Sen Mitchell, I demand a Lasik inquiry

[lovethegame]

What's more performance enhancing then an eyeball tuneup?
Ruth and Foxx were denied lasix so let's hear the outcry to remove all lasix recievers from any and all records.

[digglahhh]

What's more performance enhancing then an eyeball tuneup?
Ruth and Foxx were denied lasix so let's hear the outcry to remove all lasix recievers from any and all records.

At what point does disingenuous manipulation of semantics for cheap laughs and flame-baiting lose its novelty?

Hey, what about airplanes, Cy Young never got to travel on one of those - the Wrights ruined baseball; gut the record book!

There's a sensible way to raise questions about a more textured interpretation of the term "performance enhancer." The above is not it.

[lovethegame]

Says you
Having your eyeballs surgically improved to remove any foriegn assistance is certainly performance enhancing
I am sick of seeing great plays being ignored or pooh poohed by sanctimonious steroid McCarthyists
Pitchers were throwing 100 plus on the same stuff guys 60ft 6 inches away were hitting.
Turnstiles spun and great ball was played.

[digglahhh]

This is your schtik (sp?). We all know it. You throw out some hyperbolic premise with the intent to offend and work backwards to something somewhat reasonable - or wait for others to do that for you.

Cal Ripken thread, etc...

Why not just start with the reasonable premise and skip the melodrama?

[MedicCook]

Those fielder gloves are better now also, I guess that is performance enhancing too. How about batting gloves? The list goes on and on.

[downstairs]

What's more performance enhancing then an eyeball tuneup?
Ruth and Foxx were denied lasix so let's hear the outcry to remove all lasix recievers from any and all records.

Your argument only works if you actually think steroids should be legal in baseball. If you want to argue that, you better come up with some damn good ratonale.

Otherwise, your argument is meaningless.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Says you
Having your eyeballs surgically improved to remove any foriegn assistance is certainly performance enhancing

Are you serious? What about guys who are deaf and have hearing aids or cochlear implants? What about guys who take pills for whatever reasons that they have to? like for ADD or anixiety attacks? Asthma? All of these things enhance your performance by cutting the risks... Good thing you couldn't say that to my face. I am deaf and have cochlear implants. Don't talk about having Lasix surgery or anything else like that and say it's performance enhancing. These guys don't have as great eyesight as you and i do so they get surgery so they can see better. Who are we to say that they can't have it or diminished their records on the field? What you said is like saying I can't have my implants because it enhances my hearing and therefore, enhance my performance. While it does enhance it, it's a totally different situation and morally different from steroids.

[MedicCook]

Asthmatics do take a form of steroids that they inhale into their lungs. I guess those guy's should also be banned too.

[NYMets523]

Asthmatics do take a form of steroids that they inhale into their lungs. I guess those guy's should also be banned too.

Cortisone shots are also a type of steroid.

[MedicCook]

Cortisone shots are also a type of steroid.

Get rid of them all. Damn Cheaters.

[NYMets523]

Get rid of them all. Damn Cheaters.

Let's also get rid of all players who use medicine. Taking Advil or Tylenol to help numb pain can certainly help your performance.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Let's also get rid of all players who use medicine. Taking Advil or Tylenol to help numb pain can certainly help your performance.

Ballplayers that take drugs are sissies and pansies! Ban all of them! :)

[MedicCook]

Let's also get rid of all players who use medicine. Taking Advil or Tylenol to help numb pain can certainly help your performance.

I wonder if all those dome's have enhanced the performance of players?

[ipitch]

I don't have much to say, I just wanted to be the first person to spell LASIK correctly.

[Elvis]

Ballplayers that take drugs are sissies and pansies! Ban all of them! :)

And what's with using gloves? Ozzie Smith and Jim Edmonds are frauds!

[Mattingly]

I'm not sure how much sense this thread makes, but I know for a fact that Bernie Williams, even after not having played in 2007, is still used as a player in a Lasik surgery ad for a Manhattan eye doctor the past few years. He's been joined by Jason Giambi.

Brian Roberts, the Orioles leadoff man, has also had Lasik.

I'm just going to move this to BI, since it doesn't seem like anything about serious baseball issues.

[StanTheMan]

Bob Gibson used to put ice on his shoulder after pitching. What a bleeping performance enhancing freak. He's an ICER!!!

[NYMets523]

And what is this "rest" crap these pitchers get?

[BoofBonser26]

And what is this "rest" crap these pitchers get?
I know! "Rotation" sounds like a drug schedule.

[efin98]

I know! "Rotation" sounds like a drug schedule.

Who the hell needs relief too!

[Tacosaregood/metsguy234]

Who the hell needs relief too!

I can picture some old guy saying:

"In the old days, there were actually bulls in the bullpen. Now that made for some exciting ballgames."

[NYMets523]

Who the hell needs relief too!

Exactly. Walter Johnson threw 3 shutouts in 4 days.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I can picture some old guy saying:

"In the old days, there were actually bulls in the bullpen. Now that made for some exciting ballgames."

:rofl: :laugh

[sandlot]

Mattingly, et al.: Beneath this banter is a serious question that, despite repeated requests, no one on BBF has taken up: What exactly is a performance enhancement?

If a performance enhancement cannot be defined, then there is no effective banning of PEDs possible. One can always ban individual substances, but this is a Band-Aid approach that's doomed to fail. It's like microbiologists chasing a rapidly mutating virus: Just when you think you've developed something to stop it, it changes form on you and you're back to square one -- or worse.

The unassailable fact of the matter is that all of these things -- from gloves to laser surgery to nutritional supplements to Pilates machines to steroids to all-weather domed stadia and artifical turf -- are in fact performance enhancements. Every single one of them and more. Let's just accept this at the very start and not try to make the problem smaller by belittling the point. Denial and sarcasm won't help, either.

Once we accept the truth as the starting point -- that everything which is added or is taken away and improves performance, is itself a performance enhancement -- the argument can progress. We have to define the terms, then we can move on to ask which enhancements are acceptable, which are not, and why. If we do not do this, a very serious issue is going to devolve progressively into hunting witches.

I would urge every person who claims to love baseball to read "The Crucible" by Henry Miller. It is entirely relevant to baseball today and don't let anyone tell you that it isn't.

[Los Bravos]

People did actually try to claim that Adam Laroche was taking a PED a couple of years ago when he took meds to help with his ADD.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Bob Gibson used to put ice on his shoulder after pitching. What a bleeping performance enhancing freak. He's an ICER!!!

So what does that make Nolan Ryan? He used pickle juice for his blisters. He is the original juicer. Him and that guy with the crazy eyebrows.

[sandlot]

So what does that make Nolan Ryan? He used pickle juice for his blisters.Depends whether the particular PED (performance enhancing dill) was kosher. I think it makes him a brine-o. :p

[BoofBonser26]

I would urge every person who claims to love baseball to read "The Crucible" by Henry Miller. It is entirely relevant to baseball today and don't let anyone tell you that it isn't.
This is such a tiny detail but it's Arthur Miller.

