18 Apr 06
Originally posted by socialist1917Then you have no excuse. Bonds has played in only 9 games and in those he'd been walked 11 times. It doesn't look like he's getting any pitches to hit at all. Besides, going 9 games without a home run is hardly an unusual occurrence for a big hitter. Or perhaps at 42 years old and with a bad knee he's finished.
Woody Paige said something extremely similar to my previous statement on ESPN two days ago on Cold Pizza. To your last point, I have been following professional baseball since I was little.
18 Apr 06
This Barry bashing is utterly disgusting.....truly.
They should just come out and say what they really feel. "We don't want another ni***r to pass up OUR guy!"
Until Barry FAILS a test, leave the guy alone(my opinion). Why aren't they harping on everyone else that supposedly took 'roids too? Why just Barry?
MLB takes an "L" for this one.
YIAM
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by YIAMSOMEBODYWhat rock have you been hiding under? Didn't the last few posts mention Mark McGuire as being included in the "Hall of Shame"? "They", are harping on everybody who took 'roids'. Palmiero is HX, Lyle Alzado is in his grave, most high-school players are even doing 'roids'...read the News Week article....I don't remember the date....
This Barry bashing is utterly disgusting.....truly.
They should just come out and say what they really feel. "We don't want another ni***r to pass up OUR guy!"
Until Barry FAILS a test, leave the guy alone(my opinion). Why aren't they harping on everyone else that supposedly took 'roids too? Why just Barry?
MLB takes an "L" for this one.
YIAM
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by YIAMSOMEBODYThat argument would hold up better if Hank Aaron hadn't already passed up Babe Ruth 32 years ago.
This Barry bashing is utterly disgusting.....truly.
They should just come out and say what they really feel. "We don't want another ni***r to pass up OUR guy!"
Until Barry FAILS a test, leave the guy alone(my opinion). Why aren't they harping on everyone else that supposedly took 'roids too? Why just Barry?
MLB takes an "L" for this one.
YIAM
But I agree with you that it's ridiculous that Barry is practically the only one who gets singled out for abuse when a whole decade of players were tainted.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by rwingettYou know what I mean. I'm well aware that Mr. Aaron has already passed Ruth, but ANOTHER black man? And a hated one at that? They just can't stand it.....and it's showing.
That argument would hold up better if Hank Aaron hadn't already passed up Babe Ruth 32 years ago.
But I agree with you that it's ridiculous that Barry is practically the only one who gets singled out for abuse when a whole decade of players were tainted.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by chancremechanicCalm yourself.....😕
What rock have you been hiding under? Didn't the last few posts mention Mark McGuire as being included in the "Hall of Shame"? "They", are harping on everybody who took 'roids'. Palmiero is HX, Lyle Alzado is in his grave, most high-school players are even doing 'roids'...read the News Week article....I don't remember the date....
Sure, they mentioned Mark and a couple of others, but let's be real here.....the MAIN focus is on Barry. Everything you hear about is Barry. "Barry this, Barry that".....it's a cluster fu** if I've ever seen one.
If they're going to play it like that, at least make the sh** fair. This here.....*shaking head*...far from it.
YIAM
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by YIAMSOMEBODYWell, if Barry wasn't such a mother-effer, fan-hating, "whitey's-out-to-get-me" prick, jealous of McGuire's hitting however many homers he hit in '99, and constantly whining, the press might not not be on his roid-manufactured, GIANTS-sized (no pun intended) bubblehead. Bonds is a fake. He couldn't lick Ty Cobb's jock strap without eating it!
Calm yourself.....😕
Sure, they mentioned Mark and a couple of others, but let's be real here.....the MAIN focus is on Barry. Everything you hear about is Barry. "Barry this, Barry that".....it's a cluster fu** if I've ever seen one.
If they're going to play it like that, at least make the sh** fair. This here.....*shaking head*...far from it.
YIAM
19 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by YIAMSOMEBODYIt's possible that the reason for that is .. er .. the title of the thread is ... er ... Barry Bonds.
Calm yourself.....😕
Sure, they mentioned Mark and a couple of others, but let's be real here.....the MAIN focus is on Barry. Everything you hear about is Barry. "Barry this, Barry that".....it's a cluster fu** if I've ever seen one.
If they're going to play it like that, at least make the sh** fair. This here.....*shaking head*...far from it.
YIAM
Put your race card away .. it's used way too much and, like now, for all the wrong reasons.
Casper the Ghost is more black than Barry Bonds.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by darvlayI'm not sure I'd want to rake over old ground. But surely you start from a position of what is valuable in sport. Take out the money slopping around like a sea of sewage. And what's valuable is the ideal of fair competition.
I've had the argument with him before. Now it's your turn.
The question should be approached as what do we ban, but rather what can we allow that's compatible with that.
We start from a position that we want to allow people to become the best they can, "naturally". This is complicated by modern medicine, training techniques, etc. But it remains the ideal.
Firstly, there is no question that steroids are performance-enhancing, even in sports that involve more than just basic speed and strength. The fact strength is not a sufficient condition for being a great hitter in baseball doesn't mean it isn't useful; if two men had equal hand-eye coordination, tactical awareness, etc., but one was far stronger, he'd clearly be the better bet.
