What to Asterisk? *

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Everything regarding steroids and myriad other compounds, related or unrelated, prohibited or permissable, are so clearly and cavalierly defined with an astonishing degree of certainty on these threads, while J.D. attorneys, specializing in the subject [and working both sides of the street] continue to enunciate the endless nuances, applications, state and federal conflicts and enforcement/penalty variations.

Example: Steroid Law - Extended Article Listing

"Far more sweeping federal legislation was close behind. On October 22, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, scheduled to take effect 90 days later [Public Law No: 108-358; 118 Stat. 1661 (2004)]. Ratified by the U.S. Congress earlier in the month, the bill expanded the steroid law that had been passed in 1990. The new law also provides $15 million for educational programs for children about the dangers of anabolic steroids, and directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to consider revising federal guidelines to increase the penalties for steroid possession and distribution.

The law, which took effect as of January 20th, 2005, adds 26 new steroid compounds (five of which are further described by specific chemical isomers) to the previous list of substances that are legally defined as �anabolic steroids� and classified as Schedule III controlled substances. Mere possession of any of these products is now a basis for arrest and prosecution as a federal drug criminal. The new compounds are androstanediol; androstanedione; androstenediol; androstenedione; bolasterone; calusterone; *1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a. �1-testosterone�); furazabol; 13b-ethyl-17a-hydroxygon-4-en-3-one; 4-hydroxytestosterone; 4-hydroxy-19-nortestosterone; mestanolone; 17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; 17a-methyl-3a,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; 17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxyandrost-4-ene; 17a-methyl-4-hydroxynandrolone; methyldienolone; methyltrienolone; 17a-methyl-*1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a. �17-a-methyl-1-testosterone�); norandrostenediol; norandrostenedione; norbolethone; norclostebol; normethandrolone; stenbolone; and tetrahydrogestrinone.

...

"The law also changes the general requisite elements of an anabolic steroid. The �promotes muscle growth� language that precedes the list of compounds [see Legal Muscle for an analysis of the 1990 law] is now removed from the statute. Strangely, an anabolic steroid, under the new law, need not be anabolic.

.... then follows considerations of the direct powers of the Attorney General to interpret vs. the powers of states' attorneys-general ...

... and we are treated to flaws in the 1990 law and revisitation of some suspect supplements ... now OK:

"After a protracted battle on the issue among members of Congress, the law permits the continued sale of DHEA as a dietary supplement by adding it to the list of other excluded hormonal substances (estrogens, progestins, and corticosteroids). The law also fixes some of the mistakes and poor draftsmanship of the 1990 law that I pointed out in the original Legal Muscle."

So long as the legal system and the states' rights turf battles prevail, the clock, for me can start only after the new law went into effect. That would be mid-January, 2005 [which happens to open a calendar year in which Barry Bonds was out for surgery].

Anybody caught after all those refinements and redefinitions is a fool or an arrogant ass, deserving of having the book thrown at him, especially post the Mitchell Report.

was there any gray area around winstrol or stanozolol? how did balco fare under the old law?

the new law didn't change the illegality of most of the prevalent steroids used by athletes. it primarily added some previously legal supplements. not

[nanwynnfan]

Steroid Law - Extended Article Listing

If one reads the Wikipedia article [linked above] regarding Winstrol and/or stonozolol, one sees a passing parade of athletes stripped of medals or titles and one suspended for life from competition [NOT MLB] for "repeated offenses."

When it comes to MLB, as I recall, three players are cited:

-Rafael Palmeiro, mentioned because of actual test results [the ones that shattered his credibility AFTER he pointed at his Congressional interrogators in firm denial]. Subseqiently, as those of us who have bothered to read the Mitchell Report, it appears Rafael MAY have won back a degree of that credibility, with presentation of the Tejada data and the possibility that Palmeiro was given something OTHER than what he thought was being administered.

-Barry Bonds, mentioned as being mentioned in "the book"for using these supplements.

-Roger Clemens, mentioned without further context [except that his role is written as passive] for having been injected by his trainer.

Here we are presented with a parade of rather harsh punishments meted out to "violators" with MLB players mentioned as having been accused.

The entire context can leave one either bemused, benumbed, both, or rendered totally insensitive to the accusations, for very real and justifiable reasons:

-lack of penalty strongly suggests that even the most righteous guardian of MLB purity has no leg to stand on imposing punishments for "cheaters prior to 2003, or quite possibly, January, 2005.

