Re: Sosa tested positive in 2003 per NY Times

[flyseye]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/opinion/20chafets.html?_r=1

 

Since the dawn of baseball, players have used whatever substances they believed would help them perform better, heal faster or relax during a long and stressful season. As far back as 1889, the pitcher Pud Galvin ingested monkey testosterone. During Prohibition, Grover Cleveland Alexander, also a pitcher, calmed his nerves with federally banned alcohol, and no less an expert than Bill Veeck, who owned several major-league teams, said that Alexander was a better pitcher drunk than sober.

 

In 1961, during his home run race with Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle developed a sudden abscess that kept him on the bench. It came from an infected needle used by Max Jacobson, a quack who injected Mantle with a home-brew containing steroids and speed. In his autobiography, Hank Aaron admitted once taking an amphetamine tablet during a game. The Pirates’ John Milner testified at a drug dealer’s trial that his teammate, Willie Mays, kept “red juice,” a liquid form of speed, in his locker. (Mays denied it.) After he retired, Sandy Koufax admitted the he was often “half high” on the mound from the drugs he took for his ailing left arm.

 

Purists say that steroids alter the game. But since the Hall opened its doors, baseball has never stopped changing. Batters now wear body padding and helmets. The pitcher’s mound has risen and fallen. Bats have more pop. Night games affect visibility. Players stay in shape in the off-season. Expansion has altered the game’s geography. And its demography has changed beyond recognition. Babe Ruth never faced a black pitcher. As Chris Rock put it, Ruth’s record consisted of “714 affirmative-action home runs.” This doesn’t diminish Ruth’s accomplishment, but it puts it into context.

 

 

No offense to Olemisscub who posted the article, but what a load of crap. Totally disregarding the fact that at least one of the scant examples used by the author would hardly be considered performance enhancing ( I don't think many would champion being drunk as a performance enhancer), the author goes on to name a few players who " once took an amphetamine", or were using pain medication for an injury, in a span covering 100+ years, and tries to compare it to over 100 people who were proven to have used performance and body altering drugs in a single season. Not at all convincing in my opinion. He could have at least brought up Dock Ellis pitching while tripping on LSD or something.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Didn't Sandberg wife nail Dave Martinez too, and he was packed out of town right after it?

 

List of people who likely nailed Cindy Sandberg.

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2005-06/18124597.jpg

"Hey fellas!"

 

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pics/dave_martinez_autograph.jpg

"I loved me some Cindy!"

 

http://www.checkoutmycards.com/CardImages/Cards/008/193/05F.jpg

"Took a swing at that!"

 

http://pelota.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/trillo.jpg

"Twice!"

 

http://www.freewebs.com/leftysautos/Salazar001.jpg

"Kept me running for more!"

 

http://www.baseballhistorian.com/images/bios/Domingo%20Ramos.jpg

"Mighty fine lady that Cindy was!"

 

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pics/argenis_salazar_autograph.jpg

"Buneo!"

 

http://imagesource.allposters.com/images/pic/PHO/821494~Don-Zimmer-2004-Studio-Plus-Photofile-Posters.jpg

"Best piece I ever had."

 

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nl/chicubs/caray.jpg

"Holy Cow!"

[Twiggy]

lol too funny

[erik316wttn]

Shut it, Ryno.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/news/story?id=4281359

Do you disagree?

 

I do. All sorts of players have bent rules, including taking illegal substances, to gain an edge, throughout history and many of them are in the HOF.

 

Gaylord Perry threw an illegal pitch his entire career and nobody seems to care that he's in the HOF.

[bukie]

Here's a decent article by Bill Simmons outlining the various "eras" of baseball and what was taken advantage of in each one: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=4268999

 

Really, there wasn't really a single time in the history of baseball where you can say players didn't have some sort of unfair advantage over the competition, and those players exploited those advantages.

