PDA

View Full Version : Steriod-induced Baseball Records


Viva Magglio
12-03-2004, 10:29 AM
Should a Major League Baseball player who has been found to have been a steriod user have his statistics (inflated through the use of steriods) expunged from the record books? For example, with Barry Bonds' admission of his using steriods to a grand jury, should his home run records be erased?

I say "Yes." For example, I still think Roger Maris should still have the record of home runs per season at 61 because all of the men who have since passed Roger have been linked, one way or another, to performance enhancing drugs.

Ol' No. 2
12-03-2004, 10:38 AM
Should a Major League Baseball player who has been found to have been a steriod user have his statistics (inflated through the use of steriods) expunged from the record books? For example, with Barry Bonds' admission of his using steriods to a grand jury, should his home run records be erased?

I say "Yes." For example, I still think Roger Maris should still have the record of home runs per season at 61 because all of the men who have since passed Roger have been linked, one way or another, to performance enhancing drugs.I voted yes, but it's not quite black and white. What about someone like McGwire, who used something that was completely legal? What about someone who uses creatine or some other supplement? There's a lot of grey area here.

idseer
12-03-2004, 10:39 AM
Should a Major League Baseball player who has been found to have been a steriod user have his statistics (inflated through the use of steriods) expunged from the record books? For example, with Barry Bonds' admission of his using steriods to a grand jury, should his home run records be erased?

I say "Yes." For example, I still think Roger Maris should still have the record of home runs per season at 61 because all of the men who have since passed Roger have been linked, one way or another, to performance enhancing drugs.
i agree. but it'll never happen.
it was evident to me as soon as the mcguire/sosa run that something was very wrong. baseball didn't much care as it was 'good for baseball'.
as so often happens .... if what's good for something isn't intrinsically good .... then it ISN'T GOOD FOR SOMETHING!
there are too many records to simply pick and choose which ones stay and which go. too many players have used and it's worse than the mother of all wire coathanger messes.

for me, the baseball that i grew up with is dead. replaced with an evil look alike.
the records are fixed in my mind for all time. babe ruth -season hr champion, ty cobb - all time hits leader. etc. etc. etc. and there is no turning back. it's gotten too big with too much money involved to ever return like it was.

baseball as i knew it is not merely dead ... it's really most sincerely dead.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-03-2004, 10:58 AM
i agree. but it'll never happen.
it was evident to me as soon as the mcguire/sosa run that something was very wrong. baseball didn't much care as it was 'good for baseball'.
as so often happens .... if what's good for something isn't intrinsically good .... then it ISN'T GOOD FOR SOMETHING!
there are too many records to simply pick and choose which ones stay and which go. too many players have used and it's worse than the mother of all wire coathanger messes.

for me, the baseball that i grew up with is dead. replaced with an evil look alike.
the records are fixed in my mind for all time. babe ruth -season hr champion, ty cobb - all time hits leader. etc. etc. etc. and there is no turning back. it's gotten too big with too much money involved to ever return like it was.

baseball as i knew it is not merely dead ... it's really most sincerely dead. I voted the same way and completely agree. Baseball has created a huge mess for itself by turning a blind eye to this problem for so many years.

There are remarkable parallels between this situation and what was going on in baseball with gambling back in the early 1900's. SURPRISE! They didn't have a commissioner of baseball back then either.
:cool:

The people who run major league baseball are a complete joke. Truly it must be a great game to survive the complete mismanagement these idiots have been doing to it for over 100 years... including overt racism under Kennesaw Landis. Unbelievable...

:comiskey :reinsy :tool
"Idiotic mismanagement? We resemble that remark!"

Palehose13
12-03-2004, 11:22 AM
Erased? No, cause they still accomplished the feat. Jeremy Giambi and Marvin Bernard would never hit 40 HR's, let alone 60+. However, I do feel that they should get an * .

Flight #24
12-03-2004, 11:30 AM
Erased? No, cause they still accomplished the feat. Jeremy Giambi and Marvin Bernard would never hit 40 HR's, let alone 60+. However, I do feel that they should get an * .While I feel sorry for any player who didn't juice during the era, I agree that any and all milestones set between the mid-80s & now need to be *d.

If there are players that have achieved significant milestones that we are fairly certain have done so without the use of enhancers, their accomplishments should be raised to a higher level in terms of relative importance, especially in the public eye.


:hurt
"Hey - that's me!"

On a side note, another MVP award makes Frank look a lot better in the eyes of sportswriters for HOF voting. Frank should have won it in 2000 anyway, that it took a juiced Giambi and writer bias to beat him out makes it only more impressive.

JRIG
12-03-2004, 11:32 AM
Should a Major League Baseball player who has been found to have been a steriod user have his statistics (inflated through the use of steriods) expunged from the record books? For example, with Barry Bonds' admission of his using steriods to a grand jury, should his home run records be erased?

I say "Yes." For example, I still think Roger Maris should still have the record of home runs per season at 61 because all of the men who have since passed Roger have been linked, one way or another, to performance enhancing drugs.So because they've been "linked to," not even proven, the records are void? Balderdash!

Cheating is as old as baseball. Should the 1919 Reds have an asterisk next to their World Series Championship because the Sox threw the Series? Should the Giants have their '51 pennant torn down because they admitted to elaborate sign-stealing throughout the year? Shoud Gaylord Perry be evicted from the HOF because he admitted throwing a greaseball? Should Mike Scott have his 1986 Cy Young award taken away because everyone knows he was scuffing the baseball that year? Should Graig Nettles have his All-Star appearances stricken from the record books because he put super balls in his bat?

There are hundreds more where that list came from. The point being if you start taking records away or putting asterisks all over the place...there is nowhere, nowhere, to stop.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-03-2004, 11:39 AM
....
There are hundreds more where that list came from. The point being if you start taking records away or putting asterisks all over the place...there is nowhere, nowhere, to stop. Good point. So do we apply the same standard to Pete Rose and the case for his HOF eligibility? He was never convicted of jack ****, I don't care how hard and how long that piece of **** John Dowd squeals like a stuck pig that he had the goods on Rose. He never did, and baseball never put Dowd's case of circumstantial b.s. to the test. The evidence and testimony against Rose came from convicted felons!

If Giambi and Bonds keep their home run records while using illegal performance enhancers, Rose is certainly eligible for the hall of fame based on his real-life accomplishments achieved without the benefit of steroids.

idseer
12-03-2004, 12:12 PM
So because they've been "linked to," not even proven, the records are void? Balderdash!

Cheating is as old as baseball. Should the 1917 Reds have an asterisk next to their World Series Championship because the Sox threw the Series? Should the Giants have their '51 pennant torn down because they admitted to elaborate sign-stealing throughout the year? Shoud Gaylord Perry be evicted from the HOF because he admitted throwing a greaseball? Should Mike Scott have his 1986 Cy Young award taken away because everyone knows he was scuffing the baseball that year? Should Graig Nettles have his All-Star appearances stricken from the record books because he put super balls in his bat?

There are hundreds more where that list came from. The point being if you start taking records away or putting asterisks all over the place...there is nowhere, nowhere, to stop. and all the others yet to be discovered.
ergo my comment "the mother of all twisted wire coathangers".

Palehose13
12-03-2004, 12:15 PM
Good point. So do we apply the same standard to Pete Rose and the case for his HOF eligibility? He was never convicted of jack ****, I don't care how hard and how long that piece of **** John Dowd squeals like a stuck pig that he had the goods on Rose. He never did, and baseball never put Dowd's case of circumstantial b.s. to the test. The evidence and testimony against Rose came from convicted felons!

If Giambi and Bonds keep their home run records while using illegal performance enhancers, Rose is certainly eligible for the hall of fame based on his real-life accomplishments achieved without the benefit of steroids.
I've always been for Rose in the Hall. Hell, I'm sure there are a lot of guys already in there with skeletons in their closets.

Ol' No. 2
12-03-2004, 12:32 PM
I've always been for Rose in the Hall. Hell, I'm sure there are a lot of guys already in there with skeletons in their closets.http://i.cnn.net/si/2004/pr/subs/siexclusive/01/13/scorecard0119/p1_rose.jpgBut I didn't KNOW I was betting on baseball. I thought I was just buying a round of drinks.

santo=dorf
12-03-2004, 01:08 PM
Cheating is as old as baseball. Should the 1917 Reds have an asterisk next to their World Series Championship because the Sox threw the Series? The White Sox won the World Series in 1917. Doesn't anyone here remember that?
:reinsy

"Obviously I don't."

OurBitchinMinny
12-03-2004, 01:10 PM
What I want to know is why we havent heard sosa's name at all. Look at the guy. Im more inclined to believe bonds didnt use than sosa didnt. But they both did along with many many others. I dont know for sure any of them did, but why havent we had a 50 HR season the last two years. Random steroid testing started two years ago (i think). I dont think its a coincidence

MRKARNO
12-03-2004, 01:21 PM
So because they've been "linked to," not even proven, the records are void? Balderdash!

Cheating is as old as baseball. Should the 1917 Reds have an asterisk next to their World Series Championship because the Sox threw the Series? Should the Giants have their '51 pennant torn down because they admitted to elaborate sign-stealing throughout the year? Shoud Gaylord Perry be evicted from the HOF because he admitted throwing a greaseball? Should Mike Scott have his 1986 Cy Young award taken away because everyone knows he was scuffing the baseball that year? Should Graig Nettles have his All-Star appearances stricken from the record books because he put super balls in his bat?

