Negative Nancys: Bonds is top five

[G.Costanza]

It seems most of what I read on here about Bonds is negative, not only that but even the commets that attempt to be fair are squed and dignify the campaign to take away from his achievement by legitamizing aligations against him by even considering them as possible. All i know is he is , if not the best, he is the second best player I have ever seen, easily, and also Jeremy Giambi did steroids, from the same supplier as Barry................howd that work out???? I think in history the cloud of steroid doubt will dissapear and be remembered as a footnote.

[Brian McKenna]

What are you saying?? Spell-checker is a wonderful thing so is a little respect for grammar.

Steroids is going to define this era - not be forgotten! We are just beginning to understand the depth of their use.

It's official - let's just re-name the Current Events forum after Bonds.

[Old Sweater]

What are you saying?? Spell-checker is a wonderful thing so is a little respect for grammar.




Don't even think about using spell check!!!!!!!!

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too. Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the human mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the f rsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses
and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it.

[-Kyle-]

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too. Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the human mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the f rsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses
and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it.

Whoa. Cool. :nod:

[ssbguyincognito]

I think people forget a lot of major points regarding Bonds and steroids:

1. Baseball did not rule out steroid use until 2002. Furthermore, they didn't start testing until 2004. So why is anybody surprised Bonds used steroids? Besides, anything he used before 2002 doesn't matter; it cna't be considered cheating, because there was no rule in baseball against it at the time.
Basically, the onle thing you can get bonds on is using a drug without a prescrption. Whic his hardly cheating at baseball.

2. Bud Selig is far mroe culpable than an y player that ever juiced. In 1995, Randy Smith (then GM of the padres) went to Selig and told him that 30% of major leagues were on steroids. Selig ignored him, because they wanted to make money.

[mwb]

Bud Selig is far mroe culpable than an y player that ever juiced. In 1995, Randy Smith (then GM of the padres) went to Selig and told him that 30% of major leagues were on steroids. Selig ignored him, because they wanted to make money.

After hearing that baseball is setting attendance records, it would be nice if MLB would spend some of that money to come up with state of the art testing. Of course they probably won't because that will cost money. If they're not careful, they'll lose everything because of their greed. They'll lose the trust of fans then won't have money.

[SamtheBravesFan]

After hearing that baseball is setting attendance records, it would be nice if MLB would spend some of that money to come up with state of the art testing. Of course they probably won't because that will cost money. If they're not careful, they'll lose everything because of their greed. They'll lose the trust of fans then won't have money.

Then the fans have to stay away completely, and that includes in merchandising and television. That is the only way that baseball is going to take a hit.

[YankeeDJW]

1. Baseball did not rule out steroid use until 2002. Furthermore, they didn't start testing until 2004. So why is anybody surprised Bonds used steroids? Besides, anything he used before 2002 doesn't matter; it cna't be considered cheating, because there was no rule in baseball against it at the time.
Basically, the onle thing you can get bonds on is using a drug without a prescrption. Whic his hardly cheating at baseball.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't steroids against the law anyway? Unless you're an idiot, you would have to assume that using an illegal drug could possibly be against the rules.

[Williamsburg2599]

I think people forget a lot of major points regarding Bonds and steroids:

1. Baseball did not rule out steroid use until 2002. Furthermore, they didn't start testing until 2004. So why is anybody surprised Bonds used steroids? Besides, anything he used before 2002 doesn't matter; it cna't be considered cheating, because there was no rule in baseball against it at the time.
Basically, the onle thing you can get bonds on is using a drug without a prescrption. Whic his hardly cheating at baseball.

2. Bud Selig is far mroe culpable than an y player that ever juiced. In 1995, Randy Smith (then GM of the padres) went to Selig and told him that 30% of major leagues were on steroids. Selig ignored him, because they wanted to make money.

1.2002? Try 1991:
Commissioner Fay Vincent sent the clubs a memo in 1991 reminding them that players were forbidden from taking any illegal substance. He specifically mention steroids in the memo and encouraged the clubs to take a get-tough policy on players thought to be using steroids
Source (http://blogs.chron.com/sportsjustice/archives/2006/03/on_books_bonds.html)
.

2.Obviously Selig deserves some blame, but the bottom line is the Players were the ones talking illegal substances.

[Williamsburg2599]

It seems most of what I read on here about Bonds is negative, not only that but even the commets that attempt to be fair are squed and dignify the campaign to take away from his achievement by legitamizing aligations against him by even considering them as possible. All i know is he is , if not the best, he is the second best player I have ever seen, easily, and also Jeremy Giambi did steroids, from the same supplier as Barry................howd that work out???? I think in history the cloud of steroid doubt will dissapear and be remembered as a footnote.

Obviously Bonds was a better player before they both did steroids. I'll put this way, let's say Bonds is a 9 out of 10 and Jeremy (and I've heard accusations about Jason, but never his brother) is a 4. Let's say steroids is a +4 boost.

Bonds: 9+4=13

Jeremy:4+4=8

Get it?

[Robin Yount]

Amen GC, great post. Don't listen to morons telling you to use a spell checker. I don't know anyone who uses one to post in a forum. Nice cheap shots at the OP for pointing out a fact about Barry Bonds. Gooooooooooooooooooooooooo Bondser

[Williamsburg2599]

Amen GC, great post. Don't listen to morons telling you to use a spell checker. I don't know anyone who uses one to post in a forum. Nice cheap shots at the OP for pointing out a fact about Barry Bonds. Gooooooooooooooooooooooooo Bondser

How many people do you know that post in a forum? Have you asked them if they use spell check?:think:

[west coast orange and black]

williamsburg2599: ...I've heard accusations about Jason, but never his brother

quite a shocker from one who has put so much weight and emphasis on the leaked grand jury papers.

according to same, jeremy giambi testified that he:
used steroids in cream form
used steroids in liquid form
injected hgh
injected testosterone

[Williamsburg2599]

williamsburg2599: ...I've heard accusations about Jason, but never his brother

quite a shocker from one who has put so much weight and emphasis on the leaked grand jury papers.

according to same, Jeremy Giambi testified that he:
used steroids in cream form
used steroids in liquid form
injected HGH
injected testosterone

Thanks WCOAB. I'd just never heard his name before in any articles about the leaks. The point he was trying to make is moot though. Just because steroids helped player A and didn't help Player B, it doesn't mean that either of them have done something more immoral or illegal then the other.

[ssbguyincognito]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't steroids against the law anyway? Unless you're an idiot, you would have to assume that using an illegal drug could possibly be against the rules.

No. Using steroids without a prescrption is against th elaw (as is using any prespcripton drug without a prescrption). Streoids are by no means illegal -- in fact they're very versatile and useful drugs, used to treat immune disorders, muscle disorders, among other things.

By the way, Bonds breaking the law by using a drug without a prescrptioin is NOT the same thing as Bonds cheating at baseball. If that were true, then anyone who ever used amphetamines in baseball -- which, I guarantee you, everyone has, including Hank Aaron -- technically cheated just like Bonds did.

If baseball isn't going to rule out streoids -- like every other sport did well before -- then are you honestly suprised when people use it?

And yes, memo or not, steroid use wasn't prohibitede in baseball until the 2002 collective bargaining agreement, and wasn't tested until the 2004 season.

[west coast orange and black]

1. how can steroids define this era? is it not known as "the steroid era"?

2. bb-f can not afford the fee to use bonds' name for forum re-naming purposes.

3. i have not ever used spellcheck in my life.

[west coast orange and black]

williamsburg2599: Thanks .... Just because steroids helped player A and didn't help Player B...

yer welcome and, agreed.

[Williamsburg2599]

No. Using steroids without a prescrption is against th elaw (as is using any prespcripton drug without a prescrption). Streoids are by no means illegal -- in fact they're very versatile and useful drugs, used to treat immune disorders, muscle disorders, among other things.

By the way, Bonds breaking the law by using a drug without a prescrptioin is NOT the same thing as Bonds cheating at baseball. If that were true, then anyone who ever used amphetamines in baseball -- which, I guarantee you, everyone has, including Hank Aaron -- technically cheated just like Bonds did.

If baseball isn't going to rule out streoids -- like every other sport did well before -- then are you honestly suprised when people use it?

And yes, memo or not, steroid use wasn't prohibitede in baseball until the 2002 collective bargaining agreement, and wasn't tested until the 2004 season.

1.Can a doctor legally give a patient steroids to bulk up and not for a health related reason?

2. Everyone who's played baseball has used PEDs? :crazy

3.Can you explain to me how a memo that bans steroids is not somehow prohibiting it? Webster's defines forbidden as excluded from use or mention.

[ssbguyincognito]

1.Can a doctor legally give a patient steroids to bulk up and not for a health related reason?

