Article: Don't strike the stats... By Tom Stanton

[Astro]

Heres a nice article...

LOCAL COMMENT: Don't strike the stats

Whether with corked bats, uppers or spitballs, players have always sought edge
April 5, 2005







BY TOM STANTON




This opening day, you didn't see any Tigers flaunting their muscles the way Rocky Colavito did in his day.


Forty-five years ago, Colavito, playing in his first season with Detroit, made a show of stretching in the on-deck circle at Briggs Stadium. The defending home run champion clutched a bat behind his shoulder blades, forced it back and thrust his chest forward. He looked fierce and powerful, and soon 10,000 Michigan kids were trying to look just like him.


But today, after a spring campaign dampened by a steroid storm, no ballplayer wants to draw attention to his physique. Thick necks, broad torsos and bulging biceps have fallen out of vogue. They make a man seem as suspect as, well, any home run record set since 1997.


The scandal now scorching the major league landscape has been fueled by former star Jose Canseco's mostly nonfiction book, "Juiced." But it didn't start there.


For more than a decade, baseball observers have been grumbling about inflated slugging statistics. A 50-home-run performance used to be a rarity. From 1930 to 1994, players reached that plateau only 14 times; in the last 10 seasons, they've done it 17 times. Clearly, something has changed.


When Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa surpassed Roger Maris' record in 1998, we celebrated the moment -- even while arching our eyebrows. When Barry Bonds trumped McGwire three years later, we wondered whether more than mere talent and good fortune were involved. Could the ballplayers of this generation really be that much better than those of yesteryear?


Leaked steroid test results and grand jury testimony validated our concerns. In response to media demands, baseball officials took modest steps to address the problem and hoped the controversy would dissipate. Then Canseco's revelations struck, inspiring a congressional hearing that saw this era's biggest players swearing to tell the truth before the nation.


Now what?


Some critics want to attach asterisks to the achievements of McGwire, Bonds and lesser idols thought to have benefited from performance-enhancing drugs. Cleanse the sport, they say. As a fan who has been savoring the sport for most of his life, I am saddened to see the game I love soiled and shamed. But we should not assign scarlet stars. If we begin footnoting the honors of those who cheated, where will we stop?


Before steroids, many big leaguers of the 1960s and 1970s illegally took amphetamines to "pep up" their performances. Should their records be reconsidered? How about the forbidden spitballs of wet-master Gaylord Perry? They greased his path to Cooperstown.


And given Denny McLain's history, might there not be a question or two about his 31 victories in 1968, a mark no one has since equaled? Closer to my own heart, what about Norm Cash's 1961 batting title? He swung a corked bat that year. But we wink and chuckle at the thought because we loved Stormin' Norman. He kept us smiling through a dozen-plus summers.


Steroids, of course, present a more serious challenge because of the health issues. We should not diminish the use of drugs, but if we truly want to rid baseball of steroids, we can do it by enacting stiff penalties for players who test positive: a yearlong suspension for the first offense and permanent expulsion for the second.


As Barry Bonds closes in on Babe Ruth's magical 714 home runs and then takes aim at all-time champion Hank Aaron's 755, the calls for action will intensify. I would hate for the record of an honest player such as Aaron to be stolen by a cheat. But I would hate more for baseball officials to formally erase the chase.


Baseball fans argue issues tirelessly. Our grandfathers debated whether Ruth was better than Ty Cobb, and we still haven't settled that one -- or, more recently, whether Aaron and Willie Mays eclipsed both of them.


Rid baseball of steroids, but leave it to us to sort the legitimate triumphs from the tainted exploits -- to weigh the significance of the infractions. We can handle it. Confiscating ill-gotten statistical gains would destroy more than it would resolve.


Under oath in the U.S. House on March 17, McGwire practically took the Fifth. He neither denied nor confirmed that he had used steroids, but he grew teary eyed before pledging, "I will use whatever influence and popularity that I have to discourage young athletes from taking any drug ... not recommended by a doctor."


No, we shouldn't strip McGwire or the others of their numbers. But if any of them is actually sincere about delivering a potent message to our youth, he could start by stripping himself of his "achievements."


That would be a truly bold statement with immense and welcome repercussions.


TOM STANTON lives in New Baltimore and is author of "Hank Aaron and the Home Run That Changed America." Write to him in care of the Free Press Editorial Page, 600 W. Fort St., Detroit, MI 48226.




http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/estanton5e_20050405.htm

[Astro]

Just thought I'd bring this article up, been almost a year since I made this topic

[Taco De Muerte]

It's impossible to " erase " statistics in baseball. This isn't the olympics.

Anyway, even if it were possible, I wouldn't condone it, bonds is just as much of a " cheater " as roger hornsby, who admitted to cheating.

"I've cheated, or someone on my team has cheated, in almost every single game I've been in."

http://baseball-almanac.com/quotes/quohorn.shtml

Ridiculous - It seems like the " cheaters " of the modern era are the only ones singled out for this crap. In all honesty It wouldn't bother me at all if bonds passes aaron. It would be one drug user passing another. Big whoop.

[Astro]

It's impossible to " erase " statistics in baseball. This isn't the olympics.

Anyway, even if it were possible, I wouldn't condone it, bonds is just as much of a " cheater " as roger hornsby, who admitted to cheating.

