Is the Phillies’ World Series title tainted? Has the suspension of J.C. Romero for 50 games at the top of the 2009 season ruined the winter of euphoria for Phillies’ fans? Should fans of the Tampa Bay Rays feel a little cheated?
What about the Mets? Right around the time the Romero took the urine test that returned the positive for a banned substance, the Phillies and Mets were battling for the lead in the NL East. In fact, according to the time lines, Romero was tested on Aug. 26 which is the day the Phillies beat the Mets in 13 innings thanks to four hits from Chris Coste after the eighth inning.
Romero appeared in that game either pre- or post-specimen delivery to pitch a scoreless 12th inning of a 7-7 game. It was just one of 11 games Romero pitched against the Mets in 2008 against who he went 1-2 with a 3.38 ERA.
Undoubtedly those were some pretty big games. Just like the two games in the World Series won by Romero.
So does it mean the Mets have a gripe like Rays' fans might? Hey, people are asking...
No. Absolutely not, says Major League Baseball’s executive vice president for labor and human resources, Rob Manfred.
The Phillies’ reliever was more than likely clean during the post-season run in which he did not allow a run in eight appearances, Manfred said. Still, Romero had a great run during the entire ’08 season and it carried over into the playoffs where he allowed just five base runners in 7 1/3 innings during the playoffs. Against the Brewers in the NLDS, Romero got out of a tricky eighth inning in Game 2 with the Phillies clinging to a three-run lead with two on and two out on just one pitch.
Counting the post-season, Romero pitched in 89 of the Phillies’ 176 games. That’s a lot of work.
“I think a scientist will tell you that the substance was no longer in [Romero's] system,” Manfred said.
But that doesn’t mean MLB was pleased with the fact Romero quietly appealed his positive test and did not take a lesser, 25-game suspension to be served immediately in September. Had Romero taken up MLB on the offer, he would not have appeared in any of the playoff games in 2008.
The removal of Romero from the playoff roster before it began would have been the ideal situation, according to MLB. “With any drug program, the goal is to remove the athlete as quickly as possible,” Manfred said.
“We usually do not negotiate discipline in the drug area,” Manfred said.
“We offered to reduce the suspension to avoid him being in the World Series.”
Let’s get this straight… the Phillies’ World Series victory isn’t tainted in the least, yet the team had a player on its roster that the league wanted to suspend for banned performance-enhancing substances. Not only that, but the league offered an under-the-table deal to undercut the entire appeals process as negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement specifically to keep one player on the Phillies out of the World Series and playoffs?
Wow.
Still believe MLB when it says the Phillies’ title isn’t tainted?
Why not? It’s the same bill of good they sold when Barry Bonds* broke Henry Aaron’s all-time home run record in 2007. There was nothing untoward about all of the homers Bonds hit, was there?
Already that pesky little asterisk has made the rounds amongst certain baseball and Tampa Bay Rays’ bloggers and columnists. It’s the same thing in New York, too, where the Mets are still fuming about two straight September collapses. Oh sure, nobody thinks the supplement 6-OXO Extreme that Romero purchased in Cherry Hill, N.J. at a vitamin store is as bad as “The Cream” or “The Clear,” but it kind of interesting that the guy credited with inventing “The Clear” is also the same guy (Patrick Arnold) behind the supplement said to have caused Romero’s positive test.
No, it doesn’t sound like Romero was trying to cheat. Not in the least. But it does sound like he was trying to avoid a positive test. Does that mean he was trying to go right up to the edge of what was legal (or not) and stop or is it that Romero was just trying not to get caught in some sort of a trap?
“This is an unfortunate situation,” Manfred said. “We don't like disciplining players. We try to help our athletes deal with the issue of nutritional supplements. But the fact is, the athlete has to be responsible for what he puts in his body. It didn't happen in this case.”
Next time Manfred says Romero (or the union) should have called the league offices. Undoubtedly, MLB would have referred the player to a list of acceptable supplements that it publishes online with the collective bargaining agreement on the MLBPA web site.
“If he had called, he would've been told this product was a problem,” Manfred said. “Romero testified [in his arbitration hearing after Game 1 of the World Series] that he did not call.”
So that’s it. Romero tested positive. Everyone agrees on what caused it. The pitcher was given an arbitration hearing, played in the World Series and won two games. Now he’s gone for 50.
Tainted? Of course not.
It's not like baseball is like cycling in that it goes around suspending its athletes on the sports’ biggest stage.