Sources: A-Rod tested positive for steroids in '03

[imb]

creatine is many times stronger than working out with no supplements, but no one would shed a tear if a player hit 62 home runs while working out with creatine, something maris never had access to.

 

Yes people would care if someone broke Maris' record with creatine. But creatine is not strong enough to do so. Anything that a person puts into his body must be extra powerful in order for a person to break Maris' record unless they were that once in a generation person would could do it cleanly. I don't think Bonds, Sosa, or McGwire was that person apart from the juice. I thought ARod could have been, but who knows now.

 

This makes no sense. Bonds was 100 times the player Maris was, even before he juiced. If you laid out Bonds' and Maris' careers, Maris' is more suspect looking than Bonds' is.

 

And you're still missing the point, that you should be upset that these players are breaking the law, not that they're breaking records. Every time an old record falls, the player that broke it did so with the aid of something that is "unfair" in that the old record holder didn't have access to it. But no one cares unless it's a home run record broken by a steroid user.

[Wilson A2000]

creatine is many times stronger than working out with no supplements, but no one would shed a tear if a player hit 62 home runs while working out with creatine, something maris never had access to.

 

Yes people would care if someone broke Maris' record with creatine. But creatine is not strong enough to do so. Anything that a person puts into his body must be extra powerful in order for a person to break Maris' record unless they were that once in a generation person would could do it cleanly. I don't think Bonds, Sosa, or McGwire was that person apart from the juice. I thought ARod could have been, but who knows now.

 

This makes no sense. Bonds was 100 times the player Maris was, even before he juiced. If you laid out Bonds' and Maris' careers, Maris' is more suspect looking than Bonds' is.

 

And you're still missing the point, that you should be upset that these players are breaking the law, not that they're breaking records. Every time an old record falls, the player that broke it did so with the aid of something that is "unfair" in that the old record holder didn't have access to it. But no one cares unless it's a home run record broken by a steroid user.

 

Bonds was a better overall player than Aaron and Maris, but he would not have hit 73 without the juice and he would never have broken Aaron's record without it.

 

I am upset that Bonds took something that was illegal. But this is a thread not on the legality of what Bonds did as much as it is the effect upon records and the integrity of the game. Another problem as I see it is that people are always looking at things from the short-term perspective. What will bring the fans back to baseball? I want to see a mammoth man wack a ball out of the park. People will get bored of baseball players and baseball itself when it becomes a game of pure power. I don't think the game could have survived long-term if the steroid question was not solved. Injuries would have become far too common (as they already have been). The fans end up paying more because salaries got out of control because of steroid-induced stats.

[imb]

My point is that it's a thread about its effect upon records and integrity of the game because that's all people care about, which is misguided considering all the facts.

[OleMissCub]

If you laid out Bonds' and Maris' careers, Maris' is more suspect looking than Bonds' is.

 

No doubt about it. If Maris did what he did in 2000, he'd be guaranteed to be cast as a juicer. Look at his HR totals in the two years before and after he hit 61:

 

16

39

61

33

23

[Wilson A2000]

My point is that it's a thread about its effect upon records and integrity of the game because that's all people care about, which is misguided considering all the facts.

 

Athletes do way worse things than take steroids, and for the most part they are welcomed back into the sporting world when they serve their time by the public. Think of all the DUIs athletes get (which are worse than taking steroids if you ask me). When athletes do illegal things that directly effect the sport, they aren't welcomed back. Yes there is more to steroids than their effect on the sport, but that is not at all significant in the court of public opinion.

[imb]

You're intentionally skipping my point. If you can't stick to or follow the actual discussion, then I guess I should just call it quits here.

[sneakypower]

a little off-topic, but i'm more perturbed that Bonds was permitted to wear massive body armor and hang over the plate with impunity, than i am about him roiding up

[Wilson A2000]

You're intentionally skipping my point. If you can't stick to or follow the actual discussion, then I guess I should just call it quits here.

 

I directly stated that I disagreed with your point. Just because I don't agree with your point does not mean that I don't understand it.

 

I am not misguided because I think it is pretty certain that the average person and sportswriter does not care if athletes do illegal things as much as they care about illegal things as they relate directly and influence the sport (ie steroids). To focus on what fans and sportswriters don't really care about, while certainly a part of the overall steroid debate, is incidental. There has been 50 times more chatter relating to steroids than all of the other illegal activities that MLB players did last year (and there were plenty of them).

Edited February 9, 2009 by Wilson A2000

[bcl412]

a little off-topic, but i'm more perturbed that Bonds was permitted to wear massive body armor and hang over the plate with impunity, than i am about him roiding up

 

Me too.

