Sammy to formally retire soon

[A-Cal]

So you're fine with cheating to a point.

 

What's the exact cutoff point?

 

fine with cheating to a point eh?

 

interestingly enough, i don't remember typing those words

 

 

steroids and growth hormone are more of an athletic aid than greenies

 

so, that proves a point how exactly?

[Sammy Sofa]

you're joking right?

 

no, i know you aren't...we have a different take on the situation, that is all

 

So what is the difference between each type of cheating?

 

when you are apart of an era of players who are demolishing records and pretty much make up almost all of the core of "superstar" talent, i think that makes a huge difference over the cheating in the past...

 

So you're fine with cheating to a point.

 

What's the exact cutoff point?

 

fine with cheating to a point eh?

 

interestingly enough, i don't remember typing those words

 

You want steroid users to have a seperate section in the Hall, yet have said nothing about other types of cheaters getting their own sections. You've also gone out of your way to try and show how steroid use is the worst form of cheating the game has seen, seemingly implying that there are lesser, more toelrable forms of cheating.

 

If you're against cheating across the board, fine, but you've said nothing along those lines to this point.

[A-Cal]

 

But you did separate cheating in the past from cheating today.

 

again, separation is different than being fine with a certain item

[soapy]

So you're fine with cheating to a point.

 

What's the exact cutoff point?

 

fine with cheating to a point eh?

 

interestingly enough, i don't remember typing those words

 

 

steroids and growth hormone are more of an athletic aid than greenies

 

so, that proves a point how exactly?

 

you certainly seem to be indicating that you're willing to overlook certain types of cheating because you think they don't provide as much of an advantage, no?

 

greenies = HR record and HOF

steroids = Rot in hell

[SpongeWorthy]

http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/Headline_Archives/BDD_SS_MM_SI98.jpg

 

Obvious roid monster!

[A-Cal]

 

You want steroid users to have a seperate section in the Hall, yet have said nothing about other types of cheaters getting their own sections. You've also gone out of your way to try and show how steroid use is the worst form of cheating the game has seen, seemingly implying that there are lesser, more toelrable forms of cheating.

 

If you're against cheating across the board, fine, but you've said nothing along those lines to this point.

 

no, you are implying that this is what i am saying

 

cheating is cheating...saying a form of cheating carries a little bit more weight currently doesn't mean i condone past offenses

[A-Cal]

So you're fine with cheating to a point.

 

What's the exact cutoff point?

 

fine with cheating to a point eh?

 

interestingly enough, i don't remember typing those words

 

 

steroids and growth hormone are more of an athletic aid than greenies

 

so, that proves a point how exactly?

 

you certainly seem to be indicating that you're willing to overlook certain types of cheating because you think they don't provide as much of an advantage, no?

 

greenies = HR record and HOF

steroids = Rot in hell

 

just like some members on this board have no problem overlooking everything and life is just do unto others as you would like and get over it right?

 

i have taken greenies...and i didn't gain muscle mass and increased strength

 

what has happened in the steroid era is more destructive to reputation IMO

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I don't see how someone can't think that greenies aren't an aid. The baseball season is a long toil. Amphetamines would allow someone an edge when they are tired and worn out at the end of a long season, or just the end of a long road trip. While they may not add strength like steroids or hgh will, they would help with concentration which in many ways may be of more an aid to a hitter than brute strength alone.

 

But since you think steroids are more of an aid, what studies do you point to for that? Is it based in empirical fact or just your gut opinion? Because frankly, I might buy an argument based on fact, but if it's just your gut feeling, I don't think making HOF decisions based on your gut is a very credible argument.

 

Now if you took a stronger stance on all cheating...ie...felt that any HOF who used greenies should be excluded as well as tossing out pitchers like Gaylord Perry, then you would be credible. Right now, I've seen a lot of grasping of straws and nothing more.

[A-Cal]

I don't see how someone can't think that greenies aren't an aid. The baseball season is a long toil. Amphetamines would allow someone an edge when they are tired and worn out at the end of a long season, or just the end of a long road trip. While they may not add strength like steroids or hgh will, they would help with concentration which in many ways may be of more an aid to a hitter than brute strength alone.

 

But since you think steroids are more of an aid, what studies do you point to for that? Is it based in empirical fact or just your gut opinion? Because frankly, I might buy an argument based on fact, but if it's just your gut feeling, I don't think making HOF decisions based on your gut is a very credible argument.

 

Now if you took a stronger stance on all cheating...ie...felt that any HOF who used greenies should be excluded as well as tossing out pitchers like Gaylord Perry, then you would be credible. Right now, I've seen a lot of grasping of straws and nothing more.