There are hundreds more where that list came from. The point being if you start taking records away or putting asterisks all over the place...there is nowhere, nowhere, to stop.

Totally agree. Last time I checked they didnt put an asterisk next to Gaylord Perry's stats for his doctoring the baseball and his stats were probably a lot more affected by that than Bonds. Erasing the stats? This is absolutely ridiculous. It's one thing for everyone to have their own opinion on how tainted they are, but it's another to say that something could not have happened without an illegal aid. This talk is truly awful in my opinion and it undermines everything in baseball potentially. If Bonds gets his records erased then I would hope the same standard applies to all the other cheaters throughout history, but I hope nothing happens at all in regards to that.

voodoochile
12-03-2004, 01:43 PM
Unless the person can be proven to have conclusively violated a specific rule of the game AND that it majorly improved their performance, the records have to stand.

Baseball made this mess by not starting testing sooner - other sports have been doing it for a much longer time and the punishments are much stricter. Baseball WANTS guys to use juice because they get bigger better athletes putting up bigger better numbers and the fans go "ooooo... aaaaaaah" and spend their money at an even faster rate.

Like it or not, most casual fans just don't give a crap. People who are diehards feel differently about it, but like it or not, we are a dying breed.

It's entertainment now and nothing else matters but keeping the paying customer entertained enough so they come back for more...

idseer
12-03-2004, 01:47 PM
Unless the person can be proven to have conclusively violated a specific rule of the game AND that it majorly improved their performance, the records have to stand.

Baseball made this mess by not starting testing sooner - other sports have been doing it for a much longer time and the punishments are much stricter. Baseball WANTS guys to use juice because they get bigger better athletes putting up bigger better numbers and the fans go "ooooo... aaaaaaah" and spend their money at an even faster rate.

Like it or not, most casual fans just don't give a crap. People who are diehards feel differently about it, but like it or not, we are a dying breed.

It's entertainment now and nothing else matters but keeping the paying customer entertained enough so they come back for more...

sad but oh so true.

FarWestChicago
12-03-2004, 02:55 PM
sad but oh so true.Yeah, Voo hit that nail on the head. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/frown.gif

ChiSoxRowand
12-03-2004, 03:43 PM
The records should stay because steroids were not against the rules until 2004.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-03-2004, 03:59 PM
The records should stay because steroids were not against the rules until 2004.
Murderers and rapists should keep their records, too. The rulebook has absolutely nothing to say about either of these felonies.
:cool:

hose
12-03-2004, 05:39 PM
The true die-hard baseball fan already has put an asterisk in his mind to the players of the "steroid era".

Bonds will keep all his records and make it into the HoF on a first ballot, but he will never come close to getting the full respect that comes with those accomplishments.

PaulDrake
12-03-2004, 06:13 PM
Unless the person can be proven to have conclusively violated a specific rule of the game AND that it majorly improved their performance, the records have to stand.

Baseball made this mess by not starting testing sooner - other sports have been doing it for a much longer time and the punishments are much stricter. Baseball WANTS guys to use juice because they get bigger better athletes putting up bigger better numbers and the fans go "ooooo... aaaaaaah" and spend their money at an even faster rate.

Like it or not, most casual fans just don't give a crap. People who are diehards feel differently about it, but like it or not, we are a dying breed.

It's entertainment now and nothing else matters but keeping the paying customer entertained enough so they come back for more... I don't like to overindulge in superlatives but that was a really great post.

daveeym
12-03-2004, 06:21 PM
The records should stay because steroids were not against the rules until 2004.
I'm sick of seeing this ridiculous argument made.

dcb33
12-03-2004, 06:25 PM
Unless the person can be proven to have conclusively violated a specific rule of the game AND that it majorly improved their performance, the records have to stand.

Baseball made this mess by not starting testing sooner - other sports have been doing it for a much longer time and the punishments are much stricter. Baseball WANTS guys to use juice because they get bigger better athletes putting up bigger better numbers and the fans go "ooooo... aaaaaaah" and spend their money at an even faster rate.

Like it or not, most casual fans just don't give a crap. People who are diehards feel differently about it, but like it or not, we are a dying breed.

It's entertainment now and nothing else matters but keeping the paying customer entertained enough so they come back for more...And to add to this, can anyone really blame the players for this mess? Who wouldn't take steroids, especially if it meant an extra 10 or 20mil the next time it came to negotiating a contract? I think you could attribute as much blame to fan greed and media sensationalizm for home runs as you could the players who dope themselves up.

And let's not forget that cheating, for better or worse, is the American way and has always been a part of baseball. Everyone has done it in their lives at some point or another, whether it be on a test in school, on their taxes, or even on their spouse, so to demand the same standards from other people, no matter how great they are or how much they have achieved, is hypocritical. What amazes me more than anything is that many in reacting to this are acting like they've lost their innocence, like they are 9 or something and think that steroid use has irreparably destroyed the game. I'm not condoning the use of it becuase it is cheating, but I have no doubt baseball will recover. Who knows, this could be a good thing for baseball- people may wake up soon and realize all of this home run business was simply a show and realize that there's more to baseball.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-03-2004, 06:45 PM
And to add to this, can anyone really blame the players for this mess? Who wouldn't take steroids, especially if it meant an extra 10 or 20mil the next time it came to negotiating a contract? I think you could attribute as much blame to fan greed and media sensationalizm for home runs as you could the players who dope themselves up.

And let's not forget that cheating, for better or worse, is the American way and has always been a part of baseball. Everyone has done it in their lives at some point or another, whether it be on a test in school, on their taxes, or even on their spouse, so to demand the same standards from other people, no matter how great they are or how much they have achieved, is hypocritical. What amazes me more than anything is that many in reacting to this are acting like they've lost their innocence, like they are 9 or something and think that steroid use has irreparably destroyed the game. I'm not condoning the use of it becuase it is cheating, but I have no doubt baseball will recover. Who knows, this could be a good thing for baseball- people may wake up soon and realize all of this home run business was simply a show and realize that there's more to baseball.
I knew eventually we would have somebody blame this on the fans. And blaming the entire United States of America? That's a novel touch. Bravo!

You're qualified to join all the deep thinkers writing for the Chicago Cubune, dcb. Rick Morrissey had the same take. He's only a major idiot...

And speaking of idiots blaming the fans for their own culpability, who can forget this one?

:nandrolone
"I only use the corked bat to entertain the fans."

I thought Sox Fans were smart enough to see through this nonsense. DCB proves me wrong.

:corker

Ol' No. 2
12-03-2004, 08:26 PM
And to add to this, can anyone really blame the players for this mess? Who wouldn't take steroids, especially if it meant an extra 10 or 20mil the next time it came to negotiating a contract? I think you could attribute as much blame to fan greed and media sensationalizm for home runs as you could the players who dope themselves up.

And let's not forget that cheating, for better or worse, is the American way and has always been a part of baseball. Everyone has done it in their lives at some point or another, whether it be on a test in school, on their taxes, or even on their spouse, so to demand the same standards from other people, no matter how great they are or how much they have achieved, is hypocritical. What amazes me more than anything is that many in reacting to this are acting like they've lost their innocence, like they are 9 or something and think that steroid use has irreparably destroyed the game. I'm not condoning the use of it becuase it is cheating, but I have no doubt baseball will recover. Who knows, this could be a good thing for baseball- people may wake up soon and realize all of this home run business was simply a show and realize that there's more to baseball.This gets the award for the biggest load of rubbish I've heard in ages.http://www.ronandjoe.com/custom/illust/trash.jpgIt's the FANS fault.

Who stood in the way of meaningful steroid testing? Not that the owners weren't relieved, but if the players wanted to eliminate steroids, all they had to do was to take the lead in formulating a meaningful program instead of the toothless nonsense in the final agreement. In fact, I believe that the majority of players really did want to have a meaningful program. That mini-revolt at the Sox camp last spring wasn't an isolated group of malcontents. Unfortunately, the MLBPA does not represent the average player. It's dominated by the superstars, and they wanted NO testing. (Gee, I wonder why?)

misty60481
12-04-2004, 02:12 PM
IF this is a big if--say they took the MVP away from Giambi and said Big Frank was declared the real winner and he had a clause in his contract that paid him say a $250,000 bonus if he won the MVP could he go back on Uncle Jerry and collect,, or is he just out of luck???This is just wondering---

Nellie_Fox
12-04-2004, 02:31 PM
Shoud Gaylord Perry be evicted from the HOF because he admitted throwing a greaseball? Yes.

Nellie_Fox
12-04-2004, 02:36 PM
Everyone has done it in their lives at some point or another, whether it be on a test in school, on their taxes, or even on their spouse, so to demand the same standards from other people, no matter how great they are or how much they have achieved, is hypocritical. Having standards, even if we, as fallible humans, fall short of them from time to time, is not hypocritical. Continuing to strive is the measure.

Hypocritical is holding others to standards that you have no intention of even trying to meet yourself.

MRKARNO
12-04-2004, 04:51 PM
I'm sick of seeing this ridiculous argument made. What is exactly so ridiculous about it? The fact remains that the players up until 2004 were entirely within their rights to have been taking steroids. Was it right that they were doing that? Hell no it wasn't, but it's not so ridiculous as you say it is without giviing any reasons for your belief that it's ridiculous.