[Sammy Sofa]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/opinion/20chafets.html?_r=1

 

Since the dawn of baseball, players have used whatever substances they believed would help them perform better, heal faster or relax during a long and stressful season. As far back as 1889, the pitcher Pud Galvin ingested monkey testosterone. During Prohibition, Grover Cleveland Alexander, also a pitcher, calmed his nerves with federally banned alcohol, and no less an expert than Bill Veeck, who owned several major-league teams, said that Alexander was a better pitcher drunk than sober.

 

In 1961, during his home run race with Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle developed a sudden abscess that kept him on the bench. It came from an infected needle used by Max Jacobson, a quack who injected Mantle with a home-brew containing steroids and speed. In his autobiography, Hank Aaron admitted once taking an amphetamine tablet during a game. The Pirates’ John Milner testified at a drug dealer’s trial that his teammate, Willie Mays, kept “red juice,” a liquid form of speed, in his locker. (Mays denied it.) After he retired, Sandy Koufax admitted the he was often “half high” on the mound from the drugs he took for his ailing left arm.

 

Purists say that steroids alter the game. But since the Hall opened its doors, baseball has never stopped changing. Batters now wear body padding and helmets. The pitcher’s mound has risen and fallen. Bats have more pop. Night games affect visibility. Players stay in shape in the off-season. Expansion has altered the game’s geography. And its demography has changed beyond recognition. Babe Ruth never faced a black pitcher. As Chris Rock put it, Ruth’s record consisted of “714 affirmative-action home runs.” This doesn’t diminish Ruth’s accomplishment, but it puts it into context.

 

 

No offense to Olemisscub who posted the article, but what a load of crap. Totally disregarding the fact that at least one of the scant examples used by the author would hardly be considered performance enhancing ( I don't think many would champion being drunk as a performance enhancer), the author goes on to name a few players who " once took an amphetamine", or were using pain medication for an injury, in a span covering 100+ years, and tries to compare it to over 100 people who were proven to have used performance and body altering drugs in a single season. Not at all convincing in my opinion. He could have at least brought up Dock Ellis pitching while tripping on LSD or something.

 

It's not a direct comparison. The piece is pointing out how the cheating "line" is still so blurry. Even if you're going to declare modern steroids and PED's to be the end-all-be-all, then where on the scale does cheating become OK?

[SouthSideRyan]

the author goes on to name a few players who " once took an amphetamine"

 

Something tells me if Sammy said just before the testing period was the only time he took steroids you wouldn't believe him.

[Soul]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/opinion/20chafets.html?_r=1

 

Since the dawn of baseball, players have used whatever substances they believed would help them perform better, heal faster or relax during a long and stressful season. As far back as 1889, the pitcher Pud Galvin ingested monkey testosterone. During Prohibition, Grover Cleveland Alexander, also a pitcher, calmed his nerves with federally banned alcohol, and no less an expert than Bill Veeck, who owned several major-league teams, said that Alexander was a better pitcher drunk than sober.

 

In 1961, during his home run race with Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle developed a sudden abscess that kept him on the bench. It came from an infected needle used by Max Jacobson, a quack who injected Mantle with a home-brew containing steroids and speed. In his autobiography, Hank Aaron admitted once taking an amphetamine tablet during a game. The Pirates’ John Milner testified at a drug dealer’s trial that his teammate, Willie Mays, kept “red juice,” a liquid form of speed, in his locker. (Mays denied it.) After he retired, Sandy Koufax admitted the he was often “half high” on the mound from the drugs he took for his ailing left arm.

 

Purists say that steroids alter the game. But since the Hall opened its doors, baseball has never stopped changing. Batters now wear body padding and helmets. The pitcher’s mound has risen and fallen. Bats have more pop. Night games affect visibility. Players stay in shape in the off-season. Expansion has altered the game’s geography. And its demography has changed beyond recognition. Babe Ruth never faced a black pitcher. As Chris Rock put it, Ruth’s record consisted of “714 affirmative-action home runs.” This doesn’t diminish Ruth’s accomplishment, but it puts it into context.

