Sessh

It's not an insult at all, but years of baseball knowledge aren't necessary for this. The black edge of the plate is clearly visible and the ball clearly touches it. There is no dirt between the ball and the black, therefore it touched it. I don't know why you would take that as an insult? It's pretty clear in the photo. The same edge is on the other side only not as prominent (covered with a little dirt).

I see, then I stand corrected on what Palmer said. However, the photos you posted show clearly that it was on the black and so does the pitch FX. Anyway, I don't wanna argue with you again, bud. Especially not on something like this, so we'll just agree to disagree.

It seems so. I'm not sure what you think that black line that goes along the outside edge of the plate is if it's not the black of the plate, though. The ball brushes that black line. I can't see how you say it's two inches off the black.

I see it brush the black in the photos you showed, but I still say it's too close to take. He said it didn't touch the black? It's low if it's anything and it might be. Even on that fourth picture of the pitch FX, the "3" circle is both in line with the outside corner line on the pitch FX (on the black) and like 1/4th of the ball is above the knees. Strike two was on the black as well. Two and three are the same pitch as far as the outside corner goes, but the third was lower.

The second and third pictures clearly show it brushed the black of the plate.

It showed it low and away, but the ball was very close to the point on the edge in that corner of the strike zone. The overhead showed the ball barely touch the black, but it did touch and Palmer noted as much. Like I said, it really could have gone either way, but it was too close to take with two strikes.

I guess Palmer was wrong too, then? He went on about it for a few seconds about how the edge of the ball touched the black. If it touches the black, it can't be two inches outside.

Yes, Palmer said as much when we saw the overhead view of the pitch. It was clearly on the black of the plate which was not consistent with what K zone showed. The edge of the ball was both on the black and at the knees. It could have gone either way, but it was way too close to take.

It was clearly on the black and close enough to knee level that he shouldn't have taken it. It was very close. It wasn't even that bad a call and certainly not a pitch you take with two strikes.

I meant the part where everyone cares what people are doing or using and it's this huge distraction. I didn't mean the PED's themselves, I don't care about those. I did before I found out how far back it all goes, but once I uncovered that reality, I stopped caring because it's all so silly.

I'm 36, so yes I am. :laughlol:

People actually sit back and hope others get caught? The Three Ring Circus Sideshow AKA MLB steroid scandals continue.... I miss when this wasn't a part of baseball.

Good point about Arnold. Stallone, too. Vince McMahon, too. I am certainly open to the idea that we've been lied to about steroids and PED's VIA exaggeration of health risks just like with recreational drugs which we're finally starting to see the light on.

For sure, but especially back in the 80's those guys were on something. I'm sure all the steroids didn't help though on top of all the other stuff. Mixing stuff like that is never good and the head trauma is definitely a factor as well.

Probably not as dangerous as they once were, no. I personally don't get it myself. You could point to all the pro wrestlers that have died early deaths and say "Ah ha!", but those guys seem to take far more of that stuff than would be advantageous for a baseball player. Have there been any reports about baseball players that took steroids or PED's that have suffered negative health effects later in life? Bonds, McGuire, Sosa (though he has gone off the deep end in other ways. He's pulled a Michael Jackson. Have you seen him lately?), Canseco etc.. they all seem fine. I have to wonder what how dangerous they really are myself.

It doesn't matter to you that many of those 700 used PEDs? Mantle, Aaron, Mays and the list goes on? Good article here about amphetamine and Bud Selig admitting amphetamines had been in baseball for seven or eight decades. Your "700 best" contain many, many players who used PEDs and set many, many records with their assistance. That's your elite club and it's the same as the players in the game since the 80's who have taken most of the blame for things that had been in the game before they were born.

You do realize that baseball has been like this for a very, very long time right? Personally, I think personal accountability and responsibility is becoming a lost art. If someone wants to smoke cigarettes for example, they are responsible if they get cancer and they knew the risks beforehand and did it anyway. It's really the same with PED's to me. It's their bodies. If they want to do things that may harm their bodies, they have to deal with that. I just don't like this whole idea that we need to protect people from themselves. These are adults that made a decision and they will have to deal with whatever consequences that decision brings. It's not like they didn't know the risks beforehand.

As long as there is demand, the black market will be there to supply. It is no different, really. There is money to be made and someone is going to make it.

I wonder what Lew Ford would think of that? :laughlol:

I would be surprised if players found that to be reasonable. At that point, you'll be disrupting family life for players based on constant suspicion without a shred of proof to warrant it. I think that would be a deterrent to being a baseball player at all. What if they have kids that wake up at 3AM and can't go back to sleep making the parents have to get up instead of getting up 4-5 hours later with the extra rest. I think disrupting life to that extent is too far and will elicit push back. I wouldn't stand for being subject to that kind of invasion of my private life based on nothing but baseless suspicion. Ridiculous. I think a compromise is the way to go. Prohibition doesn't work.

That crossed my mind too, but it seems to cross a line. Should this stuff be so intrusive that it is disrupting the lives of entire families? I think that is going too far. We can only go down this prohibition road so far, but I really don't get why this is still the preferred approach to drugs. It has never worked anywhere it has been tried, so maybe it's time to try something new. Does everything have to be banned? Can there be some kind of compromise where we allow some PED's, but restrict dosages and require constant monitoring by a doctor and maybe even administration of the drug by a doctor? I just think this road has been traveled enough times to know that it simply does not work. This bullheaded, prohibition approach only creates a black market that will always be better than your testing program. You just can't win this way.

Good points, but I don't think the increased penalty you propose would do anything except motivate players to do a better job of not getting caught which I guess comes down to finding a better chemist.

See, there's also the fact that PED's have been in baseball for over 100 years. The MLB testing program is a much younger entity and has a lot of catching up to do. The black market for PED's is well established and new suppliers will pop up as fast or faster than others will be caught. I just don't see how this will stop so long as there is money to be made and demand for the products.

If it is as easy to get around the program as these articles suggest, then it may be much higher than 25%. At the very least, it shows that the testing program really isn't working all that well if you have to be "dumb" to get caught.

Dirty Players, Sloppy Chemists or both? Another twist in MLB's PED Problem Baseball's drug program will never be perfect, but how close can it get? As with the war on drugs, I don't think stiffer penalties will have any effect whatsoever. If people really want to make an impact, you have to put a dent in the main incentive; money. The huge amounts of money players get for doing things that PED's help you do more of is the main incentive and as long as there is a demand, someone will be there to supply. Increasing penalties for recreational drugs did not do a thing to deter use and neither will stiffer penalties in MLB. This is an outdated approach that has been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective. I believe the #1 reason people play professional sports is for the money and anything they have to do to get more of it, they will do. Even if they get popped, they still have their money. Anyway, I just stumbled on to these articles on MLBTR and thought they were interesting reads.