PDA

View Full Version : Good Sosa Article


rocky biddle
02-17-2006, 10:07 AM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5334582

Pretty good article. It's good to see that the national media has embraced what we know, sam is a just an inflated ego with juiced-up numbers. I'm glad his career and his legacy will always be associated with the "steroid era" of baseball.

churlish
02-17-2006, 10:13 AM
Yeah, that pretty much sums it all up. If Sosa was indeed clean, then he had some of the greatest seasons ever. If Sosa was a cheater, than will he still get in to the HOF? It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Baby Fisk
02-17-2006, 10:27 AM
Sosa is walking away because he realizes he no longer can achieve at his desired level of performance,
How's that for a very loaded and very telling comment? Sho long Shammy!

Madvora
02-17-2006, 10:29 AM
Sosa is walking away because he realizes he no longer can achieve at his desired level of performance,
I'm not too sure of that. He's walking away because he's pissed that no one will give him a huge amount of money.

daveeym
02-17-2006, 10:53 AM
Espn had an article ripping him to shreds too along with a poll. Basically everyone thinks he's a bum on roids.

ondafarm
02-17-2006, 11:05 AM
I view Sosa as different than Bonds.

Sosa was considered "over-rated" until the home run chase with McGwire. In fact, there was a famous winter article in a baseball weekly which called him the most over-rated player in all of baseball. Supposedly, it got him mad and perhaps he took steroids that winter and when he came back he was definately smacking the ball a lot harder. Sosa was mediocre when the Sox had him.

Bonds had nearly HOF numbers before he took steroids. He was a solid 30-30 guy for many years.

My question for HOF voters is: while penalizing mediocre players (Sosa, Palmeiro) who take steroids and become monsters, what do you do with solid players (Bonds) who's ego get in their way and take steroids to stay on top?

I personally (and I have no vote in this) would hold my nose and vote for Bonds but would never vote for Sosa.

Frater Perdurabo
02-17-2006, 11:08 AM
I personally (and I have no vote in this) would hold my nose and vote for Bonds but would never vote for Sosa.

Onda, I agree 100%.

pythons007
02-17-2006, 11:09 AM
Espn had an article ripping him to shreds too along with a poll. Basically everyone thinks he's a bum on roids.

He was on roids and he knew about the corked bat! Plus he forgot how to speak english...what a dope!

Lip Man 1
02-17-2006, 01:24 PM
But yet Michael Barrett is quoted extensively in a story in the Tribune today (I think) saying he can't understand why Sosa has been 'tainted' with these steroid 'rumours.' LOL

Well Michael to start try taking a look at a picture of Sosa with the Sox in 1990 and the Cubs say in 1997...

Lip

Flight #24
02-17-2006, 01:31 PM
I view Sosa as different than Bonds.

Sosa was considered "over-rated" until the home run chase with McGwire. In fact, there was a famous winter article in a baseball weekly which called him the most over-rated player in all of baseball. Supposedly, it got him mad and perhaps he took steroids that winter and when he came back he was definately smacking the ball a lot harder. Sosa was mediocre when the Sox had him.

Bonds had nearly HOF numbers before he took steroids. He was a solid 30-30 guy for many years.

My question for HOF voters is: while penalizing mediocre players (Sosa, Palmeiro) who take steroids and become monsters, what do you do with solid players (Bonds) who's ego get in their way and take steroids to stay on top?

I personally (and I have no vote in this) would hold my nose and vote for Bonds but would never vote for Sosa.

To me it comes down to the question "was this guy a HOFer before he started juicing"? Bonds = yes. McGwire/Sosa/Raffy = no. As to determing when they started juicing, that's left to each individual, but it seems clear to me when body types shifted, performance took off, etc for all these guys.

Ol' No. 2
02-17-2006, 01:43 PM
To me it comes down to the question "was this guy a HOFer before he started juicing"? Bonds = yes. McGwire/Sosa/Raffy = no. As to determing when they started juicing, that's left to each individual, but it seems clear to me when body types shifted, performance took off, etc for all these guys.I disagree. Pete Rose had a HOF career but he's not eligible. Joe Jackson was well on his way to a HOF career. The damage Bonds, Sosa, et al did to the game deserves a complete ban.

Lip Man 1
02-17-2006, 01:47 PM
No.2:

Just curious...not saying you are wrong but how did these guys 'damage' the game?

Were steroids illegal? Were they any worse then say having laser surgery to correct vision and give the player an edge? (a la Greg Maddux...) or taking 'greenies'?

Seems to me you can say what they did was (maybe) immoral but certainly not illegal. And as far as the health risks, if someone wants to kill themselves that's their decision isn't it?