"I've cheated, or someone on my team has cheated, in almost every single game I've been in."

http://baseball-almanac.com/quotes/quohorn.shtml

Ridiculous - It seems like the " cheaters " of the modern era are the only ones singled out for this crap. In all honesty It wouldn't bother me at all if bonds passes aaron. It would be one drug user passing another. Big whoop.
While I agree Aaron probably did cheat, 99.9% of people do (I'd be willing to bet every person on this board has cheated at something atleast once in their life), a great deal of people may want to disagree with you on that

[Taco De Muerte]

While I agree Aaron probably did cheat, 99.9% of people do (I'd be willing to bet every person on this board has cheated at something atleast once in their life), a great deal of people may want to disagree with you on that

I really could care less who disagreees with me. I'm just stating the facts. I'm not here to bash anyone's favorite player, I'm just stating the truth.

Hank aaron took amphetamines, he took it to get an edge over his opponents. Perry threw spitballs, ruth corked ( according to billjames atleast), the list goes on and on.

It's no different than what bonds did, I don't care about the " degree " of it, the intentions for all cheaters are the same, well except cheaters like shoeless joe who choose to throw games for money. That type of cheating is the worst.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Nothing can or should be done about anyone's stats. They have a testing program in place now and it's about time baseball caught to almost all the other major sports, now lets move on.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Hank aaron took amphetamines, he took it to get an edge over his opponents. Perry threw spitballs, ruth corked ( according to billjames atleast), the list goes on and on.
the worst.
I wish Bill James would put up or shut up, he talks with no proof. In 1923 Babe Ruth and Ken Williams used the "Crawford bat" for a few weeks.

On the date that Bill James that umps " caught" Ruth using a corked bat in 1923 there was nothing in the NY.Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, washington Post nothing. Babe Ruth's bat shatters during a game and no paper carries the story the next day, your dreaming Bill.

It was not against the rules, Ruth and Williams were surprised when Ban Johnson told them they could no longer use the bat since there was no rule on it.

Most important, it was not corked, it was laminated. In fact in later seasons laminated bats were not illegal in the game.

[Astro]

I really could care less who disagreees with me. I'm just stating the facts. I'm not here to bash anyone's favorite player, I'm just stating the truth.

Hank aaron took amphetamines, he took it to get an edge over his opponents. Perry threw spitballs, ruth corked ( according to billjames atleast), the list goes on and on.

It's no different than what bonds did, I don't care about the " degree " of it, the intentions for all cheaters are the same, well except cheaters like shoeless joe who choose to throw games for money. That type of cheating is the worst.
I'm still not convinced Joe Jackson fixed games, he had a .375 batting average, threw out five baserunners, and had thirty chances in the outfield with no errors during the 1919 series

While it is bad to fix games, the players were horribly underpayed and I can see why they did what they did

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I wish Bill James would put up or shut up, he talks with no proof. In 1923 Babe Ruth and Ken Williams used the "Crawford bat" for a few weeks.

It was not against the rules, Ruth and Williams were surprised when Ban Johnson told them they could no longer use the bat since there was no rule on it.

Most important, it was not corked, it was laminated. In fact in later seasons laminated bats were not illegal in the game.

:crazy

One at a time Joe, one at a time. Might as well just keep that retort nearby so you can just paste it whenever someone reads Bill James' crap.

As for the article, I agree with it. We can handle judging things for ourselves. We will all make mental notes, and rightly so.

[Astro]

I wish Bill James would put up or shut up, he talks with no proof. In 1923 Babe Ruth and Ken Williams used the "Crawford bat" for a few weeks.

On the date that Bill James that umps " caught" Ruth using a corked bat in 1923 there was nothing in the NY.Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, washington Post nothing. Babe Ruth's bat shatters during a game and no paper carries the story the next day, your dreaming Bill.

It was not against the rules, Ruth and Williams were surprised when Ban Johnson told them they could no longer use the bat since there was no rule on it.

Most important, it was not corked, it was laminated. In fact in later seasons laminated bats were not illegal in the game.
Well... steroids werent against the rules either... but I think we've went over this before

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=Astro]Well... steroids werent against the rules either... but I think we've went over this before[/QUOTE

Yes we did, steroids banned after the 2002 season, before that not against the rules.

[Mariano_Rivera]

[QUOTE=Astro]Well... steroids werent against the rules either... but I think we've went over this before[/QUOTE

Yes we did, steroids banned after the 2002 season, before that not against the rules.

it was banned but was not tested for

[Taco De Muerte]

I'm still not convinced Joe Jackson fixed games,

Jackson took the money, $5,000 to be exact, and quickly spent it.


he had a .375 batting average, threw out five baserunners, and had thirty chances in the outfield with no errors during the 1919 series

Read this - On the other, Jackson hit .250 with one run scored and no RBI in the four thrown games, while batting .500 with four runs and six RBI in the other four. In each of the first two games, both of which were thrown, Jackson allowed a two-out, two-run triple to left field. And even if the evidence that Jackson actually threw the Series is equivocal, the evidence that he was paid to do so is overwhelming.
http://www.businessofbaseball.com/shoelessjoe.htm


While it is bad to fix games, the players were horribly underpayed and I can see why they did what they did

Oh please, that's a cop out excuse apologists use. He did what he did, and deserves the lifetime ban, period.

[ESPNFan]

I really could care less who disagreees with me. I'm just stating the facts. I'm not here to bash anyone's favorite player, I'm just stating the truth.

