Connolly: As fans, would you be OK with your team cheating if it meant winning a World Series title?

[maybenxtyr]

I voted "yes" because I guess there's different levels of cheating. Sign stealing has been a part of baseball since the beginning. Pitchers cheat every day with various ways to get an edge.

I still don't care if players used steroids. If you are willing to potentially shorten your life then that's on the players. I think some people give athletes far more credit than they deserve.

[tntoriole]

It would be worse to have the embarassment and humiliation of the discovery after the thrill of winning while not knowing they were cheating....At least the Black Sox cheated to lose...so their fans at least weren’t happy after getting a World Series win and then having to lose it. 

[Aristotelian]

2 hours ago, ArtVanDelay said:

Red Sox, Astros and Patriots would beg to differ.

They all have asterisks. Everyone knows it, including their fans. 

[forphase1]

While I'll vote no, it also depends on just what the cheating is, and the form it takes.  Without going in depth in specifics or examples, there is black, white and grey.  Depending just on the exact shade of grey would be key in me deciding if I'm ok with it.   Something like the Astros did, I'd say no.  Slipping Ubaldo a laxative so Buck can't pitch him instead of the best closer that year?  Go for it!  (I jest...kinda).  

[islebreeze]

I hope to never see an Oriole approach home plate while yelling "Don't take my shirt off".

[sportsfan8703]

I’ll take the WS. We’ve all rooted for PED users, and still are. Heck, you could make an argument that not having a salary cap is cheating. That’s why I’d take the ring. No organization is without flaws.  

[Can_of_corn]

21 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

The White Sox threw the 1919 series. They lost 5 games to 3 in a best of nine. 

Wow, I bet tntoriole didn't know that, despite the fact that they said " At least the Black Sox cheated to lose...so their fans at least weren’t happy after getting a World Series win and then having to lose it. ":

What a helpful post!

 

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

"After getting a WS win and then having to lose it"  I guess it sounded like he thought they won the 1919 WS and then had it taken away.  So sorry.  Haha.  You are such a baby.  Haha

I guess you "weren't listening" to what another poster had to say.  I read recently that we should be doing that, Frobby does that.

 

As for the name calling, some of us don't have to resort to that sort of behavior.

 

[glenn__davis]

It's an easy no for me.  If you had to cheat to win then you didn't really win.  Agreed that there are "levels" of cheating and that up to a point its fair game but too tough to draw where that point is.  

 

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, glenn__davis said:

It's an easy no for me.  If you had to cheat to win then you didn't really win.  Agreed that there are "levels" of cheating and that up to a point its fair game but too tough to draw where that point is.  

 

But the very definition of cheating precludes a fair game.

I can't stand nebulous standards like this.  Same thing happened with the PEDs.  Guys taking speed in their coffee was fine.  Guys in the 70's taking horse steroids was fine.  The Bash Brothers were somehow OK.  All of a sudden guys just got a little too good at taking advantage of PEDs and boom, it's a problem.

Evidently the Astros' sin wasn't cheating, it was being too good at cheating.

[Tony-OH]

21 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'd rather lose with integrity than win as a scumbag.  Life shouldn't just be transactional.  

Agreed. I want to be able to be proud of my team for winning. 

[Moose Milligan]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

Evidently the Astros' sin wasn't cheating, it was being too good at cheating.

Winner.

[atomic]

I wonder how the results of this poll would be if the Orioles were the team who had cheated to win the World Series.  I am guessing quite different. 

[Can_of_corn]

12 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

The world isn't black and white. You are trying to draw lines, lump everything in together. Ain't that simple.  

But is it fair to retroactively freak out and punish folks for just being more skilled at cheating then the cheaters that came before them?  The intent was the same.  Shouldn't we be punishing intent and not results?

MLB should have codified all of this years ago. 

Part of the issue is the fans, who are extremely inconsistent about what offends their sensibility.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Laws change in society.  What may have been against the law in 1920 might be legal now and vice versa.  Rules change. Enforcement of the rules changes.  That's life.  

Sure, but those laws are recorded is some fashion.  Even Hammurabi wrote this stuff down.

You don't suddenly get thrown in jail for jaywalking.

MLB is making it up as they go along.  Boston gets hit, they get a fine, Astros get hit they get the book thrown at them (in comparison).  They did the same thing to the Braves after they got caught cheating a couple of years after the Red Sox did.  I guess the lesson is, get caught first, or maybe it is just to be Boston.