Lip

Ol' No. 2
02-17-2006, 02:16 PM
No.2:

Just curious...not saying you are wrong but how did these guys 'damage' the game?

Were steroids illegal? Were they any worse then say having laser surgery to correct vision and give the player an edge? (a la Greg Maddux...) or taking 'greenies'?

Seems to me you can say what they did was (maybe) immoral but certainly not illegal. And as far as the health risks, if someone wants to kill themselves that's their decision isn't it?

LipSteroids have been illegal in the US (without a doctor's prescription, which none of them had) for a long time. Moreover, everyone knew that steroids were not allowed, despite the fact that they're not explicitly banned in the rule book. There's nothing in the baseball rule book about stealing signs from the stands, either, but is there anyone who thinks that's allowed? They all knew it was against the rules or they wouldn't be trying so hard to conceal their use. Significantly, no player has admitted to using steroids, claiming they thought it was OK.

Steroid use goes well beyond scuffing baseballs and corked bats because it tilts the playing field so severely that it almost forces other players to do it to be able to compete. IMO, it's also worse than taking amphetamines (although I don't want to sanction that, either). Amphetamines only allow you to play up to your normal abilities. Steroids allow you to go well beyond your normal abilities.

The damage done to the game is, in many ways, similar to gambling. It undermines confidence that the game is a true contest between players whose outcome is determined by their abilities and skills. Steroid use makes it about something else. They turned baseball into a freak show.

SoxSpeed22
02-17-2006, 02:21 PM
Just curious...not saying you are wrong but how did these guys 'damage' the game?

Were steroids illegal? Were they any worse then say having laser surgery to correct vision and give the player an edge? (a la Greg Maddux...) or taking 'greenies'?

Seems to me you can say what they did was (maybe) immoral but certainly not illegal. And as far as the health risks, if someone wants to kill themselves that's their decision isn't it?

LipThese are good points, steroids were never illegal until a few years ago. My only take on the HOF is that Bonds should get in, it takes skill to hit that well, roids or no roids. For the other guys, if you let one in, you let them all in, because they are all around the same numbers and got there the same way.

Mickster
02-17-2006, 03:01 PM
These are good points, steroids were never illegal until a few years ago.

No offense, but I absolutely despise this argument.

Ol' No. 2
02-17-2006, 03:06 PM
No offense, but I absolutely despise this argument.Not to mention that it's wrong.

Lip Man 1
02-17-2006, 03:33 PM
No.2:

Can you address my question about laser surgery. I'm curious how you think this compares to steroid use or greenies.

My opinion is that like with steroids it is altering the human body for an advantage versus other players, therefore it should be just as wrong as the steroid use. Do you agree?

Lip

pythons007
02-17-2006, 03:45 PM
Lip,
I don't think that laser surgery should be considered illegal or even in the same category as steroids. If you think laser surgery is the same then you shouldn't be able to wear eyeglasses, either.

The way that laser surgery helps baseball players isn't going to turn a regular fly ball into a homerun like steroids does.

downstairs
02-17-2006, 04:01 PM
It has nothing to do with the legality.

Gambling on baseball is legal (or, can be if you do it in the right places- i.e. take a trip to Vegas). Any baseball player can legally go to Vegas and bet on their own team to lose. But, of course, that sort of thing would get you banned for life and out of the HOF.

Steroids is almost as dangerous to the sport.

Laser surgery on the eyes is not because the best it can do is fix your eyes to as good as they were. Or, at best- the best an average person can do.

If steroids only kept your strength to the level you were at before, they'd be fine. But they go above and beyond that and create a monster.

TaylorStSox
02-17-2006, 04:53 PM
Steroids have been illegal in the US (without a doctor's prescription, which none of them had) for a long time. Moreover, everyone knew that steroids were not allowed, despite the fact that they're not explicitly banned in the rule book. There's nothing in the baseball rule book about stealing signs from the stands, either, but is there anyone who thinks that's allowed? They all knew it was against the rules or they wouldn't be trying so hard to conceal their use. Significantly, no player has admitted to using steroids, claiming they thought it was OK.

Steroid use goes well beyond scuffing baseballs and corked bats because it tilts the playing field so severely that it almost forces other players to do it to be able to compete. IMO, it's also worse than taking amphetamines (although I don't want to sanction that, either). Amphetamines only allow you to play up to your normal abilities. Steroids allow you to go well beyond your normal abilities.

The damage done to the game is, in many ways, similar to gambling. It undermines confidence that the game is a true contest between players whose outcome is determined by their abilities and skills. Steroid use makes it about something else. They turned baseball into a freak show.

