what is cheating?

[lovethegame]

Many players may or may not have taken a non banned substance to make themselves better players.
I could be talking about any era.
Cheating?, I think it is being all you can be.
Greenies have been around for 50 years, shall we remove all those 1950,60 and 70 records?
Bat on ball better than the rest
Bonds is that fella and Sosa is deserving of the same respect.
Doc Gooden and Straw come to mind.
Limitless talent ,money to burn and gave all fans the rhetorical finger.
Who would you rather pay to see?

[Sweet Lou]

Who would you rather pay to see?
Ichiro get a bunt single
Eckstein get an infield hit
Gwynn
Ripken Jr.
Pujols do what he does
Moyer do what he does
D. Lee do what he does
Hanley Ramirez steal a base and hit a homer
Khalil Green's defense
Jeter
Dave Roberts steal a base or 2
Lou Piniella get tossed
John Smoltz win a complete game
Torii Hunter make a great grab
Santana fan 12

...
...
...

Yeah, I can think of a few I'd rather see.

[Wade8813]

As long as the substance wasn't banned at the time they took it, it's not cheating, by definition.

[lovethegame]

I guess none of these fellas have ever taken a recently developed antibiotic, had lasix surgery, used ultrasound etc.
Life goes on, medicine improves(knee surgery in 1977 ended your season and then some).
Oh well put on the wool, break out salt pills and pass the medicine ball

[SamtheBravesFan]

I guess none of these fellas have ever taken a recently developed antibiotic, had lasix surgery, used ultrasound etc.
Life goes on, medicine improves(knee surgery in 1977 ended your season and then some).
Oh well put on the wool, break out salt pills and pass the medicine ball

Curing an injury or illness isn't cheating.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

I like what Bill James said in an interview in mid-July:

http://http://www.whittierdailynews.com/pauloberjuerge/ci_6378921


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.

[mwb]

That's a good question. People seem to accept some PEDs over another. Obviously it would be great if MLB could test for every substance or have a zero tolerance policy but some substances are undetectable, necessary, legal (in the legal sense), or not as harmful.

I would draw the line if the PED potentially gives a player a prounced advantage over others. It should probably not be legal in baseball if it's illegal in society. Plus I would ban anything that poses health risks to the player.

[Elvis]

As long as the substance wasn't banned at the time they took it, it's not cheating, by definition.

So if I had a magic pill that made time slow down by 1/4 when I batted, thus raising my OBP to .950, you wouldn't consider that "cheating" because that specific pill wasn't banned?

Interesting logic.

[Barry(US)Bonds]

I like what Bill James said in an interview in mid-July:

http://http://www.whittierdailynews.com/pauloberjuerge/ci_6378921


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.

Thank you for posting this...this was an excellent interivew from one of the greatest minds in baseball today and it perfectly illustrates how pointless it is to pour over the details of the PED controversy ad nausium: "it's hypocritical and it's impractical"

[SamtheBravesFan]

I take the "impractical" route because it is my belief that so much in the record books has to be tinkered with if we start penalizing stats for PEDs.

[Williamsburg2599]

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 undetectable. Cheating?


I guess none of these fellas have ever taken a recently developed antibiotic, had lasix surgery, used ultrasound etc.
Life goes on, medicine improves(knee surgery in 1977 ended your season and then some).
Oh well put on the wool, break out salt pills and pass the medicine ball

The problem with this logic is that Tommy John, Knee surgery, lasix surgury,etc.., is:
a)They're all legal in the United States
and
b)They're getting you back to where you were. The average, perfectly healthy human being doesn't need Tommy John or Lasix, so these surgeries are simply getting the player back to healthy level.

[ColbyPants]

As long as the substance wasn't banned at the time they took it, it's not cheating, by definition.

and because of precisely that all this whining and innuendo really has to stop. I dont care enough to persecute anymore. Just play ball.

TomC

[ssbguyincognito]

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 undetectable. Cheating?

No. But this technology, when (if?) it becomes available, can be predicted. And banned in advance. Remember steroids didn't come out of nowhere; every other sport had banned them well before baseball. It's not like baseball didn't know about steroids; they intentionally ignored it, and they ended up paying for it.

