PDA

View Full Version : Steroid/Cheating/HOF


pythons007
01-14-2010, 09:18 AM
What are your thoughts on cheating? If one player cheats one way and another player cheats a different way, its still cheating, right? Since all the hoopla is going on about steriods it got me thinking of other banished players who cheated. Namely Pete Rose and the Black Sox.

Pete Rose bet on baseball while a coach. Shoeless Joe Jackson and the Black Sox threw the World Series. What happens when Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez are up for the Hall of Fame? What happens if one of them gets voted in?

Does this give Pete Rose his chance? I mean he is the all time hits champ. Does Joe Jackson finally get his time?

I think this is a relatively good arguement for these types of players. I mean cheating is cheating. I can't see why you would allow one player who cheated one way to be awarded inshirement and not another one who cheated differently. Do you?:scratch::?:

illinibk
01-14-2010, 09:50 AM
Pete Rose bet on baseball while a coach. Shoeless Joe Jackson and the Black Sox threw the World Series. What happens when Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez are up for the Hall of Fame? What happens if one of them gets voted in?

Does this give Pete Rose his chance? I mean he is the all time hits champ. Does Joe Jackson finally get his time?

Betting against your team and throwing the World Series is another magnitude worse than steroids IMO.

Jackson took money from gamblers and conspired to lose the series. He deserves his ban and has probably become more famous from being excluded from the HOF.

Rose bet on games in which he could personally influence the outcome. This is specifically forbidden in the rule book. Like Jackson, he has probably gained more fame from being excluded from the hall. Just think, if he was in the hall of fame, would he always be camped out at the sports shop in Caesar's Palace in Vegas?

While steroids have had a significant impact on the integrity of the game, to me, that impact seems smaller than the 1919 White Sox and Pete Rose.

Railsplitter
01-14-2010, 09:51 AM
If steroid using hitter shgouldn't be in the Hall, spitanlling pitchers shouldn't either.

g0g0
01-14-2010, 09:54 AM
I put them all on par. Steroids affect the game (including the WS in some cases) just like anything else. It's an artificial advantage. I'm hoping MLB doesn't give into the pressure and let these bums in. Some have already stolen some of the most precious records in baseball. They should consider themselves lucky also...

spawn
01-14-2010, 09:57 AM
Betting against your team and throwing the World Series is another magnitude worse than steroids IMO.

This I agree with. I don't understand why people keep trying to compare being banned for gambling and the steroid era. It'a apples and oranges IMO.

illinibk
01-14-2010, 10:05 AM
This I agree with. I don't understand why people keep trying to compare being banned for gambling and the steroid era. It'a apples and oranges IMO.
In my opinion, it's not even close either. Steroids still require the hitter to make contact with the ball. Throwing a game requires a player to drop a flyball, overthrow a cutoff man, swing and miss, etc. It seems inherently easier to throw a game than to be successful with steroids. Point being, steroids still require execution to be successful, whereas throwing a game requires a lack of execution.

Juicers, spitballers, pitchers who used sandpaper are all doing so in order to be more competitive. Throwing a game seems to extract the competition from the games in question.

voodoochile
01-14-2010, 10:20 AM
Gambling isn't cheating in the same way steroids are. Gambling has nothing to do with cheating other than it cheats the rules.

Steroids are cheating is like peeking during a game of hide and seek to see where people hid while you are counting in that it gives you a competitive advantage.

Gambling has nothing to do with gaining a competitive advantage and in the case of the Black Sox scandal it's the exact opposite - like leaving the blindfold on after you finish counting and then still trying to find the hiders in the above mentioned example.

And no if by some fluke they start voting in the steroid users they still should never vote in Pete or Joe or anyone who violated the gambling clause.

FielderJones
01-14-2010, 02:27 PM
Pete Rose bet on baseball while a coach. Shoeless Joe Jackson and the Black Sox threw the World Series.


Um, maybe not (http://www.chicagolawyermagazine.com/2009/09/01/black-sox-it-aint-so-kid-it-just-aint-so/). Eight Men Out was essentially a work of fiction.

voodoochile
01-14-2010, 02:41 PM
Um, maybe not (http://www.chicagolawyermagazine.com/2009/09/01/black-sox-it-aint-so-kid-it-just-aint-so/). Eight Men Out was essentially a work of fiction.

