Pudge was on the juice for sure .Look at his body over the years and power output.
I havent a problem with the guys using steroids.Hell i would of too.
It wasnt cheating.. If you eat a Viagra to satisfy your lady , is that wrong?
MLB could see it plain as day in about 1994 or so and then it just went buck wild.
MLB turned a blind eye and everyone jumped on the ship...So what it was some of the best baseball we have ever watched ..
Hall of Fame 2017
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Hall of Fame 2017
Steroid might have been against the law, but it wasn't against baseball rules. Plus, it is all speculation who used or not. Guys like David Ortiz get praised and players like Alex Rodriguez get shunned.
Selling allowed it and was part of that era. He got in.
Selling allowed it and was part of that era. He got in.
-
ArnoldRothstein
Hall of Fame 2017
070C04080D0C175254231A020B0C0C4D000C630 wrote: Steroid might have been against the law, but it wasn't against baseball rules.
I can't imagine I could convince anyone who'd actually make this argument, but if anyone else is developing a sense of right and wrong, pleased be reassured that breaking the law to win is cheating. No organization anywhere has to specifically write into its rules that you can't shoot or poison your opponents, or kidnap their children. All illegal activity to win is cheating.
The rules that organizations have to write are those that aren't applicable to the general public. Thus, baseball has a need to ban doctoring the baseball or bat, but doesn't need to specifically ban the illegal use of pharmaceuticals. They do need to write in regulation of the legal use of drugs, such as when they ban a substance but players can get waivers to use it upon proof of a specific condition.
I can't imagine I could convince anyone who'd actually make this argument, but if anyone else is developing a sense of right and wrong, pleased be reassured that breaking the law to win is cheating. No organization anywhere has to specifically write into its rules that you can't shoot or poison your opponents, or kidnap their children. All illegal activity to win is cheating.
The rules that organizations have to write are those that aren't applicable to the general public. Thus, baseball has a need to ban doctoring the baseball or bat, but doesn't need to specifically ban the illegal use of pharmaceuticals. They do need to write in regulation of the legal use of drugs, such as when they ban a substance but players can get waivers to use it upon proof of a specific condition.
Hall of Fame 2017
1D2E323330380E3328342F283935325C0 wrote: Steroid might have been against the law, but it wasn't against baseball rules.
I can't imagine I could convince anyone who'd actually make this argument, but if anyone else is developing a sense of right and wrong, pleased be reassured that breaking the law to win is cheating. No organization anywhere has to specifically write into its rules that you can't shoot or poison your opponents, or kidnap their children. All illegal activity to win is cheating.
The rules that organizations have to write are those that aren't applicable to the general public. Thus, baseball has a need to ban doctoring the baseball or bat, but doesn't need to specifically ban the illegal use of pharmaceuticals. They do need to write in regulation of the legal use of drugs, such as when they ban a substance but players can get waivers to use it upon proof of a specific condition.
Thank You. You said it much better than I would have (you didn't include words like "inconsiderate", "stupid", "dumb", etc.)
I can't imagine I could convince anyone who'd actually make this argument, but if anyone else is developing a sense of right and wrong, pleased be reassured that breaking the law to win is cheating. No organization anywhere has to specifically write into its rules that you can't shoot or poison your opponents, or kidnap their children. All illegal activity to win is cheating.
The rules that organizations have to write are those that aren't applicable to the general public. Thus, baseball has a need to ban doctoring the baseball or bat, but doesn't need to specifically ban the illegal use of pharmaceuticals. They do need to write in regulation of the legal use of drugs, such as when they ban a substance but players can get waivers to use it upon proof of a specific condition.
Thank You. You said it much better than I would have (you didn't include words like "inconsiderate", "stupid", "dumb", etc.)
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Hall of Fame 2017
5F6C7071727A4C716A766D6A7B77701E0 wrote: Steroid might have been against the law, but it wasn't against baseball rules.
