Re: Sosa tested positive in 2003 per NY Times

[abuck1220]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.

 

my point is steroids are illegal and helped A TON, while greenies (whatever the hell they are) were illegal and probably didn't help all that much (at least compared to roids).

[jersey cubs fan]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.

 

I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies. I'm struggling to see how that could be true. The evidence seems to suggest that, at a minimum, some PEDs were really effective at making really good players, really really great.

 

Also - that seems to be your issue. You seem to have an issue with people thinking one kind of PED is worse than another kind of PED. Others don't seem bothered by such a belief.

 

What don't you know? Abuck is wrongly accusing people of pretending they don't help. We agree they help. But so did stuff back then, and if they had the stuff they have now back then there is no question they would use it. It is completely naive to pretend the "anything to get ahead" mindset was more ethical back then than it is now. They just didn't have the access.

[Tracer Bullet]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.

 

I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies.

 

Who is saying that?

 

This is just on the last page and one I remembered.

 

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.

[abuck1220]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.

 

I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies. I'm struggling to see how that could be true. The evidence seems to suggest that, at a minimum, some PEDs were really effective at making really good players, really really great.

 

Also - that seems to be your issue. You seem to have an issue with people thinking one kind of PED is worse than another kind of PED. Others don't seem bothered by such a belief.

 

What don't you know? Abuck is wrongly accusing people of pretending they don't help. We agree they help. But so did stuff back then, and if they had the stuff they have now back then there is no question they would use it. It is completely naive to pretend the "anything to get ahead" mindset was more ethical back then than it is now. They just didn't have the access.

 

yeah, but they didn't have them, so they didn't take them. i'm not going to diminish hank aaron's numbers because i think he would have taken steroids if they were available. come on.

[jersey cubs fan]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.

 

my point is steroids are illegal and helped A TON, while greenies (whatever the hell they are) were illegal and probably didn't help all that much (at least compared to roids).

 

A) So what?

B) How did they probably not help? These guys were so stupid they thought working out was bad, so they were not elite physical specimens, but they had to play a very draining schedule with less comforts of today's players.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

yeah, but they didn't have them, so they didn't take them. i'm not going to diminish hank aaron's numbers because i think he would have taken steroids if they were available. come on.

 

I'm not going to question Barry Bonds's integrity because Hank Aaron's cheating wasn't as effective as his. I'm also not going to make an arbitrary line to say Aaron's 755 HRs while cheating are valid and Bonds 700 whatever while cheating are invalid.

[fromthestretch]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.

 

I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies.

 

Who is saying that?

 

This is just on the last page and one I remembered.

 

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.

 

Fair enough. But again, I'll restate that the degree to which they help isn't really known. You have a lot of players that took them that didn't become great or even good.

[jersey cubs fan]

yeah, but they didn't have them, so they didn't take them. i'm not going to diminish hank aaron's numbers because i think he would have taken steroids if they were available. come on.

 

I'm not asking you to. Feel free to get your panties in a bunch about today's players while romanticising the past, you're a movie guy so that sort of myth making is probably endearing to you.

[jersey cubs fan]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.

 

I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies.

 

Who is saying that?

 

This is just on the last page and one I remembered.

 

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.

 

Did you even read what you quoted there?

[abuck1220]

it's not a matter of integrity.

 

also, regardless of what you think hank aaron would have done, what he did do was not nearly as significant as what bonds did. that's just common sense. and it sounds like greenies were much more widespread than roids, making for a somewhat more level playing field.

[abuck1220]

yeah, but they didn't have them, so they didn't take them. i'm not going to diminish hank aaron's numbers because i think he would have taken steroids if they were available. come on.

 

I'm not asking you to. Feel free to get your panties in a bunch about today's players while romanticising the past, you're a movie guy so that sort of myth making is probably endearing to you.

 

ok, well this is just [expletive] nonsense.

[fasttrack21]

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.

Speaking of a giant load of crap. The vast majority were probably jerks and morons? Really? And what, exactly, do you base this on?

[Tracer Bullet]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.

 

I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies. I'm struggling to see how that could be true. The evidence seems to suggest that, at a minimum, some PEDs were really effective at making really good players, really really great.