Hank aaron took amphetamines, he took it to get an edge over his opponents. Perry threw spitballs, ruth corked ( according to billjames atleast), the list goes on and on.

It's no different than what bonds did, I don't care about the " degree " of it, the intentions for all cheaters are the same, well except cheaters like shoeless joe who choose to throw games for money. That type of cheating is the worst.

Aaron, according to his Bio took Amphetamines once because he felt run downand, hated the way It made him feel and never took them again. Taking something once and never taking it again is much different than what Bonds did.
The intentions of all "cheaters" is not the same. I'm willing to bet that most peple took steroids to get more money/bigger contracts. Some people took them because they erroniously believed it would help them with their injuries.
And then there is Barry who took them because (supposedly) he was jelous of McGwire and Sosa.

There are different penalties for amphetamine abuse and Steroids and those penalties are different from those who have corked a bat or scuffed a ball.

You can't just lump everyone who has done something to get an advntage togeather reguardless of the level of their infraction just as a judge couldn't in todays criminal justice system. Its an oversimplification of the problem and basicly a cop out because what Bonds has done in my opinion calls the integrity of the game into question today just as much as the black sox scandal did in the early 20th century.

[Taco De Muerte]

Aaron, according to his Bio took Amphetamines once because he felt run downand, hated the way It made him feel and never took them again. Taking something once and never taking it again is much different than what Bonds did.


I dont care if aaron took it " once ", he took it to get an edge over his opponents, period. No different from what bonds did. Stop making up excuses. That's like condoning tom house's use of anabolic steroids and amphetamines because he didn't " know " what he was doing.



The intentions of all "cheaters" is not the same. I'm willing to bet that most peple took steroids to get more money/bigger contracts. Some people took them because they erroniously believed it would help them with their injuries.
And then there is Barry who took them because (supposedly) he was jelous of McGwire and Sosa.

All of this does nothing but further prove my point. Bonds, a great player, was jealous of two other players getting all the attention, so he felt compelled to use steroids, as I'm sure aaron felt compelled to use greenies because others did it. As I said before, all cheaters have the same intention, which is to somehow " enhance " their game. Whether it's helping yourself recover from injuries, workouts, increasing energy and endurance, making yourself " hit better ", or " pitch better ", the intentions are EXACTLY the same, period.

There are different penalties for amphetamine abuse and Steroids and those penalties are different from those who have corked a bat or scuffed a ball.

That's fantastic.

You can't just lump everyone who has done something to get an advntage togeather reguardless of the level of their infraction just as a judge couldn't in todays criminal justice system. Its an oversimplification of the problem and basicly a cop out because what Bonds has done in my opinion calls the integrity of the game into question today just as much as the black sox scandal did in the early 20th century.

Call it a cop out, an excuse whatever, I could care less. The simple fact is, bonds took steroids to get an edge over his opponents, as did aaron with greenies, cash with corked bats, schmidt with greenies, and well you know the rest.

Whether or not it calls the " integrity " of the game into question is a matter of opinion.

[Elvis]

I dont care if aaron took it " once ", he took it to get an edge over his opponents, period. No different from what bonds did. Stop making up excuses.

That's not quite right. That's like saying by taking a sleeping pill or painkiller once or twice as needed is the same as taking them habitually every day of your life. Or that running a red light once is no different than running every single red light you come across.

[Taco De Muerte]

That's not quite right. That's like saying by taking a sleeping pill or painkiller once or twice as needed is the same as taking them habitually every day of your life. Or that running a red light once is no different than running every single red light you come across.

I see what your trying to say, and I don't agree with it. Hank aaron's intention was to get an edge over his opponents, period, no arguement. Just because he " felt " like he didn't benefit from it that one-time he took it doesn't mean he's not a " cheater ". Basically the same could be said of Gary Sheffield. He claims he took steroids in 2002, didn't like them, and stopped using them. That doesn't excuse him at all, and it shouldn't excuse aaron either.

[ESPNFan]

I dont care if aaron took it " once ", he took it to get an edge over his opponents, period. No different from what bonds did. Stop making up excuses. That's like condoning tom house's use of anabolic steroids and amphetamines because he didn't " know " what he was doing.

Actually it is very different from what Bonds did because he didnt seek out a gymrat and a laboratory to assist/monitor his cheating for the next few years as he continued to use them. Aaron also didnt seek out specific amphetamines because they were undetectable. And most importantly its different because Aaron only took them once. Their intentions were most assuredly not the same and the facts prove it.



All of this does nothing but further prove my point. Bonds, a great player, was jealous of two other players getting all the attention, so he felt compelled to use steroids, as I'm sure aaron felt compelled to use greenies because others did it. As I said before, all cheaters have the same intention, which is to somehow " enhance " their game. Whether it's helping yourself recover from injuries, workouts, increasing energy and endurance, making yourself " hit better ", or " pitch better ", the intentions are EXACTLY the same, period.

Man you just contradicted yourself in your own responce. If one player cheats because he wants to play better and it causes another player to do them because he feels pressure to do them for fear of being left behind then those two players have decidedly different intentions behind enhancing their performance. If the pressure to do steroids never exsisted then many players would probably have never have done them.


That's fantastic.
Yes I agree, facts that leave the person your debating with no recourse aside from condesending sarcasim are fantastic.


