hope that cheater never comes back :thumbdown :thumbdown ...........just my opinion.....

maybe this is just my opinion, but i think he could be back by june

 

might just be a false alarm.

 

Maybe he will want to come back after sitting out for 2 months.

 

Maybe i'm totally wrong.

718794[/snapback]

 

 

He wants to pass Babe Ruth, he will see his career as a failure if he does not pass Babe Ruth.

As RFerry said before, Ruth and his record (and Aaron and his record) all deserve to be "explained" as well.? Ruth played in a time when pitching was regarded more as a way of getting the ball to the batter (not to mention, many superior or at least equal black athletes were kept out of the MLB).? Aaron benefited from expansion weakening the quality of pitching as well as the hesitancy of managers to use bullpen "specialists."

 

If you want to get technical, any record could have an * next to it.? Put aside nostalgia and realize you're witnessing greatness; even if you don't like him.? Besides, it's not his fault that the drug testing policy was impotent last year, and didn't even exist before then.? He didn't do anything against the rules, illegal (but it's yet to be proven) maybe, but never against baseball's rules...

718074[/snapback]

 

When babe ruth hit 60 homers he outhomered ever other AL team. It had nothing to do with era b/c no one else was close to matching his totals. Ruth invented the homerun. Hank Aaron was a solid player for many years. Bonds was a great player who CHEATED to become the best. Neither ruth nor aaron cheated, they played the game of their own times and excelled.

 

What i say they do is mark the era of 1986-2002 as the steroid era or the performance enhancing drugs era. Maintian all records, dont put asterisks, but acknowledge in the record books that during that time this problem was occuring. It cannot be ignored either.

718331[/snapback]

 

Even if Bonds did take steroids, he didn't "CHEAT" until last season, and that was if he used steroids last year.

 

If you're saying that Ruth and Aaron simply benefited from their eras, the same can be said for Bonds; he didn't make the rules for the era he played in, he simply took advantage of the C.B.A. in baseball.

As RFerry said before, Ruth and his record (and Aaron and his record) all deserve to be "explained" as well. Ruth played in a time when pitching was regarded more as a way of getting the ball to the batter (not to mention, many superior or at least equal black athletes were kept out of the MLB). Aaron benefited from expansion weakening the quality of pitching as well as the hesitancy of managers to use bullpen "specialists."

 

If you want to get technical, any record could have an * next to it. Put aside nostalgia and realize you're witnessing greatness; even if you don't like him. Besides, it's not his fault that the drug testing policy was impotent last year, and didn't even exist before then. He didn't do anything against the rules, illegal (but it's yet to be proven) maybe, but never against baseball's rules...

718074[/snapback]

 

When babe ruth hit 60 homers he outhomered ever other AL team. It had nothing to do with era b/c no one else was close to matching his totals. Ruth invented the homerun. Hank Aaron was a solid player for many years. Bonds was a great player who CHEATED to become the best. Neither ruth nor aaron cheated, they played the game of their own times and excelled.

 

What i say they do is mark the era of 1986-2002 as the steroid era or the performance enhancing drugs era. Maintian all records, dont put asterisks, but acknowledge in the record books that during that time this problem was occuring. It cannot be ignored either.

718331[/snapback]

 

Even if Bonds did take steroids, he didn't "CHEAT" until last season, and that was if he used steroids last year.

 

If you're saying that Ruth and Aaron simply benefited from their eras, the same can be said for Bonds; he didn't make the rules for the era he played in, he simply took advantage of the C.B.A. in baseball.

719017[/snapback]

 

 

hmm, Steroids are ILEGAL. Not testing for something doesn't mean that you are entitled to used it. I'm sure players contract have clauses on breaking the law, etc.

 

So if he took Roids to gain an advantage, he is a cheater.

That sucks for them. If the alligations of steroids are true (are), then he needs to leave baseball.

Steroids are ILEGAL. Not testing for something doesn't mean that you are entitled to used it. I'm sure players contract have clauses on breaking the law, etc.

 

So if he took Roids to gain an advantage, he is a cheater.

719341[/snapback]

So is jaywalking and not abiding by the speed limit. Guess that makes millions of people criminals.

Steroids are ILEGAL. Not testing for something doesn't mean that you are entitled to used it. I'm sure players contract have clauses on breaking the law, etc.

