I'm the last person anyone should expect to start a thread about steroids, but I loved Dan LeBatard's article about the new investigation that MLB has announced....

 

Most of you here will have negative things to say and knock the article for whatever reason, but you can't deny that he brings up some excellent points. And I'm not even talking about the fact that everyone wants to single out Barry Bonds, when there were hundreds of other players possibly taking steroids. People look at Barry because he got so much better at a later age... I know we've mentioned this before, but Roger Clemens is in the same boat, yet nobody really questions him. Why has he gotten so much better with age? If Barry Bonds was on steroids, and he hit homeruns off pitchers on steroids, does that even the playing field?

 

Anyways, after reading his article, I never thought about steroid use outside of baseball as he does... Why is nobody talking about taking Lance Armstrong's medals (or whatever it is that bikers win) away? Why does nobody question musicians? Obviously not for steroids, but all of your favorite songs may have been influenced by drugs. When a musician gets high on acid, or whatever, is when he might get the inspiration to write his deepest song... Yet nobody cares...

 

I'm glad there is a new steroid policy. But I really wish we could just let the past be the past and move on. Let the new system work. This new investigation is such a joke. There's no use in digging through the past, when all it might possibly do is end up is an asterisk. If they end up suspending anyone, it will open up a whole new can of worms, because there was no rule against it at the time, so there is no justification for a suspension. Not even that, but one suspension would mean they would have to suspend every single player that took steroids after 2002.

 

Here's the article ----> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sport...rd/14237975.htm

 

I hope this doesn't start a 4 page thread. I just wanted everyone to see an opinion other than "Suspend all the cheaters".. And I would hope that you all agree that we just want all this damn steroid talk to go away and start talking some real baseball.

Some of his comparisons in the article are really stretching it, but the investigation will be much ado about nothing. That much I agree with. LeBatard's a boob but he does write well & usually his articles are pretty well thought out, & not the knee-jerk writing we're so accustomed to. (I said usually mind you, not always...)

When a musician gets high on acid, or whatever, is when he might get the inspiration to write his deepest song... Yet nobody cares...

 

 

:banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead

 

That is one of the worst comparisons I have ever heard. I doubt anyone would consider acid performance enhancing. And music doesn't compare to sports. You go to music and writing and all of this to see life a different way, it can move you, change how you look at things. Seeing a 250 lb. meathead hit a ball 500 ft. doesn't really move people the same way. Baseball is about the purity, it's what they want to believe. They want to believe they are seeing greatness something pure. To be able to see the human body perform at it's absolute height, that is the goal. And when someone is shooting up they aren't seeing it. No then you are getting something genetic, not real. It's a fraud and they feel like they have been had. They want to believe they could do something like that, that the person doing it could be them. Not them 'roided up rubbing the clean and the clear all over them. Speaking of which, I think they should start with that, I mean people admitted to using that. :whistle Failed drugged tests, who needs those when people admit to it?

 

And as far as this oh no there were no rules against this until recently, the correct thing to say is that there was no governing laws in baseball to punish it until recently. In 1991 it was pointed out steroids were prohibited and then again in 1997. http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs.htm

 

1991 - Vincent Memo - Baseball's Drug Policy and Prevention Program

Memo by then Commissioner Fay Vincent to all clubs

June 17, 1991

Format - PDF

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This memorandum sets forth Baseball's drug policy and the principle components of our drug abuse program. As in the past, the health and welfare of those that work in Baseball will continue to be our paramount concern. No less compelling, however, is the need to maintain the integrity of the game. Drug involvement or suspicion of drug involvement is inconsistent with maintaining these objectives.

 

.....

 

This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription

 

 

What's wrong with understanding what happened? People want to know what happened and how things transpired. Oh yeah because public judgement is a bad thing. There is no reason to understand how things went down to help prevent it in the future. Why study the past? Personally, I think history should stay in the past, no reason to ever bring it up.

People single out Barry Bonds because he went from a career high in HRs of 49 in 2000, to 73 in 2001 as a 37 year old with deteriorating joints.

 

His career batting average was also around .280, and he went to averaging over .320 at the late stage of his career.

 

Also, Clemens might of had a low ERA but he still really wasn't going deep into games, at least not like he used to.