[Captain Cold Nose]

This is such a tiny detail but it's Arthur Miller.

Perhaps he was thinking of Tropic of Cancer.

[KCGHOST]

I guess if you start enough inane threads you may become eligible to vote on the Veteran's Committee.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I guess if you start enough inane threads you may become eligible to vote on the Veteran's Committee.

Welcome to the Between Innings forum. Laugh a little. That's our motto.

[lovethegame]

Are you serious? What about guys who are deaf and have hearing aids or cochlear implants? What about guys who take pills for whatever reasons that they have to? like for ADD or anixiety attacks? Asthma? All of these things enhance your performance by cutting the risks... Good thing you couldn't say that to my face. I am deaf and have cochlear implants. Don't talk about having Lasix surgery or anything else like that and say it's performance enhancing. These guys don't have as great eyesight as you and i do so they get surgery so they can see better. Who are we to say that they can't have it or diminished their records on the field? What you said is like saying I can't have my implants because it enhances my hearing and therefore, enhance my performance. While it does enhance it, it's a totally different situation and morally different from steroids.major league ballplayerrs have used lasix surgery to improve their ability to see a thrown ball without aid of glasses.
how that riles you towards me with your own and similar folks predicaments is something you need to address at the next anger management meeting.
I am making a point about how players will do what they can to get an edge , nowhere was the general public mentioned.

[Los Bravos]

This is such a tiny detail but it's Arthur Miller.That play would've been a little more like Oh, Calcutta! if Henry had written it.

[BoofBonser26]

That play would've been a little more like Oh, Calcutta! if Henry had written it.
I was in a performance of The Crucible and our favorite way to not rehearse was to create spin-offs. Your comment reminded me of this. The best? Crucible on Ice.

[BoweryBoys]

There is a huge difference in a player receiving legal eye surgery in order to correct vision so as to no longer require the use of corrective lenses and a player who may take a known illegal drug with the obvious intention of gaining a possible advantage. The issue is one of intent, not whether PEDs actually do increase performance. No player would clandestinely acquire an illegal drug thought by many to boost ability and maybe put up increased numbers without the clear intent in hopes of gaining an advantage over others, whether said advantage really exists or not. In no way does this intention compare with a player who uses eye surgery to correct himself to the normal vision capability he may have otherwise had if not for age and/or genetics. One player decides he is sick of needing lenses in order to have normal eyesight, another uses illegal drugs he thinks may help him stay on an MLB roster, make the HOF, become the "greatest hitter" or "greatest pitcher" ever. There is no comparison and attempts to do so are deliberate disingenuos arguements perhaps made by steroid apologists. Also, the idea of taking chemicals to attempt to gain an advantage compared to all the natural advantages that have occured over the years to make things easier or better for players also does not wash. There is a huge difference in all players gaining an advantage equally over past era players due to improvements in equipment, air travel, training programs, etc and certain players deciding a drug is going to help them be better then the next guy.

People seem to miss that the only real issue that matters is a player's intent and reasons behind purchasing and possibly ingesting an illegal drug. They do so to gain some advantage that others may not have, whether it is to peform better, heal more quickly, etc. The only other issue that matters is one of player ego, who took these PEDs in hopes of defrauding the record book and or elevating themselves into a place in baseball history they may not have otherwise enjoyed. The real sad part about any modern player that may have used PEDs with the hope of gaining advantage, especially with already great players, is the fact that they make so much money with guaranteed contracts they don't really need to be taking this stuff. Even the average MLB player today makes enough money for just one season, especially if he invests it wisely, to be set for life and never have to work another job. I can understand the pressure to use if one thinks it may help him make an MLB roster but IF guys like Clemens and Bonds DID use then there is no real reason except arrogant ego.

[StanTheMan]

Perhpas if one of these players obtained this eye surgery by illegal methods, did whatever he could do to hide if from everyone, deny getting it, have friends go to jail who know about it just to protect you, have journalists write about it and go to jail for refusing to name sources, etc.

THEN we would have something.

[west coast orange and black]

without a doubt, bonds did in fact use performance enhancers.
check out the extra padding in these custom gamer batting gloves.

[StanTheMan]

without a doubt, bonds did in fact use performance enhancers.
check out the extra padding in these custom gamer batting gloves.



Those cannot be his. SNOB is misspelled SDNOB on both gloves.

[The Splendid Splinter]

major league ballplayerrs have used lasix surgery to improve their ability to see a thrown ball without aid of glasses.

what edge do they get in the first place? it's not like they can see better than anyone else after the surgery. Just like I can't hear better than you with my cochlear implants and most likely, I won't ever hear as well as you. What it does, it helps us see or hear better than we did in the first place, but not beyond what the human limits supposed to be. It is in no way an edge over what other players have.

how that riles you towards me with your own and similar folks predicaments is something you need to address at the next anger management meeting.

cuz you're being prejudiced or discriminating at a group of people which im sure it's intent, but you're really are whether you wanna believe it or not. just let me ask you this... say i was in the MLB and my situation came up where i got my implants and now i can hear better so i can play better defense and whatnot that i actually improved... would you want to have my records out?? it riles me because you have no clue what's going on or what it is like. i wish you can be in my shoes for a day without hearing and then a day with the implants and you tell me which one you like and you would want to play with?? it's not cheating or illegal. Another example... Rube Waddell??? would you take his records out if the doctors figured out what was really wrong with him and gave him medicine to take that he improved?

I am making a point about how players will do what they can to get an edge , nowhere was the general public mentioned.

ok yes you made a point. it is very weak and not good at all. you're really going the wrong way about this. yes lasix helps you out and get you an edge, but it's not any more than a regular player with normal eyesight. lasix brings you back to normal eyesight or maybe a little better with 30/20 (which is what i have). cuz if you gonna as about lasix, you might as well ask for guys who on meds or pills for their health and whatnot... then gloves, bats, even sunglasses... then you basically got no one left. you have to draw the line somewhere.

Steroids and HGH and PEDs go beyond the human limits for you. You get an edge over everyone because you're beyond what your or the "max" limits are. Why are steroids and these things illegal, but none of these other things?

[sandlot]

This is such a tiny detail but it's Arthur Miller.Arthur it is, of course. Apologies, my bad. Thanks for that, and not tiny at all. That'll teach me to dash off off afterthoughts. Come to think of it, Tropic of Cancer might not be irrelevant, either.

