|
| 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.:) |
| | | 1 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167
Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 01:58
|
My personal guess would be that his final HR, the HR that sets the new mark, would be the most valuable. After that, I would guess #756, then #755.
I'm basing this on the $3M paid for McGwire's #70 ball. I don't think #61 and #62 would have gotten as much (I seem to recall McGwire getting both balls and couldn't find any auction info, but could be wrong).
As for the shot that breaks the record, I'll guess June 10, 2007 v. OAK. Because he's 1 shot away from breaking the record, ESPN will make it the Sunday Night Baseball game. He'll do it in his second at bat against Dan Haren.
Anybody else want to guess for the heck of it? :)
|
|
| | |
| | | 3 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 4110481415
Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 02:10
|
7/15/2007 vs LA
Don't think they will have to drain the bay as the balls float.
In this case I think 756 will have the high value. The final homer of his career will also have big value but I think it is a little different as he could play another season or two and we won't have his last HR for awhile.
|
|
| | | 4 | Jack Hammers
Donor
ID: 236482918
Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 02:18
|
Never understood the whole collectables thing. 3 mil for a baseball. Thousands of dollars for a baseball card. Grown men pushing kids out of the way to get signatures of somebody 20 years younger than them that they will then sell to each other.
I liked the movie (forget what it was called) where the kids stole the Babe Ruth signed baseball to use in their pick-up game.
I'll say Aug 8th at home vs. Washington. Give him time for a month worth of injuries and couple weeks worth of slumps. I for one, am looking forward to seeing him break it.
|
|
| | | 5 | JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 02:21
|
He needs 15 more to tie. Put me down for #756 coming on June 29 vs Arizona.
I'd say there is probably a market out there for any of the HR balls from 714 on. The big bucks will come on the record breaker, the second most will probably be for Bond's final career HR.
|
|
| | | 6 | Skidazl
ID: 189142212
Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 11:35
|
I think 756 will have the most value going by the info in wolfer's link and the fact that we don't hear much about the value of Mac's #61 and 62 since it sounds like He(Mac) has them both...
I'm guessing he'll do it against Boston on June 17...
|
|
| | | 7 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 11:59
|
June 22 vs NYY
Roger Clemens serves it up...Bonds actually breaks his bat on it and throws it like a dart at Clemens...brawl insues, both are kicked out of MLB forever
...just a guess :)
|
|
| | | 8 | R9
Leader
ID: 02624472
Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 16:11
|
May 29th, after he goes on an Arodesque run. :)
|
|
| | | 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 313532323
Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 16:44
|
Bonds, chasing after Clemens who runs away like a little girl, trips and is punctured by a piece of the bat and explodes right there in the infield...
|
|
| | | 10 | Go Easy
ID: 24027919
Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 16:47
|
Jack Hammers Sandlot was the movie. My 6 year old makes me watch it all the time. I'm going to go away from the norm here and say he won't beat the record. I'm not wishing any ill will on anyone, just going with a bold prediction. I don't want him to break it but I also don't want anything bad to happen to him. How about just an 0 for 2006 and 2007 then retire:)
|
|
| | | 11 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 16:53
|
McGwire's #70
And expect him to end up with 754, 755, 756
Cliff
|
|
| | | 12 | Khahan
ID: 213541316
Tue, Apr 24, 2007, 23:25
|
I would assume the top 3 valued balls for this season are (in order):
1. final homer of the season
2. 756
3. 755
He'll break the record (Yeah, I'm rooting for him) on June 6 @ Arizona, off Randy Johnson.
He'll end the season with 769 HR.
|
|
| | | 13 | Go Easy
ID: 24027919
Wed, Apr 25, 2007, 09:55
|
Oops suppose to say 2007 and 2008 but I think you get the point.
|
|
| | | 14 | JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Tue, May 08, 2007, 23:36
|
Bonds hits #10 (745) today. 10 to tie, 11 to break.
