PDA

View Full Version : Who in your mind has the record if Pujols Hits 65?


Tekijawa
05-11-2006, 04:43 PM
So who would it be... Or how many Asterisk should be in the history books?

Sorry I meant for this to be a poll:

Bonds, 72 is the most ever hit in a season
Big Mac, 70 Hr is the most ever by someone who has never used "steroids"
Sammy, 66 Hr is the most ever hit by someone who has never been "prooven to have used any performace enhancing drugs"
Albert, 65 appears that his is just hard work and natural talent
Maris, 61 I really can't See an argument for him in this situation
Babe, 60 He did it in a shorter season

Ol' No. 2
05-11-2006, 04:47 PM
So who would it be... Or how many Asteriks should be in the history books?Do you really have to ask?

gbergman
05-11-2006, 04:47 PM
65 gives no one a record 74 does 73 gives him a share

Ol' No. 2
05-11-2006, 04:50 PM
65 gives no one a record 74 does 73 gives him a shareThe LEGITIMATE record stands at 61.

Baby Fisk
05-11-2006, 04:52 PM
The record has been rendered meaningless...

...until Thome hits #74.

viagracat
05-11-2006, 05:12 PM
If the Sox win the WS and Pujols hits #74 off Carlos Zambrano it will truly be the perfect season.:smile:

Mickster
05-11-2006, 05:16 PM
Big Mac, 70 Hr is the most ever by someone who has never used "steroids"

Not really sure what that means. :?:

ode to veeck
05-11-2006, 05:19 PM
Not really sure what that means. :?:

yeah, what he said, how can anyone believe a guy who basically refused to answer questions?!:?:

ewokpelts
05-11-2006, 05:36 PM
If albert hits 62 or more homers....he's the home run champ to me

but, i'll place an asterik to him if he hits any off sox pitchers.

longshot7
05-11-2006, 06:04 PM
The LEGITIMATE record stands at 61.

Whatever. *eye roll*

Anyone who knows anything knows that since there is no 1 true record book for major league baseball, there never was an asterisk for Maris' name the way the commissioner at the time wanted there to be, so therefore there can't be one for anyone after him, regardless of what they didn't or didn't do drug-wise.

WSox8404
05-11-2006, 06:10 PM
The record for me is still 61. I don't care what any book says.

ewokpelts
05-11-2006, 07:09 PM
Whatever. *eye roll*

Anyone who knows anything knows that since there is no 1 true record book for major league baseball, there never was an asterisk for Maris' name the way the commissioner at the time wanted there to be, so therefore there can't be one for anyone after him, regardless of what they didn't or didn't do drug-wise.so you condone cheating?

ChiSoxRowand
05-12-2006, 12:20 AM
73 will be the record until someone breaks it.

getonbckthr
05-12-2006, 12:53 AM
Agree with a bunch of people here the record is 73 til its broken. Could that be the reason for the juiced balls, eliminate Barry's single season record?

GregoryEtc
05-12-2006, 01:09 AM
yeah, what he said, how can anyone believe a guy who basically refused to answer questions?!:?:

I still say that McGwire should have said, "No habla Englais" too. Hey, it worked for Shammy.

Which reminds me, I wonder how many kids McGwire has talked to about the dangers of steroids. Riiiiight... and OJ is still looking for the real killer.

davenicholson
05-12-2006, 08:33 AM
The question asks, "In your mind...", and in my mind, the record stands at 61. So if Pujols is clean and hits 62 or more, *in my mind* he will hold the record.

White Sox Randy
05-12-2006, 09:15 AM
The question asks, "In your mind...", and in my mind, the record stands at 61. So if Pujols is clean and hits 62 or more, *in my mind* he will hold the record.



EXACTLY !

daveeym
05-12-2006, 09:34 AM
So if Pujols is clean That's the big question in my mind.

Rooney4Prez56
05-12-2006, 12:02 PM
If the Sox win the WS and Pujols hits #74 off Carlos Zambrano it will truly be the perfect season.:smile:

If he hits 74 off Wood or Prior, it'd be better.

D. TODD
05-12-2006, 01:02 PM
65 gives no one a record 74 does 73 gives him a share I agree 73 and Bonds. In one season 73 home runs were hit period.