I can't imagine I could convince anyone who'd actually make this argument, but if anyone else is developing a sense of right and wrong, pleased be reassured that breaking the law to win is cheating. No organization anywhere has to specifically write into its rules that you can't shoot or poison your opponents, or kidnap their children. All illegal activity to win is cheating.
The rules that organizations have to write are those that aren't applicable to the general public. Thus, baseball has a need to ban doctoring the baseball or bat, but doesn't need to specifically ban the illegal use of pharmaceuticals. They do need to write in regulation of the legal use of drugs, such as when they ban a substance but players can get waivers to use it upon proof of a specific condition.
I didn't say it wasn't wrong or cheating. It is a fact and has been the argument for years.
"Steroid" term is often used but there were many items that could be bought at GNC or other places over the counter that were later banned too. Selig got in and let this happen. Did any players ever go to jail or fined by the law (I don't know the punishment for using steroids)? I would think the punishment would a little different in trying to kill someone (poison) or a kidnapping.
It is very hard to prove who used and who didn't. Barry Bonds is believed to be a user, but he never failed a test. It is a sad era. I feel the guys the media liked will get in and the guys that weren't liked will have to wait a long time or never get in.
I can't imagine I could convince anyone who'd actually make this argument, but if anyone else is developing a sense of right and wrong, pleased be reassured that breaking the law to win is cheating. No organization anywhere has to specifically write into its rules that you can't shoot or poison your opponents, or kidnap their children. All illegal activity to win is cheating.
The rules that organizations have to write are those that aren't applicable to the general public. Thus, baseball has a need to ban doctoring the baseball or bat, but doesn't need to specifically ban the illegal use of pharmaceuticals. They do need to write in regulation of the legal use of drugs, such as when they ban a substance but players can get waivers to use it upon proof of a specific condition.
I didn't say it wasn't wrong or cheating. It is a fact and has been the argument for years.
"Steroid" term is often used but there were many items that could be bought at GNC or other places over the counter that were later banned too. Selig got in and let this happen. Did any players ever go to jail or fined by the law (I don't know the punishment for using steroids)? I would think the punishment would a little different in trying to kill someone (poison) or a kidnapping.
It is very hard to prove who used and who didn't. Barry Bonds is believed to be a user, but he never failed a test. It is a sad era. I feel the guys the media liked will get in and the guys that weren't liked will have to wait a long time or never get in.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Hall of Fame 2017
454E464A4F4E551016615840494E4E0F424E210 wrote: Steroid might have been against the law, but it wasn't against baseball rules.
I can't imagine I could convince anyone who'd actually make this argument, but if anyone else is developing a sense of right and wrong, pleased be reassured that breaking the law to win is cheating. No organization anywhere has to specifically write into its rules that you can't shoot or poison your opponents, or kidnap their children. All illegal activity to win is cheating.
The rules that organizations have to write are those that aren't applicable to the general public. Thus, baseball has a need to ban doctoring the baseball or bat, but doesn't need to specifically ban the illegal use of pharmaceuticals. They do need to write in regulation of the legal use of drugs, such as when they ban a substance but players can get waivers to use it upon proof of a specific condition.
I didn't say it wasn't wrong or cheating. It is a fact and has been the argument for years.
"Steroid" term is often used but there were many items that could be bought at GNC or other places over the counter that were later banned too. Selig got in and let this happen. Did any players ever go to jail or fined by the law (I don't know the punishment for using steroids)? I would think the punishment would a little different in trying to kill someone (poison) or a kidnapping.
It is very hard to prove who used and who didn't. Barry Bonds is believed to be a user, but he never failed a test. It is a sad era. I feel the guys the media liked will get in and the guys that weren't liked will have to wait a long time or never get in.
I think that the most damning part is that the players involved knew it was cheating. If they thought they had nothing to hide, why'd they work so hard to hide it?
And yeah bud and others were complicit in the cheating. Probably many fans were too.
I can't imagine I could convince anyone who'd actually make this argument, but if anyone else is developing a sense of right and wrong, pleased be reassured that breaking the law to win is cheating. No organization anywhere has to specifically write into its rules that you can't shoot or poison your opponents, or kidnap their children. All illegal activity to win is cheating.