Are you disputing that our beloved once threw the World Series? You'd be the first person I ever saw make such a claim.

Madvora
01-14-2010, 02:49 PM
The HOF has no integrity anyway. The fact that they distinguish between "first ballot hall of famers" and others is ridiculous. Since all of this has been happening, I pretty much recognize my own records (Maris 61) and hall of famers anyway. The books are so screwed up now there's no turning back.

white sox bill
01-14-2010, 02:49 PM
I'm sure you'll all aware that as we speak, (or type), scientists around the World are probably looking to formulate some kind of anabolic that will test negative in a blood test. A lot of these drugs were developed in Eastern Bloc countries, so I imagine that's where a lot of research goes. I've heard there are steroids that are coming out that don't amortize(meaning stop working after a while), so expect future hi tech drugs at some point.

As long as theres a $$ trail involved, athletes will always be trying to gain the upper hand.

Daver
01-14-2010, 02:51 PM
I put them all on par. Steroids affect the game (including the WS in some cases) just like anything else. It's an artificial advantage. I'm hoping MLB doesn't give into the pressure and let these bums in. Some have already stolen some of the most precious records in baseball. They should consider themselves lucky also...


What if they were facing pitchers that were also using steroids?

Does one offset the other?

asindc
01-14-2010, 02:52 PM
Are you disputing that our beloved once threw the World Series? You'd be the first person I ever saw make such a claim.

Actually, it was discussed in a thread sometime last year (IIRC) about some research a couple of Chicago attorneys had done on the original book Eight Men Out. The attorneys have interviewed some of the people associated with the scandal and reviewed some of the evidence the author relied upon. The attorneys contend that there is enough reason to doubt the validity of the book's conclusions about various members of the 1919 Sox.

Madvora
01-14-2010, 02:52 PM
I'm sure you'll all aware that as we speak, (or type), scientists around the World are probably looking to formulate some kind of anabolic that will test negative in a blood test. A lot of these drugs were developed in Eastern Bloc countries, so I imagine that's where a lot of research goes. I've heard there are steroids that are coming out that don't amortize(meaning stop working after a while), so expect future hi tech drugs at some point.

As long as theres a $$ trail involved, athletes will always be trying to gain the upper hand.
Right, and Selig has already made some head-in-the-sand quote about everything being fine now.

white sox bill
01-14-2010, 02:57 PM
Right, and Selig has already made some head-in-the-sand quote about everything being fine now.
Which it will be until....you know the rest

Madvora
01-14-2010, 03:00 PM
Which it will be until....you know the rest
I read it on some CNN article and they asked the head of the anti doping agency about it. He said something like, "Selig said that? That's the kind of attitude that got them into this whole mess in the first place."

Luke
01-14-2010, 03:15 PM
What if they were facing pitchers that were also using steroids?

Does one offset the other?

Interesting study was done on this at Tufts and published in the American Journal of Physics. It looks like HRs might be disproportionately affected. Pitchers are also affected, but the study wasn't as in depth.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/533530/?sc=dwhr

It's not the end-all, but it's interesting.

g0g0
01-15-2010, 09:36 AM
What if they were facing pitchers that were also using steroids?

Does one offset the other?

Interesting, especially when you start to read articles like the above that was linked, but I still think the results are the same (even if the final numbers of said hitters/pitchers might be different one way or the other). The fact is PEDs are banned. The integrity of the records are compromised either way.

The hardest thing to deal with IMO is the equipment. The best example is the recent flak over swim suit technology and the breaking of so many records. IS the equipment providing unfair advantage or not? Do they ban some of those materials?

Daver
01-15-2010, 03:25 PM
Interesting, especially when you start to read articles like the above that was linked, but I still think the results are the same (even if the final numbers of said hitters/pitchers might be different one way or the other). The fact is PEDs are banned. The integrity of the records are compromised either way.


So the records set in the sixties and seventies are also compromised? They had performance enhancing drugs then too, just a different type.

Nellie_Fox
01-15-2010, 03:29 PM
So the records set in the sixties and seventies are also compromised? They had performance enhancing drugs then too, just a different type.
Daver, I just strongly disagree that greenies and steroids are comparable in the impact they had on the game. The evidence is there in the insane home run numbers that became commonplace for a while, and have now dropped back down to prior levels.