The problem with this logic is that Tommy John, Knee surgery, lasix surgury,etc.., is:
a)They're all legal in the United States
and
b)They're getting you back to where you were. The average, perfectly healthy human being doesn't need Tommy John or Lasix, so these surgeries are simply getting the player back to healthy level.

Both points are wrong.

First, steroid use is also legal in the US. Just like Tommy John surgery. Steroid use without a prescription is illegal. Just like Tommy John surgery without approval (a doctor can't give you surgery unless he does it officially).

Second, Tommy John surgery actually improves velocity. And laser eye surgery can make your vision better than it already was. They're all forms of chemical enhancement. The question is, do we allow this chemical enhancement? When baseball answers that question, they ban certain form sof chemical enhancement in the CBA. But until that, it's not cheating.

[ssbguyincognito]

So if I had a magic pill that made time slow down by 1/4 when I batted, thus raising my OBP to .950, you wouldn't consider that "cheating" because that specific pill wasn't banned?

Interesting logic.

Read my point when I replied to Williamsburg. No, your pill wouldn't be cheating. But in this anecdotal (and completely unrealistic) scenario, your pill can't be anticipated and banned by baseball in advance. That doesn't apply to the real world, where medical science progress is gradual -- and performance enhancing drugs can be banned before they become powerful.

[bryanac625]

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 undetectable. Cheating?

You throw 130 mph, you will kill somebody and likely break the hand or arm of the man catching the ball.

[Padday]

No. But this technology, when (if?) it becomes available, can be predicted. And banned in advance. Remember steroids didn't come out of nowhere; every other sport had banned them well before baseball. It's not like baseball didn't know about steroids; they intentionally ignored it, and they ended up paying for it.

Irrelevant.



Both points are wrong.

First, steroid use is also legal in the US. Just like Tommy John surgery. Steroid use without a prescription is illegal. Just like Tommy John surgery without approval (a doctor can't give you surgery unless he does it officially).

Second, Tommy John surgery actually improves velocity. And laser eye surgery can make your vision better than it already was. They're all forms of chemical enhancement. The question is, do we allow this chemical enhancement? When baseball answers that question, they ban certain form sof chemical enhancement in the CBA. But until that, it's not cheating.

But the alternative to Tommy John surgery is retireing from baseball. Plus, I doubt players have Tommy John surgery because they want the extra velocity they may get. Players will use steroids specifically to gain that advantage. Also, if you haven't noticed, the entire point of laser eye sugery is to improve your vision so I don't know what you mean by that.

[natsnsoxfan]

Cheating, to me, is getting an artificial edge on your opponent, be it by using a banned or illegal substance or doctoring the ball or bat in someway.

Lets be honest, the reason this came up is because of Bonds, and clearly the substances he was using were illegal under U.S. law, otherwise he wouldn't have had to appear in front of the grand jury for it. It doesn't matter if it wasn't banned by baseball at the time, it was illegal under U.S. law, and that supercedes whether or not it is banned by baseball.

[Padday]

Cheat v. 1 act dishonestly or unfairly to gain an advantage.

Note that it says nothing about anything to do with acting illegally.:lookitup

[ssbguyincognito]

Cheating, to me, is getting an artificial edge on your opponent, be it by using a banned or illegal substance or doctoring the ball or bat in someway.

Lets be honest, the reason this came up is because of Bonds, and clearly the substances he was using were illegal under U.S. law, otherwise he wouldn't have had to appear in front of the grand jury for it. It doesn't matter if it wasn't banned by baseball at the time, it was illegal under U.S. law, and that supercedes whether or not it is banned by baseball.

If that's your critera, than you must accept that Aaron cheated too (he used amphetamines). As did probably everyone else since they became available in the 50s and 60s.

[mwb]

Do amphetamines give a person a decided edge over those who don't use them?

[Williamsburg2599]

If that's your critera, than you must accept that Aaron cheated too (he used amphetamines). As did probably everyone else since they became available in the 50s and 60s.

And here's where you offer your proof or at least a source that Aaron did PEDs more than that one time.....

[mwb]

Plus I wonder how long amphetamines benefit the person. If they last 24 hours then it's not like if Aaron or any other player used them a few times, he or they benefitted more than a game or two.

I could be wrong but I would think steriods stay with the user for a longer period of time so a player would only need to use them once a week or month or season which would make them more potent.