 

 

No offense to Olemisscub who posted the article, but what a load of crap. Totally disregarding the fact that at least one of the scant examples used by the author would hardly be considered performance enhancing ( I don't think many would champion being drunk as a performance enhancer), the author goes on to name a few players who " once took an amphetamine", or were using pain medication for an injury, in a span covering 100+ years, and tries to compare it to over 100 people who were proven to have used performance and body altering drugs in a single season. Not at all convincing in my opinion. He could have at least brought up Dock Ellis pitching while tripping on LSD or something.

 

It's not a direct comparison. The piece is pointing out how the cheating "line" is still so blurry. Even if you're going to declare modern steroids and PED's to be the end-all-be-all, then where on the scale does cheating become OK?

 

The article tries to make it a direct comparison, IMO. It's eloquently stated nonsense. I have no problem drawing a line between systematic, concentrated steroid use and a few uppers.

[SouthSideRyan]

So if they only kept charts that said "Take greenies every day" then it would be too far. Luckily they weren't that organized.

[ConstableRabbit]

If it wasn't against the rules of baseball* when players were taking steroids, can it really be considered "cheating"?

 

 

*was it?

[bukie]

If it wasn't against the rules of baseball* when players were taking steroids, can it really be considered "cheating"?

 

 

*was it?

It was always against the rules, it just wasn't enforced at all prior to 2003.

[Irrelevant Dude]

I'm getting a little tired of Ryno's "play the game the right way" shtick.

Would you rather have him condoning steroid use? At least he is willing to voice an opinion other than "I don't know what to tell my kids dude".

[Roast]

I'm getting a little tired of Ryno's "play the game the right way" shtick.

Would you rather have him condoning steroid use? At least he is willing to voice an opinion other than "I don't know what to tell my kids dude".

No one is asking for that. But Ryne has reeked of the "back in my day we walked up hill both ways" attitude for quite a while now. He could either A: Keep his mouth shut or B: realize that since the beginning of baseball players have tried to cheat the game to get themselves an advantage. There are hall of farmers that threw spit balls, scuffed the ball, took greenies, and everything else. He could just say something along the lines of the fact that steroids were a problem and, just like lots of the problems in the past, mlb has found ways to fix/deter it from happening.

[ConstableRabbit]

If it wasn't against the rules of baseball* when players were taking steroids, can it really be considered "cheating"?

 

 

*was it?

It was always against the rules, it just wasn't enforced at all prior to 2003.

Found it, 1991:

 

After the U.S. Congress raises penalties for steroid possession, Commissioner Fay Vincent sends a memo to each team indicating that steroids would be added to Major League Baseball's banned list. The memo 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 include a testing plan -- that had to be bargained with the union -- but it did outline treatment and penalties.

 

source: http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/steroid-era-timeline-text.htm

[Sammy Sofa]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/opinion/20chafets.html?_r=1

 

Since the dawn of baseball, players have used whatever substances they believed would help them perform better, heal faster or relax during a long and stressful season. As far back as 1889, the pitcher Pud Galvin ingested monkey testosterone. During Prohibition, Grover Cleveland Alexander, also a pitcher, calmed his nerves with federally banned alcohol, and no less an expert than Bill Veeck, who owned several major-league teams, said that Alexander was a better pitcher drunk than sober.

 

In 1961, during his home run race with Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle developed a sudden abscess that kept him on the bench. It came from an infected needle used by Max Jacobson, a quack who injected Mantle with a home-brew containing steroids and speed. In his autobiography, Hank Aaron admitted once taking an amphetamine tablet during a game. The Pirates’ John Milner testified at a drug dealer’s trial that his teammate, Willie Mays, kept “red juice,” a liquid form of speed, in his locker. (Mays denied it.) After he retired, Sandy Koufax admitted the he was often “half high” on the mound from the drugs he took for his ailing left arm.