SoxFan76
05-12-2006, 08:03 PM
:rolleyes:

Bonds has the record. End of story.

balke
05-14-2006, 09:34 AM
Pujols needs to beat Bonds' record, otherwise he'll be talked about as coming out of the steroid era as well. I already hear cubs fans all the time bitch about him being on Roids... I don't see it with this guy. Mark Mc, Sosa, and Bonds were obvious roiders... Pujols' not so much. That's not saying he wasn't, but I don't blatantly see this guy as a steroid guy.

relyt
05-14-2006, 10:59 AM
I think this topic is rather dumb. People are so wrapped up in knocking Bonds down when there really hasnt been any proof. How can you discredit a guy so much based on heresay. Sure, the question is in everyones mind and its hard not to believe it, but you cant discredit everything the guy has done in his career...not yet, at least

Optipessimism
05-14-2006, 11:12 AM
Bonds will have the record until someone else breaks it.

Thank you Major League Baseball, thank you so much.

Daver
05-14-2006, 11:15 AM
I think this topic is rather dumb. People are so wrapped up in knocking Bonds down when there really hasnt been any proof. How can you discredit a guy so much based on heresay. Sure, the question is in everyones mind and its hard not to believe it, but you cant discredit everything the guy has done in his career...not yet, at least

I guess admitting he took steroids to the grand jury doesn't count huh?

relyt
05-14-2006, 11:17 AM
I guess admitting he took steroids to the grand jury doesn't count huh?

No, not really:rolleyes:

PaleHoseGeorge
05-14-2006, 11:20 AM
:rolleyes:

Bonds has the record. End of story.
Pfft... what a joke. Some big-headed, grandpa of a ballplayer hitting 73 when the contents of his pants are all old and shriveled up? **** that...

I vote for the young son-of-a-bitch in the prime of his career who will someday hit ONE HUNDRED HOME RUNS because he is just that much better than Barroids ever was, of course not counting the juice which you clearly don't care about anyway.

:kukoo:

Chips
05-14-2006, 11:40 AM
I agree 73 and Bonds. In one season 73 home runs were hit period.

As much as I don't like him, Bonds has the record. Steroids were not illegal in baseball when he broke the record. If Pujols is going to get the record he needs to hit 74.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-14-2006, 11:51 AM
As much as I don't like him, Bonds has the record. Steroids were not illegal in baseball when he broke the record.

Steroids are illegal. People are convicted of felonies, pay fines and go to jail for using and distributing them. Period.

Have you ever noticed how the more clueless to the facts a poster is, the more they support Barroid's 73?

SoxFan76
05-14-2006, 12:07 PM
Steroids are illegal. People are convicted of felonies, pay fines and go to jail for using and distributing them. Period.

Have you ever noticed how the more clueless to the facts a poster is, the more they support Barroid's 73?

Barry Bonds holds the record for most home runs hit in a season.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Chips
05-14-2006, 12:17 PM
Steroids are illegal. People are convicted of felonies, pay fines and go to jail for using and distributing them. Period.

Have you ever noticed how the more clueless to the facts a poster is, the more they support Barroid's 73?

They are illegal in the United States, and those found guilty are subject whatever punishment they get.

Baseball did not have a steroid policy until after the 2002 season, Bonds hit his 73 home runs in 2001, when baseball had no policy against it.

You cannot take away a record from someone because he broke the law.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-14-2006, 12:21 PM
They are illegal in the United States, and those found guilty are subject whatever punishment they get.

Baseball did not have a steroid policy until after the 2002 season, Bonds hit his 73 home runs in 2001, when baseball had no policy against it.

You cannot take away a record from someone because he broke the law.
Okay, I couldn't have done a more magnificent job illustrating what bass ackwards reasoning the defenders of Barroid's 73 use. You're wrong for the most basic reason that clearly escapes you: the rules of baseball are subject to the laws of the United States, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

You think a sports governing authority can't police its own reputation? Why don't you ask Tanya Harding about that. Or for that matter, ask Joe Jackson. He was never convicted of anything.

:kukoo:

chaerulez
05-14-2006, 12:30 PM
I think this topic is rather dumb. People are so wrapped up in knocking Bonds down when there really hasnt been any proof. How can you discredit a guy so much based on heresay. Sure, the question is in everyones mind and its hard not to believe it, but you cant discredit everything the guy has done in his career...not yet, at least

Rather than calling topics dumb, I think you should perhaps educate yourself in matters before coming off like a fool when you post about things you aren't informed about.

Chips
05-14-2006, 12:45 PM
Okay, I couldn't have done a more magnificent job illustrating what bass ackwards reasoning the defenders of Barroid's 73 use. You're wrong for the most basic reason that clearly escapes you: the rules of baseball are subject to the laws of the United States, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

You think a sports governing authority can't police its own reputation? Why don't you ask Tanya Harding about that.

