PDA

View Full Version : Baseball's Barry Scandal


SoLongFrank
03-13-2006, 02:42 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=3077
Loved the article but feel it needed to be stronger on the case against Sosa.

If Sosa is destined for the HOF with being the only player in MLB history to have 3 60+ HR seasons then by all means let the investigation begin. I will even contribute money towards it if it focuses on ShamME.

Tekijawa
03-13-2006, 03:06 PM
Sammy Never cheated, even when he used the corked bat because that hit didn't end up counting anyway toward his first ballot hall of famer credentials!

Rooney4Prez56
03-14-2006, 11:02 AM
Can't we leave poor Barry Bonds alone?

Jurr
03-14-2006, 08:26 PM
It's always going to be something. Some way for ballplayers to get more of a physical advantage. I don't understand the big deal. Okay...the guys took 'roids. I don't think it was a banned substance at the time.

Other points to ponder:

1. Honus Wagner was alienated in baseball circles because he was working out in the offseason....gaining a "competitive advantage."
2. Man...how good would Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle have been if they knew about yoga, protein shakes, and how deleterious constant beer and cigars can be.
3. Ripken passed Gehrig in the "Iron Man" category. Think he might have had more than a couple of cortisone shots to get through some tough times? How unfair!!!!!!! The older guys didn't have such advantages!!!!!!!

It's science, folks. It's what happens as we learn more about the human body. Don't call it cheating.

kevin57
03-14-2006, 08:33 PM
uh, steroids are and have been illegal by federal law for a while, no?

Jurr
03-14-2006, 08:36 PM
uh, steroids are and have been illegal by federal law for a while, no?
So have "greenies"...but people don't seem to think about that, do they?

PaleHoseGeorge
03-14-2006, 08:41 PM
So have "greenies"...but people don't seem to think about that, do they?

Nobody ever hit 70 homeruns taking greenies. Or 66. Or 73. In fact there is no evidence playing with greenies has any real effect on performance besides making the user *think* they're doing better than they actually are and thus creating a potential chemical dependency to keep thinking how good they really aren't.

Jurr
03-14-2006, 08:44 PM
Supplement producers (including steroid chemists) are getting paid a whole lot more than steroid testers. You have to be kidding me if you think things are ever going to change. Player number one has a new designer steroid that tests aren't going to pick up for 5 years. He's hitting the crap out of the ball and other players ask around. THey get the same stuff. 2 years later, before the testers get smart, the next drug's around. It's all about super competitive guys trying to get an edge when millions of dollars are at stake. IT's time to give up the fight. The game has changed...get over it.

TornLabrum
03-14-2006, 10:23 PM
Supplement producers (including steroid chemists) are getting paid a whole lot more than steroid testers. You have to be kidding me if you think things are ever going to change. Player number one has a new designer steroid that tests aren't going to pick up for 5 years. He's hitting the crap out of the ball and other players ask around. THey get the same stuff. 2 years later, before the testers get smart, the next drug's around. It's all about super competitive guys trying to get an edge when millions of dollars are at stake. IT's time to give up the fight. The game has changed...get over it.

Yeah, and while we're at it, why don't we do that in other aspects of our society. People are always going to commit crimes. Most of them never get caught by the cops. Let's just save ourselves the aggravation and get rid of police.

People are always going to cheat on their taxes, embezzle money, etc. and find better ways of doing it. Let's quit investigating them, too.

Hell, let's just give the world to the ****ing cheats.

What a load of ****ing crap!

Jurr
03-14-2006, 11:01 PM
Yeah, and while we're at it, why don't we do that in other aspects of our society. People are always going to commit crimes. Most of them never get caught by the cops. Let's just save ourselves the aggravation and get rid of police.

People are always going to cheat on their taxes, embezzle money, etc. and find better ways of doing it. Let's quit investigating them, too.

Hell, let's just give the world to the ****ing cheats.

What a load of ****ing crap!
Very good point. Very eye-opening point.

I am just wondering (and it's going to happen) when these scientists come up with new "medications/supplements" that target human growth/performance mechanisms in the body without harmful side effects. Will they still be outlawed if the media doesn't put that "catch phrase" tag on them?

Science is going to keep making advancements, and the positive effects of steroids are going to get better and better, while the negative aspects are going to dwindle away. If that happens, does it become acceptable??? And if so, does it "taint" the records that have been set by others?

Ol' No. 2
03-14-2006, 11:11 PM
Very good point. Very eye-opening point.

I am just wondering (and it's going to happen) when these scientists come up with new "medications/supplements" that target human growth/performance mechanisms in the body without harmful side effects. Will they still be outlawed if the media doesn't put that "catch phrase" tag on them?

Science is going to keep making advancements, and the positive effects of steroids are going to get better and better, while the negative aspects are going to dwindle away. If that happens, does it become acceptable??? And if so, does it "taint" the records that have been set by others?No, it does not become acceptable, and the fact you had to ask shows that you just don't get it. Maybe a few of you would like an all-steroid league where Willie Harrises can hit 90 HR, but the large majority of fans want to see a game decided by players' abililties, not who has the best chemist.

PennStater98r
03-15-2006, 10:54 AM
I think that Jurr is taking some pills - crazy pills.

The problem with Steroids in MLB is that we have people who are considered role models taking an illegal substance that betters their performance. Those role models show many young baseball players the immediate benefit of taking those drugs. Furthermore, they show this benefit without showing the long term consequences of taking them. We have yet to see these "sluggers" bodies shut down. We have yet to see the strokes and heart attacks that they will have.

We then see thousands of high school ball players that start doing the same thing just to get to the level that allows them to compete.

It's wrong - period. It's illegal - period. Players that juice should be banned in the same way that Rose and "Shoeless" Joe are and they should have their records stripped from them.

PaulDrake
03-15-2006, 11:04 AM
Nobody ever hit 70 homeruns taking greenies. Or 66. Or 73. In fact there is no evidence playing with greenies has any real effect on performance besides making the user *think* they're doing better than they actually are and thus creating a potential chemical dependency to keep thinking how good they really aren't. Exactly. I can't understand why some here want to equate "greenies" with steroid use.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-15-2006, 11:33 AM
Exactly. I can't understand why some here want to equate "greenies" with steroid use.

The problem is both enhance performance, otherwise players wouldn't take greenies (and MLB wouldn't have had them in every clubhouse like a bowl of jellybeans at the receptionist's desk).

Both are illegal without prescription.
Both have been taken without any punishment for decades.

MLB has no credibility on this issue nor should anyone have any confidence in the people currently in charge to deal with this in an honest and competent manner.

Steroids will be a permanent problem in MLB unless MLB goes hard core and adopts the World Anti Doping Agency standard of independent (MLB cannot be trusted handling this) testing of all Performance Enhancing Drugs with a harsh (say two year suspension) after first detection and banishment for life after the second. If amateur athletes can submit to testing, MLB players can.

The problem is MLB and the players union have done everything they can to prevent testing and when Congress finally demanded it they gave the weakest proposal possible (and lied about it when they proposed the private fine or 10 day suspension option).

Under current management, you will not have a comprehensive policy. Since most of the owners who installed Bud Selig remain owners, I have little confidence his successor will be any more competent or vigilant, hence my steroids will be a perminant problem statement.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 11:57 AM
The problem is both enhance performance, otherwise players wouldn't take greenies (and MLB wouldn't have had them in every clubhouse like a bowl of jellybeans at the receptionist's desk)....
:roflmao:

You obviously don't know any drug addicts. They're in a complete state of denial...

Greenies enhance performance? Yeah, sure...

:roflmao:

SouthSide_HitMen
03-15-2006, 12:16 PM
:roflmao:

You obviously don't know any drug addicts. They're in a complete state of denial...

Greenies enhance performance? Yeah, sure...

:roflmao:

No, I make it a point not to associate with drug addicts, such as Barry Bonds and the like.

The fact remains players wouldn't take greenies if they didn't help them. Greenies don't get you to 73 homers but greenies help you bounce back from the tiring 162 game schedule and travel.

Bonds is in a state of denial but so is MLB (or maybe they are not in denial but lie out of shame and greed - I'll go with this theory).

PS - Two Bonds articles:

John Kass - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0603150181mar15,1,7207735.column?coll=chi-news-col

George Will - http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 12:25 PM
The fact remains players wouldn't take greenies if they didn't help them. Greenies don't get you to 73 homers but greenies help you bounce back from the tiring 162 game schedule and travel.

It's a "fact" huh?
:o:

Fine, so why don't you recount for us all the ballplayers down through the years who have walloped 66, 70, and 73 homeruns with greenies and not steroids. Or is it just a "fact" that you're making excuses for their behavior? Drug addict behavior.

:gulp:

SouthSide_HitMen
03-15-2006, 12:27 PM
It's a "fact" huh?
:o:

Fine, so why don't you recount for us all the ballplayers down through the years who have walloped 66, 70, and 73 homeruns with greenies and not steroids. Or is it just a "fact" that you're making excuses for their behavior? Drug addict behavior.

:gulp:

You are the one making excuses. Both steroids and greenies or other drugs (Steve Howe) have no business in baseball.

People said steroids are illegal without a prescription and thus it didn't matter what MLB's policy was. So are greenies. So are crack pipes.

I don't want to pay $ for a ticket to see players under the influence of any illegal / unprescribed drug.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 12:40 PM
You are the one making excuses. Both steroids and greenies or other drugs (Steve Howe) have no business in baseball.

People said steroids are illegal without a prescription and thus it didn't matter what MLB's policy was. So are greenies. So are crack pipes.

I don't want to pay $ for a ticket to see players under the influence of any illegal / unprescribed drug.

You're really grasping at straws now. Steve Howe had a COCAINE addiction. Not greenies. Not steroids. He also went to jail for repeated scrapes with the law borne of his drug addiction.

We're talking about STEROIDS here. Performance-enhancing STEROIDS.

Try to keep up.

:cool:

voodoochile
03-15-2006, 12:45 PM
I know for a while both ephedrine and Ritalin gained favor with pro atheletes. I think the ephedrine thing is wearing off after a few big names had heart attacks (the Viking lineman and the NU player). Ritalin is a stimulent that helps focus the mind.

I don't want people taking them either, but in the long run I don't think they have the same detrimental effect as steroids do, because they might make it possible for players to use their natural abilities more often and more effectively, but it won't change their over all ability dramatically.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-15-2006, 12:55 PM
We're talking about STEROIDS here. Performance-enhancing STEROIDS.

Try to keep up.

:cool:

There is a reason the Olympics and other international sporting events are able to catch the cheaters at the time of their events - they have a comprehensive independent drug testing program.

MLB's testing is a joke compared to this standard. The future of MLB will be just as tainted as the past two decades with their current in house testing program. HGH is not being tested. New concoctions will not be detected.

Maybe MLB will desire a commissioner who is willing and able to "keep up". Until then, expect more doping and more drugs and more lies from players and management.

chaerulez
03-15-2006, 12:56 PM
Supplement producers (including steroid chemists) are getting paid a whole lot more than steroid testers. You have to be kidding me if you think things are ever going to change. Player number one has a new designer steroid that tests aren't going to pick up for 5 years. He's hitting the crap out of the ball and other players ask around. THey get the same stuff. 2 years later, before the testers get smart, the next drug's around. It's all about super competitive guys trying to get an edge when millions of dollars are at stake. IT's time to give up the fight. The game has changed...get over it.

I love these logical Bonds apologist arguments.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 01:20 PM
There is a reason the Olympics and other international sporting events are able to catch the cheaters at the time of their events - they have a comprehensive independent drug testing program.

MLB's testing is a joke compared to this standard. The future of MLB will be just as tainted as the past two decades with their current in house testing program. HGH is not being tested. New concoctions will not be detected.

Maybe MLB will desire a commissioner who is willing and able to "keep up". Until then, expect more doping and more drugs and more lies from players and management.

It's a "fact" you haven't addressed anything requested of you to clarify your position.

1.) Do you seriously believe greenies would help ballplayers hit 73, 70, or even 66 homeruns?

2.) Do you seriously believe the use of greenies threatens the integrity of sports like steroids does in baseball and blood doping in track & field?

Stop your silly rants about Bud Selig and clarify the nonsense you've written. Enquiring minds want to know.

:cool:

SouthSide_HitMen
03-15-2006, 01:55 PM
It's a "fact" you haven't addressed anything requested of you to clarify your position.

1.) Do you seriously believe greenies would help ballplayers hit 73, 70, or even 66 homeruns?

2.) Do you seriously believe the use of greenies threatens the integrity of sports like steroids does in baseball and blood doping in track & field?

Stop your silly rants about Bud Selig and clarify the nonsense you've written. Enquiring minds want to know.

:cool:



1. I already answered that - no.

2. Yes. No illegal unprescribed drugs should be permitted. The reason drugs like crack, coke, pot, etc. are banned is few people want to watch a bunch of hopped up junkies. The NBA was the first to ban drugs in the 1970s as their league resembled the Portland Trail Blazers. Amphetamines are far more common in MLB. They are illegal without a prescription. They are cheating. All other sports tested for amphetamines for many years / decades - The NHL, NFL, NBA, Olympics. The problem in baseball was so widespread they didn't dare prohibit it. The drug is finally banned starting in 2006 (30 years behind the curve) only after MLB was dragged kicking and screaming into this position after the hypocrisy over banning some illegal drugs but not others.

Bud Selig is responsible for the game of baseball and the current mess MLB is in. If he would have done something about this in the 1990s instead of burying his head in the sand and counting the billions coming during "The Summer that Saved Baseball" (baseball wouldn't have needed to be saved if it weren't for Bud's 1994 "Summer of **** You Fans" ). MLB wouldn't be in the current mess they are in (and will be in after further scandals from their weak in house bare minimum program) if these issues were addressed at the time.

The Olympics and other international sporting events developed a comprehensive plan to address these issues. Unlike Bud Selig and MLB they were not content with a second rate plan developed to cover up scandals. Cheaters should be disclosed in real time, not several years later. MLB's current plan guarantees more of the same.

Bud lied about never hearing about steroids until 1998. Bud lied to Congress with his bull**** plan in 2002 which gave Bud Selig discretion whether to publically disclose a positive test (in his weak non HGH plan) and suspend a player or keep the test quiet and fine the player in private. He is not credible and MLB will never put this issue behind them until they adopt a standard much stronger than Bud and his willing accomplices at the Players Union will ever consider (without threat of baseball losing their "Baseball is not a business" exemption from Congress or fans start to walk away in mass as they did during Bud's 1994 debacle).

If you didn't like the Bonds, Sosa, McGwire debacles, prepare to be further disappointed as the drugs will only get better and harder to detect and MLB will be 2, 10 or 1000 steps behind as they choose to be in the 1990s / 2000s and beyond - on purpose.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 02:21 PM
1. I already answered that - no.