Daver
01-15-2010, 03:56 PM
Daver, I just strongly disagree that greenies and steroids are comparable in the impact they had on the game. The evidence is there in the insane home run numbers that became commonplace for a while, and have now dropped back down to prior levels.

But they are performance enhancing drugs. More pitchers have been caught using steroids than hitters, the last I checked it was almost 2 for 1, yet I never hear anyone pissing and moaning about them, just about the hitters.

Luke
01-15-2010, 04:40 PM
But they are performance enhancing drugs. More pitchers have been caught using steroids than hitters, the last I checked it was almost 2 for 1, yet I never hear anyone pissing and moaning about them, just about the hitters.

I think that's because the additional muscle mass a player can expect to gain ultimately affects a batted ball more than a pitched ball.

A 4% increase in strength doesn't make you put the ball in play more often, but the balls you do put in play are hit harder, and find holes, or go over the fence. A pitcher on the other hand might see an increase in his velocity, but it's not going to give him better location, or a better change up for example.

The issue of whether or not we consider greenies and 'drines a lesser evil than anabolic steroids and HGH is a philosophical one. I see a difference in that greens will keep you in the game over a long season, and help your alertness, but I think the effect is far less than profound than anabolic steroids.

Frontman
01-15-2010, 05:54 PM
Interesting, especially when you start to read articles like the above that was linked, but I still think the results are the same (even if the final numbers of said hitters/pitchers might be different one way or the other). The fact is PEDs are banned. The integrity of the records are compromised either way.

The hardest thing to deal with IMO is the equipment. The best example is the recent flak over swim suit technology and the breaking of so many records. IS the equipment providing unfair advantage or not? Do they ban some of those materials?

Only way a dried out bat will be banned is when a Yankees pitcher is impaled through the jugular by a shard of a lowly A's or Texas Ranger's bat. Only then will Selig do something. Hell, he's refused to do anything about equipment issues WHEN FANS HAVE BEEN HURT by the shards of a bat.

Daver
01-15-2010, 06:31 PM
I think that's because the additional muscle mass a player can expect to gain ultimately affects a batted ball more than a pitched ball.

A 4% increase in strength doesn't make you put the ball in play more often, but the balls you do put in play are hit harder, and find holes, or go over the fence. A pitcher on the other hand might see an increase in his velocity, but it's not going to give him better location, or a better change up for example.



Better velocity for a pitcher with a good changeup is going to make his changeup just that much more effective, as well as his fastball, but I know, perception is reality, and the perception is that only hitters benefit from steroids.

WhiteSox5187
01-15-2010, 06:52 PM
But they are performance enhancing drugs. More pitchers have been caught using steroids than hitters, the last I checked it was almost 2 for 1, yet I never hear anyone pissing and moaning about them, just about the hitters.

There were a lot of pissed off fans when Roger Clemens name was mentioned.

g0g0
01-15-2010, 07:05 PM
Better velocity for a pitcher with a good changeup is going to make his changeup just that much more effective, as well as his fastball, but I know, perception is reality, and the perception is that only hitters benefit from steroids.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4ltD21rYWVw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4ltD21rYWVw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Zisk77
01-15-2010, 07:14 PM
For pitching, steroids is mostly used for recovery and longevity. In some cases there might have been a slight increase in velocity but that not what happens to most pitchers. Its not like their has been a sudden increase in fireballers like their has been for hr hitters. so we are not seeing soft tossers suddenly become flame throwers like the Brady Anderson's of the world became Hr. hitters.

There is just very little one can do to significantly increase velocity. Its mostly genetic and form. Stuff like long tossing can help alittel. ironically the biggest thing a pitcher can do to increase velocity is to blow out his elbow! Pitchers coming back from Tommy John surgery often show an increase in velocity becasuse they have a damaged tendon sewed together with one from a cadaver making it stronger than with one was born with.

Daver
01-15-2010, 07:19 PM
For pitching, steroids is mostly used for recovery and longevity. In some cases there might have been a slight increase in velocity but that not what happens to most pitchers. Its not like their has been a sudden increase in fireballers like their has been for hr hitters. so we are not seeing soft tossers suddenly become flame throwers like the Brady Anderson's of the world became Hr. hitters.

There is just very little one can do to significantly increase velocity. Its mostly genetic and form. Stuff like long tossing can help alittel. ironically the biggest thing a pitcher can do to increase velocity is to blow out his elbow! Pitchers coming back from Tommy John surgery often show an increase in velocity becasuse they have a damaged tendon sewed together with one from a cadaver making it stronger than with one was born with.

