756

[geschinger]

Yeah, House is putting a shadow of doubt over all his teammates, but really, he's putting a shadow of doubt over all of baseball in that era.

I wouldn't have a problem if he named Aaron or anyone else specifically, but I'm not advocating it either. It would be certainly good for my side of this debate though.

Heh, I forget what the debate is even about.

It might help the both sides of some of the different debates... It would help by exposing that we don't really know whom was clean and whom was not. But in a hypothetical situation where there was indisputable evidence that Hank was guilty I think the reaction we'd see towards Hank in the media would be brutal. It would illustrate that Bonds is not being singled out.

[mweb]

Heh, I forget what the debate is even about.

It might help the both sides of some of the different debates... It would help by exposing that we don't really know whom was clean and whom was not. But in a hypothetical situation where there was indisputable evidence that Hank was guilty I think the reaction we'd see towards Hank in the media would be brutal. It would illustrate that Bonds is not being singled out.

It would be brutal, but a lot of that would be because he's been critical of steroids as you've said, because everyone thought of his as the being clean HR king, and just the surprise of it. It would just be a huge shock to the sports world since no one seemed to take notice of what House said.

I'm not a fan of anyone being singled out in the way Bonds, Raffy, and Big Mac have been, that's been one of my main points.

[geschinger]

It would be brutal, but a lot of that would be because he's been critical of steroids as you've said, and because everyone thought of his as the being clean HR king. It would just be a huge shock to the sports world since no one seemed to take notice to what House said.

I'm not a fan of anyone being singled out in the way Bonds, Raffy, and Big Mac have been, that's been one of my main points.

And it's a fair point although I think by singling out the stars and being brutal about it is a great catalyst to cleaning things up.

[mweb]

And it's a fair point although I think by singling out the stars and being brutal about it is a great catalyst to cleaning things up.

Well I think we would be naive to think the game is being or will be cleaned up. There have always, and will always be "cheating" going on in baseball.

[geschinger]

Well I think we would be naive to think the game is being or will be cleaned up. There have always, and will always be "cheating" going on in baseball.

No doubt, but surely you'd agree that making it a lot tougher to cheat is beneficial to reducing the amount of cheating, no? No rule, no law, no test is going to be catch everyone/everything. But that doesn't mean that MLB shouldn't be pressured to do what it can to limit it. I'm confident that there is a heck of a lot less usage of anabloic steroids today compared to a few years ago.

[66-70-83-??]

I don't think he's trying to taint him by association, just being honest without throwing anyone other than himself under the bus. He didn't mention Aaron as far as I know. Most people don't like to rat out their teammates like Jose Canseco did, so I don't think House should do that.

But I think this shows that steroids have been around for longer than most think. And that, along with the statistical analysis of Aaron, certainly makes one wonder about him.

It shouldn't.

It doesn't pass the smell test (Aaron using roids) at all.

I remember Aaron breaking the record.

The only stories of steroids that I recall around that time (mid 1970's) was centered around the East German women olympic athletes and bodybuilders. And those East German women looked like men !

Through all the years of the 'steroid era"....all the speculation about players, etc...no one has EVER suggested Aaron used them. Why now all of a sudden ?

All of a sudden in June 2007, a few weeks before Bonds breaks the record (just a coincidence ) some "blog" makes the suggestion based on a referenced article (no link provided).

Not only that, but this "blog" has the title "Tom House Implicates Aaron", but nothing that I read implicates anyone but himself.

In fact, a little research and voila- here is the article that all these blogs referenced, but none provided the link for.

Why not provide the link to the article ? Probably because there is NOTHING, in any way shape or form that could be considered "implicating Aaron" in this article. Lets not let any facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

You were duped by a Bonds fan blogger. This "story" that you posted and reference in several threads has no credibility.

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/socalsportsfan/2007/06/22/The_X_Files_Hank_Aaron

Did you click on the "quotes" and follow the links ? It just sends you to another "blog" ?

Blogs shouldn't be given any credibility unless they can back up their claims.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/03/SPGSTCJ0SK1.DTL&hw=tom+house&sn=001&sc=1000

The only reference to Aaron in the story-

House, now 58, might be best known for catching Hank Aaron's 715th home run on April 8, 1974, in the Braves' bullpen at old Fulton County Stadium.

[mweb]

No doubt, but surely you'd agree that making it a lot tougher to cheat is beneficial to reducing the amount of cheating, no? No rule, no law, no test is going to be catch everyone/everything. But that doesn't mean that MLB shouldn't be pressured to do what it can to limit it. I'm confident that there is a heck of a lot less usage of anabloic steroids today compared to a few years ago.

Well there's obviously going to be less usage of the stuff that is tested for, however, there is plenty of things that cannot be detected by the testing, and I'm pretty confident that the usage of that stuff has gone up since testing started.

Basically, you have to be stupid(use something that can be detected by a test at a time when it will still be in your system when you take the test), or unlucky like Bonds, Sheff, and Giambi were with the gov't finding out about BALCO. Or how McGwire, Raffy, Irod, etc were unlucky that Jose decided to make some money with a book.

Yes, making it tougher is better, my only problem with that is that many now assume the game is clean, which is far from the truth.

[66-70-83-??]

And it's a fair point although I think by singling out the stars and being brutal about it is a great catalyst to cleaning things up.

Darn right it is !

