Davis addresses PEDs issue straight on

[ledzepp8]

As legitimate as records set in all the varying conditions we accept under the umbrella of MLB. You think Ruth's 54 homers in 1920 are legitimate? He played in a home park with 250-ft foul lines, and faced any number of pitchers who wouldn't make it out of AA today.

Be fair, it was also well over 400 feet everywhere else in the outfield.

[isestrex]

The legitimacy of the single season home run record has been a hot button topic among fans since Ford Frick (unfairly IMO) put an asterisk next to Maris' 61 homers because he reached the number after 154 games. Obviously, this record is is one of the sacred cows in sports.

You're right, it is one's opinion whether Bonds record is legitimate or not. Further, the 73 home runs that Bonds hit in 2001 are the legitimate record whether one likes it or not.

I respect Chris Davis and I appreciate that he was let down by his boyhood heroes when he learned of their PED use. However, I disagree with his premise that Maris' record is the "true" home run mark. Like him or not, the record is held by Bonds with 73 home runs.

I think you agree with me but this sentence completely contradicts my post that you quoted. Bond's record is legitimate regardless of opinion. The method of hitting the homers may be illegitimate but the Bond's record is not up for whimsical denial.

[El Gordo]

I think you agree with me but this sentence completely contradicts my post that you quoted. Bond's record is legitimate regardless of opinion. The method of hitting the homers may be illegitimate but the Bond's record is not up for whimsical denial.

Ben Johnson's record wasn't legitimate and it isn't in the books. But he did run the 100 meters in the the time he did.

[russ snyder]

I think you agree with me but this sentence completely contradicts my post that you quoted. Bond's record is legitimate regardless of opinion. The method of hitting the homers may be illegitimate but the Bond's record is not up for whimsical denial.

I do agree with you. You clear it up very well with this post. However, IMO people are questioning the legitimacy of the record by stating that Roger Maris holds the "true" home run mark. Obviously, we both disagree with this premise.

[El Gordo]

I do agree with you. You clear it up very well with this post. However, IMO people are questioning the legitimacy of the record by stating that Roger Maris holds the "true" home run mark. Obviously, we both disagree with this premise.

Bob Beaman held the long jump record for over 20 years, but it was wind aided at 2m/s, and many questioned it's legitimacy. I see the HR record in the same light, it's just an accurate way of describing an athletic feat. Bonds hit 73 in 162 but he was PED aided. That should be included in his record for accuracy. If Davis hit 62 he could be designated as most post PED testing HR in 162. Ruth should be designated as most HR in 154 G season.

[SilentJames]

The legitimacy of the single season home run record has been a hot button topic among fans since Ford Frick (unfairly IMO) put an asterisk next to Maris' 61 homers because he reached the number after 154 games. Obviously, this record is is one of the sacred cows in sports.

You're right, it is one's opinion whether Bonds record is legitimate or not. Further, the 73 home runs that Bonds hit in 2001 are the legitimate record whether one likes it or not.

I respect Chris Davis and I appreciate that he was let down by his boyhood heroes when he learned of their PED use. However, I disagree with his premise that Maris' record is the "true" home run mark. Like him or not, the record is held by Bonds with 73 home runs.

In all fairness, Frick's asterisk does have some true legitimacy. Maris simply had more time to beat the record.

As for PEDs we may never REALLY know the impact, but it is either linked or it is the biggest coincidence in the world that the second real testing started power numbers began to plummet.

[Lester Freamon]

I apologize in advance because this is a little off topic but all the HR record talk got me to thinking. We finish the year at home against the Red Sox. Could you imagine if we go into that last weekend playing for the AL East/playoff spot AND with Davis having a shot at 62 HR's.

mind blown.

[El Gordo]

60 seemed to be a real bench mark for what a great hitter could achieve in a season. Just as the 4 minute mile was and still is a bench mark. Bonds hitting 73 would be like Roger Banister running the mile in 3 minutes. If that had happened, something would have been really fishy. It's hard to imagine any one hitting 73 again without aid or major changes in the game, like different bats, or livelier balls.

[El Gordo]

I apologize in advance because this is a little off topic but all the HR record talk got me to thinking. We finish the year at home against the Red Sox. Could you imagine if we go into that last weekend playing for the AL East/playoff spot AND with Davis having a shot at 62 HR's.

mind blown.

Bondists or no, I guarantee if that is the case, MLB will be hyping this as a potential "pure" record. It's making lemonade out of lemons, and nobody knows lemons better than Bud.

[Lester Freamon]

Bondists or no, I guarantee if that is the case, MLB will be hyping this as a potential "pure" record. It's making lemonade out of lemons, and nobody knows lemons better than Bud.

No doubt you are correct. But for me personally, if you couldn't tell already , I would already be totally in Bud's pocket if that scenario played out. Just one of the mindless sheep, am I.

[calmunderfire]

73 may be the record, but a clean player hitting 62 will command MASSIVE attention. It would become the biggest story in sports.

[Ball Legend]

A simple designation could be, if Davis were to hit 62, post PED testing, that is post 2004.

That makes sense. Put an asterisk next to it (post-PED). But the record like it or not remains 73.

[allquixotic]

I do agree with you. You clear it up very well with this post. However, IMO people are questioning the legitimacy of the record by stating that Roger Maris holds the "true" home run mark. Obviously, we both disagree with this premise.