[sandlot]

There is a huge difference in a player receiving legal eye surgery in order to correct vision so as to no longer require the use of corrective lenses and a player who may take a known illegal drug with the obvious intention of gaining a possible advantage. The issue is one of intent, not whether PEDs actually do increase performance. No player would clandestinely acquire an illegal drug thought by many to boost ability and maybe put up increased numbers without the clear intent in hopes of gaining an advantage over others, whether said advantage really exists or not. In no way does this intention compare with a player who uses eye surgery to correct himself to the normal vision capability he may have otherwise had if not for age and/or genetics. One player decides he is sick of needing lenses in order to have normal eyesight, another uses illegal drugs he thinks may help him stay on an MLB roster, make the HOF, become the "greatest hitter" or "greatest pitcher" ever. There is no comparison and attempts to do so are deliberate disingenuos arguements perhaps made bysteroid apologists. Also, the idea of taking chemicals to attempt to gain an advantage compared to all the natural advantages that have occured over the years to make things easier or better for players also does not wash. There is a huge difference in all players gaining an advantage equally over past era players due to improvements in equipment, air travel, training programs, etc and certain players deciding a drug is going to help them be better then the next guy. It is unfair and wrong to lump everyone who raises substantive questions a being a "steroid apologist." It would be equally wrong to lump everyone who's deeply concerned about PEDs usage as being a "steroids McCarthyist." Please look more carefully at the points being raised. For example, the record book: Can there be any doubt that the improvement you cite in travel arrangements and training methods assisted later players over earlier ones? Of course they did. So did the use of gloves, then improved gloves, and then bigger gloves, not to mention gloves for hitting and gloves for base stealing. The mound has been lowered. Even the ball has not been consistently the same. No way you can even compare the quality of eyeglasses today with the ones worn ears ago, much less take account of developments like contact lenses or surgery. Yet some people argue against PEDs based on the sanctity of the records, even though baseball today -- even without considering PEDs -- makes almost any comparison to the past apples and oranges.

Then there's the argument based on "normality," i.e., going beyond what someone says is supposed to be the norm. Well, athletes today are going way beyond what was considered "normal" only a few decades ago. I'm old enough to remember when running a mile in under 4 minutes was considered impossible -- until Roger Bannister did it, and today it would be hard to be on a decent college track team and not be able to run a sub-4-minute mile. There are marathoners today who even run sub-4-minute miles in succession. There are moves in ice skating now considered obligatory that were considered impossible not long ago.

Medicine advances as well. If a metal pin is inserted an a player can resume a career, something impossible in the past, is this unfair? You might say no, because he's only returning to what's normal. But in the past, injury was normal and so was the inability to recover from it sufficiently to resume a career. That's a huge change. Players have also come back from surgery and other procedures stronger than they were before -- is that not enhancement? If my eyes were corrected to 20-20 by glasses, and now I can get rid of the glasses and still be 20-20, is this not enhancement? Of course it is. These are all forms of enhancement. So why are some acceptable and others not? A line has to be drawn, which gets us to...


People seem to miss that the only real issue that matters is a player's intent and reasons behind purchasing and possibly ingesting an illegal drug. They do so to gain some advantage that others may not have, whether it is to peform better, heal more quickly, etc. The only other issue that matters is one of player ego, who took these PEDs in hopes of defrauding the record book and or elevating themselves into a place in baseball history they may not have otherwise enjoyed. The real sad part about any modern player that may have used PEDs with the hope of gaining advantage, especially with already great players, is the fact that they make so much money with guaranteed contracts they don't really need to be taking this stuff. Even the average MLB player today makes enough money for just one season, especially if he invests it wisely, to be set for life and never have to work another job. I can understand the pressure to use if one thinks it may help him make an MLB roster but IF guys like Clemens and Bonds DID use then there is no real reason except arrogant ego.I see two points here: Intent and Ego.

Trying to draw a line on intent might be a productive way to go, although establishing intent can be a very hard thing to do. Every athlete wants to be as good as he can be, and preferably better than anybody else. This is the crux of the issue. What is a right and acceptable way to be the best, and what is a wrong and unacceptable way to be the best? Is wanting to heal faster a morally wrong desire? Is getting back to work sooner an unacceptable ambition? Asking these questions isn't apologizing for anything, it's part of trying to find out what any athlete would want to know: What can I do and when can I do it, without throwing my career down the drain?

Ego is another question. How anyone legislates against it is beyond me. The ancient Greeks thought hubris carried its own penalties. Like them, I'm content to leave it to the fates.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I'm not really in the mood to sum up my thoughts, so here are the coles notes.

-A Lasik inquiry wouldn't be necessary, since who's had it done is pretty much generally known.

-It's tough to criticize PED users when we live in a performance-enhancing culture. Old dudes (and apparently young ones too) use Viagra. Women get nose-jobs, botox injections etc... and then go to great lengths to ensure that people don't find out about it(strikingly similar to the whole steroid deal). Men and women both have surgical procedures to enhance their looks. Gastric bypass surgery (reducing the size of one's stomach), lyposuction, all kinds of facial surgery. I'm not saying that these are the same thing, but there are certainly paralells to be drawn.

-There are two ways of looking at this. One is looking at the performance of Player X in 2007 vs/ performance of Player Y in 1923. In this case, there will be many reasons that X will be faster, stronger, etc... To complain that it's unfair to Honus Wagner that Cal Ripken had the advantages of modern medecine is baloney on many levels. Not only is it the evolution of the game and of society, but the competition (opposing pitchers for example) all enjoyed the same advantages. So that kind of argument doesn't really hold water with me.

One that does hold water is: performance of Player A in 2007 vs. performance of Player B in 2007, assuming that one of the two was on steroids. There is a line to be drawn somewhere, regarding the degrees of performance enhancement. Taking Advil and taking HGH aren't the same thing, but they are of the same genus. What about someone who is constantly using Advil? What about someone using cortisone on a frequent basis? What about someone who drinks alot of energy drinks? I could go on forever.

In summing up, I haven't really said anything. Basically, there is a vague line (moreso a gray area) that is crossed in using Steroids, but not in receiving LASIK surgery. I can't define where being ethical begins and ends. If I could, I'd probably be working for Bud Selig.

PS: I just wanted to say that what sandlot said above makes sense. But there are still more questions than answers.

[efin98]

I was in a performance of The Crucible and our favorite way to not rehearse was to create spin-offs. Your comment reminded me of this. The best? Crucible on Ice.

The $1 million question- did you guys actually perform the spoofs? :D:laugh

[BoofBonser26]

The $1 million question- did you guys actually perform the spoofs? :D:laugh
If by "perform" you mean "screw up the performances", then, no. :sorry:

But we totally fleshed out how certain scenes would work in each style. Another one was The Benchible. We had so many :debate:ing benches for that show. I put them all on stage at once and I swear there were 30. You barely had room to walk around.

Anyway.

Baseball.

I agree with RHP's post about there being a fine (huge) line (gray area). I can't define it, but I do know that steroids crosses it.

[Los Bravos]

It is unfair and wrong to lump everyone who raises substantive questions a being a "steroid apologist." It would be equally wrong to lump everyone who's deeply concerned about PEDs usage as being a "steroids McCarthyist."As someone with at least a toe in each stream, I tend to agree.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Arthur it is, of course. Apologies, my bad. Thanks for that, and not tiny at all. That'll teach me to dash off off afterthoughts. Come to think of it, Tropic of Cancer might not be irrelevant, either.

Arthur Miller. Henry Miller. Arthur Hailey. Alex Haley. Not really that uncommon of a mistake.

