MLB's drug problem

Thankfully it didn't hit the Cubs, but the dozen suspensions handed out by MLB on Monday serve as yet another prominent reminder of baseball's failure to properly address the use of performance-enhancing substances.

As long as there are lists of banned substances, there will be incentive to develop new ones and incentive for players to use them until they're added to the list, which could take years. It may take another work stoppage in order to set a drastically different policy, but MLB needs to address the issue from a different angle.

The real issue should be controlling who can provide treatment, medical services or supplements to major league baseball players. There's too much money changing hands, not to mention the integrity of the game, to leave things up to chance. We're talking about jocks with egos here. There may be a few Stanford men in the mix, but with 1,200 guys on 40-man rosters, some of whom signed their first contracts at age 16 or 17, there are bound to be a few meatheads who would have trouble outwitting a glazed doughnut.

The simplest solution, and the most effective, would be for all players' health care to come from MLB except for emergency services. Go ahead and provide insurance for players' families with the doctors of their choice, but if you're on a 40-man roster, every doctor you see, every specialist, every nutritionist, every trainer, should be either a full-time employee of your team or the league or a licensed partner of MLB. Every prescription, every supplement, every over-the-counter pill, every vitamin, should come from one of those sources.

That provides a chain of liability where the only questionable link is the player himself. Then if he get a test that comes back funny and there's no logical explanation based on the medical reports his team provides, which should include everything that's gone into his body except food and drinks, he has an appointment with the commissioner. The substance that caused it is irrelevant. He violated policy by using an unauthorized source.

And if they really want to be serious about enforcement, give the teams incentive to keep a closer watch on their players. Don't let the team fill the roster spot of a player serving a medical suspension. You might have enough TV-contract money to eat some salary on a guy with one strike if he gets popped again, but are you willing to be a man down for 100 games? If you're a player, are you going to take that risk knowing your shot at a nine-figure deal with a perennial contender, or maybe any contract at all, might go right out the window? For a lot more players, the answer would be no.

On the other hand, not all drugs enhance performance or are illegal. Plenty of players smoke tobacco and/or drink alcohol, which are legal and, while frowned upon, are accepted by baseball. Two major league teams play where cannabis is legal for recreational use and that number could grow, but baseball really has no business cracking down on it. Blowing a little weed doesn't compare to using steroids or human growth hormone, or to other recreational drugs like cocaine or amphetamines. It's not going to improve reaction time or make it easier to hit or catch small, fast-moving objects, and players know that.

But if baseball wants to eliminate cases like former Bears quarterback Jim Miller testing positive and claiming it was because his regular supplement was out of stock at GNC and he bought something else because it was on sale, it needs to eliminate sources of innocent mistakes. And if they want to sidestep the expenses of providing supplements and nutrients themselves, license out the logo to approved products. Team nutritionists' offices get stocked as part of the deal and the league gets some fat checks on the side. That way, if some high-schooler or college kid sees that logo on the side of a bottle, he'll know he can take it without the risk of a career-altering failed test right after signing his first pro contract. Or some 40-year-old weekend warrior can take it, knowing that logo bears a higher standard than a product that at best has a disclaimer distancing it from the USDA.

In simpler terms, think about disciplining a misbehaving child. You don't tell Junior he can't go to his friend's house, the park, the playground, the mall, the zoo, the ice cream parlor, the beach, the baseball card shop, the comic book shop, and so on, that only leaves a world of possibilities you've left off the list. You tell him he can't leave the house or there'll be hell to pay.