According to ESPN News, going into this season the only days Bonds never homered were May 8th, and August 5th. So now he just needs to hit a homer on 8/5 to cover the whole baseball calendar. That is a very interesting (and useless) fact.
|
|
| | | 15 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Wed, May 09, 2007, 00:08
|
The giants announcers actually said he's never homered on Sept 30th also.
181 or so down, 2 to go?
|
|
| | | 16 | Razor
ID: 2107611
Wed, May 09, 2007, 10:01
|
I don't think George Mitchell is going to make it in time.
|
|
| | | 17 | blue hen
ID: 14273110
Wed, May 09, 2007, 12:46
|
Interesting 5/8 and 8/5.
|
|
| | | 18 | Matt G
ID: 81052212
Wed, May 09, 2007, 15:16
|
What does bonds have to do to redeem himself with the majority of fans...
I say if he hits 754 and retires immediately after that, I will have a new found respect for him...
we all know that wont happen
|
|
| | | 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 4642898
Wed, May 09, 2007, 15:17
|
If he did that, many fans would say he was selfishly only playing for the record.
|
|
| | | 20 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 4110481415
Wed, May 09, 2007, 15:56
|
PD...if he quit at 754 he would not have the record...I would be happy with that move...still would not be a fan of the guy but I might have a little respect for the fraud.
|
|
| | | 21 | Perm Dude
ID: 4642898
Wed, May 09, 2007, 15:59
|
True enough. But that would be self-fulfilling. What if he isn't playing for the record, but just because he loves the game and competition? Bonds is in a no-win situation (has been for years, IMO). He's played the game on his terms, like it or not.
|
|
| | | 22 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Wed, May 09, 2007, 19:18
|
I'm sure Bonds loses a lot of sleep worrying that fans of other teams don't respect him.
|
|
| | | 23 | JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Tue, May 29, 2007, 15:13
|
This site ran the season 1 million times from 5/23 on, and shows how many times Bonds broke the record according to his simulation on each day.
|
|
| | | 24 | JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 15:32
|
Countdown time. Bonds broke out of his 0-22 slump and hit career HR #752 today. Three to tie Aaron.
Coincedentally SF goes to Milwaukee this weekend. Coincedentally, Aaron hit his final HR #755, playing for Milwaukee. BTW, Ruth hit his final HR #714 playing for the Boston Braves who later moved to Milwaukee.
Then the Giants are home for a 7 game homestand 7/23-7/29 vs Atlanta (Aaron's team, nice coincedence) and Florida.
I am doubt he will not get a chance to hit 755 or 756 vs the Braves pitching.
|
|
| | | 25 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 16:15
|
For my part, Bondo is the ONLY professional athlete, where I find myself rooting FOR a career ending injury. Today, would be a good day for it.
|
|
| | | 26 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 710321114
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 16:37
|
I'm still impressed. He was the best player in 1990 and he's still the best player in the steroid-riddled late aughts.
|
|
| | | 27 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 16:48
|
He just hit anther one into the basket. ugh!
The fans still threw it back.
|
|
| | | 28 | RecycledSpinalFluid
Dude
ID: 204401122
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 17:07
|
Along the same lines as JeffG's "coincidences", I find that the right fielder, for the opposing team, in the game that Hank Aaron hit his last home run in, was Bobby Bonds. Just an interesting fact to me.
|
|
| | | 29 | Tree
ID: 18661918
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 20:45
|
For my part, Bondo is the ONLY professional athlete, where I find myself rooting FOR a career ending injury. Today, would be a good day for it.
i will never, for the life of me, understand this logic. then again, people were rooting for Hank Aaron to die as he was approaching Babe Ruth's record, so, i guess it's par for the course.
personally, i'm very excited that another record i grew up believing would never fall (from the ages of 8 to 21 for me, no one broke the 50-homer barrier, so someone breaking the career home run record seemed impossible), is most likely going to fall.
this is a very exciting time to be a baseball fan, because we are seeing history made.
it's a damned shame that Bond's race to the record isn't being approached with the same excitement that greeted Cal Ripken as he approached Gehrig's record, and anyone who wishes ill will on Bonds as he approaches this record is disgusting to me.
|
|
| | | 30 | Perm Dude
ID: 25658198
Thu, Jul 19, 2007, 23:13
|
Cal Ripken was a much more personable player, and clearly had better interaction with the fans. The only thing that's a damn shame is that people think Bonds should have the same adulation that someone who actually liked the fans do.