The rules that organizations have to write are those that aren't applicable to the general public. Thus, baseball has a need to ban doctoring the baseball or bat, but doesn't need to specifically ban the illegal use of pharmaceuticals. They do need to write in regulation of the legal use of drugs, such as when they ban a substance but players can get waivers to use it upon proof of a specific condition.
I didn't say it wasn't wrong or cheating. It is a fact and has been the argument for years.
"Steroid" term is often used but there were many items that could be bought at GNC or other places over the counter that were later banned too. Selig got in and let this happen. Did any players ever go to jail or fined by the law (I don't know the punishment for using steroids)? I would think the punishment would a little different in trying to kill someone (poison) or a kidnapping.
It is very hard to prove who used and who didn't. Barry Bonds is believed to be a user, but he never failed a test. It is a sad era. I feel the guys the media liked will get in and the guys that weren't liked will have to wait a long time or never get in.
I think that the most damning part is that the players involved knew it was cheating. If they thought they had nothing to hide, why'd they work so hard to hide it?
And yeah bud and others were complicit in the cheating. Probably many fans were too.
Hall of Fame 2017
I think you either keep everyone from the steroid era out or you vote them all in. But you can't have it both ways. Everyone who thinks they know who did or did not is fooling themselves. The amount of information regarding who did is so limited it's not remotely fair or accurate to say anyone who isn't mentioned on those lists or rumors is clean.
I get why people would want to keep out Bonds, Clemens, Manny Ramirez, etc. But in my opinion, it's ignorantly shortsighted to then assume other players not listed on the Mitchell report or not bulked up were clean. For example , Tom Verduci was recently quoted saying he would not vote for Pudge Rodriguez on the basis Jose Canseco named him in his book. Now it may be true Pudge used as Canseco's allegations appear to be accurate all these years later. But it doesn't seem fair to punish Rodriguez while rewarding someone like Bagwell for no other reason than Bagwell was not a teammate of Jose Canseco.
Again, I understand the sentiment of keeping ARod and Palmiero out. They tested positive. But nobody knows for sure if Frank Thomas, Griffey and Piazza were clean. We just don't. And to assume they do and make decisions based on a very limited amount of information is doing a huge disservice to the HOF.
But if they do start electing the "known" PED users like Bonds and Clemens, they have to vote in others too, right? How can they elect those 2 while keeping out Sosa, Sheffield, McGwire, etc? Are they arbitrarily saying if you cheated but reached a certain level of success, you're in? But if you cheated but weren't as successful, you're out? Where's the line?
Lastly, I think the voters are easing their stance on PED's and Bonds and Clemens will get in eventually. There are many reasons why in addition to what I just mentioned. But the reason many won't it admit is David Ortiz. Voters will be tripping over themselves in five years to elect Ortiz, who was listed on the Mitchell report just like everyone they've refused to vote for.
I get why people would want to keep out Bonds, Clemens, Manny Ramirez, etc. But in my opinion, it's ignorantly shortsighted to then assume other players not listed on the Mitchell report or not bulked up were clean. For example , Tom Verduci was recently quoted saying he would not vote for Pudge Rodriguez on the basis Jose Canseco named him in his book. Now it may be true Pudge used as Canseco's allegations appear to be accurate all these years later. But it doesn't seem fair to punish Rodriguez while rewarding someone like Bagwell for no other reason than Bagwell was not a teammate of Jose Canseco.
Again, I understand the sentiment of keeping ARod and Palmiero out. They tested positive. But nobody knows for sure if Frank Thomas, Griffey and Piazza were clean. We just don't. And to assume they do and make decisions based on a very limited amount of information is doing a huge disservice to the HOF.
But if they do start electing the "known" PED users like Bonds and Clemens, they have to vote in others too, right? How can they elect those 2 while keeping out Sosa, Sheffield, McGwire, etc? Are they arbitrarily saying if you cheated but reached a certain level of success, you're in? But if you cheated but weren't as successful, you're out? Where's the line?
