19 Dec 07
The 1991 memo does not talk about fairness...."The possession, sale or use of any any illegal drug or contolled susbtance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled susbstance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game" Weight lifting is not a substances. HGH/ steriods are.
19 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by jofazThe idea that Clemens' career was "tailing off" is incorrect. I pointed out above that in his supposedly "bad" last year (1996) with the Red Sox, he still struck out more than a batter an inning and had an ERA 1.42 lower than the league average. The next year with Toronto (1997) he went 21-7. This was BEFORE he supposedly used steroids according to the Mitchell Report. Everyone who watched Clemen's career knows that the velocity of his fastball has been decreasing for years the opposite of what you'd expect if he was using steroids that were making him stronger.
What is crazy is to think Barry Bonds just became a power hitter naturally. Yeah, he just worked out so hard his head grew and he went from a speedy golden glove outfielder into a Babe Ruth player. It is also crazy to think Clemens whose career was tailing off suddenly became the 1986 Clemens again. Or Rafael Palmero who was not nearly the prospect Will Cl ...[text shortened]... atting practice. They are cheating -- the make a huge difference -- sports should do something.
Whether steroids made a big difference back in the 90's is irrelevant as MLB didn't care at the time. MLB has since adopted rules and drug testing regarding the matter and can now legitimately say that someone is "cheating" if they violate those rules. But the Mitchell Report's claim that people are "cheaters" for what they allegedly did in the 90's is BS.
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by jofazI was answering Phlab's point that it is somehow "unfair" for some players to gain greater muscle mass.
The 1991 memo does not talk about fairness...."The possession, sale or use of any any illegal drug or contolled susbtance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled susbstance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game" Weight lifting is not a substances. HGH/ steriods are.
I've pointed out several times that the memo made no mention that steroids might enhance performance unfairly in baseball and in fact was concerned about the deleterious effect on player performance that drug use supposedly had. Perhaps you've missed that point.
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by no1marauderPlaying into your 40's because you're healing and roiding is an advantage to say....
Weight lifting "allows" you to develop more muscle, too. So is it unfair for some guys to lift weights if everybody doesn't?
Being able to play into your 40's is a "great" advantage in what sense? Maybe MLB should just pass a rule barring people from playing after they reach 40 and solve that "problem".
Total Home Runs record?
Career wins?
Any number at all in baseball based on totals over a career??
Am I blowing your mind here?
P-
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by no1marauderAre steroids and HGH FDA approved for use by athletes? You're comparing apples and oranges.
Is that "unfair"? Should players not be allowed to have medical treatments that make it easier for present day players to continue their careers longer than players of previous eras?
P-
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by PhlabibitThe issue isn't whether these things are illegal; the issue is whether they are "unfair". The FDA is a bunch of idiots and the law banning these substances for uses which have positive benefits to adults who want to use them are unjust. BTW Last I checked, no player had ever been prosecuted for taking steroids or HGH.
Are steroids and HGH FDA approved for use by athletes? You're comparing apples and oranges.
P-
If you want to argue NOW that these substances are "unfair" and therefore MLB was right to ban them, fine. But you can't argue that MLB banned steroids in the 1990's because it found them to be "performance enhancing"; there's zero evidence for that assertion.
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI stand behind the banning of HGH and Steroids. You've actually taught me something on this subject... many scientists know very little about them, and there are different views on them.
The issue isn't whether these things are illegal; the issue is whether they are "unfair". The FDA is a bunch of idiots and the law banning these substances for uses which have positive benefits to adults who want to use them are unjust. BTW Last I checked, no player had ever been prosecuted for taking steroids or HGH.
If you want to argue NO ...[text shortened]... it found them to be "performance enhancing"; there's zero evidence for that assertion.
The point that's been important to me is that they are not legal to use, and the rule in 91 clearly states not to use illegal substances.
There is a reason that these players are getting these drugs online and from dentists and other strange places. There is a reason they hide it, there is a reason they don't talk about it.
They know it's wrong. You should to.