2. Yes. No illegal unprescribed drugs should be permitted. The reason drugs like crack, coke, pot, etc. are banned is few people want to watch a bunch of hopped up junkies. The NBA was the first to ban drugs in the 1970s as their league resembled the Portland Trail Blazers. Amphetamines are far more common in MLB. They are illegal without a prescription. They are cheating...

Are you seriously suggesting greenies, "crack, coke, pot , etc." are banned from all sports EXCEPT baseball? Or do these other sports simply keep their dirty laundry out of the public eye?
:?:

In light of your answer to #1, why would you group together "greenies, crack, coke, pot, etc." into a thread about PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING steroids? You just admitted not even greenies enhance performance. To my knowledge nobody takes these other drugs for anything but recreational use, and certainly not to enhance performance.
:o:

Potheads for Barry! Kind of a catchy slogan.
:cool:

SouthSide_HitMen
03-15-2006, 02:42 PM
Are you seriously suggesting greenies, "crack, coke, pot , etc." are banned from all sports EXCEPT baseball? Or do these other sports simply keep their dirty laundry out of the public eye?
:?:


I stated greenies were banned in other sports and MLB was the last to do so (2006). The other drugs have been banned over various lengths of time (and rightly so). Whether other North American Professional Sports are more successful in masking positive test results (pun intended) is another topic.



In light of your answer to #1, why would you group together "greenies, crack, coke, pot, etc." into a thread about PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING steroids? You just admitted not even greenies enhance performance. To my knowledge nobody takes these other drugs for anything but recreational use, and certainly not to enhance performance.
:o:


The reason is several posters in various Bonds / steroid threads have stated steroids didn't have to be banned by MLB due to the fact that they are illegal without prescription. My position is all illegal non prescription drugs should be banned.

As far as steroids in MLB, my position is this will only get worse due to the fact that HGH and other current steroids are not tested under the current agreement unlike the WADA independent top shelf standard (other American leagues are behind the curve as well though the press and general public are more concerned with 73 and 70 rather than whether a lineman taking roids can block better - time to get serious America). I expect MLB to adopt tough WADA type independent testing standards about the same time as I expect the Arse to win a title on the continent :o:

(which if it lead to MLB / Bud turning a new leaf and implementing tough independent testing standards I guess I could live with).



Potheads for Barry! Kind of a catchy slogan.
:cool:

When in Haight Ashbury....

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 02:46 PM
I expect MLB to adopt tough WADA type independent testing standards about the same time as I expect the Arse to win a title on the continent

If I were you I would be more worried about not embarrassing myself further in England. Fulham is giving your dopes all they can handle at Anfield.

Sheesh, scousers... always confused, and always irritable...
:cool:

Ol' No. 2
03-15-2006, 03:16 PM
I stated greenies were banned in other sports and MLB was the last to do so (2006). The other drugs have been banned over various lengths of time (and rightly so). Whether other North American Professional Sports are more successful in masking positive test results (pun intended) is another topic.




The reason is several posters in various Bonds / steroid threads have stated steroids didn't have to be banned by MLB due to the fact that they are illegal without prescription. My position is all illegal non prescription drugs should be banned.

As far as steroids in MLB, my position is this will only get worse due to the fact that HGH and other current steroids are not tested under the current agreement unlike the WADA independent top shelf standard (other American leagues are behind the curve as well though the press and general public are more concerned with 73 and 70 rather than whether a lineman taking roids can block better - time to get serious America). I expect MLB to adopt tough WADA type independent testing standards about the same time as I expect the Arse to win a title on the continent :o:

(which if it lead to MLB / Bud turning a new leaf and implementing tough independent testing standards I guess I could live with).



When in Haight Ashbury....I don't think too many sensible people would disagree with you that MLB and commissioner BudLight have completely dropped the ball here. They clearly need a more comprehensive testing scheme similar to the WADA methodology. And it's not going to happen as long as Selig is in charge. He's much too much a part of the problem to ever be a part of the solution.

I also don't think there are too many who would argue in favor of amphetamine use. But you can't seriously be suggesting that amphetamines are as serious a threat to the game as steroids. Players take greenies because they make them feel like they can play better. The key word is feel. It's not a given that they actually do play any better, and there's ample evidence that long-term, amphetimes are detrimental. Players would rub sheep dung on their forehead if they thought it gave them an edge.

Regardless, amphetamines will, at most, allow a player to perform up to his normal, rested ability. They won't help players perform super-human feats like steroids do, and that, I think is why they're not viewed in the same way.

Dadawg_77
03-15-2006, 03:29 PM
Yeah, and while we're at it, why don't we do that in other aspects of our society. People are always going to commit crimes. Most of them never get caught by the cops. Let's just save ourselves the aggravation and get rid of police.

People are always going to cheat on their taxes, embezzle money, etc. and find better ways of doing it. Let's quit investigating them, too.

Hell, let's just give the world to the ****ing cheats.

What a load of ****ing crap!

There is a major difference between committing a crime against another person or property and harming yourself with chemicals you freely ingest.

Cheating on your taxes and embezzling money is committing a harmfull act against another person. Where as Barry Bond's and other taking PED will only hurt themselves.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 03:33 PM
....
Cheating on your taxes and embezzling money is committing a harmfull act against another person. Where as Barry Bond's and other taking PED will only hurt themselves.

Another country heard from...

So I'm guessing all those teenage athletes with shrunken gonads from trying to emulate Barry Bonds should be told his was a victimless crime? And Jason Giambi should keep his MVP award and Jerry Reinsdorf the money he saved on Frank Thomas's contract. The juicer MVP's crime was victimless, too?

:kukoo:

daveeym
03-15-2006, 03:36 PM
There is a major difference between committing a crime against another person or property and harming yourself with chemicals you freely ingest.

Cheating on your taxes and embezzling money is committing a harmfull act against another person. Where as Barry Bond's and other taking PED will only hurt themselves. That's not true at all. Bond's very well could be out of the game by now without steroids. His salary would be going to several other players without steroids. The additional healthcare costs that he'll be incurring that raises all MLB players' premiums. Etc. Etc. If you want to nit pick there's a million silly but factual ways that his use "hurts" others. Oh and ask the Big Hurt if he was hurt by people using PED's.

Dadawg_77
03-15-2006, 03:39 PM
Another country heard from...

So I'm guessing all those teenage athletes with shrunken gonads from trying to emulate Barry Bonds should be told his was a victimless crime? And Jason Giambi should keep his MVP award and Jerry Reinsdorf the money he saved on Frank Thomas's contract. The juicer MVP's crime was victimless, too?

:kukoo:

We are not lemmings and one makes their own choices in life. Just because a famous person did something stupid doesn't mean you should too. The fact amateur athletes taking PED is more driven by their environment, too completive coaches/parents or ones that turn a blind eye too the abuse then what any professional athlete has done.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 03:46 PM
We are not lemmings and one makes their own choices in life. Just because a famous person did something stupid doesn't mean you should too. The fact amateur athletes taking PED is more driven by their environment, too completive coaches/parents or ones that turn a blind eye too the abuse then what any professional athlete has done.
So let's not do anything except offer counseling to these people? Let the bad guy go free... he only hurt himself???
:?:

You're standing logic on its head. If we must take action, then it's NOT victimless. Stop torturing the point.

:o:

PaulDrake
03-15-2006, 03:47 PM
I don't think too many sensible people would disagree with you that MLB and commissioner BudLight have completely dropped the ball here. They clearly need a more comprehensive testing scheme similar to the WADA methodology. And it's not going to happen as long as Selig is in charge. He's much too much a part of the problem to ever be a part of the solution.

I also don't think there are too many who would argue in favor of amphetamine use. But you can't seriously be suggesting that amphetamines are as serious a threat to the game as steroids. Players take greenies because they make them feel like they can play better. The key word is feel. It's not a given that they actually do play any better, and there's ample evidence that long-term, amphetimes are detrimental. Players would rub sheep dung on their forehead if they thought it gave them an edge.

Regardless, amphetamines will, at most, allow a player to perform up to his normal, rested ability. They won't help players perform super-human feats like steroids do, and that, I think is why they're not viewed in the same way. I wish one of our doctors on this site would weigh in on this. Long term amphetamine use is a disaster for the human body. In no way do they make your muscles bulge, your skull expand, and reactions hair trigger. Why some here want to keep playing the "greenies" card is beyond me. Just for the record, I'm not trying to single out and bash SSHM. Although I don't agree with his stance here, I don't believe he's trying to say using greenies is comparable to ingesting powerful steroids.

Dadawg_77
03-15-2006, 03:53 PM
That's not true at all. Bond's very well could be out of the game by now without steroids. His salary would be going to several other players without steroids. The additional healthcare costs that he'll be incurring that raises all MLB players' premiums. Etc. Etc. If you want to nit pick there's a million silly but factual ways that his use "hurts" others. Oh and ask the Big Hurt if he was hurt by people using PED's.

Using PEDs is a crime, benefiting from their use isn't. In all actuality the only crime Bonds may have committed (depends on what he took) is perjury. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act did not contain a "catch all" statement till 2005 and thus drugs like HGH and others could have been perfectly legal. Thus if HGH helped Giambi beat Thomas for the MVP race in 2000, no crime was committed in its use.

Dadawg_77
03-15-2006, 04:02 PM
So let's not do anything except offer counseling to these people? Let the bad guy go free... he only hurt himself???
:?:

You're standing logic on its head. If we must take action, then it's NOT victimless. Stop torturing the point.

:o:

I wouldn't say the bad guy, but yes. I can see and agree why MLB and other sport organizations would ban the use of PEDs in order protect the competion, but not why the government should. Given the limited resources of law enforcement, I would rather have them go after the Ray Caruths of the world then the Barry Bonds.

daveeym
03-15-2006, 04:06 PM
Using PEDs is a crime, benefiting from their use isn't. In all actuality the only crime Bonds may have committed (depends on what he took) is perjury. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act did not contain a "catch all" statement till 2005 and thus drugs like HGH and others could have been perfectly legal. Thus if HGH helped Giambi beat Thomas for the MVP race in 2000, no crime was committed in its use.See you're nit picking again and making excuses for these guys, your prior post was talking about hurting people, now you want to narrow it more by saying "no I meant crimes." There is no justification for the use of anabolic steroids in baseball. Not asthma inhalers, not greenies, not it wasn't in the CBA, not it wasn't illegal, not spitballs, not the change in the tightness of the balls, or lowering the mound, or bringing in fences, or personal responsibility, or moral relativity, or that fact that we all watched Mac and Sosa, or that owners and Pud Selig winked about it. None.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-15-2006, 04:10 PM
I don't think too many sensible people would disagree with you that MLB and commissioner BudLight have completely dropped the ball here. They clearly need a more comprehensive testing scheme similar to the WADA methodology. And it's not going to happen as long as Selig is in charge. He's much too much a part of the problem to ever be a part of the solution.

I also don't think there are too many who would argue in favor of amphetamine use. But you can't seriously be suggesting that amphetamines are as serious a threat to the game as steroids. Players take greenies because they make them feel like they can play better. The key word is feel. It's not a given that they actually do play any better, and there's ample evidence that long-term, amphetimes are detrimental. Players would rub sheep dung on their forehead if they thought it gave them an edge.

Regardless, amphetamines will, at most, allow a player to perform up to his normal, rested ability. They won't help players perform super-human feats like steroids do, and that, I think is why they're not viewed in the same way.

I agree with what you say. I agree steroids have a bigger impact on the game than greenies but both are cheating and effect the record book though to different degrees. A murderer and a armed robber found guilty are both convicted felons though one is dealt with more harshly and rightly so.

Pete Rose admitted (something he takes great pains to avoid) to taking greenies. Did it help him on days he needed the boost? Yes. Did he break Ty Cobb's all time hit record with stats earned under the influence of greenies?Yes. Would he have broken that record without taking greenies? Possibly / probably. Would Bonds, McGwire and Sosa reached their records? In my mind, absolutely not. That is how I view the difference. Both were cheating. Both were wrong. Both helped the players performing on the field. One (Steroids) had a much bigger impact (murderer) than the greenies player (armed robber). Gaylord Perry and many other pitchers cheated as well. All are wrong - whether they hurt your body (steroids & greenies) or not (vaseline, nail board, thumb tack, pine tar, corked bat, etc.) and should be punished.

People can debate whether to put an asterisk or eliminate stats but unfortunately they are historical fact and cannot be reversed (a player can be banned but the stats remain). Whether one puts a mental asterisk on the ruined player's accomplishments is up to the fan. It looks like Bonds, McGwire et al will not be honored in the court of public opinion (which is fickle) anytime soon and there will always be a strong nasty odor surrounding any discussion of their statistics (at least in my house). Their reputations are something they can never get back.

The question is what to do today and beyond. MLB has a zero tolerance for gambling. Pete Rose is banned for life for betting on baseball. He was caught doing two of the three worst types of gambling - 1. Betting on baseball games he was not involved in and 2. Betting on a game he was involved in (i.e. as Reds manager) but on his team. The worst case scenario would be 3. He bet against the team he managed which there is no evidence. Nevertheless, he is banned for life. I agree with the decision to not allow him to manage or hold any other baseball job (the Hall of Fame, which subsequently changed its rule regarding eligibility, is another subject).

The fact of the matter is a zero tolerance policy was needed to correct the ultimate wrong in baseball - 1919 :(:. I think most people would consider 1994 or the steroid scandal to have a far more adverse impact on MLB than greenies or Pete Rose betting on baseball. Nevertheless, the ultimate punishment is in place because gambling in baseball is a very important issue. To me, MLB (and the other sports) need to adopt a zero tolerance policy for drug use as steroids and the effect it has on the game and record books is also of major importance to MLB.

In 2006, steroids & greenies have the same penalty - a 10 game suspension and public humiliation. Should one be harsher than the other? Probably. MLB will need to enact harsher penalties (like international sports), conduct tests independently (to restore public confidence after the bogus proposals / procedures offered by MLB in the past) and have zero tolerance to slowly regain public trust on what I believe to be the most important issue in baseball - the integrity of the game.

Do the other leagues need to step up? Yes but I don't care much for the NBA and NFL and the NHL is beyond redemption / has even greater concerns with Bettman in charge and other sports leagues is not what us White Sox fans are concerned with on this board.