:kukoo:

First of all, Barry Bonds has been convicted of nothing.

Second of all, BREAKING THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOUR BASEBALL RECORDS CEASE TO EXIST.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-14-2006, 01:27 PM
First of all, Barry Bonds has been convicted of nothing.
Neither was Jackson. He got a lifetime ban. I don't remember baseball having a rule about lifetime bans for gambling until AFTER Jackson got his.

You care to continue on this course, or are you done?

Second of all, BREAKING THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOUR BASEBALL RECORDS CEASE TO EXIST.
Breaking the law of the United States is more than enough to get your ass kicked out of the league entirely... or even not breaking any rule at all. It's up to BASEBALL to decide, not Barroids! What does the term "best interests of baseball" mean to you?

You really don't have a clue do you?

Chips
05-14-2006, 02:52 PM
I am saying that Bonds name should stay in the record book on account that there was no testing done when he hit his 73 homers in 2001, and it cannot be proven that he was juiced up then, although I think it is pretty obvious. Bonds hit 73 jacks in one season, that it is the record.

If baseball were to start striking records from the book or putting asteriks next to names, there would be numerous problems in going back and figuring out every record that was attained by steroid use.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-14-2006, 02:58 PM
...
If baseball were to start striking records from the book or putting asteriks next to names, there would be numerous problems in going back and figuring out every record that was attained by steroid use.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Baseball can do whatever it damn well pleases with its OFFICIAL records.

Perhaps you've heard of the asterisks next to Roger Maris's home run record? He had the misfortune of hitting 61 homeruns in a 162 game schedule, not 156. Or what about Andy Hawkins not getting credit for a no-hitter because he pitched a complete game on the road where his team LOST -- he never got a chance to pitch the ninth!

Is it too much to ask you to THINK before you post this crap?

Erik The Red
05-14-2006, 04:08 PM
What a worthwhile argument to engage in.

The funniest/saddest thing is that you both make excellent points, but refuse to acknowledge the other. Yes, the record is what it is. Yes, MLB are hypocrites... why can't we all just get along?

TDog
05-14-2006, 04:57 PM
What a worthwhile argument to engage in.

The funniest/saddest thing is that you both make excellent points, but refuse to acknowledge the other. Yes, the record is what it is. Yes, MLB are hypocrites... why can't we all just get along?


I agree with not only the point but the spirit that this isn't something to get so excited about.

People who refuse to accept be Bonds will pass Ruth are on higher moral ground than those who refused to accept Hank Aaron's record ostensibly because Aaron had more at bats, because he didn't break in as an ace pitcher, or whatever, when the issue was obviously race. But the fact is, baseball counted Bonds' home runs. For whatever reason, he never tested positive for steroids. Sosa never tested positive for steroids and was never caught hitting a home run with a corked bat. McGwire's records still count. Hall of Famer Gaylord Perry admitted to throwing an illegal pitch, but his wins, his strikeouts still count.

Baseball, like life, isn't fair.

samram
05-14-2006, 05:30 PM
I agree with not only the point but the spirit that this isn't something to get so excited about.

People who refuse to accept be Bonds will pass Ruth are on higher moral ground than those who refused to accept Hank Aaron's record ostensibly because Aaron had more at bats, because he didn't break in as an ace pitcher, or whatever, when the issue was obviously race. But the fact is, baseball counted Bonds' home runs. For whatever reason, he never tested positive for steroids. Sosa never tested positive for steroids and was never caught hitting a home run with a corked bat. McGwire's records still count. Hall of Famer Gaylord Perry admitted to throwing an illegal pitch, but his wins, his strikeouts still count.

Baseball, like life, isn't fair.

The reason he didn't test positive for steroids is that MLB didn't have steroid testing. However, Barry relieved MLB of the responsibility of finding out whether he used by admitting it during grand jury testimony. Sure, he said it was unknowingly, but that's not MLB's problem. And sure, life isn't fair, but baseball doesn't have to let Barry's numbers be in the record books even though he's never tested positive. Sorry Barry, but life isn't fair.

As for who holds the record if Pujols get to 65, it's Pujols (assuming and hoping he's clean).

StockdaleForVeep
05-14-2006, 06:14 PM
If the Sox win the WS and Pujols hits #74 off Carlos Zambrano it will truly be the perfect season.:smile:

Why, so the cubs can say theyre another note in the history books? The best way to hate a team is not aknowledge them at all

StockdaleForVeep
05-14-2006, 06:16 PM
Pfft... what a joke. Some big-headed, grandpa of a ballplayer hitting 73 when the contents of his pants are all old and shriveled up? **** that...

