>in both cases there was a law on the books and no way to
>enforce it. So does that make it OK to go ahead and break the
>law?

of course it doesnt make it Ok. if there was no way to punish murderers, it wouldnt be ok to kill people. what im saying is that you cannot selectively and retroactively correct/enforce the flawed system that baseball had in place. if the UN somehow grew some balls and independence do you think they would go back and punish the US?

>no, MLB did not have the power to enforce the rule because the
>players' union did not allow testing.

the owners chose not to force the issue during the labor talks of the strike shortened 94 season. they could have got stricter testing back then if they had wanted to.

>1. I posted it because people are still trying to say Barry
>didn't cheat because there was no rule against steroids in
>baseball - that is patently FALSE.
>

again, i dont think the issue is whether or not Barry cheated, but rather what can be done about it now. i see peoples point though when they say it wasnt necessarily cheating because everyone in the league had the opportunity to do the same thing and not be punished.

>2. the policy is not pointless, because if MLB's investigation
>finds that Bonds used steroids going back to 1999 or whenever
>then they have legal recourse to penalize him for it.

too bad in the press conference yesterday Selig said they were limiting the investigation from 2002 to the present. since testing started 2002 Bonds has not failed a drug test; so again Baseball cannot and should not go back and punish him (and only him) for using substances that their weak tests did not measure for. and since all of their evidence came from "sealed" court documents, nothing that they do will ever stand up in a court of law. MLB will not be able to independently verify any of the evidence on Boonds.