Call it a cop out, an excuse whatever, I could care less. The simple fact is, bonds took steroids to get an edge over his opponents, as did aaron with greenies, cash with corked bats, schmidt with greenies, and well you know the rest.

Whether or not it calls the " integrity " of the game into question is a matter of opinion.

I would think that cheating that is so effective and widespread that an Era of baseball is named after it tends to seperate it from corking a bat or taking speed. And if that form of cheating has been allowed to happen at every level of baseball administration as is now being reported, from the minors all the way up to the owners and commisioner himself, then most decidedly the integrity of the game is very much in question.

[Taco De Muerte]

Actually it is very different from what Bonds did because he didnt seek out a gymrat and a laboratory to assist/monitor his cheating for the next few years as he continued to use them. Aaron also didnt seek out specific amphetamines because they were undetectable. And most importantly its different because Aaron only took them once. Their intentions were most assuredly not the same and the facts prove it.

Well, aaron didn't seek out a " gymrat " or a laboratory to " assist/monitor " him because he didn't have that around his time. Steroids were around, and I'm sure used, though nowhere near the amount used in the past decade in all sports.

You'd also be assuming that aaron took greenies only " once ", because he " said so ". Gary Sheffield said he only used the cream and clear once in 2002, and didn't like them, so never used that again. I don't know how many people buy that excuse.

The simple fact is, aaron wasn't taking greenies because it tasted good, he was taking it because he wanted a competitive advantage, period, this is a fact.


Man you just contradicted yourself in your own responce. If one player cheats because he wants to play better and it causes another player to do them because he feels pressure to do them for fear of being left behind then those two players have decidedly different intentions behind enhancing their performance. If the pressure to do steroids never exsisted then many players would probably have never have done them.


Um, who the hell disagreed ?

That's the point of cheating in the first place - you see others doing it, so your compelled to do the samething. Mike schmidt pointed this out in his book " clearing the bases ".




Yes I agree, facts that leave the person your debating with no recourse aside from condesending sarcasim are fantastic.

I wasn't arguing anything about testing, you brought that up for absolutely no reason at all.

Stay focused.






I would think that cheating that is so effective and widespread that an Era of baseball is named after it tends to seperate it from corking a bat or taking speed. And if that form of cheating has been allowed to happen at every level of baseball administration as is now being reported, from the minors all the way up to the owners and commisioner himself, then most decidedly the integrity of the game is very much in question.

Oh this is nice, so because the media and some " fans " label an era the " steroid era " means that all other types of " cheating " is acceptable. First off, it's impossible to pick out an era in baseball as an " amphetamines era ", They've been used since the 20's, as well as pitchers altering the ball to their advantage to cheat the batters. As well as corked bats, etc. It's impossible to label any era the " corked bat era ", " spitball era ", etc. Well then again, many people know the exact truth about the deadball era.

Also, the media, some " fans ", etc would be assuming players in the 90's are the only ones to experiment with the drug - we already know about tom house, I'm sure there are others.

But, we'll never know for sure, so we can't go around accusing people.

[Taco De Muerte]

Pitcher Tom House, when " retracting " his original statement about steroids being rampant during that time, pointed out that amphetamines were rampant during that time.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/sports/20050506/c5retract06.art.htm

So, Aaron pretty much saw a lot of other players doing it, so he decided to join the party. Absolutely no different from barry bonds situation.

[runningshoes]

Comparativley speaking, does anyone know the difference between how many home runs Aaron was hitting when he was "cheating" compared to the rest of league leaders?

I'm curious if there was the same ridiculous spike in numbers compared to Barry's 73.

I assuming it must have been quite huge if there is no difference between Aaron and Bonds.

[Elvis]

I see what your trying to say, and I don't agree with it. Hank aaron's intention was to get an edge over his opponents, period, no arguement. Just because he " felt " like he didn't benefit from it that one-time he took it doesn't mean he's not a " cheater ". Basically the same could be said of Gary Sheffield. He claims he took steroids in 2002, didn't like them, and stopped using them. That doesn't excuse him at all, and it shouldn't excuse aaron either.

If it were proven that Bonds only used PEDs for a couple of months and then quit doing them, I wouldn't think the same way as I do now, [obviously] knowing that he used them regularly over several seasons and willingly tainting the greatest records in the books.

I don't feel that cheating on a history test is equal to cheating a man out of his home, if you see what I mean.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The apologist attitude has got to stop. It sounds just plain retarded at this point. Steroids, especially taken to the level Bonds took them to, are so far above and beyond any other form of cheating it's not even close. When you strip everything down to simpleton terms, sure, cheating is cheating. However, blatantly ignoring the maginitude of steroids by comparing it with greenies and corking, is an unrealistic and agenda driven stance imo.

It's a weak case. The issue now should be about baseball and where we go from here. The "investigation" and what it will uncover, and even if it does uncover things; then what? As fans, we'll have our own mental asterisk regarding this era, but when and if the "investigation" turns up anything, then what. That should be the issue.

I'm not condoning Aaron if he used greenies, although their benefit is nowhere near steroids. If he indeed tried them once and didn't like them, that's a non issue for me, and just proves the point that they're nowhere near the same ballpark as steroids. If somebody "tried" steroids, and worked out the way they allow you to, good luck getting that person to stop once he sees the results.