You're being naive to the advantages that amphetamines can give a player. They don't simply make one more "awake." They give an artificial sense of awareness and confidence that allows a player to compete at a level that they wouldn't be capable of when sober.

I have mixed feelings about steroids. Clearly, the players that have taken steroids are cheaters. However, I really think there's a bias in the way these players are treated. I'm sure we all have suspicions about certain members of the 05 Sox. I certainly do. Yet, it seems to be ignored. Meanwhile, people use the steroid scandal as ammunition to reinforce their agenda. They hated the player before they knew or suspected he was on roids.

Everyone's so appalled by Sosa's steroid use. How are you going to treat Robert Valido, if he's ever our starting SS?

Ol' No. 2
02-17-2006, 05:16 PM
Lip,
I don't think that laser surgery should be considered illegal or even in the same category as steroids. If you think laser surgery is the same then you shouldn't be able to wear eyeglasses, either.

The way that laser surgery helps baseball players isn't going to turn a regular fly ball into a homerun like steroids does.Exactly. The best laser surgery can do is bring your eyes to 20/20 (sometimes a little bit better than that). Lots of players have natural 20/20 vision. Ted Williams was said to have natural 20/15 vision. It's not giving a player an advantage that other players don't have. Should you also ban contact lenses? Glasses?

Ol' No. 2
02-17-2006, 05:18 PM
You're being naive to the advantages that amphetamines can give a player. They don't simply make one more "awake." They give an artificial sense of awareness and confidence that allows a player to compete at a level that they wouldn't be capable of when sober.

I have mixed feelings about steroids. Clearly, the players that have taken steroids are cheaters. However, I really think there's a bias in the way these players are treated. I'm sure we all have suspicions about certain members of the 05 Sox. I certainly do. Yet, it seems to be ignored. Meanwhile, people use the steroid scandal as ammunition to reinforce their agenda. They hated the player before they knew or suspected he was on roids.

Everyone's so appalled by Sosa's steroid use. How are you going to treat Robert Valido, if he's ever our starting SS?A sense of awareness is not the same as being more aware. I've never seen any evidence that amphetamines would impart any advantage to a normal rested player.

Lip Man 1
02-17-2006, 08:42 PM
In a major league pitcher doesn't that change the effect of the game? Doesn't the surgery make Maddux even better then he already was?

There are a number of players who have had this done and not so surprisingly in some cases performance got better. (i.e. Keith Foulke and Trot Nixon to name two...)

Wearing glasses in a civilian isn't the same as having eye surgery in a major league player is it?

Lip

Huisj
02-17-2006, 09:21 PM
In a major league pitcher doesn't that change the effect of the game? Doesn't the surgery make Maddux even better then he already was?

There are a number of players who have had this done and not so surprisingly in some cases performance got better. (i.e. Keith Foulke and Trot Nixon to name two...)

Wearing glasses in a civilian isn't the same as having eye surgery in a major league player is it?

Lip

A civilian having laser eye surgery is the same as a major league player having laser eye surgery.

I kind of feel like with your argument about this, you might as well just extend it to saying that no major league players should have any medical procedures done that could enhance their performance. For example, if a pitcher blows out his elbow ligament, he shouldn't be allowed to have Tommy John surgery because it would potentially enhance his performance. Or Bo Jackson shouldn't have been allowed to play with an artificial hip. Or if someone were to have uneven legs, they shouldn't be allowed to wear an orthotic insert in their shoe.

Comparing eye correction to steroids just doesn't seem like a level comparison.

EDIT: furthermore, eye surgery isn't illegal.

SoxFan76
02-17-2006, 09:37 PM
I view Sosa as different than Bonds.

Sosa was considered "over-rated" until the home run chase with McGwire. In fact, there was a famous winter article in a baseball weekly which called him the most over-rated player in all of baseball. Supposedly, it got him mad and perhaps he took steroids that winter and when he came back he was definately smacking the ball a lot harder. Sosa was mediocre when the Sox had him.

Bonds had nearly HOF numbers before he took steroids. He was a solid 30-30 guy for many years.

My question for HOF voters is: while penalizing mediocre players (Sosa, Palmeiro) who take steroids and become monsters, what do you do with solid players (Bonds) who's ego get in their way and take steroids to stay on top?

I personally (and I have no vote in this) would hold my nose and vote for Bonds but would never vote for Sosa.

I agree with you 100%. Bonds was/is/will always be a great ballplayer. He merely became more of a stud than he already was when he "bulked up".

Not saying I agree with his methods of bulking, but you can't deny the man's pure ability.