This whole post made me chuckle.

Thanks.

Nellie_Fox
01-16-2010, 12:16 AM
Better velocity for a pitcher with a good changeup is going to make his changeup just that much more effective, as well as his fastball, but I know, perception is reality, and the perception is that only hitters benefit from steroids.All I can do is look at the evidence. Was there a dramatic increase in pitching dominance or in power numbers? Did pitching records fall on an almost yearly basis, or did home run records? And which has fallen back to earth? I'm not an expert on the effect of steroids, but the evidence tells me it had a huge impact on power hitting, but not on pitching.

Oblong
01-16-2010, 07:30 AM
All I can do is look at the evidence. Was there a dramatic increase in pitching dominance or in power numbers? Did pitching records fall on an almost yearly basis, or did home run records? And which has fallen back to earth? I'm not an expert on the effect of steroids, but the evidence tells me it had a huge impact on power hitting, but not on pitching.

But that's because the impact steroids have on a hitter have a direct coorelation to the sexy numbers and that in turn is the record book.

The effects it has on a pitcher can be things that don't immediately show up in a box score but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Maybe a guy got to make 28 starts instead of 23? Maybe he got to go into the 7th inning instead of tiring out in the 5th. Maybe his arm isn't hurting as much on that 2nd or 3rd day of rest like it used to, allowing him to either throw or work out when before he couldn't. Pitchers weren't taking it just to see what happened. They saw the results even if we can't. The risk involved is too great to just take a 'Well it can't hurt to try it out." There's a reason it's been a 2-1 ratio for pitchers/hitters being caught, if Daver's number is correct.

Pretending for a moment that steroids/PED do not exist and we have the numbers we have... it looks to me like we've had some of our greatest hitters AND greatest pitchers over the last 15-20 years. Randy/Pedro/Maddux/Clemens all turned in unbelievable performances over that time. 4 of the best to ever pitch all at pretty much the same time. We know about Clemens. the other 3? Pure speculation but that's the damage this whole scandal has done. It's tainted everybody. Unless a guy was outright campaigning for testing and all of that, during that time, then he's under suspicion.

As for the HOF... I trust the voters to sort it out. It'll be done on a case by case basis. With guys like McGwire and Sosa, we see the results already. With someone like Bonds or Clemens, they might make them wait a few years but barring anything else coming out, I think they'll get in. They'll be viewed as guys who would have been HOFer even without the junk.

SI1020
01-16-2010, 10:11 AM
Daver, I just strongly disagree that greenies and steroids are comparable in the impact they had on the game. The evidence is there in the insane home run numbers that became commonplace for a while, and have now dropped back down to prior levels. Thank you. Hasn't anybody studied the affects of amphetamines? Known someone who was a user? In the short term they may increase focus, but over the long term the affects are devastating, and not in a positive way.

All I can do is look at the evidence. Was there a dramatic increase in pitching dominance or in power numbers? Did pitching records fall on an almost yearly basis, or did home run records? And which has fallen back to earth? I'm not an expert on the effect of steroids, but the evidence tells me it had a huge impact on power hitting, but not on pitching. Thank you again. This thread gives me a headache. It shouldn't be that difficult to figure out what happened, the evidence is overwhelming.

Hendu
01-17-2010, 01:53 AM
All I can do is look at the evidence. Was there a dramatic increase in pitching dominance or in power numbers? Did pitching records fall on an almost yearly basis, or did home run records? And which has fallen back to earth? I'm not an expert on the effect of steroids, but the evidence tells me it had a huge impact on power hitting, but not on pitching.

There are other factors besides steroids that could have contributed to the rise of hitting and HR records smashed. Expansion in the 90s watered down pitching more than hitting; also pitchers have had to adjust to smaller ballparks built in the past couple decades. Not saying that steroids had little to do with the HR records being broken...but even if both hitters and pitchers were juicing like crazy, the pitchers still faced additional disadvantages during the steroid era.

Nellie_Fox
01-17-2010, 02:29 AM
There are other factors besides steroids that could have contributed to the rise of hitting and HR records smashed. Expansion in the 90s watered down pitching more than hitting; also pitchers have had to adjust to smaller ballparks built in the past couple decades. Not saying that steroids had little to do with the HR records being broken...but even if both hitters and pitchers were juicing like crazy, the pitchers still faced additional disadvantages during the steroid era.Okay, but how do you account for the immediate decline in home runs since the scandal broke?