[runningshoes]

The apologist attitude has got to stop. It sounds just plain retarded at this point. Steroids, especially taken to the level Bonds took them to, are so far above and beyond any other form of cheating it's not even close. When you strip everything down to simpleton terms, sure, cheating is cheating. However, blatantly ignoring the maginitude of steroids by comparing it with greenies and corking, is an unrealistic and agenda driven stance imo.

IMO, as well.

[ESPNFan]

Well, aaron didn't seek out a " gymrat " or a laboratory to " assist/monitor " him because he didn't have that around his time. Steroids were around, and I'm sure used, though nowhere near the amount used in the past decade in all sports.

You'd also be assuming that aaron took greenies only " once ", because he " said so ". Gary Sheffield said he only used the cream and clear once in 2002, and didn't like them, so never used that again. I don't know how many people buy that excuse.

The simple fact is, aaron wasn't taking greenies because it tasted good, he was taking it because he wanted a competitive advantage, period, this is a fact.

Actually I'm believeing Aaron because what he says is consistant with many have said about how amphetamines or stimulants make them feel, including myself. There is also no other evidence to link Aaron to them aside from his own admission, much like Wally Joyner's reguarding steroids. Sheffield is a awful example because not only is there other evidence linking him to steroids his admission was done during a grand jury testimony. Hardly something he voulenteered freely. There is no reason not to believe Aaron other than it suits your agument. And until you can read minds you won't beable to tell us contrary.


Um, who the hell disagreed ?

That's the point of cheating in the first place - you see others doing it, so your compelled to do the samething. Mike schmidt pointed this out in his book " clearing the bases ".


Actually the point of cheating is to gain an advantage over your opposition.

You said: "you see others doing it, so your compelled to do the samething". That sounds like the definition of peer pressure to me.
So your admitting that you were incorrect in stating that "all cheaters have the same intention".

Again thanks for agreeing with me.


I wasn't arguing anything about testing, you brought that up for absolutely no reason at all.

Stay focused.

Please find in my post that you quoted were I mentioned Testing. I specificly mentioned penalties. You had no responce to it other than to be sarcastic and now your simply trying a desperate diversionary tactic. I am focused and again correct.


Oh this is nice, so because the media and some " fans " label an era the " steroid era " means that all other types of " cheating " is acceptable. First off, it's impossible to pick out an era in baseball as an " amphetamines era ", They've been used since the 20's, as well as pitchers altering the ball to their advantage to cheat the batters. As well as corked bats, etc. It's impossible to label any era the " corked bat era ", " spitball era ", etc. Well then again, many people know the exact truth about the deadball era.

Also, the media, some " fans ", etc would be assuming players in the 90's are the only ones to experiment with the drug - we already know about tom house, I'm sure there are others.

But, we'll never know for sure, so we can't go around accusing people.

Again another diversionary tactic. Nowhere did I mention that other forms of cheating were "OK". I simply stated that unlike corking bats, scuffing balls and popping pills, Steroids were known about, allowed, and even encouraged by some in certain orginizations. Dispite the evidence of widespread use the commisioner did nothing until the court of public opinion forced his hand. Baseball was content to look the other way as home runs flew out of the park and money poured in. Can the same be said about corking bats or scuffing balls? Was the league raking in cash because Gaylord Perry pitched with alittle Wessonality? Did Norm Cash's bat corking pack stadiums and reignite national intrest in baseball? If baseball as a sport was unwilling/afraid to take on a widespread and effective form of cheating because it was profiting from its results then yes the integrity of the games most definetly comes into question.

[Taco De Muerte]

If it were proven that Bonds only used PEDs for a couple of months and then quit doing them, I wouldn't think the same way as I do now, [obviously] knowing that he used them regularly over several seasons and willingly tainting the greatest records in the books.

I don't feel that cheating on a history test is equal to cheating a man out of his home, if you see what I mean.

Well, you don't use steroids every day, it's a cycle, certainly not something you inject yourself before every game.

Still, just because aaron claimed he " only " took greenies one day and didn't " like them " is a terrible defense. His intention was to cheat, period. Only an apologist can see otherwise.

[Taco De Muerte]

Actually I'm believeing Aaron because what he says is consistant with many have said about how amphetamines or stimulants make them feel, including myself. There is also no other evidence to link Aaron to them aside from his own admission, much like Wally Joyner's reguarding steroids. Sheffield is a awful example because not only is there other evidence linking him to steroids his admission was done during a grand jury testimony. Hardly something he voulenteered freely. There is no reason not to believe Aaron other than it suits your agument. And until you can read minds you won't beable to tell us contrary

Sheffield wasn't a bad example at all, he said he took steroids, didn't like them, so he stopped using them. It wasn't till the book " games of shadows " came out that we heard about him using other drugs.

Sheffield also told ESPN he used another steroid called “the clear” for two months, the network reported Tuesday. He said it was to aid his recovery from workouts and that he stopped using it because it wasn’t helping.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6183598/

So even if sheffield didn't use steroids after that, he still wanted to cheat, period, as did aaron with greenies.






Actually the point of cheating is to gain an advantage over your opposition.

You said: "you see others doing it, so your compelled to do the samething". That sounds like the definition of peer pressure to me.
So your admitting that you were incorrect in stating that "all cheaters have the same intention".

Again thanks for agreeing with me.

