| RotoGuru Baseball Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Bonds and # 756.... Posted by: BayAreaBlueJays - [2330816] Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 01:39 So I couldn't sleep and my mind got to wandering as to what game he'll break Aaron's mark and I buy a ticket for the game and catch the ball.(Dream on he says). Anyway one thing led to another and I ended up pondering the following questions..... What ball has more value..755,756,757? Does each one lose a lot of value every time he adds one? Will they generally be of less value since in a few years ARod(health notwithstanding) will blow Bonds' record out of the water? If,for example # 756 is the "money" ball and Bonds puts it in the drink...do they drain the cove....or you think they'll have super high netting in right field at AT&T park for every game after he breaks it? Is Hammerin' Hank #755 ball in the HOF? Now I'm getting sleepy.:) | |||||||
| 80 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 18:53 |
PD That's the "active" list, I want "career", you know, "all time". ;) | ||||||
| 81 | holt ID: 41512278 Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 20:17 | Bonds' HR record reminds me of the guy who rigged a horse race betting computer so that he'd win the pick six. Then the pick six turned out to be so unlikely and the winning sum so huge that an investigation naturally followed. | ||||||
| 82 | Ender ID: 1138421 Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 21:09 | PD, it's "Lockhorns". Sheesh, man. Not that I read Parade or anything... | ||||||
| 83 | C1-NRB ID: 17348117 Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 21:35 | LOL on post 82. | ||||||
| 84 | Seattle Zen ID: 86541617 Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 01:59 |
Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, who is now leading the investigation into steroid use by baseball players, has prostate cancer. Wow, you can get cancer by simply INVESTIGATING steroids. "The cancer is small, low grade, and localized, and can be effectively treated and cured," Yes, this is what we have in store when we get old. Furthermore, by age 75, 50 to 75 percent of American men will have cancerous changes in the prostate. Now I have a question for all of you who equate steroid usage with cheating. If it was determined later that the health risks of steroids usage in men was greatly exaggerated, that it was later learned that there was little to no negative health effects from moderate steroid use, would you still think using them was cheating? I ask this because I think the demonization of steroids may be much ado about nothing. Many doctors prescribe testosterone to older gentlemen and they aren't dying in droves. Would you still hate Bonds because the Cream and the Clear made him bloom like Miracle Grow? This just in, Bonds just killed another 7,000 Cambodians tonight to pad his lead. Toral did not cheer. | ||||||
| 85 | TB ID: 53633209 Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 05:19 |
hehehe | ||||||
| 86 | holt ID: 41512278 Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 05:42 |
SZ, you don't see a problem with putting athletes who choose not to use steroids at a competitive disadvantage? how many guys made it to the majors because of steroids? how many never made it past AA because they stayed clean? the answers are not zero. if you're trying to say that steroid use doesn't present any health risks, then I don't think anyone is going to pay much attention to your argument. if someone wants to use steroids then I think they should be able to. I believe people should be masters of their own body. but within the confines of MLB, NFL, NCAA, etc., NO WAY. keep the playing field level, and don't force people into a position where they have to use steroids to make it to the top. | ||||||
| 87 | Ender ID: 5963859 Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 11:22 | Any alleged or even empirically proven negative health effects from steroids are irrelevant to this argument. This is entirely about competitive advantage. As insensitive as it sounds it matters not whether an athlete gets cancer later, it only matters if the drugs enhanced his performance in his playing career (for the sake of this argument only, medically it makes all the difference in the world). | ||||||
| 88 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 13:55 |
Holt The extension of SZ's point is that the competeive disadvantage alone (without health risks) doesn't hold up as an argument. Consider that an otherwise aptly talented player might not make to past AA if he doesn't include supliments (permissable by MLB) in his physical training. I assume you don't get on players for extensive vitamin regimens and protein shakes. If it were to turn out that careful use of steroids or HGH included no significant health risks, what's the difference? | ||||||
| 89 | Seattle Zen ID: 86541617 Sat, Aug 11, 2007, 15:18 |
MITH - 88 Exactly my point. | ||||||
| 90 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 18:07 |
So, I guess when we look back at this point 80 years from now, when the use of testosterone is commonplace and Human Growth Hormone has been modified so to not increase the size of your skull and other bones, people will laugh at the common folk who decried Bonds record as sullied by cheating much like we laugh at the common folk who accused, "tried" and burned women for witchcraft. For the only reason people believe steroids are "bad" is because they believe they are harmful. The harm is supposedly an increase in the risk of cancer, oh, and "roid rage". Truth is, very few studies have been done testing moderate steroid use by athletes. No one can definitively say that steroids are or are not harmful. No one is going to argue that lifting weights is an unfair competitive advantage in the world of sport. Why, then, is using substances that improve the results of that activity cheating if there were no negative health consequences? That said, isn't it a bit premature to damn someone for undergoing a weight lifting regiment that may someday become commonplace, but isn't now because we don't really know that much about these substances? | ||||||