Shoeless
01-17-2010, 08:05 AM
This whole post made me chuckle.

Thanks.
From what I understand, the first paragraph of what he wrote is absolutely true.

Hendu
01-17-2010, 11:23 AM
Okay, but how do you account for the immediate decline in home runs since the scandal broke?

There's also been a movement in baseball towards youth, speed and defense, as well as developing homegrown pitching that is comfortable with pitching in the home park (for example, Colorado). I'm just trying to look at all the factors because it's just hard to imagine that steroids alone accounted for that many homeruns (assuming that pitchers were prolific juicers as well).

Frontman
01-17-2010, 11:56 AM
There's also been a movement in baseball towards youth, speed and defense, as well as developing homegrown pitching that is comfortable with pitching in the home park (for example, Colorado). I'm just trying to look at all the factors because it's just hard to imagine that steroids alone accounted for that many homeruns (assuming that pitchers were prolific juicers as well).

Well, the pitchers were juiced as well. The thing of it is that is someone stronger is throwing a ball faster and the hitter who is stronger can swing faster?

The ball will probably fly farther just on sheer physics alone. All that energy needs to go somewhere.

voodoochile
01-17-2010, 12:02 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MLB_HR_and_SB_rates.png

Hendu
01-17-2010, 12:41 PM
Well, the pitchers were juiced as well. The thing of it is that is someone stronger is throwing a ball faster and the hitter who is stronger can swing faster?

The ball will probably fly farther just on sheer physics alone. All that energy needs to go somewhere.

But what I'm saying is there are so many other factors involved that it's tough to single out steroids alone...pitchers not being able to throw inside, and some hitters wearing body armor probably contributed just as much as steroids. Could you imagine Barry being able to stand right on top of the plate in the late 60s against Bob Gibson? He'd be on his ass.

With pitchers and steroids it's more about being able to recover faster between starts instead of more power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MLB_HR_and_SB_rates.png

Interesting graph...huge peaks and valleys in homeruns have happened before, so some of the drop can be contributed to natural cycles. The drop in stolen bases makes sense given the more recent focus on not giving up outs. Players used to run all the time, including stealing home (even in the World Series).

pythons007
01-19-2010, 11:08 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MLB_HR_and_SB_rates.png

Interesting graph...huge peaks and valleys in homeruns have happened before, so some of the drop can be contributed to natural cycles. The drop in stolen bases makes sense given the more recent focus on not giving up outs. Players used to run all the time, including stealing home (even in the World Series).

Stolen bases are definately a lost art form in baseball. I don't think you'll see the likes of Rickey Henderson again.

asindc
01-19-2010, 11:13 AM
Stolen bases are definately a lost art form in baseball. I don't think you'll see the likes of Rickey Henderson again.

And a damn shame at that...

doublem23
01-19-2010, 12:37 PM
Interesting graph...huge peaks and valleys in homeruns have happened before, so some of the drop can be contributed to natural cycles. The drop in stolen bases makes sense given the more recent focus on not giving up outs. Players used to run all the time, including stealing home (even in the World Series).

NO IT'S ONLY STEROIDS EVERYONE KNOWS YOU CAN'T HIT A HOME RUN UNLESS YOU'RE JUICING

:gah:

illinibk
01-19-2010, 01:29 PM
Stolen bases are definately a lost art form in baseball. I don't think you'll see the likes of Rickey Henderson again.
Sorry to take this into a tangent, but this is what I don't totally understand. I know a lot of people say base stealing is not smart now because it's giving away outs. I'd agree with that if every player was built to hit the three run homer like Konerko or David Ortiz. Meanwhile, players like Pods or Juan Pierre, or Carl Crawford could turn a single into a double or triple because of the stolen base. To say that's not game changing is beyond me.

</rant>

voodoochile
01-19-2010, 02:14 PM
Interesting graph...huge peaks and valleys in homeruns have happened before, so some of the drop can be contributed to natural cycles. The drop in stolen bases makes sense given the more recent focus on not giving up outs. Players used to run all the time, including stealing home (even in the World Series).

It's down from it's peak, but it's still up nearly .5/game from before the steroid era kicked off though it's down a bit from it's peak obviously.