[ssbguyincognito]

First, it's foolishto believe Aaron only used amphetamines once.

But suppose I grant that he did. Isn't that still cheating, according to you?

The potency of the drug shouldn't matter if you consider it cheating. If it does, then where do you draw the line? You're saying it's acceptable to cheat if the impact of cheating is smaller than a given reference. Where exactly is that reference?

I say we should deal in absolutes. Cheating -- which is defined as breaking the rules of baseball, not by your arbitrary moral standards which are debatable -- is not allowed, regardless of the magnitude of benefit recieved.

[Padday]

I say we should deal in absolutes. Cheating -- which is defined as breaking the rules of baseball, not by your arbitrary moral standards which are debatable -- is not allowed, regardless of the magnitude of benefit recieved.

Read my last post. You have misunderstood the meaning of the word cheat. Cheating (as I stated then) is not directly related to rule breaking. Rule breaking can be a product of cheating, but is not necissary for cheating.

[ssbguyincognito]

Yeah I think the textbook definition of cheating isn't going to mean anything to this argument. And I hope I don't need to explain why.

[Padday]

Yeah I think the textbook definition of cheating isn't going to mean anything to this argument. And I hope I don't need to explain why.

No. Please do.

[Williamsburg2599]

First, it's foolishto believe Aaron only used amphetamines once.

But suppose I grant that he did. Isn't that still cheating, according to you?

The potency of the drug shouldn't matter if you consider it cheating. If it does, then where do you draw the line? You're saying it's acceptable to cheat if the impact of cheating is smaller than a given reference. Where exactly is that reference?

I say we should deal in absolutes. Cheating -- which is defined as breaking the rules of baseball, not by your arbitrary moral standards which are debatable -- is not allowed, regardless of the magnitude of benefit recieved.

1.For at least the 5th time, please offer your proof or at least a source that Aaron did PEDs more than that one time, without calling the idea that he didn't foolish.

2.And where did I mention the potency, at all? I may of discussed the amount of PEDs he used, which is one pill, but if you want MLB to go back, 30 years later, and erase Aaron's stats from that one game where he tried Amp. and thought he was having a heart attack, then please shoot Selig a letter. Maybe he hit a HR in that game, making Bonds the HR champion now, so this sad chapter of sport's history can end.

[Williamsburg2599]

No. Please do.

I second that.

[ssbguyincognito]

1.For at least the 5th time, please offer your proof or at least a source that Aaron did PEDs more than that one time, without calling the idea that he didn't foolish.

It's not proof. It's called not being naive. And people who have played with him have said he used greenies, as everyone did back then. They're really wonder drugs, helping ease the exhaustion and tiredness that comes from playing on the road so much, as well as artifically providing the concentration and focus whenever you want.

But that's besides the point. Even if Aaron only used it once, isn't that still cheating, by your standards? Or is it not cheating if you decide it's not, even thogh people break rules?

[ssbguyincognito]

Originally Posted by Oxford English Dictionary
Cheat v. 1 act dishonestly or unfairly to gain an advantage.

OK. Here goes.

First, you're using only one definition of the word "cheat", as a verb. Another definition is "to violate the rules."

Second, the issues of "dishonesty" and "unfairly" are debatable. Once again, you can't led arbitrary judgment decide the legitimacy of records in sports. So unless you can quantify and unambigously define what exactly is "dishonestly and unfairly" gaining an advantage, then this definition is useless. Not only that, but you have to get everyone else to agree with your definition.

For instance, what if Bonds were taking sleeping pills before day games, to get more rest? Is that unfairly gaining an advantage over another player who say can't afford sleeping pills? Is it dishonest, if he does so without a prescription? Better yet, would anybody care if sleeping pills were the only thing Bonds was suspected of? Probably not. But I can make the case that his use of sleeping pills is dishoenst and unfair -- yet it's not cheating.

You have to deal with absolutes. Cheating -- by which I mean conduct which voids your achievements in major league baseball -- is simple: breaking the rules of baseball that have been agreed upon by owners and players.

[Williamsburg2599]

It's not proof. It's called not being naive. And people who have played with him have said he used Greene's, as everyone did back then. They're really wonder drugs, helping ease the exhaustion and tiredness that comes from playing on the road so much, as well as artificially providing the concentration and focus whenever you want.

