755

[geschinger]

Yes, but the gap between the dislike of Bonds and Arod is as big as the Grand Canyon.

I think most respect Bonds enormous talent as well, the SD crowd seemed to even though they hate Bonds.

Yep, I agree with both statements. I also respect people who have a real problem w/Bonds' cheating as it is certainly a justifiable opinion. Like I said in another post I don't think his record should be asterisked or removed or anything like that. But I also don't think we should whitewash and ignore the cheating when the history of Bonds is written either. I think it is a sensible position.

[mweb]

Yep, I agree with both statements. I also respect people who have a real problem w/Bonds' cheating as it is certainly a justifiable opinion. Like I said in another post I don't think his record should be asterisked or removed or anything like that. But I also don't think we should whitewash and ignore the cheating when the history of Bonds is written either. I think it is a sensible position.

I have no problem with people having a problem with Bonds "cheating", but I do have a problem with people acting like he he's one of the few doing it and/or feel he should be chastised more than others for it.

It does seem that the history books have basically ignored a lot of "cheating" that has gone on in the past though.

[geschinger]

I have no problem with people having a problem with Bonds "cheating", but I do have a problem with people acting like he he's one of the few doing it and/or feel he should be chastised more than others for it.

It does seem that the history books have basically ignored a lot of "cheating" that has gone on in the past though.

It would be irresponsible for the history books to ignore *anyone* who has been confirmed as being a cheater.

[mweb]

It would be irresponsible for the history books to ignore *anyone* who has been confirmed as being a cheater.

Well greenies are basically ignored. Doctoring balls is basically ignored. Stealing signs is ignored. Corking bats is something that is mostly forgotten.

To me though, I don't think I'd call using steroids cheating, at least not before baseball took a stand against it, and testing started. This was something I'd guess at least half of the players tried, something that was not tested for, was not against the rules of baseball as far as I know, was not really discouraged by the commisioner, owners, or other players, in fact, one could argue it was encouraged.

[geschinger]

Well greenies are basically ignored. Doctoring balls is basically ignored. Stealing signs is ignored. Corking bats is something that is mostly forgotten.

To me though, I don't think I'd call using steroids cheating, at least not before baseball took a stand against it, and testing started. This was something I'd guess at least half of the players tried, something that was not tested for, was not against the rules of baseball as far as I know, was not really discouraged by the commisioner, owners, or other players, in fact, one could argue it was encouraged.

I don't have a problem with players who used supplements that are legal and banned now that weren't banned in the past. But I do draw the line at using products that are illegal to gain an advantage. Gaylord Perry is in the HOF but everyone talks about his using the spitball. I'd be fine for the same standard being applied to Bonds and any other player for whom usage of illegal substances are confirmed. That would be a fair and just outcome, no?

[mweb]

I don't have a problem with players who used supplements that are legal and banned now that weren't banned in the past. But I do draw the line at using products that are illegal to gain an advantage. Gaylord Perry is in the HOF but everyone talks about his using the spitball. I'd be fine for the same standard being applied to Bonds and any other player for whom usage of illegal substances are confirmed. That would be a fair and just outcome, no?

I don't think so because there are going to be many players in the HOF, and hundreds that aren't, who also used steroids that aren't confirmed. And yeah, they were illegal, but like I just said, baseball was turning a blind eye to "the problem"(in quoted because I don't think they viewed it as a problem until the media/government thought it was) and in a way, encouraging it.

I think it's fair to name specific guys, but only if it's known that this was the steroid era and many many players used them, and also known what the circumstances of the era were, meaning no consequences for using steroids, etc.

[Hallas]

I don't have a problem with players who used supplements that are legal and banned now that weren't banned in the past. But I do draw the line at using products that are illegal to gain an advantage. Gaylord Perry is in the HOF but everyone talks about his using the spitball. I'd be fine for the same standard being applied to Bonds and any other player for whom usage of illegal substances are confirmed. That would be a fair and just outcome, no?

The application of this standard is impossible. Take greenies. Maybe they weren't banned by baseball, but they're regulated by the FDA and it's very illegal to use without a prescription. And then there was Andro, which was banned by most sporting leagues but not regulated by the FDA until relatively recently. And of course there are the designer steroids, which go unregulated by the FDA until they can be discovered.

So just whose definition of "Illegal" are we following?

Hell, it looks like I'm getting pulled into my diatribe, so I might as well roll with it.

While we're on the subject of "legality," what's the definition of a performance enhancer? Is something a performance enhancing simply because it you an unfair advantage? Wouldn't Gatorade apply? Why weren't the Florida Gators penalized for using an artificial drink supplement to improve performance? And then there's cortisone shots. Clearly a drug. Definite negative side effects. Definite performance enhancer if the user suffers from joint problems. Why is Cortisone allowed? There's a fine line between "innovative" and "cheating" when it comes to performance in sports, and often that line is decided arbitrarily. What's worse, the enforcement policies, rather than ensuring a level playing field as they claim, do more to create a potential unfair advantage. This is because of the increased demand for designer, undetectable drugs, that, once discovered, remain with a select few.

