PDA

View Full Version : Frank Robinson today says Steroids "arent cheating"


Hangar18
03-08-2004, 08:42 AM
todays column by Steroid Apologist Ron Rapoport in the Cub-Times, Frank Robinson has the Gall to say using Steroids
is simply "taking advantage" and arent Cheating. This is the Same Frank Robinson who WOULDNT COMMENT WITH ONE WORD ths past weekend on a national Radio program, what he knew about any steroids, or what he knows MLB will be doing to battle this potentially MLB damaging problem. Nice of Rapaport to pick up his quote and turn it into another Steroids Defense.
Did I mention how much the Chicago Media Sucks? He even uses a quote by some anonymous fan who says "whats the big deal about Bonds gaining weight in his 30's? I gained weight in my 30's too, are there steroids in my bud lite now?". This guys a JackAss and doesnt see the big picture. I will bet he was a CubFan making that comment, as you will see them making these comments all summer now, because of this Media Planted Statement. Hey Chicago Media and Mike Kiley,
Steroids Are BAD and theyve altered the game for the worse.

jackbrohamer
03-08-2004, 09:14 AM
The same Frank Robinson who in 2000 was so hung up on obeying the rules that he doled out long suspensions to Sox players for the fight the Tigers started at Sox Park.

Hangar18
03-08-2004, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by jackbrohamer
The same Frank Robinson who in 2000 was so hung up on obeying the rules that he doled out long suspensions to Sox players for the fight the Tigers started at Sox Park.

yup. same guy. He wanted to be known a firm ruler, ruling with a heavy hand when it came to suspensions. now...hes got
no comment, except for the planted statements like this one.
Propoganda at its finest. Luckily, we live in Chicago, and get to see Propoganda like this every day with the Chicago Media and their blur-the-lines love affair with that other team, otherwise, we wouldnt notice this kind of stuff.

duke of dorwood
03-08-2004, 10:47 AM
Just another Black making excuses or covering for another

sas1974
03-08-2004, 10:54 AM
I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and I am hoping like hell that he was somehow misquoted. If not, this is a disgusting stance for someone that is so high up on the MLB food chain to take. It's statements like this that seem to confirm the fact that so many sluggers ARE on this stuff and MLB is just trying to soften to blown for when it all comes to light.

Jerko
03-08-2004, 11:20 AM
I think it's getting to the point that these guys would make less of an ass out of themselves if they just admit they use or have used steroids instead of these inane "excuses" or "defenses" they are coming up with.

Railsplitter
03-08-2004, 09:17 PM
Hmmm. 'roids aren't cheating. Maybe mext time, spitters and cork won't be cheating.

RKMeibalane
03-08-2004, 09:20 PM
If steroids aren't cheating, then I guess Frank Robinson won't mind if players start campaigning to have four strikes for each at-bat, instead of three, or maybe they'll decide that it doesn't matter how much pine tar they put on their bats.

Sheesh! I'm really getting tired of hearing people make excuses for the players who are destroying the game of baseball. Barry Bonds is a liar and cheat. There's nothing more to be said.

duke of dorwood
03-08-2004, 09:25 PM
And I bet none of the "suspects" get asked to the Great Home Run Derby at the All Star Game this year. That event alone showcased the enhancement players get from steroids.

34rancher
03-08-2004, 11:23 PM
And no one in professional wrestling has done 'roids also.....


Professional Wrestling = MLB. Neither one are real anymore....

SSN721
03-09-2004, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by 34rancher
And no one in professional wrestling has done 'roids also.....


Professional Wrestling = MLB. Neither one are real anymore....

Wow, quite a knock on MLB. I know it looks bad but I don't know if the ratio if guys taking it is the same. Anyway, I also hope the Robinson was misquoted, because if not, it is a preposterous stance for a thinking human to take. How is it not cheating? And even disregarding that, if steroids are taken openly and encourage can you imagine the awful health impact to young kids trying to get into the sport. I know some take it now to get the edge and feel they need to to make it to the next level, but my God if it is taken openly I cant imagine how detrimental it would be to young players. I find it sickening that anyone can take a stance that dismisses the danger of them or encourages their use to get ahead. Sickening.