| 91 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 354152921 Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 21:08 |
Why, then, is using substances that improve the results of that activity cheating if there were no negative health consequences? I don't feel steroids are cheating because of any potential negative health consequences. I believe steroids are cheating because they are widely unaccepted in the sports world, clearly give unnatural results to working out, and are banned by most, if not all, legitimate sporting bodies, including (finally!) MLB. Touching the ball with your hands is illegal in soccer. If a soccer player were to be found knowingly and purposefully touching the ball with his hands over and over and over again when reviewing footage of a match, I'd call that player a cheater. I wouldn't say it because there were negative health consequences to touching the ball with your hands (are there?). I would say it because, plain and simple, it's against the rules. For the same reason scuffing the baseball, extending pine tar too far up the length of your bat, using a 13-inch glove (non-catchers and 1B), corking your bat, and several other things are considered cheating, so are steroids: Because they're against the rules. You can get as philosophical as you want about what you think about the rules and what you think about steroids and what you think about whatever. But, as long as something is against the rules, it's against the rules. And those who don't follow the rules are labeled "cheaters." And your analogy to the witch hunts is a bad one. The witch hunts were based on absolutely no evidence and the trial method was a Catch-22 joke. Just because some people call the pursuit of the truth about Bonds and steroids a "witch hunt" doesn't mean the analogy holds water. Ha! Get it? Holds water! ;) | ||||||
| 92 | Seattle Zen ID: 86541617 Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 21:46 | Sorry, I can't say that was your best post, KKB. The, "it's cheating because it's against the rules" is the most basic tautology that it does not even make a point. | ||||||
| 93 | Perm Dude ID: 337121310 Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 21:54 |
Isn't that the definition of "cheating?" If you are going to stretch the meaning of "cheating" to be something other than "breaking a rule" then I'd suggest re-casting your underlying argument. | ||||||
| 94 | Seattle Zen ID: 86541617 Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 22:57 |
[Shaking head] The question was not "Is taking steroids cheating?", it was "WHY should taking steroids be considered cheating." When the second question is answered, "because it is against the rules," well, that's not much of an answer. | ||||||
| 95 | Perm Dude ID: 337121310 Mon, Aug 13, 2007, 23:04 |
Fair enough. I'd rather not jump into an argument between you and KKB, but these two statements by you cannot stand together: Truth is, very few studies have been done testing moderate steroid use by athletes. No one can definitively say that steroids are or are not harmful. Why, then, is using substances that improve the results of that activity cheating if there were no negative health consequences? If the first is true, you cannot assert the second. I'm all for determining if the first statement is true or not. As for the second, MLB as a private organization is certainly within their rights to ban any activity, action, or supplement it wants, even legal ones,. | ||||||
| 96 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 15023167 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 09:13 |
Steroids should be considered cheating as long as it's against the rules. I think the question you're trying to ask is best put as, "Why are steroids against the rules?" You're questioning the "punishment," not the rule. You can question the rule all you like. I'm really not going to get into that discussion because different people have different views on what should and should not be rules and I honestly don't think it matters in the whole scheme of things. MLB will have the rules they want to have and that's pretty much their prerogative. But, to me, if something is against the rules of a sport and you knowingly and purposefully break those rules, you're a cheater. Plain and simple. I may not agree with the rule that using a corked bat is illegal (especially after the Mythbusters episode), but as long as MLB deems it to be against the rules, any batter who uses a corked bat is a cheater. From the American Heritage Dictionary: "cheat: To violate rules deliberately, as in a game" Notice that there's no part of that about if it's morally, scientifically, or otherwise okay. It's about the rules and whether or not you follow them. So, yes, that is much of an answer to the question, "Why should steroids be considered cheating?" Of course, as I alluded to before, it's definitely not an answer to, "Why should steroids be considered against the rules?" And yes, there's a big difference between the two questions. | ||||||
| 97 | ChicagoTRS ID: 4110481415 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 09:15 |
I have a Barry Bonds rookie coard for sale if anyone is interested...