 

right vance, i forgot that if someone doesn't think the way you do, they are wrong

[kjfoster 1553]

I don't see how someone can't think that greenies aren't an aid. The baseball season is a long toil. Amphetamines would allow someone an edge when they are tired and worn out at the end of a long season, or just the end of a long road trip. While they may not add strength like steroids or hgh will, they would help with concentration which in many ways may be of more an aid to a hitter than brute strength alone.

 

But since you think steroids are more of an aid, what studies do you point to for that? Is it based in empirical fact or just your gut opinion? Because frankly, I might buy an argument based on fact, but if it's just your gut feeling, I don't think making HOF decisions based on your gut is a very credible argument.

 

Now if you took a stronger stance on all cheating...ie...felt that any HOF who used greenies should be excluded as well as tossing out pitchers like Gaylord Perry, then you would be credible. Right now, I've seen a lot of grasping of straws and nothing more.

 

right vance, i forgot that if someone doesn't think the way you do, they are wrong

 

Woah, woah, woah.

[soapy]

i have taken greenies...and i didn't gain muscle mass and increased strength

 

what has happened in the steroid era is more destructive to reputation IMO

 

you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but you are certainly seperating different degrees of cheating. willing to overlook some (greenies) and not others (steroids).

 

 

just like some members on this board have no problem overlooking everything and life is just do unto others as you would like and get over it right?

 

i don't even know what this means.

[dew1679666265]

I don't see how someone can't think that greenies aren't an aid. The baseball season is a long toil. Amphetamines would allow someone an edge when they are tired and worn out at the end of a long season, or just the end of a long road trip. While they may not add strength like steroids or hgh will, they would help with concentration which in many ways may be of more an aid to a hitter than brute strength alone.

 

But since you think steroids are more of an aid, what studies do you point to for that? Is it based in empirical fact or just your gut opinion? Because frankly, I might buy an argument based on fact, but if it's just your gut feeling, I don't think making HOF decisions based on your gut is a very credible argument.

 

Now if you took a stronger stance on all cheating...ie...felt that any HOF who used greenies should be excluded as well as tossing out pitchers like Gaylord Perry, then you would be credible. Right now, I've seen a lot of grasping of straws and nothing more.

 

right vance, i forgot that if someone doesn't think the way you do, they are wrong

 

Would you kick guys like Gaylord Perry, George Brett and Don Drysdale out of the Hall of Fame because they have been caught cheating? Perry and Drysdale threw spitballs (an illegal pitch) for most, if not all, of their careers and Drysdale admitted to it.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I don't see how someone can't think that greenies aren't an aid. The baseball season is a long toil. Amphetamines would allow someone an edge when they are tired and worn out at the end of a long season, or just the end of a long road trip. While they may not add strength like steroids or hgh will, they would help with concentration which in many ways may be of more an aid to a hitter than brute strength alone.

 

But since you think steroids are more of an aid, what studies do you point to for that? Is it based in empirical fact or just your gut opinion? Because frankly, I might buy an argument based on fact, but if it's just your gut feeling, I don't think making HOF decisions based on your gut is a very credible argument.

 

Now if you took a stronger stance on all cheating...ie...felt that any HOF who used greenies should be excluded as well as tossing out pitchers like Gaylord Perry, then you would be credible. Right now, I've seen a lot of grasping of straws and nothing more.

 

right vance, i forgot that if someone doesn't think the way you do, they are wrong

 

No, my point is that it's quiet intellectually dishonest to say that one form of cheating should deny someone of the highest honor and that another form of cheating should be overlooked without some empirical reason for doing so.

 

In a previous post, you admitted to taking greenies. That makes me wonder if you don't vilify those because you have committed the same act, while you condemn ones who have taken another form of cheating. Both steroids and amphetamines can increase performance. Both also can cause health problems. It's not that you're wrong, it's that you are inconsistent. You're trying to argue degrees because it's the only way to support your position. The problem is that there is no evidence other than speculation to support your claim.

 

So, you're welcome to your opinion. If you like having uninformed, ridiculous opinions, be my guest. I'll continue to call them out for being uninformed and ridiculous, but you are welcome to have them.

[Sammy Sofa]

 

You want steroid users to have a seperate section in the Hall, yet have said nothing about other types of cheaters getting their own sections. You've also gone out of your way to try and show how steroid use is the worst form of cheating the game has seen, seemingly implying that there are lesser, more toelrable forms of cheating.

 

If you're against cheating across the board, fine, but you've said nothing along those lines to this point.

 

no, you are implying that this is what i am saying

 

cheating is cheating...saying a form of cheating carries a little bit more weight currently doesn't mean i condone past offenses

 

So you want the other cheaters to get their own wing of the HOF?