By the same logic, the 1951 Giants should be forced to give up the pennant because of their elaborate sign stealing system and the White Sox should be forced to forfeit every game that Joe Nossak stole a sign (most memorably recently, the Cubs-Sox game in 2003). I challenge you to explain how this is any different.

dcb33
12-04-2004, 05:42 PM
I knew eventually we would have somebody blame this on the fans. And blaming the entire United States of America? That's a novel touch. Bravo!

You're qualified to join all the deep thinkers writing for the Chicago Cubune, dcb. Rick Morrissey had the same take. He's only a major idiot...

And speaking of idiots blaming the fans for their own culpability, who can forget this one?

:nandrolone
"I only use the corked bat to entertain the fans."

I thought Sox Fans were smart enough to see through this nonsense. DCB proves me wrong.

:corker
Wow, I had no idea my remarks would be taken so far out of context from what I was trying to say, but now that I read my original post again, I apologize for not being more clear.
First off, there is no excusing the players for what they did. It was wrong, and they knew it at the time they decided to use performance enhancing steroids. What I was trying to say was I don't think that they are alone in responsibility for this fiasco. Almost all baseball players will never have the opportunity to make as much as they do when they are in the major leagues, and when you combine that with the fame, accolades, attention, etc. given to them by SOME fans and the media(most likely fans of the casual variety), it's possible for some who are not driven by a high moral standard or who don't share the same love of the game of baseball as many of you do here to be led astray. People want to see home runs, and some of the players, although they are in the wrong, perhaps decided it was worth it to try to enhance their performance this way in order to win, become famous, and help further better their families financial situation. When you consider that many fans of Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, etc. went out to the park to support them even though they knew they were mostl likely doing this. When people knowingly support this, they are indirectly endorsing the behavior. It's not the fans fault exclusively, nor is it the media's or the players' exclusive fault. I personally think that management of baseball is most desrving of blame for all of this because they could've stopped it from ever getting this far out of hand. Basically, there are many factors that have led to this unfortunate circumstance...

As far as my remarks about hypocrisy are concerned, it baffles me that there is so much moral outrage over all of this now that it's finally come out. Please. Who didn't honestly deep down believe that these guys weren't doing this all along? All I was trying to say is that I'm sure many of the people (not necessarily here) who are calling for heads to roll, crying because the great Barry Bonds and Company have destroyed baseball simply don't know what they would do if they were in that situation, and it's quite possible they might do the same thing Bonds did, especially when you've got millions cheering you on wanting to see you do more and management ready to give you a few extra million to keep it up. I'd like to think that most who are put in that situation would not use steroids, but I'm sure there would be some, and it's those same people I wanted to label as hypocrites.

PHG, as far as Sammy Sosa is concerned, everyone here makes fun of Sammy and Cubs fans becuase they blindly follow him (or at least used to). I'll never forget after the whole corked bat incident almost all of the Cubs fans I know stood by him and called me a stupid, bitter, angry Sox fan for saying what he did was terrible. Everyone here knows Sammy's character is worth about as much as a bag of used baseballs, but unfortunately for Cubs fans, until Sammy finally crossed the line this past season when he made himself an easy target, they didn't see (or care) what he was all about. They made him their hero, didn't care that he was an egomaniacal scumbag, and didn't care about the very good possiblilty that he was on steroids. If you give people an inch, they'll take a mile. His fanbase was willing to look the other way and excuse every stunt he pulled- it's only human nature that he would continue to push the boundaries of what's acceptable.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-04-2004, 05:48 PM
What is exactly so ridiculous about it? The fact remains that the players up until 2004 were entirely within their rights to have been taking steroids. Was it right that they were doing that? Hell no it wasn't, but it's not so ridiculous as you say it is without giviing any reasons for your belief that it's ridiculous.

By the same logic, the 1951 Giants should be forced to give up the pennant because of their elaborate sign stealing system and the White Sox should be forced to forfeit every game that Joe Nossak stole a sign (most memorably recently, the Cubs-Sox game in 2003). I challenge you to explain how this is any different.
Doesn't it just warm the coddles of your heart to read what the young idealists of America's Youth have to say about such matters as fair play, drug use, and the narrowest interpretation of morality as defined by the criminal code?

And isn't reassuring to read things like what is written here and know America's Youth is still pure of the corrupting cynicism that advancing age too often brings to the weakest of older generations... America's Youth is strong! ("Strong" at least in their own minds--the only place that counts.)

They are the leaders of tomorrow.... some day in the future lecturing us about the definition of "is", no doubt...

:gulp:

PaulDrake
12-04-2004, 06:08 PM
What is exactly so ridiculous about it? The fact remains that the players up until 2004 were entirely within their rights to have been taking steroids. Was it right that they were doing that? Hell no it wasn't, but it's not so ridiculous as you say it is without giviing any reasons for your belief that it's ridiculous.

By the same logic, the 1951 Giants should be forced to give up the pennant because of their elaborate sign stealing system and the White Sox should be forced to forfeit every game that Joe Nossak stole a sign (most memorably recently, the Cubs-Sox game in 2003). I challenge you to explain how this is any different. This post stunned me, in a way that very few on this site have. Stunned me to near speechlessness (but not postlessness :smile: ). All I can say that is among other things "by the same logic" I wished they still taught debate like they did way back in the dark ages of the early and middle 20th century.

dcb33
12-04-2004, 06:09 PM
Doesn't it just warm the coddles of your heart to read what the young idealists of America's Youth have to say about such matters as fair play, drug use, and the narrowest interpretation of morality as defined by the criminal code?

And isn't reassuring to read things like what is written here and know America's Youth is still pure of the corrupting cynicism that advancing age too often brings to the weakest of older generations... America's Youth is strong! ("Strong" at least in their own minds--the only place that counts.)

They are the leaders of tomorrow.... some day in the future lecturing us about the definition of "is", no doubt...

:gulp:What are people to do instead? Demand that history be rewritten and people condemned without due process and legal proof of guilt? That would be an even bigger dereliction of what has made this country what it is than steroid use...

PaleHoseGeorge
12-04-2004, 06:21 PM
What are people to do instead? Demand that history be rewritten and people condemned without due process and legal proof of guilt? That would be an even bigger dereliction of what has made this country what it is than steroid use...
If your brain is so addled that this needs to be explained to you, then go out, run a few traffic lights, spit in somebody's hamburger, impregnate your girlfriend, knock off a couple liquor stores, and run for president.

You're a real credit to society.
:o:

FarWestChicago
12-04-2004, 06:24 PM
If your brain is so addled that this needs to be explained to you, then go out, run a few traffic lights, spit in somebody's hamburger, impregnate your girlfriend, knock off a couple liquor stores, and run for president.

You're a real credit to society.
:o:
You forgot "steal music, movies and software". Oh wait, they have a right to free copies of all of that. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

dcb33
12-04-2004, 06:44 PM
If your brain is so addled that this needs to be explained to you, then go out, run a few traffic lights, spit in somebody's hamburger, impregnate your girlfriend, knock off a couple liquor stores, and run for president.

You're a real credit to society.
:o:

Nice. You really have me pegged, pal. Did I ever say it was right or accpetable that players used steroids? No I did not. You must be confused. All I said was that it'd be worse to condemn them and demand all their records purged without first proving it. It's called due process. If your brain is so addled that this needs to be explained to you, then go out, and think of what life was like in Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, or pre-Sadam Iraq. If these guys did everything we think they did, then fine. It'll eventually all come out (and a lot of it has by admission of several players) and then you can think about how to go about punishing and condeming them....

PaleHoseGeorge
12-04-2004, 06:51 PM
Nice. You really have me pegged, pal. Did I ever say it was right or accpetable that players used steroids? No I did not. You must be confused. All I said was that it'd be worse to condemn them and demand all their records purged without first proving it. It's called due process. If your brain is so addled that this needs to be explained to you, then go out, and think of what life was like in Communist Russia, Nazi Germany, or pre-Sadam Iraq. If these guys did everything we think they did, then fine. It'll eventually all come out (and a lot of it has by admission of several players) and then you can think about how to go about punishing and condeming them.... LMAO! Right, did you even bother to read the poll question? Didn't think so. It states what to do with ballplayers WHO USED steroids.

There is no gray area, pal. Nobody asked anyone to "prove" anything. But naturally moral degenerates (not you, of course) would read this as though they have to get caught and convicted first. Nevermind Bonds and Giambi have already confessed to it.

Should we run Barry's and Jason's lab results through the LAPD crime lab first? Will that make everything alright for you?

Free the Juice!

:bandance:

dcb33
12-04-2004, 06:53 PM
LMAO! Right, did you even bother to read the poll question? Didn't think so. It states what to do with ballplayers WHO USED steroids.

There is no gray area, pal. Nobody asked anyone to "prove" anything. But naturally moral degenerates (not you, of course) would read this as though they have to get caught and convicted first. Nevermind Bonds and Giambi have already confessed to it.

Should we run Barry's and Jason's lab results through the LAPD crime lab first? Will that make everything alright for you?

Free the Juice!