 

Purists say that steroids alter the game. But since the Hall opened its doors, baseball has never stopped changing. Batters now wear body padding and helmets. The pitcher’s mound has risen and fallen. Bats have more pop. Night games affect visibility. Players stay in shape in the off-season. Expansion has altered the game’s geography. And its demography has changed beyond recognition. Babe Ruth never faced a black pitcher. As Chris Rock put it, Ruth’s record consisted of “714 affirmative-action home runs.” This doesn’t diminish Ruth’s accomplishment, but it puts it into context.

 

 

No offense to Olemisscub who posted the article, but what a load of crap. Totally disregarding the fact that at least one of the scant examples used by the author would hardly be considered performance enhancing ( I don't think many would champion being drunk as a performance enhancer), the author goes on to name a few players who " once took an amphetamine", or were using pain medication for an injury, in a span covering 100+ years, and tries to compare it to over 100 people who were proven to have used performance and body altering drugs in a single season. Not at all convincing in my opinion. He could have at least brought up Dock Ellis pitching while tripping on LSD or something.

 

It's not a direct comparison. The piece is pointing out how the cheating "line" is still so blurry. Even if you're going to declare modern steroids and PED's to be the end-all-be-all, then where on the scale does cheating become OK?

 

The article tries to make it a direct comparison, IMO. It's eloquently stated nonsense. I have no problem drawing a line between systematic, concentrated steroid use and a few uppers.

 

It's not nonsense. Again, where is the line drawn? How much cheating is OK, and what cheating is OK?

[fivepercent]

I dont think anyone can answer the question of where to draw the line.

 

However, to compare a spitball and the like to steriods is a problem IMO. It's one thing to feel pressure to alter a ball and another completely to have to take something that can affect your body for the rest of your life just to keep up with the competition when you're good enough to play clean.

 

Personally I dont give a crap about the hall of fame. It's a cool place to visit but I could honestly care less who is or isnt in it. I just hate to see people who have cheated in such a blatant way be honored for anything. It just goes against everything I was taught growing up.

[SouthSideRyan]

I dont think anyone can answer the question of where to draw the line.

 

However, to compare a spitball and the like to steriods is a problem IMO. It's one thing to feel pressure to alter a ball and another completely to have to take something that can affect your body for the rest of your life just to keep up with the competition when you're good enough to play clean.

 

This argument I can respect.

 

I just hate to see people who have cheated in such a blatant way be honored for anything. It just goes against everything I was taught growing up.

 

This argument goes right back to what everyone is saying. Doctoring a ball with such regularity that it's your calling card isn't cheating in a blatant way?

 

The whole "goes against everything I was taught growing up" is shlocky crap. You were probably taught not to fool around behind your wife's back growing up too. Better clear a few 100 plaques out of the HOF for that. If we only honored players who do the right thing, the HOF would be left with Dale Murphy and maybe a couple deadball guys that weren't virulent racists.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'm getting a little tired of Ryno's "play the game the right way" shtick.

Would you rather have him condoning steroid use? At least he is willing to voice an opinion other than "I don't know what to tell my kids dude".

 

It's hard to hear his opinion from way down here. Ryno's opinion of himself and the era in which he played is starting to remind me of Joe Morgan. That's not good.

[Soul]

I dont think anyone can answer the question of where to draw the line.

 

However, to compare a spitball and the like to steriods is a problem IMO. It's one thing to feel pressure to alter a ball and another completely to have to take something that can affect your body for the rest of your life just to keep up with the competition when you're good enough to play clean.

 

This argument I can respect.

 

I just hate to see people who have cheated in such a blatant way be honored for anything. It just goes against everything I was taught growing up.

 

This argument goes right back to what everyone is saying. Doctoring a ball with such regularity that it's your calling card isn't cheating in a blatant way?