But I agree that wishing for an injury has an echo of the stuff Aaron went through.
As for the steroids, there has been so much written about it that there is no use going over any of it again. Given Bonds' poor interaction with MLB management in general I think if they had something on him he wouldn't be playing right now. But he is. I don't hate Bonds because he might or might not have taken steroids. I don't like Bond because I don't think he's a very nice person.
|
|
| | |
| | | 32 | donk44
ID: 42611019
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 00:40
|
Why do you think very few people outside of S.F. care about Bonds breaking the record (or wish he didn't) ? Because anyone with half a brain knows it's going to be a tainted record. The fact that Hank Aaron wants nothing to do with it should tell you something. Selig doesn't want anything to do with it either, though he may have to be there. That still remains to be seen. A big, dark cloud hangs over the whole thing.
Bonds did tons of steroids, and he would not be about to break the record otherwise. He was a very good player before he started "using", but his ego got the best of him, and he couldn't stand seeing less talented players like McGwire & Sosa breaking records left and right by "juicing".
Speaking of McGwire, do you really think Roger Maris' family would have been there cheering him when he broke the single season HR record, if they had known at the time that he was juicing. I think not.
And for anyone who doesn't think Bonds did steroids, or says - well he never tested positive, get a grip on reality. He never tested positive because they weren't testing for it then. They still aren't testing for HGH (among other things), but that's another story. If you have any doubts that Bonds used steroids, just read the BALCO book (the name escapes me at the moment), and you will doubt no more. Not to mention lying to the grand jury, making many racist comments, threatening his mistress, and more.
So going back to the original question, the answer is simple. Most people don't care about him breaking the record because they know it's going to go down in history as a tainted record. It would not have been accomplished without steroids. And if you need any other reason, then you can add in that he is the biggest jerk to ever put on a uniform.
|
|
| | | 33 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 344311322
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 01:08
|
I care about him breaking the record...I hate the fact that he is breaking the record for no other reason than it is a false record because he did it with chemical enhancements. IMO his record will always be tainted and not a true record. He would have never broke this record without the use of steroids.
I will be rooting for arod or whoever breaks his record.
This does not even begin to compare to the hatred for Aaron when he was breaking the record. Racism is wrong. There is nothing wrong with not acknowledging or rooting against a cheater.
Btw...I have no problem with Bonds being a surly sob...or not being liked by his teammates...or not being fan friendly...or cheating on his wife...or being black...or whatever else the Bonds apologists want to throw out there...I just have a problem with him being a cheat and that is enough for me to condemn him.
I hate hearing he has not been convicted of steroid use...no proof...if you had to bet 1 million dollars on him using or not using which way would you bet? would you even have to think about it? and how sure are you that you would be right? I would make that bet with every dollar I have and give long odds and not be the least bit worried.
|
|
| | | 34 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 060151121
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 01:20
|
Game of Shadows is the name of the book.
Quite a read.
Opened my eyes a lot.
Cliff
|
|
| | | 35 | Tree
ID: 57617205
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 06:25
|
Because anyone with half a brain knows it's going to be a tainted record.
I hate the fact that he is breaking the record for no other reason than it is a false record because he did it with chemical enhancements.