-stripping a senior citizen of accolades on one form of competition while multi-millionaire professionals in another are unmolested certainly indicates that the two classes of athlete are indeed being subjected to very different and distinct standards, rules and enforcement protocols.

There is something distinctly unsatisfying in a report that opens with the flat statement of fact that a substance has been FDA approved for human use, then going on to expamnd on its illegalities and criminal penalty in amateur and professional sport.

It's the kind of mixed communication that would have prompted any peer, superior or colleague with whom i ever worked to demand, "Get you $^#@ together!"

[kflo]

so we agree that the new law really didn't change anything.

and it's likely that there will be no "imposed" punishments, except the public unofficial *'s, and the hof voting. which is probably what everyone deserves. everyone has their scars.

[nanwynnfan]

The *'s belong next to the Commissioner's name, the HoF voters who dod not vote in the ovbious choices, any media [print or broadcast] HoF candidate who takes the "high" road of condemnation and the collection of bindlestiffs who typically enlist a posse after the accused are three states west.

It's called being a day late and a dollar short. Leave asterisks to grammarians.

[kflo]

right - and the guys who were doing steroids (always behind closed doors, almost always obtained illegaly, and almost always denied afterwards) were doing nothing wrong and bear no responsbility for their actions.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

right - and the guys who were doing steroids (always behind closed doors, almost always obtained illegaly, and almost always denied afterwards) were doing nothing wrong and bear no responsbility for their actions.

You have written a scenario, as if you were actually there. I was not so intimate with the day to day personal habits of each athlete involved; and I am not inclined to accept, as gospel, written accounts and testimonials of those presented as witnesses, confederates, jilted girlfriends, one-time trainers, acknowledged 'roid users and traffickers.

The above quoted statement was written in your words, not mine.

I have never stated, at any time in these many exchanges, that any particular player NEVER used a substance that may have been against baseball "rules," federal statute, state statute. There have been those in these exchanges that would like to convince me and anyone else who will listen, that I did.

Here, for the last time, in nutshell form, is what I've said all along:

1. That I know of, there was a federal law on the books that proscribed certain substances as violations; and this was as far back as 1990;

2. It really hit the fan in amateur competiotions, especially the Olympics, when testing programs voided performance awards for several athletes;

3. MLB put out a memorandum on substance abuse, including steroids; but the message was very differently handled by various team ownerships, front offices, managements and coaching staffs, so that the net impact was - zero;

4. Reeling from strikes and expansion woes, MLB needed at shot in the arm to recapture fan attendance, which in turn, has an augmenting effect on media revenues; and MLB got that impetus by the HR production escalating through the '90s;

5. Regardless of what anyone was thinking, the cash cow mooed, the turstiles spun, the concessions boomed and the media cash flow - flowed;

6. Whether they want to admit it or not, most fans sat goggle eyed in awe of the McGwire Sosa shoot-out; and Sosa darn near got crucified [for a day or two over a corked bat, not a swollen head or Magnigicent Hulk biscepts or tricepts;

7. Meanwhile, a proven contact hitter with enough pop to exceed 40 HR three times in his career [quietly, no fanfare or suspicion] including 46, lagged behind these two;

8. Others, suspected or not, hit > 50 HRs with astonishing regularity during this period; but what we heard were whispered rumors, with the lid on, while the registers went "KAH-CHING!"

9. Pictures of before and after for Barry Bonds, along with Descartian debates over his hat size, accompanied his march to 73 ... as if the adding of 25, 30, or more pounds between ages 20 and 35 were extraordinary and shockingly unexpected;

10. Jose Caseco wrote a kiss-and-tell book, becomin "auteur;"

11. Fingers got pointed like compasses fixated on due North - many focused on barry Bonds;

12. Barry Bonds denied he knowingly took steroids, that he took forms of them not knowing they were prohibited; and he did this under oath, despite waivers granted him that put him at no risk for telling the truth;

13. I held, still do, that the accused is PRESUMED innocent until he is found guilty;

14. George mitchell says, "Move on." I agree whole-heartedly.

The above constitute what I have said, consistently.

Barry Bonds is now the poster boy for "cheating." The greatest hitter overall, and the only real throwback to the Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx contact-average-power genre is held, feet to fire, while handsful of others are unscathed, although even Mitchell says that NOT being mentioned in the report is no guarantee of player innocence.

Other 1990s > 50 club members are getting a pass, like A-Rod and Albert Pujols; and I don't accuse them here. However, Griffey's HR and injury pattern might raise a flag or two; bur do not.