There is a distinct difference, ltg, between quality of life, which is what Lasik is for, and for artificial enhancement, which is what the biggest issue about PEDs are. How much is for improved quality of life, how much is for strict artificial enhancement?

[Mattingly]

Mattingly, et al.: Beneath this banter is a serious question that, despite repeated requests, no one on BBF has taken up: What exactly is a performance enhancement?

If a performance enhancement cannot be defined, then there is no effective banning of PEDs possible. One can always ban individual substances, but this is a Band-Aid approach that's doomed to fail. It's like microbiologists chasing a rapidly mutating virus: Just when you think you've developed something to stop it, it changes form on you and you're back to square one -- or worse.

The unassailable fact of the matter is that all of these things -- from gloves to laser surgery to nutritional supplements to Pilates machines to steroids to all-weather domed stadia and artifical turf -- are in fact performance enhancements. Every single one of them and more. Let's just accept this at the very start and not try to make the problem smaller by belittling the point. Denial and sarcasm won't help, either.

Once we accept the truth as the starting point -- that everything which is added or is taken away and improves performance, is itself a performance enhancement -- the argument can progress. We have to define the terms, then we can move on to ask which enhancements are acceptable, which are not, and why. If we do not do this, a very serious issue is going to devolve progressively into hunting witches.

I would urge every person who claims to love baseball to read "The Crucible" by Henry Miller. It is entirely relevant to baseball today and don't let anyone tell you that it isn't.
sandlot and All:

I can't define a performance enhancer, but I can only give examples. If you're a pitcher and you have Tommy John surgery, that will enhance your performance, since the "spaghetti" which your tendons have become will be straightened out into usable pitching, thus enhancing and lengthening your career. However, it's not a *DRUG*.

If you get back surgery, like Randy Johnson did about last winter, that will enhance your career, given that it was done by a good doctor. However, still not a drug.

If it is a drug which enhances your performance, and I don't mean a narcotic drug, then then that's what I'd complain about.

I consider this thread to be all in fun, so that's why I moved it here from CE, but I wouldn't consider Lasik surgery to be cheating in any way.

Yes, gloves, greater catcher & umpire protection, different balls, maple bats, protein shakes can all enhance, but some are deemed within legal bounds while others are not. I'd have to take it on a case-by-case basis, since I'd definitely look upon things differently if they were acceptable by many sports organizations, whereas a drug (say, McGwire's andro) may be illegal in the NFL or IOC, I wouldn't likely accept.

What's so special about the Crucible that we should read this?

[lovethegame]

This is your schtik (sp?). We all know it. You throw out some hyperbolic premise with the intent to offend and work backwards to something somewhat reasonable - or wait for others to do that for you.

Cal Ripken thread, etc...

Why not just start with the reasonable premise and skip the melodrama?
I believe the ripken premise is utterly legit.
He broke a "hallowed unbreakable record" at a time others are being scrutinized for using amomg others HGH.
HGH is used to heal quickly, kind of helpful when being a ss chasing a games in succession streak

[lovethegame]

Steroids and HGH and PEDs go beyond the human limits for you. You get an edge over everyone because you're beyond what your or the "max" limits are. Why are steroids and these things illegal, but none of these other things?
Are you an only child?
I ask this because you continue to cross athletes choices to achieve an edge in a hugely competitive field with those needing assistance.
Tends to be an only child ,look at me syndrome

[Captain Cold Nose]

I believe the ripken premise is utterly legit.
He broke a "hallowed unbreakable record" at a time others are being scrutinized for using amomg others HGH.
HGH is used to heal quickly, kind of helpful when being a ss chasing a games in succession streak

As Agatha Christie liked to say, anyone can be a murderer. And murders do happen. The two combined does not give the right to accuse everyone and anyone of murder based on nothing more than the first two premises. Simple finger pointing is irresponsible and not really tolerated here.

BTW, there's no need to get personal. Whatever Spelndid Splinter is is not relevant in the least.

[lovethegame]

As Agatha Christie liked to say, anyone can be a murderer. And murders do happen. The two combined does not give the right to accuse everyone and anyone of murder based on nothing more than the first two premises. Simple finger pointing is irresponsible and not really tolerated here.

BTW, there's no need to get personal. Whatever Spelndid Splinter is is not relevant in the least.
I neither know or care about Splinter( other then to hope he has a full life)
I made a point about surgewries and such enhancing performance that HE has taken personally.
Direct your admonishments accordingly

[Captain Cold Nose]

I neither know or care about Splinter( other then to hope he has a full life)
I made a point about surgewries and such enhancing performance that HE has taken personally.
Direct your admonishments accordingly

He took it personally because it hit close to home. Nothing that he said was a comment about your personally.

The bottom line is if you think surgeries, doctor-prescribed medications and things of that nature are the same as anything taken to gain an unfair competitive edge you're missing the point of both.

[lovethegame]

says you
ask Gayle Sayers
Ask Mickey Mantle
Careers hampered and ruined that today would be a six week sitout
refrain from telling me about points
Splinter is the fella that got personal, deal with him

[Captain Cold Nose]

says you
ask Gayle Sayers
Ask Mickey Mantle
Careers hampered and ruined that today would be a six week sitout
refrain from telling me about points
Splinter is the fella that got personal, deal with him

I looked at the posts. You really don't want to go there in regards to who got personal. He never addressed you personally as you did toward him with your comments. He was offended by what you said because you're saying he has some kind of advanatge due to his implants. Yeah, that is offensive. But he never said anything about you personally as you did with your only child and anger management comments.

Again, if you believe medical advancements involving the quality of life, and both Mantle and Sayers had more than their share of surgeries, are the same thing as medical advancements used strictly for gaining an unfair competitive advantage, than you're missing the point of both.

[BoofBonser26]

What's so special about the Crucible that we should read this?
The Crucible was written by Arthur Miller during the Red Scare as a warning about McCarthyism and witch-hunts using the Salem Witch trials as an extended metaphor. The play is entirely about Salem.

So, using the "witch-hunt warning", you can apply the play to any situation where you might feel a witch hunt is occurring (or simply want to urge caution by showing the dangers of one).

And it's a great play itself. :cool:

[Mattingly]

The Crucible was written by Arthur Miller during the Red Scare as a warning about McCarthyism and witch-hunts using the Salem Witch trials as an extended metaphor. The play is entirely about Salem.

So, using the "witch-hunt warning", you can apply the play to any situation where you might feel a witch hunt is occurring (or simply want to urge caution by showing the dangers of one).

And it's a great play itself. :cool:
Witchhunts without it being Halloween ... can be quite scary.

I'd say that Barry Bonds has likely gotten the biggest witchhunt against him so far. Still, when you've had some astronomical increases in power and your trainer refuses to testify as to whether or not steroids and/or other PEDs were given to you, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this may happen.

Clemens' own witchhunt is picking up.

I personally don't know what specifically goes into witch hunts, but if mass hysteria, vengeful accusations and unfounded rumors could be any indication, then sometimes I feel that way about the whole PED mess. Not necessarily Mitchell, but it seems like saying, as the late Sen Joe McCarthy once said, "You're Red" to almost equate to "You used steroids". In one case, actors and other big-name Hollywood people were blacklisted. In our world, people have their MLB careers questioned for decades.