I am so disappointed in Bud, Fehr, Bonds and all other players involved because I love baseball and want to continue to enjoy baseball for the next 50 + years (God willing). Maybe this new book will raise enough public opinion and disgust to make MLB act will have to act though I agree with you the current management is incapable of handling this. Unfortunately, "The Steroid Summer that Saved Baseball" was MLB's response to an event that disgusted and enraged fans and most importantly to MLB kept them out of the ballpark: 1994. If Bud is the person responsible to clean up this mess, I hate to see what new future crises he will create / condone / ignore to sway public opinion.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 04:12 PM
Using PEDs is a crime, benefiting from their use isn't. In all actuality the only crime Bonds may have committed (depends on what he took) is perjury. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act did not contain a "catch all" statement till 2005 and thus drugs like HGH and others could have been perfectly legal. Thus if HGH helped Giambi beat Thomas for the MVP race in 2000, no crime was committed in its use.

Take a seat right between ChiSoxRowand in the Game of Shadows thread (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=67547) and SouthSideHitmen earlier in this one.

Did you ever wonder why Gaylord Perry's vaseline jar wasn't illegal in 50 states? Ask CSR. He might have an interesting thought on this topic.

Meanwhile SouthSideHitmen is making a persuasive case for why MLB ought to ban jaywalkers since even crimes that DON'T enhance performance are repugnant and a crime against the sport.
:wink:

However we still need somebody to assert the futility of policies, rules, laws, and the Constitution since none of it is enforceable. Maybe you're our guy for that one? Jurr almost beat you to it, but even he showed enough intelligence to back down.
:cool:

Dadawg_77
03-15-2006, 04:22 PM
See you're nit picking again and making excuses for these guys, your prior post was talking about hurting people, now you want to narrow it more by saying "no I meant crimes." There is no justification for the use of anabolic steroids in baseball. Not asthma inhalers, not greenies, not it wasn't in the CBA, not it wasn't illegal, not spitballs, not the change in the tightness of the balls, or lowering the mound, or bringing in fences, or personal responsibility, or moral relativity, or that fact that we all watched Mac and Sosa, or that owners and Pud Selig winked about it. None.

I am not making excuses, but just bring up what I think. I believe drug use is a victimless crime and your examples of victims were Frank Thomas and other who were harmed because of users increased ability from the drugs. I was indicating I am not sure I would consider Frank and the others as victims of the crime.

I should have separated the second part, but it was to address how many posters are saying the bums should be thrown out since they violated the law. I was bringing up the point that they may not have violated the law. Plus I believe , the baseball related punishment should be weighed by the violations of the rules of baseball and nothing else. The argument here isn't whether or not an USDA should indict Bonds and company, but how baseball should deal with the alleged past use of PEDs.

When I was posting I thought MLB rules lacked a catch all statement but found it was Federal law when looking up that point which why I included it in this post.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-15-2006, 04:25 PM
Meanwhile SouthSideHitmen is making a persuasive case for why MLB ought to ban jaywalkers since even crimes that DON'T enhance performance are repugnant and a crime against the sport.
:wink:

What is Bud's current policy? Treat steroid users, greenies users and people who bought something over the counter in the DR the same - a ten day suspension for first offense. I called for harsher penalties for steroid use but zero tolerance for all. The status quo is they are treated the same way.

Are you defending the current policy of MLB? Should MLB remove the greenies they finally banned after decades of condoned use off of the list? They are using a Federal Controlled Substance Category (Type III controlled substances IIRC) and both drugs are on that list.

Shouldn't penalties be more, not less harsh?

Shouldn't all illegal non subscribed drugs be banned not only the ones involved in the latest (neverending) scandal? When you start picking and choosing which morals, ethics and laws you will and will not obey you have no credibility in the eyes of the public which is what must be at the forefront of any attempt to address this issue. This is what brought MLB in this mess in the first place. The problem was identified in 1988, a memo first came out in 1991 saying steroids are banned with no enforcement actions, in 1998 Bud said this was the first he ever heard of steroid usage and in 2005 Bud and players were caught lying to congress and putting up bogus proposals allowing the commissioner to pick and choose which, if any, players he would publically expose for steroid usage.

Which sporting event do you have more confidence in being on the level? An Olympic track and field event circa 2004? A World Cup Match? Or a MLB game circa 1998, 2004 or 2006?
What is the difference between these other events and MLB? Independent testing and zero tolerance.

Ol' No. 2
03-15-2006, 04:37 PM
People can debate whether to put an asterisk or eliminate stats but unfortunately they are historical fact and cannot be reversed (a player can be banned but the stats remain). Whether one puts a mental asterisk on the ruined player's accomplishments is up to the fan. It looks like Bonds, McGwire et al will not be honored in the court of public opinion (which is fickle) anytime soon and there will always be a strong nasty odor surrounding any discussion of their statistics (at least in my house). Their reputations are something they can never get back.Ben Johnson's 100m time is a historical event, too. He didn't get an asterisk, he got disqualified.

This business of whether you can disqualify ill-gotten home runs from the record book is nutty, as is the argument that you would have to reverse the outcomes of the games involved. A perfect analogy exists in track and field, where times set in some events cannot be used for record-setting if the wind velocity is above a certain threshold. You still win the event and they don't take your medal away just because your times were wind-assisted. Likewise, steroid-assisted home runs should not be counted toward records. Why people continue to insist they would also have to change the outcome of the games escapes me. :dunno:

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 04:46 PM
Are you defending the current policy of MLB? Should MLB remove the greenies they finally banned after decades of condoned use off of the list? They are using a Federal Controlled Substance Category (Type III controlled substances IIRC) and both drugs are on that list.
LOL! If somebody had hit 73 homeruns popping greenies, you might have made a valid point. STEROIDS ENHANCE PERFORMANCE AND ARE ILLEGAL. Greenies and jaywalking don't meet this standard.

As for enforcement of other activities that DON'T enhance performance, I believe MLB's policy should be to take measures to ensure its players adhere to community standards of conduct. Every ballplayer has a "solid citizen" clause in his contract covering such behavior, thus protecting the business interests of MLB from being maligned by its associates -- namely its employees.

Otherwise it's the job of the DEA, ATF, FBI, and the CPD to enforce the laws of the land, not MLB.

Dadawg_77
03-15-2006, 04:48 PM
Ben Johnson's 100m time is a historical event, too. He didn't get an asterisk, he got disqualified.

This business of whether you can disqualify ill-gotten home runs from the record book is nutty, as is the argument that you would have to reverse the outcomes of the games involved. A perfect analogy exists in track and field, where times set in some events cannot be used for record-setting if the wind velocity is above a certain threshold. You still win the event and they don't take your medal away just because your times were wind-assisted. Likewise, steroid-assisted home runs should not be counted toward records. Why people continue to insist they would also have to change the outcome of the games escapes me. :dunno:

One major difference is Track and Field anti-doping rules are much more clearly define then MLB's. Because of this it is much easier to rule on what should happen.

As for reversing the outcomes of games, that would be silly. However there is a precedent for that action with the NCAA. The NCAA makes a school forefit games in which an ineligible player was used. Just ask the Fab Five how many games they officially won or where the OSU Final Four banner went. The one problem with your analogy is using the wind isn't consider cheating by anyone where as the use of PEDs is. Another example of this is Ben Johnson had to relinquish his medal and who ever finished second did receive the Gold Medal.

Dadawg_77
03-15-2006, 04:52 PM
LOL! If somebody had hit 73 homeruns popping greenies, you might have made a valid point. STEROIDS ENHANCE PERFORMANCE AND ARE ILLEGAL. Greenies and jaywalking don't meet this standard.


Steroids were but not all Pends (HGH) were illegal before 2005 and Barry Bonds is alleged to have used HGH when he hit 73 home runs. So based on your logic above are Bond's 73 home runs legitmate?

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 04:57 PM
Steroids were but not all Pends (HGH) were illegal before 2005 and Barry Bonds is alleged to have used HGH when he hit 73 home runs. So based on your logic above are Bond's 73 home runs legitmate?

They have been illegal to use or possess since 1990. When did Bonds hit his 73?

:cool:

Dadawg_77
03-15-2006, 05:03 PM
They have been illegal to use or possess since 1990. When did Bonds hit his 73?

:cool:

HGH isn't an anabolic steriod. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act only pretained to anabolic steriods till 2005. Thus HGH was legal till 2005.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 05:06 PM
HGH isn't an anabolic steriod. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act only pretained to anabolic steriods till 2005. Thus HGH was legal till 2005.
Are you saying NOTHING Barry Bonds did was with controlled substances, or merely letting him off the hook for using one of the latest and greatest versions of lying, cheating, and stealing?

This is going to come as remarkable news to that BALCO grand jury Bonds confessed to.
:cool:

Ol' No. 2
03-15-2006, 05:07 PM
One major difference is Track and Field anti-doping rules are much more clearly define then MLB's. Because of this it is much easier to rule on what should happen.

As for reversing the outcomes of games, that would be silly. However there is a precedent for that action with the NCAA. The NCAA makes a school forefit games in which an ineligible player was used. Just ask the Fab Five how many games they officially won or where the OSU Final Four banner went. The one problem with your analogy is using the wind isn't consider cheating by anyone where as the use of PEDs is. Another example of this is Ben Johnson had to relinquish his medal and who ever finished second did receive the Gold Medal.The point of the comparison was not that track and field is exactly the same in all respects, but to show that disqualifying certain accomplishments from the record books does not mean that they need to be extracted from all the game results. It's surprising how many supposedly intelligent people continue to advance the view that to disqualify Bonds' (and McGwire's and Sosa's) HR from the HR record would require reversing the scores of all the game in which they occured, a position that is obviously :kukoo:.

Dadawg_77
03-15-2006, 05:23 PM
Are you saying NOTHING Barry Bonds did was with controlled substances, or merely letting him off the hook for using one of the latest and greatest versions of lying, cheating, and stealing?

This is going to come as remarkable news to that BALCO grand jury Bonds confessed to.
:cool:

What I am saying is I haven't read the book nor the SI article. Everything that I had read and heard Bonds was using Andro (before it became illegal) and HGH. I haven't heard anything about him using an anabolic steriod.

What I have heard from the jury was Bond's claim he unknowingly used the clear and cream which is HGH.

Dadawg_77
03-15-2006, 05:27 PM
The point of the comparison was not that track and field is exactly the same in all respects, but to show that disqualifying certain accomplishments from the record books does not mean that they need to be extracted from all the game results. It's surprising how many supposedly intelligent people continue to advance the view that to disqualify Bonds' (and McGwire's and Sosa's) HR from the HR record would require reversing the scores of all the game in which they occured, a position that is obviously :kukoo:.

You can't start the games over but MLB could act like the NCAA and force the teams found guilty of the practice to forfeit all the games. The biggest problem with that is I'll bet every team used a played on PEDs. Thus it may be best to let sleeping dogs lie.

Your comparison is somewhat apples and oranges because the whole cheating aspect.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 05:37 PM
What I am saying is I haven't read the book nor the SI article. Everything that I had read and heard Bonds was using Andro (before it became illegal) and HGH. I haven't heard anything about him using an anabolic steriod.

What I have heard from the jury was Bond's claim he unknowingly used the clear and cream which is HGH.
You haven't read the book or read the SI piece? Have you heard what Bonds DIDN'T say about the SI piece or the book? You suppose Barry might have his own interests in mind by saying NOTHING about all the alleged crimes you think he didn't commit?

You are the absolute king of torturing a point.
:o:

Ol' No. 2
03-15-2006, 05:50 PM
You can't start the games over but MLB could act like the NCAA and force the teams found guilty of the practice to forfeit all the games. The biggest problem with that is I'll bet every team used a played on PEDs. Thus it may be best to let sleeping dogs lie.

Your comparison is somewhat apples and oranges because the whole cheating aspect.If the dog is emitting a stench as bad as this steroid business, you'd better wake him up and put him outside.

There is not a reason in the world why steroid-assisted home runs can't be excluded from the record book. Nor why they shouldn't. In fact, I'll go one better. There should be a full, independent investigation of the use of PED over the last 10 years. Anything less and the stench will cling to baseball for a very long time. Any ill-gotten records should be wiped from the books - no asterisks. The more serious offenders should be banned from the game and be permanently ineligible for Hall of Fame induction. A serious PED testing program needs to be put in place. Half-measures will not do.

It will never happen with BudLight in charge, but I believe the situation is going to continue to get worse until MLB is forced to clean up its act.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-15-2006, 06:22 PM
LOL! If somebody had hit 73 homeruns popping greenies, you might have made a valid point. STEROIDS ENHANCE PERFORMANCE AND ARE ILLEGAL. Greenies and jaywalking don't meet this standard.

What is laughable is equating illegal amphetamine usage to jaywalking. Both Steroids and Amphetamines are listed under Schedule III of the Controlled substance list and both are banned on the street, in minor league baseball and every other sport with testing, and finally MLB in 2006 after their 495th case of hypocrisy and perjury was exposed at their favorite place to lie - Congress:

http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/pop/schedIII.htm

Any and all anabolic androgenic steroids covered by Schedule III of the Code of Federal Regulation's Schedule of Controlled Substances are prohibited.

Legally - no difference. Steroids and greenies are subject to the same Federal law and drug classification (the one MLB uses for their policy) and both result in conviction if either is in the possession of the criminal without a valid prescription.

MLB - no difference. Steroids and greenies are subject to the same penalties in MLB starting with a 10 game suspension for first detected usage.

Baseball banned greenies in the minor leagues from the day they implemented the minor league drug policy several years ago. Greene's have been banned in every drug testing sports league except MLB until 2006. They are banned because they illegally enhance a person's physical state. They are an illegal controlled substance.

MLB engaged in a vast criminal conspiracy to brake Federal laws over the past four decades by handing illegal drugs out like candy in every clubhouse. Condoning their usage is as wrong as condoning doctoring baseball or corking bats which several apologists for prior cheaters have done. MLB ownership and players acted the same as any strung out street junkie looking for a fix, with Kuhn, Bud, Fay and the rest of the dope pushers more than happy to pass out the goodies.

Hall of Famers like Tony Gwynn have stated amphetamines are a much bigger problem for MLB than steroids.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/04/23/SP160366.DTL


Gwynn, considered an exemplary citizen and future Hall of Famer, adds much credibility to the list. But unlike the others, who focused mostly on widespread steroid use, Gwynn addressed amphetamines and estimated that 50 percent of position players regularly use "greenies."

"People might think there is a steroid problem in baseball, but it's nowhere near the other problem; the other, it's a rampant problem," Gwynn was quoted as saying in Tuesday's New York Times. "Guys feel like steroids are cheating and greenies aren't." Greenies -- capsules that provide a pick-me-up while potentially increasing heart rates, blood pressure and respiration to unsafe levels -- have been in major-league clubhouses for decades. Pete Rose admitted using them in a 1979 Playboy interview. Recent use, however, has been overshadowed by the steroid craze and baseball's new steroid-testing program.
"Sooner or later," Gwynn said, "it's going to get out that there's a greenie problem, and it's a huge one."