RKMeibalane
03-09-2004, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by SSN721
Wow, quite a knock on MLB. I know it looks bad but I don't know if the ratio if guys taking it is the same. Anyway, I also hope the Robinson was misquoted, because if not, it is a preposterous stance for a thinking human to take. How is it not cheating? And even disregarding that, if steroids are taken openly and encourage can you imagine the awful health impact to young kids trying to get into the sport. I know some take it now to get the edge and feel they need to to make it to the next level, but my God if it is taken openly I cant imagine how detrimental it would be to young players. I find it sickening that anyone can take a stance that dismisses the danger of them or encourages their use to get ahead. Sickening.

Well said. Steroids have the potential to be extremely detrimental to one's health. Remember when Ken Caminitti came out about taking them? He said that he took them so heavily that they caused several changes in his physiology. Fortunately, his health problems weren't permanent, but I shudder when thinking about the effects steroids might have on someone who's eighteen or nineteen.

34rancher
03-09-2004, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by SSN721
Wow, quite a knock on MLB. I know it looks bad but I don't know if the ratio if guys taking it is the same. Anyway, I also hope the Robinson was misquoted, because if not, it is a preposterous stance for a thinking human to take. How is it not cheating? And even disregarding that, if steroids are taken openly and encourage can you imagine the awful health impact to young kids trying to get into the sport. I know some take it now to get the edge and feel they need to to make it to the next level, but my God if it is taken openly I cant imagine how detrimental it would be to young players. I find it sickening that anyone can take a stance that dismisses the danger of them or encourages their use to get ahead. Sickening.

All I know is that when I was younger, Pro wretling actually claimed to be "real", and that they were athletes competing. MLB sems to be recycling the material.

"I only use this cork and steroids to entertain"


Yikes.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-09-2004, 07:54 AM
Frank Robinson says steroids aren't cheating? Well, that settles it for me. Mark me down in the column for "steroids are the worst plague on baseball since the Black Sox scandal."

If there is one fact the historical record reveals about Frank Robinson, it is that the man has absolutely no clue. His tenure as MLB's arbiter on fines and suspensions was without a doubt the most non-sensical ever recorded -- no small feat given that we're talking about the incompetents running baseball here.

Why anyone would shove a microphone in front of Frank Robinson for any reason but to get a few laughs back at the newsroom is completely beyond my comprehension.

Frater Perdurabo
03-09-2004, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Frank Robinson says steroids aren't cheating? Well, that settles it for me. Mark me down in the column for "steroids are the worst plague on baseball since the Black Sox scandal."

I believe, and Dallas Morning News columnist Tim Cowlishaw (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/columnists/tcowlishaw/stories/030904dnspocowlishaw.5656e.html) believes, that this is THE WORST scandal to hit major league baseball EVER.

If we could pull back and look at the greater picture, we would see exactly where the steroids story is heading.

Worse than the Black Sox Scandal of 1919.

Worse than the Pittsburgh cocaine trials in 1985.

Worse than Pete Rose betting on baseball while managing the Cincinnati Reds.

Worse than Steve Howe getting seven chances, worse than any strike or lockout, worse than George Steinbrenner taking Tom Hicks' favorite player and his wallet, too.

Baseball going anabolic is worse than all of them.

The players and those who govern the game on both sides have allowed baseball to become a sham. There will be no asterisks placed next to Mark McGwire's name for his 70-home run season or Bonds' for his 73-home run season, but those marks are stained fairly or unfairly and there is nothing we can do to change it.

If we have learned one thing from the Olympic experience of the last 30 years, it is that the cheaters are forever one step ahead of the enforcers.

Besides, no tests taken in 2004 will tell us anything about what McGwire (who admittedly was taking andro, banned in other sports) was doing in 1998. The situation is so pathetic that even Bonds is a victim.

The Giants outfielder has no way to prove his past innocence. With testimony coming out last week that he, Giambi and others had been given steroids from the now infamous BALCO lab in the Bay Area, the court of public opinion will judge him harshly.

Why is the steroids scandal worse than the rest? Because we could arrive at a conclusion as to what went on in the 1919 World Series (the White Sox players were found not guilty in court before being banned for life, anyway).

MarkEdward
03-09-2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
Well said. Steroids have the potential to be extremely detrimental to one's health.

Ah, key word being "potential." Sure, taken with reckless abandon, I'm positive steroids can screw one up. However, overdosing on anything can make you sick. From what I've read, taken under physician supervision, steroids really aren't that harmful.