As unappealing as the option is, the only way to ensure an environment that's both safe and fair is to make steroids/PEDs readily available for all.

I'm not even done; there's a whole lot more where that came from, especially the hypocrisy of fans who cheer roided players on their hometown teams, then boo and denigrate roided players they don't like on opposing teams.

[geschinger]

The application of this standard is impossible. Take greenies. Maybe they weren't banned by baseball, but they're regulated by the FDA and it's very illegal to use without a prescription. And then there was Andro, which was banned by most sporting leagues but not regulated by the FDA until relatively recently. And of course there are the designer steroids, which go unregulated by the FDA until they can be discovered.

So just whose definition of "Illegal" are we following?

Illegal being that one is breaking the law to obtain a particular product. There is a big difference between something like Andro which you can buy from a local GNC and anabolic steroids coming in via the black market.

While we're on the subject of "legality," what's the definition of a performance enhancer? Is something a performance enhancing simply because it you an unfair advantage? Wouldn't Gatorade apply? Why weren't the Florida Gators penalized for using an artificial drink supplement to improve performance?

That's an interesting question. Steroids help enhance a players strength which could help them produce better than they otherwise might be able to naturally. The exact same thing can be said about laser surgery on the eyes or eyeglasses or the PECs that Brian Roberts used. My standard again would be if society has decided a particular substance is against the law to obtain and a player is caught using they should be taken to the woodshed. Going forward if players have a list of substances the league has chosen to ban, I have no problem w/that either.

And then there's cortisone shots. Clearly a drug. Definite negative side effects. Definite performance enhancer if the user suffers from joint problems. Why is Cortisone allowed? There's a fine line between "innovative" and "cheating" when it comes to performance in sports, and often that line is decided arbitrarily. What's worse, the enforcement policies, rather than ensuring a level playing field as they claim, do more to create a potential unfair advantage. This is because of the increased demand for designer, undetectable drugs, that, once discovered, remain with a select few.

Cortisone shots are not against the law and teams have physicians who administer them.

As unappealing as the option is, the only way to ensure an environment that's both safe and fair is to make steroids/PEDs readily available for all.

How is making substances that are inherently unsafe readily available going to ensure an environment that is safe? I don't understand that logic.

[geschinger]

I don't think so because there are going to be many players in the HOF, and hundreds that aren't, who also used steroids that aren't confirmed. And yeah, they were illegal, but like I just said, baseball was turning a blind eye to "the problem"(in quoted because I don't think they viewed it as a problem until the media/government thought it was) and in a way, encouraging it.

I think it's fair to name specific guys, but only if it's known that this was the steroid era and many many players used them, and also known what the circumstances of the era were, meaning no consequences for using steroids, etc.

There are probably many players in the HOF and hundreds that aren't who engaged in doctoring baseballs etc... But that doesn't stop the spitballs from being written about anytime that Perry is talked about nor should steorids be ignored when Bonds is talked about in the future. One can qualify it has a era when steroids were prevalent but it is more unfair to taint players from this era who did not participate in using PEDs than it is to single out those we know who did.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree. I understand the theory that because there might have been a lot of players who were users that we should wipe the slate clean and write off previous transgressions as just being part of the game for a particular era. I believe that is the wrong approach to give players we know beyond a doubt did something a pass because there were supposedly many others doing the same thing.

[DrungoHazewood]

There are probably many players in the HOF and hundreds that aren't who engaged in doctoring baseballs etc... But that doesn't stop the spitballs from being written about anytime that Perry is talked about nor should steorids be ignored when Bonds is talked about in the future. One can qualify it has a era when steroids were prevalent but it is more unfair to taint players from this era who did not participate in using PEDs than it is to single out those we know who did.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree. I understand the theory that because there might have been a lot of players who were users that we should wipe the slate clean and write off previous transgressions as just being part of the game for a particular era. I believe that is the wrong approach to give players we know beyond a doubt did something a pass because there were supposedly many others doing the same thing.

The problem with the whole thing is that we know beyond any doubt that many players took PEDs. We also know with a fair amount of certainty who some small percentage of those players were. The end result will be unqualified honors bestowed on those who got away with it, and horrible shame for those who had the bad luck to get caught.

This can't be discussed without bringing up the blatant hypocrisy of the owners and MLB officials who encouraged the whole thing when it benefited them (or at the very least turned a blind eye to it), but who've become righteous moralists now that the public's mood has turned sour. Bonds has one thing right - it's absolutely true that PEDs were encouraged when people were making a run at some relatively obscure guy like Roger Maris, but when Bud's own hero Hank Aaron has his record challenged they're pure evil. Bonds was wrong to do what he did, but baseball's establishment loved steroids when they helped rescue the game from the strike/lockout.

[DrungoHazewood]

Illegal being that one is breaking the law to obtain a particular product. There is a big difference between something like Andro which you can buy from a local GNC and anabolic steroids coming in via the black market.