I didn't really need the SB part of the graph, but it came with it, so I linked.

asindc
01-19-2010, 02:31 PM
Sorry to take this into a tangent, but this is what I don't totally understand. I know a lot of people say base stealing is not smart now because it's giving away outs. I'd agree with that if every player was built to hit the three run homer like Konerko or David Ortiz. Meanwhile, players like Pods or Juan Pierre, or Carl Crawford could turn a single into a double or triple because of the stolen base. To say that's not game changing is beyond me.

</rant>

Preach! I haven't heard anyone yet explain how it is better to have a runner with a 70-75% stolen base rate stay at first and wait for the hitter (who will have no better than a .440 OBP) to advance him without an out, let alone advance him by making an out.

illinibk
01-19-2010, 03:10 PM
Preach! I haven't heard anyone yet explain how it is better to have a runner with a 70-75% stolen base rate stay at first and wait for the hitter (who will have no better than a .440 OBP) to advance him without an out, let alone advance him by making an out.
In one of my MBA classes a few years ago, we had a statistician that worked with Bill James at one point visit the class to explain the model he uses to handicap baseball games. I asked him how he accounts for stolen bases in his simulations. His answer was that stolen bases are not statistically significant. I only wish I could have articulately asked him how the stolen base is not statistically significant for players like Jose Reyes or Juan Pierre.

pythons007
01-27-2010, 08:48 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&page=wojciechowski/100126&sportCat=mlb

This article is the reason I started this thread. Baseball has double standards for cheaters. Sure one bet on baseball games and the other took steriods. Both influenced the game in someway. I don't care what side you take both changed the game.

If you forgive one, you should forgive the other. There needs to be some kind of line drawn in the sand, we'll call it the cheating line and if you cross it its over you're banned.

Frontman
01-27-2010, 09:04 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&page=wojciechowski/100126&sportCat=mlb

This article is the reason I started this thread. Baseball has double standards for cheaters. Sure one bet on baseball games and the other took steriods. Both influenced the game in someway. I don't care what side you take both changed the game.

If you forgive one, you should forgive the other. There needs to be some kind of line drawn in the sand, we'll call it the cheating line and if you cross it its over you're banned.

It's a solid article; but it also is a few months too late to be relevant. Should of wrote it when Big Mac was hired as the hitting coach.

voodoochile
01-27-2010, 09:11 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&page=wojciechowski/100126&sportCat=mlb

This article is the reason I started this thread. Baseball has double standards for cheaters. Sure one bet on baseball games and the other took steriods. Both influenced the game in someway. I don't care what side you take both changed the game.

If you forgive one, you should forgive the other. There needs to be some kind of line drawn in the sand, we'll call it the cheating line and if you cross it its over you're banned.

I'll stand by my statement that as bad as steroids are, gambling on the game takes it to a whole other level. It's a hop skip and a jump to the WWE once that happens (nothing against people who enjoy wrestling, but even they will admit it's not a real competition).

Gambling leads to scripting of outcomes (good or bad). Steroids give a competitive advantage, but you still have to actually hit the baseball and pitch the baseball. No one is giving anything away for free.

Oblong
01-27-2010, 11:39 AM
I'll stand by my statement that as bad as steroids are, gambling on the game takes it to a whole other level. It's a hop skip and a jump to the WWE once that happens (nothing against people who enjoy wrestling, but even they will admit it's not a real competition).

Gambling leads to scripting of outcomes (good or bad). Steroids give a competitive advantage, but you still have to actually hit the baseball and pitch the baseball. No one is giving anything away for free.

Absolutely. Gambling on baseball, especially as a manager, changes the integrity of the game on a whole different level from taking steroids or PED's.

Further, Rose's actions since the scandal makes it even harder to forgive him. If he'd come out with in a year or two and admitted everything and appeared to be contrite, I'd bet he be back in the game. But it was all based on money. He didn't bet on baseball. Then he didn't bet on the Reds. Then he did bet on the Reds.

Lenny Dykstra and Don Zimmer had gambling issues. It wasn't clear if it involved baseball but it was enough to get Vincent involved. MLB Security approached the guys and they immediately fessed up and promised to stop doing it. Baseball was satisified. Zimmer in particular was horrified.