But that's besides the point. Even if Aaron only used it once, isn't that still cheating, by your standards? Or is it not cheating if you decide it's not, even though people break rules?

Like I said before, sources would be nice.

Like I said before, If you want to petition to get the stats from that one game removed, go ahead. I'm not even going to compare one Greene to large amounts of steroids and greenies multiple times.

Like I said before, it's not cheating if I decide it is or isn't, it's cheating if someone does what the dictionary defines cheating as. Obviously the punishment depends on the severity of the cheating.

[mwb]

ssb-

Greenies sound like today's herbal supplements like St. John's Wort or Ginko Biloba. There's a big difference between greenies & steriods. One seems to affect your mood, endurance, and focus. The other allows you to hit a ball 500 feet.

But steriods are very dangerous on a long term basis. Not sure if the same can be said for greenies. I don't think MLB should stop Julio Franco from taking his daily 81 mg aspirin everyday because it might give him a tiny edge over someone who doesn't.

[ssbguyincognito]

That's besides the point. People here seem to say that Bonds using steroids was cheating -- even though he wasn't breaking any rules in MLB -- because he was breaking the law (using a drug without a prescription).

If that's true, then Aaron cheated too -- he used amphetamines without a prescription.

Unless you think that amphetamines aren't cheating because they're not powerful enough. Then the question becomes, what's the difference between chemical enhancement which is acceptable and chemical enhancement which isn't? And when you draw that line, I can easily contest it.

[natsnsoxfan]

Yeah I think the textbook definition of cheating isn't going to mean anything to this argument. And I hope I don't need to explain why.

I agree with Padday, please do. The title of the thread is "what is cheating" the text book definition is going to be directly questioned and scrutinized in this thread, it has everything to do with this argument.

[Padday]

Originally Posted by Oxford English Dictionary
Cheat v. 1 act dishonestly or unfairly to gain an advantage.

OK. Here goes.

First, you're using only one definition of the word "cheat", as a verb. Another definition is "to violate the rules."

Second, the issues of "dishonesty" and "unfairly" are debatable. Once again, you can't led arbitrary judgment decide the legitimacy of records in sports. So unless you can quantify and unambigously define what exactly is "dishonestly and unfairly" gaining an advantage, then this definition is useless. Not only that, but you have to get everyone else to agree with your definition.

For instance, what if Bonds were taking sleeping pills before day games, to get more rest? Is that unfairly gaining an advantage over another player who say can't afford sleeping pills? Is it dishonest, if he does so without a prescription? Better yet, would anybody care if sleeping pills were the only thing Bonds was suspected of? Probably not. But I can make the case that his use of sleeping pills is dishoenst and unfair -- yet it's not cheating.

You have to deal with absolutes. Cheating -- by which I mean conduct which voids your achievements in major league baseball -- is simple: breaking the rules of baseball that have been agreed upon by owners and players.

Nowhere in this dictionary beside me does it give your definition of cheating. If you have a dictionary that agrees with your statement please post the source and excerpt.

As for your situation, I'd hardly call extra sleep an unfair advantage. Also you never explain why it's not cheating.

[Williamsburg2599]

Originally Posted by Oxford English Dictionary
Cheat v. 1 act dishonestly or unfairly to gain an advantage.

OK. Here goes.

First, you're using only one definition of the word "cheat", as a verb. Another definition is "to violate the rules."

Second, the issues of "dishonesty" and "unfairly" are debatable. Once again, you can't led arbitrary judgment decide the legitimacy of records in sports. So unless you can quantify and unambigously define what exactly is "dishonestly and unfairly" gaining an advantage, then this definition is useless. Not only that, but you have to get everyone else to agree with your definition.

For instance, what if Bonds were taking sleeping pills before day games, to get more rest? Is that unfairly gaining an advantage over another player who say can't afford sleeping pills? Is it dishonest, if he does so without a prescription? Better yet, would anybody care if sleeping pills were the only thing Bonds was suspected of? Probably not. But I can make the case that his use of sleeping pills is dishoenst and unfair -- yet it's not cheating.

You have to deal with absolutes. Cheating -- by which I mean conduct which voids your achievements in major league baseball -- is simple: breaking the rules of baseball that have been agreed upon by owners and players.

