|
Post by politicianspock on Aug 10, 2007 19:56:07 GMT -4
If there is no effort to prevent players from doing something, Please stop it with the strawman arguments. It's not true in the least that there's no effort to prevent players from doing something. If this were true, why do they try to hide the fact that they're doing something?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2007 20:01:17 GMT -4
Cheating is cheating, right? Bonds said he "unknowingly" used steroids, but how many of you believe that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2007 20:03:28 GMT -4
If there is no effort to prevent players from doing something, Please stop it with the strawman arguments. It's not true in the least that there's no effort to prevent players from doing something. If this were true, why do they try to hide the fact that they're doing something? Are you stupid? Who was trying to prevent anyone from taking performance enhancing drugs until the 2000's? No one. Bud Selig loved it because it was putting money in his pocket, the only reason they started drug testing was because the media got ahold of it - if it wasn't for the media there would still be players juicing and someone would probably have 80 homers in a year by now. I'm not even sure if it was against the collective bargaining agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Aug 10, 2007 20:03:57 GMT -4
I don't believe it.
|
|
|
Post by politicianspock on Aug 10, 2007 20:08:42 GMT -4
Cheating is cheating, right? It's is. But the punishment isn't always the same. That's why repeat offenders get higher sentences than first time offenders. Bonds took the abuse of steroids to the extreme. If there wasn't so much other evidence surrounding Bonds, then I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Since there's not so much other evidence surrounding Aaron, I've give Aaron the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
Post by politicianspock on Aug 10, 2007 20:13:46 GMT -4
Please stop it with the strawman arguments. It's not true in the least that there's no effort to prevent players from doing something. If this were true, why do they try to hide the fact that they're doing something? Are you stupid? Who was trying to prevent anyone from taking performance enhancing drugs until the 2000's? No one. Bud Selig loved it because it was putting money in his pocket, the only reason they started drug testing was because the media got ahold of it - if it wasn't for the media there would still be players juicing and someone would probably have 80 homers in a year by now. I'm not even sure if it was against the collective bargaining agreement. Players weren't making millions of dollars for playing back in those days. IIRC Dave Parker was the first million dollar player, which followed the Curt Flood incident that led to free agency. Players made a decent living, but they weren't rich like they are today. Add on top of that the whole hatred Aaron got for being a black player that was about to break a white players record, and overall I don't see a whole lot of motivation for everyone, especially black players who were under the microscope of any wrongdoings because they were black, to be taking them back then. I'm sure they were there, but if they were as bad as some of the rumors, then we'd likely see a few "Jose Canseco" books that speak about the issue specifically and not just general hear say speak about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2007 23:51:17 GMT -4
Do a google search on "greenies mlb" and you'll see how big of a problem they are. But they just aren't as sexy as steroids are to the media. According to one article "people in and around baseball have been trying -- almost routinely without success -- to drag their use out into the light of day for years and years."
One other question for the Bonds haters: do you think he's still on roids now that they test? If not, then how is he able to continue to put up great numbers as a 43 year old?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2007 23:53:18 GMT -4
Simply, no athlete peaks or gets better when they're in their late 30s. The body doesn't work like that. They start to decline from the wear and tear the game has taken on them. Hank Aaron's career high in homers? 47 when he was 37 years old
|
|
|
Post by chang on Aug 11, 2007 0:16:14 GMT -4
Do a google search on "greenies mlb" and you'll see how big of a problem they are. But they just aren't as sexy as steroids are to the media. According to one article "people in and around baseball have been trying -- almost routinely without success -- to drag their use out into the light of day for years and years." One other question for the Bonds haters: do you think he's still on roids now that they test? If not, then how is he able to continue to put up great numbers as a 43 year old? Once the steroids improve your body, when you stop using them, everything just doesn't get erased. He simply delayed (and actually improved) his decline by taking steroids. And by the way, Bonds' 73 homerun season was a 50% increase over his career high. If you believe that a 50% increase in production is natural at his age, boy, do I hope Peyton Manning can throw 90 yard passes, Asafa Powell runs the 100 in 6 seconds, Kobe Bryant score 120 points, Crosby score 300 total points, and Beckham score 50 goals in a season when they're 37.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2007 13:17:21 GMT -4
I never said that Bonds didn't take steroids. Not one single time in this entire debate. Of course it wasn't natural for him to hit 73 homers in his late 30's. What I said is that he didn't get 50% of his homers from steroids like you claimed earlier.