That's an interesting question. Steroids help enhance a players strength which could help them produce better than they otherwise might be able to naturally. The exact same thing can be said about laser surgery on the eyes or eyeglasses or the PECs that Brian Roberts used. My standard again would be if society has decided a particular substance is against the law to obtain and a player is caught using they should be taken to the woodshed. Going forward if players have a list of substances the league has chosen to ban, I have no problem w/that either.

Cortisone shots are not against the law and teams have physicians who administer them.

How is making substances that are inherently unsafe readily available going to ensure an environment that is safe? I don't understand that logic.

I think the (ill)legality of various substances is as much tradition, lobbying, fear, misunderstanding, and lack of knowledge as it is a reflection of some great wisdom on the subject possessed by career politicians. I always assumed Andro was legal because some company wanted to make a substance that gave steroid-like effects but they intentionally stopped just short of some arbitrary dividing line that would make it illegal.

Legal is going 55 in a 55. Illegal is 55.5 in a 55. On a good day you can go 75. On a bad day you're booked for 57. If you're driving a red Corvette you'll get pulled for 65, but an old beat up Cavalier probably doesn't get noticed at the same speed. Lots of laws are like that, including those concerning PEDs.

[eddie83]

The problem with the whole thing is that we know beyond any doubt that many players took PEDs. We also know with a fair amount of certainty who some small percentage of those players were. The end result will be unqualified honors bestowed on those who got away with it, and horrible shame for those who had the bad luck to get caught.

This can't be discussed without bringing up the blatant hypocrisy of the owners and MLB officials who encouraged the whole thing when it benefited them (or at the very least turned a blind eye to it), but who've become righteous moralists now that the public's mood has turned sour. Bonds has one thing right - it's absolutely true that PEDs were encouraged when people were making a run at some relatively obscure guy like Roger Maris, but when Bud's own hero Hank Aaron has his record challenged they're pure evil. Bonds was wrong to do what he did, but baseball's establishment loved steroids when they helped rescue the game from the strike/lockout.

It is personal for Bud. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/02/27/shadows.afterword/1.html

Selig's concern over Bonds's use of performance-enhancing drugs was eclipsed by a sense of personal betrayal: twice the commissioner had confronted the ballplayer in the midst of the BALCO scandal, offering him the chance to come clean. Instead, Bonds had told Selig he had nothing to worry about.

I don't have a problem for people to get on MLB for the steroid issue but the MLBPA deserves just as much criticism. The players with the power of the union could of stopped this long ago.

[mweb]

There are probably many players in the HOF and hundreds that aren't who engaged in doctoring baseballs etc... But that doesn't stop the spitballs from being written about anytime that Perry is talked about nor should steorids be ignored when Bonds is talked about in the future. One can qualify it has a era when steroids were prevalent but it is more unfair to taint players from this era who did not participate in using PEDs than it is to single out those we know who did.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree. I understand the theory that because there might have been a lot of players who were users that we should wipe the slate clean and write off previous transgressions as just being part of the game for a particular era. I believe that is the wrong approach to give players we know beyond a doubt did something a pass because there were supposedly many others doing the same thing.

I'm clearly not saying that Bonds' steroid use should be ignored or that we should just wipe the slate clean for these guys, so I don't understand why you keep portraying my opinion that way.

However, even most of the clean players are to blame for this because their union was a big part of the problem, so I'm not sure it is unfair to taint all the players from this era. Obviously there are some you are going to be more suspicious about than others, however one can't be positive about anyone from the last 20 years imo.

And I think you can take away the words might and supposedly from that last paragraph.

[mweb]

The problem with the whole thing is that we know beyond any doubt that many players took PEDs. We also know with a fair amount of certainty who some small percentage of those players were. The end result will be unqualified honors bestowed on those who got away with it, and horrible shame for those who had the bad luck to get caught.

This can't be discussed without bringing up the blatant hypocrisy of the owners and MLB officials who encouraged the whole thing when it benefited them (or at the very least turned a blind eye to it), but who've become righteous moralists now that the public's mood has turned sour. Bonds has one thing right - it's absolutely true that PEDs were encouraged when people were making a run at some relatively obscure guy like Roger Maris, but when Bud's own hero Hank Aaron has his record challenged they're pure evil. Bonds was wrong to do what he did, but baseball's establishment loved steroids when they helped rescue the game from the strike/lockout.

Good post. As for what Barry did being wrong, I agree, however, it is very understandable why he did it.

[geschinger]

However, even most of the clean players are to blame for this because their union was a big part of the problem, so I'm not sure it is unfair to taint all the players from this era. Obviously there are some you are going to be more suspicious about than others, however one can't be positive about anyone from the last 20 years imo.

I'm uncomfortable w/guilt by association and while it's true that we can't be positive about any particular player being clean from the last 20 years we can be positive about the handful of players for whom usage has been confirmed beyond a shadow of doubt.