No doctor can prescribe any drug for a non-health related reason. I beleve your question is, can a doctor prescribe steroids for cosmetic purposes and not elective ones -- as in, if the patient is perfectly healty and just wants to get stronger? In this case, no. I guess he could do it -- no one watches everything -- but if he does it repeatedly to different patients, he'll get caught. Of course, no-one is truly "perfectly healthy", so the doctor and patient can always fabricate something, as long as they're both in on it.

If Bonds did use steroids before 2002 (which everyone knows he did), then he did break the law. But, that' snot the same thing as cheating on baseball.

2. Everyone who's played baseball has used PEDs?
Yeah, amphetamine use is ubiqutious in baseball and has been since the 60s. If Bonds was only under suspicison for amphetamine use, then nobody would care. Althuogh technically that would be just as bad as using steroids, because MLB didnt prohibit either until 2002, so he would just be breaking the law by using amphetamines without a prescrption.


3.Can you explain to me how a memo that bans steroids is not somehow prohibiting it? Webster's defines forbidden as excluded from use or mention.
It doesn't matter. The commissioner can write all the memos he wants. The players of MLB only have to follow the rules outlined in the collective bargaining agreement, which has been negotiated and agreed on by MLB and the Player's Union. If steroid use isn't prohibited in the CBA, then the memo means nothing.

Also, I'd like to point out that the alleged memo was in 1991, when Fay Vincent was the commissioner. The man most culpable for hte steroid era is his replacement, Bud Selig, who did absolutely nothing to discourage steroid use and turned a blind eye to it, until it got so rampant, to the point where Congress was going to come in and fix it if he didn't.

[west coast orange and black]

ssbguyincognito: The players of MLB only have to follow the rules outlined in the collective bargaining agreement, which has been negotiated and agreed on by MLB and the Player's Union.

bingo-bango.

[digglahhh]

How many freaking times do we have to go over the illegal in the U.S. not illegal in baseball objection. It is a paper tiger!

Yes, steroids are illegal in the U.S.

Murder is illegal in the United States.

Steroids were not explicitly prohibited by MLB.

Murder is not explicitly prohibited by MLB.

If a player murders somebody, who prosecutes him? Not MLB!

If the appropriate authorities wanted to arrest Bonds for drug possession, then they could have done so if they had sufficient evidence. The furthest you could take the illegal in the U.S. argument is that, assuming MLB knew for sure that Bonds was using illegal substances, they had a responsibility to report him to the appropriate authorities.

[west coast orange and black]

digglahhh: If a player murders somebody, who prosecutes him? Not MLB!

bingo-bango (2)

[G.Costanza]

Obviously Bonds was a better player before they both did steroids. I'll put this way, let's say Bonds is a 9 out of 10 and Jeremy (and I've heard accusations about Jason, but never his brother) is a 4. Let's say steroids is a +4 boost.

Bonds: 9+4=13

Jeremy:4+4=8

Get it?

Theres the problem with your math(although i get it in theory). You have Jeremy Giambi after steroids rating only one shy of Bonds' pre roids rating........obsurd, we all know Bonds was a future hofamer before, wheres Jeremy's MVP's,

[LouGehrig]

Don't even think about using spell check!!!!!!!!

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too. Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the human mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the f rsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses
and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it.

This was excellent. You have exposed humanity's real abilities.

If you can read THIS, you have a strange mind. Can YOU read THIS? Only 55 (I reversed the digits) people out of 100 can.

I cannot believe that I could actually understand what I was reading. The phenomenal power of the human mind, according to research at Cambridge University, it doesn't matter in what order the letters in a word are, the only important thing is that the first and the last letter be in the right place. The rest can be a total mess and you can still read it without a problem. This is because the human mind does not read every letter by itself, but the word as a whole. Amazing, huh? Yeah, and I always thought spelling was important. If you can read this, forward it.

[Old Sweater]

This was excellent. You have exposed humanity's real abilities.


It was just a chain letter from a email I threw out there for the self righteous grammar patrol.

[Dodgerfan1]

Amen GC, great post. Don't listen to morons telling you to use a spell checker. I don't know anyone who uses one to post in a forum. Nice cheap shots at the OP for pointing out a fact about Barry Bonds. Gooooooooooooooooooooooooo Bondser

Exactly. Who cares if half the people who tried to read GC's post moved on because they weren't wearing their Captain America decoder rings and couldn't decipher it? Why bother to use proper grammar when other 7-year olds don't? We all have the time to re-read posts over and over in order to understand it, don't we? It's nice to see there's a movement out there to bring back sanscrit as a legitimate form of writing.

[digglahhh]

We don't have to be anal about it and point out every grammatical mistake other posters make, but if your posts show a complete lack of regard for coherence and readability, people are going to make judgments about your intellect - that's the reality of it.

So, nobody's asking you to be Strunk and White, but if you want other people to read what you are writing, show them the respect of making at least a cursory effort to ensure that their time is not wasted.

[Barry(US)Bonds]

I think Bill James put it best...

"I'm not cheering for Bonds, but then, I didn't much like (Henry) Aaron, either. I look at it this way. There's a rule in basketball against traveling but the NBA has pretty much stopped enforcing it. Well, they still call traveling but they will allow you to take about five steps without dribbling as you are running toward the basket. There was no "decision" not to enforce this rule; they just kind of lost track of it. They started not calling one step and progressed to not calling two steps, not calling three steps, and eventually they just kind of lost track of the rule. Should the players who took advantage of this failure to enforce the rule be banned from the NBA Hall of Fame? After all, aren't they cheating? They're not obeying the rules. Julius Erving, out. The Hall of Fame doesn't need cheaters like you. Kobe, Michael, get out. If you don't play by the rules the way Elgin Baylor did, you're not deserving.

Or it is, rather, the responsibility of the LEAGUE to enforce the rule? It seems to me that it might be the responsibility of the league to enforce the rule rather than the responsibility of the media to punish those who didn't obey the rule that wasn't being enforced. I won't name any players, but there are a whole bunch of superstars who are now or are going to be involved in the PED accusations. We CAN'T start picking and choosing who we honor on that basis. It's hypocritical, and it's impractical. And it diminishes the game.

Bonds has hit more home runs than anybody else, or will have in a few weeks. That's kind of the end of the story as far as I'm concerned."

[Williamsburg2599]

I think Bill James put it best...

"I'm not cheering for Bonds, but then, I didn't much like (Henry) Aaron, either. I look at it this way. There's a rule in basketball against traveling but the NBA has pretty much stopped enforcing it. Well, they still call traveling but they will allow you to take about five steps without dribbling as you are running toward the basket. There was no "decision" not to enforce this rule; they just kind of lost track of it. They started not calling one step and progressed to not calling two steps, not calling three steps, and eventually they just kind of lost track of the rule. Should the players who took advantage of this failure to enforce the rule be banned from the NBA Hall of Fame? After all, aren't they cheating? They're not obeying the rules. Julius Erving, out. The Hall of Fame doesn't need cheaters like you. Kobe, Michael, get out. If you don't play by the rules the way Elgin Baylor did, you're not deserving.

Or it is, rather, the responsibility of the LEAGUE to enforce the rule? It seems to me that it might be the responsibility of the league to enforce the rule rather than the responsibility of the media to punish those who didn't obey the rule that wasn't being enforced. I won't name any players, but there are a whole bunch of superstars who are now or are going to be involved in the PED accusations. We CAN'T start picking and choosing who we honor on that basis. It's hypocritical, and it's impractical. And it diminishes the game.

Bonds has hit more home runs than anybody else, or will have in a few weeks. That's kind of the end of the story as far as I'm concerned."

I usually agree with Bill, but comparing traveling to Steroid use? :crazy And what's he got against Hank? Plus, Steroids are something that everyone wasn't using, it be like allowing a random few to travel constantly while not allowing others to.

[Williamsburg2599]

Theres the problem with your math(although i get it in theory). You have Jeremy Giambi after steroids rating only one shy of Bonds' pre roids rating........obsurd, we all know Bonds was a future hofamer before, wheres Jeremy's MVP's,

I was just making a quick example, and I think a lot of people would pick Bonds w/o PEDs over Jeremy on PEDs, but that's a discussion for a different thread.

[Williamsburg2599]

No doctor can prescribe any drug for a non-health related reason. I beleve your question is, can a doctor prescribe steroids for cosmetic purposes and not elective ones -- as in, if the patient is perfectly healty and just wants to get stronger? In this case, no. I guess he could do it -- no one watches everything -- but if he does it repeatedly to different patients, he'll get caught. Of course, no-one is truly "perfectly healthy", so the doctor and patient can always fabricate something, as long as they're both in on it.

If Bonds did use steroids before 2002 (which everyone knows he did), then he did break the law. But, that' snot the same thing as cheating on baseball.
How can someone doing something Illegal be allowed to play? Are they letting Vick to play in the NFL? It's like saying theft or Murder aren't against league rules.