Bonds became the face of this solely because he's a bit surly, and because he is approaching "THE" record.
unless you're willing to throw out nearly every stat from 1985 on, then i don't accept that argument you're willing to just throw out Bonds'.
i believe that the vast majority of ball players - certainly well over 50 percent - have used performance enhancing drugs over the last two decades.
so unless you're willing to vacate the various individual batting titles and team championships that were achieved in the last 20 years (much like college football when it turns out a team used an ineligible player), then your condemnations ring hollow to me.
|
|
| | | 36 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 710321114
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 09:56
|
So officially, who are the 1988 American League and 1996 National League MVPs?
|
|
| | | 37 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 10:01
|
So officially, who are the 1988 American League and 1996 National League MVPs?
i don't know if you're challenging what i'm saying, or agreeing.
|
|
| | | 38 | donk44
ID: 42611019
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 15:12
|
Re:35
Tree - I didn't say Bonds was the only one using steroids, or that his soon to be record should be somehow taken away from him, or thrown out. I agree with you that many, many players "used" during that time period. I just said his record will be LOOKED UPON by most people as tainted.
I think Hank Aaron not wanting anything at all to do with Bonds record breaking day speaks volumes.
34 GoatLocker
Game of Shadows is the name of the book.
Quite a read.
Opened my eyes a lot.
Cliff
Thank you Goatlocker. Couldn't agree more.
So now everyone will go out and get it, right ? haha
|
|
| | | 39 | Building 7
Sustainer
ID: 171572711
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 16:23
|
This record could concievably happen as soon as today. What's he need three? I remember one of the 3000 hit guys had a 4 hit game and screwed up all the predictions and plans.
|
|
| | | 40 | Perm Dude
ID: 54650208
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 16:37
|
Two to tie, three to break. Bonds has had 71 multi-homer games in his career.
Biggio is probably who you are thinking of. He went 5 of 6 on June 28th to get his 3000th.
|
|
| | | 41 | mrbig
ID: 59522612
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 17:59
|
Don't root against Bonds. Root for ARod, Prince, and anyone else with a reasonable chance to pass Bonds and who is generally untainted to pass Bonds in the next 5-10 years.
|
|
| | | 42 | JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 10:27
|
#755 came Saturday night against Padres pitcher Clay Hensley who served a minor league suspension in 2005 after a positive test result for steroids.
Bond's comment -
"I don't think we're here to discuss those matters. I think we have a great policy in the sport of baseball and we should just leave it at that."
|
|
| | | 43 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 11:29
|
JackHammers predicted it to happen on Wednesday (post 4)
very possible!
And Bonds has still never homered on August 5th
|
|
| | | 44 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 12:06
|
I think WAB and I are going to the game tonight.
|
|
| | | 45 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 14:44
|
Confirmed. 3rd row of the 3rd deck, just to the right of home plate!
And nearly as important as Bonds' HR chase -- Tim Lincecum is pitching so I will get a bird's eye view! Woohoo!
|
|
| | | 46 | Taxman
SuperDude
ID: 029463114
Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 14:52
|
Speices/WAB..I hope you will get to see "the" HR in person tonight. Good Luck!
|
|
| | | 47 | JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 15:02
|
Species- Very Cool. Too bad you could not be in the right field fair seats and be in any possible free for all for the ball.
Good luck, you may see history as he goes for #756.
Useless info: After Aaron hit #755 he had 64 more AB to try get #756 (16 BB, 1 SF in that period). Aaron 1976 game log.
|
|
| | | 48 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Mon, Aug 06, 2007, 16:16
|
I can't imagine how much scalpers are asking for those RF seats for this series' tickets!
|
|
| | | 49 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 13:54
|
Posted some pics in the RotoHog thread.
|
|
| | | 50 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Tue, Aug 07, 2007, 23:53
|
JackHammers was off by 8 minutes :)
|
|
| | | 51 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 710321114
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 00:03
|
Holy crap - that's pretty impressive nonetheless.
|
|
| | | 52 | JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 00:45
|
It looks like the fan who caught #756 was wearing a Mets Jose Reyes jersey.