This brings up another question...do you think without any "help", Bonds would have more Frank Thomas-esque numbers? That would be kind of weird. (Minus the steals, of course)

LuvSox
02-17-2006, 11:35 PM
Wearing glasses in a civilian isn't the same as having eye surgery in a major league player is it?

Please don't call people that don't play MLB "civilians"

How about athlete and non-athlete.

Flight #24
02-17-2006, 11:53 PM
I disagree. Pete Rose had a HOF career but he's not eligible. Joe Jackson was well on his way to a HOF career. The damage Bonds, Sosa, et al did to the game deserves a complete ban.

There's IMO a significantly greater degree of damage to the game from gambling than from the use of PEDs. At least with PEDs, you don't question the effort of the player to win. With gambling, that's always in doubt.

Ol' No. 2
02-18-2006, 11:38 AM
There's IMO a significantly greater degree of damage to the game from gambling than from the use of PEDs. At least with PEDs, you don't question the effort of the player to win. With gambling, that's always in doubt.I'm not going to get into which is worse because that's always going to be in the eye of the beholder. My point was that they both undermine the integrity of the game in the same way by making the outcome heavily dependant on something other than the skills and abilities of the players.

Ol' No. 2
02-18-2006, 11:41 AM
In a major league pitcher doesn't that change the effect of the game? Doesn't the surgery make Maddux even better then he already was?

There are a number of players who have had this done and not so surprisingly in some cases performance got better. (i.e. Keith Foulke and Trot Nixon to name two...)

Wearing glasses in a civilian isn't the same as having eye surgery in a major league player is it?

LipShould they all have to go back to 1950's style gloves? You can say modern equipment is an artificial enhancement, too. Early in the game they wore no gloves at all. How about all-wool uniforms? You can play this game forever.

You can't seriously equate laser vision correction with steroids.

Lip Man 1
02-18-2006, 01:36 PM
No.2:

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate when stating that laser eye surgery is changing the outcome of the game because it is giving a player an advantage over another player. I mean it is isn't it?

And that's the same discussion often used when talking about steroids and those who did them with their Hall of Fame potential.

From an arguement standpoint I fail to see any difference between the two positions. I can see a moral difference, I can see an ethical difference but I can't see a 'performance-altering' difference.

Lip

soxinem1
02-18-2006, 01:55 PM
Steroids have been illegal in the US (without a doctor's prescription, which none of them had) for a long time. Moreover, everyone knew that steroids were not allowed, despite the fact that they're not explicitly banned in the rule book. There's nothing in the baseball rule book about stealing signs from the stands, either, but is there anyone who thinks that's allowed? They all knew it was against the rules or they wouldn't be trying so hard to conceal their use. Significantly, no player has admitted to using steroids, claiming they thought it was OK.

Steroid use goes well beyond scuffing baseballs and corked bats because it tilts the playing field so severely that it almost forces other players to do it to be able to compete. IMO, it's also worse than taking amphetamines (although I don't want to sanction that, either). Amphetamines only allow you to play up to your normal abilities. Steroids allow you to go well beyond your normal abilities.

The damage done to the game is, in many ways, similar to gambling. It undermines confidence that the game is a true contest between players whose outcome is determined by their abilities and skills. Steroid use makes it about something else. They turned baseball into a freak show.

While I am definitely neither a Sosa nor Bonds fan, your 'illegal in the US' argument is not overly credible in MLB history. Willie Mays was rumored to dispense 'greenies' in the Giants clubhouse and I'm sure these guys 100 years ago were doing something to enhance themselves. Paul Molitor used coke, Don Suton used sandpaper, while both Gaylord Perry's and Ed Walsh's best pitches were saliva-covered, just to name a few.

Additionally, and again not to take their sides, but Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Sheffield, I-Rod, and others have not been found guilty of anything, nor have they admitted it. We may never know. And since the three I mentioned above are all HOF'ers, this group may well be too, until someone gets something more on them besides handcreams and Canseco stories.

Ol' No. 2
02-18-2006, 04:02 PM
No.2:

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate when stating that laser eye surgery is changing the outcome of the game because it is giving a player an advantage over another player. I mean it is isn't it?

And that's the same discussion often used when talking about steroids and those who did them with their Hall of Fame potential.

From an arguement standpoint I fail to see any difference between the two positions. I can see a moral difference, I can see an ethical difference but I can't see a 'performance-altering' difference.

LipYou've got to be kidding.

Ol' No. 2
02-18-2006, 04:05 PM
While I am definitely neither a Sosa nor Bonds fan, your 'illegal in the US' argument is not overly credible in MLB history. Willie Mays was rumored to dispense 'greenies' in the Giants clubhouse and I'm sure these guys 100 years ago were doing something to enhance themselves. Paul Molitor used coke, Don Suton used sandpaper, while both Gaylord Perry's and Ed Walsh's best pitches were saliva-covered, just to name a few.

