CheeryO
-
Posts
635 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CheeryO
-
-
14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
So someone using cutting edge steroid/HGH/training/diet is more of a cheater than someone taking horse steroids or someone who thinks they are taking steroids but are in fact ingesting sugar pills?
Yea, I can't agree with that.
The important piece is the intent.
Yes, I see what you're saying, but we're talking about grown men who play a game that, on some level, has always tolerated a certain level of cheating. There's that line in the sand of what's acceptable cheating and what's not, but you're the only person I know of that cites a failed attempt at cheating as being as bad effective cheating and getting away with it. Even murder is worse than attempted murder; but again we're talking about grown men playing a game with some level, however small or big, of cheating in it. Someone who is ingesting sugar pills is not hitting more home runs or striking out more batters. He's trying to gain an advantage but failing. Of course the effective cheater who actually gains an advantage over other players is the one committing the real offense.
-
3 minutes ago, El Gordo said:
No you're right, you can OD on aspirin if you're dumb enough.
Do you really think the PEDs guys were taking twenty years ago -- or even the designer ones today -- have the mere side effects of aspirin? I don't know how much info there is on this on Google but it is an interesting topic.
-
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:
Sorry forgot the other bit.
This is how it works, if you state as a premise that athletes A, B and C were so talented that they didn't need to cheat and I respond with athletes X, Y, and Z were every bit as talented and yet they cheated that is calling into question the validity of your premise. Since their doesn't seem to be any evidence that athletes that reach a certain performance threshold are less likely to use PEDs.
Of course I wasn't saying that athletes A, B and C would never cheat if they were the best in the game. In fact, one of my other points stated why these some of these same players might cheat -- mainly their bodies and skills start to decline. I was pointing out the best have far less incentive to cheat, especially when you consider the drawbacks. For every Barry Bonds and ARod, how many others are there at the top of the game that were never suspected of cheating? How man Griffeys, Pujols, Trouts, Frank Thomas's, Jim Thomes, etc. were there? I can only assume that the great players who presumably never did cheat didn't do so because of the point I originally made. I'm already better than everyone else, so why take the chance damaging my body and my legacy? The lesser players have more incentive to cheat because they have a better chance of losing their job -- or losing the big payday -- without that extra boost in performance. You are right that I can't prove this statement, but I'm making an argument, not a proof.
-
4 minutes ago, El Gordo said:
All drugs are not the same. With these new designer PED's side effects can be safely managed,
I suspect there's really no drug without any side effects, but I'm no expert.
-
1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:
What possible difference does it make how effective it would have been? Either the intent is there to cheat or it isn't.
Ruth tried to cheat. It didn't work and he fell ill but it doesn't take away from his intent to cheat.
It makes every difference how it effective cheating is. Who would care if Lance Armstrong tried to cheat -- failed -- and then fell outside of the top 10 in ten straight Tours de France? Nobody would have ever cared enough to investigate the failed cheatings of a cyclist nobody ever heard of. If Babe Ruth tried to cheat and failed, then that's a completely different conversation with a completely different point -- especially because it pretty much proves his game never needed a boost from doping.
-
8 minutes ago, El Gordo said:
Any evidence of that? If there were I think we'd hear about it.
Evidence? It's not an episode of CSI. Ask them or their doctors and maybe they will tell you or they won't. And even if they do have some symptoms, linking them to doping may not be provable. I'm not saying that long-term side effects of doping are a given, but I am saying it would be hard to believe that there wouldn't be some players that wouldn't have any. Hard drug use -- whether it's alcohol or heroin or something else -- so often leave lasting effects.
-
5 minutes ago, El Gordo said:
Still waiting for those long term side effects for Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and Clemens.
True, or maybe they're already living with them.
-
13 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:
Because Ruth and Bonds weren't talented.
Lance Armstrong was a hack.
You're such a troll. Where did I imply that any of these guys weren't talented?
That said, even if was amazingly talented, how was Lance Armstrong not a hack? He's the poster child for a career made by doping.
What is the source that Babe Ruth doped? And even if he did, how effective could they have been back in his day relative to any other kitchen sink concoction any other player used?
Barry Bonds is the guy that really rides the line. Would he have been at the league of Mantle, Aaron, Mays and Pujols had he not cheated? I doubt it, but maybe. ARod is another case. He's so insecure that even if he had twice the talent of Ruth he still would have maybe doped.
-
On 4/18/2017 at 8:38 PM, crawjo said:
What on earth would have prevented them from doing it?
1) The fact that they were so talented that they probably wouldnt't need them to beat the competition, 2) The immediate and short-term side-effects, 3) The long-term side-effects
-
If Chen had a better ERA than David Price (over a certain period) it's because Chen doesn't have to go beyond six innings, where Price can often easily make it to the 8th. Elite pitchers like Price are frequently trusted to clean up their own messes later in the game where with Chen, if he gets into trouble in the 5th or 6th, he's gone. With Chen your bullpen better be ready even on his best days. And yes, better to bench him when facing Toronto, Detroit and now when facing Baltimore too.
-
1
-
-
[video=youtube;wf4c-LMJeeA]
Only Gene Kelly could tap dance on roller skates.
-
[video=youtube;vsMUPbAma6s]
-
1
-
-
Mark Reynolds had an excellent defensive game today at third believe it or not. But I have little doubt he will go ice cold at the plate for at least a 2 month stretch at some point this season.
-
[video=youtube;orhf_Xv6HCA]
-
They were the luckiest team of all time.
I don't know about that, but I do think the Blue Jays this past year were one of the unluckiest teams of all time. At the present time, I don't think it would take that much for the most of the teams in the AL East to fall to the bottom of the division or rise to the top. Even though the Rays have so much consistency and depth because they are so well managed, they could fall to the bottom if they trade away Price or not re-sign someone like Loney and not find way to replace their production. The Red Sox could find themselves in a similar position since they seem to be shying away from big free agent contracts at the moment. On the opposite end of the spectrum the Yankees could wind up as the Blue Jays if even more high priced players get hurt or just tail off. In some way the O's are in the most precarious position because they don't have that much depth, their management has a mixed track record, and they obviously cannot spend with New York, Boston and Toronto. There is a great deal of parity in the AL East right now but the reasons why, team by team, is fascinating. It's hard to see any of these teams being dominant any time soon and predicting failure or disappointment for any of them seems pointless too.
They All Break
in Orioles Talk
Posted
Not good, but it's not like Urias has been a major factor in the Dodgers' success year. Can you imagine if Urias was a starter for the O's? We would all be talking about him like he were already HOF worthy and blame the O's coaching for ruining his arm. The Dodgers are the opposite of the O's in that they have become deep in talent and patient. They are built to absorb bad luck here and there.