I'm not expert on the effects of steroids on your body - but I find it hard to believe that their effects stay with you even when you stop taking them.
If that's the case then why did Sammy Sosa's stats take a nosedive once they started testing? Same for Rafael Palmeiro?
|
|
charliesarmy
Bench Warmer
SLOB - Tigers & SLOC - Yale
Posts: 587
|
Post by charliesarmy on Aug 11, 2007 15:12:31 GMT -4
I never said that Bonds didn't take steroids. Not one single time in this entire debate. Of course it wasn't natural for him to hit 73 homers in his late 30's. What I said is that he didn't get 50% of his homers from steroids like you claimed earlier. I'm not expert on the effects of steroids on your body - but I find it hard to believe that their effects stay with you even when you stop taking them. If that's the case then why did Sammy Sosa's stats take a nosedive once they started testing? Same for Rafael Palmeiro? The concern now is that a lot of players are on HGH which MLB does not test for. So the affects of steriods would still be seen just from a different source.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2007 17:02:50 GMT -4
So you do think Bonds is still using some sort of performance enhancing drugs?
|
|
|
Post by sativa417 on Aug 11, 2007 23:20:25 GMT -4
I haven't read any of the last 5 pages so i have no idea what's been said. Just thought i'd comment on spock's comments regarding my post.
Sorry, but you have no legitimate point with that comment. I could just as easily say you just assumed his BA went up BECAUSE of steroids. Neither of us can say with 100% certainty the reason for his improvement, so you saying i'm assuming anything is slightly ignorant on your part. Steroids might make him hit farther, but it definitely didn't make him run faster. You can say steroids make him hit farther. I could say pre-steroids when he was faster he could hit shorter, but have the same chance to get on base because of his speed.
Like practice? I bet Steve Nash took steroids because he only got better with age as well.
So that's not what you're doing? You're not addressing each piece separately? Oh, I guess you're only doing it because someone else brought it up first.
Please don't try to assume what I would say. It's like watching Carrot Top perform Death of a Salesman. I don't care about "happenstance." Are you honestly saying a player has never had a career year? You can say it all can be explained by steroids. I can say it can all be explained by a player having a great year, and I could back up my claim more than you can seeing as how players have had career years since the sport was invented. Then you could argue about the odds of it happening at his age. Then I could point out the players that had career years at an old age. It's a vicious circle.
I apologize for making you waste your time posting a quote from Art of War. The reason people are trying to “prove all the evidence surrounding him is just circumstancial” is because he has been accused of taking steroids. If he wasn’t accused no one would bother. I’m sure you can understand that reasoning. If he did steroids people “ have to prove steroids aren't the reason for his accomplishments.” But if he didn’t do steroids, then you’re just flat out wrong. Before his HR breaking year he was considered one of the all-time great players. What has changed since?
No. Sorry, but no. Did I say no? There’s a difference between healing from injuries and healing from surgery requiring injuries as Griffey has faced. You can’t compare the two.
Was there a point to this post? No? Okay. I’ll move on.
Then why didn’t Ernie Banks have a bigger year? He was a better HR hitter than Marris. He lead the league in HRs the previous year, yet he came nowhere near Maris’s numbers the following year. Granted he missed some games, but even had he played the whole season he wasn’t near the pace Maris was. In 61 Maris lead the Al with 61 HRs. If the league was so watered down because of expansion why did the NL leader only have 46 HRs? That’s a pretty big disparity.
|
|
|
Post by rjstew94 on Aug 12, 2007 0:21:03 GMT -4
This is a great topic on the same lines of Abortion and Gun Control. I'm sure it will continue to be a topic of discussion for the next couple of years. There are so many ways you can argue on both sides.
I've watched several Giants games since ATT Park was built(the name changes every year). First of all I'm a Dodgers fan but watching Bonds live is a great experience the excitement of the crowd and the ability he has to change the game is incredible.
Giants fans don't deny that Bonds used steroids it's pretty obvious. How many other players used Steroids? I didn't want to see him break the record but he pushed through all the media bullshit and did it. I think the easy way out would have been to retire and get out of the headlines. To say he's a prick or an asshole is really a difficult statement to make when you don't personally know the person. I've seen him at the airport after the season(limping really bad) and he seemed very cordial.
