Asterisks, windbags & fools in high places

[dlb]

If steroid use was not against the rules, then it was not cheating. There really is nothing to get upset about, here.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by dlb

If steroid use was not against the rules, then it was not cheating. There really is nothing to get upset about, here.

except it was against the rules.

[kflo]

there's a reason these guys all did this in secrecy, and deny, deny, deny.

if bonds was truly as good a representative of the hr record as anyone, he wouldn't have to lie and deny about his methods.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by dlb

If steroid use was not against the rules, then it was not cheating. There really is nothing to get upset about, here.

Is there a specific MLB rule which states that no one may kidnap the family of a rival player and threaten to kill them unless that player cooperates in losing the game for his team? If not, then that isn't cheating and no one should be upset by it.

[dlb]

While such an act might get the player drummed out of baseball (on his way to prison), it would not result in the placing of an asterisk next to his career stats, nor should it.

Not only was there no rule forbidding the use of steroids by MLB players, the league has long allowed a variety of performance-enhancing technologies. Why is this one singled out as cheating?

[kflo]

Originally Posted by dlb

While such an act might get the player drummed out of baseball (on his way to prison), it would not result in the placing of an asterisk next to his career stats, nor should it.

Not only was there no rule forbidding the use of steroids by MLB players, the league has long allowed a variety of performance-enhancing technologies. Why is this one singled out as cheating?

except there was a rule.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by dlb

While such an act might get the player drummed out of baseball (on his way to prison), it would not result in the placing of an asterisk next to his career stats, nor should it.

Not only was there no rule forbidding the use of steroids by MLB players, the league has long allowed a variety of performance-enhancing technologies. Why is this one singled out as cheating?

What exactly is your reason for this hyper scriptulous approach? Is it not beyond dispute that had the fans known about McGwite and Sosa being artificially gassed up in '98, all that romantic magic of the homerun pursuit would have evaporated and been replaced by exactly the sort of controversy we now have concerning Bonds and 756? Will you try and pretend that you were unaware of steroids, that you never heard of Ben Johnson or all the assorted Olympic scandals involving performance enhancing drugs? Was it not the case that you were watching baseball under the assumption that this was not taking place in that sport? Is there even a small amount of doubt in your mind that legal or illegal, part of MLB rules or not, the fans of the game believed that they were seeing an unenhanced product and that had they known better, they would have been infuriated? Back when Canseco was playing and there were only rumors to go by, what is your analysis for the reason why fans chanted "STEROIDS! STEROIDS!" at each of his road game at bats? Did you think that this was a sign of affection? Did you think that this indicated the fans were accepting of steroids and would not mind if they learned that some players were using them to boost their performance on the field? Were you paying any attention at all?

I'm sick to death of this "innocent until proven guilty" crap which is a legal concept, not a sporting one. I'm sick of this "Gee, it wasn't against the rules" crap because it is the worst sort of lawyer like defense for what we all know was unacceptable behavior by the players.

Does it not dawn on you that if the ethic you are trying to pretend prevails, actually did prevail, then there would have been no need for the players to act in a clandestine manner? They would have been shooting up in front of reporters before the games, giving interviews about finding that new 'roid mix which will make them better than ever, hell, they would have been on tv endorsing the damn things in cute little ads written by your industry. I mean. c'mon, dlb, if "the rule" was all that governed this situation, then why was everyone taking such pains to sneak around and mask their use?

Baseball is an entertainment with a fundamental reliance on the fan's assumption that what they are seeing is on the level. Anything which tends to move the game away from that basic assumption is bad...bad for the game, bad for the fans.

So let's please drop this stupid pretense that because MLB didn't have specific language banning steroids, then it was acceptable for players to have used them. This isn't a court of law, it's baseball and baseball has its known standards of what is acceptable by the fans and what is not. Clearly steroids are not nor have they ever been regardless of when MLB got around to spelling it out.

[1Perry]

Originally Posted by dlb

While such an act might get the player drummed out of baseball (on his way to prison), it would not result in the placing of an asterisk next to his career stats, nor should it.

Not only was there no rule forbidding the use of steroids by MLB players, the league has long allowed a variety of performance-enhancing technologies. Why is this one singled out as cheating?

Because it is detrimental to ones health. Because pro-athletes have had their life cut short by it's use.

[dlb]

Because it is detrimental to ones health. Because pro-athletes have had their life cut short by it's use.

I'm not sure how that makes it cheating. Stupid, yes, but if risking one's health is the criterion by which we determine what is or is not acceptable in sport, then all pro football players cheat every time they take the field, and the game should be outlawed.

except there was a rule.

From what I understand, there was not. If you have a link that proves steroids were specifically against MLB rules during the period in which Bonds was alleged to have used them, please provide.

Your argument, GS, appears to be that whatever performance enhancers the fans accept are perfectly okay, while those that might offend the fans are not, even if they are not specifically banned. Is this your point?

[kflo]

from posts #52 and #56 of this thread:

The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a Club also may take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the Uniform Player's Contract.

This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steriods or prescription drugs.....

http://bob.sabr.org/docs/1997Memo_Ba...on_Program.pdf

[dlb]

Thanks, kflo. Then it seems we have two questions to answer:

1. Did Bonds take any performance enhancing substances?

2. Were those substances against the law when he took them?

[dlb]

And on nwf's point about the unenforceable nature of the rule: If a pitcher intentionally throws a ball outside of the strike zone and the catcher pulls it into the strike zone so as to fool the umpire, and the umpire calls it a strike, did the catcher cheat?

[Nimajneb]

If steroid use was not against the rules, then it was not cheating. There really is nothing to get upset about, here.

If steroid use wasn't cheating, there would be no harm in openly admitting it, would there?

I'll be the judge of what I should be upset about, thanks

If a pitcher intentionally throws a ball outside of the strike zone and the catcher pulls it into the strike zone so as to fool the umpire, and the umpire calls it a strike, did the catcher cheat?

Yes. Not all instances of "cheating" should be held to the same standard, as not all transgressions are equal in magnitude.

[1Perry]

There is really no way to tell on that one either. Many times an ump will call a ball off the plate a strike anyways. Who knows if the catchers actions created any difference in any particular situation.

[dlb]

Yes. Not all instances of "cheating" should be held to the same standard, as not all transgressions are equal in magnitude.

Is there a rule that specifies how the catcher must catch the ball, so as to facilitate an accurate call?