I sometimes wonder how much solid evidence we'll ever get in the Bonds and Clemens cases. Other than the extremely unlikely possibility of a confession on either men's parts, I strongly wonder.

No alleged witches killed as a result of this, but the ghouls and goblins sometimes show their faces when accusing! :D

[BoofBonser26]

I personally don't know what specifically goes into witch hunts, but if mass hysteria, vengeful accusations and unfounded rumors could be any indication, then sometimes I feel that way about the whole PED mess. Not necessarily Mitchell, but it seems like saying, as the late Sen Joe McCarthy once said, "You're Red" to almost equate to "You used steroids". In one case, actors and other big-name Hollywood people were blacklisted. In our world, people have their MLB careers questioned for decades.
Yes, yes, and yes. :shhh:

The scariest part of a witch-hunt is the Catch-22 the accused ends up in - maintain innocence, you die. Admit guilt, you live (and are now incorrectly believed guilty). Die claiming innocence, you are believed guilty. No matter what, you're viewed as guilty.

[Mattingly]

Yes, yes, and yes. :shhh:

The scariest part of a witch-hunt is the Catch-22 the accused ends up in - maintain innocence, you die. Admit guilt, you live (and are now incorrectly believed guilty). Die claiming innocence, you are believed guilty. No matter what, you're viewed as guilty.
I hadn't even realized that a witchhunt (or witch-hunt) was hyphenated. This after I'd peeked at the Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hunt) about this. I guess that 10 years of watching "Bewitched" on TV didn't do me any good as a kid! :D

What's the method of death for using witchcraft and the occult? Tree hanging? Silver bullet like a vampire? Denial of entry into the Witchcraft Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY? :D (whoops, that one slipped)

So you're saying that if Messrs Bonds and/or Clemens fessed up and said on live national TV with both Gammons and McCarver blabbing away nonstop, that they'd then be persecuted on the spot? Should they call in an black-hooded exorcist? ;) :p

Either case, if all goes according to plan and neither fess up at a live televised event, would those two gents be considered innocent or guilty for the remainder of their natural lives?

[BoofBonser26]

I hadn't even realized that a witchhunt (or witch-hunt) was hyphenated. This after I'd peeked at the Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hunt) about this. I guess that 10 years of watching "Bewitched" on TV didn't do me any good as a kid! :D

What's the method of death for using witchcraft and the occult? Tree hanging? Silver bullet like a vampire? Denial of entry into the Witchcraft Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY? :D (whoops, that one slipped)

So you're saying that if Messrs Bonds and/or Clemens fessed up and said on live national TV with both Gammons and McCarver blabbing away nonstop, that they'd then be persecuted on the spot? Should they call in an black-hooded exorcist? ;) :p

Either case, if all goes according to plan and neither fess up at a live televised event, would those two gents be considered innocent or guilty for the remainder of their natural lives?
Well, in Salem itself, all the accused witches (male and female) were hanged, with one exception. Giles Cory, an extremely elderly man, had large rocks placed upon him until he was crushed to death. He maintained innocence the entire time. His last words were "more weight."

Although I'm not saying that any accused steroid user will be hanged in the court of public opinion :dance, think about the way that every slugger of this era is assumed guilty by oh, oh so many people. Take lovethegame's statements about Ripken and HGH, for instance, or even better, many fans' assumptions about A-Rod.

Here's the thing: Clemens claims he's innocent. We've all assumed he's guilty. If he maintains innocence, we think he's a lying, cheating slimebag. If he fesses up, we thank him for his honesty and think he's a cheating slimebag. (I'm speaking generally when I say the following:) This is why it is extremely crucial to have a large amount of evidence before making an accusation. Otherwise, you risk creating a witch-hunt-style Catch-22 for the accused, and ruin what should otherwise have been a sensational baseball career.

[BoweryBoys]

[QUOTE=sandlot;1083733]It is unfair and wrong to lump everyone who raises substantive questions a being a "steroid apologist."

True but no one here is doing that and common sense indicates that equating lasik eye surgery with steroid use is in no way, shape, or form, a legitimate substantive arguement or question as others here have also pointed out. Debates on this issue should be based on common sense without the emotionalism that comes with calling people "McCarthyists" which has no meaning and place here. "Steroid apologist" could be considered a legitimate term to characterize one who makes fallacious arguements based on knowingly disingenuous principals to dismiss the advantage gained by some through use of chemical enhancement. Equating steroid use to using eye surgery to gain normal sight, or almost normal sight, that most players that don't need glasses enjoy is simply not an honest arguement nor a legitimate one. It is fair to question the reasons behind one making such a intellectually fallacious and dishonest arguement.

The same goes for the idea of equating steroid use with any modern advantage available to all players that has come simply through the evolution of the game and the passing of time and improvements in life style. Others here have already answered that fallacious idea with better arguements then I could make so enough about that except that the idea to compare some using steroids to gain unnatural advantage as being the same as all players gaining equal advantage due to things like better equipment etc is just too silly an idea to waste time on.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Well, in Salem itself, all the accused witches (male and female) were hanged, with one exception. Giles Cory, an extremely elderly man, had large rocks placed upon him until he was crushed to death. He maintained innocence the entire time. His last words were "more weight."

Although I'm not saying that any accused steroid user will be hanged in the court of public opinion :dance, think about the way that every slugger of this era is assumed guilty by oh, oh so many people. Take lovethegame's statements about Ripken and HGH, for instance, or even better, many fans' assumptions about A-Rod.

Here's the thing: Clemens claims he's innocent. We've all assumed he's guilty. If he maintains innocence, we think he's a lying, cheating slimebag. If he fesses up, we thank him for his honesty and think he's a cheating slimebag. (I'm speaking generally when I say the following:) This is why it is extremely crucial to have a large amount of evidence before making an accusation. Otherwise, you risk creating a witch-hunt-style Catch-22 for the accused, and ruin what should otherwise have been a sensational baseball career.

Have you seen the movie The Front with Woody Allen (only as an actor) and Zero Mostel? If not, you should.

[BoweryBoys]

[QUOTE=Richmond Hill Phoenix;1083766]
In summing up, I haven't really said anything. Basically, there is a vague line (moreso a gray area) that is crossed in using Steroids, but not in receiving LASIK surgery. I can't define where being ethical begins and ends. If I could, I'd probably be working for Bud Selig.