Yeah, amphetamine use is ubiqutious in baseball and has been since the 60s. If Bonds was only under suspicison for amphetamine use, then nobody would care. Althuogh technically that would be just as bad as using steroids, because MLB didnt prohibit either until 2002, so he would just be breaking the law by using amphetamines without a prescrption.

You do know baseball was "created" in 1845, right? Was Alexander Cartwright on PEDs?

It doesn't matter. The commissioner can write all the memos he wants. The players of MLB only have to follow the rules outlined in the collective bargaining agreement, which has been negotiated and agreed on by MLB and the Player's Union. If steroid use isn't prohibited in the CBA, then the memo means nothing.

Also, I'd like to point out that the alleged memo was in 1991, when Fay Vincent was the commissioner. The man most culpable for hte steroid era is his replacement, Bud Selig, who did absolutely nothing to discourage steroid use and turned a blind eye to it, until it got so rampant, to the point where Congress was going to come in and fix it if he didn't.

I'm no expert on the legal side of the MLB, so I don't think I can comment on the first paragraph, but as I've said before, the bottom line is the players were the ones using.

[Dodgerfan1]

I usually agree with Bill, but comparing traveling to Steroid use? :crazy And what's he got against Hank? Plus, Steroids are something that everyone wasn't using, it be like allowing a random few to travel constantly while not allowing others to.

That was my first reaction, too. Comparing traveling in basketball to steroid use is nonsensical. That post meant nothing to me, because it was almost completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I understand the concept, but the premise is flawed. It amazes me how the undeniable fact that steroid use is illegal (read: against the law. Can lead to jail time...) escapes this debate so frequently. Traveling?? Please....

[digglahhh]

............

[Skin & Bones]

That was my first reaction, too. Comparing traveling in basketball to steroid use is nonsensical. That post meant nothing to me, because it was almost completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I understand the concept, but the premise is flawed. It amazes me how the undeniable fact that steroid use is illegal (read: against the law. Can lead to jail time...) escapes this debate so frequently. Traveling?? Please....

Amphetamines are illegal too.

[Barry(US)Bonds]

comparing traveling to Steroid use?

I think you've missed the point...James isn't trying to compare the two in terms of their impact on the game...his point is that in both cases it is stupid to single someone out for not following the rules when the rules aren't enforced. No one knows to what extent other players have used steroids in baseball, and many believe that steroids would have served an even greater benefit to pitchers than to hitters...why endlessly cry about the "integrity of the game" when the simple fact is that things change over time.

Are they letting Vick to play in the NFL? It's like saying theft or Murder aren't against league rules.


Guess what...if bonds was being brought up on charges by the government for steroid use we wouldn't even be debating this...Vick was indicted

[Dodgerfan1]

Amphetamines are illegal too.

Yes, they are. If any other drugs are used to enhance performance, nail those guys too!

[digglahhh]

It amazes me how the undeniable fact that steroid use is illegal (read: against the law. Can lead to jail time...) escapes this debate so frequently. Traveling?? Please....

It is amazing how the undeniable fact that MLB has no authority to enforce federal laws escapes this debate so quickly.

Barry Bonds has not been arrested, he has not been indicted. Baseball does not have the jurisdiction to prosecute him for drug crimes.

What is so hard to understand about this. Would you automatically be fired from your job if somebody suspected you broke any law, even if you have never been arrested for it. Oops, I heard Joe got into a fight outside a bar this weekend, that's assault - there goes his job!...

[digglahhh]

Yes, they are. If any other drugs are used to enhance performance, nail those guys too!

So Hank Aaron should have been arrested for admitting in his autobiography that he once tried a greenie?

Is that your stance?

[Dodgerfan1]

It is amazing how the undeniable fact that MLB has no authority to enforce federal laws escapes this debate so quickly.

Barry Bonds has not been arrested, he has not been indicted. Baseball does not have the jurisdiction to prosecute him for drug crimes.

What is so hard to understand about this. Would you automatically be fired from your job if somebody suspected you broke any law, even if you have never been arrested for it. Oops, I heard Joe got into a fight outside a bar this weekend, that's assault - there goes his job!...

No, nor am I advocating that anyone gets fired from MLB, either. I don't see Bonds getting fired. That's not the issue. What I'm trying to say (rather badly, I'm afraid) is that whenever this issue is discussed, we seem to focus on things like the morality of taking steroids, the unfair advantages it gives one, the lying and denying that goes on, etc. We rarely ever seem to focus on the illegality of them. I understand that's why Congress is involved, because of the illegality, but that aspect doesn't figure into these debates very often.

Who's advocating anyone getting fired?

[Dodgerfan1]

So Hank Aaron should have been arrested for admitting in his autobiography that he once tried a greenie?

Is that your stance?

I'm talking about nailing them as appropriate to their crime. Admitting you took greenies isn't the same as being caught with them, in the eyes of the law, however if baseball did adhere to the letter of the law, then the answer to your question is yes, that is certainly my stance. If he were caught with them during his playing days by anyone who actually cared enough to sic the law on him (and whether they cared enough to arrest him, which is doubtful), and they were illegal.... yes. Arrest him.

You don't think drug laws are worth enforcing?

[lovethegame]

Folks seem to have forgotten 61.
The great Mantle took Mel Allens advice , poor as it was, and went to a "special Dr" Mel knew for a " miracle vitamin shot" in late Sept.
Knocked Mickey flat with infection .
"Performance enhancement" is hardly new

[Williamsburg2599]

I think you've missed the point...James isn't trying to compare the two in terms of their impact on the game...his point is that in both cases it is stupid to single someone out for not following the rules when the rules aren't enforced. No one knows to what extent other players have used steroids in baseball, and many believe that steroids would have served an even greater benefit to pitchers than to hitters...why endlessly cry about the "integrity of the game" when the simple fact is that things change over time.
I understand what he's trying to say, but's still underminding the impact of steroids on the game. And yes, things have changed over time in baseball, but this is usually do to a change in equipment or the talent pool, not because of an illegal drug. Traveling won't get you jail time, Steroids would, and should.



Guess what...if bonds was being brought up on charges by the government for steroid use we wouldn't even be debating this...Vick was indicted
ssbguyincognito said:
If Bonds did use steroids before 2002 (which everyone knows he did), then he did break the law. But, that' snot the same thing as cheating on baseball.
My point was that if you break the law, your not going to be allowed to play in the league.

[ssbguyincognito]

How can someone doing something Illegal be allowed to play? Are they letting Vick to play in the NFL? It's like saying theft or Murder aren't against league rules.

OK. I am going to try and make this as simple as possible in the hopes that everyone can understand it.

1. Let's start by assuming Bonds used steroids before 2002.
2. Now, before 2002, there was nothing in Major League Baseball's Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibiting steroids. Therefore, Bonds was not breaking any MLB rules.
3. So the only things Bonds would be doing is breaking the law, by using a drug without a prescription.
4. If true, then it's up to the federal authorities to prosecute Bonds. MLB has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Bonds breaking the law.
5. And, until Bonds is indicted and/or convicted, MLB really can't do anything to him either.

My point was that if you break the law, your not going to be allowed to play in the league.

Magnitude matters. I doubt anyone would say Bonds can't play baseball if was convicted of two hundred unpaid parkign tickets, or even tax evasion. Breaking the law does not mandate violating a rule in MLB, and shouldn't.

The truth is, the only thing anyone has on Bonds is suspicion of using a drug without a prescription. But Hank Aaron did exactly the same thing! Yet I see no-one questioning Hank Aaron's record...

[ssbguyincognito]

That was my first reaction, too. Comparing traveling in basketball to steroid use is nonsensical. That post meant nothing to me, because it was almost completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I understand the concept, but the premise is flawed. It amazes me how the undeniable fact that steroid use is illegal (read: against the law. Can lead to jail time...) escapes this debate so frequently. Traveling?? Please....

Sigh....

Steroid use is NOT illegal. I have steroids with me right now; they were used to treat an allergic rash.

Steriods are very versatile, sometimes amazing drugs. Making steroid use illegal would be stupid, considering all the good they do.

Steroid use without a prescription is illegal. As is use of any non-OTC drug without a prescription. Hey, guess what. One time at college, I took a prescription strength sleeping pill from my friend (Ambien) and it knocked me out. Yes, technically I broke the law -- used a drug withotu a prescription (the prescription was writen for him). Am I going to get thrown in jail? Did I cheat at baseball?

Before 2002, when MLB had no rule prohibiting steroid use, Bonds didn't cheat. It's that simple. He broke the law, yes -- but that's up to the cops to prosecute him. Cheating at baseball would be breaking the rules stipulated in the CBA.