Ok, I admit, I was incorrect. Still, just because someone is doing something doesn't mean you should do it. If someone were to jump off a bridge, would you do it ?

It's no excuse, what bonds did was wrong, what schmidt was wrong, what aaron did was wrong. Using illegal substances to compete is wrong, period. Though very common in sports.



Please find in my post that you quoted were I mentioned Testing. I specificly mentioned penalties. You had no responce to it other than to be sarcastic and now your simply trying a desperate diversionary tactic. I am focused and again correct.


Penalties for steroid testing is what you mentioned, am I correct ?

Why would you even bring that up in the first place, who here is arguing that greenies helps more than steroids ?

Certainly not me.

Again another diversionary tactic. Nowhere did I mention that other forms of cheating were "OK". I simply stated that unlike corking bats, scuffing balls and popping pills, Steroids were known about, allowed, and even encouraged by some in certain orginizations. Dispite the evidence of widespread use the commisioner did nothing until the court of public opinion forced his hand. Baseball was content to look the other way as home runs flew out of the park and money poured in. Can the same be said about corking bats or scuffing balls? Was the league raking in cash because Gaylord Perry pitched with alittle Wessonality? Did Norm Cash's bat corking pack stadiums and reignite national intrest in baseball? If baseball as a sport was unwilling/afraid to take on a widespread and effective form of cheating because it was profiting from its results then yes the integrity of the games most definetly comes into question.

This is a terrible arguement. First off, As I said before, it's impossible to label any era " an amphetamines era ", " corked bat era " or a " spitball era " because they've been used in baseball for years, period. And corked bats are still used a lot today.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/rozner.asp?id=168644

Also, it's quite possible that MLB ignored it's amphetamines problem, given the fact that they didn't ban it till 2006, despite the fact that they found red juice in willie mays locker, aaron admitted to taking greenies, and gwynn and chad curtis said the majority of the majorleaguers used the drug.

So your weak " they benefitted from steroids " arguement doesn't really work, because the same could and should be said about amphetamines.

[Taco De Muerte]

IMO, as well.

Well, if that's going to make you feel better, so be it.

Call me an apologist, a " bonds backer " whatever, I could care less, I know it isn't true.

What I do know is true is that aaron took drugs to get an edge over his opponents, as did bonds.

These are FACTS, not opinions.

[runningshoes]

I don't think you come across as an apologist. I haven't seen you say what Bonds did is acceptable.

I just can't equate what Aaron did with what Bonds did; I don't put the two on the same level. It's not even close for me.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

And corked bats are still used a lot today.
http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/rozner.asp?id=168644


If players are corking their bats in large numbers, that's a scary thought. Just imagine how many more homeruns would be hit if they didn't cork their bats ! It doesn't help with power, in fact, it hurts.

Even if these players today thought that it helped hit the ball further (which it doesn't), why would they risk a broken bat discovery of their cheating, when the game is already so offensively geared in every way imaginable. Talk about being greedy upon greedy. Hell, MLB is basically handing middle infielders a 15 homer handicap with how the game is, and then they'd want to go and cork? Hopefully they're wise enough to know it doesn't help, and it's not going on like Turk Wendell says. As if he's an authority on the matter.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=Taco De Muerte]



Again it was only a matter of time. Suppose they baseball did nothing, say they took this action, say they started testing ten years from now. Do you know what we would then hear. How come they did nothing years ago when Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield and others were admitted and alledged steroid users. Why now in the year 2016, what about all the rule breaking in the 1990s.

Get the point, it's here now lets live with it. It's here.

[ESPNFan]

Sheffield wasn't a bad example at all, he said he took steroids, didn't like them, so he stopped using them. It wasn't till the book " games of shadows " came out that we heard about him using other drugs.

Sheffield also told ESPN he used another steroid called “the clear” for two months, the network reported Tuesday. He said it was to aid his recovery from workouts and that he stopped using it because it wasn’t helping.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6183598/

So even if sheffield didn't use steroids after that, he still wanted to cheat, period, as did aaron with greenies.


Actually Sheffield is a bad example and you just list the two reasons. First, more evidence has come out about him using them. Aaron to anyone elses knowladge still only did them once. Second, Aaron reasons for not likeing what amphetamines do for you are consistant with the effects of the drug. They make your heart race your bloodpressure high and your resperation increase. Why did Sheffield not like them? They didn't work. Hmmmm if they didn't work then Gary must have wanted some Tofu and a refund from BALCO right? That MUST have been the reason why Greg Anderson had to make a delivery to Sheffield to help him with his slump right?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/06/SPGCCI4CM11.DTL

:laugh

Ok, I admit, I was incorrect. Still, just because someone is doing something doesn't mean you should do it. If someone were to jump off a bridge, would you do it ?

It's no excuse, what bonds did was wrong, what schmidt was wrong, what aaron did was wrong. Using illegal substances to compete is wrong, period. Though very common in sports.

I'm glad you admit your wrong to over generalize. You should stick to this new leaf you have turned over when your looking at the different reasons why people take the drugs they do. Not all of them are trying to "cheat". There will be plenty of ballplayers this year that are taking stimulants other than amphetamines to work their way through a 162 game season. Not because they are looking to cheat or gain an edge but because they want to counteract what a long difficult season takes out of them. And in the long run these players will be better of as science shows us that prolonged amphetamine use degrades ability, while increasing dependence on them.