Even if what Bonds did isn't one definition of cheating, what he did was A definition of cheating(the first one mentioned), therefore you use the word "cheating" to describe it. For the sanity of this argument, I hope we stop arguing the definition of words here.

Obviously sleeping pills are not on the same level as PEDs. Sleeping pills can be picked up at any local CVS. You don't even need a prescription for some Tylenol PM. If there is a player in the MLB who can't afford Tylenol PM, then he sure does have to manage his funds better.

[ssbguyincognito]

Nowhere in this dictionary beside me does it give your definition of cheating. If you have a dictionary that agrees with your statement please post the source and excerpt.

As for your situation, I'd hardly call extra sleep an unfair advantage. Also you never explain why it's not cheating.

It's from Websters.com, definition 1b:

1 a: to practice fraud or trickery b: to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>
2: to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on<was cheating on his wife>
3: to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area <the shortstop was cheating toward second base>

It wouldn't be cheating because sleeping pills aren't prohibited by baseball. So by using sleeping pills, Bonds isn't breaking any rules of baseball. So he's not cheating. The logic is quite simple.

[Fatty]

Cheating, to me, is getting an artificial edge on your opponent, be it by using a banned or illegal substance or doctoring the ball or bat in someway.

I completely agree, which is why I think that Sammy Sosa (as well as any others who apply to the situation) should have gotten the Pete Rose treatment when he was caught with a corked bat. It's ridiculous that (at the time) alleged betting warrants a life time ban, but being found to be cheating during a game only gets a 7 game suspension.

[Williamsburg2599]

I completely agree, which is why I think that Sammy Sosa (as well as any others who apply to the situation) should have gotten the Pete Rose treatment when he was caught with a corked bat. It's ridiculous that (at the time) alleged betting warrants a life time ban, but being found to be cheating during a game only gets a 7 game suspension.

(Hopefully) this is something we can all agree on. If you give a lifetime ban for PEDs, then with it goes the league's problem of PEDs. Which is a very, very good thing.:nod: Hopefully the next commish isn't as soft as Selig and stands up against the union if they try to object to a lifetime ban.

[natsnsoxfan]

I think Congress should just step in and take over the drug control problems in all sports, at least if their is threat of legal punishment players will think twice about using anything.

[Padday]

It's from Websters.com, definition 1b:

1 a: to practice fraud or trickery b: to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>
2: to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on<was cheating on his wife>
3: to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area <the shortstop was cheating toward second base>

It wouldn't be cheating because sleeping pills aren't prohibited by baseball. So by using sleeping pills, Bonds isn't breaking any rules of baseball. So he's not cheating. The logic is quite simple.

I don't think you realise it but your definition agrees with mine. The only difference is that it also gives the possibility of rule breaking being involved. It doesn't say it is necissary.

[Williamsburg2599]

I think Congress should just step in and take over the drug control problems in all sports, at least if their is threat of legal punishment players will think twice about using anything.

Or they can just crack down on Illegal prescription drug use, you don't need any league's permission to do that when player's are using substances that are illegal in the USA.

[mwb]

That's besides the point. People here seem to say that Bonds using steroids was cheating -- even though he wasn't breaking any rules in MLB -- because he was breaking the law (using a drug without a prescription).

If that's true, then Aaron cheated too -- he used amphetamines without a prescription.

Unless you think that amphetamines aren't cheating because they're not powerful enough. Then the question becomes, what's the difference between chemical enhancement which is acceptable and chemical enhancement which isn't? And when you draw that line, I can easily contest it.

You seem to painting PEDs with a very broad brush. I don't know if that is to lump everyone else with Bonds. MLB needs to come up with some kind of cutoff point where some drugs are legal & some are illegal. It would be foolish to lump an herbal supplement with steriods just for the sake of appearing fair to everyone.

[Skin & Bones]

ssb-

Greenies sound like today's herbal supplements like St. John's Wort or Ginko Biloba. There's a big difference between greenies & steriods. One seems to affect your mood, endurance, and focus. The other allows you to hit a ball 500 feet.

But steriods are very dangerous on a long term basis. Not sure if the same can be said for greenies. I don't think MLB should stop Julio Franco from taking his daily 81 mg aspirin everyday because it might give him a tiny edge over someone who doesn't.