If you address one type of illegal controlled performance enhancing substance while ignoring other illegal performance enhancing controlled substances (well until the next scandal breaks) you are not addressing the problem. This is why MLB finally capitulated to banned all substances on the Federal Controlled Substance List, not picking and choosing based on the embarrassing drugs in today's headlines. This is way steroids and amphetamines are banned in the minors and have been from Day 1 and why the WADA works in other sports. Since MLB does NOT test blood samples for masking agents and drugs undetectable via urine tests, they will still be several step behind the cheaters (which I contend is a joint decision between owners and players as has been the case for the past two decades) in 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2070 if MLB is still a going concern.

Maybe MLB will no longer participate in illegal activity by handing amphetamines and other controlled substances out like candy and that would be a first good step of an addict and criminal - to admit you have a problem. However, without independent comprehensive testing and zero tolerance, this latest testing scheme will have the same credibility as all other testing schemes - zero. Players will continue to cheat and not be detected. MLB will "officially" ban usage but without the proper mechanism to catch cheaters, their word that the game is clean is the same as every word that comes out of Bud's mouth - nothing but lies.

And then we will get the same chorus of well this cheating was bad and this cheating is OK and this cheating is not as bad as that cheating and what should we do, are there enough *s to go around yada yada yada.

All cheating is wrong. All cheaters should be dealt with harshly. Until they are cheating will continue. Period!

whitesoxfan1986
03-15-2006, 06:24 PM
There is not a reason in the world why steroid-assisted home runs can't be excluded from the record book. Nor why they shouldn't. In fact, I'll go one better. There should be a full, independent investigation of the use of PED over the last 10 years. Anything less and the stench will cling to baseball for a very long time. Any ill-gotten records should be wiped from the books - no asterisks. The more serious offenders should be banned from the game and be permanently ineligible for Hall of Fame induction. A serious PED testing program needs to be put in place. Half-measures will not do.

It will never happen with BudLight in charge, but I believe the situation is going to continue to get worse until MLB is forced to clean up its act.

You are very correct. Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, and Palmeiro should be banned for life. This is WORSE, in my opinion than what Pete Rose did. If Rose can't get in the HOF for gambling and is banned for life, then the above mentioned and all others who took PED should receive the same punishment. If Rose never gets in and these guys do, then the HOF is a farce. There should be a full investigation into players from 1990-2004. Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, etc should have all records and awards removed from the books, because of how obvious it is that they used PED. MLB also needs to have the same standards as the IOC. I think that the appropriate penalty for using PED now should be 2 years for 1st offense and lifetime ban for a second.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-15-2006, 06:31 PM
All cheating is wrong. All cheaters should be dealt with harshly. Until they are cheating will continue. Period!

Wow. Remind me never to drive down the highway anywhere in the vicinity of the car you're driving. At 65 mph, you're an invitation to a rear end collision waiting to happen.
:wink:

Now go beat your dog. Or take up your view of the world with DaDawg. You two make a fun pair.
:cool:

SouthSide_HitMen
03-15-2006, 06:41 PM
Wow. Remind me never to drive down the highway anywhere in the vicinity of the car you're driving. At 65 mph, you're an invitation to a rear end collision waiting to happen.
:wink:

Now go beat your dog. Or take up your view of the world with DaDawg. You two make a fun pair.
:cool:

Beating your dog is against the law and something I cannot and will not condone be it a medium or vicious beating. :wink:

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

voodoochile
03-15-2006, 08:15 PM
Beating your dog is against the law and something I cannot and will not condone be it a medium or vicious beating. :wink:

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Okay, what about from a public perception angle?

You think the average Joe Baseball Fan thinks greenies are just as bad as steroids?

You can talk about legal courts or MLB courts or any kind of court and claim they are all the same thing, but in the court of public opinion, I'd wager they aren't anywhere near the same thing. Tell you what, let's make a poll right here at WSI. I'll set it up and you can see the results.

Edit: And here you go... after 5 votes, it's already starting to look like a landslide...

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=67725

Daver
03-15-2006, 08:56 PM
The use of illegal drugs, no matter what they are, is not a victimless crime, anyone that thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-15-2006, 09:10 PM
Okay, what about from a public perception angle?

You think the average Joe Baseball Fan thinks greenies are just as bad as steroids?

You can talk about legal courts or MLB courts or any kind of court and claim they are all the same thing, but in the court of public opinion, I'd wager they aren't anywhere near the same thing. Tell you what, let's make a poll right here at WSI. I'll set it up and you can see the results.

Edit: And here you go... after 5 votes, it's already starting to look like a landslide...

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=67725

Phrase the question - Is it OK or wrong to cheat in MLB or Would you rather have clean players or players on greenies, steroids or whatever else they can get their hands on and I think you'll get a different response. Some people think it is OK to not pay your taxes, to do any drug they want, to drive 150 MPH, to shoot and kill people, to rape teenage boys and put them in their crawl space. That doesn't mean they are right, legal or morally correct.

Also public perception in 1998 was this scam was awesome and "saved baseball" because that is what the lying management, players and lazy press said at the time. Public perception in 2005 is Bud Selig and Barry Bonds are liars. Public perception in 2012 will be - MLB should have implemented a real independent and all inclusive testing policy several years ago after decades of scandal.

Bud Selig (1994) and Barry Bonds (Steroids) did far greater harm to MLB than Pete Rose wagering in the clubhouse yet one is banned and two are 100% in the full graces of MLB. Pete Rose gets a standing ovation anytime MLB's corporate sponsors demand Bud lift the lifetime ban to appear at various MasterCard on field events and of course Bud complies. Yet he is banned (well except when people pay enough cash to Bud). Mobocracy is not the rule of law in society or MLB (not yet at least though we are getting close).

MLB should post these polls
Should Pete Rose be in the HOF? If Pete Rose wins he is in the hall.
Should there be four rounds of playoffs? If this wins Bud must let 8 more teams into the postseason (16 two team divisions).
Should there be 8 Cub vs. Sox interleague series?

Management serves no purpose if they cannot properly manage the game. People can blame the woes of the auto industry, steel industry, airline industry on the greed and quality of the union and union workers but in the end management has the majority of the responsibility as it is their job to manage an industry and they have failed in each and every case and deserve a majority of the blame for caving in to demands the industry couldn't meet (and stealing more than their share of the capital and income in the process).

If Fay or Bud implemented serious steroid testing in the early nineties after this stuff was initially getting vetted in the public than they reacted to the problem and the onus is on the players. The fact that MLB did nothing for over 15 years and than only after being subpoenaed to congress and then they have the audacity to throw some BS (Bull**** - not Bud Selig though they are one in the same) plan leaving positive test results up to the commissioner whether they would be disclosed or not, whether players will be suspended, fined or patted on the head and sent on their way.

I've stated in several posts that steroids were worse but all cheating is wrong.
A poll that results in a majority think murder is worse than rape or rape is worse than robbery or robbery is worse than speeding is expected.

The funniest thing is supporters of Bud Selig's head in the sand approach to this problem conveniently forget is THE CURRENT POLICY (BUD'S ****ING POLICY AFTER SEVERAL REWRITES WHICH WERE WORSE) IS TO TREAT STEROID AND AMPHETAMINES JUNKIES THE SAME WAY. Great one eighth ass policy as usual Bud! :rolleyes:

SoLongFrank
03-15-2006, 09:26 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/15/SPGP6HOD3J1.DTL
Lions & Tiger & Bears .. oh my! I wouldn't want to be Bud Selig right now. The media smells blood & wants MLB for it's kill. Bonds is not enough.

13 Giants were roiders in 99'? No way! If that's true everyone knew & if an employer knew & ignored it they can be implicated in the crime.

Should we stop with the Giants? Why not the A's with Giambi? O's with Palmeiro, Marlins with I-Rod, & M's with Boone, Cards w McGwire, & dare I say Cubs w Sosa?

I know Sox fans who have speculated about Jose Valentin but never as many as 13 players in one year! :o:

voodoochile
03-15-2006, 10:19 PM
Phrase the question - Is it OK or wrong to cheat in MLB or Would you rather have clean players or players on greenies, steroids or whatever else they can get their hands on and I think you'll get a different response. Some people think it is OK to not pay your taxes, to do any drug they want, to drive 150 MPH, to shoot and kill people, to rape teenage boys and put them in their crawl space. That doesn't mean they are right, legal or morally correct.

Well that can be construed from the various categorys. Only one category says, "let 'em use whatever they want to." The others all ask the voter to pick one that damages the game more, so you can see the result you want answered quite clearly.

At this point in time, only 2 people out of 30 votes have said, Let them use whatever they want to.

1951Campbell
03-15-2006, 10:37 PM
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate:

So, I hear that MLB players that use drugs that are illegal are cheaters, and should have their records stricken.

So, when Sammy and Barry and McGwire's records are wiped, what becomes of Doc Ellis' no-hitter? Do all of Steve Howe's wins and K's disappear? Does Dan Pasqua's acceptance of a little weed wipe all his records? Do all those 60's stars and journeymen get their **** wiped out because they took speed? And oh yes, no matter what you old fogeys tell yourself, those old guys took speed because that's the best they could do to increase performance in those days. If they had access to better drugs, they'd take 'em. Greenies were their steroids. Also, what of Gooden's wins and Strawberry's HR's?

Oh, right...the same old fart drug warriors who carp about steroids don't give a tin **** about the old timers doing booze, weed, blow, acid, and speed because that would ruin all there tender childhood memories.

Okay, please discuss.

voodoochile
03-15-2006, 11:19 PM
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate:

So, I hear that MLB players that use drugs that are illegal are cheaters, and should have their records stricken.

So, when Sammy and Barry and McGwire's records are wiped, what becomes of Doc Ellis' no-hitter? Do all of Steve Howe's wins and K's disappear? Does Dan Pasqua's acceptance of a little weed wipe all his records? Do all those 60's stars and journeymen get their **** wiped out because they took speed? And oh yes, no matter what you old fogeys tell yourself, those old guys took speed because that's the best they could do to increase performance in those days. If they had access to better drugs, they'd take 'em. Greenies were their steroids. Also, what of Gooden's wins and Strawberry's HR's?

Oh, right...the same old fart drug warriors who carp about steroids don't give a tin **** about the old timers doing booze, weed, blow, acid, and speed because that would ruin all there tender childhood memories.

Okay, please discuss.

Well some of this has been covered and is the exact reason for the stuck poll at the top of this forum.

If speed was still the best you could do, it wouldn't nearly be the issue it is today, IMO.

For all of the glorified hype about speed, I bet it has a minimal effect on the ability of players to perform better. There is no doubt about steroids though, the proof is in the pudding.

The rest of that stuff you mention would/will/does only hinder performance and anyone who tells you different is lying to you.

PaulDrake
03-16-2006, 06:38 AM
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate:

So, I hear that MLB players that use drugs that are illegal are cheaters, and should have their records stricken.

So, when Sammy and Barry and McGwire's records are wiped, what becomes of Doc Ellis' no-hitter? Do all of Steve Howe's wins and K's disappear? Does Dan Pasqua's acceptance of a little weed wipe all his records? Do all those 60's stars and journeymen get their **** wiped out because they took speed? And oh yes, no matter what you old fogeys tell yourself, those old guys took speed because that's the best they could do to increase performance in those days. If they had access to better drugs, they'd take 'em. Greenies were their steroids. Also, what of Gooden's wins and Strawberry's HR's?

Oh, right...the same old fart drug warriors who carp about steroids don't give a tin **** about the old timers doing booze, weed, blow, acid, and speed because that would ruin all there tender childhood memories.

Okay, please discuss. It's early in the morning and I already feel like banging my head against the wall. You of all people, comparing greenies to powerful steroids, some designed for cattle. All amphetamines have a "crash" factor. No matter what the players thought, they were given little if any edge from ingesting those greenies and the "red juice", and all those other pick me ups. Name me one pre steroids era player who had career altering stats like Bonds, Sosa, Giambi, McGwire. It's ever so depressing to see all the false comparisons and the rationalizations. Plain and simple this is the worst thing for baseball since the long ago scandal that cost the White Sox 8 players.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2006, 07:36 AM
.... Name me one pre steroids era player who had career altering stats like Bonds, Sosa, Giambi, McGwire. It's ever so depressing to see all the false comparisons and the rationalizations. Plain and simple this is the worst thing for baseball since the long ago scandal that cost the White Sox 8 players.
I completely agree. All these threads have proven to me is how completely confused the average citizen is about the concepts of sportsmanship, substance abuse, and the law. There are people posting here who couldn't explain the difference on a bet. They just don't get it.

And now we know why the world is the way it is...

voodoochile
03-16-2006, 09:31 AM
I completely agree. All these threads have proven to me is how completely confused the average citizen is about the concepts of sportsmanship, substance abuse, and the law. There are people posting here who couldn't explain the difference on a bet. They just don't get it.

And now we know why the world is the way it is...
I agree. I admit I am stunned that equally bad is essentially neck and neck with steroids, though no one has voted stimulants over steroids and only two people have voted "who cares, let 'em do whatever they want."

I really don't get it. I mean we have 40 years of evidence that greenies and other stimulants have negligible or no effect on player stats.

HR records didn't drop like flies.
Other hitting records weren't affected.
Pitching stats have actually gotten worse.

Now, compare that to steroids.

After a little over a decade, the single season HR record that stood for almost 40 years (after standing for over 30 years the time before - to be "shattered" by one HR and requiring an asterisk because of the extra 8 games played) has been simply crushed by over 15% and currently stands 20% higher than it was before the steroid era.
The record was beaten by two guys in two separate seasons practically back to back.
If not for the recent testing and public outrage there were two guys on a pace to break the career HR record.

Yet people seem to think they are just as bad. I don't know if it is an anti-drug thing in general or if people are truly confused as to what these drugs do.

For me it's about the integrity of the game. I prefer my sports as free of performance enhancing drugs as I can get. I don't want the greenies, but I think the steroids are a MUCH larger problem. I don't want to see artificially bulked up players playing these games. I want to see true tests of human ability. Greenies strike me as a strong cup of coffee and not much worse than caffeine pills in the way they affect the body. Yes, they are much stronger, but coffee doesn't make you belt the baseball an extra 100 feet. Players who think they are getting something special are probably mostly delusional and if they would curtail their late night partying a little better, they would probably not even need them.