:bandance:I read the poll question, and I said no, they should not be erased. Yes, they have admitted using steroids, but if you change the record books because of this, how do you not change the record books for every other instance of foul play or cheating that has ever occured thoughout the history of baseball? Because steroid abuse is a worse form of cheating than gambling?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-04-2004, 06:55 PM
I read the poll question, and I said no, they should not be erased. Yes, they have admitted using steroids, but if you change the record books because of this, how do you not change the record books for every other instance of foul play or cheating that has ever occured thoughout the history of baseball?
See Nellie's answer above. Cry me a river for drug abusers... especially those that feel entitled to it because "everybody else is already doing it."

**** that.

dcb33
12-04-2004, 07:11 PM
See Nellie's answer above. Cry me a river for drug abusers... especially those that feel entitled to it because "everybody else is already doing it."

**** that.I wasn't crying a river for them. Like I said, you can change the records, but then how do you not change all the other records that have been attained through less than honest means? If you did, does that mean steroid abuse is more morally outrageous than gambling, stealing signs, or using corked bats? I certainly don't think so. Do you change the records of those who have been caught using drugs but not those of players who used them but did not get caught? Like someone else here said earlier, if we're going to change these records, then how do you not put an asterisk next to the 1919 Reds World Championship in the record books?
This will go down in baseball history as a dark chapter, and people will always have a choice as to whether or not they wish to recognize these tainted records. But you just can't erase them as if they've never happened.
Anyway, we're beating a dead horse here so this is all I have left to say.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-04-2004, 07:37 PM
I wasn't crying a river for them. Like I said, you can change the records, but then how do you not change all the other records that have been attained through less than honest means? If you did, does that mean steroid abuse is more morally outrageous than gambling, stealing signs, or using corked bats? I certainly don't think so. Do you change the records of those who have been caught using drugs but not those of players who used them but did not get caught? Like someone else here said earlier, if we're going to change these records, then how do you not put an asterisk next to the 1919 Reds World Championship in the record books?
This will go down in baseball history as a dark chapter, and people will always have a choice as to whether or not they wish to recognize these tainted records. But you just can't erase them as if they've never happened.
Anyway, we're beating a dead horse here so this is all I have left to say. Yes, thank you. Here finally you've laid it out plain what the rest of us already knew about you: those in our society who cheat are to get off without penalty because others have gotten away with things, too.

What a sick ****ed up mentality this is. I won't even bother to explain why it is ****ed up because it will sail clear over your head. Let's just forget it I even started talking to you. You're wasting my time to discuss it.

However I do have one final question for you. If the rest of us are to believe, as you apparently believe, that cheaters are to be absolved of blame by previous cheating by others, why did Giambi and Bonds keep up a web of lies about their cheating for so long?

Why not just lay it bare and freely admit it -- nothing is going to happen, right?

At least in the world you live in, nothing would happen, right?

Sick. Really sick.

MRKARNO
12-04-2004, 07:40 PM
This post stunned me, in a way that very few on this site have. Stunned me to near speechlessness (but not postlessness :smile: ). All I can say that is among other things "by the same logic" I wished they still taught debate like they did way back in the dark ages of the early and middle 20th century. Well I come to a message board to post an initial opinion, read others, clarify my own and potentially change it. I think the thing that bothers me most on this whole issue is that people actually want to amend the record books in some capacity when others have cheated in various ways in the past. I guess I am not really as pro-steroids as I have been made out, but I think it's wrong to say that these guys shouldnt be in the HOF when you have guys like Gaylord Perry around who admitted cheating and probably would not have gone much of anywhere without the benefit of cheating. I would rather just leave well enough alone when it comes to the record books. If you want to have a footnote at the bottom for every incident of cheating, that's fine, but you have to be fair about it and not just pick and chose certain incidents because the characters involved are unpopular.

If we are to penalize these people in terms of indicating records, then we need to look back at the past and make sure we are fair in application if we can do something to treat them equally.

My past statement was probably based on false logic (a tu quo que arguement for those familiar with the term), but I think this new statement is a bit better. With that clarification made, does my opinion seem all that far out? Please tell me why if you believe so.

FarWestChicago
12-04-2004, 08:28 PM
With that clarification made, does my opinion seem all that far out? Please tell me why if you believe so.Yes, what you are saying is if one person ever got away with murder, we should let all murderers go unpunished. It wouldn't be fair to punish the new ones since that one guy skated. I have changed the "crime" a little to point out the egregious flaw in your logic. To say it doesn't make sense would be a bit of an understatement. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/eek.gif

dcb33
12-04-2004, 08:48 PM
Yes, thank you. Here finally you've laid it out plain what the rest of us already knew about you: those in our society who cheat are to get off without penalty because others have gotten away with things, too.

What a sick ****ed up mentality this is. I won't even bother to explain why it is ****ed up because it will sail clear over your head. Let's just forget it I even started talking to you. You're wasting my time to discuss it.

However I do have one final question for you. If the rest of us are to believe, as you apparently believe, that cheaters are to be absolved of blame by previous cheating by others, why did Giambi and Bonds keep up a web of lies about their cheating for so long?

Why not just lay it bare and freely admit it -- nothing is going to happen, right?

At least in the world you live in, nothing would happen, right?

Sick. Really sick.For your statements to be true, you would have to assume there would be no other way of punishing them than by altering the records of baseball. Giambi and Bonds (and most likely many more) have permanently destroyed their reputations and credibility, put their future health and longevity at grave risk, and may not make the Hall of Fame (especially Bonds) becuase of their actions, even though their performance without steroid use may have been enough for them to have gotten in. I'm not suggesting this is an adequate level of punishment, but please explain how changing the records would really punish these guys. If you're Barry Bonds and they take away your record, do you really care? Hell, no, becuase if you're Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Sammy Sosa, or whoever else, you're sitting on an enormous wad of cash that was made while cheating. Perhaps banning them from baseball would be a more appropriate punishment, but then that raises the question, why didn't those in charge of baseball do anything about this from the start when they knew full well what was going on and what the consequences of all this would be when it all came to light?

flo-B-flo
12-04-2004, 09:06 PM
Good point. So do we apply the same standard to Pete Rose and the case for his HOF eligibility? He was never convicted of jack ****, I don't care how hard and how long that piece of **** John Dowd squeals like a stuck pig that he had the goods on Rose. He never did, and baseball never put Dowd's case of circumstantial b.s. to the test. The evidence and testimony against Rose came from convicted felons!

If Giambi and Bonds keep their home run records while using illegal performance enhancers, Rose is certainly eligible for the hall of fame based on his real-life accomplishments achieved without the benefit of steroids. If I recall correctly, there were whispers of Rose' steroid use. Rose made lots of cryptic remarks when asked about this. I don't think Rose needed any help getting hits. Maybe he needed help to play 20 something years.

MRKARNO
12-04-2004, 10:12 PM
Yes, what you are saying is if one person ever got away with murder, we should let all murderers go unpunished. It wouldn't be fair to punish the new ones since that one guy skated. I have changed the "crime" a little to point out the egregious flaw in your logic. To say it doesn't make sense would be a bit of an understatement. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/eek.gif
What I'm saying is a little different though. If they feel that they have to suspend Giambi and Bonds from baseball to make a statement, I'll be upset, but know that it's right. I just think you shouldnt mess with the record books because not all of the records there previously were necessarily untainted. Any punishment involved should not involve the baseball record books being amended in any way shape or form unless it's applied fairly. Obviously you cant go back and say, we should suspend the '51 Giants or Gaylord Perry, but you can take back their accomplishments from the record book, but I think that would be an absolutely awful thing to do. I'm not saying Bonds & co should necessarily go unpunished (though I personally don't believe a lengthy punishment would be allowable by rule).
The question being asked wasn't "Should Bonds be punished?," it was "Should steroid induced baseball records be deleted from the record books?" I say no and I think reasonable people can dissagree on this issue.

FarWestChicago
12-04-2004, 10:32 PM
If they feel that they have to suspend Giambi and Bonds from baseball to make a statement, I'll be upset, but know that it's right.Why would you be upset? http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/confused.gif

MRKARNO
12-04-2004, 10:37 PM
Why would you be upset? http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/confused.gif
I wouldnt care as much about Giambi as much as Bonds. It would be interesting to see how Bonds responds on the playing field after all of this came out. Barry Bonds is (or was at least) the most fun player to watch in baseball. If he could come back, prove himself free of steroids and play at that level again, I would be thrilled.

FarWestChicago
12-04-2004, 10:38 PM
The question being asked wasn't "Should Bonds be punished?," it was "Should steroid induced baseball records be deleted from the record books?" I say no and I think reasonable people can dissagree on this issue.They strip world records, Olypmic records and world and Olympic medals from 'roiders in other sports. They have taken gold medals from 'roiders years after they got away with it. Why should baseball 'roid boys get special treatment? The "so and so cheated in 1960" argument does not make any sense when it comes to protecting todays cheaters. I would hope you learned the concept of two wrongs don't make a right somewhere along the line.

FarWestChicago
12-04-2004, 10:42 PM
I wouldnt care as much about Giambi as much as Bonds. It would be interesting to see how Bonds responds on the playing field after all of this came out. Barry Bonds is (or was at least) the most fun player to watch in baseball. If he could come back, prove himself free of steroids and play at that level again, I would be thrilled.So Bonds shouldn't be punished because you enjoy watching him. OK... http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/eek.gif

FYI, when Ben Johnson blew away King Carl in the 1988 Seoul Olympics it was something to see. It was unbelievable. But, busted, stripped (world record, Olympic record and gold medal) and suspended was the right thing to do, then and now.