Today's "herbal supplements" are nothing like illegal Amphetamines. Players wouldn't risk testing positive ( Bonds, Giambi, Perez), etc if there was legal and safe alternatives that could provide HUGE energy bursts, and even enhance your reaction time. No red bull, or nothing legal replicate illegal Amphetamines benefits. That's why they are used.

[mwb]

Today's "herbal supplements" are nothing like illegal Amphetamines. Players wouldn't risk testing positive ( Bonds, Giambi, Perez), etc if they were legal and safe alternatives that could provide HUGE energy bursts, and even enhance your reaction time. No red bull, or nothing legal replicate illegal Amphetamines benefits. That's why they are used.

We were talking about the amphetamines used during Aaron's era. Were they just as strong back then? I guess if we're talking about amphetamines as a whole, they must be pretty potent today if MLB has suspended players for using them. That's a step in the right direction.

[mwb]

I'd rather they focus on drugs like steriods since they seem to give players a greater edge but I'll take what I can get at this point.

[Skin & Bones]

We were talking about the amphetamines used during Aaron's era. Were they just as strong back then? I guess if we're talking about amphetamines as a whole, they must be pretty potent today if MLB has suspended players for using them. That's a step in the right direction.

Amphetamines in Aaron's day? Well, I could definetely see them "improving" a little like the quality of steroids, but by how much? We know that steroids were extremely effective long before the 90's and 00's, just take a look at the bodies of Arnold S. and Sly Stallone. I would believe if the "quality" of Amphetamines has improved over time, it's not by much.

[Skin & Bones]

I'd rather they focus on drugs like steriods since they seem to give players a greater edge but I'll take what I can get at this point.

So it's ok to cheat as long as it enables you to hit 10 extra homeruns instead of 20?

[mwb]

So it's ok to cheat as long as it enables you to hit 10 extra homeruns instead of 20?

Sure. Especially if 20 extra HR's helps a player hit 74 HRs a season or 756 HRs over a career.

[Skin & Bones]

Sure. Especially if 20 extra HR's helps a player hit 74 HRs a season or 756 HRs over a career.

Really? Then it would of been ok if Bonds breaks the rules constantly, and get an arfiticial advantage over others, as long as it doesn't help him hit 20 homeruns? It could help you get 15, but 20? That's the limit.:crazy

[mwb]

Really? Then it would of been ok if Bonds breaks the rules constantly, and get an arfiticial advantage over others, as long as it doesn't help him hit 20 homeruns? It could help you get 15, but 20? That's the limit.:crazy

Actually 20 is your number not mine. The point was that I'd rather stop the players breaking records by using steriods before stopping a player who doesn't appear on most people's radar screen. Eventually they all should be tested though. The testing I'd like to see is like what is done at the Olympics. If you notice, the person who wins the Gold is tested. I don't know if the guy who finishes in 50th place is tested but if he tests positive, no one cares.

[Sweet Lou]

That's besides the point. People here seem to say that Bonds using steroids was cheating -- even though he wasn't breaking any rules in MLB -- because he was breaking the law (using a drug without a prescription).

It doesn't matter if it wasn't banned by baseball at the time, it was illegal under U.S. law, and that supercedes whether or not it is banned by baseball.
MLB does say this in it's rule book, someone who knows more than I can probably find the exact rule.

If that's true, then Aaron cheated too -- he used amphetamines without a prescription.

So it would seem.
:dismay:

[lovethegame]

Ellie Howard sharpened his buckle on his leg protector to quickly nick the ball on it's return to Whitey Ford.
Take Whitey down too?

[ssbguyincognito]

Cheating at baseball has to be defined by breaking the rules of baseball in the CBA.

Anything else becomes a matter of interpretation, and those issues are never resolved.

That means don't worry about ethics, or morality, or what you consider to be taboo or not.

When you ask yourself, did Bonds cheat?, you should really be asking, did Bonds break any rules of major league baseball?

The answer is no.

[mwb]

That's fine. He'll still have to stand up to public opinion. If it is found that he knowingly (he'll probably never admit it) used steriods, than he can pay the consequences when it comes to his Hall of Fame voting.

O.J. was found not guilty. Despite that, most people think he's guilty & his life hasn't exactly been easy since he was found not guilty.

So you can keep your logic that because he didn't violate the CBA, he shouldn't be considered a cheater. The fans will have the final say.