Steroid use is one step from androids or full out robots playing the game and like it or not, that day is coming. Heck, I bet they could design a robot now that could put up monster stats against the best pitchers in the game, and I don't think anyone would pay to see that except as a freak show diversion before or after the game...

daveeym
03-16-2006, 09:42 AM
Greenies strike me as a strong cup of coffee and not much worse than caffeine pills in the way they affect the body. Yes, they are much stronger, but coffee doesn't make you belt the baseball an extra 100 feet. Players who think they are getting something special are probably mostly delusional and if they would curtail their late night partying a little better, they would probably not even need them. I completely agree and I've been wanting to type the same, word for word, but figured I'd get too frustrated by the response. At least it's in your court to deal with now. The fishbowl of greenies in EVERY clubhouse is a farce too. Most of these guys were taking no-doz and calling em greenies. The term "Greenies" in baseball is a catchall that includes actual greenies, no-doz, ephedrine (basically the same as no-doz), and caffeine pills. Nothing 4-8 cups of coffee or a few red bulls couldn't do for you.

1951Campbell
03-16-2006, 10:13 AM
Well some of this has been covered and is the exact reason for the stuck poll at the top of this forum.

If speed was still the best you could do, it wouldn't nearly be the issue it is today, IMO.

For all of the glorified hype about speed, I bet it has a minimal effect on the ability of players to perform better. There is no doubt about steroids though, the proof is in the pudding.

The rest of that stuff you mention would/will/does only hinder performance and anyone who tells you different is lying to you.

Like I said, to a certain extent I'm playing Devil's Advocate, so perhaps Paul Drake should postpone that appointment his head has with the wall.

As for speed: it seems that absolutely, the introduction of speed to MLB did not make records fall. However, players who took speed took an illegal drug with the intention of improving their performance. Players who take steroids also take an illegal drug with the intention of improving their performance. The only difference seems to be that speed doesn't "work", whereas steroids do. However, the players' intentions in both cases are the same. That's what gets me: if pharmacology wasn't advanced enough when you took drugs (i.e., speed) to cheat, you get a free pass. "It's not cheating because they were wrong, speed really didn't help that much" is not exactly a maxim on which I'd build rules for a sport.

It also means that in fifty years when a nifty new steroid comes out that puts 75 feet on your HR distance, people will say Mac, Sosa and Bonds didn't really cheat because old steroids just didn't work so well.

Also, if results matter, and not the intention to cheat--if, say, Pujols starts juicing, and he suddenly has a .250/10/75 season--then, using the "efficacy of the drug is all that matters" argument, his numbers stand.

Does everyone know what I'm getting at?

daveeym
03-16-2006, 10:27 AM
Like I said, to a certain extent I'm playing Devil's Advocate, so perhaps Paul Drake should postpone that appointment his head has with the wall.

As for speed: it seems that absolutely, the introduction of speed to MLB did not make records fall. However, players who took speed took an illegal drug with the intention of improving their performance. Players who take steroids also take an illegal drug with the intention of improving their performance. The only difference seems to be that speed doesn't "work", whereas steroids do. However, the players' intentions in both cases are the same. That's what gets me: if pharmacology wasn't advanced enough when you took drugs (i.e., speed) to cheat, you get a free pass. "It's not cheating because they were wrong, speed really didn't help that much" is not exactly a maxim on which I'd build rules for a sport.

It also means that in fifty years when a nifty new steroid comes out that puts 75 feet on your HR distance, people will say Mac, Sosa and Bonds didn't really cheat because old steroids just didn't work so well.

Also, if results matter, and not the intention to cheat--if, say, Pujols starts juicing, and he suddenly has a .250/10/75 season--then, using the "efficacy of the drug is all that matters" argument, his numbers stand.

Does everyone know what I'm getting at? But as voodoo said speed is being used as a morning pick me up after the tomkats go boozing, womanizing and living the glamarous life the night before and after hitting red eye flights 3-4 times in two weeks. The only similarity between speed and steroids is that they're illegal without a prescription and aren't good for your long term health. Is a cup of coffee or redbull cheating? Is taking unprescribed valiums so you get a better nights rest on your red eye flight, when others don't, cheating? Trying to concoct any other connection is ridiculous and is only done in defense of steroids in an attempt to blur the reality of the situation.

Ol' No. 2
03-16-2006, 10:27 AM
I agree. I admit I am stunned that equally bad is essentially neck and neck with steroids, though no one has voted stimulants over steroids and only two people have voted "who cares, let 'em do whatever they want."

I really don't get it. I mean we have 40 years of evidence that greenies and other stimulants have negligible or no effect on player stats.

HR records didn't drop like flies.
Other hitting records weren't affected.
Pitching stats have actually gotten worse.

Now, compare that to steroids.

After a little over a decade, the single season HR record that stood for almost 40 years (after standing for over 30 years the time before - to be "shattered" by one HR and requiring an asterisk because of the extra 8 games played) has been simply crushed by over 15% and currently stands 20% higher than it was before the steroid era.
The record was beaten by two guys in two separate seasons practically back to back.
If not for the recent testing and public outrage there were two guys on a pace to break the career HR record.

Yet people seem to think they are just as bad. I don't know if it is an anti-drug thing in general or if people are truly confused as to what these drugs do.

For me it's about the integrity of the game. I prefer my sports as free of performance enhancing drugs as I can get. I don't want the greenies, but I think the steroids are a MUCH larger problem. I don't want to see artificially bulked up players playing these games. I want to see true tests of human ability. Greenies strike me as a strong cup of coffee and not much worse than caffeine pills in the way they affect the body. Yes, they are much stronger, but coffee doesn't make you belt the baseball an extra 100 feet. Players who think they are getting something special are probably mostly delusional and if they would curtail their late night partying a little better, they would probably not even need them.

Steroid use is one step from androids or full out robots playing the game and like it or not, that day is coming. Heck, I bet they could design a robot now that could put up monster stats against the best pitchers in the game, and I don't think anyone would pay to see that except as a freak show diversion before or after the game...There's two ways of looking at this. Strictly from an "effect on the game" standpoint, amphetamines seem to have a negligible effect. But in a larger sense, you don't want players popping greenies like mints, so it makes sense to crack down on those in addition to steroids, but for different reasons.

Edit: In fact, other than their effect on the game itself, every argument I can think of for banning steroids applies equally to amphetamines.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2006, 10:30 AM
....

Also, if results matter, and not the intention to cheat--if, say, Pujols starts juicing, and he suddenly has a .250/10/75 season--then, using the "efficacy of the drug is all that matters" argument, his numbers stand.

Does everyone know what I'm getting at?
Yes, I believe I understand. You're talking about the difference between sportsmanship and the law.

If we're talking about the LAW, intent is more than enough to convict you. If Barry was caught with a truckload of crack, his intent is to distribute and they send him to jail and throw away the key.

In the case of steroids, we're talking about SPORTSMANSHIP. Barry using steroids forces everyone to use steroids just to keep up with Barry. Barry using greenies only makes Barry wide awake; the effect on his performance is negligible. Barry using greenies makes him a substance abuser, but his greenie use is no threat to the SPORT of baseball -- even if the intent was precisely this.

Let's see what WSI's deep thinkers say about this one. Guaranteed somebody will rise to the bait.
:cool:

Flight #24
03-16-2006, 10:32 AM
IMO Greenies certainly don't enhance performance like steroids, but they do enhance performance. If what players say is true, it gives them the energy boost to avoide fatigue during a long season, and it's those hitting streaks in August that get impacted by that (or those consecutive-games-played streaks).

Same degree - certainly not. But I didn't think the line was being drawn based on how bad it was, I thought it was being drawn based on legality/performance enhancing criteria, which would mean greenies qualify (which is why they're now banned).

The one difference is that I don't beleive there have been any records set since greenies were made illegal where their use would be a factor. But that begs the question - the next PED that's developed that isn't explicitly banned by law - are records set before the law is altered legit?

This is a morass no matter what happens. The iceberg tip is all that's being touched on right now.

Ol' No. 2
03-16-2006, 10:35 AM
IMO Greenies certainly don't enhance performance like steroids, but they do enhance performance. If what players say is true, it gives them the energy boost to avoide fatigue during a long season, and it's those hitting streaks in August that get impacted by that (or those consecutive-games-played streaks).

Same degree - certainly not. But I didn't think the line was being drawn based on how bad it was, I thought it was being drawn based on legality/performance enhancing criteria, which would mean greenies qualify (which is why they're now banned).

The one difference is that I don't beleive there have been any records set since greenies were made illegal where their use would be a factor. But that begs the question - the next PED that's developed that isn't explicitly banned by law - are records set before the law is altered legit?

This is a morass no matter what happens. The iceberg tip is all that's being touched on right now.I think a lot of the perceived effect of amphetamines is just that - perceived. Players feel more alert, but that's not the same as having an actual effect.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2006, 10:41 AM
I think a lot of the perceived effect of amphetamines is just that - perceived. Players feel more alert, but that's not the same as having an actual effect.
Yep. It took exactly 2 minutes for somebody to grab the bait. NOBODY in the Greenies-Are-Just-As-Bad-As-Steroids contingent can name a single greenie user who ever hit as many as 62 dingers. But they go right ahead and proclaim the SPORT of baseball be damned... MLB is a drug enforcement agency.

They just don't get it. I'm wondering if they ever will...

:o:

daveeym
03-16-2006, 10:49 AM
The one difference is that I don't beleive there have been any records set since greenies were made illegal where their use would be a factor. But that begs the question - the next PED that's developed that isn't explicitly banned by law - are records set before the law is altered legit?
Just because it's unknown doesn't make it legal. The clear and the cream may have been unknown, but if the FDA hasn't checked off on it, IT'S ILLEGAL. It may not be on a baseball list of banned substances but that doesn't change the fact that it's an illegal substance by law.

voodoochile
03-16-2006, 10:49 AM
Yep. It took exactly 2 minutes for somebody to grab the bait. NOBODY in the Greenies-Are-Just-As-Bad-As-Steroids contingent can name a single greenie user who ever hit as many as 62 dingers. But they go right ahead and proclaim the SPORT of baseball be damned... MLB is a drug enforcement agency.

They just don't get it. I'm wondering if they ever will...

:o:

I remember some story from a rookie football player in the 70's. He was talking about the way the players used speed to stay up during games when their bodies were telling them no more. He related a story about how players would take one before the game along with a painkiller, one at the quarter, two at halftime and another at the third quarter mark.

He was at first amazed byt the way these veteran players would be able to laugh and drink and play cards on the flight home when all he wanted to do was pass out from exhaustion. Then he realized the speed they took at the third quarter mark was probably not hitting their system until the end of the game.

So there you have it... a detrimental effect. Young players are forced to do speed so they don't get whooped at cards and called wimps for not being able to drink all the way home on the airplane flight. Given the "locker room" mentality in most... well... locker rooms, it quickly behooves the young athlete to take their speed or get ridiculed by their fellow teammates...:D:

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2006, 10:53 AM
So there you have it... a detrimental effect. Young players are forced to do speed so they don't get whooped at cards and called wimps for not being able to drink all the way home on the airplane flight. Given the "locker room" mentality in most... well... locker rooms, it quickly behooves the young athlete to take their speed or get ridiculed by their fellow teammates...
:D:

Now I know why Alex Karras was such a badass in the NFL. His on-the-field exploits were totally forgettable, but he knew how to gamble.

:wink:

Flight #24
03-16-2006, 10:54 AM
Yep. It took exactly 2 minutes for somebody to grab the bait. NOBODY in the Greenies-Are-Just-As-Bad-As-Steroids contingent can name a single greenie user who ever hit as many as 62 dingers. But they go right ahead and proclaim the SPORT of baseball be damned... MLB is a drug enforcement agency.

They just don't get it. I'm wondering if they ever will...

:o:

Actually, we crossed in the Internet ether, you just posted before I was done typing.....

Regardless, as I fairly explicitly said: are greenies as bad as steroids - nope. But is it easier to hit a 95-mph fastball when you're more alert v. worn down? I'd guess yes. So no, they won't help you hit 73HRs, but they can improve performance by adding to a hit total, helping you steal that extra base, etc - which was IIRC the criteria. If the argument is that they don't actually do anything then you're back to whether intent or results is the key. In a results-based methodology, obviously no one cares what you do if it doesn't impact anything.

The more complicated discussion becomes what you do with drugs that enhance performance but aren't banned by government or MLB? Do records set with HGH count if they were set before it was officially made illegal? If/when Conte comes up with "Human Enhancement Serum" (or whetever), you can be 1000% sure that it'll be in an athlete before anyone knows about it and by the time it's discovered & banned, it'll have an impact.

EDIT: My understanding of the FDA was that they were not regulating what I might create in my basement and ingest myself. Or for example, what I purchase in Mexico and bring back with me for my own consumption. I could be wrong on that. The issue with steroids is that they are explicitly illegal from a "possession without a prescription" standpoint.

daveeym
03-16-2006, 10:56 AM
Now I know why Alex Karras was such a badass in the NFL. His on-the-field exploits were totally forgettable, but he knew how to gamble.

:wink:
http://www.tripletsandus.com/80s/shows/webster.gif
Gambling? Mr. Papadapolis, say it ain't so?

SouthSide_HitMen
03-16-2006, 10:59 AM
I agree. I admit I am stunned that equally bad is essentially neck and neck with steroids, though no one has voted stimulants over steroids and only two people have voted "who cares, let 'em do whatever they want."

It is the way you phrased your poll. If the options were "Steroids and Amphetamines are bad" that would have a solid majority. If the option was "Steroids and Amphetamines are bad but Steroids are worse" than that would probably be leading at this moment (which I would have voted for).

Meanwhile, the fact remains:

1. MLB treats steroids and greenies the same punishment in 2006 and have in the minors for several years. So people who think steroids and amphetamines deserve a totally different punishment (PHG et al) are ill served by Bud's policy. People who think both should be punished more severely (my first positive would be 1 year for steroids and at least 50 games for everything else increasing to two years / 1 year for second offense and banishment after 3rd positive) are ill served by Bud's policy. The only people who benefit from this policy are the owners and players who will continue to make money off of drugged up players and the fans (2 on WSI so far) who think - let them take whatever, I'll gladly pay to see roids freaks, pill poppers or crackheads or anything else cooked up in BALCO labs worldwide.

2. In the other poll, 2/3 thought 1994 was the worst thing to happen to baseball over the past 20 years, 25% thought steroids andother drug use is the worst and 10% thought those two and Pete Rose gambling were equally bad. Zero think Pete Rose was the worst as well as none were bad, MLB / Bud can do anything.