I've never heard it all summed up so perfectly (and for the record, I've always like Dan LeBatard's writing even if I don't always agree with him...I just don't get the hate):

 

Steroids help you heal. Pitchers were using as much as hitters, if not more so. We oversimplify it, focusing on just the home runs. Yes, Bonds, unprecedented, became great late. But where are we if Mitchell digs up dirt on Roger Clemens, who got greater even later? Evens the playing field. Solves nothing.

 

Remember, this sport was so polluted that even the Alex Sanchezes of the world were using. You can't wonder how Sammy Sosa went from 60 to zero in four seconds flat without wondering why muscular Kevin Brown kept breaking down, too. You can't ask Bret Boone how his numbers and body inflated without asking Eric Gagne where the heck he found those extra 7 mph.

I've never heard it all summed up so perfectly (and for the record, I've always like Dan LeBatard's writing even if I don't always agree with him...I just don't get the hate):

 

Steroids help you heal. Pitchers were using as much as hitters, if not more so. We oversimplify it, focusing on just the home runs. Yes, Bonds, unprecedented, became great late. But where are we if Mitchell digs up dirt on Roger Clemens, who got greater even later? Evens the playing field. Solves nothing.

 

Remember, this sport was so polluted that even the Alex Sanchezes of the world were using. You can't wonder how Sammy Sosa went from 60 to zero in four seconds flat without wondering why muscular Kevin Brown kept breaking down, too. You can't ask Bret Boone how his numbers and body inflated without asking Eric Gagne where the heck he found those extra 7 mph.

 

 

So do you not agree that we should at least try and find out how things got this bad and this rampant to try and stop it in the future? Players will talk. They will realize that this era is going to go into the books as "The Steroid Era" and want to put their spin on it. It could get ugly, especially when guys don't want to get bunched in with the other 'roiders, they may name names. I doubt once Jose Canseco is done talking that no other player will want to be heard. Caminiti was willing to talk before his death, and there will be others. This is all to allow the rich people in power at the top to wipe their hands clean of this mess so history remembers the players as causing the mess and the people on top trying to solve it. Is that right? Probably not, but who doped the players up?

That is one of the worst comparisons I have ever heard. I doubt anyone would consider acid performance enhancing. And music doesn't compare to sports.

 

 

To your first point, who's to say that non-sports fans don't view musicians as we view baseball players? Baseball fans want to see a person, playing at the highest level (without the help of performance enhancing drugs).. all natural. Well, who's to say a music fan would think the same way about his favorite artist? I don't think it's that much of a stretch to think that a person would want to think that the greatest songs ever written were done by someone who was not high... to think that they too, could have the creativity to put a great song together.

 

To your second point... That's what I'm talking about. People put baseball players on another level.. For other professions, it might be OK to do whatever it takes to get that edge. But baseball players are put on an unfair pedastal, where they are expected to be completely different. Although the game didn't ban it, they should have the morals to stay as true to the themselves as the fans.. Do I agree with anyone taking steroids? No... But if MLB didn't have any laws against it, they can't penalize anyone.

 

People single out Barry Bonds because he went from a career high in HRs of 49 in 2000, to 73 in 2001 as a 37 year old with deteriorating joints.

 

His career batting average was also around .280, and he went to averaging over .320 at the late stage of his career.

 

Also, Clemens might of had a low ERA but he still really wasn't going deep into games, at least not like he used to.

 

 

Barry had a career average of .292 up until 2002, which is the first year in question by George Mitchell. And I really don't think steroids will help a player's batting average. Hand-eye coordination is not something a drug can help you with.

That is one of the worst comparisons I have ever heard. I doubt anyone would consider acid performance enhancing. And music doesn't compare to sports.

 

 

To your first point, who's to say that non-sports fans don't view musicians as we view baseball players? Baseball fans want to see a person, playing at the highest level (without the help of performance enhancing drugs).. all natural. Well, who's to say a music fan would think the same way about his favorite artist? I don't think it's that much of a stretch to think that a person would want to think that the greatest songs ever written were done by someone who was not high.

Music is not enhanced by drugs. Go do some acid, smoke some weed and pick up a guitar. I mean seriously. Just because a guy on Family Guy can drink himself silly and then play the best piano you ever heard doesn't mean it is true. I will believe normal minded people understand that concept.