| ||||||
| 98 | Seattle Zen ID: 86541617 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 10:57 |
That's funny, TRS Re 95 & 96 Okay, rather than frame the argument, why not MAKE an argument? KKB, PD, anyone... make the argument that the use of steroids is wrong. People claim that their use is an "unfair advantage". What is "unfair" about them? Anyone? | ||||||
| 99 | Razor ID: 136523110 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 11:37 | We all know you don't care about drug use. We get it. But as long as steroids are against MLB rules and now punishable by a long suspension, that is going to deter most players from using while conferring an unfair advantage to those who do and are able to get away with it. | ||||||
| 100 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 15023167 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 12:02 |
SZ, you want me to "make the argument that the use of steroids is wrong." Okay, fair enough. It is wrong to use steroids in baseball because it is against the rules. This is similar to it being wrong to use a corked bat, scuff a ball, etc. Again, you're hung up on your thoughts about steroids and are completely ignoring the rules. The rules are the rules, whether you agree with them or not. I may think that a speed limit of 25 MPH on a road I drive every day is the most asinine thing in the world. But, isn't it wrong of me to drive over 25 MPH on that road? Won't I get a ticket if an officer decides to pull me over because I'm driving 45 MPH on that road? Does it matter that, as a VERY safe and cautious driver, I feel 45 MPH is a more appropriate speed limit? I could go on and on, but I think the point is made. You can't seem to get over your personal thoughts on steroids versus what the rules state. In the end, for players in MLB, they either play by the rules or they don't, in which case they risk getting caught and appropriately labeled a cheater. If Bonds is using steroids and takes your point of view, maybe he should go play for a sporting body that allows steroids under their rules. My guess is that the money's probably not nearly as good, though. | ||||||
| 101 | Tree ID: 3533298 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 12:22 |
This is similar to it being wrong to use a corked bat, scuff a ball, etc. are you advocating that Bonds' record is a hollow one because his alleged steroid use is "cheating"? if so, should we perhaps go back and remove Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton, and several others, from the Hall of Fame, because they too, were cheaters? if not, why is it acceptable for them to cheat, but not Bonds? | ||||||
| 102 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 15023167 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 13:06 |
are you advocating that Bonds' record is a hollow one because his alleged steroid use is "cheating"? I'm not necessarily advocating for others to think of Bonds' record as a hollow one, but I myself do believe that way. As I said before [59], I'm just not that awed by it because of his "alleged" use. if so, should we perhaps go back and remove Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton, and several others, from the Hall of Fame, because they too, were cheaters? No. They got voted in, so they deserve to be there, regardless of what I think. Personally, I wouldn't call them HoFers, but that's me. I would certainly question any of their "accomplishments" and wouldn't be as impressed as I would with other players who had similar accomplishments without a career of cheating. if not, why is it acceptable for them to cheat, but not Bonds? It's not. I have no personal dislike for Bonds that would lead me to that kind of conclusion. I honestly neither like him nor dislike him. I'd equate him to Tom Glavine in those terms. I really just don't care one way or another what either of them does on a day to day basis. Maybe THAT's why I wasn't awed by the HR record. Then again, I WAS awed by Glavine's 300th win. | ||||||
| 103 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 16:27 |
I could go on and on, but I think the point is made. No, you have gone on and on and have yet to make a single point. What is with all you people?! SZ: I'm wondering why steroids are considered an unfair advantage. The arguments I have heard is that they are detrimental to the user's health. I am wondering if that is not true, are there any other arguments against steroids, why their use would not be "fair". PD- KKB: Because they are against the rules. SZ: Yes, I know that they are against the rules. Why do those rules exist? PD-KKB: Because if you use steroids, it's against the rules. SZ: Yes, but WHY? Razor: Yeah, we know you love drugs... it's an unfair advantage. SZ: [Banging head on desk] KKB: Driving 25 mph in a 45 mph zone is okay, 45 in a 25 is cheating. Steroids are cheating. SZ: I give up. | ||||||