Here are some relevant quotes from a recent Dan Le Batard column. The quotes come from Dr. Norman Fost (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/columnists/dan_le_batard/8110316.htm):
''People become emotional and make up medical facts to support their view,'' says Fost, professor of pediatrics and director of Wisconsin's program in medical ethics. 'Good ethics start with good facts, and there are so many bad `facts' out there on steroids. Liver cancer? There's no evidence I can find anywhere to support you can get liver cancer from steroids. Injectibles don't even go to the liver or gut. And yet I see it repeated over and over again in news accounts, a photocopied paragraph borrowed from previous news accounts linking it to liver cancer. It's laziness. It shouldn't be repeated. It's not true. No doctor says it is.''
''We're encouraging young people to do death-defying things in gymnastics,'' Fost says. ``I have a daughter who has suffered five fractures and dislocations in gymnastics. If the concern on steroids is protecting athletes from life-threatening, limb-threatening things, if it's really paternalistic, gymnastics would be a much more sensible place to start than steroids. It's more dangerous.''
''Or how about football?'' Fost says. ``There's far more permanent disability in football than there is from steroids. Just practicing in the summertime can kill you and does. Football is way more harmful than steroids, way more. In football, just about everyone who plays a good amount of time is permanently disabled in some way, there are spinal risks and even a small chance of dying or dying early. We let athletes make those risk choices in exchange for money. Why is it that we let them play quarterback, with a very high health risk to the brain or spine, but won't let them take steroids, with a very low health risk?''
''Children should not use steroids,'' Fost says. ``There should be an absolute prohibition on steroids for children under 18. It can stunt growth. There are irreversible dangers that are more dangerous than voice changes, acne and growing hair in undesirable places. But athletes? They should have access to the drugs with FDA approval and supervision. They are going to take this with our without testing -- the users always have been ahead of the testers scientifically -- so why not have the information and drugs in the regular marketplace instead of how we have it now?''
''I really don't understand the media's role in creating this kind of hysteria about steroids,'' Fost says. ``There's Lyle Alzado dying on the cover of Sports Illustrated and in The New York Times with a this-is-what-happens-on-steroids headline. It's just not true. He had brain cancer. There is no empirical link between steroids and brain cancer. It's just not true.''

Fortunately, his health problems weren't permanent, but I shudder when thinking about the effects steroids might have on someone who's eighteen or nineteen.

I shudder when thinking about the effects cigarette smoking might have on someone who's 18 or 19. I suppose we should make it illegal for them to purchase cigarettes?

SSN721
03-09-2004, 11:58 AM
''Children should not use steroids,'' Fost says. ``There should be an absolute prohibition on steroids for children under 18. It can stunt growth. There are irreversible dangers that are more dangerous than voice changes, acne and growing hair in undesirable places.

Isn't this enough reason to prohibit athletes from using it. You cant possibly tell me that kids aren't going to take steroids to make it to the bigs when the major leaguers are openly taking it. I wont argue that taking steroids properly with medical supervision is not necessarily detrimental to ones health, but who is going to a doctor to supervise their steroid cycles making sure they are taking it safely? I can almost guarantee no one under 18 is, who can afford that? Athletes might be able to take it properly but it just sends a horrible message to kids who can be adversely effected by them. I just feel open consumption of steroids and lack of effort on MLBs part to regulate them tells kids its okay to take them and thats why you have to do to get to that level. Is that safe?

PaleHoseGeorge
03-09-2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Ah, key word being "potential." Sure, taken with reckless abandon, I'm positive steroids can screw one up. However, overdosing on anything can make you sick. From what I've read, taken under physician supervision, steroids really aren't that harmful....

Mark, please explain why you would think baseball players would follow doctor's orders? I'm especially interested in hearing your theory in light of the 2003 random testing results that showed ballplayers trying to get an upper-hand on the rest of the league even though they knew mandatory testing would be the result if too many were randomly tested for doping???

The facts lead any reasonable observer to only one conclusion: for the ballplayers this is a race to the bottom with everyone afraid of the consequences if they *don't* dope.

There is no way we could expect ballplayers to police themselves on this matter. To the contrary they've proven themselves outrageous abusers when left to their own discretion on the matter.

Put a stake through the heart of this Steroids monster.

rahulsekhar
03-09-2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

The facts lead any reasonable observer to only one conclusion: for the ballplayers this is a race to the bottom with everyone afraid of the consequences if they *don't* dope.



This is a huge point that I think gets overlooked. Yes, I believe that steroids affect the purity of the game. But the biggest problem is that allowing it basically forces most major leaguers to use them because they'll most likely lose out otherwise to those who do.