So, last time: Bonds is presumed innocent until proven guilty. AND, I hope they drop the whole thing, because to hang one [as a proxy for all] is getting a SCAPEGOAT with all caps ... because he's the very BEST of the lot.

Getting Bonds for perjury is a bit like getting Al Capone for income tax evasion; and Barry Bonds hasn't killed anyone [that I know of].

Bottom line, for me: I'm getting too old to lose sleep over stuff like this. IMO, Bonds is one of the best I've ever seen; and since 1939 that's a lot of ballplayers. His performance and sheer talents are unquestionable: eye, discipline, awesome abrupt swing [like Gehrig]; the choked-up bat speeding the bat movement almost like a devastating jab. What will be, will be ... but screwing up a masterful performance with tawdry and VERY LATE afterthoughts, will just take the history and glory of the game and those who run it down a few pegs.

Maybe that's nature's way: the worms feed on the kings.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

You have written a scenario, as if you were actually there. I was not so intimate with the day to day personal habits of each athlete involved; and I am not inclined to accept, as gospel, written accounts and testimonials of those presented as witnesses, confederates, jilted girlfriends, one-time trainers, acknowledged 'roid users and traffickers.

The above quoted statement was written in your words, not mine.

I have never stated, at any time in these many exchanges, that any particular player NEVER used a substance that may have been against baseball "rules," federal statute, state statute. There have been those in these exchanges that would like to convince me and anyone else who will listen, that I did.

Here, for the last time, in nutshell form, is what I've said all along:

1. That I know of, there was a federal law on the books that proscribed certain substances as violations; and this was as far back as 1990;

2. It really hit the fan in amateur competiotions, especially the Olympics, when testing programs voided performance awards for several athletes;

3. MLB put out a memorandum on substance abuse, including steroids; but the message was very differently handled by various team ownerships, front offices, managements and coaching staffs, so that the net impact was - zero;

4. Reeling from strikes and expansion woes, MLB needed at shot in the arm to recapture fan attendance, which in turn, has an augmenting effect on media revenues; and MLB got that impetus by the HR production escalating through the '90s;

5. Regardless of what anyone was thinking, the cash cow mooed, the turstiles spun, the concessions boomed and the media cash flow - flowed;

6. Whether they want to admit it or not, most fans sat goggle eyed in awe of the McGwire Sosa shoot-out; and Sosa darn near got crucified [for a day or two over a corked bat, not a swollen head or Magnigicent Hulk biscepts or tricepts;

7. Meanwhile, a proven contact hitter with enough pop to exceed 40 HR three times in his career [quietly, no fanfare or suspicion] including 46, lagged behind these two;

8. Others, suspected or not, hit > 50 HRs with astonishing regularity during this period; but what we heard were whispered rumors, with the lid on, while the registers went "KAH-CHING!"

9. Pictures of before and after for Barry Bonds, along with Descartian debates over his hat size, accompanied his march to 73 ... as if the adding of 25, 30, or more pounds between ages 20 and 35 were extraordinary and shockingly unexpected;

10. Jose Caseco wrote a kiss-and-tell book, becomin "auteur;"

11. Fingers got pointed like compasses fixated on due North - many focused on barry Bonds;

12. Barry Bonds denied he knowingly took steroids, that he took forms of them not knowing they were prohibited; and he did this under oath, despite waivers granted him that put him at no risk for telling the truth;

13. I held, still do, that the accused is PRESUMED innocent until he is found guilty;

14. George mitchell says, "Move on." I agree whole-heartedly.

The above constitute what I have said, consistently.

Barry Bonds is now the poster boy for "cheating." The greatest hitter overall, and the only real throwback to the Williams, Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx contact-average-power genre is held, feet to fire, while handsful of others are unscathed, although even Mitchell says that NOT being mentioned in the report is no guarantee of player innocence.

Other 1990s > 50 club members are getting a pass, like A-Rod and Albert Pujols; and I don't accuse them here. However, Griffey's HR and injury pattern might raise a flag or two; bur do not.

So, last time: Bonds is presumed innocent until proven guilty. AND, I hope they drop the whole thing, because to hang one [as a proxy for all] is getting a SCAPEGOAT with all caps ... because he's the very BEST of the lot.

Getting Bonds for perjury is a bit like getting Al Capone for income tax evasion; and Barry Bonds hasn't killed anyone [that I know of].