Pete Rose - Banned from the HOF (after special rule change).
Yet 1994 (Bud, Fehr) & Steroids (Bonds, Sosa) - No worries, be happy.
Bud is allowed to break all rules (debt capitalization, illegal loans, perjury, etc.), Bud had no rules for steroids (I guess no rules for anyone). Maybe there will be punishment for the players (owners / management of course being exempt from any and all responsibility). Bud will probably be elected to the hall in 2011 / 2012 - I expect a nasty stench to hit Cooperstown right about that time never to leave the area.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2006, 11:01 AM
Actually, we crossed in the Internet ether, you just posted before I was done typing.....

Regardless, as I fairly explicitly said: are greenies as bad as steroids - nope. But is it easier to hit a 95-mph fastball when you're more alert v. worn down? I'd guess yes. So no, they won't help you hit 73HRs, but they can improve performance by adding to a hit total, helping you steal that extra base, etc - which was IIRC the criteria. If the argument is that they don't actually do anything then you're back to whether intent or results is the key. In a results-based methodology, obviously no one cares what you do if it doesn't impact anything.
Greenies don't help you hit dingers, but they help you hit? How did you reach this conclusion?
:o:

Yeah, I suppose if you only got 2 hours sleep last night drinking and chasing skirts, you'll hit more the following day after popping a greenie. That's because it's hard to hit WHEN YOU'RE ASLEEP. Of course coffee keeps you awake, too, especially if you went to bed before 6 AM.

Is coffee just as bad as steroids, too????

:o: :o:

SouthSide_HitMen
03-16-2006, 11:04 AM
The more complicated discussion becomes what you do with drugs that enhance performance but aren't banned by government or MLB? Do records set with HGH count if they were set before it was officially made illegal? If/when Conte comes up with "Human Enhancement Serum" (or whetever), you can be 1000% sure that it'll be in an athlete before anyone knows about it and by the time it's discovered & banned, it'll have an impact.

If we used the WADA you can be assured we would catch the new steroids quicker than most if not all testing systems. If we rely on MLB's system / management to address it, expect 15 - 20 years in between the drug being used and MLB proposing a weak plan to combat it.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2006, 11:09 AM
Meanwhile, the fact remains:

1. MLB treats steroids and greenies the same punishment in 2006 and have in the minors for several years. So people who think steroids and amphetamines deserve a totally different punishment (PHG et al) are ill served by Bud's policy. People who think both should be punished more severely (my first positive would be 1 year for steroids and at least 50 games for everything else increasing to two years / 1 year for second offense and banishment after 3rd positive) are ill served by Bud's policy. The only people who benefit from this policy are the owners and players who will continue to make money off of drugged up players and the fans (2 on WSI so far) who think - let them take whatever, I'll gladly pay to see roids freaks, pill poppers or crackheads or anything else cooked up in BALCO labs worldwide.

You are seriously confused. This is a complete misrepresentation of what has been written elsewhere.

Thank God your opinion counts for nothing more than a few bits of bandwith on an internet message board. Get a job at DEA and leave the rest of us in peace.

Flight #24
03-16-2006, 11:30 AM
Greenies don't help you hit dingers, but they help you hit? How did you reach this conclusion?
:o:

Yeah, I suppose if you only got 2 hours sleep last night drinking and chasing skirts, you'll hit more the following day after popping a greenie. That's because it's hard to hit WHEN YOU'RE ASLEEP. Of course coffee keeps you awake, too, especially if you went to bed before 6 AM.

Well, there are numerous articles with cites like this, from ESPN.com: While some medical professionals have observed that amphetamines might heighten an athlete's senses or quicken reaction time, the more commonly held view is that stimulants are performance "enablers" rather than performance "enhancers."

The baseball season is a marathon in every sense, with seven weeks of spring training followed by 162 games in six months, interspersed with rain delays, cross-country flights and constant scrutiny to perform. Sometimes players need a kick-start just to roll off the clubhouse sofa and up the dugout stairs. While steroids might help a hitter add muscle or allow a relief pitcher to recover so he can take the mound for three or four straight days, ballplayers use stimulants for the same reason as college students cramming for exams or truckers on long-distance hauls. "It's a get-you-out-there issue more than anything else," said one management official.

It's pretty hard to hit a fastball when you're too tired/worn down to swing a bat. That impacts avg, games played, and other stats. As for coffee, last I checked it wasn't illegal.



Is coffee just as bad as steroids, too????

:o: :o:

Since I've repeated multiple times that greenies are NOT as bad as steroids, I can only assume that comment is targeted at others.


What's the criteria here? Is it "illegal, performance-enhancing"? Greenies would seem to qualify, unless you don't think being able to play v. falling asleep on the field counts as "enhancing". If you're using the criteria of "helps you hit HRs", then you're talking a whole different ballgame.

And if you're things that are "illegal, but enhance performance more than you can do via other means", that's a fairly tough thing to police, IMO.

voodoochile
03-16-2006, 11:35 AM
Well, there are numerous articles with cites like this, from ESPN.com:

It's pretty hard to hit a fastball when you're too tired/worn down to swing a bat. That impacts avg, games played, and other stats. As for coffee, last I checked it wasn't illegal.



Since I've repeated multiple times that greenies are NOT as bad as steroids, I can only assume that comment is targeted at others.


What's the criteria here? Is it "illegal, performance-enhancing"? Greenies would seem to qualify, unless you don't think being able to play v. falling asleep on the field counts as "enhancing". If you're using the criteria of "helps you hit HRs", then you're talking a whole different ballgame.

And if you're things that are "illegal, but enhance performance more than you can do via other means", that's a fairly tough thing to police, IMO.

I for one am not arguing to legalize speed. I think it should be banned too, but the discrepancy between the two drugs is huge, IMO. As legal means of pick-me ups become ever more potent (Red Bull, etc.) the need for speed should diminish and it will probably eventually mostly die out as a common locker room drug.

I don't think speed is good or even "okay" but seroids are destroying the games I love because I want to see as close to natural play as I can get.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2006, 11:44 AM
Well, there are numerous articles with cites like this, from ESPN.com:

It's pretty hard to hit a fastball when you're too tired/worn down to swing a bat. That impacts avg, games played, and other stats. As for coffee, last I checked it wasn't illegal.



Since I've repeated multiple times that greenies are NOT as bad as steroids, I can only assume that comment is targeted at others.


What's the criteria here? Is it "illegal, performance-enhancing"? Greenies would seem to qualify, unless you don't think being able to play v. falling asleep on the field counts as "enhancing". If you're using the criteria of "helps you hit HRs", then you're talking a whole different ballgame.

And if you're things that are "illegal, but enhance performance more than you can do via other means", that's a fairly tough thing to police, IMO.
Thanks for the clarification. I haven't seen anyone suggest greenies should be legal or their use be condoned. (We had two people come close by suggesting rules are broken so have no rules, but they backed off.)

I don't think greenies should be legal or condoned either. However it's just silly to suggest greenies are as bad to the sport of baseball as steroids. For what seems the millionth time, NOBODY can name a greenie user that hit even 62 homeruns without steroids. We've been asking this question for days now and nobody can name anyone, not even the DEA law enforcement officers.

There are REAL differences, and stomping our feet and holding our breath declaring these two controlled substances are the same simply doesn't change the facts.

Flight #24
03-16-2006, 11:44 AM
I for one am not arguing to legalize speed. I think it should be banned too, but the discrepancy between the two drugs is huge, IMO. As legal means of pick-me ups become ever more potent (Red Bull, etc.) the need for speed should diminish and it will probably eventually mostly die out as a common locker room drug.

I don't think speed is good or even "okay" but seroids are destroying the games I love because I want to see as close to natural play as I can get.

I agree 100%. Steroids are far worse than amphetamines. But IMO the rules need to be fairly hard & applied consistently for ALL PEDs, greenies included. To me, the guidelines are: Legal v. illegal, banned v. not banned, & performance enhancing v. not.

If a player breaks a record and is found to have used greenies- treat it as if they hit 80HRs and used steroids. It's not as severe a crime(which could show up in the length of suspension), but from a record book perspective, I think it should be treated the same.

Flight #24
03-16-2006, 11:46 AM
For what seems the millionth time, NOBODY can name a greenie user that hit even 62 homeruns without steroids. We've been asking this question for days now and nobody can name anyone, not even the DEA law enforcement officers.


Does Cal Ripken break the consecutive games played record without greenies? I have no idea if he used them or not, but if he did and it helped him break the record.....IMO it shouldn't stand.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2006, 11:53 AM
Does Cal Ripken break the consecutive games played record without greenies? I have no idea if he used them or not, but if he did and it helped him break the record.....IMO it shouldn't stand.

Good question. He definitely benefitted from improved medical science that allowed him to play with less pain and greater mobility in spite of injuries that earlier generations of ballplayers didn't have.

Of course the treatment Ripken used was all LEGAL, and available to anyone seeking help from a licensed clinical physician. That's the difference between his accomplishments and the ones discussed elsewhere in this thread.

I've got no problem at all with Ripken holding the record. He probably hurt his own ballclub playing everyday down the stretch, but Lou Gehrig did the same to the Yankees in the late 30's. Having a big ego isn't against the law, or the rules of baseball.

voodoochile
03-16-2006, 11:56 AM
Good question. He definitely benefitted from improved medical science that allowed him to play with less pain and greater mobility in spite of injuries that earlier generations of ballplayers didn't have.

Of course the treatment Ripken used was all LEGAL, and available to anyone seeking help from a licensed clinical physician. That's the difference between his accomplishments and the ones discussed elsewhere in this thread.

I've got no problem at all with Ripken holding the record. He probably hurt his own ballclub playing everyday down the stretch, but Lou Gehrig did the same to the Yankees in the late 30's. Having a big ego isn't against the law, or the rules of baseball.

When comparing the two streaks, you also have to look at innings played. Ripken's record is SO much more impressive because he played every inning of most of the games he played in. Gehrig actually had many games where he only played minimal time including several where he led off and after batting, went to the locker room.

Greenies aren't going to make THAT kind of difference. Ripken's streak is an incredible feat, period.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-16-2006, 11:59 AM
When comparing the two streaks, you also have to look at innings played. Ripken's record is SO much more impressive because he played every inning of most of the games he played in. Gehrig actually had many games where he only played minimal time including several where he led off and after batting, went to the locker room.

Greenies aren't going to make THAT kind of difference. Ripken's streak is an incredible feat, period.

Pete Rose admitted taking greenies. Deduct 3 greenie assisted hits a season and Ty Cobb remains the all time hit leader. Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford also admitted cheating during their "hall of fame" careers. Baseball's history has many cheaters. There will be many down the road.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2006, 12:08 PM
Pete Rose admitted taking greenies. Deduct 3 greenie assisted hits a season and Ty Cobb remains the all time hit leader.

I dare say he got way more than 3 extra hits per season from playing on a turf field in Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and Montreal.

Flight #24
03-16-2006, 12:08 PM
Pete Rose admitted taking greenies. Deduct 3 greenie assisted hits a season and Ty Cobb remains the all time hit leader. Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford also admitted cheating during their "hall of fame" careers. Baseball's history has many cheaters. There will be many down the road.

I'm not 100%, but I don't believe greenies were illegal or banned during Rose's tenure. Makes it tough to take action against. That would be like if they banned coffee 5 years from now, eliminating all records prior. (extreme example, I know - but you get the point).

Jurr
03-16-2006, 12:15 PM
Pete Rose admitted taking greenies. Deduct 3 greenie assisted hits a season and Ty Cobb remains the all time hit leader. Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford also admitted cheating during their "hall of fame" careers. Baseball's history has many cheaters. There will be many down the road.
We're starting to get closer to my point. I don't think that baseball should allow the steroid thing to go on. I think we're all in agreement on that one. Erasing records? A little tougher. Spitballs, doctoring baseballs, etc. All of this stuff helped players gain a competitive advantage until they were outlawed. Then, you couldn't do it anymore. Period. Don't make the steroid thing be a part of the record books. Make it a case to be brought up in the jury of public opinion. If Bonds gets the homerun record while every baseball fan turns their nose up to it, let it be.

I do think that upcoming advancements in diet/nutrition/supplementation are going to keep making these power records obsolete anyway. The parks are smaller, the body is getting bigger, and people are getting smarter about muscle growth.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-16-2006, 12:18 PM
I dare say he got way more than 3 extra hits per season from playing on a turf field in Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and Montreal.

You may be right but greenies assisted as well (and astro turf hurts many players physically). Flight is correct stating they weren't banned at the time and thus "legal" but than you would have to apply the same logic to your statement.

Does Cal Ripken break the consecutive games played record without greenies? I have no idea if he used them or not, but if he did and it helped him break the record.....IMO it shouldn't stand.

Voodoo - there may have been a difference in innings played for several games a season but the playing conditions were tougher (train vs. plane, several scheduled doubleheaders each season, all day games (in the warm summer sun), weak conditioning programs / medicine / injury treatment vs. today's pampered and greatly assisted (trainers and other club staff) athlete). Both streaks are awesome IMO.

Jurr
03-16-2006, 12:22 PM
Ben Johnson's 100m time is a historical event, too. He didn't get an asterisk, he got disqualified.

This business of whether you can disqualify ill-gotten home runs from the record book is nutty, as is the argument that you would have to reverse the outcomes of the games involved. A perfect analogy exists in track and field, where times set in some events cannot be used for record-setting if the wind velocity is above a certain threshold. You still win the event and they don't take your medal away just because your times were wind-assisted. Likewise, steroid-assisted home runs should not be counted toward records. Why people continue to insist they would also have to change the outcome of the games escapes me. :dunno:
The problem with that is you have to start asking...."okay...exactly at what point did the steroid use start?" Did it cease at any point, which would make it a steroid unassisted homerun". It is one of those stupid legal loopholes that would usher in a lot of confusion and lunacy. Do we erase all of his homers?

In all honesty, how would you actually go about removing the records of guys that are caught offenders of the steroid policy?

Ol' No. 2
03-16-2006, 12:30 PM
The problem with that is you have to start asking...."okay...exactly at what point did the steroid use start?" Did it cease at any point, which would make it a steroid unassisted homerun". It is one of those stupid legal loopholes that would usher in a lot of confusion and lunacy. Do we erase all of his homers?

In all honesty, how would you actually go about removing the records of guys that are caught offenders of the steroid policy?The way to do it right is with a full, independant investigation. Otherwise, you wind up with obvious users who've temporarily covered their tracks (*cough*Scammy*cough*) being the beneficiaries. Go back 15 years (I know, it's arbitrary, but so is the statute of limitations). There aren't really that many records that have been set in that amount of time that would be in question. Other than home runs, I don't know what they would be. But any performance that was under the influence of PED would not count toward the record. In Barry Bonds' case, all HR hit from 1999 on would not count toward any record. McGwire and Sosa get the same treatment. Game results would stand.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2006, 12:33 PM
You may be right but greenies assisted as well (and astro turf hurts many players physically). Flight is correct stating they weren't banned at the time and thus "legal" but than you would have to apply the same logic to your statement.

