Over at the New York Times, their longtime national baseball writer Murray Chass weighs in on the possibility of a Baseball World Cup, basically arguing that if Major League Baseball can't reach an agreement with the international federation, they should run a World Cup on their own:

Drug testing, as dictated by the sanctimonious satraps of the sports and drug worlds, is not the ultimate element that rules athletes. Just because it's done for the Olympics doesn't mean it has to be done for everything and everyone else.

As the players union points out, its members have rights, too. If they want to negotiate away their rights, that's their right. They did that to some extent in the 2002 labor negotiations with management.

The self-appointed, self-important observers who have criticized the baseball drug-testing agreement have a right to their opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion. They cannot dictate to baseball or its players the kind of drug testing they should employ.

I'm not sure that I buy Murray's argument here. I'm no fan of the world of international sports federations, with their petty despots ruling from on high. But I do think there's value in integrating MLB into an international framework, and not coming off like the high-handed ruler dictating to peons.

AuthorMark McClusky