From what that free-for-all looked like on tv, one of these days, someone who catches a milestone HR is going to get seriously hurt.
|
|
| | | 53 | Jack Hammers
Donor
ID: 236482918
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 09:01
|
Thanks for taking note J (post 50). You don't miss anything do you!
Hopefully the BayAreaBlueJays bought tickets for the whole series/
I'll give myself the consolation prize of voicing my opinion on the whole matter.
Way to go Barry. I'm an East Coaster but have always been a casual fan of San Francisco teams and Bonds.
Steroids have never made a bit of difference to me. I think its been a media driven issue from the beginning, they have tried to make the public care about it so they will watch and read, and follow the stories. Just another in a long line of examples of reporters trying to BE the news and create the news rather than report it.
My opinion is that since the beginnings of competition athletes have used whatever they could find (legal or not) to give themselves an advantage. Protein powder, creatine, cocaine, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, chicken, LSD. weed, pills, booze, crystal meth, sex, no sex, ancient chinese secrets and the list will never end. I've heard accounts of all these things. the fact is, ya gotta HIT em. You have to SEE the ball, catch, throw, kick with accuracy, hit the weight room, run the laps, shoot 500 jump shots a day, run the sprints and suicides practice defense, get screamed at by coaches you're whole life, sacrifice family life and for the most part all of your adolecsent years. Remember playing in High School? You are puking out on the field from the heat of early August while your friends are still at the beach. Your running laps at practice EVERY DAY after school while your friends are under the bleachers smoking dope and feeling up their girlfriends. Give these guys a little CREDIT. You have to have made yourself good enough to begin with to have any outside influences help you. Tons of sacrifice involved.
As for Bonds, the media hate him. They will potray him in the worst light possible, He can never win. they have the pen. Is he an a*shole? Maybe. But the media will always show you that side of him. You'll never really know what the guy is like by reading the newspaper or watching SportsCenter.
Fact is, I respect him as a superior athlete before and after all the steroids crap, I'm happy for him and his family on the accomplishment. I love the respect he shows for his father and those who came before him in the game.
....or maybe I just feel like I owe him something for helping me win a few championships in the early nineties in an NL only rotisserie league.
Whatever the case, way to go Barry...
|
|
| | | 54 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 4110481415
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 09:35
|
booooo!
|
|
| | | 55 | Razor
ID: 136523110
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 09:42
|
Bonds deserves about as much praise and congratulations as Justin Gatlin, Ben Johnson and Floyd Landis.
|
|
| | | 56 | Texas Flood
ID: 353452713
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 10:03
|
The HR king always has been, always will be Babe Ruth. Piss on Barry Bonds!
|
|
| | | 57 | blue hen
ID: 16322314
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 10:24
|
All those guys competed against other steroid users, right?
|
|
| | | 58 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 10:25
|
The HR king always has been, always will be Babe Ruth. Piss on Barry Bonds!
What did Roger Maris or Hank Aaron do wrong?
|
|
| | | 59 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 10:40
|
It was all kind of anticlimactic to me. I was honestly more excited about Glavine's 300th win and I know I was more excited about Ripken breaking the Ironman record.
It just felt weird to listen to Aaron talk about chasing dreams with all the suspicion (and truth, if you believe leaked grand jury testimony) around Bonds.
Whether his competitors took steroids or not doesn't matter, in my opinion. A truly respectable player will rise above his competition without needing to lower their own standards of acceptable behavior.
I'm a believer that Lance Armstrong did not dope. If you're a believer, too, then what Armstrong did to his competition, filled with those who doped, is just that much more amazing and respectable.
In the end, I'm just not all that awed by it and I actually think Glavine's 300 wins is a bigger feat, especially nowadays.