[geschinger]

Well there's obviously going to be less usage of the stuff that is tested for, however, there is plenty of things that cannot be detected by the testing, and I'm pretty confident that the usage of that stuff has gone up since testing started.

Probably correct. What I'd like to see happen is for the testing to be turned over to an independent agency that is funded to be able to do R&D into new testing procedures. Implement draconian penalties and the first time the testing agency comes up with a way to test for a previously undetectable substance and dozens of players have their careers ended on the spot the level of cheating will drop dramatically.

[mweb]

It shouldn't.

It doesn't pass the smell test (Aaron using roids) at all.

I remember Aaron breaking the record.

The only stories of steroids that I recall around that time (mid 1970's) was centered around the East German women olympic athletes and bodybuilders. And those East German women looked like men !

Through all the years of the 'steroid era"....all the speculation about players, etc...no one has EVER suggested Aaron used them. Why now all of a sudden ?

All of a sudden in June 2007, a few weeks before Bonds breaks the record (just a coincidence ) some "blog" makes the suggestion based on a referenced article (no link provided).

Not only that, but this "blog" has the title "Tom House Implicates Aaron", but nothing that I read implicates anyone but himself.

In fact, a little research and voila- here is the article that all these blogs referenced, but none provided the link for.

Why not provide the link to the article ? Probably because there is NOTHING, in any way shape or form that could be considered "implicating Aaron" in this article. Lets not let any facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

You were duped by a Bonds fan blogger. This story has no credibility.

Did you click on the "quotes" and follow the links ? It just sends you to another "blog" ?

Blogs shouldn't be given any credibility unless they can back up their claims.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/03/SPGSTCJ0SK1.DTL&hw=tom+house&sn=001&sc=1000

You've got to be kidding me, it clearly passed the smell test, if you refuse to accept that, fine, but I don't see how anyone could say with certainty that Aaron never used after reading that and looking at his stats.

I agree that when he says House implicates Aaron, that's going too far(so I was never duped), but House did say that several of his teammates and players in all of MLB used steroids. The claims(besides the bad headline) are backed up just fine, no one has said Aaron definitely used steroids.

The media was much different in the 60's and 70's, they weren't trying to expose baseball players as cheaters like they're today.

[mweb]

Darn right it is !

Maybe if Hank Aaron was singled out, baseball would be more clean today.

[RShack]

Here's a hypothetical question: Imagine that there is some Substance-X that has both performance advantages and health advantages. If such a substance helps make people healthier and makes them perform better, do you think it's OK for ballplayers to use it... even at the risk of making old pre-Substance-X records obsolete? Or do you somehow try to prevent ballplayers from using Substance-X (and perhaps losing the health benefit) despite the fact that non-ballplayers can use it to get both benefits?

On other words, if you imagine that there is some version of roids that does not have bad health consequences, what would you do about that?

(Some folks think HGH might be such a thing. As yet, there is no reason to conclude that, and there is some smattering of evidence to not-conclude that. But this question is not about HGH, it's about the general idea.)

.

[geschinger]

Here's a hypothetical question: Imagine that there is some Substance-X that has both performance advantages and health advantages. If such a substance helps make people healthier and makes them perform better, do you think it's OK for ballplayers to use it... even at the risk of making old pre-Substance-X records obsolete? Or do you somehow try to prevent ballplayers from using Substance-X (and perhaps losing the health benefit) despite the fact that non-ballplayers can use it to get both benefits?

It's a good question but I suspect it would be allowed. What I find most interesting is the question of performance enhancing aids. Such as the PECs that Brian Roberts used during some games in 2005. How does baseball respond if their further refined to where they produce a huge advantage for hitters. Or what if there is a replacement for Tommy John surgery that uses something artifical rather than a tendon from the forearm or hamstring and it w/that artificial ligament proves to be a huge performance boost. It'll be interesting to see whether or not exotic procedures or new gear gets approval as time goes on.

[mweb]

Here's a hypothetical question: Imagine that there is some Substance-X that has both performance advantages and health advantages. If such a substance helps make people healthier and makes them perform better, do you think it's OK for ballplayers to use it... even at the risk of making old pre-Substance-X records obsolete? Or do you somehow try to prevent ballplayers from using Substance-X (and perhaps losing the health benefit) despite the fact that non-ballplayers can use it to get both benefits?

On other words, if you imagine that there is some version of roids that does not have bad health consequences, what would you do about that?

(Some folks think HGH might be such a thing. As yet, there is no reason to conclude that, and there is some smattering of evidence to not-conclude that. But this question is not about HGH, it's about the general idea.)

.

Good question. I would allow it, although, I think many would have an issue with it. The reason I say that is I don't think most care that steroids/HGH may harm the players using them, nor do I think most really care much about them being against the law. What people really care about is the "unfair" advantage they give players compared to the supposed clean players of the past and the clean players of the present.

[mweb]

Heh, I forget what the debate is even about.

It might help the both sides of some of the different debates... It would help by exposing that we don't really know whom was clean and whom was not. But in a hypothetical situation where there was indisputable evidence that Hank was guilty I think the reaction we'd see towards Hank in the media would be brutal. It would illustrate that Bonds is not being singled out.

To expand on this, I wonder why there hasn't been more attention paid to what House and Waxman said? You would think in a time where steroids have been a huge story in sports and specifically baseball, that the media would have focused on that and did some investigating. However, they basically ignored it and basically act like they never heard it. I guess they've been spending too much time concentrating on Bonds to focus on the past.