Greenies helped Pete Rose? I'm guessing he may have been up all night with his bookie, and he certainly wasn't pounding back Red Bull while he did it. Whether greenies gave him more time to partake of these late-night activities hardly matters as much as all the other advantages he had over Cobb.

I see you misapply the word "logic" in similar fashion to "facts" like earlier. Everyone was free to use turf fields. And better medical science. And jet airplanes. Figures the difference would still escape you.

:cool:

Flight #24
03-16-2006, 12:34 PM
The way to do it right is with a full, independant investigation. Otherwise, you wind up with obvious users who've temporarily covered their tracks (*cough*Scammy*cough*) being the beneficiaries. Go back 15 years (I know, it's arbitrary, but so is the statute of limitations). There aren't really that many records that have been set in that amount of time that would be in question. Other than home runs, I don't know what they would be. But any performance that was under the influence of PED would not count toward the record. In Barry Bonds' case, all HR hit from 1999 on would not count toward any record. McGwire and Sosa get the same treatment. Game results would stand.

I like it. All records set during this period by players using PEDs are expunged. PEDs = any drug banned by MLB and/or illegal at the point in time when the stats were generated.

Jurr
03-16-2006, 12:40 PM
I wish one of our doctors on this site would weigh in on this. Long term amphetamine use is a disaster for the human body. In no way do they make your muscles bulge, your skull expand, and reactions hair trigger. Why some here want to keep playing the "greenies" card is beyond me. Just for the record, I'm not trying to single out and bash SSHM. Although I don't agree with his stance here, I don't believe he's trying to say using greenies is comparable to ingesting powerful steroids.
Well, I'll be a doctor in a month and a half! I hope that counts! :bandance: The reason players use greenies is to hype yourself up to focus, just like a ritalin pill would for ADD. It increases your awareness and keeps your mind one-tracked on one thing...that little white ball.
The one thing I've never understood about greenie use is the 0-2 count. Yes, you get a better focus with the amphetamine, but you're also a little jumpier, as well. To lay off an 0-2 splitter would seem like a situation where you need to be super calm.

Hanging around the health care field/taking pathology/pharmacology/etc. has skewed my idea of these performance enhancers. I see it as a scientific means for a well-paid athlete to get an edge. It's a drug that works in the body to do a purpose. It actually could do a pretty good job with minimal side effects if the players didn't get so crazy with them. But, that's human nature...push the envelope.

So, now we've got a screwed system. Testers are going to be behind the producers for as long as there's a demand for the product. Players are under millions of dollars of pressure to be at optimal strength. Where does it end?

I have deep concern for the children that could be affected by the temptation to use these drugs for an advantage. For the athletes, I definitely understand why they do what they do....it's for big dollars. They figure they can take 'roids for a while and then cash in and get out. This is not a victimless crime, because now kids know what Winstrol, Andro, and "greenies" are. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe children will have such a distaste for Bonds and McGwire that they avoid doing what those clowns did.

How does this get fixed in baseball? Rationally, you can't delete Bonds' homers, because he'd have a legal case saying that you can't determine where the use started, when it stopped, etc. When the next big ballplayers are testing clean with an obvious upswing in muscle mass, what then? Do we say it was a new dedication to working out/eating right? Weight gainer plus protein shakes every night? Or, do we as a public just de-emphasize the importance of the home run in baseball?

It's very frustrating and confusing, and I really don't know how it can be resolved. Any suggestions?

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2006, 12:40 PM
The way to do it right is with a full, independant investigation. Otherwise, you wind up with obvious users who've temporarily covered their tracks (*cough*Scammy*cough*) being the beneficiaries. Go back 15 years (I know, it's arbitrary, but so is the statute of limitations). There aren't really that many records that have been set in that amount of time that would be in question. Other than home runs, I don't know what they would be. But any performance that was under the influence of PED would not count toward the record. In Barry Bonds' case, all HR hit from 1999 on would not count toward any record. McGwire and Sosa get the same treatment. Game results would stand.
If MLB is serious about dealing with this steroids scandal, the outcome will be something very similar to what you've described. I believe MLB (and MLBPA) will arrive at this point, but only after kicking and screaming the whole way. It's up to baseball fans, sports mediots, and Congress to drag them there.

I'm pretty sure we'll get zero help in this process from the deep thinkers over at Cubune sports. They seem intent about putting their head in the sand over their own culpability these past years concerning the Cubune's self-proclaimed Gladiator.

:nandrolone
"They still have my back!"

Jurr
03-16-2006, 12:41 PM
The way to do it right is with a full, independant investigation. Otherwise, you wind up with obvious users who've temporarily covered their tracks (*cough*Scammy*cough*) being the beneficiaries. Go back 15 years (I know, it's arbitrary, but so is the statute of limitations). There aren't really that many records that have been set in that amount of time that would be in question. Other than home runs, I don't know what they would be. But any performance that was under the influence of PED would not count toward the record. In Barry Bonds' case, all HR hit from 1999 on would not count toward any record. McGwire and Sosa get the same treatment. Game results would stand.
What about Clemens? If they catch him..then what?

SouthSide_HitMen
03-16-2006, 12:45 PM
Greenies helped Pete Rose? I'm guessing he may have been up all night with his bookie, and he certainly wasn't pounding back Red Bull while he did it. Whether greenies gave him more time to partake of these late-night activities hardly matters as much as all the other advantages he had over Cobb.

I see you misapply the word "logic" in similar fashion to "facts" like earlier. Everyone was free to use turf fields. And better medical science. And jet airplanes. Figures the difference would still escape you.

:cool:

There you go misapplying my comments toward one subject (to voodoo regarding Ripken) vs. what I was saying about Flight.

Then again it is easier to come up with false arguments than to defend the pathetic illegal drug pushing world MLB funded and covered up for four decades.

The same testing and penalties applied to Olympic athletes should be applied to MLB players even for posters who think it too harsh.

If MLB had responsible management this entire mess would have been nipped in the "bud" and players would have been dealt with in the 1990s when this should have been cleaned up in the first place, not ten years later with half ass measures and people defending the status quo.

Dadawg_77
03-16-2006, 12:46 PM
Of course the treatment Ripken used was all LEGAL, and available to anyone seeking help from a licensed clinical physician. That's the difference between his accomplishments and the ones discussed elsewhere in this thread.


Actually how do you know Ripken didn't use steroids or other PEDs to keep him out there? A majority of caught users haven't been your big times sluggers. If he did, wouldn't Ripken have a great motive to lie and say he didn't?

Ol' No. 2
03-16-2006, 12:48 PM
What about Clemens? If they catch him..then what?Same treatment. No favorites. Any records he set during a period when he was using PED's are null and void.

If there is ever a full investigation, be prepared for lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth. It's almost certain that someone is going to get found out that a lot of people are going to wish hadn't. But it's the only way to clear out the stench. Nothing cleanses like the truth.

Dadawg_77
03-16-2006, 12:54 PM
We're starting to get closer to my point. I don't think that baseball should allow the steroid thing to go on. I think we're all in agreement on that one. Erasing records? A little tougher. Spitballs, doctoring baseballs, etc. All of this stuff helped players gain a competitive advantage until they were outlawed. Then, you couldn't do it anymore. Period. Don't make the steroid thing be a part of the record books. Make it a case to be brought up in the jury of public opinion. If Bonds gets the homerun record while every baseball fan turns their nose up to it, let it be.

I do think that upcoming advancements in diet/nutrition/supplementation are going to keep making these power records obsolete anyway. The parks are smaller, the body is getting bigger, and people are getting smarter about muscle growth.

Plus gentic engineering is around corner. That could make steroids look like your power bar.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-16-2006, 12:59 PM
Plus gentic engineering is around corner. That could make steroids look like your power bar.

I see our Rationalizer-in-Chief has arrived. I'm guessing this thread has a good chance of landing in the ****house before it's all over. Fortunately not one of these silly opinions regarding steroids, substance abuse, and the law is based in any sort of reality amongst the people who will actually decide these matters.

That's it. I'm out.

Dadawg_77
03-16-2006, 01:02 PM
Yes, I believe I understand. You're talking about the difference between sportsmanship and the law.

If we're talking about the LAW, intent is more than enough to convict you. If Barry was caught with a truckload of crack, his intent is to distribute and they send him to jail and throw away the key.

In the case of steroids, we're talking about SPORTSMANSHIP. Barry using steroids forces everyone to use steroids just to keep up with Barry. Barry using greenies only makes Barry wide awake; the effect on his performance is negligible. Barry using greenies makes him a substance abuser, but his greenie use is no threat to the SPORT of baseball -- even if the intent was precisely this.

Let's see what WSI's deep thinkers say about this one. Guaranteed somebody will rise to the bait.
:cool:

I think you meant gamesmanship instead of sportsmanship. If you meant sportsmanship, you definition of the world is inaccurate.

I agree with this definition from Wikipedia and don't see how your statement above fits in with it.
Sportsmanship expresses an aspiration or ethos that the activity will be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for fairness and ethics and respect and fellowship for one's competitors.

If a player takes anything with the intent to recieve a unfair benefit, it is a unsportsmanship action.

voodoochile
03-16-2006, 01:12 PM
Plus gentic engineering is around corner. That could make steroids look like your power bar.

How about we worry about that when the time comes. Trust me there are going to be much bigger issues regarding genetic enhancement technology than who can hit a baseball farther.

And by "right around the corner" I assume you mean, possibly by the time you die...

Dadawg_77
03-16-2006, 01:29 PM
How about we worry about that when the time comes. Trust me there are going to be much bigger issues regarding genetic enhancement technology than who can hit a baseball farther.

And by "right around the corner" I assume you mean, possibly by the time you die...

No, within a decade, then again I could die by then.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/diet.fitness/02/20/engineered.athletes/

The WADA has already banned it, now they just need test for it. Also some places are already using genetic screening for recruitment of athletes to national programs. I believe Australia is one.

Kroozah
03-16-2006, 01:38 PM
Three things that can be used against Barry are...

1. purgery
2. steroids
3. tax evasion

I see the third being the one that sticks, after all, Al Capone... thats what stuck to him of all things considered.

The Racehorse
03-16-2006, 06:25 PM
Three things that can be used against Barry are...

1. purgery
2. steroids
3. tax evasion

I see the third being the one that sticks, after all, Al Capone... thats what stuck to him of all things considered.

:capone
"abso-****ing-lutely"

Trav
03-16-2006, 09:05 PM
I don't want to read the last six pages to see if the topic of an independent investigation vs. an MLB-led investigation came up. What are the chances that MLB risks implicating someone high up in the MLB management (Bud Selig?) and lets an independent party investigate? I am hoping that Selig was told about rampant 'roids and turned a blind eye. Or better, approved of it on behalf of getting the fans back from the strike. I would love to see a bunch of owners go down with the 'roid freaks.

beckett21
03-16-2006, 10:45 PM
I wish one of our doctors on this site would weigh in on this. Long term amphetamine use is a disaster for the human body. In no way do they make your muscles bulge, your skull expand, and reactions hair trigger. Why some here want to keep playing the "greenies" card is beyond me. Just for the record, I'm not trying to single out and bash SSHM. Although I don't agree with his stance here, I don't believe he's trying to say using greenies is comparable to ingesting powerful steroids.

Sorry Paul, I've been intentionally avoiding this whole mess. :cool:

In regards to long-term amphetamine use, they are highly addictive and can lead to drug dependency. Side effects of chronic use can include insomnia, irritability, hyperactivity, personality changes, and in the most severe cases psychosis. (Source: Physicians Desk Reference).

Good stuff. :redneck

As far as comparing them to HGH and other performance-enhancing steroids, however, there is no comparison in terms of their effect on performance.

I'll just leave it at that. Carry on everyone. Nothing to see here... :D:

PennStater98r
03-16-2006, 11:58 PM
Plus gentic engineering is around corner. That could make steroids look like your power bar.

"Space - the final frontier..."

"-- Engage."

"Khan - you bloodsucker!"

Take your pick ladies and gentlemen.

Jurr
03-17-2006, 08:21 AM
"Space - the final frontier..."

"-- Engage."

"Khan - you bloodsucker!"

Take your pick ladies and gentlemen.
Yeah...that did it.

SoLongFrank
03-17-2006, 02:29 PM
Greenies definitely impacted longevity records. So did cortizone shots & we can even extend the argument to modern day surgery techniques if we wanted to. But statisticians have been aware of this & that's why they focus on the best years of a player's career for determining where they rank.

We're kind of beating a dead horse now because they've been added to CBA now as well.

Selig is stuck between a rock & a hard place. Both books clearly implicate that both Giants management & ownership knew what was going on. They likewise infer higher up's in MLB knew. As I said before this is much bigger than Barry Bonds.

So what's to come of all this? The government has MLB where they want it. They don't care as much about Bonds as they do about using MLB as their poster boy for a drug free America. They will use Bonds as a rook to make MLB cede to their demands. That not only includes drug testing (I fully accept MLB to be adopting IOCC standards soon) but also in bilking tax payer's for money for new stadiums.

The Steriod scandal is much bigger than the Black Sox one. At it's heart is the simple question of whether the union & the ownership knowingly created an environment for roids to become an integral part of the game. If it can be proven that 19 Giants on '99's 25 man roster where roiders they will have a lot of explaining to do. Deals between the Fed & MLB are probably in the works.

kevin57
03-17-2006, 04:17 PM
The Steriod scandal is much bigger than the Black Sox one.

I'm not sure it's much bigger than the Black Sox scandal. Granted, more players than the eight on the Sox squad have "roided up" and a few stats and records are tainted, but on the Black Sox you had much of a starting line-up involved in a conspiracy to throw the Holy Grail of all sports for personal gain.

I would probably say the two crises are of equal gravity. The 'roids scandal may be bigger if baseball does not come to a "Landis Moment" and take decisive action...sooner rather than later.

Ol' No. 2
03-17-2006, 04:26 PM
I'm not sure it's much bigger than the Black Sox scandal. Granted, more players than the eight on the Sox squad have "roided up" and a few stats and records are tainted, but on the Black Sox you had much of a starting line-up involved in a conspiracy to throw the Holy Grail of all sports for personal gain.