| 104 | biliruben ID: 35112816 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 17:16 |
Anyone seen Idiocracy? Luke Wilson, of extremely average intelligence, is frozen and wakes in the future to find that everyone is very, very stupid. I'm not saying anything about anyone's intelligence here, or whether or not steroids are good or bad, it's just the SZ's synopsis above reminded me of a part of the movie where he's discussing with his cabinet (he's made the VP) the problem that the crops aren't growing. Something like... "But does anyone know why we water the crops with gatorade?" "It's got electrolytes. It's what plants crave." "But why?" "It's got electrolytes." "Do any of you know what electrolytes even are?" "Yeah, it's what plants crave." Great movie. I thought it was pretty silly at first. But the more I think about it the more I want to watch it again! | ||||||
| 105 | holt ID: 41512278 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 17:34 |
SZ, your argument is based on a lot of ifs. There are plenty of double blind studies that show the dangerous effects of steroids, yet you choose to ignore them and advocate that players use them. You keep saying "moderate" steroid use. Well guess what. There are millions of dollars up for grabs in pro sports. There is no moderate about it. Now we've got a large number high school kids sticking this crap in their bodies. You must be very proud of them, pioneers that they are. I guess what it comes down to is that you don't feel the human body in its natural state is something we should be content with. Physical training shouldn't be enough. No, you've got to bring in hormones from the outside and turn yourself into a freakish superman. The way of the future. Hell, why don't we start working on robotic arms and legs taht allow for 700 ft. homers and 8 second 100's. That would be awesome. | ||||||
| 106 | ChicagoTRS ID: 4110481415 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 17:39 |
How do you regulate moderate steroid use? | ||||||
| 107 | Razor ID: 136523110 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 17:44 | Zen, you aren't getting the answer you are looking for because no one knows what you are asking. Do steroids lend a physical advantage? Yes. Are they outlawed by Major League Baseball? Yes. That's all you need to know. Whether they are unhealthy or the fountain of youth is irrelevant to whether they give an advantage to those who use them and whether that use is, in fact, cheating. They do and it is. Whether they should be banned is a different question, and one you aren't asking. | ||||||
| 108 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 17:47 |
here are plenty of double blind studies that show the dangerous effects of steroids Really? Hey, feel free to post any of these double blind studies that show the effects of steroids use amongst adult male athletes, not high school children. Yeah, I talking about moderate use.   This is excessive use and I'm not going to defend this type of use, nor is anyone in baseball taking one third the amount these guys shoot up. | ||||||
| 109 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 17:52 |
How do you regulate moderate steroid use? The same way you ban steroid use, blood testing. Furthermore, it is much safer for the athletes. You have a doctor monitoring their blood and hormone levels, looking for anything that may signal a health problem. These doctor's records are monitored by the league. Whether they should be banned is a different question, and one you aren't asking. That's the frickin question I'VE BEEN ASKING ALL ALONG! | ||||||
| 110 | Perm Dude ID: 5975149 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 17:59 | Why keep it moderate? That's my question. If you allow it at all why regulate it? | ||||||
| 111 | biliruben ID: 35112816 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 18:01 |
"That's the frickin question I'VE BEEN ASKING ALL ALONG!" Clear evidence of 'roid rage. | ||||||
| 112 | RecycledSpinalFluid Dude ID: 204401122 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 18:06 | I knew all along that Seattle Zen's real name was Ronnie Coleman... | ||||||