I think that Captain Cold Nose and Mattingly have pretty much defined it very well with just the use of plain common sense. It is simply the matter of using the choice to take advantage of a process, training, equipment, etc, that is legally available to all equally as opposed to some using an illegal chemical enhancement with intent to gain advantage that others may not have. Of course it is legitimate to some degree to judge the records of players from era to era through the prisim of the advantages that players enjoyed during each era in which they played but those should be legitimate legal advantages. Is it fair to say that player A (May) have put up better career numbers over player B because A chose to have lasik and B did not? Of course that is fair but one is talking about a legitimate legal procedure available to all that doesn't violate MLB rules. (Illegal drug use has been against MLB rules for years no matter that the MLBPA fought against any meaningful testing, players knew it wasn't allowed)

I'm sorry but to me it is just plain common sense to see the difference in legitimate legal surgery prolonging the careers of a Tommy John, Mickey Mantle or Gayle Sayers and someone like maybe Roger Clemens using illegal chemical enhancement because he has decided that he not only wants to prolong his career but also be considered the "greatest ever".

[BoweryBoys]

IMHO, it seems only common sense that the only legal legitimate reason an MLB player would have for buying and/or using any steroid is with a doctor's prescription for a medical condition. The only possible legitimate illegal reason would be in hopes of recovering from injury faster but then in that case they would probably have a legitimate doctor prescription.

It seems clear that the illegal purchase, possession, and use of an illegal drug without legitimate prescription, especially after testing started, is because the player using thinks he is gaining an advantage. Also, it is common sense that an already great player who may use at the end of his career, without legitmate doctor prescription for medical reasons, is doing so because he thinks it will help him put up even greater numbers. This speaks to just simple arrogance, ego, and dissatisfaction with the place they had already acheived naturally in MLB history, as if that wasn't enough. It can't really be about money with players that were already stars because they have already made enough money by their mid thirties to be set for life. Seems to me that plain common sense is a good moral compass for judging whose possible steroid use may and may not be overlooked at excused.

[Mattingly]

Well, in Salem itself, all the accused witches (male and female) were hanged, with one exception. Giles Cory, an extremely elderly man, had large rocks placed upon him until he was crushed to death. He maintained innocence the entire time. His last words were "more weight."

Although I'm not saying that any accused steroid user will be hanged in the court of public opinion :dance, think about the way that every slugger of this era is assumed guilty by oh, oh so many people. Take lovethegame's statements about Ripken and HGH, for instance, or even better, many fans' assumptions about A-Rod.

Here's the thing: Clemens claims he's innocent. We've all assumed he's guilty. If he maintains innocence, we think he's a lying, cheating slimebag. If he fesses up, we thank him for his honesty and think he's a cheating slimebag. (I'm speaking generally when I say the following:) This is why it is extremely crucial to have a large amount of evidence before making an accusation. Otherwise, you risk creating a witch-hunt-style Catch-22 for the accused, and ruin what should otherwise have been a sensational baseball career.
Sounds like one of those "is he guilty or does he just sound guilty?" types of things.

I think that with Clemens, especially after he had great seasons in Toronto, even after moving to the NL Central and had no Ortiz or Manny to face, did excellent, even though for fewer innings than Carpenter, is still considered guilty as sin by many. I've seen the accusations here against him.

I'm personally not interested in the name of the lawyers, but what they present. Someone has to convince me that he is in fact a PED user, and for how long. Some evidence has to be there. Otherwise, I won't worry about whether someone's lawyer beat the charge or not. I'd need reliable evidence.

I also won't be stoning anybody, hanging them from a tree, giving 20 lashes with a bullwhip or anything else that's cruel.

Of course, the Witches' Hall of Fame could easily turn into the Hall of Shame, and induction wouldn't require a 5 year wait if the court of public opinion is swayed on what is said.

[The Splendid Splinter]

I looked at the posts. You really don't want to go there in regards to who got personal. He never addressed you personally as you did toward him with your comments. He was offended by what you said because you're saying he has some kind of advanatge due to his implants. Yeah, that is offensive. But he never said anything about you personally as you did with your only child and anger management comments.

Again, if you believe medical advancements involving the quality of life, and both Mantle and Sayers had more than their share of surgeries, are the same thing as medical advancements used strictly for gaining an unfair competitive advantage, than you're missing the point of both.

Exactly. that's what i was trying to say and maybe i wasn't putting it clearly. I wasn't personally attacking you, lovethegame. i was attacking at what you said. no im not an only child. i have an older brother and i showed him what you said about lasix and he was even offended by it. i dont think you really knew what exactly you were saying. lasix does not give you an advantage, just like my cochlear implants. it helps you out so you can be more "normal" as i should say. in no way that it's an advantage over other people. if you had bad sight, wouldnt you want the best thing available if you can afford it or the insurance pays it for you?? i think you would. thats why it's not illegal. i think you need to step back and really think about what you said. also think about what it would be like in their (or mine) shoes. you will see why i was offended. i have been in fights because of these type of things and i hate fighting and only use it as a last resort or they cross the line. i even got a professor fired from college because he used to argue and discriminate me because i would have a notetaker and these services for the hearing people and he didnt think "disabled" people should get "special treatments/services" while other people cant get them. thats a good example for you, what if we had the same class in school. now with my hearing, i can get a notetaker, a person who type on the computer for me taking notes, written lecture notes from the teacher, longer test time, etc... would you be mad that i get these "services" and you dont? even though i am "disabled"...

i think you're really missing the point of what lasix really does for you. im not trying to disrepectful to you or anyone else. if i did, then im sorry. just like other people said, i took it personally because it hits close to me. i know what thats like. its not exactly an easy life for some. so i know people would want to fit in with everyone else or want to have better things so they can have a better life with it, much like cochlear implants or lasix or whatever the case may be. again its not like i hate you or anything, lovethegame. i was offended by what you said and you need to know exactly what you said. sometime people say things but if it is said to a wrong group of people, it can have a different meaning or offend them. to me, what you said about erase their records cuz they get lasix is like saying they cant get the help they need or can have even though its not an advantage over anyone (except for other people who have eye problems, but most of them can get them too if they want). if they dont want the help, then thats their fault.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

lasix does not give you an advantage, just like my cochlear implants. it helps you out so you can be more "normal" as i should say.But what if there's a guy out there who's a real skinny guy, and no matter how much he works out he can't bulk up? If he takes Steroids, and claims that he just wanted to be more 'normal' like all the other guys he sees who work out and get bigger, does that fly? By no means am I saying anything about your situation, just using your quote to spin off onto something else.

Something to think about...

[NYMets523]

But what if there's a guy out there who's a real skinny guy, and no matter how much he works out he can't bulk up? If he takes Steroids, and claims that he just wanted to be more 'normal' like all the other guys he sees who work out and get bigger, does that fly? By no means am I saying anything about your situation, just using your quote to spin off onto something else.

Something to think about...

Steroids are illegal. Cochlear implants and lasik eye surgery aren't.

[Captain Cold Nose]

But what if there's a guy out there who's a real skinny guy, and no matter how much he works out he can't bulk up? If he takes Steroids, and claims that he just wanted to be more 'normal' like all the other guys he sees who work out and get bigger, does that fly? By no means am I saying anything about your situation, just using your quote to spin off onto something else.

Something to think about...

Unless he has an actual physical ailment that keeps his weight down, I don't see his problem as anything more than not being satisfied with the body he has, and a tad bit of narcissism. If he wants to get bigger, he needs to concentrate on diet as much as if not more than just working out. There are millions who wished the had his "problem".