Additionally, and again not to take their sides, but Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Sheffield, I-Rod, and others have not been found guilty of anything, nor have they admitted it. We may never know. And since the three I mentioned above are all HOF'ers, this group may well be too, until someone gets something more on them besides handcreams and Canseco stories.So your argument is that there's no real difference between steroids and a little saliva on the ball? Please.:rolleyes:

SoxSpeed22
02-18-2006, 04:52 PM
The way that laser surgery helps baseball players isn't going to turn a regular fly ball into a homerun like steroids does.No, but it is going to make a difference between strike 3 and ball 4 for pitchers, because they see better and it also makes the difference between hitting the center of the ball and hitting under the ball. These are also differences between "got it all" and "just missed it". Of course, like steroids, these enchancements still require skill to use, but are still enhancements. These differences also make or break careers.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-18-2006, 05:03 PM
I disagree. Pete Rose had a HOF career but he's not eligible. Joe Jackson was well on his way to a HOF career. The damage Bonds, Sosa, et al did to the game deserves a complete ban.

Well you better ban Bud Selig, Jerry Reinsdorf, George Steinbrenner and the other owners from the Hall of Fame for their complicit acceptance of steroid usage since the Bash Brothers in the late 1980s.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-18-2006, 05:20 PM
1. Steroids have been illegal in the US (without a doctor's prescription, which none of them had) for a long time.

2. Amphetamines only allow you to play up to your normal abilities. Steroids allow you to go well beyond your normal abilities.

3. Steroid use makes it about something else. They turned baseball into a freak show.



1. So were the cokeheads and crackheads of the past 20 years (and the pot, LSD and other drug usage before coke and crack became popular). Not defending either drug or steroid usage but you cannot say these players should be banned because they broke the law. It could be part of the deliberations based on the Hall's rules but cannot be a strict ban unless the hall changes the rules.

2. Amphetamines allows you to play with more energy than your "normal" abilities. If they didn't, no player would take them. Like steroids, they let humans recover quicker from stress on the body - be it fatigue or after weight lifting.

3. Steroids are the tip of the iceburg. HGH are not tested and are far more effective than run of the mill steroids. Soon scientists will be able to alter genetic DNA and then the freak show will really begin. MLB will always be one (or several) steps behind - either by choice (1980s - 1990s - early 2000s) or based on union negotiations / the limits of testing (current situation).



I think the 4 or 5 suspected / known players with stats good enough for the Hall of Fame should be considered with all of the evidence - statistics, steroids, place in the era / game compared to others in the era.

I think Bonds, a self admitted steroid user, should be in the hall of fame. I think McGwire and Palmeiro are questionable and could go either way. I think the positive will hurt Palmeiro's chances far greater than McGwire's use of over the counter products as well as suspected steroid use. I think Sosa is not good enough for the hall - he has the HRs like Kingman but that is about it. JMO

None of us have votes in this. I do think outside of Bonds any other player getting in will be years later than they would have without this cloud over their heads but they will go in eventually. I also think as the years go on, people will be less and less outraged and this will be a footnote after 20 - 30 years.

Ol' No. 2
02-18-2006, 05:23 PM
No, but it is going to make a difference between strike 3 and ball 4 for pitchers, because they see better and it also makes the difference between hitting the center of the ball and hitting under the ball. These are also differences between "got it all" and "just missed it". Of course, like steroids, these enchancements still require skill to use, but are still enhancements. These differences also make or break careers.So does wearing glasses. So we should ban those, too? This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.

Ol' No. 2
02-18-2006, 05:27 PM
1. So were the cokeheads and crackheads of the past 20 years (and the pot, LSD and other drug usage before coke and crack became popular). Not defending either drug or steroid usage but you cannot say these players should be banned because they broke the law. It could be part of the deliberations based on the Hall's rules but cannot be a strict ban unless the hall changes the rules.

2. Amphetamines allows you to play with more energy than your "normal" abilities. If they didn't, no player would take them. Like steroids, they let humans recover quicker from stress on the body - be it fatigue or after weight lifting.

3. Steroids are the tip of the iceburg. HGH are not tested and are far more effective than run of the mill steroids. Soon scientists will be able to alter genetic DNA and then the freak show will really begin. MLB will always be one (or several) steps behind - either by choice (1980s - 1990s - early 2000s) or based on union negotiations / the limits of testing (current situation).



