Jump to content

Toronto without the HGH

weams

By weams
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

JERSEYORIOLE Major Leaguer

JERSEYORIOLE

Posted
Posted
I don't see anyone in this thread defending steroid users. What I'm defending is the entire 2010 Blue Jays team which you have decided, based on no evidence, no tests, no anything, to condemn as cheaters. If anything, the evidence of the steroid era shows that steroid users are everywhere. They aren't just power hitters, they're speed demons and slap hitters and slick fielders, and Christians and family men and founders of charities and everything else. And your baseless accusations, thankfully, mean nothing, since you're a faceless soon to be ex-member of a message board. But the principle deserves to be upheld and you ought to be ashamed.

I am condeming no one. I am saying grow a set. Step up and be tested.

And supposed christans lead the pack as cheaters, dont go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply
JERSEYORIOLE Major Leaguer

JERSEYORIOLE

Posted
Posted
Actually...we're defending the innocent people who shouldn't be forced to be put through the gauntlet because of other peoples' past mistakes.

Understand?

No one is innocent. It is THE PLAYERS union that fought steriod testing for years. It is THE PLAYERS union that fights HGH testing. If they are a union they have one voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crazysilver03 Hangout Grand Counsel

Crazysilver03

Posted
Posted
You prove my point about the general ignorance of PEDs. I was talking about steroids before and cited several studies about them. Now I'm talking about HgH and citing different studies. They are not the same thing. But how would you know, if you really read any of them, you clearly didn't understand them.

The ignorance of PEDs?

HGH in and of itself does not explicitly make a player better, but they aide in strength and agility training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Gordo Hangout Grand Counsel

El Gordo

Posted
Posted
Nothing on this board is in my top 10,000.

Question: if you had a vote for the HOF, do you vote for Bonds, Clemens, Raffy?

I can't stand Bonds and Clemens and I like Raffy, but I'd vote for all of them plus McGwire and Sosa, and whomever else had the numbers, because IMO the effcts of PED's were no greater than the effects of changing the ball, using greenies, lowereing/raising the mound, etc. in other eras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crazysilver03 Hangout Grand Counsel

Crazysilver03

Posted
Posted
Who cares, that isnt the point. They are Illegal. Why are you missing the point? Wheather they should be or not is a different argument.

What is the point?

We know they are illegal. No one is making an argument for legalization. You are the one that completely missed the point of this thread and went on your soap box about it being illegal. You are the one that brought up something else into this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JERSEYORIOLE Major Leaguer

JERSEYORIOLE

Posted
Posted
Lets see, there is factual evidence against Bonds. There is no evidence against the Toronto players. Don't understand why this is hard to understand.

Evidence? There could be evidence, you really have no idea, but Evidence does not make someone guilty. Do you vote for him for the HOF if he doesnt go to trial before his vote come up? Its a simple question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crazysilver03 Hangout Grand Counsel

Crazysilver03

Posted
Posted
Evidence? There could be evidence, you really have no idea, but Evidence does not make someone guilty. Do you vote for him for the HOF if he doesnt go to trial before his vote come up? Its a simple question.

Incorrect, a simple search on the internet gives me an idea.

I am indifferent to the allegations of steroids and what not. I would vote for him simply because the feat. he performed was pretty stellar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JERSEYORIOLE Major Leaguer

JERSEYORIOLE

Posted
Posted
I can't stand Bonds and Clemens and I like Raffy, but I'd vote for all of them plus McGwire and Sosa, and whomever else had the numbers, because IMO the effcts of PED's were no greater than the effects of changing the ball, using greenies, lowereing/raising the mound, etc. in other eras.

Fair enough, but there is proof that ALOT of people disagree with you as Raffy and Mcguire are not in and should be and I think you will agree that ALOT of people will not vote for BONDS no matter how his case turns out. Those people are passing judgement and making some assumptions. Nothing worse then what the OP did. My point has always been that he had a right to make the statement he did, wheather he turns out to be right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Icterus galbula Perennial All-Star

Icterus galbula

Posted
Posted
Fair enough, but there is proof that ALOT of people disagree with you as Raffy and Mcguire are not in and should be and I think you will agree that ALOT of people will not vote for BONDS no matter how his case turns out. Those people are passing judgement and making some assumptions. Nothing worse then what the OP did. My point has always been that he had a right to make the statement he did, wheather he turns out to be right or wrong.

Bonds already admitted to using the "cream and the clear," but claimed he didn't know what they did. There is evidence already there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JERSEYORIOLE Major Leaguer

JERSEYORIOLE

Posted
Posted
Incorrect, a simple search on the internet gives me an idea.

I am indifferent to the allegations of steroids and what not. I would vote for him simply because the feat. he performed was pretty stellar.

Interesting, you are indifferent, it doesnt matter to you. Then why would the OP making a statement that he thinks some players are using PED's bother you????????? To you it doesnt matter. Senseless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...