[runningshoes]

I wonder if all those dome's have enhanced the performance of players?

has it given any players an unfair advantage?

[The Splendid Splinter]

But what if there's a guy out there who's a real skinny guy, and no matter how much he works out he can't bulk up? If he takes Steroids, and claims that he just wanted to be more 'normal' like all the other guys he sees who work out and get bigger, does that fly? By no means am I saying anything about your situation, just using your quote to spin off onto something else.

Something to think about...

i can understand that... but again there was a number of ways to gain weight before you have to go to steriods or illegal stuff. im one of the guys who wants to be skinny. im like 6'3 and about 225 now. i cant remember the last time i was under 210 and the ideal weight for me is like 180 (so what the doctors say). i cant do that. i probably could with diet and training hardcore. then again i work out like 4-5 days a week. when i said to be "normal", that was the best word i could think of really. also you could take steriods to gain weight, if doctor gave you those since most steriod (medicine wise) help you gain weight. i actually have a friend who is like that. he eats a buttload everyday but doesnt gain anything until he took steriods from the doctor.

[sandlot]

[QUOTE=sandlot;1083733]It is unfair and wrong to lump everyone who raises substantive questions a being a "steroid apologist."

True but no one here is doing that and common sense indicates that equating lasik eye surgery with steroid use is in no way, shape, or form, a legitimate substantive arguement or question as others here have also pointed out. Debates on this issue should be based on common sense without the emotionalism that comes with calling people "McCarthyists" which has no meaning and place here. "Steroid apologist" could be considered a legitimate term to characterize one who makes fallacious arguements based on knowingly disingenuous principals to dismiss the advantage gained by some through use of chemical enhancement. Equating steroid use to using eye surgery to gain normal sight, or almost normal sight, that most players that don't need glasses enjoy is simply not an honest arguement nor a legitimate one. It is fair to question the reasons behind one making such a intellectually fallacious and dishonest arguement.

The same goes for the idea of equating steroid use with any modern advantage available to all players that has come simply through the evolution of the game and the passing of time and improvements in life style. Others here have already answered that fallacious idea with better arguements then I could make so enough about that except that the idea to compare some using steroids to gain unnatural advantage as being the same as all players gaining equal advantage due to things like better equipment etc is just too silly an idea to waste time on.Ah, but go back and look again at the posts -- someone DID use the term "steroid apologists," and that's in my view a cheap way for anyone to deal with arguments that he doesn't like -- just trash the people that have put them forward by sticking them with a derogatory and emotive label.

Unfortunately, you undercut your own case by falling into a similar trap, calling other arguments "dishonest" or not "legitimate" or "disingenuous" or "intellectually fallacious" -- that's name calling by another name. You even put forward a possible defense for "steroid apologist" by attempting to give it a definition, something even the user didn't try to do. But what's more important is that in so doing, you also cause yourself to miss the larger point: If some things are to be legal and some things are to be illegal, fine, but a line must be drawn that is clear, sensible, comprehensible, enforceable and able to last over time. One cannot legislate so-called "common sense" -- it's been tried too many times to count. That line of thinking, attractive as it may seem, gets us nowhere.

We can't ignore history. There are so many things considered acceptable or unacceptable in the past that today we take no note of whatsoever, or even vehemently oppose. E.g., go back and look at the arguments made for slavery and see how often words like "normal", "natural", "ordained", etc., appeared. What kind of common sense -- to borrow Tom Paine's pamphlet title -- was going on when the Constitution drafters agreed that each slave could be counted as 2/3 of a person when establishing census counts (and still have no right to vote or hold office)? Women's suffrage was subjected to the same sort of vocabulary, and that vocabulary persisted in some circles right into the 1970's during the debates over whether all-male schools should go co-ed. On the drug side, alcohol was subjected to a constitutional prohibition after a long-running and highly emotive campaign over decades, but was ultimately reversed -- much to the delight of baseball team owners who only incidentally ran breweries. Is marijuana seen today as the scourge it was viewed back in the adys of Reefer Madness?

Now ask yourself, what's the logic and "common sense" at work today behind continuing to ban women from baseball based on their gender alone? Hillary Clinton might become the US President, but even if she could hit .275 and throw home on the fly, she still couldn't join the MLB. This is "normal"? This is common sensical?

Point is, time and circumstances change many things, including public perceptions of right and wrong.

If a line cannot clearly be drawn between what helps one person to be "normal" (please define the term) and what helps another to be "abnormal" -- as steroid users are assumed to be -- then how can bans be drawn up and enforced?

One approach might be intent -- but while that's not impossible deal with in drafting legislation, it's bloody difficult to enforce.

I'm suggesting that trying to argue that "X is not an enhancement but Y is" is not going to get us very far at all, and will send us down a million sidetracks. It's probably going to be more productive to set that approach aside and say, "OK, they're all enhancements in some way or another, but some are acceptable and some are not." Then, we move off the "is-is not" ping-pong cycle and on to the question of how to define cheating. What is a "fair" advantage and what is an "unfair" advantage?

[BoweryBoys]

"Ah, but go back and look again at the posts -- someone DID use the term "steroid apologists," and that's in my view a cheap way for anyone to deal with arguments that he doesn't like -- just trash the people that have put them forward by sticking them with a derogatory and emotive label."

I know, I am the one who used the term "steroid apologist" and I stand by the use of the term. It is not name calling or any other invalid characterization that you choose to use as label. It is a legitimate term chosen to indicate a legitimate opinion that that the idea of dismissing steroid use in MLB as being even near the same as a player getting legal lasik surgery is simply invalid, irrelevant and even down right silly. Simply because someone makes such an unsubstantiated apples and oranges arguement, apparently to dismiss steroid use in recent mlb history, does not make it either a legitimate arguement nor automatically should such fallacious arguements be given any measure of respect or merit. It only holds then that someone who wants to convince others of the ridiculous premise that steroid use is no worse then lasik may legitimately be holding them up to be characterized as an apologist for steroid use in recent MLB history. That is simply only fair.

"Unfortunately, you undercut your own case by falling into a similar trap, calling other arguments "dishonest" or not "legitimate" or "disingenuous" or "intellectually fallacious" -- that's name calling by another name."

It is not name calling, it is open and honest debate, and to falsely characterize it as name calling is in itself being intellectually dishonest.
There is nothing intellectually honest about an arguement that begins with the false premise that use of an illegal drug is no worse then availing one self of using legal eye surgery. I assume that the original poster is intelligent enough to understand that simple logic. Since that is assumed, then one must only question the motives in someone making such a flawed case for steroid use, to an agree that it could be assumed they feel that steroid use is okay and no worse then lasik, etc. The only ones falling into any trap here are you and the original poster as you both seem to want to legitimize the illegitimate, that steroid use can be seen an tought of in the same way as lasik, better training, better conditions for modern players, etc. Again, let us stop being intellectually dishonest here in the debate over steroids. To equate the willing purchase and use of an illegal drug that grown men knew was wrongful even illegal behavior to perfectly legal an acceptable matters and legal natural improvements in conditions and equipment, etc, is simply flat out making an intellectually dishonest arguement based on a flawed and fallacious premise. That is simple fact and common sense. It would seem that you should clearly understand that. I don't care about steroid use in baseball as much as I do about those who make flat out false, illogical and, yes, intellectually dishonest cases to dismiss steroid use as if it is no big deal.

