My point is that the "it wasnt tested for" argument is a PERFECT example of head in the sand thinking. Its illogical. Illogical as in "villify every major league player that illegally possessed or used marijuana..." since no one in their right mind think that ENCHANCES the player's performance.

 

Baseball's lack of awareness or their desire to turn their head while players were smacking HRs at incredible rates doesn't give the player free reign and give you and me the crutch that appears to be holding a lot of people up.

 

Where do you see hyprocrisy? Who is not being bashed that precludes Barry from be bashed?

 

Your point was he should be villified, asterisked, whatever, because while he wasn't breaking a baseball rule he was using (allegedly) an illegal anabolic steroid, right? My point is that should be a criminal issue and not a baseball one since they (owners, commissioner, etc.) CHOSE not to get serious about it and start testing until Jose got his keyboard groove on. Since you (plural) have no idea who was doing what (since it wasn't banned and they weren't subjected to drug tests) how can you in good conscience single out Bonds for his use? You may know all there is to know about steroids and there effects, but there seems to be many in the know that think the steriod problem was even larger for pitchers. Do we know exactly what the effect on their performance was?

 

So baseball refusing to get serious about steroids, their effects on the game, and how to prevent their usage doesn't give players free reign? Really? I think that is exactly what it does and why (if you believe ex-players like the late Ken Caminiti and Canseco) 50% or more of MLB players were using something they shouldn't have been.

 

You don't see hypocrisy surrounding this issue? Really? The fact that Major League baseball comes late to the party (like only catching the last dance late) yet then wants to villify a player that took advantage (allegedly) of that leniency? Or that Bud Selig continues to perpetuate the allegations about Barry (his "...we'll see..." at the end of his congratulatory press release) while he himself was the one that had to be drug (pun intended) to the table to get this done by threats from Congress? None of that smells like hypocrisy to you? Faye Vincent seemed to have an idea what was going on / coming in 1991 yet the Commissioner's Office and MLB needed nearly another decade to decide it was important enough to ban and test for? Could that be because the NFL was over-taking baseball in the 90's and Baseball didn't want to risk turning more fans off or losing the offensive surge bringing fans back to the sport? Yet now, when the most hallowed record in sports is broken buy a guy that beefed up during the decade of head turning they pretend that HE is the bad guy? Cshs, if you don't see the blatant (and nauseating) hypocrisy there than either you're not as smart as I thought you were (which isn't the case) or I'm not as effective a communicator in print as I thought I was (more likely).

 

Your point was he should be villified, asterisked, whatever, because while he wasn't breaking a baseball rule he was using (allegedly) an illegal anabolic steroid, right? My point is that should be a criminal issue and not a baseball one since they (owners, commissioner, etc.) CHOSE not to get serious about it and start testing until Jose got his keyboard groove on. Since you (plural) have no idea who was doing what (since it wasn't banned and they weren't subjected to drug tests) how can you in good conscience single out Bonds for his use? You may know all there is to know about steroids and there effects, but there seems to be many in the know that think the steriod problem was even larger for pitchers. Do we know exactly what the effect on their performance was?

 

So baseball refusing to get serious about steroids, their effects on the game, and how to prevent their usage doesn't give players free reign? Really? I think that is exactly what it does and why (if you believe ex-players like the late Ken Caminiti and Canseco) 50% or more of MLB players were using something they shouldn't have been.

 

You don't see hypocrisy surrounding this issue? Really? The fact that Major League baseball comes late to the party (like only catching the last dance late) yet then wants to villify a player that took advantage (allegedly) of that leniency? Or that Bud Selig continues to perpetuate the allegations about Barry (his "...we'll see..." at the end of his congratulatory press release) while he himself was the one that had to be drug (pun intended) to the table to get this done by threats from Congress? None of that smells like hypocrisy to you? Faye Vincent seemed to have an idea what was going on / coming in 1991 yet the Commissioner's Office and MLB needed nearly another decade to decide it was important enough to ban and test for? Could that be because the NFL was over-taking baseball in the 90's and Baseball didn't want to risk turning more fans off or losing the offensive surge bringing fans back to the sport? Yet now, when the most hallowed record in sports is broken buy a guy that beefed up during the decade of head turning they pretend that HE is the bad guy? Cshs, if you don't see the blatant (and nauseating) hypocrisy there than either you're not as smart as I thought you were (which isn't the case) or I'm not as effective a communicator in print as I thought I was (more likely).