I vote for the young son-of-a-bitch in the prime of his career who will someday hit ONE HUNDRED HOME RUNS because he is just that much better than Barroids ever was, of course not counting the juice which you clearly don't care about anyway.

:kukoo:

Untill his pee comes back with roids in it, i cannot state he was on steroids. He admitted to the cream and other things without his knowlegde, its all these books that say he knows.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-14-2006, 06:24 PM
Untill his pee comes back with roids in it, i cannot state he was on steroids. He admitted to the cream and other things without his knowlegde, its all these books that say he knows.
People with a lot less incriminating evidence than a sworn confession to a grand jury have been sent to jail and executed for murder.

You want pee in a cup? People in hell want ice water, too.

:rolleyes:

StockdaleForVeep
05-14-2006, 09:18 PM
People with a lot less incriminating evidence than a sworn confession to a grand jury have been sent to jail and executed for murder.

You want pee in a cup? People in hell want ice water, too.

:rolleyes:

Hey, sosa was found with cork, his bats cut up and was shown not to have cork. He was caught with the smoking gun, i dont see bonds with a syringe. I dislike bonds and do hope he slips on a patch of ice in a 90 degree day in san fran so he never hits a hr again. But i need indisputable proof

chaerulez
05-14-2006, 09:39 PM
Hey, sosa was found with cork, his bats cut up and was shown not to have cork. He was caught with the smoking gun, i dont see bonds with a syringe. I dislike bonds and do hope he slips on a patch of ice in a 90 degree day in san fran so he never hits a hr again. But i need indisputable proof

Here's your proof: Bonds hasn't sued for libel.

And I thought Andy Hawkins actually did get credit for that no hitter, I remember somewhere hearing it is the only no hitter in history where the pitcher loses.

Erik The Red
05-14-2006, 09:51 PM
Here's your proof: Bonds hasn't sued for libel.

And I thought Andy Hawkins actually did get credit for that no hitter, I remember somewhere hearing it is the only no hitter in history where the pitcher loses.
I believe it happened at least one other time.

Wsoxmike59
05-15-2006, 06:52 AM
I believe it happened at least one other time.

On April 23, 1964, Ken Johnson of Houston lost a 1-0 game to Cincinnati in which he pitched a complete game no-hitter.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2006, 07:07 AM
Baseball, like life, isn't fair.
Oh brother, spare me the platitudes.

Baseball is sport. Major League Baseball is sport for money. When the majority of fans like me begin to regard MLB as a steroid freak show akin to pro wrestling and body building tournaments, the money will dry up very quickly. Here's why:

I wouldn't let my son (or daughter) play the sport if the game's top players were juicers. I guarantee I'm not the only parent reading this who feels the same way.

Is THAT clear enough for you?

Viva Medias B's
05-15-2006, 07:52 AM
Barry Bonds holds the record for most home runs hit in a season.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Because it is a tainted record. Roger Maris holds the legitimate record.

ewokpelts
05-15-2006, 10:02 AM
Here's your proof: Bonds hasn't sued for libel.

And I thought Andy Hawkins actually did get credit for that no hitter, I remember somewhere hearing it is the only no hitter in history where the pitcher loses.Hawkins lost his "official" no hitter status because he didnt pitch 9 innings.
same as melido perez(who pitched 6 innings of no hit ball in a rain shortened game)
Gene

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2006, 10:09 AM
Hawkins lost his "official" no hitter status because he didnt pitch 9 innings.
same as melido perez(who pitched 6 innings of no hit ball in a rain shortened game)
Gene
THANK YOU!

And for all you Barroids Apologists out there, note the operative word in Gene's post is "LOST". Hawkins lost the no-hitter record AFTER given credit by the old definition. Perez lost his no-hitter AFTER having gotten credit. This was a pronouncement by Faye Vincent, Commissioner of Baseball, speaking on behalf of the OFFICIAL records as kept by Major League Baseball.

You want Barroids' 73 with a giant "Rx" next to his record performance? Fine. I say we put his chemist's name right next to it, too. His 73 belongs in the Pharmacology Book of Records, not baseball's.