That's not an issue for the owners, or even the fans (although my first point is). But it should be a huge one for the players. And surprisingly, I haven't heard many complain about it.

Would you want to be told: "Take these potentially dangerous drugs or most likely lose your job"? Not I.

jackbrohamer
03-09-2004, 12:52 PM
Quote: ''Or how about football?'' Fost says. ``There's far more permanent disability in football than there is from steroids."

A lot of the permanent disability from football injuries is a direct result of steroid-using players who can hit other players with much, much greater force than the same player could if his body were not chemically inflated.

Defend steroids (and their users) all you want, the bottom line is that players who use them cheat and put the non-cheaters at a disadvantage. For that reason, and that reason alone, MLB should institute a serious testing & disciplinary program and bag the joke they have in place now.

Frater Perdurabo
03-09-2004, 01:05 PM
I think the owners should implement mandatory testing by executive fiat, CBA be damned.

If this were to happen, just watch the players go out on strike in protest. The public reaction (outside of Cubs fans, that is) would be with the owners.

It is time for Bus Selig to show some stones on this matter.

rahulsekhar
03-09-2004, 01:52 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they breach the CBA, can't

1)Players refuse to be tested
2)They be fined if/when the issue goes to arbitration and they lose

Anyone with more legal experience than me (i.e. anyone) - if they breach the CBA, can the MLBPA reopen it or anything? I assume there are some penalties they pay, but outside of fines - what would happen?

Hangar18
03-09-2004, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Frater Perdurabo
I think the owners should implement mandatory testing by executive fiat, CBA be damned.

It is time for Bus Selig to show some stones on this matter.

Therein lies the rub. Selig ISNT a Commissioner, but a Glorified Tribune/Reinsdorf/Steinbrenner Stool Pigeon. He wont stand up. He cant even get the Cubs to get rid of Julian Martinez, despite the commissioners Edict, despite every other team complying with the rule. This is a guy who under his watch, has allowed an All-Star game to be botched, Saw the league expand by 4 teams (4 teams too many), Botched a Contraction, Allowed priviledged information to one of the Contracted Teams which Affected the course of 2 different franchises and a Certain Messiah like player. Hes allowed an Expansion team to Dictate which league it wanted to play in, thereby necessitating the "moving" of one franchise, which he Of Course Jumped at the chance to "Volunteer" his Milwaukee Brewers to the NL, selling out his fans and their History. Selig hasnt done Anything that WASNT in his own best interests so far ......
Why would he suddenly Look Out for the Game now ??

Hangar18
03-09-2004, 02:09 PM
and to expand on that point a bit further, watch how very shortly, the Cubs Make a Mockery of Seligs Ruling regarding non-essential baseball personnel. They'll IGNORE his ruling and Create a position out of thin air for the guy to be a Tribune Employee. Steinbrenner will then follow suit and do the same
and the next thing you know, Seligs Rules will be As Hollow
as a CubFans intelligence

jabrch
03-09-2004, 02:48 PM
Selig has Robinson by the short hairs. This really is just towing the party line here. I am shocked that Robinson would be such a *****. What little respect I had for him is now gone.

MarkEdward
03-09-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by SSN721

Isn't this enough reason to prohibit athletes from using it. You cant possibly tell me that kids aren't going to take steroids to make it to the bigs when the major leaguers are openly taking it.

I can see the reasoning in this argument. Of course, Major League Baseball shouldn't be *promoting* the use of steroids. However, I do believe we need have a more open discussion on the various effects of steroids. I'll try to explain. Instead of telling kids "steroids are bad because they're illegal" we should be telling these future majors leaguers that "steroids have many detrimental affects to your health and shouldn't be used."

Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Mark, please explain why you would think baseball players would follow doctor's orders?

I suppose I have more faith in the intelligence of ball players than you seem to have. I think many do follow orders from their physicians.

I'm especially interested in hearing your theory in light of the 2003 random testing results that showed ballplayers trying to get an upper-hand on the rest of the league even though they knew mandatory testing would be the result if too many were randomly tested for doping???

Quick question about the testing. Under CBA rules, if one has a prescription from a doctor, steroids aren't illegal for that person. Now, were players with steroid prescriptions marked as 'positive' on the tests?

Originally posted by jackbrohamer
Quote: ''Or how about football?'' Fost says. ``There's far more permanent disability in football than there is from steroids."
A lot of the permanent disability from football injuries is a direct result of steroid-using players who can hit other players with much, much greater force than the same player could if his body were not chemically inflated.