MRKARNO
12-04-2004, 10:54 PM
So Bonds shouldn't be punished because you enjoy watching him. OK... http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/eek.gif

FYI, when Ben Johnson blew away King Carl in the 1988 Seoul Olympics it was something to see. It was unbelievable. But, busted, stripped (world record, Olympic record and gold medal) and suspended was the right thing to do, then and now.
I had a response written but I accidentally pressed the back button and these boards wont let you come back to what you've written if you press back and forward again. Let me quickly summarize, though this does express my full opinion, I dont feel like retyping it:

-I am saddened by this whole thing and I want(ed) to believe everything Bonds was doing was legit true until proven otherwise

-Unlike in olympic events, there is a pitcher on the downside of the equation and you would have to go back and amend pitchers' records as well. It would get very messy

PaulDrake
12-04-2004, 10:55 PM
They strip world records, Olypmic records and world and Olympic medals from 'roiders in other sports. They have taken gold medals from 'roiders years after they got away with it. Why should baseball 'roid boys get special treatment? The "so and so cheated in 1960" argument does not make any sense when it comes to protecting todays cheaters. I would hope you learned the concept of two wrongs don't make a right somewhere along the line. Me too. I just don't know how to respond to all this. Is this the natural evolution of "moral relativism"? I hope that somewhere along the line something "kicks in". Everything I grew up with, everything I was taught is just savaged by these wonderful times we live in. I'm not going to let it make me feel old or fossilized. Some ideas, rules, mores or whatever the hell you want to call it should be timeless. I feel badly that some of the younger fans are taking the stance that they do. I want to believe it's just the denial that comes with knowing your heroes have very clay feet. I doubt that's it, but I hope so.

flo-B-flo
12-04-2004, 10:58 PM
So Bonds shouldn't be punished because you enjoy watching him. OK... http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/eek.gif

FYI, when Ben Johnson blew away King Carl in the 1988 Seoul Olympics it was something to see. It was unbelievable. But, busted, stripped (world record, Olympic record and gold medal) and suspended was the right thing to do, then and now. Hey wait! Barry didn't know the cream was steroids. Please.

MRKARNO
12-04-2004, 11:01 PM
They strip world records, Olypmic records and world and Olympic medals from 'roiders in other sports. They have taken gold medals from 'roiders years after they got away with it. Why should baseball 'roid boys get special treatment? The "so and so cheated in 1960" argument does not make any sense when it comes to protecting todays cheaters. I would hope you learned the concept of two wrongs don't make a right somewhere along the line.
Two reasons:

1. Baseball is a team sport, so would you go back and penalize the team by making them forfeit every game with a player that used steroids? What if every team had to forfeit every game? Would you make teams give back World Series titles?

2. There is a pitcher on the other side of the equation, so how would you know where to credit a pitcher with one less homer given up and even if you could, how would you know it would have been caught?

I am personally opposed to the asterisk and think that it shouldn't be used, but I think it's a viable option, unlike deleting records, which would get too messy and complicated for its own good.

And if we can give asterisks to those who used steroids, there's no reason we can't give them to those like Perry who doctored baseballs and those who have been caught using corked bats or admitted other cheating methods. I'm just saying it has to be all or nothing, no special treatment for a specific method of cheating.

dcb33
12-04-2004, 11:03 PM
They strip world records, Olypmic records and world and Olympic medals from 'roiders in other sports. They have taken gold medals from 'roiders years after they got away with it. Why should baseball 'roid boys get special treatment? The "so and so cheated in 1960" argument does not make any sense when it comes to protecting todays cheaters. I would hope you learned the concept of two wrongs don't make a right somewhere along the line.
There's no doubt something should be done, but if you eliminate the records set by people who have been proven to have used steroids, what about the people who fly under the radar and are never caught? That sends an even worse message- that you can do whatever and as long as you are able to keep it a secret you won't be punished. I think another question that needs to be asked is, how do we make the punishment for all steroid abusers is consistent? I would rather keep the record books intact knowing that Bonds took steroids than alter them knowing the possibility that others won't be punished for what they did exists. History will ultimately remember what Bonds has done, and anyone with a greater appreciation for the sport will realize it was inexcusable, and hold his "records" in the same regard.

MRKARNO
12-04-2004, 11:08 PM
I want to believe it's just the denial that comes with knowing your heroes have very clay feet.
For the record, Bonds was my favorite player to watch in baseball and yes this is a byproduct of my being saddened that he wasnt being 100% truthful with his fans.

dcb33
12-04-2004, 11:09 PM
Me too. I just don't know how to respond to all this. Is this the natural evolution of "moral relativism"? I hope that somewhere along the line something "kicks in". Everything I grew up with, everything I was taught is just savaged by these wonderful times we live in. I'm not going to let it make me feel old or fossilized. Some ideas, rules, mores or whatever the hell you want to call it should be timeless. I feel badly that some of the younger fans are taking the stance that they do. I want to believe it's just the denial that comes with knowing your heroes have very clay feet. I doubt that's it, but I hope so.
You're oversimplifying things, though. I'm certainly not saying what has happened shoud go unpunished... but are altering the records ultimately the best way to deal with what these players have done? I don't think so becuase it really doesn't punish them in any meaningful way (they still have their money and some people out there will always think of Bonds as the Home Run King, until someone else breaks the record), it will be too messy to figure out who's records should be altered and to what degree, who's records should be deleted, etc. These things happened, regardless of what the players did, and to suggest otherwise via a historical record is a simple denial of what these players did on the field. I'm sure history will not forget this, and future generations will no doubt give the approprate level of respect for these "records".

FarWestChicago
12-04-2004, 11:11 PM
Me too. I just don't know how to respond to all this. Is this the natural evolution of "moral relativism"? I hope that somewhere along the line something "kicks in". Everything I grew up with, everything I was taught is just savaged by these wonderful times we live in. I'm not going to let it make me feel old or fossilized. Some ideas, rules, mores or whatever the hell you want to call it should be timeless. I feel badly that some of the younger fans are taking the stance that they do. I want to believe it's just the denial that comes with knowing your heroes have very clay feet. I doubt that's it, but I hope so.I'm with George. It's time to give up. Anything is cool as long as you don't get caught. And if you get caught, and it's hard to deal with, it's still cool. Who wants to do anything that could be difficult. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

MRKARNO
12-04-2004, 11:14 PM
You're oversimplifying things, though. I'm certainly not saying what has happened shoud go unpunished... but are altering the records ultimately the best way to deal with what these players have done? I don't think so becuase it really doesn't punish them in any meaningful way (they still have their money and some people out there will always think of Bonds as the Home Run King, until someone else breaks the record), it will be too messy to figure out who's records should be altered and to what degree, who's records should be deleted, etc. These things happened, regardless of what the players did, and to suggest otherwise via a historical record is a simple denial of what these players did on the field. I'm sure history will not forget this, and future generations will no doubt give the approprate level of respect for these "records".
I'm with ya dcb. Altering the historical records really is not a viable option due to the complicated nature of what it would entail. The fact is that Bonds actually did hit 73 home runs and you can deride it as being tainted and Roger Maris being the real home run king all you want, but he hit 73. Nothing will change that. Baseball records are just a compilation of the seasons box scores so unless you want to go back and change every box score individually, then it would not work because the box scores would say one thing and the listings another. There cannot be such a discrepency as the leaderboards are supposed to reflect the box scores. If you mess with the box scores, you mess with the results of the individual games and picking arbitrarilt where Bonds should or should not be credited with a home run.

MRKARNO
12-04-2004, 11:17 PM
I'm with George. It's time to give up. Anything is cool as long as you don't get caught. And if you get caught, and it's hard to deal with, it's still cool. Who wants to do anything that could be difficult. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Your putting words into my mouth. I really am upset and disturbed by this whole situation. I am coming around to thinking that a punishment would be fair, but isn't going to happen (raise your hand if you think the MLBPA wouldnt go into revolt if they gave Bonds a suspension of significant length). What I am saying is that the appropriate punishment should under no circumstances involve chaning or altering the statistical records of what happened because of the complicated nature of baseball. How does moral values have anything to do with that whatsover?