I think the 4 or 5 suspected / known players with stats good enough for the Hall of Fame should be considered with all of the evidence - statistics, steroids, place in the era / game compared to others in the era.

I think Bonds, a self admitted steroid user, should be in the hall of fame. I think McGwire and Palmeiro are questionable and could go either way. I think the positive will hurt Palmeiro's chances far greater than McGwire's use of over the counter products as well as suspected steroid use. I think Sosa is not good enough for the hall - he has the HRs like Kingman but that is about it. JMO

None of us have votes in this. I do think outside of Bonds any other player getting in will be years later than they would have without this cloud over their heads but they will go in eventually. I also think as the years go on, people will be less and less outraged and this will be a footnote after 20 - 30 years.Coke and crack don't make you play better. And there is NO evidence that amphetimines impart any advantage to a normal rested player. They only bring the fatigued player back to his normal level. They do not add strength or any other physical advantage. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please show it.

soxinem1
02-18-2006, 05:29 PM
So your argument is that there's no real difference between steroids and a little saliva on the ball? Please.:rolleyes:

I definitely wouldn't say no difference, because cheating pitchers do not have to ingest the sandpaper or vaseline, unless of course they are ditching the evidence. :rolleyes:

Back in 1985 George Frazier was pitching for the cubs. He was a decent reliever up until then. Then like an idiot he stated in an interview that he scuffed the baseball. He finished up that year with an ERA over 6.00 and was never the same. Umps and opposing teams watched his every move.

So while Frazier was no star, taking his cheating weapon away left him with nothing but a straight fastball when he was once at least a serviceable pitcher.

What I am saying is that cheating has a long history in baseball. Who knows what those trainers in the 1900's had in their bottles?

But regarding performance enhancements, other than stories and inuendo, we may never know how extensive the steriod thing has gone on.

SoxSpeed22
02-18-2006, 05:34 PM
So does wearing glasses. So we should ban those, too? This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.One thing I'd like to know: What makes steroids so much worse than everything else?

Ol' No. 2
02-18-2006, 05:37 PM
I definitely wouldn't say no difference, because cheating pitchers do not have to ingest the sandpaper or vaseline, unless of course they are ditching the evidence. :rolleyes:

Back in 1985 George Frazier was pitching for the cubs. He was a decent reliever up until then. Then like an idiot he stated in an interview that he scuffed the baseball. He finished up that year with an ERA over 6.00 and was never the same.

So while Frazier was no star, taking his cheating weapon away left him with nothing but a straight fastball when he was once at least a serviceable pitcher.

What I am saying is that cheating has a long history in baseball. Who knows what those trainers in the 1900's had in their bottles?

But other than stories and inuendo, we may never know how extensive the steriod thing has gone on.So is a player who traps a fly ball cheating if the umpire rules it a catch and the player doesn't say anything? Technically, he is, but I doubt you'd find anyone who would ban him from the HOF for it. Let's not be naive. Steroids is not in the same league as scuffing a ball and corked bats. Anyone who thinks they are has a severe case of moral myopia.

Bonds admitted to the grand jury to taking "the clear" and "the cream". Unless you buy his contrived story about thinking it was flaxseed oil, the case is closed on him. Same for Sheffield and Giambi. McGwire also has admitted to taking andro. Palmeiro was caught. That leaves only Sosa as having no solid proof...that is, except the evidence of your own eyes. Let's not pretend we don't know what we all know.

MarySwiss
02-18-2006, 05:42 PM
The way I see it, "good Sosa article" is an oxymoron.

SouthSide_HitMen
02-18-2006, 05:54 PM
Coke and crack don't make you play better. And there is NO evidence that amphetimines impart any advantage to a normal rested player. They only bring the fatigued player back to his normal level. They do not add strength or any other physical advantage. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please show it.

Your statement was "Steroids have been illegal in the US (without a doctor's prescription, which none of them had) for a long time."

If players took the steroids with a valid prescription they would not be illegal which would give them the same advantage. I am just responding to your statement that "they are illegal". Steroid usage was acceptable practice in baseball until a few years ago. Owners and Bud Selig, Fay Vincent and Bart Giamatti did nothing regarding this and actually promoted and made money off of their steroid stars before (LaRussa's Bash Brothers) and after (Sosa, McGwire & Bonds) 1994. Steroid rumors were first reported during the 1988 World Series. MLB sat on their hands for over a decade until public outrage (and later Congressional Outrage) became great enough to do the bare minimum.

Nobody in MLB had a problem with steroids until a few years ago. Since then players are subject to testing and punishment - both on (30 day suspension) and off (ridicule, lost prestige) the field. You should not go back and retroactively punish players which may or may not have used (while other non suspected players may have used but "flew under the radar") an activity which was not only not prohibited but actually encouraged by MLB.