Here's hoping the record goes down more than a few times in the next decade or so. (Sell that ball... fast!)
|
|
| | | 60 | Frick
Donor
ID: 3410101718
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 11:12
|
Congrats to Barry, hopefully he has a long and happy life after this, but I doubt it for some reason. Between the perjury charges and damage that he did to his body with steroids I don't think it is likely. Does Barry know that he took steroids? He says he didn't realize what it was, but that seems to confirm that yes, he did take steroids.
The only thing that would have made the moment better in my mind was having #756 happen in an opposing ballpark and having that immortal moment either being played with no sounds or loud boos.
Did they stop the game and do all of the celebrations then and have Barry do his speech during the game? Is that normal? I seem to remember very brief stops for Ripkin's streak and even less for Rose break the hit record and Nolen Ryan breaking the strikeout record. I wonder if that was the Giants call or Barry's preference.
|
|
| | | 61 | Toral
ID: 575542418
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 11:41
|
Congrats, Barry. You were a great player and sure HOFer before you decided to 'roid up. You might have been regarded as the best LFer ever just on merit. Instead you drugged up, set a record which will endure for only a few years until A-Rod breaks it, are a figure of derision and contempt to 80% of baseball fans, and will suffer who-knows-what kind of steroid-related ills in your future.
Enjoy yesterday and today. As of tomorrow, you are are a person of no interest except to criminal/baseball investigators.
Toral
|
|
| | | 62 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 11:49
|
Kudos to Barry Bonds, one of the greatest players in MLB history. While a healthy A-Rod will probably break your record within the next decade, you will go down in history as holding a record few other men have held.
Also, say your prayers that Hank Aaron broke this record before you did, because he at least lessened the blow of how people feel about a black man holding this sacred record.
Don't let the haters bother you - you may be a jerk, but you played the same game as your colleagues, only better.
(Barry Bonds breaking this record is the best thing to happen to baseball since Gehrig's record fell. It's a damned shame that people think he cheated, when he did nothing different than nearly every other player who played in his era.)
|
|
| | | 63 | Ender
ID: 1138421
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 12:29
|
I don't want to get into a lengthy argument, especially with you, Tree, because you're better at it than I am. However, I do think it's worth noting that even if everyone cheats, it's still cheating. Steroids were banned prior to the testing program. Using them did and does still constitute cheating. There's no way around that.
You can say that using them doesn't bother you or matter to you. You are entitled to your own opinion. That doesn't change the fact that it is indeed cheating.
|
|
| | | 64 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 12:43
|
i basically think if you're going to hold critique up to Bonds' record, then you need to hold critique to nearly every single statistic registered and record broken over the last 25 years - and that includes those numbers by folks like Boggs, Gwynn, Glavine, Clemens, and even Ripken.
never mind the fact that baseball didn't even test for steroids until 2003, so by those standards, there wasn't anything wrong with it until then according to MLB.
|
|
| | | 65 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 12:50
|
Like McGwire before him, I don't believe Barry "cheated." That's not to say that I believe he never used steroids; just that he didn't "cheat."
See, MLB has this problem in their recent history where they ignored the issue of steroids. Andro was legal in MLB (though banned in MANY other sports) when McGwire used it (openly) and broke the single-season HR record.
And I think Barry is a similar issue. It's hard to refute the leaked grand jury testimony that supports he used something. But, he also was never caught under any MLB testing and/or policies and a lot of that has to do with a complete lack of testing and/or policies to begin with.
To me, it's not a question of cheating; it's a question of honor and respect and I don't honor, nor respect, Bonds.
The saddest part to me is that I honestly believe he could have broken the record without the help of performance-enhancing drugs. Too bad he didn't give it a try.
|
|
| | | 66 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 12:54
|
Barry Bonds...the ONLY professinal athlete, I honestly hoped would suffer a career ending injury, prior to his setting his "mark".
THAT, is my opinion re him.
|
|
| | | 67 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 12:56
|
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?