Any evidence for this assertion?

MarkEdward
03-09-2004, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Frater Perdurabo
I think the owners should implement mandatory testing by executive fiat, CBA be damned.

Uh, dude, it's *collective bargaining.* Both the players and owners agreed to the measures provided for in the current CBA. If the owners wanted full control over testing, they would have fought for that right during 2002 negotiations.

EDIT: I totally forgot about this the first time around, so I'll add it here. If the owners were to unilaterally impose steroid testing (or alomst anything for that matter), the MLBPA can just go to the National Labor Relations Board to settle the dispute. And I'm pretty sure the NLRB would rule in the MLBPA's favor.

ma_deuce
03-09-2004, 09:25 PM
Robison said that steroids aren't cheating? Good luck trying to get people to buy that malarkey. Idiot.

Heck, the President of the United States once said getting a bj isn't cheating either, but I have yet to convince my wife of that.

Deuce

1951Campbell
03-09-2004, 09:28 PM
An imaginary conversation:

Me: Wait, Frank...steroids aren't cheating?

Frank: No. Of course not!

Me: If I stripped naked and masturbated three inches from a really hot girl while she masturbated as well--of course, we're not touching each other--have I cheated on my wife? I sure think so.

Frank: No, that's not cheating.

Me: Let's see...the fines the Sox got after the Tigers fight in 2000 were fair, steroids aren't cheating, and my wife would presumably approve of mutual masturbation with someone other than her?

Frank: Of course!

Me: Well, with that excellent moral compass and reasoning ability ...I think I understand why you have a position of authority in MLB!

SSN721
03-10-2004, 05:54 AM
I can see the reasoning in this argument. Of course, Major League Baseball shouldn't be *promoting* the use of steroids. However, I do believe we need have a more open discussion on the various effects of steroids. I'll try to explain. Instead of telling kids "steroids are bad because they're illegal" we should be telling these future majors leaguers that "steroids have many detrimental affects to your health and shouldn't be used."

I think if you think that alone will stop kids from using them you are being naive. I think it is somewhat hypocritical to tell people getting into the majors that steroids are detrimental to your health but then when they get to the majors you can say its okay to use them under medical supervision. I do agree with you that most pros will listen to their doctors so they will not be as likely to abuse steroids, but I still think that you have to completely ban it because any acceptance on any level is just encouraging younger people to use them to get to that level. And most of these young players I doubt have the salary to support having their own medical team to advise them and their teams expensive medical staff to help them out as well. Accepting it on any level will only lead to abuse of it at lower levels. Ambitious people will do most anything to get ahead, and I'm sure most kids would gladly trade the risks of steroids if they get the big payday in the end. Especially when they know it is accepted at that next level. I think that this whole argument is a little bit insane considering steroids are ILLEGAL without a prescription. If you or I were caught with a large amount of it I am sure that authorities would have no problem sending us to prison yet we are arguing the merits of a ballplayer using them to keep ahead in the sport. I find it funny how crimes committed by professional athletes are so glossed over when if a common person was caught doing this stuff or possessing large amounts we would be prosecuted. Athletes don't even get suspended. Absolutely ridiculous.

34rancher
03-10-2004, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by ma_deuce
Robison said that steroids aren't cheating? Good luck trying to get people to buy that malarkey. Idiot.

Heck, the President of the United States once said getting a bj isn't cheating either, but I have yet to convince my wife of that.

Deuce

Ding ding ding...we have a winner. Post of the week. :D:

voodoochile
03-10-2004, 10:37 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-congress-steroids,1,4881221.story?coll=chi-news-hed

The Senate is starting to weigh in on the issue...

Frater Perdurabo
03-10-2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Uh, dude, it's *collective bargaining.* Both the players and owners agreed to the measures provided for in the current CBA. If the owners wanted full control over testing, they would have fought for that right during 2002 negotiations.

EDIT: I totally forgot about this the first time around, so I'll add it here. If the owners were to unilaterally impose steroid testing (or alomst anything for that matter), the MLBPA can just go to the National Labor Relations Board to settle the dispute. And I'm pretty sure the NLRB would rule in the MLBPA's favor.

OK, so they take it to the NLRB, and the players probably would get a favorable ruling. But the owners would win the battle of public opinion.

Sometimes you have to "go nuclear" on an issue. This is an issue over which, I believe, the owners would be justified in "going nuclear." Since the owners never would do it, though, perhaps I should have posted my suggestion in deeppink.

