PDA

View Full Version : Illegal Drug Poll


voodoochile
03-15-2006, 09:17 PM
Which kind of drug hurts the integrity of the game more?

I wanted to make it a public poll, but decided I would rather get more answers and given the highly sensative nature of the discussion, I felt it best to let people vote annonymously.

Ol' No. 2
03-15-2006, 09:19 PM
This defines no-brainer.

voodoochile
03-15-2006, 09:21 PM
This defines no-brainer.

Well, I agree, but all of the dicussion has been centered around whether these drugs are the same from a criminal or CBA perspective.

I want to find out what the fans think, because in the end, it's the fans who matter... well at least in theory...:rolleyes:

batmanZoSo
03-15-2006, 09:21 PM
Yeah, too easy. How about which drug enhances the game more? :smokin: :o:

voodoochile
03-15-2006, 09:22 PM
Yeah, too easy. How about which drug enhances the game more? :smokin: :o:

That's easy...

:gulp:

Ol' No. 2
03-15-2006, 09:23 PM
Yeah, too easy. How about which drug enhances the game more? :smokin: :o:Churros. :thumbsup:

The Racehorse
03-15-2006, 11:25 PM
All drugs hurt the integrity of the game. Same goes for HGH or any other regulated substance taken by a player solely for enhancing performance on the field.

Stroker Ace
03-16-2006, 02:14 AM
I say that all performance enhancing drugs hurt the integrity of the sport. I don't even like athletes using protein shakes, but that's just me.

batmanZoSo
03-16-2006, 10:39 AM
I say that all performance enhancing drugs hurt the integrity of the sport. I don't even like athletes using protein shakes, but that's just me.

Amen, brother, it's protein powder or nothing. Right squires? :tongue:

gobears1987
03-16-2006, 11:52 PM
I can officially say that WSI has at least 3 confirmed morons as of this moment.

longshot7
03-17-2006, 07:07 PM
I wonder which one I voted for....

soxfanatlanta
03-18-2006, 10:54 PM
I find it strange that I get enraged when players test positive for "better performance through chemistry", and yet think of Gaylord Perry as a crafty dog. Without rehashing why for the google-plex(th) time anybody else find it odd as well?

Are there acceptable levels of cheating?

The Racehorse
03-19-2006, 09:06 AM
I find it strange that I get enraged when players test positive for "better performance through chemistry", and yet think of Gaylord Perry as a crafty dog. Without rehashing why for the google-plex(th) time anybody else find it odd as well?

Are there acceptable levels of cheating?



Yes, there are acceptables levels of cheating such as your example of a pitcher loading up the ball. Another acceptable level of cheating is a hitter using a corked bat. If players are caught cheating in that traditional sense, trying to get an edge, not a problem in my opinion. They're cheaters and deserve any ridicule and punishment coming their way.

Using illegal drugs is completely different because physical performance is artificially enhanced. Once that form of cheating is accepted, then the most important tradition baseball has, it's long statistical history, goes right out the window. Baseball must be able to compare statistical performance of its past players to statistics of todays players to maintain that tradition. Once that cannot be done, it's WWF time.

soxfanatlanta
03-19-2006, 11:33 AM
Using illegal drugs is completely different because physical performance is artificially enhanced.

I agree with my heart, but isn't scuffing/greasing/corking altering the physical performance of the ball or bat? My mind keeps screaming that I am being a hypocrate here, and I should not accept anything that "artificially" creates an unfair advantage. And yet I do.

Perhaps it's because it's been around for much longer than roids has. I don't know, I need to see a shrink :smile:

voodoochile
03-19-2006, 01:06 PM
I agree with my heart, but isn't scuffing/greasing/corking altering the physical performance of the ball or bat? My mind keeps screaming that I am being a hypocrate here, and I should not accept anything that "artificially" creates an unfair advantage. And yet I do.

Perhaps it's because it's been around for much longer than roids has. I don't know, I need to see a shrink :smile:

No way a player sets any records strictly by cheating in traditional senses. Maybe they get a few extra K's or a few extra hits/HR, but you cannot go an entire career these days and not get caught. The bats aren't built for it and the umps are too strict and of course EVERYTHING is filmed from 6 different angles (minimum - more if you include local news channels and papers).

Now steroids and other drugs are done in private. If properly done they can only be detected with testing or if someone "rats you out" (unlikely). Steroids at least completely change the game of baseball. This is self evident from the last 15 years of stats when HR records have fallen repeatedly and several players bulked themselves into potential career HR record setters and HOF caliber players.

I don't want any cheating in the game period, but I can at least roll my eyes when guys get caught with the vaseline coated wrist band or the occasional corked bat. If it weren't for the highly probably steroid usage and the other off the field problems, I wouldn't even be that upset about ShamME*'s use of a corked bat (the sum total and then the evidence that he actually does cheat is what makes him a jerk in my eyes).