[Guest]

http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/Headline_Archives/BDD_SS_MM_SI98.jpg

 

Obvious roid monster!

 

Dan's brother gave a very detailed interview about how, when, where he helped his brother inject steroids into his system.

 

Granted, that's just circumstantial evidence, but boy would you really, really, really have to hate your brother if you made up that entire story.

 

You'd have to hate him to give him up at all when it's pretty obvious he wants it kept secret, but to make it up means you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hate your brother.

 

I tend to believe he's mad at his brother fore being a liar along with being a cheat. But, that's just me.

[A-Cal]

I don't see how someone can't think that greenies aren't an aid. The baseball season is a long toil. Amphetamines would allow someone an edge when they are tired and worn out at the end of a long season, or just the end of a long road trip. While they may not add strength like steroids or hgh will, they would help with concentration which in many ways may be of more an aid to a hitter than brute strength alone.

 

But since you think steroids are more of an aid, what studies do you point to for that? Is it based in empirical fact or just your gut opinion? Because frankly, I might buy an argument based on fact, but if it's just your gut feeling, I don't think making HOF decisions based on your gut is a very credible argument.

 

Now if you took a stronger stance on all cheating...ie...felt that any HOF who used greenies should be excluded as well as tossing out pitchers like Gaylord Perry, then you would be credible. Right now, I've seen a lot of grasping of straws and nothing more.

 

right vance, i forgot that if someone doesn't think the way you do, they are wrong

 

No, my point is that it's quiet intellectually dishonest to say that one form of cheating should deny someone of the highest honor and that another form of cheating should be overlooked without some empirical reason for doing so.

 

In a previous post, you admitted to taking greenies. That makes me wonder if you don't vilify those because you have committed the same act, while you condemn ones who have taken another form of cheating. Both steroids and amphetamines can increase performance. Both also can cause health problems. It's not that you're wrong, it's that you are inconsistent. You're trying to argue degrees because it's the only way to support your position. The problem is that there is no evidence other than speculation to support your claim.

 

So, you're welcome to your opinion. If you like having uninformed, ridiculous opinions, be my guest. I'll continue to call them out for being uninformed and ridiculous, but you are welcome to have them.

 

i enjoy your thoughts, can i come to your class on how to think and respond appropriately?

[A-Cal]

 

You want steroid users to have a seperate section in the Hall, yet have said nothing about other types of cheaters getting their own sections. You've also gone out of your way to try and show how steroid use is the worst form of cheating the game has seen, seemingly implying that there are lesser, more toelrable forms of cheating.

 

If you're against cheating across the board, fine, but you've said nothing along those lines to this point.

 

no, you are implying that this is what i am saying

 

cheating is cheating...saying a form of cheating carries a little bit more weight currently doesn't mean i condone past offenses

 

So you want the other cheaters to get their own wing of the HOF?

 

no...they don't need to...by the by they weren't cheating because it wasn't being enforced as such back then

 

apparently folks here are having a hard time getting a grasp on the concept of my opinion being based upon my belief that the steroid era is the biggest black eye, if you will, for this game

 

it is for this reason, and the performance enhancing drug usage, that i feel they should get their own separate wing in the hall...or maybe not even be put in the hall at all

 

the other types of cheating pale in comparison

 

you may feel like everyone needs to get in and that is that, but i don't, oh well...it happens

[Guest]

apparently folks here are having a hard time getting a grasp on the concept of my opinion being based upon my belief that the steroid era is the biggest black eye, if you will, for this game

 

it is for this reason, and the performance enhancing drug usage, that i feel they should get their own separate wing in the hall...or maybe not even be put in the hall at all

 

I agree with you to a certain extent. I'm not willing to boot someone out of the HOF because they took some speed to stay awake for the game after partying all night at the night club the previous night. I'd bet that's the biggest reason most of those guys were popping pills back then, and not that they actually believed that these pills would somehow improve their production.

 

However, the HOF is basically a joke anyway. Why we constantly argue about this is actually rather amusing. Ron Santo is not in the HOF. That right there makes the HOF a joke all by itself.

 

After pointing that out, and then looking at who actually votes for the people to be elected, all discussion about the validity of the HOF goes right out the window.

 

They can vote in Roger Clemens and Mark McGuire and whoever else they want to vote in. It won't matter one bit to me. You won't see me there.

[A-Cal]

apparently folks here are having a hard time getting a grasp on the concept of my opinion being based upon my belief that the steroid era is the biggest black eye, if you will, for this game

 

it is for this reason, and the performance enhancing drug usage, that i feel they should get their own separate wing in the hall...or maybe not even be put in the hall at all

 

I agree with you to a certain extent. I'm not willing to boot someone out of the HOF because they took some speed to stay awake for the game after partying all night at the night club the previous night. I'd bet that's the biggest reason most of those guys were popping pills back then, and not that they actually believed that these pills would somehow improve their production.