Erik The Red
05-15-2006, 10:22 AM
You know, calling anyone who doesn't agree with striking Barry*'s records a "Barroids Apologist" doesn't do much to further your argument. There is a huge slippery slope created by removing records. Where does it end, and on what criteria do we take our huge eraser and re-write history? These are legitimate concerns, and one does not have to like Barry* to understand this side of the story.

SoxFan76
05-15-2006, 10:41 AM
Because it is a tainted record. Roger Maris holds the legitimate record.

There's no such thing if you ask me. Maris hit 61, Bonds hit 73.

Now I know I'm a math major, but elementary school math teaches you that 73 > 61.

I still don't know how you can argue "who has the record".

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2006, 10:42 AM
These are legitimate concerns, and one does not have to like Barry* to understand this side of the story.
Please...

You've just been owned. You whined that Barroids couldn't have his record expunged and now two different people have cited two different examples proving you don't know what you're talking about.

Now you're whining that you still have a legitimate concern? Talk to my hand. Ignorance may be bliss, but it won't win you this argument.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2006, 10:46 AM
I still don't know how you can argue "who has the record".

Like I said earlier in this thread. The more ignorant to the facts a poster is, the more they defend Barroids' record.

Thanks for helping me out.

SoxFan76
05-15-2006, 10:47 AM
Like I said earlier in this thread. The more ignorant to the facts a poster is, the more they defend Barroids' record.

Thanks for helping me out.

Who holds the record for most home runs in a season. RIGHT NOW.

Barry Bonds.

Don't let personal bias get in the way of facts. RIGHT NOW Barry Bonds holds the record.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2006, 10:53 AM
Don't let personal bias get in the way of facts. RIGHT NOW Barry Bonds holds the record.

RIGHT NOW is hardly the point of this thread. The point is WHO SHOULD have the record. Based on last spring's testimony in front of Congress, it's pretty clear Mark "I'm not here to talk about the past" McGwire doesn't have a legitimate claim to it either.

SoxFan76
05-15-2006, 10:55 AM
RIGHT NOW is hardly the point of this thread. The point is WHO SHOULD have the record. Based on last spring's testimony in front of Congress, it's pretty clear Mark "I'm not here to talk about the past" McGwire doesn't have a legitimate claim to it either.

"Who in your mind has the record if Pujols hits 65?"

In my mind Bonds has the record until MLB says otherwise.

DaleJRFan
05-15-2006, 10:55 AM
Doesn't it just completely blow that we even have to have this discussion? Ugh. :angry:

SoxFan76
05-15-2006, 11:02 AM
Doesn't it just completely blow that we even have to have this discussion? Ugh. :angry:

I am NOT a Barry Bonds supporter. I'm merely stating the facts. Bonds holds the record until MLB says otherwise. It shouldn't even be up for argument. Who SHOULD have the record? This isn't going to be a very popular opinion, but I still think Bonds should get it. You can take all the illegal drugs you want, but you still have to hit the ball. You still have to stay healthy throughout the season.

Yeah, no ****, steroids helps that out a lot. I don't know...I just don't believe in changing history.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2006, 11:05 AM
"Who in your mind has the record if Pujols hits 65?"

In my mind Bonds has the record until MLB says otherwise.
In my mind Andy Hawkins deserves credit for a no-hitter because he couldn't pitch the ninth inning when his team already lost the game. In my mind MLB is wrong to lump Hawkins' achievement with other lesser performances deemed unworthy of OFFICIAL recognition in MLB's book of records.

Similarly, Bonds has no right to the record based on his sworn ADMISSION he took steroids. Bonds never disputed the point! Furthermore he now faces perjury charges for claiming he never knew anything about it.

Clearly I move faster than baseball to fix the record. It's not hard to do since MLB has done nothing but drag their feet on all of this. How do you think they got into this mess in the first place?
:o:

Erik The Red
05-15-2006, 11:18 AM
Please...

You've just been owned. You whined that Barroids couldn't have his record expunged and now two different people have cited two different examples proving you don't know what you're talking about.

Now you're whining that you still have a legitimate concern? Talk to my hand. Ignorance may be bliss, but it won't win you this argument. I believe you are mistaken. I never whined about anything, in fact I've made all of three posts on this thread prior to now:

What a worthwhile argument to engage in.

The funniest/saddest thing is that you both make excellent points, but refuse to acknowledge the other. Yes, the record is what it is. Yes, MLB are hypocrites... why can't we all just get along?

I believe it happened at least one other time.
You know, calling anyone who doesn't agree with striking Barry*'s records a "Barroids Apologist" doesn't do much to further your argument. There is a huge slippery slope created by removing records. Where does it end, and on what criteria do we take our huge eraser and re-write history? These are legitimate concerns, and one does not have to like Barry* to understand this side of the story.