Turning a blind eye to or acknowledging steroids with a wink and a shrug means I am forever willing to watch the game I love change - and not for the better. So, no, you aren't the only one who feels that way. The degrees of wrongness are obvious and on a scale of badness if corking a bat is 4 out of 10 then steroids are a 9 out of 10 (leaving one open for future possibilities of worse stuff becoming available), IMO.

The Racehorse
03-19-2006, 01:29 PM
I agree with my heart, but isn't scuffing/greasing/corking altering the physical performance of the ball or bat? My mind keeps screaming that I am being a hypocrite here, and I should not accept anything that "artificially" creates an unfair advantage. And yet I do.

Perhaps it's because it's been around for much longer than roids has. I don't know, I need to see a shrink :smile:

Well, in my opinion, altering the ball or the bat is cheating, but only if you get caught. I don't think your being a hypocrite by not accepting anything that creates an unfair advantage. You have high standards. :cool:

Do you remember Joe Niekro & Billy Hatcher back in 1987? Niekro was caught with an emory board on the mound while Hatcher got caught with a corked bat when it shattered. Those two incidents happened about a month apart. The sports media reaction came across [too me] as such that those incidents were war crimes. I remember seeing a quote from Don Mattingly around that time where he said basically "let pitchers load the ball and hitters cork the bat, and we'll go from there", or to that effect. I intrepeted Mattingly that players/baseball should police themselves on that type of cheating, which I agree.

I guess I could be considered a hypocrite by being hardline against drugs but not so against more time-honored forms of cheating like scuffing baseballs or corking bats. :wink:

I'll always think that if the sports media [baseball writers in particular] treated steroids [and all drugs] with the same degree of indignation that they did when Niekro & Hatcher got caught cheating, MLB wouldn't be in as big a mess today.

Ol' No. 2
03-19-2006, 02:00 PM
I agree with my heart, but isn't scuffing/greasing/corking altering the physical performance of the ball or bat? My mind keeps screaming that I am being a hypocrate here, and I should not accept anything that "artificially" creates an unfair advantage. And yet I do.

Perhaps it's because it's been around for much longer than roids has. I don't know, I need to see a shrink :smile:Of course all those things are technically "cheating". When it comes right down to it, pretending that you've caught the ball when you've actually trapped it is also dishonest, and technically cheating. But it's not all the same thing, and we know that on an instinctive level. Steroids are far worse than amphetamines or scuffing a ball or corking a bat. They should be treated differently and it's not the least bit hypocritical to recognize that.

ondafarm
03-19-2006, 02:01 PM
I agree with my heart, but isn't scuffing/greasing/corking altering the physical performance of the ball or bat? My mind keeps screaming that I am being a hypocrate here, and I should not accept anything that "artificially" creates an unfair advantage. And yet I do.

Perhaps it's because it's been around for much longer than roids has. I don't know, I need to see a shrink :smile:

Hold on here. Let's put a bit of perspective on this. Violating the rules in relatively small ways, corking a bat, throwing a Vaseline ball, etc. alters the balance only a slight amount. I caught one pitcher who was throwing spit balls. I taught him to switch to sweat balls or face being caught. Neither are foreign substances and both have MLB pitchers known for it. He moved up to the next level but never made the majors. I know he was traded and I think he played in Taiwan for awhile. Now, do I feel guilty about helping him?

Well, no. He had already chosen to bend the rules and I just gave him a more effective way to do it. The decision was his to make and it barely made him more effective. The new sweat ball gave him a slightly more effective change-up (he threw sidearm.) Having caught him, I'd say it took 2-3 mph off his change-up. I also taught him to improve his curve and got it to move from a 12-6 bender to more of a 2-8 bender. This is what bumped him up to AAA and probably allowed him to keep playing.

Was he able to strike anybody "extra" out because of the sweat ball? Sure. And had he been throwing a perfect game could he have gotten that last out with it? Maybe. But if you are throwing a perfect game, it's not because of the small amount of additional tricks that professional baseball rules and enforcement allow, it's because of you. All ball players need to believe they have an edge, its part of the confidence thing, for some guys, that little extra bump from a sweat ball or a corked bat in their bag is what they need. Hank Aaron supposedly kept a special (extra-dense) bat in his bag. I doubt he never accidently brought that to the plate in a game, and yet, he is clearly the home run king in my mind.

voodoochile
03-19-2006, 03:24 PM
I unstuck this poll because it seems to be petering out and because I believe the it has served it's purpose and a general concensus has been arrived.

With 95% of the posters feeling steroids hurt the integrity of the game and over 50% saying they are the worst of the lot, I don't see how it can be much of a question that MLB needs to go after them hard.

Tougher testing, strong punishments and stripping people of records seem to be the way to go. I hold out no hope that Bud "the gutless tool" Selig will actually get it done, but it is clear what hardcore fans want...

SoLongFrank
03-20-2006, 08:15 PM
Definitely roids. Had roids not existed there is no way a player like Sosa can rise to an $18 mil/yr salary. Greenies does not have that impact on salaries.

Not only did roids cheat the fans from a play of game perspective but they inflated prices as well. In the end we paid for the roiders abuse. I don't believe we paid anything close to the same amount for greeners abuse.