Bottom line, for me: I'm getting too old to lose sleep over stuff like this. IMO, Bonds is one of the best I've ever seen; and since 1939 that's a lot of ballplayers. His performance and sheer talents are unquestionable: eye, discipline, awesome abrupt swing [like Gehrig]; the choked-up bat speeding the bat movement almost like a devastating jab. What will be, will be ... but screwing up a masterful performance with tawdry and VERY LATE afterthoughts, will just take the history and glory of the game and those who run it down a few pegs.

Maybe that's nature's way: the worms feed on the kings.

i missed in there where you placed any responsibility in the hands of the players, and the steroid users. any.

[jtur88]

There is an inescapable conclusion, though: Baseballl (fans, networks and teams) implied (through example) that anything a player could do to increase his home-run output would be rewarded more handsomely than any other achievement. In any field, if you offer the reward, there will be takers who will use performance enhancing drugs to get there ahead of the others. Like a salesman on commission, who will use drugs to go to work on a day he's sick, travel the red-eye, stay up all night, endure the hospitatlity suite. Just follow the money, and here we are. The only outcome possible to the equation. Same thing happened in 1919. It had to. It's a straight line. Try to legislate Good and buy Evil, money always wins.

[fabio61]

Baseballl (fans, networks and teams) implied (through example) that anything a player could do to increase his home-run output would be rewarded more handsomely than any other achievement.

A while ago I posted a diatribe about how hitting a fair ball out of play and decreeing it a Home Run was one of the colossal blunders in the early days of the game. I maintained that the feat of hitting a fly ball over a fence placed at an arbitrary distance is worth no more than a double. In some cases worth no more than a single.

There is, in my opinion, a great disparity between - the talent it takes to hit a long fly ball and trot around the bases at your leisure, -and- the reward of a 4-base hit. I doubt I have ever seen such a Home Run impress me as much as even a bad bounce triple. The guy who hit the triple hit it onto the playing field, in fair territory and ran the bases and beat the throw to third base, earned that triple. There is so much more excitement in a triple, or in seeing Ichiro rounded the bases in the All-Star game, then there is in a long fly ball that half the time the batter stands like a statue looking at before he take his 25 second trip second the bases. The payoff of the long fly ball may excite you for the scoring bonus it pays off with, but not for it's value of play on the field.

Few people have questioned the disparity because it's been with us so long that we take it for granted. The steroid problem is a consequence of that disparity.

[bedir than average]

nan, you do realize that steroids were banned by baseball in 1991?

Fay Vincent had a 1991 memorandum forbidding the use of controlled substances.

Every player that took steroids, or other prescription only substances while not under the care of a doctor broke rules to which they agreed. While a life time ban of Steve Howe was considered too large, the actual rule was never overturned.

Any player who used steroids or HGH in the past 16 years broke the rules as outlined within the CBA of baseball. Only the penalty changed, that's it.

So holding management more responsible than the users is rather absurd.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by bedir than average

nan, you do realize that steroids were banned by baseball in 1991?

Fay Vincent had a 1991 memorandum forbidding the use of controlled substances.

Every player that took steroids, or other prescription only substances while not under the care of a doctor broke rules to which they agreed. While a life time ban of Steve Howe was considered too large, the actual rule was never overturned.

Any player who used steroids or HGH in the past 16 years broke the rules as outlined within the CBA of baseball. Only the penalty changed, that's it.

So holding management more responsible than the users is rather absurd.

the penalties, and the means for catching the users changed. the notion that they didn't know or think they were breaking the rules is rather absurd. they all knew they were taking a risk. they also knew the chance of being caught was rather small. they essentially needed to be caught through the criminal system. but now that they're being outed, some want to absolve them from any wrongdoing?

[nanwynnfan]

Merry Christmas, guys. I really thought we'd all enjoy a day off, filled with peace and goodwill and more calories than would sustain a small pack of rhinos; but here we are, still kicking the tires.

I don't mind mixed metaphors; but mixed issues and mixed people tend to make me cranky. Bringing Steve Howe [RIP] into this discussion is both out of place and disingenuous:

"A hard-throwing left-hander, Howe's career was plagued by alcohol and cocaine abuse; he first checked himself into a substance abuse clinic in 1983, but a relapse resulted in him being suspended for the entire 1984 season. Over the course of his 17-year career, Howe would be suspended seven times."