[ssbguyincognito]

That's fine. He'll still have to stand up to public opinion. If it is found that he knowingly (he'll probably never admit it) used steriods, than he can pay the consequences when it comes to his Hall of Fame voting.

O.J. was found not guilty. Despite that, most people think he's guilty & his life hasn't exactly been easy since he was found not guilty.

So you can keep your logic that because he didn't violate the CBA, he shouldn't be considered a cheater. The fans will have the final say.

Hopefully they don't. Fans are fickle and people's morals and taboos change.

These same fans sent Aaron lots of hate mail because they didn't want a "******" breaking Ruth's record.

Personally, I'd rather have it that the legitimacy of records doesn't depend on public opinion.

[Imapotato]

So if I had a magic pill that made time slow down by 1/4 when I batted, thus raising my OBP to .950, you wouldn't consider that "cheating" because that specific pill wasn't banned?

Interesting logic.


Ludicrous as your statement is...that WOULD be banned, it's a given. It is also a weak flame upon a fellow member

Interesting common sense.

[Padday]

Cheating at baseball has to be defined by breaking the rules of baseball in the CBA.

Anything else becomes a matter of interpretation, and those issues are never resolved.

That means don't worry about ethics, or morality, or what you consider to be taboo or not.

When you ask yourself, did Bonds cheat?, you should really be asking, did Bonds break any rules of major league baseball?

The answer is no.

How many times do I have to say it. RULE BREAKING IS NOT NECISSARY FOR CHEATING.

Why do you think players who took steroids were never public about it if it was legal? Because they knew that what they were doing was wrong.

Ludicrous as your statement is...that WOULD be banned, it's a given. It is also a weak flame upon a fellow member

Interesting common sense.

Your missing the point of this post. Your taking it too literally.

Besides, steroids WEREN'T banned despite being similar to this fictional pill.

[ssbguyincognito]

How many times do I have to say it. RULE BREAKING IS NOT NECISSARY FOR CHEATING.

Why do you think players who took steroids were never public about it if it was legal? Because they knew that what they were doing was wrong.


Really? Then what do we define as cheating? What you consider cheating? Wouldn't your views on cheating differ from others around you, including mine? Can we let arbitrary judgment decide the legitimacy of records? If so, isn't that exaclty what happened when Maris's record wasn't seen as legitimate because he did so in more games, or when Aaron first broke Ruth's record, because he was black?

Your views put you on a very slippery slope.

[Padday]

Really? Then what do we define as cheating? What you consider cheating? Wouldn't your views on cheating differ from others around you, including mine? Can we let arbitrary judgment decide the legitimacy of records? If so, isn't that exaclty what happened when Maris's record wasn't seen as legitimate because he did so in more games, or when Aaron first broke Ruth's record, because he was black?

Your views put you on a very slippery slope.

I have already made my views on what constitutes cheating known.

Nobody thought that Maris or Aaron cheated though so its nowhere near the same situation.

[Skin & Bones]

I have already made my views on what constitutes cheating known.

Nobody thought that Maris or Aaron cheated though so its nowhere near the same situation.

That's because they played at the time when cheating didn't exist.

<Sarcasm>

[mwb]

Really? Then what do we define as cheating? What you consider cheating? Wouldn't your views on cheating differ from others around you, including mine? Can we let arbitrary judgment decide the legitimacy of records? If so, isn't that exaclty what happened when Maris's record wasn't seen as legitimate because he did so in more games, or when Aaron first broke Ruth's record, because he was black?

Your views put you on a very slippery slope.

You're joking right? Comparing someone who may (or probably did) use steroids to break a record to a player who had the benefit of more games to break a record is absurd. The only even logical example, yet far-fetched, would be to give every player access to steroids. Then at least there would be a level playing field for all players so Bonds' record wouldn't be considered tainted because all players used steroids.

[ssbguyincognito]

You're joking right? Comparing someone who may (or probably did) use steroids to break a record to a player who had the benefit of more games to break a record is absurd. The only even logical example, yet far-fetched, would be to give every player access to steroids. Then at least there would be a level playing field for all players so Bonds' record wouldn't be considered tainted because all players used steroids.

My point was the legitimacy of a record can't depend on how people feel about it at the time.

If it does, then very few records would be legitimate -- because everyone reveres the past, and loves players who did it a long time ago compared to players who do it today.