Penalties for steroid testing is what you mentioned, am I correct ?

Why would you even bring that up in the first place, who here is arguing that greenies helps more than steroids ?

Certainly not me.

Again your trying to misdirect what the point of my original statement was. I listed steroid and amphetamines as well as corked bats to scuffed balls so unless there is new regimented testing for those infractions, anyone not trying desperately to divert the argument in a last ditch effort to save face would know I'm not talking about testing. I was making a point that your "cheating is cheating" argument is flawed to the core. There are different penalties for all infractions, and different penalties for players depending on their history of breaking MLB law just like there are in the criminal justice system. The 50 game penalty for Steroids and the 7-10 games that bat corkers get shows that in the eyes of MLB all cheating is not the same. And we wont even get into the effectiveness of each because its not even debatable.



This is a terrible arguement. First off, As I said before, it's impossible to label any era " an amphetamines era ", " corked bat era " or a " spitball era " because they've been used in baseball for years, period. And corked bats are still used a lot today.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/rozner.asp?id=168644

Also, it's quite possible that MLB ignored it's amphetamines problem, given the fact that they didn't ban it till 2006, despite the fact that they found red juice in willie mays locker, aaron admitted to taking greenies, and gwynn and chad curtis said the majority of the majorleaguers used the drug.

So your weak " they benefitted from steroids " arguement doesn't really work, because the same could and should be said about amphetamines.

Actually to anyone not trying to lump all cheating togeather reguardless of impact an effectiveness would find my argument quite valid. As you clearly point out Amphetamines and corking and scuffing balls has been done for a long time. Steroids, with the obvious Tom House exception (A publicity stunt in my opinion), have been a recent "inovation" in cheating in respect to baseball and their impact is undeniable. The fact is that effectiveness of Anabolic Steroids in baseball is the only reason why amphetamines came to be banned. If Steroids never became a problem baseball would still have "greenies" as its little secret helper.

[Taco De Muerte]

Actually Sheffield is a bad example and you just list the two reasons. First, more evidence has come out about him using them. Aaron to anyone elses knowladge still only did them once. Second, Aaron reasons for not likeing what amphetamines do for you are consistant with the effects of the drug. They make your heart race your bloodpressure high and your resperation increase. Why did Sheffield not like them? They didn't work. Hmmmm if they didn't work then Gary must have wanted some Tofu and a refund from BALCO right? That MUST have been the reason why Greg Anderson had to make a delivery to Sheffield to help him with his slump right?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/06/SPGCCI4CM11.DTL
:laugh ]

Let me start by saying, this is the last post I'm going to make in this thread. You're obviously in denial - and nothing I say will ever change your mind.

THE fact of the matter is, aaron took greenies to get an edge over his opponents. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact. Whether or not he took them more than once is another arguement, though I don't buy that he " only " tried it once. As for the sheffield article you posted, It's probably true, but certainly not a fact. Conte claims that book is full of " outright lies " and supposedly plans to prove it in the future. So we'll have to wait and see.



I'm glad you admit your wrong to over generalize. You should stick to this new leaf you have turned over when your looking at the different reasons why people take the drugs they do. Not all of them are trying to "cheat". There will be plenty of ballplayers this year that are taking stimulants other than amphetamines to work their way through a 162 game season. Not because they are looking to cheat or gain an edge but because they want to counteract what a long difficult season takes out of them. And in the long run these players will be better of as science shows us that prolonged amphetamine use degrades ability, while increasing dependence on them.]

I have absolutely no problem admitting when I'm wrong, and the only thing I was " wrong " about is cheaters have the EXACT same intentions. But most " cheaters " intentions is to get an edge over his opponents, period, this is fact. You feel pressured to do so because your opponents are, that's why tom house did it, that's why schmidt and aaron did it, that's why bonds did It. There's absolutely NO difference at all.

Also, I don't know what was the point of your amphetamines post, I don't think anybody has ever said they help more than steroids. But they do help, period. Athletes wouldn't use them if they didn't help.

CHAD CURTIS: When I was talkin' steroids back in 2000, I talked to a player and said, "Would you be in favor of steroid testing?" He said, "Well, I'm gonna be honest with ya, Chad. I would love to see steroids out of the game. But as soon as they start testing for steroids, that opens the door to drug testing." He said, "I cannot go out on that field without my greenie. I can't do it. I'm at the stage in my career where physically I cannot go out there without my greenie. And that's one player sayin' that: there's a lot of players that feel that way. TONY GWYNN: At the time I retired it was rampant.
http://www.hbo.com/costasnow/episode/episode.01.story.html


This right there about sums it up.

Again your trying to misdirect what the point of my original statement was. I listed steroid and amphetamines as well as corked bats to scuffed balls so unless there is new regimented testing for those infractions, anyone not trying desperately to divert the argument in a last ditch effort to save face would know I'm not talking about testing. I was making a point that your "cheating is cheating" argument is flawed to the core. There are different penalties for all infractions, and different penalties for players depending on their history of breaking MLB law just like there are in the criminal justice system. The 50 game penalty for Steroids and the 7-10 games that bat corkers get shows that in the eyes of MLB all cheating is not the same. And we wont even get into the effectiveness of each because its not even debatable.