However, doesn't U.S. federal law -- or state law for that matter -- supersede contract provisions?

If steroids must be prescribed by a doctor, then they are by definition a controlled substance, the use of which without a prescription is a criminal offense. How can the CBA be above the law? The owners should just turn over the names of those players thought to be using steroids to federal agents for the purpose of launching criminal investigations into the illegal use of controlled substances. Sosa, Bonds and Giambi ought to be at the top of the list.

MarkEdward
03-11-2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Frater Perdurabo

Sometimes you have to "go nuclear" on an issue. This is an issue over which, I believe, the owners would be justified in "going nuclear." Since the owners never would do it, though, perhaps I should have posted my suggestion in deeppink.

Why would they need to go nuclear? The owners will care about the steroid controversy as long as the public cares about the steroid controversy. When the frenzy dies down, the owners will drop the argument like a proverbial bad habit.

However, doesn't U.S. federal law -- or state law for that matter -- supersede contract provisions?
If steroids must be prescribed by a doctor, then they are by definition a controlled substance, the use of which without a prescription is a criminal offense. How can the CBA be above the law?

I think you seem to be misunderstanding something. From what I know, if one (doesn't even have to be a pro athlete) is caught with steroids, he is indeed breaking the law. However, if he or she has a prescription for said steroids, he or she is not breaking the law.

The CBA, as far as I know, does not specifically mention the above caveats. It is assumed that if one is caught with steroids without a prescription, he will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Do you understand what I mean? I don't know if I explained myself well enough.

The owners should just turn over the names of those players thought to be using steroids to federal agents for the purpose of launching criminal investigations into the illegal use of controlled substances. Sosa, Bonds and Giambi ought to be at the top of the list.

That seems like profiling to me. I mean, the feds need a bit more than circumstantial evidence, hearsay, and assumption to launch an investigation

StillMissOzzie
03-11-2004, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by ma_deuce

Heck, the President of the United States once said getting a bj isn't cheating either, but I have yet to convince my wife of that.

Deuce

Wait a minute - you've TRIED to convince her?

Seriously, though, I saw on TV a while back (20/20, Dateline, or a show of that ilk) that pro wrestling went from pretending to be real to "just entertainment" to avoid the jurisdiction of several states' athletic commissions, who were sniffing around for steroids, etc.

While Hawk has said on several occassions that "If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'", I don't think that juicing up was included. Robinson must be out of his mind to think that the use of illegal enhancements, even if not specifically prohibited by MLB, are OK. Sounds like if MLB can't come up with something meaningful SOON to clean house, Congress is going to help them do so. GOOD!

SMO

SSN721
03-11-2004, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by StillMissOzzie
Wait a minute - you've TRIED to convince her?

Sounds like if MLB can't come up with something meaningful SOON to clean house, Congress is going to help them do so. GOOD!

SMO

That is the only part I disagree with in your argument. I truly truly hope that baseball can get this resolved adequately in house without the help of the federal government. Stuff like this is really the last thing the government should be involved in, I would hate for them to get involved in other private entities and regulate it so would not want to start the cycle there. That plus the fact I think there are a lot of other things the federal government should be concentrating on than this. But I feel that MLB should test randomly multiple times during the season and offseason, get this stuff out of the game. I don't feel it is an invasion of privacy because I am paying their salaries and I want to know if they are destroying the game. Plus I think testing for ILLEGAL substances shouldn't even be a debate. I just hope Selig can get tough enough to get the ball rolling on this, I really don't want the government to get involved.

voodoochile
03-11-2004, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by StillMissOzzie
Wait a minute - you've TRIED to convince her?

Seriously, though, I saw on TV a while back (20/20, Dateline, or a show of that ilk) that pro wrestling went from pretending to be real to "just entertainment" to avoid the jurisdiction of several states' athletic commissions, who were sniffing around for steroids, etc.

SMO

Wrestling changed their definition to an Exhibition a long time ago for insurance purposes. Rates are much lower if the whole thing is staged because the odds on someone really getting hurt drop dramatically as compared to say football. But, that was almost a decade ago they had that fight.

It actually became a news story a year or so ago because all these kids were staging wrestling events in their back yards and doing it for real. A bunch of them have ended up in the emergency room copying stuff they see on TV. Except on TV it's fake.

You mean you can't REALLY hit people in the head with a metal chair and have them be fine afterwards?