17 Sep 07
Inferences based on a failure to act are always dubious. Baseball had many motives for failure to impose steriod rules (ignorance, denial, the hope to profit from it maybe the three most likely). None of those reasons deny that it gives a competitive advantage. Furthermore, it looks more than ever that steriods/ HGH do assist a players performace. Thus, I feel comfortable calling those players cheaters.
17 Sep 07
3 edits
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksIf MLB refuses to pass a rule barring behavior on the grounds that such behavior grants an unfair competitive advantage, then it ain't cheating. Your "comfort level" doesn't effect the fact that you are wrong.
Inferences based on a failure to act are always dubious. Baseball had many motives for failure to impose steriod rules (ignorance, denial, the hope to profit from it maybe the three most likely). None of those reasons deny that it gives a competitive advantage. Furthermore, it looks more than ever that steriods/ HGH do assist a players performace. Thus, I feel comfortable calling those players cheaters.
For example, RHP currently allows the use of opening databases while some other chess sites don't. The use of opening databases certainly grants a competitive advantage over those who choose not to use them; however it ain't cheating because RHP doesn't have a rule against them. If RHP passed a rule tomorrow banning opening databases, then someone who subsequently used them might be a cheater (on RHP, not on sites that still allowed them) but such a categorization cannot be retroactively applied to when the use of the opening databases wasn't banned.
Got it?
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauderBut we DO have RHP users that willingly admit they use database... but again... when is the last time you heard any baseball player say they do use steroids?
If MLB refuses to pass a rule barring behavior on the grounds that such behavior grants an unfair competitive advantage, then it ain't cheating. Your "comfort level" doesn't effect the fact that you are wrong.
For example, RHP currently allows the use of opening databases while some other chess sites don't. The use of opening databases certainl ...[text shortened]... tively applied to when the use of the opening databases wasn't banned.
Got it?
Why won't they just say it if it was OK to do so?
I said HMMMMMMMM?!
P-
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by PhlabibitWhy should they? Esp. when people like you want to punish them for acts done before the 2002 rules went into effect.
But we DO have RHP users that willingly admit they use database... but again... when is the last time you heard any baseball player say they do use steroids?
Why won't they just say it if it was OK to do so?
I said HMMMMMMMM?!
P-
Whether most people think something is "OK" or not is different from whether it is "cheating" or not.
18 Sep 07
Steriods/HGH are ilegal. Data bases are not. It is cheating when you break the law to get a competitive advantage. Just like it would be cheating to stab your opponent in chess and then win when he first bleeds to death and then he times out -- even though there is not a specifically rules against stabbing your opponent.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksThis guy cheats!
Steriods/HGH are ilegal. Data bases are not. It is cheating when you break the law to get a competitive advantage. Just like it would be cheating to stab your opponent in chess and then win when he first bleeds to death and then he times out -- even though there is not a specifically rules against stabbing your opponent.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2585781
P-
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy have they not said they were using the drugs back before the rule was changed? What was so wrong with it that soooooooooooo many used these drugs but not a SINGLE person said they did before the rule change?
Why should they? Esp. when people like you want to punish them for acts done before the 2002 rules went into effect.
Whether most people think something is "OK" or not is different from whether it is "cheating" or not.
The answer is because it's wrong, and it's cheating regardless of any official rule put in ink.
Reporters even went out of their way to NOT say anything about it, or ask about it. They just let it go because it was turning the ladies on with the long ball and put MLB back on the map in the US.
Lots of people knew what was going on, but none said a word because they all knew what they were doing was wrong.
P-
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksActually it wasn't illegal to use steroids last I knew. Besides you keep ignoring the fact that MLB didn't ban them in the 1990's because they obviously didn't feel that steroids granted a competitive advantage in baseball. So you can keep saying the same thing over and over again and holding your breath until you turn blue; but the fact remains that steroid use in the 90's wasn't "cheating".
Steriods/HGH are ilegal. Data bases are not. It is cheating when you break the law to get a competitive advantage. Just like it would be cheating to stab your opponent in chess and then win when he first bleeds to death and then he times out -- even though there is not a specifically rules against stabbing your opponent.
As for your "stabbing to death" example, I think that would qualify as distracting your opponent and is covered by USCF rules.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by PhlabibitIf there's no rule against something, it can't possibly be cheating no matter how "wrong" you or a bunch of other hypocrites think the act is.
Why have they not said they were using the drugs back before the rule was changed? What was so wrong with it that soooooooooooo many used these drugs but not a SINGLE person said they did before the rule change?
The answer is because it's wrong, and it's cheating regardless of any official rule put in ink.
Reporters even went out of their way to NOT ...[text shortened]... was going on, but none said a word because they all knew what they were doing was wrong.
P-
18 Sep 07
MLB simply did not pass a rule. We can all speculate why. They did not state it does steriods/ HGH does not give a competive advantage. MLB did not say it was not cheating. It actually does give a competitive adavantage. It is cheating. You can continue to write whatever you want. I still won't agree.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksSo they didn't pass a rule against it (while others sports did) but they didn't SAY it wasn't cheating, so it is? That's your logic? 🙄
MLB simply did not pass a rule. We can all speculate why. They did not state it does steriods/ HGH does not give a competive advantage. MLB did not say it was not cheating. It actually does give a competitive adavantage. It is cheating. You can continue to write whatever you want. I still won't agree.
18 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksKeep saying it over and over and over again and you might convince yourself. But MLB didn't ban them for competitive advantage reasons when other sports did. You can ignore this if you insist, but this fact guts the argument that the use of steroids in the 90's was "cheating" i.e. a deliberate violation of the rules of a sport to obtain a competitive advantage. Baseball obviously didn't feel at the time that the use of steroids was anything to be concerned about (at least as far as competitive advantage was concerned).
The drug are illegal (against the law of the land). They give a competitive advantage. It is cheating. It is not necessary for MLB to say that all laws are baseball rules and violating laws is cheating.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYou confuse "didn't think" with "turned blind eye". The steroid monsters were getting fans in the seats, and that's what MLB wanted at the time.
Keep saying it over and over and over again and you might convince yourself. But MLB didn't ban them for competitive advantage reasons when other sports did. You can ignore this if you insist, but this fact guts the argument that the use of steroids in the 90's was "cheating" i.e. a deliberate violation of the rules of a sport to obtain a competitive adv ...[text shortened]... as anything to be concerned about (at least as far as competitive advantage was concerned).
P-
18 Sep 07
Inaction is merely inaction. Baseball's failure to quickly enact a steriods policy does not necessarily mean that they were ok with people using steriods. There were (1) practical problems with the union, (2) possible negative publicity problems when you admit you need one (3) in denial.