I for one will leave this debate because it seems that common sense just goes out the window on this topic to the point where people want to defend steroid use in modern MLB with any intellectually flawed arguement from any flawed premise. I've heard it all but few seem to understand the basic common sense that if certain players hadn't decided to use illegal drugs, behavior for which anyone sports star or not is subject to the same laws of this country, then we wouldn't even be having this debate. And yet some want to dismiss the player's responsibility, blame just about everyone else as if players were being forced at gunpoint to put illegal and dangerous drugs into their bodies and come up with knowingly from a common sense standpoint flawed arguements to dismiss the drug use and nothing more then the natural occuring advantages that players have enjoed through legal improvements in tthe game and living conditions.

[lovethegame]

Look, my point is that since the dawn of the game guys have done whatever is needed to be thier very best.
Greenies were doled out like candy in the 60's and 70's.
It now looks like just about everyone was doing some sort of injection to be thier best during the time scrutinized these days
Guys who took to long to return were labeled malingerers by owners and fans alike
What would you do?.
Pitchers routinely hit 98-100 mph and guys hit more dingers but it seems as though the playing field was quite level.
Why the sympathy for coke users and drunks who took our money under false pretenses and disdain for those who took our money and tried to be the best

Nothing I posted was meant personally towards anyone nor should it be taken as such

[StanTheMan]

Lots of holes in your post... imo. I've responded in BOLD below....



Look, my point is that since the dawn of the game guys have done whatever is needed to be thier very best.

And the vast majority of them have done so within the rules.

Greenies were doled out like candy in the 60's and 70's.

They sure were.... and shame on fans and society as a whole for being so accepting of them. The widespread use of greenies has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with today's game... unless you would like to mention that Black and Latin players were once denied a place in MLB.... so it would be ok to do that again? You cannot pick and choose which trangressions committed in the past convey a sense of acceptance for similar issues today. For example, many HOF voters in, say, the 1930's, rode on segregated buses, ate in segregated restaurants, thier kids went to segregated schools, and the watched an ALL WHITE MLB and reported on it, etc. Do you really think they had a hard time voting YES for the HOF for some incredibly RACIST ballplayers? Of course they did not... but to us, it seems crazy that they did so. That was then, this is now.


It now looks like just about everyone was doing some sort of injection to be thier best during the time scrutinized these days

Disagree with far more venom than can be conveyed with words....! THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of players have been in MLB and TENS OF THOUSANDS in pro ball in the last, say 15 years. Are you really trying to say "just about everyone was injecting something?" Illegal stuff? That's simply nuts. If you are saying that everyone was injecting OTHER stuff... cortizone, or other LEGAL substances, then you are closer to a factual statement, but the fact that lots of players take LEGAL substances to help with pain, etc. is not exactly a revelation now is it?

Guys who took to long to return were labeled malingerers by owners and fans alike

You'll be looking a LONG time for evidence of that, imo.

What would you do?.

Certainly not break the LAW of the USA by posessing Performance Enhancing Drugs.

Pitchers routinely hit 98-100 mph and guys hit more dingers but it seems as though the playing field was quite level.

This is the biggest fallacy of all... a LEVEL playing field, the pitchers were juicing too, etc, etc. etc. Think about this....

the amount of 50+ Home Run seasons reached by MLB from 1994 to 2007 is equal to 103 years of baseball played by 1920 to 1993 players. Parks, Balls, fitness, money, etc contributed, but what factor which pushed this ratio of 50+ home run seasons to 103 years vs just 17? And these guys breached the 50 HR barrier in 17 years, a feat that everyone who played from Ruth to Mattingly would need 103 YEARS to equal? Surely PED's play a MASSIVE role, the biggest of all, imo. So then..... either PED"s simply do not help pitchers as much as hitters (which I have a hunch is true) or there were not as many pitchers juicing as there were hitters (which is rather unlikely, as trainers and clubhouse guys would have just LOVED to be the hero and get stuff for pitchers, just as they were getting for the hitters)

Why the sympathy for coke users and drunks who took our money under false pretenses and disdain for those who took our money and tried to be the best

I have no sympathy for coke users, and don't know anyone that does. But.... if doing Coke caused Darryl Strawberry to break the single season Home Run Record, besting Maris by 17%... you can bet the world would have taken notice. Last time I checked Coke did not do too much for a players' performance. It may not be fair that today's generation of juiced players get more attention than less than scrupulous ballplayers in the past recieved, but should we really be concerned about it? Try this... steal 5 different office supplies from work or school tomorrow, (pens, paper, whatever you want, but FIVE total) and see what happens..... Next week, STEAL THEM ALL, and see if the response is different....

Nothing I posted was meant personally towards anyone nor should it be taken as such

As are my posts.... and hopefully you don't take mine personally.

[west coast orange and black]

^^
i disagree with your response that the use of uppers during the 60s and 70s has no bearing on today's game, stantheman. and actually, my reasoning happens to be contained in your premise at the end of your post.

the getting away with theft of 5 office supplies just might encourage the thief to continue stealing, but also to possibly up the ante. the players of the 60s and 70s who used were not punished, and subsequent generations of players have sought (better) advantages, as well.
in both areas, the mindset continues 'til something is done about it.

[lovethegame]

My point is doing coke may have stopped Straw from breaking the record.
Maybe Doc wins 30 if he isn't drunk and or on blow.
Think Keith Hernandez or Dave Parker want the games they mailed in back?
I pay to see the best

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I agree with your point. People complain that they were cheated by McGwire, Sosa and Co. because what they were seeing wasn't genuine. You're saying that people were cheated even worse by Straw, Doc and Co. because not only were we cheated, but in this case we should have been seeing something much better than actually did.

I think what it comes down to is intent. The guys who did 'recreational' drugs didn't mean to defraud the fans. What they did wasn't right, but the fans weren't exactly affected directly. Roiders on the other hand, used their substances with the specific goal of being better than everyone else, thus having a direct affect on the fans.

[lovethegame]

I agree with your point. People complain that they were cheated by McGwire, Sosa and Co. because what they were seeing wasn't genuine. You're saying that people were cheated even worse by Straw, Doc and Co. because not only were we cheated, but in this case we should have been seeing something much better than actually did.

I think what it comes down to is intent. The guys who did 'recreational' drugs didn't mean to defraud the fans. What they did wasn't right, but the fans weren't exactly affected directly. Roiders on the other hand, used their substances with the specific goal of being better than everyone else, thus having a direct affect on the fans.
yes but at least to our benefit.

[Captain Cold Nose]

yes but at least to our benefit.

Altruism at its finest.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Altruism at its finest.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Flayvin. . .