| 113 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 18:14 |
PD - You are not running for office, why can't you make an argument? Are you only capable of avoiding questions by replying with questions? Have fun spending more time with Darby and Andrew, you've made enormous sacrifices not only for our beloved state of Texas but for a country we both love. Now how about you drop your posturing and tell me why steroids are so horrible. | ||||||
| 114 | Perm Dude ID: 5975149 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 18:32 |
SZ: Maybe you're under the impression that we were having some kind of discussion before, which allows you to suddenly demand answers of me halfway through your discussion with KKB? I suppose asking for you to clarify your question is, indeed, asking a question with a question. My bad. Maybe in Seattle lawyers get far simply by shouting their half-phrased questions rather than clarifying them. You have to pardon me--my midwest heritage is probably too tiresome for you to have to deal with, since your shortcuts and volume are foreign to me. You've staked out a position that moderate (whatever that means) steroid use (properly prescribed, apparently) is OK for professional athletes but that heavy use (whatever that means) is just "excessive" (whatever that means). And you're going to fight that stance with everything at your disposal, dammit. And I'm the one not making the argument. LOL. | ||||||
| 115 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 18:57 |
Midwest simple and to the point, PD: Do you think steroids are bad and if you do, why? I've got $5 here that PD's answer will be: "Why do you ask?" | ||||||
| 116 | KrazyKoalaBears ID: 354152921 Tue, Aug 14, 2007, 21:11 |
SZ, nice of you to rewrite everything I said both incorrectly and out of context. I suppose it helps your point more to simply ignore what I've written and make it up yourself. If you look back at #91, you'll see the statement you made that I was referring to. I never (NEVER!) addressed your statement of "I'm wondering why steroids are considered an unfair advantage. The arguments I have heard is that they are detrimental to the user's health. I am wondering if that is not true, are there any other arguments against steroids, why their use would not be "fair"." because I honestly don't care. I have my personal point of view, as do you, and neither of us is likely to convince the other of their point of view. You feel steroids are okay; I don't. So what? It still has nothing to do with the statement you made that I was refuting in #91. The statement you made that I was refuting was, "Why, then, is using substances that improve the results of that activity cheating if there were no negative health consequences?" To rewrite things correctly, it's more like: SZ: Why, then, is using substances that improve the results of that activity cheating if there were no negative health consequences? KKB: I believe steroids are cheating because they are widely unaccepted in the sports world, clearly give unnatural results to working out, and are banned by most, if not all, legitimate sporting bodies, including (finally!) MLB. SZ: The question was not "Is taking steroids cheating?", it was "WHY should taking steroids be considered cheating." KKB: Steroids should be considered cheating as long as it's against the rules. I think the question you're trying to ask is best put as, "Why are steroids against the rules?" You're questioning the "punishment," not the rule. Maybe the reason you're banging your head on the desk is because you're asking the wrong questions; making the wrong argument. I've tried to tell you that before. It seems nobody else is having troubles understanding things in this thread except for you. Maybe you should take that into consideration. And even if you don't get that right, make sure you at least quote me (or paraphrase me) correctly next time. It simply weakens your argument that much more when it looks like you haven't even read what someone's typed. | ||||||
| 117 | Tree ID: 3533298 Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 13:58 |
Giambi escapes punishment from baseball Selig is about as two-faced as it gets, and quite frankly, a borderline-bigot. i'm sorry, but he disrespected Bonds' when he broke the homer record, because of the "tarnish" on the record, but yet, turns a blind eye to Giambi's steroid use??? just because a guy said "woohoo! yea, i did steroids! let's talk about it baby!" he gets excused? if you're going to mete out different degrees of punishment and attitude toward these deals, then it's a waste of time to act like you even believe it's a blight. | ||||||