I would probably say the two crises are of equal gravity. The 'roids scandal may be bigger if baseball does not come to a "Landis Moment" and take decisive action...sooner rather than later.No need to worry. Commissioner Bud is on the job. He's considering whether to launch an investigation, but hasn't decided yet.
"It's just something I'd rather not discuss right now," Selig said before the World Baseball Classic game between Mexico and the United States in Anaheim, Calif. "I'll make the decision based on all the factors that are involved and go from there, and do what I think is in the best interest of everybody involved."Gee, I wonder what THAT will be.:rolleyes:

Trav
03-17-2006, 05:05 PM
I'm not sure it's much bigger than the Black Sox scandal. Granted, more players than the eight on the Sox squad have "roided up" and a few stats and records are tainted, but on the Black Sox you had much of a starting line-up involved in a conspiracy to throw the Holy Grail of all sports for personal gain.

I would probably say the two crises are of equal gravity. The 'roids scandal may be bigger if baseball does not come to a "Landis Moment" and take decisive action...sooner rather than later.

The Black Sox were an example to the rest of the league. If they would have banished every player who influenced a game because of a bet then they would have had their hands full from all accounts I have read.

It wouldn't suprise me if Selig has the MLB head up whatever investigation he has to and they only come up with a few scapegoats. Now, if there is an independent investigation...

Norberto7
03-17-2006, 05:07 PM
I see the third being the one that sticks, after all, Al Capone... thats what stuck to him of all things considered.

That, and syphilis...

TomBradley72
03-18-2006, 09:20 AM
So when does the McGwire/Larussa/Cardinals franchise investigation start?

ondafarm
03-20-2006, 09:45 AM
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=032006A

Ol' No. 2
03-20-2006, 09:59 AM
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=032006AI am continually astounded by the number of people who can't see the difference between taking steroids and scuffing baseballs, surgical procedures or better nutrition.

kevin57
03-20-2006, 10:01 AM
I am continually astounded by the number of people who can't see the difference between taking steroids and scuffing baseballs, surgical procedures or better nutrition.

:thumbsup:

PaleHoseGeorge
03-20-2006, 10:29 AM
I am continually astounded by the number of people who can't see the difference between taking steroids and scuffing baseballs, surgical procedures or better nutrition.

If I'm this guy's editor, he's on the street looking for a job this afternoon. He embarrasses his publication for writing such nonsense. The guy needs another vocation. Pumping gas comes to mind. What a dope. What a complete dope...

:o:

Steroids are illegal because of risk to the body. They are especially effective -- AND DANGEROUS! -- when used in an unlicensed manner, just like Barry.

Steroids of this kind became illegal 15 years ago. They weren't illegal before this because they DIDN'T EXIST. What point is this dope trying to conclude??
:o: :o:

All the other medicinals, medical procedures, and equipment improvements this dope tries to liken to steroids are LEGAL because they don't threaten health. Whether MLB chooses to incorporate them into the sport is an open question. For example, aluminum bats are "safe" but aren't allowed. Would this dope advocate aluminum bats for the "openness" their inclusion would provide???
:o: :o: :o:

Fire this idiot. Trust me, you would be doing him a favor.

ondafarm
03-20-2006, 11:23 AM
I am continually astounded by the number of people who can't see the difference between taking steroids and scuffing baseballs, surgical procedures or better nutrition.

I'm hoping that nobody thinks this is my opinion. I just wanted to post the article to show the variety of views.

My opinion: Barry Bonds has amply demonstrated himself to be as bad for baseball as the Black Sox. Far from the only offender but a significant one. I don't think there is much that can be done about the retired McGwire, or the probably retired Sosa and Palmeiro, apart from banning them from the HOF. Barry probably was HOF worthy before he began taking steroids, as was Joe Jackson. But if a career and HOF ending ban fit JJ then it should fit Barry just about right. I may not have agreed with Commisioner Landis, but the man had the power of his convictions. Selig should investigate, briefly, and then ban Bonds, for life. He should also call Sosa in the DR and mention that if he tries coming back he'll receive the same. Giambi should be investigated thoroughly and given the choice, retire immediately or accept a ban. Then tough new testing procedures need to be announced.

Does Selig have the balls to do this? (Apologies if the bluntness of my speech offends.) I doubt Selig does.

SoLongFrank
03-20-2006, 01:56 PM
There are things that are not clear in the Bonds case as far as legality goes. Wasn't Anderson a licensed medical professional in the state of CA at the time? Did he maintain records suggesting that Barry was entitled for medical reasons? Bonds clearly wasn't acting alone.

SoLongFrank
03-20-2006, 02:04 PM
I'm hoping that nobody thinks this is my opinion. I just wanted to post the article to show the variety of views.

My opinion: Barry Bonds has amply demonstrated himself to be as bad for baseball as the Black Sox. Far from the only offender but a significant one. I don't think there is much that can be done about the retired McGwire, or the probably retired Sosa and Palmeiro, apart from banning them from the HOF. Barry probably was HOF worthy before he began taking steroids, as was Joe Jackson. But if a career and HOF ending ban fit JJ then it should fit Barry just about right. I may not have agreed with Commisioner Landis, but the man had the power of his convictions. Selig should investigate, briefly, and then ban Bonds, for life. He should also call Sosa in the DR and mention that if he tries coming back he'll receive the same. Giambi should be investigated thoroughly and given the choice, retire immediately or accept a ban. Then tough new testing procedures need to be announced.

Does Selig have the balls to do this? (Apologies if the bluntness of my speech offends.) I doubt Selig does.

Selig knows very well that any investigation into Bonds is going to lead to an investigation into MLB as a whole. This is not the Black Sox where it can be isolated to a bunch of players on a single team. Selig himself might be implicated when you consider the sluggers that passed thru the Brewers organization in that time.

Roiders affected every part of the game from salaries to trade value. The Bonds story is just making this more obvious to the public. As far as the fans go who knows? Attendance is up, revenues are up, & if TV ratings are solid MLB will have their evidence that the people that support their game don't as much about this issue as media writers think they do.

What it takes is some organization that acts independantly of MLB, carries solid weight, & doesn't have to conduct an in-depth investigation. In fact they don't have to say anything. It's what they don't say that will speak volumes. If Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, & Palmeiro are never voted into the HOF their records will become meaningless. People will just ignore them. An asterisk won't be needed.

SoLongFrank
03-20-2006, 02:16 PM
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=032006A

I think some of you might have read this wrong. He's not condoning steroids. His last paragraph clearly states that. What he's attempted to do in his column is to clearly define why the public should loathe & fear steroid usage. In order to do that he has to draw a comparison to other controversial treatments in MLB & certainly the Schilling procedure ranks at the top.

I agree he should have been more straightforward & I am kind of surprised that a lawyer can't make a better argument. I don't think he understands the importance of charts & tables. But if you take the time to look beyond the obvious flaws in his structure he's not defending roiders. In fact he's doing the oppposite. Taking away every argument for their defense.

Nellie_Fox
03-20-2006, 02:17 PM
There are things that are not clear in the Bonds case as far as legality goes. Wasn't Anderson a licensed medical professional in the state of CA at the time? Did he maintain records suggesting that Barry was entitled for medical reasons? Bonds clearly wasn't acting alone.What in the world is a "licensed medical professional" in this context? He (Anderson) is clearly not a physician, and only physicians can prescribe. Without a prescription, it matters not one whit if your licensed dietician or physical therapist thinks you ought to be taking them.

PaulDrake
03-20-2006, 04:02 PM
I am continually astounded by the number of people who can't see the difference between taking steroids and scuffing baseballs, surgical procedures or better nutrition. I am continually astounded by some of the responses in all of the steroid related threads.

Ol' No. 2
03-20-2006, 04:09 PM
Selig knows very well that any investigation into Bonds is going to lead to an investigation into MLB as a whole. This is not the Black Sox where it can be isolated to a bunch of players on a single team. Selig himself might be implicated when you consider the sluggers that passed thru the Brewers organization in that time.

Roiders affected every part of the game from salaries to trade value. The Bonds story is just making this more obvious to the public. As far as the fans go who knows? Attendance is up, revenues are up, & if TV ratings are solid MLB will have their evidence that the people that support their game don't as much about this issue as media writers think they do.

What it takes is some organization that acts independantly of MLB, carries solid weight, & doesn't have to conduct an in-depth investigation. In fact they don't have to say anything. It's what they don't say that will speak volumes. If Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, & Palmeiro are never voted into the HOF their records will become meaningless. People will just ignore them. An asterisk won't be needed.A full-blown investigation would be ugly. Very ugly. What it would uncover is that the owners knew and at minimum, looked the other way, and in many cases were actively involved. THAT is why they're trying as hard as they can to keep this fire from getting out of hand.

SoLongFrank
03-20-2006, 05:28 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/g/a/2004/10/29/BALCODOCS29.pdf
This defines Anderson as a certified professional trainer & that Balco was in the business of doing blood testing to determine what vitamins & supplements a person was lacking.

Anderson named Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Benito Santiago, AJ Pierzynski, Bobby Estelella, Marvin Bernard, Armando Rios, & Jason Giambi.

Anderson purchased the cream & the clear from Balco paying in cash. Valente told Anderson that the creme was a combination testosterone & epitestosterone and that this is why it was safe for athletes being tested to use. The CEO Conte was Bonds nutritional adviser.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/16/MNG7PDP6HA1.DTL&type=printable
The CEO, vice-president, & Anderson pleaded guilty to 2 felony charges that will leave them with brief terms or no jail time at all. Of the 42 original charges 40 were dropped in the plea bargain.

If none of these guys were licensed medical professionals how did they get the stuff? Overseas, man in Texas, doctor in Texas, & Proviant Tech Inc in
Champaign, IL http://www.ergogenics.org/144.html

This case underscores the difficulty in regulating drugs that are essentially illegal but have medical purpose exceptions. Did Balco forge it's credentials to the athletes? Did it produce phony certifications? Were the sports agents in on it? Did they setup the contacts?

What is not clear in any of that evidence is that the athletes knew the stuff had been obtained illegally. Is it uncommon for a company like Balco to handle the paperwork & filing of prescriptions for their athletes? Probably not. All any athlete has to say is that he had no reason to believe that whatever Balco gave them was legal & safe.

I think we need to separate what's considered fact from heresay. The facts are the disclosed & undisclosed records in the case. The heresay is the day to day accounts of Bonds usage supplied primarily from the spurned ex-girl friend. She's not credible enough of a witness to base a case that Bonds knowingly purchased & used illegally obtained roids.

It's not enough to simply state you know Bonds is guilty. You have to prove it & to do that credible people have to come forward to substantiate it. I don't see that happening here because those that know will implicate themselves in the process. Immunity won't help to get that because no one wants to be associated with this.

Do I think Bonds is guilty? Yes. I don't think we will see another player gain that much weight in that short of time that late in his career for a very long time. Common sense tells you he is guilty. But I don't believe there exists enough evidence to build a case against him.

Trav
03-20-2006, 05:34 PM
Didn't Anderson buy the HGH stuff from people with AIDS? It helps build their blood cells back to normal or something. From what the excerpt of the book said, Anderson was nothing but a drug dealer. A very knowledgable drug dealer.

Ol' No. 2
03-20-2006, 05:42 PM
Didn't Anderson buy the HGH stuff from people with AIDS? It helps build their blood cells back to normal or something. From what the excerpt of the book said, Anderson was nothing but a drug dealer. A very knowledgable drug dealer.That's where he bought the steroids before he got hooked up with BALCO.

SoLongFrank
03-20-2006, 06:34 PM
A full-blown investigation would be ugly. Very ugly. What it would uncover is that the owners knew and at minimum, looked the other way, and in many cases were actively involved. THAT is why they're trying as hard as they can to keep this fire from getting out of hand.

Absolutely! http://baseball-almanac.com/charts/weights/weights.shtml
In the early 90's the avg all-star weighed in the 180-190 range. Ten years later it shifted to 200-210. The avg MLB salary rose from about 580,000 to 2 mil in that same time.

Ryne Sandberg led the NL in HR (40) in 1990 & earned 1.6 mil. Sammy Sosa led the NL in HR (50) in 2000 & earned 11 mil. Just stop & think about that. You are the guy controlling the purse strings at the Tribune & Sammy's agent is asking you for a small fortune. Do you honestly believe the Tribune didn't know what was going on?

Sammy Sosa HR/salary:
1992 8/180K, 1993 33/745K, 1994 25/3 mil, 1995 36/4.3 mil, 1996 40/4.8 mil, 1997 36/5.5 mil, 1998 66/8.3 mil, 1999 63/9 mil, 2000 50/11 mil, 2001 64/12.5 mil, 2002 49/15 mil, 2003 40/17 mil, 2004 35/17 mil, 2005 14/18 mil.

I guess were supposed to believe that the World's Greatest Newspaper is in the dark on this issue & was completely clueless when it signed Sammy to those roid-driven contracts.

SoLongFrank
03-27-2006, 01:20 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/27/SPGEMHUHIB1.DTL
Still being doped. "He was put on anti-inflammatory medication."

http://www.nypost.com/sports/63693.htm MLB hello? You still have a problem!
Gary Wadler (World Anti-Doping Agency):They're still woefully short."

Clomid, insulin, & HGH are not included in the new CBA negotiated policy.

Clomid (fertility drug) & insulin (anabolic effect) are not steroids & therefore legal. But they act to jump-start natural testosterone.

Perhaps the biggest travesty by MLB is the fact that during the offseason 95% of the players are not tested. The NFL does more 30 times more testing during it's offseason.
Manfred: "This is off-duty time for these players. They have precious little off-duty time."
As for in-season testing the contract states specifically that the first test will occur w/in 5 days of reporting to ST.

Lastly, MLB does conduct random testing for EPO. This is a blood doping drug popula in endurance sports. There are no consequences for usage at this time. MLB & the MLBPA will decide whether to ban the drug after analyzing the results.

Barry's legacy will probably end a top the record books but no one will care. No one will take his records seriously & any discussion of him will always be shadowed by his "cocktails". But MLB's woefully inadequate
stance on the issue leaves the door open for more frauds to ascend those ranks. Reading Manfred's quotes tells me there are still some big wigs who don't get it. :mad:

daveeym
03-27-2006, 02:00 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/27/SPGEMHUHIB1.DTL
Still being doped. "He was put on anti-inflammatory medication."
:?:

TaylorStSox
03-27-2006, 02:01 PM
Greenies don't help you hit dingers, but they help you hit? How did you reach this conclusion?
:o:

Yeah, I suppose if you only got 2 hours sleep last night drinking and chasing skirts, you'll hit more the following day after popping a greenie. That's because it's hard to hit WHEN YOU'RE ASLEEP. Of course coffee keeps you awake, too, especially if you went to bed before 6 AM.

Is coffee just as bad as steroids, too????

:o: :o:

You're comparing speed to coffee? I think some of the old schooler's are in denial about amphetamine. They don't want to admit that their baseball heroes were cheating too. Not only that, most were drug addicts. Uppers do alot more than just helping one stay awake.