For anyone who thinks Bonds cheats, you have to accept the fact that Aaron cheated too (used amphetamines). Or, you have to accept the truth: Bonds didn't cheat. MLB is far more culpable, for turning a blind eye to steroid use when they wanted to make money, and not banning them like every other professional sport had at the time.

[Dodgerfan1]

Sigh....

Steroid use is NOT illegal. I have steroids with me right now; they were used to treat an allergic rash.

Steriods are very versatile, sometimes amazing drugs. Making steroid use illegal would be stupid, considering all the good they do.

I'm assuming you are being flippant and actually do understand my point. I sincerely doubt the federal government would be involved if the anabolic steroids we are discussing here were legal. At least, I hope you are merely being flippant....

[Williamsburg2599]

Magnitude matters. I doubt anyone would say Bonds can't play baseball if was convicted of two hundred unpaid parkign tickets, or even tax evasion. Breaking the law does not mandate violating a rule in MLB, and shouldn't.

The truth is, the only thing anyone has on Bonds is suspicion of using a drug without a prescription. But Hank Aaron did exactly the same thing! Yet I see no-one questioning Hank Aaron's record...

For anyone who thinks Bonds cheats, you have to accept the fact that Aaron cheated too (used amphetamines). Or, you have to accept the truth: Bonds didn't cheat. MLB is far more culpable, for turning a blind eye to steroid use when they wanted to make money, and not banning them like every other professional sport had at the time


Hank Aaron used greenies once, didn't like them, and then never used them again. End of story. Your logic makes no sense. How is it "the truth" that Aaron cheated and Bonds didn't? Bonds tested positive for amphetamines. So if your claiming that Aaron cheated by using them once, then Bonds did too. If you want to say "Bonds never tested positive for Steroids" then you can't attack Aaron for using Amphetamines, because he never tested positive for PEDs either.

[west coast orange and black]

according to aaron he tried uppers "once" but did not like 'em and never tried again. (?!)

according to many others who would know, aaron's version is not the "end of story".

aaron's own useage has nothing to do with bonds, though. and, vice-versa.

[Williamsburg2599]

according to aaron he tried uppers "once" but did not like 'em and never tried again. (?!)

according to many others who would know, aaron's version is not the "end of story".

aaron's own useage has nothing to do with bonds, though. and, vice-versa.

"Actually the 1968 season wasn't the best time to present my case. It was the first time since my rookie year that I didn't drive in or scored 100 runs. I was so frustrated that at one point I tried using a pep pill-a greenie-that one of my teamates gave me. When that thing took hold, I thought I was having a heart attack. It was a stupid thing to do, and besides that, I shouldn't have been so concerned about my hitting in the first place. Nobody was hitting in 1968. That was the year of the pitcher - Drysdale's streak of scoreless innings and Bob Gibson's 1.12 earned run average."

That is an excerpt from Lonnie Wheeler's, "I Had a Hammer: The Hank Aaron Story"

This thread (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=56199) describes it pretty good.

[Padday]

I don't think it should even come to the legal aspect in a case like this.

Here's a hypothetical.

Shmarry Shmonds of the Shman Shmran Shmrisco Shmiants breaks the homerun record. A year later undeniable evidence is found to prove he has taken steroids and Shmarry confesses. Despite this, it all happens before they were outlawed so Shmarry can't be punished by Major League Basebeall and his record stays intact.

Do you think it's right to allow Shmarry to keep his record just because of a technicality despite it being obviously tarnished?

[west coast orange and black]

williamsburg2599: This thread describes it pretty good.

that thread doesn't describe jack.

if bonds announced tomorrow that he used once would you believe him?
what about 3 times? 10? 200?

has aaron's "one-time" use ever been corroborated?
going on the word of the player who used is... irrational.

[Williamsburg2599]

williamsburg2599: This thread describes it pretty good.

that thread doesn't describe jack.

if bonds announced tomorrow that he used once would you believe him?
what about 3 times? 10? 200?

has aaron's "one-time" use ever been corroborated?
going on the word of the player who used is... irrational.

Aaron doesn't have a leaked grand jury testimony. Aaron doesn't had a bad reputation. Aaron doesn't have many people coming and saying other wise about his usage. Aaron doesn't have a huge spike in his numbers at the end of his career, or anywhere in his career. In fact, no one at that time was even challenging Aaron on alleged PED use, he just said it in his book. He was standing before a large group of people or in front of congress challenging him, he was most likely sitting at his house in front of a typewriter or computer. He had no reason to even bring up uppers in his book. And until someone can come up with at least one page of evidence that shows otherwise(compared to the pages of evidence against Bonds) I'm not going to believe otherwise.

[ssbguyincognito]

I'm assuming you are being flippant and actually do understand my point. I sincerely doubt the federal government would be involved if the anabolic steroids we are discussing here were legal. At least, I hope you are merely being flippant....

My point is steroid use isn't illegal. Steroid use without a prescription is illegal. And, has nothing to do with baseball. It's up to federal authorities to take care of that.

Now, do I believe steroisd shold be legal in baseball? Of course not. But, until baseball prohibits them, using steroids is not cheating at baseball. So any steroid use pre-2002 can't be considered cheating. It can be considered breaking the law. Those two things are not equivalent.

Hank Aaron used greenies once, didn't like them, and then never used them again. End of story. Your logic makes no sense. How is it "the truth" that Aaron cheated and Bonds didn't? Bonds tested positive for amphetamines. So if your claiming that Aaron cheated by using them once, then Bonds did too. If you want to say "Bonds never tested positive for Steroids" then you can't attack Aaron for using Amphetamines, because he never tested positive for PEDs either.

Two points. First, you're naive if you believe Aaron only used amphetamines once. Second, if you read my posts, I don't think Bonds or Aaron cheated, because steroid (or amphetamine) use wasn't prohibited until 2002. My point was: if you believe Bonds cheated by using steroids before 2002, then you have to also maintin that Aaron cheated by using amphetamines. You can't have Bonds cheating and Aaron not cheating.

[Padday]

My point is steroid use isn't illegal. Steroid use without a prescription is illegal. And, has nothing to do with baseball. It's up to federal authorities to take care of that.

Now, do I believe steroisd shold be legal in baseball? Of course not. But, until baseball prohibits them, using steroids is not cheating at baseball. So any steroid use pre-2002 can't be considered cheating. It can be considered breaking the law. Those two things are not equivalent..

Read the second last post of the last page. Whether or not it's legal is beside the point.

So what you're saying is that basically a sacred baseball record should be allowed broken by someone who unnaturally enhanced his performance levels beyond natural proportions just because it technically was legal and he should not at all be held morally accountable for his actions and the tarnished record. Am I correct?

[Williamsburg2599]

Two points. First, you're naive if you believe Aaron only used amphetamines once. Second, if you read my posts, I don't think Bonds or Aaron cheated, because steroid (or amphetamine) use wasn't prohibited until 2002. My point was: if you believe Bonds cheated by using steroids before 2002, then you have to also maintin that Aaron cheated by using amphetamines. You can't have Bonds cheating and Aaron not cheating.
Why is it naive?:crazy Show me one creditable book, one creditable source that shows Aaron did greenies more than once. Please, show me. :lookitup

I read your posts, and it seemed to me that you were implying Bonds didn't cheat and Aaron did.

I found a blog post that perfectly states what I'm trying to get across about the 1991-2002 Debate and further explains the 1991 memo.:
From a favorite blog of mine, MLB Trade Rumors comes a interesting link to a little known fact about baseball's steroid policy. The Houston Chronicle's Richard Justice has a blog in which he dispells the notion that baseball had no policy on steroids. Justice notes a memo from former Comissioner Faye Vincent. Justice writes:
"Commissioner Fay Vincent sent the clubs a memo in 1991 reminding them that players were forbidden from taking any illegal substance. He specifically mention steroids in the memo and encouraged the clubs to take a get-tough policy on players thought to be using steroids.
What could a team have done if it suspected a player of using steroids? Probably nothing.
Vincent simply wanted to be on the record as letting the clubs know that steroid use was against the rules and that they shouldn't be afraid to confront a player.
There was no testing for steroids until 2003 (after being part of the 2002 labor agreement).
The notion that Bonds wasn't breaking any rules is ridiculous. He was. He knew he was."
My lawyer friends might be able to add some insight to this, but this may well serve as a legal document of sorts. And it may indeed be some additional ammo for Bud Selig to go after Bonds and others.
Source (http://gettingpaidtowatch.blogspot.com/2006/03/faye-vincent-banned-steroids-in-1991.html)

[ssbguyincognito]

So what you're saying is that basically a sacred baseball record should be allowed broken by someone who unnaturally enhanced his performance levels beyond natural proportions just because it technically was legal and he should not at all be held morally accountable for his actions and the tarnished record. Am I correct?

