PDA

View Full Version : greater evil gambling or steriods


eastchicagosoxfan
02-27-2005, 05:20 PM
What is the greater evil, and the greater threat to the game: gambling or steriods? My opinion is gambling, because players are attempting to influence the outcome of a game with something considerably less than their best effort. Concerning steriods, players attempted to become better by using drugs that gave them an unfair advantage. It certainly affected the outcome of games, but nobady let the opposition win.

Ol' No. 2
02-27-2005, 05:27 PM
Which is worse, a hot poker in your eye or an elephant standing on your testicles?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-27-2005, 05:29 PM
Which is worse, a hot poker in your eye or an elephant standing on your testicles?

OH OH OH OH!

I know this one!

Hot poker in the eye. Elephant stepping on the testicles hurts too much.
:cool:

Ol' No. 2
02-27-2005, 05:41 PM
OH OH OH OH!

I know this one!

Hot poker in the eye. Elephant stepping on the testicles hurts too much.
:cool:No fair. You saw last week's test.:D:

eastchicagosoxfan
02-27-2005, 06:07 PM
I saw it too, while neither is good, does the current situation with steriods require the same actions that Landis took when gambling came to the fore? I should have worded it differently. Does the current steriod crisis require the same drastic actions that the gambling crisis precipitated 85 years ago? That includes banning players for life, and appointing a commissioner to restore integrity and public trust in the game.

Ol' No. 2
02-27-2005, 06:14 PM
I saw it too, while neither is good, does the current situation with steriods require the same actions that Landis took when gambling came to the fore? I should have worded it differently. Does the current steriod crisis require the same drastic actions that the gambling crisis precipitated 85 years ago? That includes banning players for life, and appointing a commissioner to restore integrity and public trust in the game.Yes. I think it's called for. I wouldn't necessarily ban all these guys for life, though. I would have a commission to investigate and expunge any record found to be tainted.

It won't happen.

Nard
02-27-2005, 06:54 PM
If you're talking strictly about gambling where play is changed to influence the outcome of the game, I gotta go with that. At least if you're roided up you're still playing the actual game with "honesty."

idseer
02-27-2005, 07:07 PM
If you're talking strictly about gambling where play is changed to influence the outcome of the game, I gotta go with that. At least if you're roided up you're still playing the actual game with "honesty."

:?:
say what?

Nard
02-27-2005, 07:16 PM
You know what I mean. Not honestly honestly, but honestly as in still trying to win. Fixing games is still worse than steroids.

idseer
02-27-2005, 07:42 PM
You know what I mean. Not honestly honestly, but honestly as in still trying to win. Fixing games is still worse than steroids.

i disagree.

fixing games is a small temporary problem that doesn't hurt the long term interest of baseball (ala 1919)

steroids has forever ruined the statistical structure in baseball. probably the most time-honored stat of all time has been ruined.

baseball is a game of statistics. the only sport that is really. others are about action. statistics is why i follow the game. it's why i've said on several occasions that the game died right around 1990 for me. this new thing they still call baseball is a weak version of the great game i once knew.

steroids are worse than gambling.

eastchicagosoxfan
02-27-2005, 08:20 PM
i disagree.

fixing games is a small temporary problem that doesn't hurt the long time interest of baseball (ala 1919)

steroids has forever ruined the statistical structure in baseball. probably the most time-honored stat of all time has been ruined.
MLB can always * the stats of the steriod age, or something to that affect. Players from the 1800's, especially pitchers, have a different set of stats than everyone else. I'm not comparing the players from the two periods, but baseball's record keepers have determined that it's not fair to compare Old Hoss Radbourn's 63 wins in 1884, to Denny Mclain's 1968 season. Bob Gibson's 1968 season is held in a different light because of the height of the mound. Because of a rule change, pitchers aren't expected to be that effective. Obviously, Gibson, and Radbourn performed within the confines of the rules, whereas Bonds and others did not. However, unless baseball can determine who the users of steriods were, cleaning the record book is not possible.
Players that gambled on the outcome of a game were indifferent to the results, provided their wallet came away the winner. None of the steriod players are accused of throwing a game, although their actions certainly affected the outcome of games. Baseball can view their accomplishments differently, and survive. Historicaly, it's employed these mechanisms. When the outcome of games is questioned because of gambling, baseball lacks the mechanism to account for the contests in question. My thoughts are a work in progress.

