What's the big deal? If these guys want to use steroids I don't see a problem with it. It's a personal decision. I don't consider it cheating. It's not like using a corked bat. This is just a form of physical training. It's ridiculous that congress was even involved in this.
Don't forget to add 'turbo' Lasiks and 'super' contacts... I see you... With the controversy over performance-enhancing drugs quieted for now, a new performance-enhancing substance is hitting the baseball field—contact lenses. And with both kids and adults seeking an athletic edge, the question is: will these new lenses be the safe and legal advantage they are looking for? link
How could you not consider using a substance banned by the league cheating? What's your basis for then calling a corked bat cheating? They both do the exact same thing by making it easier for the player to hit the ball farther.
I thought Bonds could still be tested, even if he was injured. Isn't he still on San Francisco's roster?
A corked bat is cheating pure and simple. Using steroids is just a supplement to physical training. Steroids won't do a damn thing for you if you don't work out hard as well. Corked bats and steroids do not both do the exact same thing. There is a difference between physically improving yourself and using a corked bat on the field. So by your measure do you think weight training and good diet should be banned as well? They both help make you a better athlete and hit the ball farther. It's up to the players to weight train and follow a good diet. Those who do often surpass the performance of those that don't. It's up to the player to decide if he wants to do that just like it's their choice to take steroids or not.
not at all what i meant, bob. they're cleaning it up. that's a good thing. of course they should have employed stricter testing years ago. but they didn't. to date, only palmerio has tested positive for steroids. the rest is speculation and allegation. i hear people saying that no slugger from this era deserves entrance into the Hall...because they MIGHT have done steroids. i think that's ridiculous for a couple of reasons: 1. until someone tests positive, you don't know crap. you have a good guess. but we don't punish people or take away accolades on speculation; 2. baseball has NEVER been pure of this sort of stuff. as buck said, at one time it was uppers being distributed like candy by teams. i don't know what effect that had on certain guy's numbers. i have no idea the extent to which that helped a guy get in the hall. i know guys like gaylord perry are in the hall of fame, though. and i know that he cheated like a madman. so if you're gonna hold people out of the hall in general for this stuff...you're gonna be kicking a lot of folks out, too; 3. i personally have no idea how many more homers steroids allows one to hit. i just don't have a clue. i don't know if barry would have hit 70 instead of 73....20 instead of 73...40 instead of 73. i just don't know. and even that's based on the unproven ASSUMPTION that barry did roids. I've heard a handful of voters talking about Palmeiro. Every single one has expressed the sentiments I just wrote. Except for Richard Justice, of course. And he's the ONLY ONE i've read/heard so far that, even in the immediate wake of all of this, says they would not vote for palmeiro to hit the hall of fame. oh, and skip bayless, too (is he a hall voter??) who said previously that he didn't think rafael was a HOF player, to begin with (even before steroids were found). I have no idea what Rafael took....if and how it affected performance....when he took it...when it affected his performance. I know he was a helluva hitter, though. I know he led the league in singles once. I know he has 3,000 hits. Those are the things I KNOW.
Exactly!!! Players will use WHATEVER they can to get an edge in a sport where one more hit in 10 at bats is the difference between a trip to the minors and a trip to the Hall of Fame. It's really that simple. Nothing is different...it's just a different "medium" of cheating. I'm not saying I think it's good. I'm not saying I would ever encourage anyone to do steroids. I'm just flabbergasted that long-time baseball fans can still talk about the "purity" of the game when we know it's never been that way.
Honestly, and maybe it's my naive sense of optimism, but I want to buy his story. I just cannot believe that someone in his position would be so stupid to out and out take an illegal steroid. Of course, if his explanation was actually the truth, we'd see him holding a press conference with every bottle of supplements, vitamins, cough medicine, etc. that he's taken in the last few months and showing the ingredients that could've possibly led to the positive test. So, I guess I know in my heart of hearts that he's lying and he's guilty. However, I think I'm like you and most other baseball fans when I just shrug my shoulders at this. Would I love it if there were no steroids in baseball? Absolutely. However, like you said, the game's never really been all that pure, and this is just the evolution of that. I think most baseball fans couldn't care less about the "steroid era" and that it's mostly a media creation. Had it been Julio Lugo and Tim Bogar hitting 70 HRs a year instead of Bonds and McGwire, maybe I'd care more, but I just can't. Maybe it's just because no matter how addicted I am to sports, I really don't take it all that seriously. What cracks me up is that two months ago, you had many people complaining about Frank Robinson calling out the Angels' pitcher who was cheating, saying it was just a part of the game. Wonder if they feel the same way about steroids.