P-
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by PhlabibitThey got them from guys like McNamee, Radomski, etc. etc. because doctors don't want to go to prison.
I stand behind the banning of HGH and Steroids. You've actually taught me something on this subject... many scientists know very little about them, and there are different views on them.
The point that's been important to me is that they are not legal to use, and the rule in 91 clearly states not to use illegal substances.
There is a reason that th ...[text shortened]... , there is a reason they don't talk about it.
They know it's wrong. You should to.
P-
Did the players who used them in the 90's "know" it was wrong? I don't know; they knew that it was illegal to possess or distribute them. They also knew that other sports had banned them has "unfair" performance enhancers and taken aggressive steps to erradicate them (like the NFL did). They also knew that MLB hadn't.
Does a player who smokes pot or does a line think it's wrong? I doubt it; but he doesn't go advertising that he did it for obvious reasons.
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by PhlabibitCome on Phlab....Roger would have played into his 40's regardless. I know Roger and I know his regimen, we played together afterall. I also know Nolan Ryan and his work ethic and he played well into his 40's. Gaylord Perry threw the spitter and played well into his 40's and got into the HOF even though everyone knew he cheated and he even told them he did. So what the hell is the big deal here?
Playing into your 40's because you're healing and roiding is an advantage to say....
Total Home Runs record?
Career wins?
Any number at all in baseball based on totals over a career??
Am I blowing your mind here?
P-
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by shortcircuitironman31 would have won a lot of chess games if he wasn't using an engine. He decided to use an engine to win more.
Come on Phlab....Roger would have played into his 40's regardless. I know Roger and I know his regimen, we played together afterall. I also know Nolan Ryan and his work ethic and he played well into his 40's. Gaylord Perry threw the spitter and played well into his 40's and got into the HOF even though everyone knew he cheated and he even told them he did. So what the hell is the big deal here?
The big deal is 'wrong is wrong'. Don't cheat.
BTW... Roger says he didn't do the drugs. Ask him why he's taking so damn long to come out and say that and answer questions about it. He's trying to formulate his lies, cover his but, and see what he can get away with saying. That's bull.
P-
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by no1marauderA player would get in trouble if they were found to have been doing anything illegal. I believe MLB is right saying Steroids and HGH are performance enhancing.
They got them from guys like McNamee, Radomski, etc. etc. because doctors don't want to go to prison.
Did the players who used them in the 90's "know" it was wrong? I don't know; they knew that it was illegal to possess or distribute them. They also knew that other sports had banned them has "unfair" performance enhancers and taken aggressi ...[text shortened]... s wrong? I doubt it; but he doesn't go advertising that he did it for obvious reasons.
If it wasn't, why bother doing it?!
P-
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by PhlabibitBTW, no matter what Roger says and when he says it, you and people like you will say he's a cheat. So he's owes you jack. He specifically denied ever using steroids or HGH; that seems about as unequivocally as you can get.
ironman31 would have won a lot of chess games if he wasn't using an engine. He decided to use an engine to win more.
The big deal is 'wrong is wrong'. Don't cheat.
BTW... Roger says he didn't do the drugs. Ask him why he's taking so damn long to come out and say that and answer questions about it. He's trying to formulate his lies, cover his but, and see what he can get away with saying. That's bull.
P-
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by PhlabibitAnd when did MLB say that steroids and HGH were unfairly performance enhancing? Certainly not in the 1990's.
A player would get in trouble if they were found to have been doing anything illegal. I believe MLB is right saying Steroids and HGH are performance enhancing.
If it wasn't, why bother doing it?!
P-
You keep ignoring my point; it's not that steroids and HGH aren't helpful in certain areas which can aid you in certain physical aspects which can be useful in baseball; of course they can. The point is that, in and of itself, does not mean using them makes you a cheater. In addition, the sport must say that it is unfair to use them for such a purpose. A blanket "don't use illegal drugs" doesn't cut it particulary where the MLB states that illegal drugs can be deleterious to a player's performance.