As to the rest, yes, I knew of the Vincent memo and have alluded to it on these threads too many times to recall; and as to the rest, only a total fool pays twice for the same piece of real estate in the same transaction.

Every single point raised today [12-25-07], I've addressed ad nauseam, with links and other rlevant references; so I must conclude that some here don't read them, or choose not to accept them.

At this point, it's not all that important to me: what will be, will be.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by fabio61

I maintained that the feat of hitting a fly ball over a fence placed at an arbitrary distance is worth no more than a double. In some cases worth no more than a single. .

When I was a kid, if we couldnt find enough bodies to play a more sophisticated game, ,we would play fast pitch on a tennis court. A ball hit into the net or caught by a fielder on the fly was an out, over the net was a hit, and over the surrounding chain-link fence was an out and the hapless kid who hit it had to go get the ball.

That aspect #3 has always appealed to me as a good MLB rule. Fair ball over the fence is an out (but including the indignity of fighting a fan in the bleachers for the ball would probably risk injury to the players, so sluggers would not have to retrieve the ball).

[nanwynnfan]

I was going to back out of this gnarled and tangled thread on "cheating;" but what the heck, my watch says it's 12:01 AM [close enough] so I've had enough peace on earth to last me until next December.

Two posters [whose very questions on Christmas Day betrayed the fact that they chose not to read the 14 point post of what I had already stated] asked me if I was aware of things I'd already posted, with links.

Then, adding a bit of linguistic insult to forensic injury, they used the same phrase, "rather absurd," to challenge points apparently not made.

First, the usage:

"Main Entry:
1ab·surd
Pronunciation:
\əb-ˈsərd, -ˈzərd\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle French absurde, from Latin absurdus, from ab- + surdus deaf, stupid
Date:
1557
1: ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous <an absurd argument>
2: having no rational or orderly relationship to human life : meaningless <an absurd universe>; also : lacking order or value <an absurd existence>
3: dealing with the absurd or with absurdism <absurd theater>
— ab·surd·ly adverb
— ab·surd·ness noun"

Since the 16th Century, this word has suggested a void or vacuum of sense, reason, intellect, grasp of order among relationships ... in ABSOLUTE terms, so that one is accusing his debating opponent of being intellectually little more than an end table or a knick-knack thereupon.

Thus, saying a point is "rather absurd," is a bit like the family physician who tells the wide-eyed, "virginal" and very frightened young teenager that she is "somewhat pregnant," or "rather in the family way."

That kind of forceful, but misappropriated language is a bit like the unswerving certainty of position among those who wave Fay Vincent's memo and choose to ignore that we are now two whole Baseball Commissioners beyond him in an atmosphere as encouraging of flying baseballs as Coors Field.

The repetitive chant of steroids helping batters hit baseballs further is like ack-ack in an aerial dogfight, lots of noise and smoke, but often off the target:

1. If I weigh 175 pounds, lift weights, do endless slow torguing wrist and forearms curls and twists, do rigorous leg presses, work my "glutes" into polished granite orbs, load up on vitamins and fat-burning concoctions, mix proteins with slow working carbs and get up to 210 pounds over a six-eight-ten month period, here's what I MAY expect to gain:

a. wrist, forearm and grip strength and torque to maximize bat control;

b. back leg drive, hip torsion, leading a quickened speed of the bat toward the pitched baseball, that MIGHT buy me .04-.06 of a SECOND due to bat speed increases of 3%-7% maximum, such that a well > average bat speed hitter, starting out at 7O+ mph, may now meet the ball with a contact speed approaching 80 mph.

c. at the VERY INSTANT of contact, 80+% of the contact force is spent, so the "follow through" means very little ... it's all determined at contact.

Now, let's take Players A, B and C ... this three man approach hasn't been broached here yet, since we've been dealing in absolutes, players who cheat and players who do not.

Player A: This guy's 6'2", 185 pounds, a wiry sort with a quick metabolism, solid diet, light weight workout routine, quick reflexes and well above average in bat speed @ 72 mph. He hits for high average and is an excellent contact hitter. The only supplements he takes are vitamins and minerals, maybe doctor prescribed weight maintenance and sodium-phosphorus level maintenance supplements for the dog days of summer. He is pure as the driven snow; and if a certain 80 mph pitch is struck by his top bat speed, he'll probably hit it about 415 feet. Base production rather than intense focus on playing long ball is his strength.