You're off base in many ways.

First, whether or not a record is "sacred" has absolutely no bearing on any decision by MLB to uphold it. That's an arbitrary judgment, left to fans and reporters, which has absolutely no weight in judging the legitimacy of someone breaking a record. Remember, when Maris first broke Ruth's single season HR record, many questioned its legitimacy because he did so in 162 games and not 154, like Ruth. Now, everyone views Maris' 61 HR season as legitimate. So arbitrary cultural decisions are just that -- arbitrary.

Second, if you're problem is with anyone who "unnaturally enhance[s] his performance levels beyond natural proportions," then a lot of players have to go. What about Tommy John surgery? Laser eye surgey? Amphetamine use? Do any of these bother you nearly as much as steroisd? Probalby not. But they're all unnatural forms of chemical enhancement.

Third, it technically wans't legal. That's my point. It technically didn't break the rules -- but it was illegal. My point is, the illegality of Bonds using steroids has NOTHING to do with the legitimacy of his numbers in baseball. Those two would only conflict if baseball had dictated that steroids are unacceptable forms of hcemical enhancement and are banned by players. Which they didn't do until 2002.

[mwb]

MLB needs to get to a point where they can police themselves. The punishment in MLB-land is to have your records wiped off the books.

The courts & the laws can do what they want. I'm interested in MLB making their own rules & coming up with their own punishment.

[Brian McKenna]

1. how can steroids define this era? is it not known as "the steroid era"?

I stand by the statement. It will be one of the first remarks about this era. It is the second highest offensive era next to the 1890s and when they write about it in the history books decades from now PEDs will be at the forefront of the discussion.

[west coast orange and black]

williamsburg2599: Show me one creditable book, one creditable source that shows Aaron did greenies more than once. Please, show me.

you want someone to publicly snitch?
shame.

[west coast orange and black]

how can steroids define this era? is it not known as "the steroid era"?

I stand by the statement. It will be one of the first remarks about this era. It is the second highest offensive era...

and i stand by mine.

why would this be called "the steroid era" but for the steroid use?

potato-potato.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Here is a look at Barry's value, before and after his transformation.

How about MVP vote shares?

You probably know that Barry has received more MVP votes than any player in baseball history.

The top 5 in MVP vote shares:

Barry - 9.30 (7 wins)
Musial - 6.96 (3 wins)
Teddy - 6.43 (2 wins)
Mays - 6.06 (2 wins)
Mantle - 5.79 (3 wins)

But how about through the 1998 season?

Through 1998, Barry had 4.83 MVP vote shares and 3 wins. That's tied with Frank Robinson at 9th place, through age 33. The only other players with more career MVP vote shares than Barry had through age 33 are Musial, Williams, Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Gehrig, DiMaggio and Schmidt.

None of those players had more MVP awards than Barry had through age 33, but some of them had as many (3).

The baseball writers spoke with their ballots. Barry was the 9th most valuable player in baseball since 1930, and that was before 1999.

[Padday]

You're off base in many ways.

First, whether or not a record is "sacred" has absolutely no bearing on any decision by MLB to uphold it. That's an arbitrary judgment, left to fans and reporters, which has absolutely no weight in judging the legitimacy of someone breaking a record. Remember, when Maris first broke Ruth's single season HR record, many questioned its legitimacy because he did so in 162 games and not 154, like Ruth. Now, everyone views Maris' 61 HR season as legitimate. So arbitrary cultural decisions are just that -- arbitrary.

But should a player not be held accountable for cheating? Do you personally feel that if definitive proof that Bonds used these substances the record should be legitimate? This case is quite a bit more serious than having an extra eight games in a season. This is someone who dramatically increased his ability with the use of substances that are currently (if not then) illegal. It doesn't make sense to let him get of scott free.


Second, if you're problem is with anyone who "unnaturally enhance[s] his performance levels beyond natural proportions," then a lot of players have to go. What about Tommy John surgery? Laser eye surgey? Amphetamine use? Do any of these bother you nearly as much as steroisd? Probalby not. But they're all unnatural forms of chemical enhancement.

Tommy John and Laser eye surgerys aren't, and never have been illegal for a start. Also, they don't give you a huge advantage over other players and in many cases are just necessary to keep a player's career from ending. Rather than make you better than other player's, they seek to level the playing field for player's who are disadvantaged. There is no way you can compare them. As for amphetamenes, they are illegal so I put them in the same catagory as steroids even if they aren't as powerful.

Third, it technically wans't legal. That's my point. It technically didn't break the rules -- but it was illegal. My point is, the illegality of Bonds using steroids has NOTHING to do with the legitimacy of his numbers in baseball. Those two would only conflict if baseball had dictated that steroids are unacceptable forms of hcemical enhancement and are banned by players. Which they didn't do until 2002.

Once again I'll say that it shouldn't really even come to the legal aspect. At the moral level a player should be held accountable for his actions. The MLB also should take a stand because they can not be seen to be supporting steroid use, legal or illegal.

[Dodgerfan1]

"Second, if you're problem is with anyone who "unnaturally enhance[s] his performance levels beyond natural proportions," then a lot of players have to go. What about Tommy John surgery? Laser eye surgey? Amphetamine use? Do any of these bother you nearly as much as steroisd? Probalby not. But they're all unnatural forms of chemical enhancement."

Tommy John and Laser eye surgerys aren't, and never have been illegal for a start. Also, they don't give you a huge advantage over other players and in many cases are just necessary to keep a player's career from ending. Rather than make you better than other player's, they seek to level the playing field for player's who are disadvantaged. There is no way you can compare them. As for amphetamenes, they are illegal so I put them in the same catagory as steroids even if they aren't as powerful.

Padday, the question you responded to is yet another example of what I have been stating. Once again, the very illegality of steroids is being ignored or, at the very least, marginalized. Comparing steroids to Tommy John surgery or lasic surgery is ridiculous. It's sort of like comparing paying for something that costs too much to stealing it, IMO. You may think both are undesirable options, but one is illegal while the other is not. There is a qualitative difference that shouldn't be ignored, but often is.

[Padday]

Padday, the question you responded to is yet another example of what I have been stating. Once again, the very illegality of steroids is being ignored or, at the very least, marginalized. Comparing steroids to Tommy John surgery or lasic surgery is ridiculous. It's sort of like comparing paying for something that costs too much to stealing it, IMO. You may think both are undesirable options, but one is illegal while the other is not. There is a qualitative difference that shouldn't be ignored, but often is.

But I don't think that the legality should be the case. I personally don't care whether Bonds is sent to prison or whatever. What I care about is the game of baseball, and to let something like this be ignored would hurt the game of baseball, whether it's legal or not. If it was ignored, that record will be an asterix shaped scar on the great game of baseball.

[Dodgerfan1]

Two points. First, you're naive if you believe Aaron only used amphetamines once....

Why are you saying that anyone who believes Aaron only used amphetamines once is naive? If you have no proof that he used it more than once, it's a feckless statement. You saying that is no different than someone saying it's naive for you to believe that Bonds didn't use steroids. If you disagree with that statement, then you must disagree with your own. Again, unless you have strong evidence.

[Dodgerfan1]

But I don't think that the legality should be the case. I personally don't care whether Bonds is sent to prison or whatever. What I care about is the game of baseball, and to let something like this be ignored would hurt the game of baseball, whether it's legal or not. If it was ignored, that record will be an asterix shaped scar on the great game of baseball.

Okay, I understand, Padday. But some of us do care about the illegality of it. I think that should matter very much.

[ssbguyincognito]

But should a player not be held accountable for cheating? Do you personally feel that if definitive proof that Bonds used these substances the record should be legitimate? This case is quite a bit more serious than having an extra eight games in a season. This is someone who dramatically increased his ability with the use of substances that are currently (if not then) illegal. It doesn't make sense to let him get of scott free.

But it wasn't cheating!

That's been my point throughout. There was NOTHING in baseball's collective bargaining agreement -- which are the rules that players must abide by -- prohibiting any sort of steroid use until 2002. That means Bonds could have used all the steroids in the world until 2002, and none of that would be cheating at baseball.

It would be breaking the law, but breaking the law is NOT cheating at baseball. The two have nothing to do with each other. Pete Rose didn't break the law by betting on baseball games. He did cheat though, because it's a rule in baseball that players and managers can't gamble on games. Ty Cobb broke the law when he stabbed a guy who suggested he didn't hate black people enough. He didn't cheat at baseball.

Tommy John and Laser eye surgerys aren't, and never have been illegal for a start. Also, they don't give you a huge advantage over other players and in many cases are just necessary to keep a player's career from ending. Rather than make you better than other player's, they seek to level the playing field for player's who are disadvantaged. There is no way you can compare them. As for amphetamenes, they are illegal so I put them in the same catagory as steroids even if they aren't as powerful.