 

 

1. Baseball's head-in-the-sand stance does NOT give free reign. Players still have to make the decision to cheat and use illegal substances.

 

2. The hypocrisy is between MLB and the players like Bonds . I'm not hypocritical. I'm consistent. I don't care if they tested for it or not, using illegal anabolic steroids (yes I realize that's redundant) is cheating and gave Bonds an advantage physically.

 

3. Pitchers: We don't know so lets assume for sake of argument that all of them used roids. So what? Two wrongs...

 

4.Neither options are true on your last point. Your argument, unlike mine, is with the COMMISH. No argument there. That's irrelevant IMO to how the fans perceive cheaters - especially when a record is being broken.

Did anyone see the Bonds interview, with Krukow and Kuiper, on the Best Sports Show last night. He spoke highly of his father and all the help, in reading pitchers and helping develop his swing.

 

Very good interview and if Bonds would have done more of these interviews, appeared more personable last night, I really think the public opinion of himself, would be much different.

 

It lasted about :45 minutes, with commercials and very informative.

1. Baseball's head-in-the-sand stance does NOT give free reign. Players still have to make the decision to cheat and use illegal substances.

 

Cheat, defined as: to violate rules or regulations. What were they that he violated?

Cheat, defined as: to violate rules or regulations. What were they that he violated?

 

Who knew that Mr. Magowan was a poster on BGP. Interesting.

Who knew that Mr. Magowan was a poster on BGP. Interesting.

 

:laugh:

 

 

Note: when I, about 10 or 15 posts ago, referred to the hypocrisy of the situation I wan't referring to one of my best friends, Cshs, nor any other BGP poster. I was referring to, as I spelled out later, the stance taken by Mr. Selig and MLB. I should have been more clear, and now in re-reading my post, subsequent ones by my peers, and Cshs' rebuttal, I realize my original meaning may have been taken the wrong way.

:laugh:

 

 

Note: when I, about 10 or 15 posts ago, referred to the hypocrisy of the situation I wan't referring to one of my best friends, Cshs, nor any other BGP poster. I was referring to, as I spelled out later, the stance taken by Mr. Selig and MLB. I should have been more clear, and now in re-reading my post, subsequent ones by my peers, and Cshs' rebuttal, I realize my original meaning may have been taken the wrong way.

 

Awwwww. :cry:

:laugh:

 

 

Note: when I, about 10 or 15 posts ago, referred to the hypocrisy of the situation I wan't referring to one of my best friends, Cshs, nor any other BGP poster. I was referring to, as I spelled out later, the stance taken by Mr. Selig and MLB. I should have been more clear, and now in re-reading my post, subsequent ones by my peers, and Cshs' rebuttal, I realize my original meaning may have been taken the wrong way.

 

Remember me mentioning that portion of my brain way in the back where I store items for when I think I've been attacked? Notice I didn't pull any of those out. Thus, I took no offense - simply looking for clarification.

 

And, yes, we can still spoon.

Remember me mentioning that portion of my brain way in the back where I store items for when I think I've been attacked? Notice I didn't pull any of those out. Thus, I took no offense - simply looking for clarification.

 

And, yes, we can still spoon.

 

Nice...

Awwwww. :cry:

 

It's on Bro... :sssh:

Remember me mentioning that portion of my brain way in the back where I store items for when I think I've been attacked? Notice I didn't pull any of those out. Thus, I took no offense - simply looking for clarification.

 

And, yes, we can still spoon.

I just threw up an little. :creepy:

I just threw up an little. :creepy:

 

You?

 

How do you think I feel?

I'm sorry I just can't get around to celebrating this.

I'm sorry I just can't get around to celebrating this.

 

Too busy? I mean school hasn't even started yet!