Player B: He's 6'2" but has decided that he wants more long ball production. He goes on a weight and muscle gain program, used food, protein, liquid supplements for weight gain, enhanced by creatin under a doctor's supervision and comes to camp, not at 190 pounds, but 210. His routine is the one above for lower body drive and upper body and arm whip and bat speed. He is within all the rules; but his gains have raised his bat speed from 72 mph [only 3%] to 74 mph. That same 80 mph pitch, struck by him under the same exact conditions will fly around 438 feet.

Player C: He's 6'2" and has hovered @ 200 pounds; but he is driven to perform at the absolute maximum, damn the risk and damn the cost and damn the rules. He comes to camp @ 225 pounds, has the same goals and routines as Player B, only he's so loaded with illicit supplements that any more would set off a Geiger Counter. Always quick with the bat, he moves from former 73 mph bat speed [without assistance] up by 7% to 78.11 mph. He strikes that 80 mph pitch and it will fly 473.' However, the 473' cannot be measured against Player A at 415' or even Player B at 438'; but, to be fair, must be measured against his own speed before he 'roided, which would be 73 mph. Last year that same contact would have netted him 435.'

Had Player C simply followed Player B's routine, without 'roids, he might have gained only 3%, striking that pitch at 75.19 mph and driving it 451.'

Here I've presented three sample players of identical height, slightly variant weights at neutral, all above average @ > 70 mph bat speed at contact, with varying philosophies, strategies and goals. Player A is the same, before and after, and strikes a ball 415.'

Players B and C, each having a slightly quicker bat speed than A to begin with, one cleanly, the other trying anything to be king of the hill with a total end disparity > Player A of perhaps 58.' However, the slight wrinkle added here is that Player C should NOT be compared to Player A [or even] Player B, since there was a disparity to begin with. Compared to his own skill level, Player C gains 22' for all his risk.

Even granted all of the above, the following are TRUTHS that must be observed in honest discussion of this matter:

-creatin, vitamins, shakes, powders, and steroids will NOT endow poor hitters with a sudden burst of latent batting talents not already visible to the naked eye;

-a big whiff hitter who blasts 40+ HRs/year, if he trains rigorously enough to pick up bat speed, will whiff MORE rather than less, although his HR count may rise;

-steroids are not eye medication or vision candy ... they do not pull back curtains like Oz or imbue impatient free swingers with the patience of Job or the self control of a Zen master ... they do tend to make one more on edge, less patient and prone to anger and frustration with failure;

-a ball poorly met or struck will NOT sprout wings and transmogrify from a pop up to a high blast into the upper deck ... the bat speed may make the popup a bit more dizzyingly high and a few feet deeper;

-one has to strike the ball with authority, unaided, to derive even a smidgen of benefit from hitting effectively, assisted by supplement, whether legal or banned.

Bonds, Griffey, A-Rod and Pujols all had the underlying prereqyuistite talents and skill sets, with or without substance use or abuse; and what we are contemplating here is a generation of lax, but expressed prohibition, in a practical atmosphere of tacit approval, encouragement and permissiveness.

I've exhausted my point of view. That's it for me. I'm moving on.

[kflo]

another rather absurd rationalization of the steroid abusers. do you think they did it so that they would look good?

again, you continue to place no responsiblity in the hands of the steroid (not supplement) users. they weren't doing anything against the rules, the law wasn't clear, it doesn't help that much (or at all).

you don't need to keep repeating yourself with your rationalizations. what you need to do is accept that that's what your doing. you won't get so worked up when someone accuses you of doing so if you just accept that that's what you're doing.

yes we get that bonds was a great hitter. mcgwire had power. and steroids won't make a poor hitter an mvp. but they can have a material impact on player performance, and player longevity. and until you accept that, you're just going to be met with resistance, resistance you don't seem able to accept, even after acknowledging that player c can add significant distance (on an 80 mph pitch). other factors of course are topspin on pitch, relative loss of bat speed on contact, angle of ball flight, bat size, benefit of bat speed in ability to hit a pitch.

and you keep saying innocent until proven guilty. what's your position on guys like giambi, canseco, caminiti, guys already proven guilty. do you feel they did anything wrong, and if they had the #'s, would you vote them into the hall? i'm curious because you keep saying innocent until proven guilty, but i don't really know if proven guilty would change anything for you. bonds, for example, is already guilty of using steroids, and therefore gaining whatever benefits from it one would get. he simply claims he wasn't aware he was using it or benefiting from it. would proving he knew change anything for you? does it change anything, in your mind, for the guys we already do know about?