 

And when a music artist is busted for drugs on their own time people don't question their music or throw the music out. OMG John Lennon did weed?! Judging by how people love the Beatles you would never know that because people like them. You tell people Barry Bonds did steriods no doubt, he got taken away in cuffs because of it people will throw out his line of work like that. It is different, understand that.

 

To your second point... That's what I'm talking about. People put baseball players on another level.. For other professions, it might be OK to do whatever it takes to get that edge. But baseball players are put on an unfair pedastal, where they are expected to be completely different. Although the game didn't ban it, they should have the morals to stay as true to the themselves as the fans.. Do I agree with anyone taking steroids? No... But if MLB didn't have any laws against it, they can't penalize anyone.

 

 

They didn't ban it?! Then what do you call prohibiting it? Guiding them away from it? Give me a break. They did ban it they just didn't test for it. It was banned it just wasn't enforced, one thing does not have to do with the other. It was prohibited and players were told don't do it, as well as people in the front office.

 

And this isn't about penalizing. I don't think they are trying to suspend anyone retroactively. They are trying to UNDERSTAND how things happened. And yeah players are put on a different level, that is why they get sports are a billion dollar industry. Because they are suppose to be naturally better than normal people at the game. Keep this steroid stuff going and soon we'll be rooting for different medial labs.

 

"Well Buck Balco has certianly built up a strong team this year.

"I don't know about that Jack JuicedLabs' kids have put on 20 lbs of muscle each, they will really be able to hammer the ball this year. I think they might break the team HR record of 16,298 set last year by the Gargantuans."

Great article, it's true, what is their to investigate, everyone does it!

OK.. to say they banned it, but didn't enforce it is contradictory.. "Don't use steroids.. If you do though, we won't do anything about it".. Ban, by definition, would mean to enforce...

 

Ban

 

2 : to prohibit especially by legal means ; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of

 

My analogy to musicians was not meant to be a one by one comparison. I'm just saying that other people in the entertainment industry are held to much lower standards. I think it's unfair to ostracize baseball players and not care about anyone else.

 

And if the only reason this investigation is happening is to understand what happened, what a waste of money that is. I find it hard to believe that Bud Selig and MLB would go to these lengths, simply to feel better about themselves knowing what happened. If you don't think they plan on taking some other course of action if they get hard evidence on some of these players, you're more naive than I thought.

 

And again, dude.. I don't agree with taking steroids. I was very happy when they officially banned them. I think the new testing policy is awesome.. and I want to see baseball 100% steroid free. But to start looking back makes absolutely no sense.

Ban

 

2 : ] to prohibit especially by legal means ; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of

 

1991 - Vincent Memo - Baseball's Drug Policy and Prevention Program

Memo by then Commissioner Fay Vincent to all clubs

June 17, 1991

Format - PDF

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This memorandum sets forth Baseball's drug policy and the principle components of our drug abuse program. As in the past, the health and welfare of those that work in Baseball will continue to be our paramount concern. No less compelling, however, is the need to maintain the integrity of the game. Drug involvement or suspicion of drug involvement is inconsistent with maintaining these objectives.

 

.....

 

This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription

 

My analogy to musicians was not meant to be a one by one comparison. I'm just saying that other people in the entertainment industry are held to much lower standards. I think it's unfair to ostracize baseball players and not care about anyone else.

 

 

It is not lower, it is different. Baseball players don't get judged if they put on a couple pounds, and all the weird stuff celebrities have to put up with. There is a problem with comparing their standards because the work an artist does in the entertainment industry is seperate of their body and mind, because it is up to interpretation. For athletes it is their bodies and their abilities with the bodies that is consumed and can be measured. You can't measure how good a song is, or how good a performance in a movie is. In sports there are numerical values. And like I said people think differently of athletes and of artists, thus they gravitate to each for different reasons. And by using steroids baseball players ruin why people gravitate to them.

 

And if the only reason this investigation is happening is to understand what happened, what a waste of money that is. I find it hard to believe that Bud Selig and MLB would go to these lengths, simply to feel better about themselves knowing what happened. If you don't think they plan on taking some other course of action if they get hard evidence on some of these players, you're more naive than I thought.

