Yes, it's supposed to be a deterrent, but with the way baseball is set up, you can never be "fair" about it.

Either way, the pitcher can't play for 50 games. It's fair, even if he is on the DL.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Being on the DL should have no effect on his suspension. I mean, think of it this way...if he was an everyday player not on the DL, he would lose roughly 45 games. As a starting pitcher not on the DL, he would have lost 10. So, already, you can see that position played changes the effect of a suspension.

The point of the suspension is merely to prevent a player to participate with a performance edge. Yes, it's supposed to be a deterrent, but with the way baseball is set up, you can never be "fair" about it.

Either way, the pitcher can't play for 50 games. It's fair, even if he is on the DL.

I forgot this point earlier. A starting pitcher might only play every five days but during the game they control alot more of what happens in a game then a position player. So even though a position player plays more games the pitchers have more to do with the outcome in the games that they play in.

The suspension isn't only about losing games you play in it's about not even being with the team. I know what you mean about a position player being effected more by the suspension in that they won't be playing in as many games, but a pitcher can be used on any given day, they are only used sparingly because of the protection of their arms. It's the managers choice not to play them though not a rule.

For me, I think the suspension is supposed to be a punishment for breaking the rules, if the player is on the disabled list during the suspension he isn't getting punished because he is missing the games due to injury not due to the suspension.

 

[Mr. TM]

A suspension is more than not getting to play, its also about getting paid. If he is hurt for 35 games, and suspended for 50, hes not going to get paid for those games. For a starting pitcher making 3 million, that's a million bucks he loses, still for an athlete, it is a lot of money, especially when you are sitting home injured. So yeah, if you are injured, you should be suspended during that time as well.