The Olympics have been testing for steroids for decades. World Soccer has tested for a decade. The NFL and MLB have come reluctantly and late to the table. MLB is still not testing for HGH - which is tested in the Olympics which means Bonds can walk in to get tested, smear the clear and the cream all over his body like suntan lotion, and be "clean". Unless outside forces demand greater testing, the problem still exists. The problem will exist in the future as "Balco" type people will continue to create better products and with the money involved players will continue to experiment to try to reach a larger production level and earn higher contracts.

rocky biddle
02-18-2006, 06:48 PM
The way I see it, "good Sosa article" is an oxymoron.

Why you little. I'll teach you to bash my thread titles...

TheDarkGundam
02-18-2006, 07:14 PM
I remember a few years ago there was a lawyer show that took place in the future. IIRC, it only lasted one episode, but that episode was about a baseball player who had cybernetic eyes or something. I never actually saw it, but I remember that being in the commercials.
Anyway, I was just reminded of that with the talk about laser eye surgery.

Ol' No. 2
02-18-2006, 11:19 PM
Your statement was "Steroids have been illegal in the US (without a doctor's prescription, which none of them had) for a long time."

If players took the steroids with a valid prescription they would not be illegal which would give them the same advantage. I am just responding to your statement that "they are illegal". Steroid usage was acceptable practice in baseball until a few years ago. Owners and Bud Selig, Fay Vincent and Bart Giamatti did nothing regarding this and actually promoted and made money off of their steroid stars before (LaRussa's Bash Brothers) and after (Sosa, McGwire & Bonds) 1994. Steroid rumors were first reported during the 1988 World Series. MLB sat on their hands for over a decade until public outrage (and later Congressional Outrage) became great enough to do the bare minimum.

Nobody in MLB had a problem with steroids until a few years ago. Since then players are subject to testing and punishment - both on (30 day suspension) and off (ridicule, lost prestige) the field. You should not go back and retroactively punish players which may or may not have used (while other non suspected players may have used but "flew under the radar") an activity which was not only not prohibited but actually encouraged by MLB.

The Olympics have been testing for steroids for decades. World Soccer has tested for a decade. The NFL and MLB have come reluctantly and late to the table. MLB is still not testing for HGH - which is tested in the Olympics which means Bonds can walk in to get tested, smear the clear and the cream all over his body like suntan lotion, and be "clean". Unless outside forces demand greater testing, the problem still exists. The problem will exist in the future as "Balco" type people will continue to create better products and with the money involved players will continue to experiment to try to reach a larger production level and earn higher contracts.
Rubbish. Not being explicitly prohibited is not the same thing as being acceptable. Stealing signs is not against the rules, but everyone knows it's not allowed. Shooting runners with an elephant gun from the dugout is not mentioned in the rule book either. Steroid usage has never been "acceptable" in baseball. The powers that be chose to look the other way, but that's not the same thing at all.

Answer this simple question: Why did these players try their damndest to hide their use if it was acceptable?

SouthSide_HitMen
02-19-2006, 12:03 AM
Rubbish. Not being explicitly prohibited is not the same thing as being acceptable. Stealing signs is not against the rules, but everyone knows it's not allowed. Shooting runners with an elephant gun from the dugout is not mentioned in the rule book either. Steroid usage has never been "acceptable" in baseball. The powers that be chose to look the other way, but that's not the same thing at all.

Answer this simple question: Why did these players try their damndest to hide their use if it was acceptable?

What is rubbish is Bud Selig lying for the 100th (1,000,000th?) time in 1998 saying he never heard about steroids or any rumors until that year - even though he was commissioner for almost 10 years and owned a team prior to that. We all know Bud Selig is incompetent but he is not that incompetent to not know anything that transpired while he owned a $100 million business and ran MLB.

The first steroid report came out in 1988 (ten years before Bud Selig claimed he ever heard the word steroid) before the World Series (the A's were managed by Tony LaRussa's Steroid Bash Brothers) by Thomas Boswell of the Washington Post.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=3

THE PRESS EXPOSED THIS 18 YEARS AGO
Canseco was no steroids newbie. He'd begun to use in the mid-1980s, in Huntsville, Ala., while playing Double-A ball. To look at him was to know, or to choose not to see. The Washington Post's Thomas Boswell caused a furor in September 1988 when he broke the silence. On a CBS News show, he said Canseco, headed for a 40/40 year and the MVP award, was "the most conspicuous example of a player who has made himself great with steroids." (which by the way players and MLB both denied the entire story).