[Wilson A2000]

a little off-topic, but i'm more perturbed that Bonds was permitted to wear massive body armor and hang over the plate with impunity, than i am about him roiding up

 

Me too.

 

While he did do that, why is that more important than a roided Bonds who broke the most cherished record in modern day sports? Is a walk greater than a home run?

[imb]

You're intentionally skipping my point. If you can't stick to or follow the actual discussion, then I guess I should just call it quits here.

 

I directly stated that I disagreed with your point. Just because I don't agree with your point does not mean that I don't understand it.

 

I am not misguided because I think it is pretty certain that the average person and sportswriter does not care if athletes do illegal things as much as they care about illegal things as they relate directly and influence the sport (ie steroids). To focus on what fans and sportswriters don't really care about, while certainly a part of the overall steroid debate, is incidental.

 

You are missing it, because my entire point has been that they shouldn't. We're just talking over each other here because you're talking about something else entirely.

[bcl412]

a little off-topic, but i'm more perturbed that Bonds was permitted to wear massive body armor and hang over the plate with impunity, than i am about him roiding up

 

Me too.

 

While he did do that, why is that more important than a roided Bonds who broke the most cherished record in modern day sports? Is a walk greater than a home run?

 

Bonds took away one half of the plate. Knowing where the pitch was going to be made it much easier to hit. Add his knowledge of the strike zone and his armor might have attributed to just as many home runs as steroids did.

[Wilson A2000]

Probably because you didn't clarify what the "its" is. Is it the first of second half of your sentence? ("My point is that it's a thread about its effect upon records and integrity of the game because that's all people care about, which is misguided considering all the facts.")

[imb]

What else could I have been talking about other than steroids

[Wilson A2000]

a little off-topic, but i'm more perturbed that Bonds was permitted to wear massive body armor and hang over the plate with impunity, than i am about him roiding up

 

Me too.

 

While he did do that, why is that more important than a roided Bonds who broke the most cherished record in modern day sports? Is a walk greater than a home run?

 

Bonds took away one half of the plate. Knowing where the pitch was going to be made it much easier to hit. Add his knowledge of the strike zone and his armor might have attributed to just as many home runs as steroids did.

 

No way. You can still throw the ball inside when a player crowds the plate. It is actually easier to jam a hitter when he does that. Bonds was no closer to the plate during the early 90's compared to the late 90's and early 2000's. He hit way more home run during the latter. His body armor might have increased in size, but crowding the plate did not give him 72 or break Aaron's record. His massive arms did.

[Wilson A2000]

What else could I have been talking about other than steroids

 

I was confused as to whether you were talking about steroids and baseball records, or how concerned the public was about them. You didn't clarify that until now.

[imb]

a little off-topic, but i'm more perturbed that Bonds was permitted to wear massive body armor and hang over the plate with impunity, than i am about him roiding up

 

Me too.

 

While he did do that, why is that more important than a roided Bonds who broke the most cherished record in modern day sports? Is a walk greater than a home run?

 

Bonds took away one half of the plate. Knowing where the pitch was going to be made it much easier to hit. Add his knowledge of the strike zone and his armor might have attributed to just as many home runs as steroids did.

 

No way. You can still throw the ball inside when a player crowds the plate. It is actually easier to jam a hitter when he does that. Bonds was no closer to the plate during the early 90's compared to the late 90's and early 2000's. He hit way more home run during the latter. His body armor might have increased in size, but crowding the plate did not give him 72 or break Aaron's record. His massive arms did.

 

Arms have very little to do with hitting home runs compared with legs/core. It's not like these guys are just in the gym doing curls.

[Wilson A2000]

a little off-topic, but i'm more perturbed that Bonds was permitted to wear massive body armor and hang over the plate with impunity, than i am about him roiding up

 

Me too.

 

While he did do that, why is that more important than a roided Bonds who broke the most cherished record in modern day sports? Is a walk greater than a home run?

 

Bonds took away one half of the plate. Knowing where the pitch was going to be made it much easier to hit. Add his knowledge of the strike zone and his armor might have attributed to just as many home runs as steroids did.

 

No way. You can still throw the ball inside when a player crowds the plate. It is actually easier to jam a hitter when he does that. Bonds was no closer to the plate during the early 90's compared to the late 90's and early 2000's. He hit way more home run during the latter. His body armor might have increased in size, but crowding the plate did not give him 72 or break Aaron's record. His massive arms did.

 

Arms have very little to do with hitting home runs compared with legs/core. It's not like these guys are just in the gym doing curls.