I know you can find something on Clemens (he's a Yankee; that'd be easy), but how about the others? Anything besides remote, web-based conspiracy theories?
|
|
| | | 68 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 14:13
|
Tree 64:
didn't even test for steroids until 2003, so by those standards, there wasn't anything wrong with it until then according to MLB
KKB 65:
I don't believe Barry "cheated."
What in the world are you people talking about? Steroids have been on MLB's banned list since 1991. Anyone who used them since 1991 was breaking the rules and therefore cheating.
|
|
| | | 69 | beastiemiked
ID: 65112917
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 14:20
|
(Barry Bonds breaking this record is the best thing to happen to baseball since Gehrig's record fell. It's a damned shame that people think he cheated, when he did nothing different than nearly every other player who played in his era.)
LOL. Take off your blinders. Liking Barry is one thing but actually thinking him breaking the record is the best thing for baseball since Gehrigs record is downright hilarious.
|
|
| | | 70 | Tree
ID: 3533298
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 14:27
|
Steroids have been on MLB's banned list since 1991. Anyone who used them since 1991 was breaking the rules and therefore cheating.
I'm sorry, but that was just posturing on the part of MLB. if you're going to ban something, but not test for it, what's the point?
Liking Barry is one thing but actually thinking him breaking the record is the best thing for baseball since Gehrigs record is downright hilarious.
watching what many consider the most hallowed record in MLB fall is quite exciting. i was alive, but not really aware, when Aaron broke Ruth's record, but i was able to watch this one. it's a great thing.
|
|
| | | 71 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 454491514
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 15:00
|
Tree
but that was just posturing on the part of MLB. if you're going to ban something, but not test for it, what's the point?
Rules are rules, whether they are enforced or not. If you break a rule, its called cheating. Its very simple. While you may scoff at the notion of trusting the integrity of people to follow rules with no disciplinary recourse (perhaps you are right to do so) it was not a case of "posturing", as you say, on Fay Vincent's part. He took the first step in the long and difficult task of trying to stem the spreading use of steroids among pro athletes in MLB. Unfortunately, the Players Association, the most powerful player's union in American pro sports, put up many roadblocks to steroid testing and reprimand over the years.
But the rule has been there since long before Bonds started using (by accounts of his use that I've seen) and he surely knew about the rule when he chose to break them.
Also, Tree, from your post 62:
he did nothing different than nearly every other player who played in his era
I don't think you can back up that statement. The highest number I've seen floated by people who claim to be in the know (Canseco, Caminiti, etc.) is 50%. Caminiti even said after his book was released that he was misquoted and that the figure is actually less than that. Whatever the actual number, the claim that nearly every player in Bonds' era was juiced just can't fly, even as speculation.
|
|
| | | 72 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 15023167
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 15:26
|
MITH, I do feel like Barry cheated the game and the fans, but I don't believe he "cheated," in the sense that he did something that MLB would punish. I feel like MLB's policies were self-serving and simply a dog-and-pony show for the public. I don't for a second believe that they were actually trying to keep steroids out of baseball.
For me, it's kind of like the laws still on the books where the missionary position is the only legal position to have sex (yes, there are places in the US that still have laws like that). To me, if an agency of authority is not even for one second or a blink of an eye going to do anything even remotely possible to enforce a "rule," then what's it worth?
I believe Bonds to be blight on the sport, which is why I don't respect or honor him, but I also blame MLB for this situation just as much, if not more, than Barry. They had the power to do something about it, REALLY do something about it, and they didn't; not until they were forced to.
I would never tell kids to look up to Barry, nor would I ever celebrate his "accomplishments." He may not have "cheated" in the sense that using a corked bat, scuffing a baseball, etc. would have resulted in consequences, but I will say that he cheated the game, its history, and its fans.
|
|
| | | 73 | JeffG
Leader
ID: 01584348
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 15:42
|
Whatever position you want to take as to the validity of Bond's record, as a baseball fan, I have been watching every Giants game and Bonds AB since he hit 754. (As an east coaster it was alot of late nights).