I don't see myself whining or defending Barry* anywhere in these three posts, I think you're confusing me with someone else.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2006, 11:21 AM
I believe you are mistaken. I never whined about anything, in fact I've made all of three posts on this thread prior to now:

I don't see myself whining or defending Barry* anywhere in these three posts, I think you're confusing me with someone else.


Whoops, my apologies. I clearly confused your posts with somebody else's.

Of course I have no idea what you mean about "excellent points" from the defenders of the 73 record, since they haven't made any points but those born of ignorance of the subject.

Please explain further.

Erik The Red
05-15-2006, 11:37 AM
Well, regardless of the fact that it's almost painfully obvious that he cheated, we still don't have proof of exactly when and for how long he was on the stuff, and we probably never will. Hell, Gaylord Perry admitted with a ****-eating grin on his face that he cheated, and I don't see any of his accomplishments being regarded as "tainted".

Now I agree with you, Barry* is a disgrace and he deserves to have his records expunged. But unless this is to be viewed as anything else but a vendetta against Barry*, you have to take everyone else into account who has ever been on the juice and won something. Where exactly do we start getting rid of records/statistics? At what point do we begin and stop? My concern is that Barry* (and maybe McGwire* and Sosa*) get punished, but others get off scot-free.

EDIT: Hell, if we want to talk about laws on the books, I don't recall there being any laws against androstenedione at the time McGwire went on his tear (correct me if I'm wrong, I honestly don't know), and MLB didn't have any rules against it at the time. That certainly has to be taken into account as well.

D. TODD
05-15-2006, 11:45 AM
Who holds the all time hit record since Pete Rose was on "greenies" amphetamines which are illegal performance enhancers as he used them. TY Cobb wasn't on that junk!!!

daveeym
05-15-2006, 11:48 AM
Well, regardless of the fact that it's almost painfully obvious that he cheated, we still don't have proof of exactly when and for how long he was on the stuff, and we probably never will. Hell, Gaylord Perry admitted with a ****-eating grin on his face that he cheated, and I don't see any of his accomplishments being regarded as "tainted".

Now I agree with you, Barry* is a disgrace and he deserves to have his records expunged. But unless this is to be viewed as anything else but a vendetta against Barry*, you have to take everyone else into account who has ever been on the juice and won something. Where exactly do we start getting rid of records/statistics? At what point do we begin and stop? My concern is that Barry* (and maybe McGwire* and Sosa*) get punished, but others get off scot-free.

EDIT: Hell, if we want to talk about laws on the books, I don't recall there being any laws against androstenedione at the time McGwire went on his tear (correct me if I'm wrong, I honestly don't know), and MLB didn't have any rules against it at the time. That certainly has to be taken into account as well. Yup, Andro was legal and treated as any other supplement at the time. Problem was Mac wasn't on andro only.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2006, 12:01 PM
Well, regardless of the fact that it's almost painfully obvious that he cheated, we still don't have proof of exactly when and for how long he was on the stuff, and we probably never will. Hell, Gaylord Perry admitted with a ****-eating grin on his face that he cheated, and I don't see any of his accomplishments being regarded as "tainted".
The ultimate proof is Bonds' own admission. HE ADMITS IT. It took a grand jury and the threat of jail to get him to admit it, but he did. That's more than enough evidence.

As for Gaylord Perry, he threw a spitball and everybody knew he threw a spitball and nobody could ever catch him. If you want to lead the charge to throw him out of the hall of fame, be my guest. Spitballs haven't been legal since 1920. However I doubt you'll get very far because clearly Perry was more clever than any of the other cheats -- being more clever being the REAL reason he made it into the Hall.

Bonds confessed only after being hauled before a grand jury. Barry was saving his own ass. See the difference?

Now I agree with you, Barry* is a disgrace and he deserves to have his records expunged. But unless this is to be viewed as anything else but a vendetta against Barry*, you have to take everyone else into account who has ever been on the juice and won something. Where exactly do we start getting rid of records/statistics? At what point do we begin and stop? My concern is that Barry* (and maybe McGwire* and Sosa*) get punished, but others get off scot-free.
Where should we EVER stop? This is no kind of alibi. McGwire refuses to answer charges that he was shooting up the juice with Canseco in the clubhouse toilet. He is not ENTITLED to the record without an explanation.