 

However, the HOF is basically a joke anyway. Why we constantly argue about this is actually rather amusing. Ron Santo is not in the HOF. That right there makes the HOF a joke all by itself.

 

After pointing that out, and then looking at who actually votes for the people to be elected, all discussion about the validity of the HOF goes right out the window.

 

They can vote in Roger Clemens and Mark McGuire and whoever else they want to vote in. It won't matter one bit to me. You won't see me there.

 

this is very true...in the end it really won't matter because they will already be tagged and loved/hated for individual personal reasons

[Sammy Sofa]

no...they don't need to...by the by they weren't cheating because it wasn't being enforced as such back then

 

For the most part, neither were PED's during the Steroid Era. There was one memo from the head offices that nobody put into place or enforced and that was it. I have zero problem with MLB doing what it always does, which is dealing with something way after the fact and moving on. If they want testing now and to kick guys out or suspend them for long stretches, go nuts, but to retroactively go back to seasons when that WASN'T in place is pointless to me. With every other form of cheating that MLB has eventually cracked down on, it was basically approached with an idea of "if you got away with it, good on you, but from here on out we're cracking down." Steroids is being made the exception, and that's hypocritical and detrimental, especially when it means singling out select players from an era when it was widespread.

[NeifiIsMyHomeBoy]

I think that Sosa belongs in the Hall of Fame. As I learn more and more about the steriod era it becomes clear to me that a majority of players were probably juicing. Even Neifi Perez has been caught twice since drug testing went into effect, so I think it is safe to say that it was not just the big name players of the era who were using. Plus to the best of our knowledge Sosa never tested positive, and has never admitted to using PED's. I do not believe that you can overlook this fact when considering his candidacy.

 

Furthermore, during the years of Sosa's alleged use steriods were not illegal in the sport of baseball. If we assume baseball players are like most other individuals that are rational, self interested people, who are then presented with a means to legally improve their job performance, then where is the incentive to not juice? Players had the choice to not juice and let the game pass them by, or to get on board and try to keep up and earn competitive contracts. Because juicing was not illegal in the sport of baseball, and has been proven to be widespread during the era I believe that players from this era should be admitted to the HOF if they are worthy.

 

The players should not be blamed for the steriod mess. The blame lies exclusively with the commisioners office and the union. They turned a blind eye to a problem that GM's, managers, and people around baseball knew was going on, because they knew that juicing was good for the popularity of the game and good for their wallets. Then when they were caught with their pants down they managed to shift all of the blame onto the players.

 

Sorry for the length of the post I just wanted to chime in with my opinions.

[kjfoster 1553]

especially when it means singling out select players from an era when it was widespread.

 

Right there is the main problem I have with all this.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

You want steroid users to have a seperate section in the Hall, yet have said nothing about other types of cheaters getting their own sections. You've also gone out of your way to try and show how steroid use is the worst form of cheating the game has seen, seemingly implying that there are lesser, more toelrable forms of cheating.

 

If you're against cheating across the board, fine, but you've said nothing along those lines to this point.

 

no, you are implying that this is what i am saying

 

cheating is cheating...saying a form of cheating carries a little bit more weight currently doesn't mean i condone past offenses

 

So you want the other cheaters to get their own wing of the HOF?

 

no...they don't need to...by the by they weren't cheating because it wasn't being enforced as such back then

 

 

And they also weren't enforcing anything when/if Sammy juiced either. He never failed a test once they did start enforcing...so if you say that using greenies wasn't cheating in the 60-70's, then steroids weren't cheating until 2004.

[Andy]

Furthermore, during the years of Sosa's alleged use steriods were not illegal in the sport of baseball.

I swear if I hear this one more time...

 

On June 7, 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team and the players union that stated: "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids." The seven-page document didn't cover random testing -- that had to be bargained with the union -- but it did outline treatment and penalties.

 

This should be copy-pasted into every steroids thread in the original post so that stupid sentence can't be typed

[NeifiIsMyHomeBoy]

Mlb.com disagrees with you.

 

1998: A jar of androstenedione is discovered in the locker of St. Louis slugger Mark McGwire, who is neck and neck with Sammy Sosa in the great chase at Roger Maris' all-time record of 61 homers hit during the 1961 season. McGwire admits he uses the steroids precursor and goes on to hit a then record 70 homers. Using steroids, precursors or performance-enhancing drugs is not illegal at that point in Major League Baseball.

 

Source: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/news/drug_policy.jsp?content=timeline