FarWestChicago
12-04-2004, 11:21 PM
I'm with ya dcb. Altering the historical records really is not a viable option due to the complicated nature of what it would entail. The fact is that Bonds actually did hit 73 home runs and you can deride it as being tainted and Roger Maris being the real home run king all you want, but he hit 73. Nothing will change that. Baseball records are just a compilation of the seasons box scores so unless you want to go back and change every box score individually, then it would not work because the box scores would say one thing and the listings another. There cannot be such a discrepency as the leaderboards are supposed to reflect the box scores. If you mess with the box scores, you mess with the results of the individual games and picking arbitrarilt where Bonds should or should not be credited with a home run.I know I'm wasting my time, but there is a way to deal with team sports and cheating. It's called forfeit. And it's often done after the fact. You had an ineligible player on your team last season, you lose. The same principle is easy to apply in this situation. How many HR's did Bonds hit in 2001? The answer is simple, ZERO. You cheat, you lose it all. For that season and from your career stats.

idseer
12-04-2004, 11:25 PM
There's no doubt something should be done, but if you eliminate the records set by people who have been proven to have used steroids, what about the people who fly under the radar and are never caught? That sends an even worse message- that you can do whatever and as long as you are able to keep it a secret you won't be punished.
it's amazing you cannot see how ridiculous this argument is.

so what you are saying is .... when law breakers are caught and punished ... it sends a message to other people who aren't caught to keep their crimes hidden? is this what you're saying? that punishing law breakers sends a worse message to other offenders? so don't punish anyone because it sends a bad message?

is this what you're really saying? cause ...... that's what it LOOKS like you're saying.

dcb33
12-04-2004, 11:26 PM
Your putting words into my mouth. I really am upset and disturbed by this whole situation. I am coming around to thinking that a punishment would be fair, but isn't going to happen (raise your hand if you think the MLBPA wouldnt go into revolt if they gave Bonds a suspension of significant length). What I am saying is that the appropriate punishment should under no circumstances involve chaning or altering the statistical records of what happened because of the complicated nature of baseball. How does moral values have anything to do with that whatsover?
Unfortunately that seems to be the modus operandi of some here in this post... charactarize those who disagree or are just asking questions as young kids with no morals who would lie, cheat, and steal if given the opportunity instead of defending their own positions.... No doubt in 20 years the country will be in ruins becuase of these youngins. Sounds an awful lot like what my 85 year old grandparents have to say...

MRKARNO
12-04-2004, 11:30 PM
I know I'm wasting my time, but there is a way to deal with team sports and cheating. It's called forfeit. And it's often done after the fact. You had an ineligible player on your team last season, you lose. The same principle is easy to apply in this situation. How many HR's did Bonds hit in 2001? The answer is simple, ZERO. You cheat, you lose it all. For that season and from your career stats.
This is definately a viable option. You can't nitpick and take away some records and not all. I dont think that all people understand that taking away the records implies forfeiture as you clearly understand. In fact, if steroids are as widespread as everyone says they are then every single game played since the introduction of steroids would need to be forfeited. I really doubt that there were many teams without players using steroids. If a mass forfeiture is what you want then I can respect that. I just happen to dissagree with that opinion, if that's allowed here (I'm honestly not certain that dissagreement is allowed here anymore). If there is to be any alteration of the records or deletion, then there must be mass forfeiture and hence MLB must relinquish all of the team accomplishments or championships won in the past however many years.

dcb33
12-04-2004, 11:34 PM
it's amazing you cannot see how ridiculous this argument is.

so what you are saying is .... when law breakers are caught and punished ... it sends a message to other people who aren't caught to keep their crimes hidden? is this what you're saying? that punishing law breakers sends a worse message to other offenders? so don't punish anyone because it sends a bad message?

is this what you're really saying? cause ...... that's what it LOOKS like you're saying.I'm not saying we shouldn't punish those for fear of not punishing all. What I said was we shouldn't change the records because it would be even more ridiculous to change the records of those who were caught and let the records of those who did this but didn't get caught to remain.
Either way it's a lose-lose situation. I would rather see the records kept intact, steroids banned, and those who used them dealt with appropriately than I would going down this road of changing all the records of those who used. Who determines which records are to be altered? What if some records that were set by steroid abusers who weren't caught not changed? How can you objectively set out to change all of the records set by everyone who ever used steroids? The point is you can't, and it'd be better to just leave them alone than it would to try to fix the records to fit everyone's idea of what's fair.
In 1919, they didn't make the Reds forfiet their World Series Championship and officially change what happened during those games, they banned those who disgraced the game. That would be a much more appropriate way to deal with the steroid problem. If Barry Bonds were banned, he would never break Hank Aaron's record, and rightly so.

FarWestChicago
12-04-2004, 11:35 PM
This is definately a viable option. You can't nitpick and take away some records and not all. I dont think that all people understand that taking away the records implies forfeiture as you clearly understand. In fact, if steroids are as widespread as everyone says they are then every single game played since the introduction of steroids would need to be forfeited. I really doubt that there were many teams without players using steroids. If a mass forfeiture is what you want then I can respect that. I just happen to dissagree with that opinion, if that's allowed here (I'm honestly not certain that dissagreement is allowed here anymore). If there is to be any alteration of the records or deletion, then there must be mass forfeiture and hence MLB must relinquish all of the team accomplishments or championships won in the past however many years.That's quite black and white thinking. There is a middle ground between doing nothing about known cheaters and wiping out everything.

idseer
12-04-2004, 11:39 PM
This is definately a viable option. You can't nitpick and take away some records and not all. I dont think that all people understand that taking away the records implies forfeiture as you clearly understand. In fact, if steroids are as widespread as everyone says they are then every single game played since the introduction of steroids would need to be forfeited. I really doubt that there were many teams without players using steroids. If a mass forfeiture is what you want then I can respect that. I just happen to dissagree with that opinion, if that's allowed here (I'm honestly not certain that dissagreement is allowed here anymore). If there is to be any alteration of the records or deletion, then there must be mass forfeiture and hence MLB must relinquish all of the team accomplishments or championships won in the past however many years.
i don't see a problem with removing only the 'caught' offender's stats and leaving all others alone. inconsistanies? sure. but so what?
there was an inconsistancy when britain lost 12 days off their calendar in 1752. they lived with it. it wouldn't bother me a bit if all the numbers don't equal out to zero or a perfect balance. what's the big problem?

MRKARNO
12-04-2004, 11:40 PM
That's quite black and white thinking. There is a middle ground between doing nothing about known cheaters and wiping out everything.
Well here's a list what I think you could equitably do without be unequal, and if you want to add a few more to the list, I'd invite it:

1. Do nothing

2. Add asterisks or footnotes next to each proven steroid user or record affected by steroids

3. Mass Forfeiture via invalidiation of previous records, as was proposed in the initial question of this thread.

dcb33
12-04-2004, 11:41 PM
That's quite black and white thinking. There is a middle ground between doing nothing about known cheaters and wiping out everything.
The problem is who determines the middle ground? What standards are used? How much time would it take to go over all of the games that have been played? How would you dock Barry's home runs? Would each homerun he hit now count for 60% of a home run? Should the pitcher who got completely wasted the night before and served him a meatball to drive have his official ERA lowered because Barry was on the juice? There's no way you could change the records in any way that would remotely resemble anything described as fair. There are other ways to punish these guys.

idseer
12-04-2004, 11:43 PM
What if some records that were set by steroid abusers who weren't caught not changed?
if they weren't caught , then obviously you don't change their records.

are you aware that there are murderers on the streets that have never been caught? fair? gee! i don't think so.

so the ones that are caught shouldn't be dealt with appropriately?
you really are messed up in your head. this is a very simple point and i cannot believe you don't get it.

MRKARNO
12-04-2004, 11:45 PM
i don't see a problem with removing only the 'caught' offender's stats and leaving all others alone. inconsistanies? sure. but so what?
there was an inconsistancy when britain lost 12 days off their calendar in 1752. they lived with it. it wouldn't bother me a bit if all the numbers don't equal out to zero or a perfect balance. what's the big problem?
Because if you invalidate one players' stats, then the entire team has to forfeit because the outcome of the game is in doubt due to the illegal use of a player by the other team. Use of an illegal player in almost any other sports results in forfeiture and I dont see how it could be done any differently if you deem a player to be an illegal one.

Your analogy is an invalid one because before 1752, Britain was using its own calendar system and they lost 12 days in order to catch up with the rest of the world and get rid of all of the inconsistancies between the Julian Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar.

idseer
12-04-2004, 11:48 PM
Because if you invalidate one players' stats, then the entire team has to forfeit because the outcome of the game is in doubt due to the illegal use of a player by the other team. Use of an illegal player in almost any other sports results in forfeiture and I dont see how it could be done any differently if you deem a player to be an illegal one.

WRONG! the entire team does NOT have to forfeit anything. no one else's records need be changed!
you don't seem to realize that baseball can INDEED do whatever they feel is appropriate. they don't have to do what college football does. nor any other sport. they make their own rules! it's a GAME!

FarWestChicago
12-04-2004, 11:51 PM
if they weren't caught , then obviously you don't change their records.

are you aware that there are murderers on the streets that have never been caught? fair? gee! i don't think so.

so the ones that are caught shouldn't be dealt with appropriately?
you really are messed up in your head. this is a very simple point and i cannot believe you don't get it.You're not the only one.

dcb33
12-04-2004, 11:51 PM
if they weren't caught , then obviously you don't change their records.

are you aware that there are murderers on the streets that have never been caught? fair? gee! i don't think so.

so the ones that are caught shouldn't be dealt with appropriately?
you really are messed up in your head. this is a very simple point and i cannot believe you don't get it.You should really take the time to read the entire post instead of taking what I have to say out of context. I don't feel that the best punishment would be to change the records, OK? Do you understand that? You obviously don't. It wouldn't be fair to change everyone's records because you'd be denying what happened on the field, and not everyone who used steroids might have their records adjusted accordingly and it's simply not practical to do it anyway. That does NOT mean that those who used 'roids won't be punished. When it comes to his "records," history and the lack of respect those in the future will give to the accomplishments of Bonds on the field will be punishment enough.

Deleting and altering records is an incredibly shallow and superficial way of dealing with this problem.