And neither is steroid use illegal. It's the same thing. If Bonds were to get laser eye surgery without the approval of a credited physician, then he'd be breaking the law. If he used steroids without a prescription, he'd breaking the law too. Steroid use is not inherently illegal; neither is laser eye surgery. If Bonds got laser eye surgery without approval, then he would be breaking the law, but would he be cheating at baseball? NO. Because there's nothing in baseball prohibiting laser eye surgery.

If you classify amphetamine use as cheating in baseball, then Hank Aaron cheated too.

Once again I'll say that it shouldn't really even come to the legal aspect. At the moral level a player should be held accountable for his actions. The MLB also should take a stand because they can not be seen to be supporting steroid use, legal or illegal.

First, morality has NOTHING to do witht he hall of fame. If it does, then at least 50% of players in the hall of fame need to go. Remember, Ty Cobb stabbed a guy who suggested he didn't hate black people enough. Second, MLB has absolutely no jurisdiction when it comes to the law. If Bonds broke the law by using steroids withotu a prescriptionb efore 2002, then it's up to federal authorities to prosecute him. MLB can't do anything.

Padday, the question you responded to is yet another example of what I have been stating. Once again, the very illegality of steroids is being ignored or, at the very least, marginalized. Comparing steroids to Tommy John surgery or lasic surgery is ridiculous. It's sort of like comparing paying for something that costs too much to stealing it, IMO. You may think both are undesirable options, but one is illegal while the other is not. There is a qualitative difference that shouldn't be ignored, but often is.

Sigh. Here we go again.

Breaking the law is NOT cheating at baseball. Re-read that sentence fifty times.

Many people question the legitimacy of Bonds' record because they think he cheated. But he didn't cheat; there was no rule barring steroid use until 2002. You can't break a rule that doesn't exist.

Also, once again, steroid use is not inherently illegal. Neither is laser eye surgery. Steroid use or laser eye surgery without approval are both illegal.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

It's time for "Ask Dr. Stupid"!

Dear Dr. Stupid,

My grandma uses Prednisone for her asthma. I recently found out that Prednisone is a steroid.

With all this talk going around, is my Nana going to jail?

-- Jimmy, age 12.

...

Dear Jimmy,

Yes, Nana is going to jail, and to Hell as well, and will turn into a scary man with big muscles everywhere and will beat people up for no reason and everyone will hate her/him.

--Dr.Stupid

[Dodgerfan1]

Sigh. Here we go again.

Breaking the law is NOT cheating at baseball. Re-read that sentence fifty times.

Okay, I've read it fifty times and wrote it on the blackboard 100 times.

Using steroids is cheating. Period.

[Dodgerfan1]

It's time for "Ask Dr. Stupid"!

Dear Dr. Stupid,

My grandma uses Prednisone for her asthma. I recently found out that Prednisone is a steroid.

With all this talk going around, is my Nana going to jail?

-- Jimmy, age 12.

...

Dear Jimmy,

Yes, Nana is going to jail, and to Hell as well, and will turn into a scary man with big muscles everywhere and will beat people up for no reason and everyone will hate her/him.

--Dr.Stupid

Thanks, Dr Stupid. Oh, by the way, did I tell you it also made her head swell up to twice it's normal size and she can hit a baseball 400 feet now? She swears she never took the stuff, though.

Jimmy.

[Padday]

But it wasn't cheating!

That's been my point throughout. There was NOTHING in baseball's collective bargaining agreement -- which are the rules that players must abide by -- prohibiting any sort of steroid use until 2002. That means Bonds could have used all the steroids in the world until 2002, and none of that would be cheating at baseball....

Ugh!!:grouchy

It just doesn't make sense to me that he should be let go free just because technically he wasn't in the wrong. Do you actually think that steroids are good for the sport? Of course not. They give people a huge advantage over other players who decide to play clean. The people who use them are filled with greed and don't give a damn about who or what they hurt because of it.

If the MLB was to let the perpetrators go free, that would be a smack in the face to everyone who has played the game clean, to the fans and to the sport of baseball in general.

The sport has been tarnished by these people and scarred beyond repair, and you say they've done nothing wrong?

[ssbguyincognito]

Okay, I've read it fifty times and wrote it on the blackboard 100 times.

Using steroids is cheating. Period.

Okay. Obviously, I can't stop you from retaining irrational beliefs. If you can justify why steroid use is cheating -- when it seems you recognize that Bonds wasn't breaking any rules when he did use steroids -- then maybe you have a point. But if you want to stubbornly hold on to dogma, you're welcome to do so. By the way, do you sacrifice chickens every night to make sure the sun rises the next day?

It just doesn't make sense to me that he should be let go free just because technically he wasn't in the wrong. Do you actually think that steroids are good for the sport? Of course not. They give people a huge advantage over other players who decide to play clean. The people who use them are filled with greed and don't give a damn about who or what they hurt because of it.

If the MLB was to let the perpetrators go free, that would be a smack in the face to everyone who has played the game clean, to the fans and to the sport of baseball in general.

The sport has been tarnished by these people and scarred beyond repair, and you say they've done nothing wrong?

First, you suffer from the myth that baseball has always been a clean game, and was recently tarnished by steroids. My advice to you: read a history of baseball book. The game has never been clean. In fact, it's much better now than it's ever been.

Second, MLB has no choice. They're not the police. They can't enforce laws.

You people are just going to have to live with it. Bonds will soon have the all-time HR record. He didn't cheat.

[west coast orange and black]

ytowntribe fan: It's time for "Ask Dr. Stupid"!

dude! too funny!

[west coast orange and black]

dodgerfan1: it also made her head swell up to twice it's normal size and she can hit a baseball 400 feet now

dude. too not truthful.

[digglahhh]

I'm talking about nailing them as appropriate to their crime. Admitting you took greenies isn't the same as being caught with them, in the eyes of the law, however if baseball did adhere to the letter of the law, then the answer to your question is yes, that is certainly my stance. If he were caught with them during his playing days by anyone who actually cared enough to sic the law on him (and whether they cared enough to arrest him, which is doubtful), and they were illegal.... yes. Arrest him.

Okay, I respect your conviction (no pun intended).

You don't think drug laws are worth enforcing?

Actually, for the most part - no. This is not the board for that discussion, but feel free to PM me if you are interested enough to hear the why.

[Dodgerfan1]

Okay, I respect your conviction (no pun intended).



Actually, for the most part - no. This is not the board for that discussion, but feel free to PM me if you are interested enough to hear the why.

That's okay, it was mostly rhetorical, but I appreciate your passion, as well.

[Padday]

First, you suffer from the myth that baseball has always been a clean game, and was recently tarnished by steroids. My advice to you: read a history of baseball book. The game has never been clean. In fact, it's much better now than it's ever been.

Second, MLB has no choice. They're not the police. They can't enforce laws.

You people are just going to have to live with it. Bonds will soon have the all-time HR record. He didn't cheat.

You sound a bit like a schoolchild:

Teacher: Billy you hit Jimmy. That's a detention.

Billy: But Tommy hit Jimmy last week and he didn't get punished.

Should Billy be punished? Of course he should be.

If anything, we should learn from the mistakes of the past. Lack of vigilance then paved the way forward for the steroid culture that has existed in baseball and harmed it. Rather than continue a policy of ignorance to the steroid problem they should show that they aren't going to let it slip anymore and start by making examples out of Bonds and others like him.

[digglahhh]

For the record, I want to make a distinction about my perspective.

I don't think that using steroids before 2002 was not cheating because steroids weren't again MLB rules. That is a sort of loophole, and subverts the spirit of what it means to cheat. "Breaking the rules" is way too much of a textualist interpretation and narrow interpretation of cheating. Laws and rules have "spirits." There is a "spirit" of fair play. Taking steroids violates than spirit, and I consider it cheating - although maybe not to as great an extent as some others. Or, more specifically, perhaps I them playing less of a part in Barry's accomplishments than many others.

When I say that there's nothing MLB can do, I just meant that they tied their hands by leaving open the loophole. It is cheating, in spirit, but because there was nothing explicitly stated, they don't really have the recourse to enforce it. You can't break a law that doesn't exist, but laws, and literal interpretations thereof are not the end-all and be-all of ethics.

[west coast orange and black]

padday: Rather than continue a policy of ignorance to the steroid problem they should show that they aren't going to let it slip anymore and start by making examples out of Bonds and others like him.

?

follow the rules. if that ain't good enough / if they don't give the results desored, change the rules.

make "an example" of someone - anyone - leads to "who's next?"

[G.Costanza]

You're off base in many ways.