 

Also - that seems to be your issue. You seem to have an issue with people thinking one kind of PED is worse than another kind of PED. Others don't seem bothered by such a belief.

 

What don't you know? Abuck is wrongly accusing people of pretending they don't help. We agree they help. But so did stuff back then, and if they had the stuff they have now back then there is no question they would use it. It is completely naive to pretend the "anything to get ahead" mindset was more ethical back then than it is now. They just didn't have the access.

 

You're saying PEDs aren't any more helpful than greenies and I think that's bats-it insane. abuck doesn't seem to be wrongly accusing anyone of anything. It's pretty clear he's saying PEDs helped Clemens and Bonds immensely. You seem to be suggesting that you disagree.

 

Other than that, your knowledge of what players would have done in the 50s and 60s if these advancements were available is pretty astonishing to me. In addition to the fact that it's speculative, there's also evidence that some roids were available, and not nearly as large a % of players took them at the time (for I assume many reasons, but I really don't know).

[fasttrack21]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.

 

my point is steroids are illegal and helped A TON, while greenies (whatever the hell they are) were illegal and probably didn't help all that much (at least compared to roids).

So you don't even know what greenies are, yet you're arguing their effectiveness? Am I reading that right?

[abuck1220]

yes

[jersey cubs fan]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.

 

I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies. I'm struggling to see how that could be true. The evidence seems to suggest that, at a minimum, some PEDs were really effective at making really good players, really really great.

 

Also - that seems to be your issue. You seem to have an issue with people thinking one kind of PED is worse than another kind of PED. Others don't seem bothered by such a belief.

 

What don't you know? Abuck is wrongly accusing people of pretending they don't help. We agree they help. But so did stuff back then, and if they had the stuff they have now back then there is no question they would use it. It is completely naive to pretend the "anything to get ahead" mindset was more ethical back then than it is now. They just didn't have the access.

 

You're saying PEDs aren't any more helpful than greenies and I think that's bats-it insane. abuck doesn't seem to be wrongly accusing anyone of anything. It's pretty clear he's saying PEDs helped Clemens and Bonds immensely. You seem to be suggesting that you disagree.

 

Other than that, your knowledge of what players would have done in the 50s and 60s if these advancements were available is pretty astonishing to me. In addition to the fact that it's speculative, there's also evidence that some roids were available, and not nearly as large a % of players took them at the time (for I assume many reasons, but I really don't know).

 

I am?

[Tracer Bullet]

Did you even read what you quoted there?

 

no, I randomly quoted some words. what does it say?

 

grassbass seems to agree with my interpretation of what you wrote, btw

[Tracer Bullet]

yeah, but they didn't have them, so they didn't take them. i'm not going to diminish hank aaron's numbers because i think he would have taken steroids if they were available. come on.

 

I'm not asking you to. Feel free to get your panties in a bunch about today's players while romanticising the past, you're a movie guy so that sort of myth making is probably endearing to you.

 

who's romanticizing?

[abuck1220]

yeah, i'm not romanticizing anything. if aaron took greenies, i guess he cheated. but a) his cheating helped him less than bonds' cheating and b) the stuff aaron did was apparently more widespread than what bonds did, thus making the playing field more level, and, in my mind, making his cheating less of a big deal.

 

i'm not trying to glorify aaron or those guys in any way.

[fasttrack21]

yeah, i'm not romanticizing anything. if aaron took greenies, i guess he cheated. but a) his cheating helped him less than bonds' cheatingand b) the stuff aaron did was apparently more widespread than what bonds did, thus making the playing field more level, and, in my mind, making his cheating less of a big deal.

 

i'm not trying to glorify aaron or those guys in any way.

Honestly, how can you make statements such as the bolded when you just admitted you don't even know what greenies are?

[abuck1220]

yeah, i'm not romanticizing anything. if aaron took greenies, i guess he cheated. but a) his cheating helped him less than bonds' cheatingand b) the stuff aaron did was apparently more widespread than what bonds did, thus making the playing field more level, and, in my mind, making his cheating less of a big deal.

 

i'm not trying to glorify aaron or those guys in any way.

Honestly, how can you make statements such as the bolded when you just admitted you don't even know what greenies are?

 

jeez, i know what they generally are...i don't have the [expletive] biochemical formula or whatever the hell you're looking for.