I'm not trying to " misdirect " anything, you brought up testing, which has absolutely no relevance to this arguement. Ofcourse there's going to be harshier penalties for steroids than corked bats, jesus christ, steroids can kill. This is a fact. Which benefits a player more ? - Well I think it's pretty obvious that it's steroids, though corkedbats surely do help. Norm cash and his .361 BA in 1961 could tell you that. Also, a corked bat is a MUCH easier way to cheat - takes no work at all. Steroids may be a better way to " cheat " - but actually takes work to reap from it's benefits. And in the longrun really isn't worth it - Experts have said it's negative sideffects outweigh any benefit it provides.



Actually to anyone not trying to lump all cheating togeather reguardless of impact an effectiveness would find my argument quite valid. As you clearly point out Amphetamines and corking and scuffing balls has been done for a long time. Steroids, with the obvious Tom House exception (A publicity stunt in my opinion), have been a recent "inovation" in cheating in respect to baseball and their impact is undeniable. The fact is that effectiveness of Anabolic Steroids in baseball is the only reason why amphetamines came to be banned. If Steroids never became a problem baseball would still have "greenies" as its little secret helper.

Lumping all cheating together is very reasonable actually - it's cheating, period. Just because some players today found a " better way " to cheat compared to players of the old-days means squat. The players of the old days cheated anyway they could, if they had steroids available to them, I'm sure many would of sampled it. Mike schmidt is one of them. As for house being a " publicity stunt ", yeah whatever, the fact of the matter is he admitted to taking steroids and amphetamines, period. This is a fact, end of story. There's absolutely no way to refute this.

Anyway, As I said before - I'm done with this arguement. You are in complete and utter denial. Trying to pass off a ridiculous piece of **** arguement like " Oh yeah well today's players cheated better! " is probably the most ridiculous, and asinine thing I have ever heard from an apologist.

Pathetic.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=Taco De Muerte]



Again it was only a matter of time. Suppose they baseball did nothing, say they took this action, say they started testing ten years from now. Do you know what we would then hear. How come they did nothing years ago when Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield and others were admitted and alledged steroid users. Why now in the year 2016, what about all the rule breaking in the 1990s.

Get the point, it's here now lets live with it. It's here.

Others may not agree, I think the above is worth repeating, it's here, it's no surprise, the testing should have begun long ago. And no matter what year it began we would be complaining about past rule breaking.

[ESPNFan]

Let me start by saying, this is the last post I'm going to make in this thread.

:)


I have absolutely no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

Your rambling, directionless, diversionary arguments would contradict that statement.

I'm not trying to " misdirect " anything, you brought up testing, which has absolutely no relevance to this arguement.

Again I never brought up testing. And around and round we go.....

Anyway, As I said before - I'm done with this arguement. You are in complete and utter denial. Trying to pass off a ridiculous piece of **** arguement like " Oh yeah well today's players cheated better! " is probably the most ridiculous, and asinine thing I have ever heard from an apologist.

"ridiculous piece of ****"

Way to raise the bar....


Pathetic.
Well something is....

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Greenies are generally used to get back up to 100%, or something that makes them feel closer to 100% than they should be feeling. Is it a form of cheating, sure. Nowhere near steroids though. In so many ways it's different.

Not everyone who takes greenies benefit. You can't say the same for steroids. If you take them, they allow you to workout longer and harder. If you do this, you ALWAYS get stronger. It permanently alters your body and the chemicals it produces. It won't turn everyone into Barry Bonds, but if it'll keep a fringe guy up in the bigs, it's doin' it's job.

I think it's funny how the word "greenie" wasn't used on here until all this steroid stuff came out. It was reached for as a means to apoligize for the steroid use. Different level. If Bonds had started with greenies in '98, we wouldn't be talking about 714 or 755 being in jeapardy.

[VTSoxFan]

Taco and ESPN:

Tone it down. If you must attack, attack the post, not the poster, and please leave the profanity out of it. You're both intelligent and articulate enough to know that making it personal only lowers the level of discourse. Present your theses and back them up, but don't attack each other.

Thank you.

[ESPNFan]

Greenies are generally used to get back up to 100%, or something that makes them feel closer to 100% than they should be feeling. Is it a form of cheating, sure. Nowhere near steroids though. In so many ways it's different.

Not everyone who takes greenies benefit. You can't say the same for steroids. If you take them, they allow you to workout longer and harder. If you do this, you ALWAYS get stronger. It permanently alters your body and the chemicals it produces. It won't turn everyone into Barry Bonds, but if it'll keep a fringe guy up in the bigs, it's doin' it's job.

I think it's funny how the word "greenie" wasn't used on here until all this steroid stuff came out. It was reached for as a means to apoligize for the steroid use. Different level. If Bonds had started with greenies in '98, we wouldn't be talking about 714 or 755 being in jeapardy.

Not only that Sultan but the amphetamines, ball scuffing, spitballs, bat corking issues were just interesting little anecdotes in baseball history before the Steroid issue gained notice. And I'll go even further to say that it wasn't until names began to be associated with Steroids that the names of baseballs past rulebreakers were dug up as evidence that all cheating is the same and that its nothing new. Speculation reguarding amphetamines is just as much of a "Witch Hunt" as the one concerning today's players and Steroids, and considering players across both time frames were using speed in high percentages I don't see the point of it.

[Astro]

cheating is cheating... if you didnt let/took out anyone in the HoF that cheated... you'd have probably 1 or 2 players