Also, Pete agreed to be placed on baseball's permanently ineligible list so he doesn't have much to argue.

pythons007
01-27-2010, 11:55 AM
Also, Pete agreed to be placed on baseball's permanently ineligible list so he doesn't have much to argue.

Why exactly did he sign that? Was it like a plea bargain?

Frontman
01-27-2010, 12:26 PM
See, even with Mark's half-butt apology and explanation, at least its within recent memory from his playing days. Rose denied for YEARS nothing was going on; Mark just talked around it.

Oblong
01-27-2010, 12:59 PM
Why exactly did he sign that? Was it like a plea bargain?

Probably to save face because he knew baseball had the dirt and it would come out in a public way. Maybe he owed a lot of money to bookies and feared for his safety or wanted to get it over with so he could go back to earning to pay them back.

What's interesting is that he essentially plea bargained to the maximum punishment.

Maybe the term plea bargain isn't accurate since it wasn't a trial. Either way, he avoided a hearing by agreeing to the maximum punishment. He didn't get anything special by doing that. He has the same rights as if he went through the hearing and Giamatti found him guilty.

So it is a fair question to ask why he did it. I think it's reasonable to conclude that he knew he was caught and wanted to avoid admitting it publicly.

WhiteSox5187
01-27-2010, 05:13 PM
I'll stand by my statement that as bad as steroids are, gambling on the game takes it to a whole other level. It's a hop skip and a jump to the WWE once that happens (nothing against people who enjoy wrestling, but even they will admit it's not a real competition).

Gambling leads to scripting of outcomes (good or bad). Steroids give a competitive advantage, but you still have to actually hit the baseball and pitch the baseball. No one is giving anything away for free.

I agree, but I think I get what his point is, I certainly don't want Rose around the game (he agreed to his deal), but I don't think I want McGwire around either, both hurt the integrity of the game; but Rose knew of the consequences of gambling, there was a rule on the books. McGwire acted unethically but not necessarily illegally and to punish him (and by that I mean a life time ban, not necessarily keeping him out of the HOF) for something that wasn't TECHNICALLY against the rules (though there was/is that rule that prevented any player from taking any substance unless prescribed by a doctor) seems to strike of...of...dammit, I can't think of hte name of it, it's in Latin and it's a legal term, expo facto? Is that it?...and isn't very fair. But at the same time, if you're opening the door for McGwire to get back into the game, you're going to have a hard time keeping the likes of Bonds and Sosa out.

Daver
01-27-2010, 05:18 PM
Why exactly did he sign that? Was it like a plea bargain?

He avoided federal gambling charges by signing it, as MLB agreed to drop the charges, that left the door wide open for the IRS to throw him in jail on tax evasion.

voodoochile
01-27-2010, 05:55 PM
I agree, but I think I get what his point is, I certainly don't want Rose around the game (he agreed to his deal), but I don't think I want McGwire around either, both hurt the integrity of the game; but Rose knew of the consequences of gambling, there was a rule on the books. McGwire acted unethically but not necessarily illegally and to punish him (and by that I mean a life time ban, not necessarily keeping him out of the HOF) for something that wasn't TECHNICALLY against the rules (though there was/is that rule that prevented any player from taking any substance unless prescribed by a doctor) seems to strike of...of...dammit, I can't think of hte name of it, it's in Latin and it's a legal term, expo facto? Is that it?...and isn't very fair. But at the same time, if you're opening the door for McGwire to get back into the game, you're going to have a hard time keeping the likes of Bonds and Sosa out.

None of the steroid guys have been banned. Nothing precludes them from working for a MLB team. Nothing bars them from the HOF. It's the voters who are keeping them out, not MLB.

Now if Manny gets caught a few more times, then he would merit a lifetime ban, but that's due to the new rules.

I believe the term you were looking for is ex post facto (you were close and I don't know if I am spelling it correctly). It has to do with not being punished for something you did before it became illegal. If the government passes a law outlawing posting on message boards tomorrow, none of us can be prosecuted for posting in this thread today. However, if we were to return and post in it on Friday, they could go after us.

g0g0
01-28-2010, 08:01 AM
If the government passes a law outlawing posting on message boards tomorrow, none of us can be prosecuted for posting in this thread today. However, if we were to return and post in it on Friday, they could go after us.

Is there something you know and aren't telling us? Does WSI need to go underground now? :tongue: Everyone grab your profiles and head for the hills!