Or, some people, perhaps Chris Davis (I don't pretend to know his opinions or beliefs), think that it is nonsense to have a purportedly "legitimate" record that was attained by illegitimate means. That'd be like putting me down in the Guinness Book of World Records as the fastest person ever to run a mile because I was jogging on a treadmill in the back of a pickup truck that was going 100 mph, therefore I ran a mile in 35 seconds. You're violating the criteria of the record, which makes your record in a completely different category of its own, and it can't possibly belong to the category you tried to shoe-horn it into.

It doesn't make logical sense. It makes no kind of sense whatsoever. It's like saying I'm the tallest squirrel in the world. I'm not a squirrel! It's nonsense!

Similarly, the PED users are in a category completely of their own. The fact that their records are, at the present time, included in the official MLB records can't be debated. You can look it up on MLB.com. But does that make the fact that those illegitimate records are officially recorded, acceptable? No. MLB wants for that to be the case. They want to whistle and hope that the public doesn't notice. Or that they'll get bored and talk about something else. Or that PEDs will be made allowable to use and everyone will use them and eclipse Bonds' number. They are trying to shove it under the rug, because the stats were officially recorded during regular season MLB play, and at the time they seemed totally legit.

One thing that Major League Baseball, as an organization, really, really hates doing (especially under Bug Selig, but even before, and probably after his reign) is admitting they were wrong, or that they made a mistake. They would rather obfuscate or downplay their mistake, or go after the people who point it out most loudly. Then, quietly, they'll start tidying up to clean up the mess they made so that it's less likely to happen again in the future (all the PED testing), but in order to avoid the perception that they're admitting that they're wrong, they'll never strike the records from the books, or move them into another category, or even put a red asterisk next to them.

It's all a PR ploy. But don't fool yourself: the records are illegitimate; the way the records were obtained was illegitimate; and the presence of the records on the official books is an affront to the fairness and level playing field that MLB prides itself in maintaining. I don't think they'll ever set it right, but they may prove me wrong. Until then, the home run leaders on the MLB books are miscategorized as being legitimate players having legitimately obtained the records they set, like the guy jogging on his treadmill in the back of a fast-moving pickup truck claiming to be the fastest runner.

There is one more thing I'd like to elaborate on. Some have claimed that, because the rules and parameters and situations of baseball are constantly changing, you may as well throw all the records together. I disagree with this thesis for one major reason: there is a big difference between playing within the rules of your time, and cheating. At the time that Maris hit his homers, or Ruth hit his, they played within the rules of the game they were given. Yes, the pitchers were terrible. Yes, the foul lines were drawn in way more than modern parks. Yes, they had different equipment, traveled differently, made less money, and so on. But did they CHEAT? I find no evidence to support that.

Cheating is when you intentionally and knowingly introduce some element from the external environment into the game, in order to give yourself an unfair advantage over other players, the vast majority of which are playing without the advantage you have taken for yourself, and which the official rules of the game demonstrably do not condone.

PED use is, hands down, cheating. That sets PED use in a completely different category of awful than, say, hitting "cheap" home runs that would be a ground rule double or pop out in foul territory today. I just wanted to make that point.

All of that said, I agree that there are many practical problems to revising the record books in any way. The problems are complex, politically and socially divisive, and involve a lot of ambiguity. Any alteration whatsoever would necessarily involve some degree of arbitrary judgment or subjectivity, since we don't have a complete and exhaustive record of every player who has ever played using PEDs and what stats they might have achieved while doing so.

Even if you were just to rip out the records of the guys who have been scientifically proven to be using, that would be "unfair" (in the sense of maintaining a record of fair play) to the probably dozens of guys who hold various club or franchise or league records for OBP, OPS, RBI, K, etc. and were aided in some way by using PEDs. Why do they get to keep their unclean records on the books just because they weren't proven to be using? It's really a tough judgment call, and any judgment call you make is going to be one that people will debate till the cows come home.

Then again, doing absolutely nothing isn't a great situation, either.

All of this is why fans can, and often do, form their own opinions as to which stats they themselves consider to be legitimate. Note I said legitimate, not official. There's a difference. The official stats are never up for debate; that's just a question of what the record books themselves say at the present date and time. But you can have illegitimate records on the official books. That's the world we live in today.

[El Gordo]

No doubt you are correct. But for me personally, if you couldn't tell already , I would already be totally in Bud's pocket if that scenario played out. Just one of the mindless sheep, am I.

So am I think it's important to accurately depict what an unaided athlete can do. But that doesn't mean that Bud isn't an ex used car salesman.

[El Gordo]

That makes sense. Put an asterisk next to it (post-PED). But the record like it or not remains 73.

Here's my take. The limit for wind aided performance in the Olympics is 2.m/s. The results of the events stand because everyone was aided by the wind, but any record set when the wind is above that level is invalid. I would regard the steroid era as a period of time when the "wind" was above 2m/s, so while the numbers remain on the books the records are so designated. You could designate the era as beginning with the first documented use of PED's and ending in 2004 with testing. Not totally fair, but then the "records" wouldn't be struck, just "designated." If you don't think steroids do all that much, then you can celebrate Bond's record, and if you do then you can embrace the next guy that hits 62.