| 118 | Perm Dude ID: 44727169 Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 14:29 |
Do you think steroids are bad and if you do, why? It isn't that simple, Zen. Do you think marijuana is bad? Mostly, no. Sometimes, yes. For athletes who take steroids simply for the short term gains that it provides their body I'd say yes. Why, you say? -doctors are not permitted, by law, to prescribe them to enhance athletic performance (I know this gets into the "bad because illegal" argument but you appear not to have considered the implications of the prescription nature of the drugs in question); -those damn side effects. Liver troubles, psychological dependence, increased blood pressure & cholesterol, acceleration in tumor growth, migraines, and so on. Many athletes will find fewer of these side effects with moderate use, particularly if withdrawal is accompanied by anti-estrogen therapy. But the risk is there, and some athletes are more likely to get these side effects than others, even with moderate use. Given the amount of time and money invested in these athletes by teams, coaches, fans and so on, the risk of their bodies blowing out on them seems too high, IMO. Short answer: Assuming one can get around the legal issues (that is, all steroids are prescribed by doctors, and the doctors are permitted by law (and through changes in the AMA guidelines) to prescribe the steroids), the steroids are moderate and used in short-term cycles with prescribed buffer drugs to handle the down cycles, side effects are closely monitored, and so on (in other words, the whole thing is closely regulated across the sport, not just MLB), you still have the physical risks to the athletes. | ||||||
| 119 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 19:29 |
Finally, a real answer in post 118. So, if it was shown that moderate steroid use, monitored by doctors, was shown to have no to negligible side effects, you would drop your opposition to steroids? This is, of course, after the laws allow athletes to use these substances. The reason I talk about "moderate" use is because overuse will have negative consequences. Imagine aliens came to study alcohol. They visit Daytona Beach during Spring Break and witness that carnage. They then decide to study alcohol in wet labs, giving 120 lbs. women ten shots of grain alcohol over two ours on an empty stomach. I think of steroids much like alcohol, great in moderation, dangerous when you use too much. | ||||||
| 120 | holt ID: 41512278 Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 20:05 |
tree, has Selig actually given out any punishment to Bonds? if you get busted on a drug test, punishment is given, regardless of race. not that I'm a Selig fan, but I don't think racism has anything to do with it. Giambi and Bonds have taken different stances, and they are treated differently. also, Giambi isn't the one who broke the all-time HR record. __________ SZ - why use steroids at all? to hit a ball 15 ft father? performance is all relative. which do you prefer, a league where all the players are clean, half the players are clean, or all the players use steroids? for the life of me I can't understand why you are so rabidly pro-steroids. it seems like a pretty radical position to be taking. it's too much of a departure from the traditions of baseball, and more importantly, it's not worth the health risks. what you are suggesting is setting up some kind of roid bureaucracy to ensure all this "moderate" use crap. for what? more HR's and more 100 mph fastballs? insanity. Rogers Hornsby, where are you? Come talk some sense to this guy. It's a game. Fun to play, fun to watch. Blast all the roids into outer space! | ||||||
| 121 | Perm Dude ID: 44727169 Thu, Aug 16, 2007, 20:10 |
#119: I dunno, to be honest. The problem, of course, is that those young athletes (for which even moderate use brings much greater risk, and more side effects) will be practically required to start using themselves. I guess I would have to know whether there is, indeed, a benefit to moderate use to say for sure. There will always be a risk, even with moderate use. To say whether it is worth it we'd have to know what the gains will be. | ||||||
| 122 | Tree ID: 58755179 Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 10:58 |