Sosa has disappeared without answering any questions besides those expressed in broken English ala Chico Esquela. The time came long ago to begin investigating the Tribune employee who corked a bat and mysteriously lost the sudden bulk that was previously missing from his frame just six years earlier. Clearly the local media giant isn't going to do it, for reason only George Knue could explain away.

Giambi? Confessed.

Palmiero? Already convicted.

The notion that we shouldn't get steroid users out of baseball for fear other steroid users might get away with it is utterly silly and specious.

Erik The Red
05-15-2006, 12:45 PM
Well, agree to disagree, I guess.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2006, 12:51 PM
Well, agree to disagree, I guess.

Is that all you got?

Why not just wave a white flag? You ain't got jack.

Erik The Red
05-15-2006, 01:30 PM
Haha, wow. Why try to pick an argument with someone that's not even really disagreeing with you? There's a game on, and we're winning. Pods just hit a HR a couple innings ago. Enjoy it!

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2006, 01:33 PM
Haha, wow. Why try to pick an argument with someone that's not even really disagreeing with you? There's a game on, and we're winning. Pods just hit a HR a couple innings ago. Enjoy it!

Square it with this, big guy...

Well, agree to disagree, I guess.

Clear as mud, Erik.

Haha.

Like I've said several times, the more ignorant the poster is to the facts, the more they defend Barroids. Or are you still agreeing to disagree?
:cool:

Erik The Red
05-15-2006, 01:43 PM
You seem to be misunderstanding my "agree to disagree" comment as a full-on rebuttal of everything you've been saying, when it wasn't. You say that it's "silly and specious" to not be gung-ho about removing records from some people because others might get away with it. I disagree, I think more information is needed if a thorough job is to be done. If you want to take that as defense of Barry*, then you are perfectly welcome to, however you will be mistaken in doing so.

Look, I've no idea how to get you to believe that I'm not defending Barry*, so I'm not going to give it any more effort. You may accept this post as my "white flag" if you like.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2006, 01:53 PM
You say that it's "silly and specious" to not be gung-ho about removing records from some people because others might get away with it. I disagree, I think more information is needed if a thorough job is to be done.
You need to re-read my reply, because you clearly didn't comprehend the point.

McGwire must explain why Jose Canseco is asserting they shot each other in the ass with steroids inside the Oakland A's clubhouse toilet. This is the "more information" you claim you need. McGwire isn't ENTITLED to the record until he stops refusing to discuss it. The record isn't McGwire's to keep on his own terms. Is that any clearer for you?

Sosa can't expect to be the new homerun champion without a thorough investigation of everything he hasn't been asked, but should have been asked a long time ago. This is the "more information" you claim you need. Sosa isn't ENTITLED to the record on his own shadowy terms. Is that any clearer for you?

Bonds and Giambi already confessed. Palmiero is already convicted. If you need more information about any of these three, I'm all ears to hear it.

TDog
05-15-2006, 02:12 PM
Oh brother, spare me the platitudes.

Baseball is sport. Major League Baseball is sport for money. When the majority of fans like me begin to regard MLB as a steroid freak show akin to pro wrestling and body building tournaments, the money will dry up very quickly. Here's why:

I wouldn't let my son (or daughter) play the sport if the game's top players were juicers. I guarantee I'm not the only parent reading this who feels the same way.

Is THAT clear enough for you?

I'm not defending Bonds. Obviously baseball was complicit in steroid use among people like Bonds, McGwire and Sosa, just as the NFL at one time was complicit in steroid use among many of its players, and it was a bigger problem in lower levels of the sport than steroid use was in the lower levels of baseball. If I were a parent I wouldn't let my child play football for reasons that have nothing to do with steroids -- without which the NFL remains a freak show.

If baseball didn't know Bonds was on steroids it is because baseball and the people who sanction the records didn't want to know. The judgment isn't in the records but in the players' legacies and in the Hall of Fame. I don't see a lot of hero worship for Barry Bonds. When is the last time you saw anyone wearing a Sosa jersey?

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2006, 02:41 PM
The judgment isn't in the records but in the players' legacies and in the Hall of Fame. I don't see a lot of hero worship for Barry Bonds. When is the last time you saw anyone wearing a Sosa jersey?

Apparently there is still plenty of hero worship for Barry in the Greater Bay area. I'm sure there would still be plenty of Sosa jerseys being worn around Chicago, too, if the Cubs hadn't decided to finally throw under the bus their former homerun hero at the conclusion of the 1994 season.