[Padday]

My point was the legitimacy of a record can't depend on how people feel about it at the time.

If it does, then very few records would be legitimate -- because everyone reveres the past, and loves players who did it a long time ago compared to players who do it today.

But I doubt this one will go away. Steroids are in a completely different league to any other sort of controversy in sports today or at any time. It's not an issue that will just get forgotten over the years. If anything, time should prove to fuel the controversy as new evidence will continue to stream foreward.

[Skin & Bones]

But I doubt this one will go away. Steroids are in a completely different league to any other sort of controversy in sports today or at any time. It's not an issue that will just get forgotten over the years. If anything, time should prove to fuel the controversy as new evidence will continue to stream foreward.

Are you serious? Do You think this is worse than the betting scandal going on in the NBA? or the Blacksox Scandal?

Jesus, I'd rather have a steroid problem in MLB then a Gambling problem. Some players using banned drugs won't turn the entire sport into a soap opera like Gambling could.

[Ashburn1]

The only even logical example, yet far-fetched, would be to give every player access to steroids. Then at least there would be a level playing field for all players so Bonds' record wouldn't be considered tainted because all players used steroids.

I think every player did have access to steroids.

And a lot more of them were using them than anyone wants to admit.

Pitchers too, which people never seem to talk about.

[Padday]

Are you serious? You think this is worse than the betting scandal going on in the NBA? or the Blacksox Scandal?

Jesus, I'd rather have a steroid problem in MLB then a Gambling problem. Some players using banned drugs won't turn the entire sport into a soap opera like Gambling could.

I said that it's in a different league, not necissarily worse. While steroids are a sport wide problem the NBA gambling scandal is isolated. Also, comparing steroids and gambling is like comparing Ichiro and Alex Rodriguez. Just like the fact that both are good hitters but certainly not for the same reasons, both these issues are serious but for different reasons.

[mwb]

Maybe I should have said "every player used steroids".

I'm not so sure about your last two points. But I do think players do better with steroids in proportion to their pre-steroids skills. For example, a player with five HR's a year (if there is such a player anymore) wouldn't start to hit 50 per year with steroids. So there could be players who went from 10 to 15 HR's or 20 to 30 HR's so it's tough to say how players would benefit & how they could be uncovered.

[Skin & Bones]

I said that it's in a different league, not necissarily worse. While steroids are a sport wide problem the NBA gambling scandal is isolated. Also, comparing steroids and gambling is like comparing Ichiro and Alex Rodriguez. Just like the fact that both are good hitters but certainly not for the same reasons, both these issues are serious but for different reasons.

Can you imagine if Gambling was league wide?

Just one guy suspected of gambling or throwing games calls the entire team into question, maybe even the league. Can you say the same about steroids?

[Padday]

Can you imagine if Gambling was league wide?

Just one guy suspected of gambling or throwing games calls the entire team into question, maybe even the league. Can you say the same about steroids?

I think you missed the point of my post. I said that they're not the same and shouldn't be treated the same.

[Skin & Bones]

I think you missed the point of my post. I said that they're not the same and shouldn't be treated the same.

Well, exactly, so I ask again, how is a steroid scandal worse than a betting scandal? Why won't be it be forgotten compared to a betting scandal?

[Padday]

Well, exactly, so I ask again, how is a steroid scandal worse than a betting scandal? Why won't be it be forgotten compared to a betting scandal?

You're twisting my words. I have not said any of that.

[Skin & Bones]

You're twisting my words. I have not said any of that.

You said the steroid scandal is different than any other scandal now or years ago, and won't be forgotten. You even go on to say we'll learn more in the future, which will create more controversy. How am I supposed to interpret that?

[Padday]

You said the steroid scandal is different than any other scandal now or years ago, and won't be forgotten. You even go on to say we'll learn more in the future, which will create more controversy. How am I supposed to interpret that?

Your saying that I'm comparing it to the betting scandal when I've said quite the opposite. I've said they're two unique cases and should be treated as such.

[Skin & Bones]

Your saying that I'm comparing it to the betting scandal when I've said quite the opposite. I've said they're two unique cases and should be treated as such.

I never said that you compared them, I only asked if you did. I didn't mean to say you said something you didn't. I got your anwser though, so thanks.