FarWestChicago
12-04-2004, 11:56 PM
When it comes to his "records," history and the lack of respect those in the future will give to the accomplishment of Bonds on the field will be punishment enough.You can not be serious. Read what you posted again. I'll say one thing, if I ever got busted for anything I would sure as hell want you on the jury. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

dcb33
12-04-2004, 11:58 PM
You can not be serious. Read what you posted again. I'll say one thing, if I ever got busted for anything I would sure as hell want you on the jury. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gifIn terms of his records, they won't be respected. All I'm saying is that's not the best way to punish him... do you really think Bonds gives a **** if MLB says he hit 0 or 73 or 54 or -2 homeruns in 2001? How much did he bank that year?

MRKARNO
12-04-2004, 11:59 PM
WRONG! the entire team does NOT have to forfeit anything. no one else's records need be changed!
you don't seem to realize that baseball can INDEED do whatever they feel is appropriate. they don't have to do what college football does. nor any other sport. they make their own rules! it's a GAME!
Well I'm saying that it would be hypocritical if a player on a team's records could be changed and a team wouldnt have to forfeit a game. If the records are tainted when made by the individual, then the team cannot benefit from those tainted records without being inconsistant. Sure baseball could do what you propose, but not without being hypocritical. You are saying that a player's stats can be taken away, but the team can benefit from those stats which have been supposedly taken away. I find that to be a self contradictory way of going about things.

idseer
12-05-2004, 12:00 AM
You should really take the time to read the entire post instead of taking what I have to say out of context. I don't feel that the best punishment would be to change the records, OK? Do you understand that? You obviously don't. It wouldn't be fair to change everyone's records because you'd be denying what happened on the field, and not everyone who used steroids might have their records adjusted accordingly and it's simply not practical to do it anyway. That does NOT mean that those who used 'roids won't be punished. When it comes to his "records," history and the lack of respect those in the future will give to the accomplishment of Bonds on the field will be punishment enough.

Deleting and altering records is an incredibly shallow and superficial way of dealing with this problem.
i have read you posts entirely and i understand what you are saying. but frankly half of what you're writing comes out looking absurd? in my remarks i have quoted you directly. they were absurd statements. if you had simply said " i think they should be punished but not have the records changed' and let it go at that then fine. i think you're wrong but then that's a 2 way street.

a good example has been provided already ... ben davis.
you see a problem with altering some records and not others .... and i don't.
what does it hurt? nothing. and please don't say it hurts the integrity of the game. that horse has been out of the barn a long time now.

dcb33
12-05-2004, 12:03 AM
i have read you posts entirely and i understand what you are saying. but frankly half of what you're writing comes out looking absurd? in my remarks i have quoted you directly. they were absurd statements. if you had simply said " i think they should be punished but not have the records changed' and let it go at that then fine. i think you're wrong but then that's a 2 way street.

a good example has been provided already ... ben davis.
you see a problem with altering some records and not others .... and i don't.
what does it hurt? nothing. and please don't say it hurts the integrity of the game. that horse has been out of the barn a long time now.That's because you only quoted part of what I was saying. Fine, I'll say it this way:
I think they should be punished but not have the records changed.

Part of me really hates written communication because it's not always easy to get across what you're trying to say. It would be waaayy more fun to be having this argument in the parking lot before a game than on a 30 degree night in December ... I think we can all agree on that one...:)

idseer
12-05-2004, 12:09 AM
Well I'm saying that it would be hypocritical if a player on a team's records could be changed and a team wouldnt have to forfeit a game. If the records are tainted when made by the individual, then the team cannot benefit from those tainted records without being inconsistant. Sure baseball could do what you propose, but not without being hypocritical. You are saying that a player's stats can be taken away, but the team can benefit from those stats which have been supposedly taken away. I find that to be a self contradictory way of going about things.
i already admitted it would be inconsistant. inconsistancies aren't the end of the world. but i fail to see any hypocracy.
we're just not going to agree here. i see it as a just punishment and a fairness to the great records of the game (which are a huge part of it's very appeal) to remove any tainted numbers they find. as we've stated, it would be way too problematic to refigure ALL the balls and strikes of every game he's been in. so, i propose a compromise. remove the offender's records and leave everyone else's alone. it's fairer to the game and fans than leaving then in.

idseer
12-05-2004, 12:11 AM
That's because you only quoted part of what I was saying. Fine, I'll say it this way:
I think they should be punished but not have the records changed.

Part of me really hates written communication because it's not always easy to get across what you're trying to say. It would be waaayy more fun to be having this argument in the parking lot before a game than on a 30 degree night in December ... I think we can all agree on that one...:)
true.
but i still say the game has been hurt and should be fixed.
you're saying let the wound fester.

dcb33
12-05-2004, 12:20 AM
true.
but i still say the game has been hurt and should be fixed.
you're saying let the wound fester.
Deleting Bonds record does not fix the game. He still used 'roids. He still hit 73 home runs in a season. By deleting those records you are only looking the other way and denying this ever happened. You can't delete history, and everyone will forever know what happened. Altering record books is only a superficial solution to a much larger problem.
If you really want to punish him throw the SOB out. Make sure he never hits his 756. Take back some of the ill-gotten cash he banked becuase his performance was illegaly enhanced.

idseer
12-05-2004, 12:41 AM
Deleting Bonds record does not fix the game. He still used 'roids. He still hit 73 home runs in a season. By deleting those records you are only looking the other way and denying this ever happened. You can't delete history, and everyone will forever know what happened. Altering record books is only a superficial solution to a much larger problem.
If you really want to punish him throw the SOB out. Make sure he never hits his 756. Take back some of the ill-gotten cash he banked becuase his performance was illegaly enhanced.
of course it fixes the game. it makes the home run record legitimate again! he would NOT have hit 73 home runs in a season! how is it looking the other way to fix what is wrong? you are the one advocating looking the other way from a baseball perspective. you don't want to replace what he STOLE!
you can't delete history, and everyone will forever know what happened again .... see the ben davis affair.
you CAN delete history. it's done all the time.

btw, i would ALSO ban him from the game. and the giants should have the right to sue him for something or at least void any further monies. i'm sure a lawyer could come up with something appropriate.
all of this assuming it could be proven he knew what he was doing.

and it's going on 2am here. nite!:smile:

dcb33
12-05-2004, 12:48 AM
what does it hurt? nothing. and please don't say it hurts the integrity of the game. that horse has been out of the barn a long time now.
So if the records are already tainted, how does deleting Bonds' 73 clean them up and restore integrity to the home run record?

FarWestChicago
12-05-2004, 12:56 AM
Deleting Bonds record does not fix the game. He still used 'roids. He still hit 73 home runs in a season. By deleting those records you are only looking the other way and denying this ever happened.Holy crap, where is the logic in this? Ben Johnson ran a 9.79 in 1988. By busting him and stripping him it cleaned up history. He became a pariah. Letting it stand would have been and absurd travesty. I can't believe you advocate something like this.

FarWestChicago
12-05-2004, 01:00 AM
In terms of his records, they won't be respected. All I'm saying is that's not the best way to punish him... do you really think Bonds gives a **** if MLB says he hit 0 or 73 or 54 or -2 homeruns in 2001? How much did he bank that year?OK, so now you are saying Bonds doesn't care about his stats so he shouldn't be punished. I'll give you an A+ for creative excuse making, but your grade for logic would be a bit lower. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

FarWestChicago
12-05-2004, 01:03 AM
So if the records are already tainted, how does deleting Bonds' 73 clean them up and restore integrity to the home run record?You do what you can. Perfection is unattainable, but that doesn't mean you do nothing. Again with the black and white thinking. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

dcb33
12-05-2004, 01:15 AM
Holy crap, where is the logic in this? Ben Johnson ran a 9.79 in 1988. By busting him and stripping him it cleaned up history. He became a pariah. Letting it stand would have been and absurd travesty. I can't believe you advocate something like this.You're doing a good job of comparing apples to oranges. It's easy to negate the results an individual posts in a track race, or the performance of a ice skating event, or anything that doesn't involve team sports. Ok, fine. Let's erase Bonds home run records. Does that mean you also erase the runs produced from those home runs? Do you adjust his singles, BB's, RBIs as well? Do you lower the ERA of a pitcher who got wasted the night before that served him a meatball that you or I could hit? Or adjust the W/L record of Giants games that were decided by one of his homers? If you do erase his home runs but say the runs still count and fail to adjust the Giants record, what do you tell the Cardinals or Braves who might've made the World Series in 2002 had they not had to play a team with a cheater? Do we negate the Giants status as 2002 NL Wild Card winners and give it to the Dodgers? It's doubtful the Giants would've gotten that far had they not had Bonds. Why don't we just replay the entire 2002 Postseason to make sure the great injustice that is Bonds' steroid usage is rectified? I could go on, but I won't.
It happened and it's done. We can't change it. The best thing baseball can do now is to punish those involved to the extent they can and to make sure this doesn't happen again, not nitpick every single event that occured involving a player who used steroids. It just won't work becuase of the team nature of the game. I think the best that could be hoped for in terms of altering records is to have an asterisk put next to his statistics...

dcb33
12-05-2004, 01:17 AM
OK, so now you are saying Bonds doesn't care about his stats so he shouldn't be punished. I'll give you an A+ for creative excuse making, but your grade for logic would be a bit lower. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Do you really think he cares about his stats insofar as how much he will make from producing them? If he really loved the game he wouldn't ahve stooped to this level.