First, whether or not a record is "sacred" has absolutely no bearing on any decision by MLB to uphold it. That's an arbitrary judgment, left to fans and reporters, which has absolutely no weight in judging the legitimacy of someone breaking a record. Remember, when Maris first broke Ruth's single season HR record, many questioned its legitimacy because he did so in 162 games and not 154, like Ruth. Now, everyone views Maris' 61 HR season as legitimate. So arbitrary cultural decisions are just that -- arbitrary.

Second, if you're problem is with anyone who "unnaturally enhance[s] his performance levels beyond natural proportions," then a lot of players have to go. What about Tommy John surgery? Laser eye surgey? Amphetamine use? Do any of these bother you nearly as much as steroisd? Probalby not. But they're all unnatural forms of chemical enhancement.

Third, it technically wans't legal. That's my point. It technically didn't break the rules -- but it was illegal. My point is, the illegality of Bonds using steroids has NOTHING to do with the legitimacy of his numbers in baseball. Those two would only conflict if baseball had dictated that steroids are unacceptable forms of hcemical enhancement and are banned by players. Which they didn't do until 2002.

great po:lookitup :lookitup :lookitup :lookitup :lookitup :lookitup :lookitup ookitup :lookitup :lookit :o st here........read it

[ssbguyincognito]

If anything, we should learn from the mistakes of the past. Lack of vigilance then paved the way forward for the steroid culture that has existed in baseball and harmed it. Rather than continue a policy of ignorance to the steroid problem they should show that they aren't going to let it slip anymore and start by making examples out of Bonds and others like him.

Everything you said here is just about perfect until "start by making examples out of Bonds and others like him."

You can't make a rule and have it apply retroactively.

I don't think steroids should ever have been allowed in baseball. And I'm glad that MLB is finally accepting the issue and fixing it. But, that doesn't mean that anyone who used steriods before they were banned cheated and must be stricken from the record books.

Frankly, you're just making Bonds the face of steroids, dismissing him, and then moving on. Do you think Bonds is the only one who "cheated"? Is it fair to pin all the suspicion and taint of the steroid era onto him? What about when other people are ready for the hall of fame, like Jeff Kent? Suspicion can easily be cast on almost anyone who played during this era. If that's enough to make them cheaters in your book, then the axe is giong to fall on a lot of heads.

For the record, I want to make a distinction about my perspective.

I don't think that using steroids before 2002 was not cheating because steroids weren't again MLB rules. That is a sort of loophole, and subverts the spirit of what it means to cheat. "Breaking the rules" is way too much of a textualist interpretation and narrow interpretation of cheating. Laws and rules have "spirits." There is a "spirit" of fair play. Taking steroids violates than spirit, and I consider it cheating - although maybe not to as great an extent as some others. Or, more specifically, perhaps I them playing less of a part in Barry's accomplishments than many others.

When I say that there's nothing MLB can do, I just meant that they tied their hands by leaving open the loophole. It is cheating, in spirit, but because there was nothing explicitly stated, they don't really have the recourse to enforce it. You can't break a law that doesn't exist, but laws, and literal interpretations thereof are not the end-all and be-all of ethics.

Sorry but that's not how it works. There's way too much possibility for interpretation if you think a person can also break the "spirit of fair play." I think you're confusing the moral reprehensibility of a player taking steroids -- which I'm sure we all agree on -- with the player actually cheating by taking steroids. The former doesn't imply the latter.

Also, your last point about ethics is what a lot of people confuse here. Ethics and morality have nothing to do with the hall of fame and legitimacy of baseball records. Did Bonds commit an ethical and moral violation by taking steroids? I would agree that he did. Did Bonds cheat? No, he didn't.

[Williamsburg2599]

Everything you said here is just about perfect until "start by making examples out of Bonds and others like him."

You can't make a rule and have it apply retroactively.

I don't think steroids should ever have been allowed in baseball. And I'm glad that MLB is finally accepting the issue and fixing it. But, that doesn't mean that anyone who used steriods before they were banned cheated and must be stricken from the record books.

Frankly, you're just making Bonds the face of steroids, dismissing him, and then moving on. Do you think Bonds is the only one who "cheated"? Is it fair to pin all the suspicion and taint of the steroid era onto him? What about when other people are ready for the hall of fame, like Jeff Kent? Suspicion can easily be cast on almost anyone who played during this era. If that's enough to make them cheaters in your book, then the axe is giong to fall on a lot of heads.


Rather than continue a policy of ignorance to the steroid problem they should show that they aren't going to let it slip anymore and start by making examples out of Bonds and others like him
What part of that didn't you understand?

[ssbguyincognito]

What part of that didn't you understand?

Yeah but which others are you going to make an example out of? Is it fair to make an example out of someone because the era he played in was tainted? It seems like medieval justice, doesn't it.

Besides, if MLB actually tried to do anything to Bonds, they would get destroyed in court. Remember, he's never tested positive for anything. Circumstantial evidence is just that -- circumstantial.

[Williamsburg2599]

Remember, he's never tested positive for anything. Circumstantial evidence is just that -- circumstantial.

That argument is about a year old:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/01/11/bonds.amphetamines/index.html

[ssbguyincognito]

It's hard to convict someone of steroid use because they failed an amphetamine test.

Unless you believe Bonds's accomplishments are tainted because of his amphetamine use, which you don't.

[west coast orange and black]

if bonds did in fact fail a (non-steroid) drug test, williamsburg2599, he is the man that you already thought. but it's curious to me that those angered by bonds' actions - real, hinted at and imaginary - seem to not be botherd by this passage:
"under baseball's amphetamine policy no one is publicly identified or suspended until a second positive".

[digglahhh]

Sorry but that's not how it works. There's way too much possibility for interpretation if you think a person can also break the "spirit of fair play." I think you're confusing the moral reprehensibility of a player taking steroids -- which I'm sure we all agree on -- with the player actually cheating by taking steroids. The former doesn't imply the latter.

Also, your last point about ethics is what a lot of people confuse here. Ethics and morality have nothing to do with the hall of fame and legitimacy of baseball records. Did Bonds commit an ethical and moral violation by taking steroids? I would agree that he did. Did Bonds cheat? No, he didn't.

First, I am a moral relativist. So I agree that you can "cheat" without being unethical - on an entirely different level. But, I don't think I mean it the way you, and I don't see how it can work here.

In order for you last contention to be correct, you must hold the perspective of a moral relativist - there is no other way to claim that being unethical is an implicit component of cheating.

Now, for "cheating" not to be unethical, it has to be countering or absolving one from an unethical outcome that would be achieved had you not cheated. A well known example would be draft-dodging pacifists. The war conflicted with their ethics, and therefore they had to cheat in order to not contradict their ethics. Regardless of how you feel about draft-dodging, war, or politics, this is a moral-relativist view that, to the individual, satisfies the requirement to undercut the normal mutual exclusivity of cheating and ethical behavior.

Unless Barry Bonds was righting some wrong by taking PEDs that would otherwise exist had he not (and, no, people erroneously thinking there was anybody better than he in the game does not count as a "wrong."), taking steroids can't be unethical and cheating - on the level of baseball. I guess, you can say that they were unethical on the grounds of legality, or drug use being immoral - if you feel that way - but there is no implied dichotomy there that relates to cheating.

I don't know how "legitimacy" fits in here. He hit 755 baseballs over the wall in fair territory - the homers are legitimate. The means to produce them is what people are questioning.

Be careful not to use morals and ethics interchangably. Ethics, in this case, deal with the game. Morals deal with the individual. Personally, I could have no moral issue with any kind of drug use, PED or otherwise, that doesn't preclude it from being unethical as it related to the spirit of competition, and level playing field inherent in the ideal of professional sports.

[west coast orange and black]

padday: Rather than continue a policy of ignorance to the steroid problem they should show that they aren't going to let it slip anymore and start by making examples out of Bonds and others like him

williamsburg2599: What part of that didn't you understand?

rather than being rude, it might be more useful to ask for paddy's list of names.
hmmm... i wonder if that list would include names of any other players who have not tested positive for steroids.

[ssbguyincognito]

First, I am a moral relativist. So I agree that you can "cheat" without being unethical - on an entirely different level. But, I don't think I mean it the way you, and I don't see how it can work here.

Here it's just semantics then. What you consider "cheating on a differnet level", I don't consider cheating. Do we agree that Bonds didn't cheat at baseball before 2002 because steroid use wasn't prohibited? That's the only pertinent issue here. Whether he cheated on any other level -- moral, metaphysical, existential, whatever other adjective you can think of -- doesn't matter.

A lot of people, in fact a majority of fans, are misinformed in believing that Bonds cheated by using steroids -- that he specifically broke the rules of baseball and his record as the all-time HR king should be tagged with an asterisk. That's completely false, and basically what I'm arguing with.

Let's imagine a hypothetical situation. Say Bonds took painkillers without a prescription. Would anyone here say he cheated on baseball? Probably not. So why is taking steroids any different?