 

The whole "goes against everything I was taught growing up" is shlocky crap. You were probably taught not to fool around behind your wife's back growing up too. Better clear a few 100 plaques out of the HOF for that. If we only honored players who do the right thing, the HOF would be left with Dale Murphy and maybe a couple deadball guys that weren't virulent racists.

 

I really don't care what anyone else thinks. Hank Aaron taking greenies doesn't bother me that much, and Barry Bonds using the latest science to turn himself into a gorilla does.

 

End of the story for me. That's my line. Anyone else is free to draw their own.

 

BTW, I don't care about the Hall of Fame, either. I've never been there and don't plan to go. My baseball consciousness is consumed with one thing: the Cubs winning a World Series this year. What Ryno did 25 years ago is nice & all, but I barely even think about it anymore. Vote Bonds in if you want to. I care not. I'm talking about my personal opinion of these guys.

[SouthSideRyan]

So you're basically punishing today's players(as far as your opinion goes) for having better advancements in science.

[Tracer Bullet]

So you're basically punishing today's players(as far as your opinion goes) for having better advancements in science.

 

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care?

[fivepercent]

I dont think anyone can answer the question of where to draw the line.

 

However, to compare a spitball and the like to steriods is a problem IMO. It's one thing to feel pressure to alter a ball and another completely to have to take something that can affect your body for the rest of your life just to keep up with the competition when you're good enough to play clean.

 

This argument I can respect.

 

I just hate to see people who have cheated in such a blatant way be honored for anything. It just goes against everything I was taught growing up.

 

This argument goes right back to what everyone is saying. Doctoring a ball with such regularity that it's your calling card isn't cheating in a blatant way?

 

The whole "goes against everything I was taught growing up" is shlocky crap. You were probably taught not to fool around behind your wife's back growing up too. Better clear a few 100 plaques out of the HOF for that. If we only honored players who do the right thing, the HOF would be left with Dale Murphy and maybe a couple deadball guys that weren't virulent racists.

 

Well I would be fine clearing 100 plaques for those reasons but I cant change that. My whole point was I just dont want to see all these players from MY generation be hailed at the doors of Cooperstown like they're something special when everyone knows they cheated and they're keeping who knows out who played the game straight up. Fair or not, to me they gave up the right to have a "fair" shot at the HOF when they took PEDs.

[Guest]

[

Because it's stupid to honor people while trying to disgrace them. When will the "Cocaine Era" wing be debuting? And the "No Negroes allowed Era?"

They don't have a Cocaine special section at the HOF but they do very much have the "No negroes allowed" special section.

 

They have a Negro League section, do they segment out ballplayers who played with only whites? from post-1947 players?

It's a history museum and they segment many ways, they discuss the exclusion of black ballplayers at multiple places in the museum. There's nothing disgraceful about discussing the history in which these guys played. It's a part of the times in which they played. I'm not sure what your point is here but it seems to me that your are thinking it's something that is unimportant to the point where it needs no mention. To me your stance seems to diminish the fact they what they did was not only illegal, but out of bounds of baseball according to the rules.

[jersey cubs fan]

So you're basically punishing today's players(as far as your opinion goes) for having better advancements in science.

 

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care?

 

They may improve it as a significantly greater clip, but if so it's because of a science, not an erosion of players character or anything. If they knew in the 70's what players in the 90's knew, and had access to the same stuff, they would have taken. Hell, it's all but a guarantee some of them at least experimented with the less evolved roids back then. The biggest difference is baseball people are so stupid they were convinved muscles were bad for a long time.

 

But I'm not even sure steroids improve players at a significantly greater clip than greenies. The toll of 162 games over 6 months is real and those guys took all that crap for a reason, they felt they needed it. It's still using chemistry to improve your performance, the only difference is advancements in chemistry.

[jersey cubs fan]

My whole point was I just dont want to see all these players from MY generation be hailed at the doors of Cooperstown like they're something special

 

What a giant load of crap. Like those previous guys were anything special? They're freaking baseball players that put up good numbers. The vast majority were probably unethical jerks and complete morons.