 

Are they using your tax dollars? Are you financing this personally? If not why do you care how they use their money, they are a corporation and can do with it as they please as long as it is legal. And why is it a waste to understand what happened? People want to know how things got so bad that the Alex Sanchez of the world need to cheat at a game. I guess you thought the 9/11 Commision Report was bad because who cares about the past, why try and understand how things happened, because heck we know how it ends. Plus I bet at the end of this a report of some sort is printed and they make all their money back and then some.

 

The only way to stop something from happening again is to understand the past and how it happened the first time. Plus if this is such a waste of money, says you, and they realize that why would they waste more money if they realize it isn't going anywhere? I said this is a game being played in the public, and public opinion is what is on the line. They want it on their side.

They didn't ban it?! Then what do you call prohibiting it? Guiding them away from it? Give me a break. They did ban it they just didn't test for it. It was banned it just wasn't enforced, one thing does not have to do with the other.

you seem to be quite the expert on bans.

Actually certain steroids CAN help hand eye coordination, by stregthening mucles around the eye. My friend had eye surgery and had to take steroids as part of his recovery. And I doubt 2002 is the first year in question when 2003 was the year Bonds did something that he should never of been able to do.

Barry had a career average of .292 up until 2002, which is the first year in question by George Mitchell. And I really don't think steroids will help a player's batting average. Hand-eye coordination is not something a drug can help you with.

 

his "career average"?

 

are you for real?

 

bonds' BA each year since 1990:

 

year / HR / BA

 

1990 33 .301

1991 25 .292

1992 34 .311

1993 46 .336

1994 37 .312

1995 33 .294

1996 42 .308

1997 40 .291

1998 37 .303

1999 34 .262 (injured)

2000 49 .306

2001 73 .328

2002 46 .370

2003 45 .341

2004 45 .362

2005 5 .286 (injured)

 

knock an extra 15 flyouts out of the park and your average goes up 30 points.

 

not exactly rocket science.

 

 

 

Actually certain steroids CAN help hand eye coordination, by stregthening mucles around the eye. My friend had eye surgery and had to take steroids as part of his recovery. And I doubt 2002 is the first year in question when 2003 was the year Bonds did something that he should never of been able to do.

 

:lol :lol

 

your friend wasn't taking anabolic steroids, and no, the steroids he was taking weren't being used to strengthen the muscles of his eye.

In sports there are numerical values.

 

 

In music there are record sales. A musician's success is also based on numbers. The world revolves around numbers.. Regardless, you're taking this analogy a little bit too literal.

 

Are they using your tax dollars? Are you financing this personally? If not why do you care how they use their money

 

 

MLB could have used that money to help the Marlins build a stadium.

 

his "career average"?

 

are you for real?

 

bonds' BA each year since 1990:

 

year / HR / BA

 

1990 33 .301

1991 25 .292

1992 34 .311

1993 46 .336

1994 37 .312

1995 33 .294

1996 42 .308

1997 40 .291

1998 37 .303

1999 34 .262 (injured)

2000 49 .306

2001 73 .328

2002 46 .370

2003 45 .341

2004 45 .362

2005 5 .286 (injured)

 

knock an extra 15 flyouts out of the park and your average goes up 30 points.

 

not exactly rocket science.

 

 

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. Are you with me or arguing with me? You're kinda proving my point. Barry Bonds wasn't suspected of taking steroids up until 2001. His career numbers before that were still great.

Actually Bonds reportedly started taking before 2001, according to the book actually. 1999 if I am not mistaken, after Mac/Sosa's dream season.

 

He is a cheater, throw him out of the game...along with any other steroid user, but make sure to get rid of Barry.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. Are you with me or arguing with me? You're kinda proving my point. Barry Bonds wasn't suspected of taking steroids up until 2001. His career numbers before that were still great.

 

in that case, i was agreeing with you.

 

steroids helped him hit homers and upped his average, but his numbers before he took steroids were great anyway.

Steroids don't improve your hand-eye coordination, but some human growth hormones do.

Well written article. This excerpt sums up the situation for me:

 

But McGwire, Paul Bunyan in spikes, would be getting clubbed this way, too, if he were chasing the most sacred record in all of sports in our most numerical game. It doesn't help that Bonds is defiant, arrogant, angry and loud, but that has more to do with him being disliked than the color of his skin. He is being witch-hunted here, but it is because of the sanctity of the record he approaches and the artificial way he arrived at its doorstep.