Athletes will continue to seek anything that will give them an advantage. Would you sacrifice 10 years of your life to make the Majors or even to get a scholarship at a University? Cheating has always been an issue in sports and will continue?
You can't tell me that MLB and Selig didn't have a clue on what was going on. I really blame them for letting the situation get out of control. Bonds will continue to take the heat because of the records he has broken but who gives a fuck about Jason Grimsley or Conseco for that matter. I really think Giambi is a standup guy for actually admitting to use and not lying. I'm sure his lawyer and MLB are pissed at him though.
I also listened to an interview that ESPN had with the person who created HGH and he stated that it would also help a player with there batting average through focus and concentration.
I can argue this situation from both sides all day but in the end he broke the record and he continues to hit homers and perform at age 43 and I would hope to god he's not using now with all the media speculation and such. It's just a matter of time before another drug or form of cheating is released to the media. It's a good thing Bonds didn't ever get caught with a corked bat like his fellow steroid user playing for the Rangers.
|
|
|
Post by politicianspock on Aug 12, 2007 1:02:36 GMT -4
I haven't read any of the last 5 pages so i have no idea what's been said. Just thought i'd comment on spock's comments regarding my post. Sorry, but you have no legitimate point with that comment. I could just as easily say you just assumed his BA went up BECAUSE of steroids. Neither of us can say with 100% certainty the reason for his improvement, so you saying i'm assuming anything is slightly ignorant on your part. Steroids might make him hit farther, but it definitely didn't make him run faster. You can say steroids make him hit farther. I could say pre-steroids when he was faster he could hit shorter, but have the same chance to get on base because of his speed. I never said anything about speed. Why are you bringing that up? The issue has nothing to do with speed. If he hits it out, it's just as much of an HR if he walks or runs th bases. If he hits it through the infield, it's just as much of a hit if walks or runs to first. His batting average went up because fly balls that would have been outs went for home runs, and ground balls that would have been outs went for singles. Speed had nothing to do with those events. If a guy is hitting the ball harder, his average will go up. You have to ignore that to say it went up because he improved his hand/eye coordination. You do realize that if the fly ball is caught, he's not going to beat it out for a hit, yes? But if you'd like to proove your claim that speed gave him more hits when he was younger, infield hits is a stat that was kept. Please provied the data to back up your claim that his BA had a lot to do with his speed. Are you suggesting Bonds started practicing in his late 30s, and that's why the spike in his stats occured? No, I'm not at all. When you look at all the peices together, what's one common denominator that explains them all?... STEROIDS. It's when you try to explain each peice with a different explanation where you end up with a plethora of occurences that all had to happen at the exact same time. Bonds had far more than a career year. His SLG percentage for all his years after age 36 eclipsed his prior career best by more than 150 points each year. If you think we're talking about one year here, you're not even in the context of the argument. We're talking about everything he did in his late 30's and 40's. Are you honestly taking the position that Bonds didn't do steroids? Have fun with that. It's far easier to admit he did steroids and try to excuse it, than to argue that he didn't do them. The point of the Art of War reference is the either position is a losing battle. So if he used steroids to heal from injuries, are you admitting he did do steroids? Please clarify your position so we're not going back and forth on two different arguments. I agree. The "everybody's doing it" excuse has not point. That is what you were referring to, right? Are you really going to pick one player out of '61 and say his performance shows '61 pitching wasn't watered down? Have you seen Norm Cash's numbers from '61? Have you seen Jim Gentile's numbers from '61? Take a look at everything that happened that year, not just one player. The AL went from 1086 HRs in 1960 to 1534 HRs in 1961. Even the NL that didn't have any expansion went from 1042 HRs in 1960 to 1196 in 1961. That's a nearly 30% increase in HRs just because the AL added 2 teams. Now if you want to break it down, there were more AL sluggers who had huge years than NL sluggers... likely because the AL teams got to play two expansion teams with crappy rosters numerous times through out the year, where as NL teams was still playing the established teams, albeit with a few rookie pitchers here and there to replace what they lost in the expansion draft. Please stop with the comparison of what Bonds did to what Maris did. What Maris did is far more similar to what McGwire did in '98 than anything Bonds did. McGwire and Sosa benefited from an expansion year and watered down pitching in '98 like Maris did in '61. But what McGwire and Sosa did is tainted just as well thanks to steroids.
|
|