Lastly, I think the voters are easing their stance on PED's and Bonds and Clemens will get in eventually. There are many reasons why in addition to what I just mentioned. But the reason many won't it admit is David Ortiz. Voters will be tripping over themselves in five years to elect Ortiz, who was listed on the Mitchell report just like everyone they've refused to vote for.
Hall of Fame 2017
1F3F2C31305E0 wrote: I think you either keep everyone from the steroid era out or you vote them all in. But you can't have it both ways. Everyone who thinks they know who did or did not is fooling themselves. The amount of information regarding who did is so limited it's not remotely fair or accurate to say anyone who isn't mentioned on those lists or rumors is clean.
I get why people would want to keep out Bonds, Clemens, Manny Ramirez, etc. But in my opinion, it's ignorantly shortsighted to then assume other players not listed on the Mitchell report or not bulked up were clean. For example , Tom Verduci was recently quoted saying he would not vote for Pudge Rodriguez on the basis Jose Canseco named him in his book. Now it may be true Pudge used as Canseco's allegations appear to be accurate all these years later. But it doesn't seem fair to punish Rodriguez while rewarding someone like Bagwell for no other reason than Bagwell was not a teammate of Jose Canseco.
Again, I understand the sentiment of keeping ARod and Palmiero out. They tested positive. But nobody knows for sure if Frank Thomas, Griffey and Piazza were clean. We just don't. And to assume they do and make decisions based on a very limited amount of information is doing a huge disservice to the HOF.
But if they do start electing the "known" PED users like Bonds and Clemens, they have to vote in others too, right? How can they elect those 2 while keeping out Sosa, Sheffield, McGwire, etc? Are they arbitrarily saying if you cheated but reached a certain level of success, you're in? But if you cheated but weren't as successful, you're out? Where's the line?
Lastly, I think the voters are easing their stance on PED's and Bonds and Clemens will get in eventually. There are many reasons why in addition to what I just mentioned. But the reason many won't it admit is David Ortiz. Voters will be tripping over themselves in five years to elect Ortiz, who was listed on the Mitchell report just like everyone they've refused to vote for.
I agree 110%. This is absolutely correct. Like in most things in life, there are different rules for different people. Depending on who's "in" and who's "out" at any given moment in time, different rules apply.
I get why people would want to keep out Bonds, Clemens, Manny Ramirez, etc. But in my opinion, it's ignorantly shortsighted to then assume other players not listed on the Mitchell report or not bulked up were clean. For example , Tom Verduci was recently quoted saying he would not vote for Pudge Rodriguez on the basis Jose Canseco named him in his book. Now it may be true Pudge used as Canseco's allegations appear to be accurate all these years later. But it doesn't seem fair to punish Rodriguez while rewarding someone like Bagwell for no other reason than Bagwell was not a teammate of Jose Canseco.
Again, I understand the sentiment of keeping ARod and Palmiero out. They tested positive. But nobody knows for sure if Frank Thomas, Griffey and Piazza were clean. We just don't. And to assume they do and make decisions based on a very limited amount of information is doing a huge disservice to the HOF.
But if they do start electing the "known" PED users like Bonds and Clemens, they have to vote in others too, right? How can they elect those 2 while keeping out Sosa, Sheffield, McGwire, etc? Are they arbitrarily saying if you cheated but reached a certain level of success, you're in? But if you cheated but weren't as successful, you're out? Where's the line?
Lastly, I think the voters are easing their stance on PED's and Bonds and Clemens will get in eventually. There are many reasons why in addition to what I just mentioned. But the reason many won't it admit is David Ortiz. Voters will be tripping over themselves in five years to elect Ortiz, who was listed on the Mitchell report just like everyone they've refused to vote for.
I agree 110%. This is absolutely correct. Like in most things in life, there are different rules for different people. Depending on who's "in" and who's "out" at any given moment in time, different rules apply.
-
dogknot17@yahoo.co
Hall of Fame 2017
Yes, good post.
Ortiz even tested positive but he claims to be clean since!
Ortiz even tested positive but he claims to be clean since!