It was still a cool moment last night when he broke the record and I am glad I got to witness the moment on tv and enjoy the experience. Similar to other similar moments in my lifetime like when Ripken broke Gehrig's record, or Rose passed Cobb, or Henderson passed Brock, or when McGwire passed Maris, or when Ryan (and Carlton) passed Walter Johnson, or when Aaron passed Ruth's (I was 12), it was just a neat baseball moment and I am glad I got to see it.
Records should be broken so we can remember and celebrate the achievements of the current and prior record holder.
The legacy and reverence of baseball records is unique among all the team and individual sports.
I hope one day someone comes close to DiMaggio's 56.
Great moment from last night's barry Bonds post game media conference. The final question of the night came from a Japanese reporter who congratulated Bonds then asked something along the lines of still having 112 home runs to go before approaching Sadaharu Oh's record 868 home runs. It was almost like a 'congratulations you are now in second place' moment. It was then mentioned that Josh Gibson is credited with having "just under 800 home runs" as well. Barry had a "I'm done chasing numbers" look about him.
|
|
| | | 74 | Toral
ID: 575542418
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 16:04
|
It was still a cool moment last night when he broke the record and I am glad I got to witness the moment on tv and enjoy the experience. Similar to other similar moments in my lifetime like
when Pol Pot killed his millionth Cambodian?
Could be about 30 years ago today.
Pol Pot: "Records should be broken so we can remember and celebrate the achievements of the current and prior record holder."
Sorry, that was jeff g.
Toral
|
|
| | | 75 | C1-NRB
ID: 5932328
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 16:40
|
It was inevitable. Was Barry juiced up to get to this point? Meh.
I feel a little BaD for Mike Bacsick. The first words out of my mouth when it happened were, "Oh no."
Bacsick has interesting backstory-
He's from the Dallas/ Ft. Worth area. (I'll skip all the deatils about his Dad and the Rangers in the '70's.) Mike Jr. played for the Rangers for a season or so then was out of baseball for a few years. While he was out, he was an intern for the mid-day show on Dallas' original sports station, KTCK 1310 The Ticket. There he performed typical intern duties- go to Chipolte for burritos, ask the visiting athlete goofy questions, etc.
He got a call from the Nationals and an inviation to Spring Training where he did well enough get a minor league deal. He told his wife, "This is it. If I don't make it now, I'm walking away." He did well enough to get the call-up. Through all this he called into the show to keep them up to date on his progress. At the end of each call they gently reminded him where he came from.
You can tell he takes everything in stride just by his comments to ESPN about it being better than the guy that gave up Jason Tyner's first career homerun and how he and Barry being best-buddies now- going out to dinner all the time.
He called in earlier this afternoon but I didn't get to hear the whole conversation. I wouldn't be surprised if they goofed on him "grooving three" and Barry finally doing his part on the third.
|
|
| | | 76 | TB
ID: 14729815
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 18:09
|
Not that he will ever read this forum, but congrats to Barry. Great moment from one of the greatest players to ever play the game.
|
|
| | | 77 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 18:34
|
I'm sure glad that Toral is keeping this in perspective. Yeah, I, too, think hitting home runs years after taking steroids is the moral equivalent of killing millions of innocent civilians.
I've done an exhaustive search of ESPN.com and have yet to find the All-Time Tyrant Career Murders record. Perhaps Toral could help me out here.
|
|
| | |
| | | 79 | Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Aug 08, 2007, 18:50
|
Dude, Parade Magazine?
That would be like Organic Gardening giving a list of the Top 20 Medical Schools in America.
I wonder how they felt qualified to create such a list. I wonder how the editors came to the conclusion that readers of Parade Magazine would seek out such a list within its pages.
I just wonder.
|
|
| | | 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.
|
|
|
|