Fake Chet Lemon
02-27-2005, 08:35 PM
Gambling is worse, it's a no brainer.You can at least understand why a guy takes performance enhancers. They justify it in their mind, they are trying to make things "better" (YES THE ARE DEAD WRONG). Gambling in no way can be justified as making the game better, it is USING THE GAME as a tool for another end means. Baseball is is just a tool used by the gambler, they'll gamble on anything.

idseer
02-27-2005, 09:04 PM
Gambling is worse, it's a no brainer.You can at least understand why a guy takes performance enhancers. They justify it in their mind, they are trying to make things "better" (YES THE ARE DEAD WRONG). Gambling in no way can be justified as making the game better, it is USING THE GAME as a tool for another end means. Baseball is is just a tool used by the gambler, they'll gamble on anything.

still being the devil's advocate here, you can say that gambling doesn't affect any part of the sport. it's just betting.
steroids directly affects games, records and lives.
gambling isn't what hurts the game. it's throwing games that hurts the games.
there is not one shred of evidence that rose ever threw a game or hurt his own team. not ONE!

there's all KINDS of evidence that steroids have hurt the games.

it's only a no-brainer if you don't use your brain.

idseer
02-27-2005, 09:13 PM
MLB can always * the stats of the steriod age, or something to that affect. Players from the 1800's, especially pitchers, have a different set of stats than everyone else. I'm not comparing the players from the two periods, but baseball's record keepers have determined that it's not fair to compare Old Hoss Radbourn's 63 wins in 1884, to Denny Mclain's 1968 season. Bob Gibson's 1968 season is held in a different light because of the height of the mound. Because of a rule change, pitchers aren't expected to be that effective. Obviously, Gibson, and Radbourn performed within the confines of the rules, whereas Bonds and others did not. However, unless baseball can determine who the users of steriods were, cleaning the record book is not possible.
Players that gambled on the outcome of a game were indifferent to the results, provided their wallet came away the winner. None of the steriod players are accused of throwing a game, although their actions certainly affected the outcome of games. Baseball can view their accomplishments differently, and survive. Historicaly, it's employed these mechanisms. When the outcome of games is questioned because of gambling, baseball lacks the mechanism to account for the contests in question. My thoughts are a work in progress.

yes baseball can * the record books ... but they won't. how can they? selig has already given his stamp of approval.
true there was a era when baseball was a lot different and records don't compare well, but that had a lot to do with changes in the rules. livelyness of the ball, balls bouncing over the fence being homeruns, 5 balls to walk etc. and the avid fans from that era may feel baseball ended for them when it changed so drastically.
rules changes, parks, distances, heights .... at least those things affected everyone in the game. at least the playing field was level.
steroids has changed all that.

Daver
02-27-2005, 09:34 PM
Both of the issues can affect the integrity of the game, so how can one be worse than the other?

Is the steroids issue of today any worse than the much less publicized speed issue of the late sixties and early seventies? The number of players using amphetamines in that era are about the same as the number of players suspected of using steroids in this era, so where do you draw the line?

Cheating has been going on for as long as the game has been played, the only difference now is the fact that the information available about it has grown a hundredfold.

You could also bring up the fact that it is posted in every locker room in MLB that gambling on the game will result in a ban from baseball, and has been since 1919, yet there is no such posting for using illegal drugs.

Nard
02-27-2005, 09:36 PM
still being the devil's advocate here, you can say that gambling doesn't affect any part of the sport. it's just betting.
steroids directly affects games, records and lives.
gambling isn't what hurts the game. it's throwing games that hurts the games.
there is not one shred of evidence that rose ever threw a game or hurt his own team. not ONE!

there's all KINDS of evidence that steroids have hurt the games.

it's only a no-brainer if you don't use your brain.

That's why I made it clear I was talking about fixing games and fixing games only. Nothing wrong with betting if you're not fixing games.

idseer
02-27-2005, 09:40 PM
Both of the issues can affect the integrity of the game, so how can one be worse than the other?

Is the steroids issue of today any worse than the much less publicized speed issue of the late sixties and early seventies? The number of players using amphetamines in that era are about the same as the number of players suspected of using steroids in this era, so where do you draw the line?

Cheating has been going on for as long as the game has been played, the only difference now is the fact that the information available about it has grown a hundredfold.

You could also bring up the fact that it is posted in every locker room in MLB that gambling on the game will result in a ban from baseball, and has been since 1919, yet there is no such posting for using illegal drugs.

exactly, which is why i've tried to present the other side to those who think one is worse than the other. they can both destroy the integrity of the game. i'm trying to put to bed the idea that one is somehow worse than the other.

MRKARNO
02-27-2005, 09:50 PM
Quite honestly they're both pretty darn crappy, but I'd have to say gambling and what the 1919 Black Sox did because they cheated to lose, while the steroids users were at least trying to help their team win, despite the fact that they were using illegal means. We're taking about two pretty crappy ways to go about baseball, but what the 1919 Black Sox did much more harm than the steroids scandal will ever do. Baseball lost tons of fans after the scheme was uncovered in 1919. The pinnacle of the sport was lost on purpose out of greed. However, I truly doubt that attendence will dip in light of the steroid problem, as much of a problem as it is.