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=4

MANAGEMENT KNEW
Seven years later, Phillips was running across newly minted monsters more often. And now he was their boss. Concerned, he began to test some who were suspiciously oversize and behaving oddly. That summer, the first of several players flunked. Phillips handled it internally, as a human resources issue. Officials at the Mets' Employee Assistance Program informed the player of the result, countered his claims of innocence with assertions of the quality of the test and offered him education about drug use.

EVERYONE IN MLB TURNED THE OTHER WAY / HID / DENIED STEROID USAGE. PLAYERS, OWNERS, SELIG. They all lied - lied about usage, lied about the extent of the problem or whether there even was one.

Other quotes:

Selig publicly ignored the effects of andro: "I think what Mark McGwire has accomplished is so remarkable, and he has handled it all so beautifully, we want to do everything we can to enjoy a great moment in baseball history."

Selig's chief medical adviser, believed he had a dual agenda: as physician and as defender of the game. Asked about the effects of what McGwire was taking, Millman, a professor of psychiatry at Cornell, said, "There is no evidence andro does anything bad or good."


"I want to protect McGwire and get the truth," the MLB's doctor told Wilstein. "That would serve everybody. It wouldn't hurt baseball, either." ...

Bill Wilder, the medical director for the Cleveland Indians, couldn't believe what he was hearing. As baseball's physicians and trainers gathered for their annual meetings at Nashville's Opryland Hotel on Dec. 12, 1998, the Tribe's chief doc and many others in the room knew their game had developed quite a drug problem. At least half a dozen physicians would later admit to increasing concern about a growing number of players ingesting anabolics and gobbling stimulants.

In contrast to their enforcement of baseball's rules against gambling, though, many teams were casual about the drug policy. Some GMs lost track of it amid other edicts from the commissioner's office....

"We have nothing to hide," said Bud Selig, as he concluded his State of the Game remarks in Detroit on July 12.


Perhaps. But the impression to the contrary was hard to shake. For more than a decade, the men putting on the show -- the owners and the players -- had evidence that there was a serious problem with their product. But they continued to sell a game contaminated by steroids while they pursued their separate agendas.


This was a large independent report by ESPN and lays out the entire two decade mess in a easy to understand exposee on MLB and the steroid problem for those interested in the big picture and not the changing fibs of Bud Selig and MLB and their players and union.

Nobody associated with MLB had any credibility on this issue for decades through the hearing in March where Bud, Palmeiro and McGwire exposed themselves as the clowns they are. To claim that management and Bud Selig were not complicit in this entire mess is revisionist history.

soxinem1
02-19-2006, 11:08 PM
So is a player who traps a fly ball cheating if the umpire rules it a catch and the player doesn't say anything? Technically, he is, but I doubt you'd find anyone who would ban him from the HOF for it. Let's not be naive. Steroids is not in the same league as scuffing a ball and corked bats. Anyone who thinks they are has a severe case of moral myopia.

Bonds admitted to the grand jury to taking "the clear" and "the cream". Unless you buy his contrived story about thinking it was flaxseed oil, the case is closed on him. Same for Sheffield and Giambi. McGwire also has admitted to taking andro. Palmeiro was caught. That leaves only Sosa as having no solid proof...that is, except the evidence of your own eyes. Let's not pretend we don't know what we all know.

Trapping a ball is a call by an umpire, loading up on a pitch is cheating. More like a corked bat, but cheating regardless.

Moral Myopia aside :smile:, I don't think Bonds admission, rubbing cream on his hands and arms, gives strength to hit a ball off the end if the bat 445 ft. along with a strike zone the size of Jupiter due to such cream. He's never admitted to injecting anything, and neither has Sheffield.

And correct me if I am wrong, scores of minor leaguers have been getting nailed, including quite a few Sox and cub farmhands, in proportion to MLB players. I hope the guys on the farm get the message.

As far as McGwire, he was using andro before it was even considered a 'performance enhancing drug', so he may get a pass by default.

I do know prior to the steriod thing pitchers have always been targeted for cheating more than hitters. In addition to mound sizes being changed, guys blowing in their fists get charged with balks, and cameras (ala Don Sutton, Joe Niekro) spot them easier than hitters. Why, I remember a game with the Yanks and Royals in 1983 when the umps called George Brett out for having pine tar too high on the bat, just to have the Commissioner, Bowie Kuhn turn around and revoke the umps proper ruling!

So unlike the past, hopefully MLB will be a little more serious about this mess now, but in the meantime, fully expect to go back the days when a guy hitting 35 HR's to lead the league was an accomplishment, not just joining the top 30 on the season as was the case in the past decade or so.