dcb33
12-05-2004, 01:20 AM
You can not be serious. Read what you posted again. I'll say one thing, if I ever got busted for anything I would sure as hell want you on the jury. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gifWait, so if I see everything in black and white, would you really want me on your jury, especially if your defense rested on requiring the jurors to see many gray areas in order to acquit? :rolleyes: :bandance: :gulp:

FarWestChicago
12-05-2004, 01:48 AM
It's easy to negate the results an individual posts in a track race, or the performance of a ice skating event, or anything that doesn't involve team sports. Ok, fine. Let's erase Bonds home run records. Does that mean you also erase the runs produced from those home runs?Nope, you're overcomplicating things in an attempt to make them look impractical. You don't need to adjust anything but the cheater's stats. No HR's, no hits, no nothing for the season. It's quite simple really. Is is perfect? No. Does it need to be perfect. Absolutely not. And that's where you are getting stuck.

dcb33
12-05-2004, 02:56 AM
Nope, you're overcomplicating things in an attempt to make them look impractical. You don't need to adjust anything but the cheater's stats. No HR's, no hits, no nothing for the season. It's quite simple really. Is is perfect? No. Does it need to be perfect. Absolutely not. And that's where you are getting stuck.
It doesn't have to be perfect, but a reasonable solution has to satisfy enough people in order for it to work. Suppose you were to erase Bonds home run numbers. How could you not say the runs that were scored becuase of them don't count? The Dodgers lost the Wild Card in 2002 by 3 games, and although I can't say for sure, I would assume that there were at least 3 games during the season where a Barry Bonds home run was the difference for the Giants. Sure you could just erase the home runs he hit and count the runs, but everyone would still know why the Giants won that year. The Dodgers could easily come out and say they have reason to demand that San Francisco be stripped of it's Wild Card Playoff berth that year and its National League Championship because baseball changed the stats. Since his home runs would no longer exist, who's to say their clame would not be legitimate? What then would you do? Does that make Anaheim's World Championship illegitimate as well? Who's to say one of those other National League teams wouldn't have beat the Angles?
I'm only asking all of these questions because I'm afraid a solution such as simply purging his achievements from the record books would not be practical as it would raise more questions than it would answer and it would be completely unacceptable to some.

FarWestChicago
12-05-2004, 03:25 AM
I'm only asking all of these questions because I'm afraid a solution such as simply purging his achievements from the record books would not be practical as it would raise more questions than it would answer and it would be completely unacceptable to some.I don't think most people would have the issues you are having. I think most people would rather not look at a cheated 73 in a record book. I think most people would rather not see a cheated 756 ahead of a good man like Hank Aaron. You can't undo all of the past, you are correct about that. But, you can clean up some things. Baseball created this absurd mess by not only turning a blind eye to obvious, rampant drug use, but by also glorifying the most egregious, convicted cheater of them all, Sham-ME. They can choose to do nothing once again. It's apparent many young fans won't have a problem with that. But, they will lose a lot of older fans (I know. Who cares? We'll all die soon anyway.) and I also think there are younger fans who would prefer to keep the 'roids in the WWE. A good start would be getting a commissioner for baseball. We've seen what running without one for the last several years has done. I doubt they will and I'm sure they'll screw up this opportunity to begin to get the game back on track. I'm an optimist, but I'm not stupid. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

PaleHoseGeorge
12-05-2004, 09:09 AM
I don't think most people would have the issues you are having. I think most people would rather not look at a cheated 73 in a record book. I think most people would rather not see a cheated 756 ahead of a good man like Hank Aaron. You can't undo all of the past, you are correct about that. But, you can clean up some things. Baseball created this absurd mess by not only turning a blind eye to obvious, rampant drug use, but by also glorifying the most egregious, convicted cheater of them all, Sham-ME. They can choose to do nothing once again. It's apparent many young fans won't have a problem with that. But, they will lose a lot of older fans (I know. Who cares? We'll all die soon anyway.) and I also think there are younger fans who would prefer to keep the 'roids in the WWE. A good start would be getting a commissioner for baseball. We've seen what running without one for the last several years has done. I doubt they will and I'm sure they'll screw up this opportunity to begin to get the game back on track. I'm an optimist, but I'm not stupid. http://www.flyingsock.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/biggrin.gif BRAVO!

I've read the last 3 pages of this thread and I can't say enough for the brave stand taken into the wee hours of the morning by West. I went to bed rather than attempt to drive home the points West persistently made to the terminally confused. He knew it was a lost cause same as I did. But there was a point to be made, and he made it. No surrender...

I was reminded of the brave stand taken against incredible odds by a few hundred Texans against the army of Santa Anna at the Alamo. "Lone Star" West kept up the fight right to the bitter end.
:thumbsup:

And we're losing this guy to Canada? Say it ain't so!
:o:

I have no doubt MR.KARNO and DCB will be back and they'll insist any punishment for Bonds and Giambi is too difficult or too inconsistent to implement. One of them is even dumb enough to suggest Bonds should get off easy because he was sooo entertaining. LMAO! We have a tag here at WSI that puts the torch to this silly notion far better than I could ever explain... least of all to those two.
:cool:

:corker

Ol' No. 2
12-05-2004, 10:15 AM
Boy, has this thread mushroomed. After reading (nearly) all of it, I have to say that some presuasive arguments have made me change my mind on the subject. Previously, I agreed with the "You can't delete the records" crowd. And it's not a dumb argument. There really seem to be two arguments against expunging these records:

1. It was not formally against baseball rules, so how can you penalize a player for breaking a rule that wasn't there? But baseball makes its own rules. It can do whatever it likes with the records. There was no rule in place that allowed Judge Landis to ban players for life, but he did it. To do so would not be a perfect solution. To be sure, there are problems with doing so. However, what turns the issue in my mind is that the overriding concern has to win out, and that is, if these records are to have any meaning at all, they have to have integrity, above all else. A record without integrity is a pretty worthless thing. You may not be able to guarantee the absolute integrity of every record, but that doesn't mean you just give up.

2. The second argument is that it's inconsistent to expunge records for steroids, but not for other infractions, i.e. sign-stealing, corking, etc. It's like the "slippery slope argument, and it has merit. But I think we have to reject it.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,
adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Consistency is fine, but to adhere to it blindly when everything you know tells you that you should do the opposite is exactly the foolish consistency that Emerson was talking about.

Let's face it. This is a lousy situation. Even after our best attempts to "fix" it, it's still going to be a lousy situation. All we can do is do the best we can. And the best, though certainly not perfect, answer to this question is to expunge all records that are tainted by steroids.

Who makes the decision? I think it's going to be some time before this whole thing runs its course, and it would be premature to do anything until then. At that time there should be a committee of owners and players that examines who was shown to be on steriods and whether or not their records should be expunged. They will not be perfect, and there will certainly be disagreement on many of their decisions, but I can't see any other reasonable way to do it.

dcb33
12-06-2004, 01:48 AM
BRAVO!

I've read the last 3 pages of this thread and I can't say enough for the brave stand taken into the wee hours of the morning by West. I went to bed rather than attempt to drive home the points West persistently made to the terminally confused. He knew it was a lost cause same as I did. But there was a point to be made, and he made it. No surrender...

I was reminded of the brave stand taken against incredible odds by a few hundred Texans against the army of Santa Anna at the Alamo. "Lone Star" West kept up the fight right to the bitter end.
:thumbsup:

And we're losing this guy to Canada? Say it ain't so!
:o:

I have no doubt MR.KARNO and DCB will be back and they'll insist any punishment for Bonds and Giambi is too difficult or too inconsistent to implement. One of them is even dumb enough to suggest Bonds should get off easy because he was sooo entertaining. LMAO! We have a tag here at WSI that puts the torch to this silly notion far better than I could ever explain... least of all to those two.
:cool:

:corkerI cetainly am appreciative of the fact that people can disagree with each other here at WSI without worry of being insulted personally, and I'm glad that one moderator here in particular here has set such a good example for others by refraining from such personal attacks throughout this thread and others.
Near as I can tell, we pretty much agree that this scandal is a disgrace to those who abused steroids and to the game of baseball. We also agree that there should be strict punishment for those playes involved. I personally think they should be banned and that they should be forced to forfiet a considerable amount of the money they have earned playing the game.
So what if disagree whether or not their statistics should be erased? Who cares? So our differences are irreconciliable. You have your reasons for wanting to delete them, and I have my reasons for believing they shouldn't be trifled with. It's not like I advocate giving these guys a free pass, and it certainly doesn't give you a good reason to say some of the things you've said.

You don't even know me and yet you sit here ready to pass judgement and call me stupid, morally bankrupt degenerate over a simple disagreement we've had over one minor part of a much larger scandal? What a joke.

SoxyStu
12-06-2004, 08:50 PM
Erased? No, cause they still accomplished the feat. Jeremy Giambi and Marvin Bernard would never hit 40 HR's, let alone 60+. However, I do feel that they should get an * .
Not the asterisk, give them a syringe http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:r5v-XTpBLBwJ:http://www.inflict.org/images/drug/Syringe.jpg (http://www.inflict.org/images/drug/Syringe.jpg) next to their stats!

ode to veeck
12-07-2004, 08:15 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=755&e=1&u=/ap/20041207/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_steroids

Talks between players union and owners appear to be still a fair bit apart, with Colorado gov Owens and AZ senator McCain expressing intent to take independent actions if MLB doesn't get its act together