[west coast orange and black]

Say Bonds took painkillers without a prescription. Would anyone here say he cheated on baseball? Probably not. So why is taking steroids any different?

ooh... ooh. i got this one:
"steroids make you a better player!"

despite lack of evidence to same.

[Padday]

As a great man once said "Drugs are bad, m'kay". End of story. I'm going to bed. My head hurts and I blame Barry Bonds.:hp

[west coast orange and black]

padday: As a great man once said "Drugs are bad, m'kay". My head hurts and I blame Barry Bonds.

so, no aspirin for you?
i'll ask bonds to hit a homerun for you. maybe that'll help you to feel all better.

[ssbguyincognito]

ooh... ooh. i got this one:
"steroids make you a better player!"

despite lack of evidence to same.
Even if they do, wouldn't taking painkillers to relieve pain amke you better? Or what if Bonds took sleeping pills withuot a prescription to get more rest before day games -- wouldn't that make him a better player?

You can't have room for arbitrary judgment here. We can argue all day about what things a player can do that makes them better at baseball and whether those things should not be allowed. But there's no argument as to what's allowed by baseball -- everything that's outlined in the CBA. So if a player does something which isn't prohibited in the CBA, he's not cheating at baseball.

[Williamsburg2599]

Even if they do, wouldn't taking painkillers to relieve pain amke you better? Or what if Bonds took sleeping pills withuot a prescription to get more rest before day games -- wouldn't that make him a better player?

You can't have room for arbitrary judgment here. We can argue all day about what things a player can do that makes them better at baseball and whether those things should not be allowed. But there's no argument as to what's allowed by baseball -- everything that's outlined in the CBA. So if a player does something which isn't prohibited in the CBA, he's not cheating at baseball.

Alright, I'll quote myself from the "what is cheating?" thread:
Alright, I replace my left arm with a bionic arm that can throw 130mph and hit HRs 600ft. It looks just like my real arm and is otherwise basically undetectable. Cheating?

[ssbguyincognito]

Great example. I've actually brought that up in conversation. Unless MLB has ruled it out, then I'd have to say no, your bionic arm isn't cheating. Of course, once you do it, and they realize you can throw 130 mph, they're gong to figure it out, and then will immediately ban bionic arms of that nature in the futuer -- so yuo'd have to stop using your superarm. But any thing you did with that arm until it was banned stands.

[Williamsburg2599]

Great example. I've actually brought that up in conversation. Unless MLB has ruled it out, then I'd have to say no, your bionic arm isn't cheating. Of course, once you do it, and they realize you can throw 130 mph, they're gong to figure it out, and then will immediately ban bionic arms of that nature in the futuer -- so yuo'd have to stop using your superarm. But any thing you did with that arm until it was banned stands.

Alright, I pitch a perfect game in the Game 7 of the World Series. And your a fan of the other team, your seriously telling me that you wouldn't have a problem with it?:think:

[Padday]

Great example. I've actually brought that up in conversation. Unless MLB has ruled it out, then I'd have to say no, your bionic arm isn't cheating. Of course, once you do it, and they realize you can throw 130 mph, they're gong to figure it out, and then will immediately ban bionic arms of that nature in the futuer -- so yuo'd have to stop using your superarm. But any thing you did with that arm until it was banned stands.

What if a team was to be made completely of bionic people but as with before they were completely lifelike?

[ssbguyincognito]

Alright, I pitch a perfect game in the Game 7 of the World Series. And your a fan of the other team, your seriously telling me that you wouldn't have a problem with it?:think:

I would have a problem with it. That's very different than claimingn that MLB can do something about it -- and should void the accomplishment.

Keep in mind, though, we're talking about the most insane, hypothetical, unrrealistic situation here.

Medical science doesn't advance in huge, discrete steps. It's a gradual process. That means nobody is going to invent a bionic arm that lets you throw 130 miles per hour without an intermediate bionic technology. Which means, MLB can anticipate and ban things before they happen.

Remember, it wasn't like steroid use came out of nowhere. Eevrey other sport banned steroids, as they should. Baseball didn't because the owners wanted to make money, and Bud Selig happily complied. That's a problem with having the commissioner of baseball, who is supposed to act in the best interests of baseball, be someone who represents the owners.

[west coast orange and black]

williamsburg2599: [you're] a fan of the other team, [you're] seriously telling me that you wouldn't have a problem with it?

funny, how we think and feel when there is a personal stake involved.

[digglahhh]

Here it's just semantics then. What you consider "cheating on a differnet level", I don't consider cheating. Do we agree that Bonds didn't cheat at baseball before 2002 because steroid use wasn't prohibited? That's the only pertinent issue here. Whether he cheated on any other level -- moral, metaphysical, existential, whatever other adjective you can think of -- doesn't matter.

A lot of people, in fact a majority of fans, are misinformed in believing that Bonds cheated by using steroids -- that he specifically broke the rules of baseball and his record as the all-time HR king should be tagged with an asterisk. That's completely false, and basically what I'm arguing with.

Let's imagine a hypothetical situation. Say Bonds took painkillers without a prescription. Would anyone here say he cheated on baseball? Probably not. So why is taking steroids any different?

See, there are so many levels here.

Just because MLB can't rightly void the records, that doesn't mean that they were achieved within the spirit of fair competition.

That's where the other tricky word, "legitimate" comes into play. It is possible for the records to be legitimate and the means used to achieve them be unethical. "Legitimacy" is the test of whether MLB can void them. Ethics is the test of the means. Morals are the test of your opinions on the means, unto themselves, unrelated to the game of baseball.

Are you familiar with the accounting practices that Enron used to purposely misrepresent their financial situation and swindle investors out of their money. It was a loophole, a technicality. If you invested in Enron, would you want your money back? Would you feel that they cheated?

Let's see what dictionary.com says about the definition of cheating.


1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal. to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
–noun
8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.
9. a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.
10. Law. the fraudulent obtaining of another's property by a pretense or trick.
11. an impostor: The man who passed as an earl was a cheat.

So, it is not as simple as it sounds. In fact, your "breaking of the rules" definition is listed fifth here.

So, I define my opinion across the board. The record is legitimate. The PED use that helped him achieve it was unethical. I don't have any moral issue with the use of illegal drugs, in and of themselves.

[ssbguyincognito]

Are you familiar with the accounting practices that Enron used to purposely misrepresent their financial situation and swindle investors out of their money. It was a loophole, a technicality. If you invested in Enron, would you want your money back? Would you feel that they cheated?

It's different. The Enron accounting practices actually broke the law. So they went to jail (at least, some of them). What they did was not only morally and ethically wrong, but also illegal.

That's where the other tricky word, "legitimate" comes into play. It is possible for the records to be legitimate and the means used to achieve them be unethical. "Legitimacy" is the test of whether MLB can void them. Ethics is the test of the means. Morals are the test of your opinions on the means, unto themselves, unrelated to the game of baseball.

The only thing that matters is the legitimacy of the record -- did Bonds break any rules in achieveing it?

Whether or not it was achieved "ethically" is a far tricker subject, because ethics aren't universal. In fact, no record is considered sacred when it was broken -- when Maris broke Ruth's single-season HR record, it was unethical because he did so in more games, when Aaron broke Ruth's all-time HR record, it was unethical because he did so as a black player and in more at bats.

Frankly, I don't care about the ethicality of achieving a record. That's entirely subjective. We can't let the legitimacy of records be a function of the percieved ethicality of achieving those records according to fans or the current society. People, especially mass people, are ignorant and mostly wrong. Societies, and opinions, and social taboos, all change, and everyone has an agenda. I'm glad that baseball records can stand alone and transcend the popular beliefs of fans of the day; if they couldn't, baseball wouldn't be such a great sport.

So, I define my opinion across the board. The record is legitimate. The PED use that helped him achieve it was unethical. I don't have any moral issue with the use of illegal drugs, in and of themselves.

Yeah, I pretty much agree. I've been arguing with people who claim the record isn't legitimate -- the same people who want an asterisk next to it -- because Bonds used steroids. Unfortunately, fighting ignorance is most often a losing battle.

[west coast orange and black]

a baseball historian named don dewey tidily lists 10 arguments (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/08/ED26RERN81.DTL&type=printable) that repeatedly get in the way while discussing bonds' 756.

the article's ending:
"With those 10 tired arguments out of the way, we might get down to a far more fertile debate. Starting with the undeniable fact that 756 is one more than 755."

[Imapotato]

No it's either negative or insane like yours

Bonds is not top 5 and Alex Rodriguez is not the greatest SS of all time

Take the context of the times...just because Bill James throws up a formula you don't need to pigeon eat it

HRs are cheapened so diminish the players HR totals and you will see guys like Mays, Musial, Speaker, Brett look pretty darn good compared to todays players