 

Arms and legs and core. My bad. Everything on Bonds was big beginning in '99.

[bcl412]

a little off-topic, but i'm more perturbed that Bonds was permitted to wear massive body armor and hang over the plate with impunity, than i am about him roiding up

 

Me too.

 

While he did do that, why is that more important than a roided Bonds who broke the most cherished record in modern day sports? Is a walk greater than a home run?

 

Bonds took away one half of the plate. Knowing where the pitch was going to be made it much easier to hit. Add his knowledge of the strike zone and his armor might have attributed to just as many home runs as steroids did.

 

No way. You can still throw the ball inside when a player crowds the plate. It is actually easier to jam a hitter when he does that. Bonds was no closer to the plate during the early 90's compared to the late 90's and early 2000's. He hit way more home run during the latter. His body armor might have increased in size, but crowding the plate did not give him 72 or break Aaron's record. His massive arms did.

 

Arms have very little to do with hitting home runs compared with legs/core. It's not like these guys are just in the gym doing curls.

 

Honestly there is no way to know what attributed to the home runs (yes it was most likely roids but when most of the league did them I don't see how it gave him more of an advantage). Bonds hit plenty before the years he was accused of using. Yes the 72 was an anomaly but so was Maris' 62

[bcl412]

And Wilson, you're probably right on the elbow pad thing, I just hate it more because I'm pretty desensitized to the steroid thing.

[imb]

a little off-topic, but i'm more perturbed that Bonds was permitted to wear massive body armor and hang over the plate with impunity, than i am about him roiding up

 

Me too.

 

While he did do that, why is that more important than a roided Bonds who broke the most cherished record in modern day sports? Is a walk greater than a home run?

 

this is the kind of talk that people are sick of. Someone clean will one day break Maris' home run record and they will do it using all kinds of supplements and video and things that Maris never had a chance to use. Will you still be upset about it? No, everyone will cheer about how great it is that we have this all-natural slugger when there's very little difference between what he will have done and what Bonds did.

[Wilson A2000]

Honestly there is no way to know what attributed to the home runs (yes it was most likely roids but when most of the league did them I don't see how it gave him more of an advantage). Bonds hit plenty before the years he was accused of using. Yes the 72 was an anomaly but so was Maris' 62

 

If everyone was on roids, there shouldn't have been such a spike in the number of home runs hit in the late 90's and early 2000's. Isn't that the argument that so many people make - well the pitchers were on them too so who cares? It obviously helped the hitters more, or a few hitters more. When the punishment for steroids was formalized increased in the 2003 season, guys got smaller. People started hitting less home runs. Baseball players looked more normal. I realize that anomalies occur. Someone will break Bonds' records, even though it might take 50 years. But it is not an anomaly when a known steroid user at the end of his career has 3-4 of his best, record-breaking years. That is too much of a coincidence.

[Wilson A2000]

And Wilson, you're probably right on the elbow pad thing, I just hate it more because I'm pretty desensitized to the steroid thing.

 

I really do hate the elbow pad. It is not that pitchers are afraid to throw inside. It is that if a ball gets just a little bit away from the pitcher, the hitter turns into it and gets firstbase. And it doesn't even hurt the batter because the pad absorbs it. A price should be paid for first base if you are going to lean in to a pitch.

[Wilson A2000]

a little off-topic, but i'm more perturbed that Bonds was permitted to wear massive body armor and hang over the plate with impunity, than i am about him roiding up

 

Me too.

 

While he did do that, why is that more important than a roided Bonds who broke the most cherished record in modern day sports? Is a walk greater than a home run?

 

this is the kind of talk that people are sick of. Someone clean will one day break Maris' home run record and they will do it using all kinds of supplements and video and things that Maris never had a chance to use. Will you still be upset about it? No, everyone will cheer about how great it is that we have this all-natural slugger when there's very little difference between what he will have done and what Bonds did.

 

There will be a difference. The reason some things are illegal to use in baseball and some aren't is because the products that are later deemed illegal are those that have the greatest effect on performance. I highly doubt anyone will be able to use anything legal that increased a person's home run output by 20 home runs in a season like steroids did. The league will hopefully catch it before that happens. With that said, HGH is undetectable now because the league won't allow blood tests yet.

 

Pitchers can use video too. Video is helping everyone. Steroids helped a few.

Edited February 9, 2009 by Wilson A2000

[bcl412]

A little off topic but somewhat relevant. What ever happened to the "juiced" baseball theory? Do people still think that lead to an increased amount of home runs or did that pretty much did when steroids became an issue?