If you don't want these guys worshipped as heroes, the least you can do is deny them the records they aren't entitled to before clearing their name. Bonds already confessed and Sosa is hiding out. If he doesn't come forward, he's out too.

It's MLB's record to award as MLB sees fit, not Bonds', McGwire's or Sosa's to claim on their own terms.

voodoochile
05-15-2006, 03:07 PM
Adopt the international standard.

Anyone caught using banned performance enhancing drugs gets their name stricken from the record.

The only problem is that MLB didn't ban the crap until after the damage was done. (sigh)

I'd love to see all of these losers get their names and records removed from the list of individual accomplishments, but by doing so the powers that be are opening the next level of investigation - how much did they know and when did they know it and trust me none of them want that. They managed to turn the blind eye to it and if it ever comes out that the eye wasn't truly blinded they are in for a world of hurt and if you think any of the rich powerful men who run baseball are going to risk their reputation and their money to clean up this sewer, think again.

:tool:
"What we need here is a little smoke and mirrors, some easily bypassed testing, a lot of hand wringing and some good old fashioned gape mouthed, wide eyed shock takes for good measure. Then we can cry, 'there's nothing to be done!' and move on with the business of taking your money and laughing all the way to the bank. Remember, chicks dig the long ball and next week only we'll be cutting the price of 16OZ beers by a quarter across the country for 3 whole days. When the price goes back up, we'll be donating that same quarter to breast cancer research for another three whole days. After that we're going to adopt the Army philosophy which worked quite well for the past decade for us... don't ask, don't tell... about any drug we haven't specifically banned by name, chemical composition and enhancement properties. Thanks much and remember, the winning league of the All Star game gets home field in the World Series, so make sure you watch the midsummer classic with superstars like Sosa, Bonds, McGwire and... er... um... those other guys."

PaleHoseGeorge
05-15-2006, 06:10 PM
I'd love to see all of these losers get their names and records removed from the list of individual accomplishments, but by doing so the powers that be are opening the next level of investigation - how much did they know and when did they know it and trust me none of them want that. They managed to turn the blind eye to it and if it ever comes out that the eye wasn't truly blinded they are in for a world of hurt and if you think any of the rich powerful men who run baseball are going to risk their reputation and their money to clean up this sewer, think again.
Finally we're getting to where the REAL issue lies regarding Bonds, McGwire, and all the other steroid cheats. We've gone nearly six full pages debunking all the standard nonsense guys like Selig, Orza, Magowan, and countless dunderheaded sportswriters (including a few that post here) have offered for why "nothing can be done" about this crisis when the facts are baseball routinely takes action RETROACTIVELY to fix problems it didn't foresee.

MLB (and the players' association) should have seen the budding steroids problem, but as you note they turned a blind eye to it because they were so afraid of the consequences back in 1996-97 when the fallout from the last labor impasse left all of them poorer than they expected to be. Steroids were every bit as good for business as gambling was before the Black Sox scandal. And just like that scandal from 1920, the owners most fear their complicity in creating the problem steroids now represents to the integrity of the game.

So what's the difference? In 1920 the owners hired an outside commissioner to mete out the "justice" in a manner to make themselves look clean. In 2006 we have Bud Selig, an inside commissioner because the last outside commissioner (Faye Vincent) proved too troublesome to deal with. (In fact Landis was too troublesome for the owners, too, and no subsequent commissioner has ever enjoyed his level of autonomy.)

MLB wants this crisis to go away with no investigation at all. To the extent fans believe all the silly and specious reasons for why nothing can (or should) be done, they succeed. I hope reading this thread has served to debunk the most ridiculous of these assertions so we can move on to where the real conspiracy lies: between the MLB owners and players association.

It all starts with stripping Bonds of his "record" 73, and working back from there. If we wind up back at 61, so be it. The sport will be better -- and healthier -- for the effort.

JorgeFabregas
05-15-2006, 09:11 PM
Frankly, no one--especially the large sluggers and the large-legged pitchers--is above suspicion until baseball has an olympic-quality drug program. It seems unlikely that players that advocated for a stronger policy took them, but beyond that--nada. Correct me if I'm wrong, but baseball still doesn't test for HGH, right? I assume that if BALCO was still operating their stuff would still be undetectable by the current tests? Surely there are similar companies. Pujols is as big as a horse. For that matter, Thome is too. How about David Ortiz? Being a nice guy doesn't rule anyone out. There are millions of dollars to be made by fudging the rules. Baseball needs a real drug policy if they truly want to restore some legitimacy.