tree, has Selig actually given out any punishment to Bonds? well, unless i'm mistaken, he certainly couldn't be bothered to show up when Bonds' broke the record. those actions speak volumes. | ||||||
| 123 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 14:27 |
for the life of me I can't understand why you are so rabidly pro-steroids. it seems like a pretty radical position to be taking. This isn't about me being "rabid" for steroids. I think it is important to seriously question every policy in place. When someone is vilified like Bonds, I believe that those who hate him, those who accuse him of ruining baseball need to defend their opinions. From what I've heard so far, I haven't heard anything convincing. Holt - you are the only person who at least made an argument against steroids that was not based upon the notion of "detrimental to your health." more HR's and more 100 mph fastballs? insanity. And you beseeched Rogers Hornsby to return from the grave, don his wool uni and three fingered glove, and bring order and grace to this untidy business we have found ourselves in. I, on the other hand, love more HR's and 100 MPH fastballs. Not many fans want a return to the 20's, 30's, or the 70's or 80's. I had a great time watching Mark and Sammy slamming shot after shot in 1998 and Bonds and his 73 Perm Dudes. If I were to quantify the effect of certain activities as they pertain to baseball, let's use Hornsby's time as the base of 1. Modern weight lifting regiments are a 7. Modern weight lifting regiments with steroids are a 9. Wait until you see what gene therapy brings in the future! In short, if you long for a return to a simpler time, to the Hornsby era, you need to ban lifting weights altogether. | ||||||
| 124 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 367531712 Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 16:13 | Actually the 30s was a mostly a huge hitter's era. | ||||||
| 125 | holt ID: 41512278 Fri, Aug 17, 2007, 20:02 | It always cracks me up to see baseball footage from the early 80's. So many skinny, scrawny players. And it wasn't really very long ago. | ||||||
| 126 | Tree ID: 58755179 Sat, Aug 18, 2007, 12:08 |
So many skinny, scrawny players. And it wasn't really very long ago. which, of course, has nothing to with steroids. never mind the advances in conditioning, there certainly was a belief at one point that if a player bulked up too much, his swing/technique and everything else would be severely limited. | ||||||
| 127 | JeffG Leader ID: 01584348 Mon, Sep 17, 2007, 14:22 |
The winning bid for the #756 ball was $752,467. Now the purchaser, fashion designer Mark Eckô, is letting the public decide what to do with the ball. - Donate it to Cooperstown. - Brand it with an asterisk, then donate it. - Launch it into space. Vote here | ||||||
| 128 | rockafellerskank ID: 450122417 Mon, Sep 17, 2007, 19:38 |
link Matt Murphy, a 21-year-old student and construction supervisor from New York, emerged from a scrum with the ball on Aug. 7. He decided to sell it, he said, because he couldn't afford the tax bill that would result from holding onto the ball. Some tax experts said Murphy would have owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes based on a reasonable estimate of the ball's value even if he had never sold it. He may also have faced capital gains taxes as the ball gained value. Wow, I never thought about the tax implications. Basically, no "normal" working class shmoe would be able to keep the ball... I caught an Eric Byrnes foul ball 2 weeks ago. I guess I should declare it's $12 value, huh? So.... if he gave it to Bonds, would Bonds have to pay a few hundy K to the IRS to own his own HR ball? Since Bonds keeps his jerseys and gloves and hats, etc..., does he have to pay taxes on their "value" when he takes his jock strap home? Does the HoF have to pay taxes on all the items that are donated based on their value. Just doesn't seem right. | ||||||
| 129 | Tree ID: 3533298 Thu, Dec 13, 2007, 15:40 |
Tree, your idea that EVERY record/player needs to be questioned is a bit ludicrous. There's pretty clear evidence of what Bonds did via leaked grand jury testimony. Do you have any (ANY!) evidence that would point towards any of the players you listed having done performance-enhancing drugs or anything else that would be considered cheating and/or not playing fair? yea, actually, there is. | ||||||
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. | |||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||