 

So if he took Roids to gain an advantage, he is a cheater.

719341[/snapback]

So is jaywalking and not abiding by the speed limit. Guess that makes millions of people criminals.

719440[/snapback]

 

legally...yes.

Steroids are ILEGAL. Not testing for something doesn't mean that you are entitled to used it. I'm sure players contract have clauses on breaking the law, etc.

 

So if he took Roids to gain an advantage, he is a cheater.

719341[/snapback]

So is jaywalking and not abiding by the speed limit. Guess that makes millions of people criminals.

719440[/snapback]

 

:plain

FreshFish, how often does your boss report you for speeding in your attempts to get to work faster? Would your employee care if you broke the law, any law major or minor, if you were productive at your work? Concerned, sure, grounds for dismissal? Nope. Employers are not required to report the crimes their employees commit.

 

Like I said before, if you're looking to fault someone for the unlawful use of steroids among ballplayers, blame law enforcement. It's their job, not MLB's. That is the problem, right, that's it's illegal? If not, what's the big problem? That some fans want players harshly punished for "cheating" and tarnishing the records of the past? Ho hum.

FreshFish, how often does your boss report you for speeding in your attempts to get to work faster? Would your employee care if you broke the law, any law major or minor, if you were productive at your work? Concerned, sure, grounds for dismissal? Nope. Employers are not required to report the crimes their employees commit.

 

Like I said before, if you're looking to fault someone for the unlawful use of steroids among ballplayers, blame law enforcement. It's their job, not MLB's. That is the problem, right, that's it's illegal? If not, what's the big problem? That some fans want players harshly punished for "cheating" and tarnishing the records of the past? Ho hum.

719559[/snapback]

 

I applaud this post. :notworthy

FreshFish, how often does your boss report you for speeding in your attempts to get to work faster? Would your employee care if you broke the law, any law major or minor, if you were productive at your work? Concerned, sure, grounds for dismissal? Nope. Employers are not required to report the crimes their employees commit.

 

Like I said before, if you're looking to fault someone for the unlawful use of steroids among ballplayers, blame law enforcement. It's their job, not MLB's. That is the problem, right, that's it's illegal? If not, what's the big problem? That some fans want players harshly punished for "cheating" and tarnishing the records of the past? Ho hum.

719559[/snapback]

 

weak analogy. You can spin it any way you want it. We won't agree on this issue, so I rest my case.

FreshFish, how often does your boss report you for speeding in your attempts to get to work faster? Would your employee care if you broke the law, any law major or minor, if you were productive at your work? Concerned, sure, grounds for dismissal? Nope. Employers are not required to report the crimes their employees commit.

 

Like I said before, if you're looking to fault someone for the unlawful use of steroids among ballplayers, blame law enforcement. It's their job, not MLB's. That is the problem, right, that's it's illegal? If not, what's the big problem? That some fans want players harshly punished for "cheating" and tarnishing the records of the past? Ho hum.

719559[/snapback]

 

the analogy doesnt add up. Speeding to get to work and using steroids to hit the ball further are not equivalent in the concering fields of employment. Using steroids is the equivalent of making more money through insider trading. It's gaining an unfair advantage in how your work is done, not on how you get to work. Speeding to get to your office does not equal using steroids while at the office (ballpark)

You two missed the point. Stop looking at the issue as fans of the game and its players, and look at it again.

I didnt miss the point. Roiding may be illegal but it was 'good' to attract fans to baseball (b/c of all the homers), so why would baseball do anything about it. However, that does not change the fact that steroids has overall been bad for baseball. B/c the statistics of players from the steroid era cannot be compared with those of any other era. W/o steroids very few players will hit 50 homers a year. What i say they do is label the years of 1986-2001 as the steroid or performace enhancing drugs (PED) era. Like this mlb will not be able to ignore and hide a dark part of its history, and there wont need to be any asterisks

This era was different from the past for more reasons than performace-enhancing drugs, which, by the way, were in use in the 60s, 70s and early 80s too.

This era was different from the past for more reasons than performace-enhancing drugs, which, by the way, were in use in the 60s, 70s and early 80s too.

720404[/snapback]

 

anabolics?

Does it make a difference?

just a piece of information and I'll be done with this thread. . .

 

Every MLB exec and player that testified on the Congressional hearing (under oath), stated that they considered taking Steroids as 'cheating'