 

if you want to keep believing greenies = steroids, go nuts.

[fasttrack21]

yeah, i'm not romanticizing anything. if aaron took greenies, i guess he cheated. but a) his cheating helped him less than bonds' cheatingand b) the stuff aaron did was apparently more widespread than what bonds did, thus making the playing field more level, and, in my mind, making his cheating less of a big deal.

 

i'm not trying to glorify aaron or those guys in any way.

Honestly, how can you make statements such as the bolded when you just admitted you don't even know what greenies are?

 

jeez, i know what they generally are...i don't have the [expletive] biochemical formula or whatever the hell you're looking for.

 

if you want to keep believing greenies = steroids, go nuts.

Yikes, calm down.

 

I'm not looking for anything. I was just reading the thread and saw you say you didn't know what they are... and then go on to argue their effectiveness. Just an absurd flow of statements, that's all.

[fromthestretch]

Other than that, your knowledge of what players would have done in the 50s and 60s if these advancements were available is pretty astonishing to me. In addition to the fact that it's speculative, there's also evidence that some roids were available, and not nearly as large a % of players took them at the time (for I assume many reasons, but I really don't know).

 

I really don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that players back then would've taken the PEDs of today if they were as easily attainable AND if the information about the PEDs was available to them. It's not just about illegal substances that one puts into his body. It's about the lengths one will go to gain an advantage. Whether it's doctoring a ball, loading a bat, taking greenies, taking steroids, etc., players have proven throughout the history of the game that they are willing to cheat.

[Banedon]

yeah, i'm not romanticizing anything. if aaron took greenies, i guess he cheated. but a) his cheating helped him less than bonds' cheating and b) the stuff aaron did was apparently more widespread than what bonds did, thus making the playing field more level, and, in my mind, making his cheating less of a big deal.

 

i'm not trying to glorify aaron or those guys in any way.

 

Do we really have any idea how much more widespread greenies were/are than steroids/HGH? We have the steroid survey from 2003, I know, but to my knowledge we really only have subjective observation as far as the usage of greenies.

[CUBZ99]

Drinking a cup of coffee clearly labeled as spiked with greenies isn't the same as having a personal trainer shoot drugs into your ass. Yes, when you're trying to decide which is worse, going to great lengths to hide what you're doing suggests strongly that you think what you're doing is wrong. The guys knew they were drinking coffee that was designed to make them more focused and it was handed out by team trainers, in coffee pots, known by literally everyone involved in the game and accepted as part of baseball by those in the game. As bad as the steroids era was, the culture wasn't quite like that. And even to the extent there was general knowledge of some of the roids being taken, the real good stuff was kept under pretty wraps pretty well.

 

Add that culture to the extreme difference in the effectiveness of the drugs (at least imo) and I think one is much different than the other.

 

I'm not saying all steroids era players should be kept out of the HOF. It's become such a joke to me anymore that I really don't care.

 

 

 

The only reason those earlier eras were "more open" about their drug use in the clubhouse was because they were exremely confident it would stay in the clubhouse and they would suffer no repercussions. The concept of "one of their own" ratting them out to the public was not considered, and the media would never consider touching those stories. Drug testing became a huge issue in sports in the 80's, probably starting with Olympic competition but continuing into high school and college sports and then pro football. Tell-alls were very common and guys could no longer be confident that their bending of the rules would remain quiet from the public. They were forced to be more secretive, but a hell of a lot more people were aware of what was going on than want to admit it now.

 

If you twist something enough you can make anything acceptable. Your argument sounds like one of those childhood arguments that you get into, when your brother/sister did something and then you end up getting caught doing the same thing and get punished for it. You immediately point your finger at your sibling and cry about them having done the same thing. In the end, it still doesn't make what you did right, and generally the one who gets caught still gets punished.

 

Did other people cheat playing baseball? Sure they did, but it still doesn't sanitize the people that have apparently gotten caught cheating now.

 

People voting for the HOF don't have any strict criteria that they must follow to allow in new members. It will be interesting to see how the players and media handle the HOF ballots in the future. If you are a player that used illegal substances or doctored balls or whatever, and you don't vote for a player for doing the same thing you are a hypocrite.