Second, taking steroids requires no work whatsoever. Okay, neither does having corrective eye surgery. But then neither does having "normal" eyesight. Having a "bionic eye" implant (whatever that means) would be cheating. Having your eyesight corrected to "normal" (very roughly: the average eyesight of the world's adult population) probably isn't.
There's no clear dividing line. There are grey areas, and there are likely to be more in the future. But that doesn't mean that some things aren't obviously "cheating". And it doesn't make the line worthless.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by dottewellIt's "fair" competition if everybody is allowed to do it. Databases are "fair" on RHP even though they help people avoid opening mistakes they would otherwise make. Your entire post relies on some vague concept of "fairness" that you don't seem to be able to describe in a realistic way.
I'm not sure I'd want to rake over old ground. But surely you start from a position of what is valuable in sport. Take out the money slopping around like a sea of sewage. And what's valuable is the ideal of fair competition.
The question should be approached as what do we ban, but rather what can we allow that's compatible with that.
We start from ...[text shortened]... ings aren't obviously "cheating". And it doesn't make the line worthless.
You obviously didn't bother to read the cited article on laser eye surgery. here's what Atlanta Brave pitcher Greg Maddux said in it: "This is the best thing I ever bought myself," said Maddux, who now has 20-15 eyesight and says he can focus on home plate better than ever.
"Corrective"???
Your line is arbitrary. A high calorie diet will increase body mass, too; is that "unfair"? So can weightlifting; should that be banned?? You offer no real dividing line just your "feelings". Why your "feelings" should be binding on other adult, human beings is something I'd like you to clearly explain.
19 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIs 20-15 eyesight the average for an uncorrected male adult? If so, fine. Having average eyesight requires no effort for the average person.
It's "fair" competition if everybody is allowed to do it. Databases are "fair" on RHP even though they help people avoid opening mistakes they would otherwise make. Your entire post relies on some vague concept of "fairness" that you don't seem to be able to describe in a realistic way.
You obviously didn't bother to read the cited article on on other adult, human beings is something I'd like you to clearly explain.
Lifting weights, on the other hand, requires effort. And a high-calorie diet alone will not improve athletic performance.
It's not an arbitrary line, although it is a necessarily vague one.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by dottewellIncidentally, since you mention RHP, why are engines banned here? Because they do your thinking for you?
Is 20-15 eyesight the average for an uncorrected male adult? If so, fine. Having average eyesight requires no effort for the average person.
Lifting weights, on the other hand, requires effort. And a high-calorie diet alone will not improve athletic performance.
It's not an arbitrary line, although it is a necessarily vague one.
So what? They are available to everyone.
Does it, perhaps, devalue the notion of fair competition?
19 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellMuddleheaded "thinking"; your speciality. Engines can play the entire game for you; they're not merely an "advantage" - they replace the human entirely. It's like playing Robby the Robot for Barry Bonds. I usually drink a few cups of coffee to make me more alert and eat a roll of antacids to settle my stomach in an OTB tournament; to you that would be "unfair" as it requires no effort I suppose.
Incidentally, since you mention RHP, why are engines banned here? Because they do your thinking for you?
So what? They are available to everyone.
Does it, perhaps, devalue the notion of fair competition?
Your lines aren't merely arbitrary; they're just plain stupid. Professional athletes don't have AVERAGE physical talents; the most untalented one is probably physically superior to 99.9% of the general public. So a line of "average" is utterly worthless and plain silly.
EDIT: A high calorie diet won't necessarily improve athletic performance and neither will the use of steroids. Get some criteria straight please.
19 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderEngines can play the entire game for you; they're not merely an "advantage" - they replace the human entirely. It's like playing Robby the Robot for Barry Bonds.
I usually drink a few cups of coffee to make me more alert and eat a roll of antacids to settle my stomach in an OTB tournament; to you that would be "unfair" as it requires no effort I suppose.
Your lines aren't merely arbitrary; they're just plain stupid.
EDIT: A high calorie diet won't necessarily improve athletic performance and neither will the use of steroids. Get some criteria straight please.
The question was why is this wrong. But if you prefer - why is it wrong to use an engine for one move, at a critical moment? I have stated my rough criteria for cheating, and they are necessarily rough. You're no tolerator of cheats. What are yours?
Professional athletes don't have AVERAGE physical talents; the most untalented one is probably physically superior to 99.9% of the general public. So a line of "average" is utterly worthless and plain silly.
But they don't have better eyesight than 99.9 per cent of the public. And that is precisely why corrective eye surgery is probably not cheating.
A high calorie diet won't necessarily improve athletic performance and neither will the use of steroids.
Steroids WILL improve strength, with no further effort required. A high-calorie diet will not. Hard work will still be required.
19 Apr 06
Originally posted by dottewellIn case you can't figure it out, engines aren't banned at RHP and virtually all CC sites because they're not "fair". They're banned because people don't want to play them, at least without knowing they're playing an engine. It's simply a consumer choice issue. I don't want to play engines because I tune up at RHP to play OTB and engines don't play like humans so it would be counterproductive. Allowing engine use would be perfectly "fair".
Incidentally, since you mention RHP, why are engines banned here? Because they do your thinking for you?
So what? They are available to everyone.
Does it, perhaps, devalue the notion of fair competition?