I question those of you who say steroids have turned off fans. Where have you seen this? It hasn't turned off Yankee fans. It hasn't turned off Dodger fans. It hasn't turned off Sox fans. Who has it turned off?

 

Secondly, to raise the issue about todays' issue and completely ignore the fact that baseball, for decades, has has some form of stimulants helping ball players. Yes, there are the Cansecos who blow up but many of today's players are using "stuff" to recover faster. That's the same thing that happened in the 60s and 70s with amphetamines. Surely, you've heard the stories about "greenies" sitting in candy bowls in the clubhouse.

 

Why are we now upset but we don't criticize the older players?

I question those of you who say steroids have turned off fans. Where have you seen this? It hasn't turned off Yankee fans. It hasn't turned off Dodger fans. It hasn't turned off Sox fans. Who has it turned off?

 

Secondly, to raise the issue about todays' issue and completely ignore the fact that baseball, for decades, has has some form of stimulants helping ball players. Yes, there are the Cansecos who blow up but many of today's players are using "stuff" to recover faster. That's the same thing that happened in the 60s and 70s with amphetamines. Surely, you've heard the stories about "greenies" sitting in candy bowls in the clubhouse.

 

Why are we now upset but we don't criticize the older players?

 

Because it's all conjecture and stories that lack specificity. You have no idea who used back then, how much, how often, for how long, what effect it had, etc. We have a bit more detailed information as to who was involved in the steroid saga and the effect it had on some of these players.

 

Come on, implying steroids is not a serious issue because fans are still interested in America's pastime is weak. And you also happened to pick the best performing teams in large population markets that will always have strong tickets sales. And really, if the degree to which one of these "sins" turns off fans is the final criteria to use to determine which is worse, it's a pointless argument given no one could accurately assess what would happen if there were some gambling crisis. In the end, I suspect fans for those teams that are still competitive would still show up.

Those who say that the use of PED's is the biggest sin use the records that were broken and stats as your biggest argument. And stats wouldn't be effected if players were gambling on baseball?

Come on, implying steroids is not a serious issue because fans are still interested in America's pastime is weak. .

 

 

Who has stated that steroids is not a serious issue?

Who has stated that steroids is not a serious issue?

 

My ol' buddy Clyde has implied it on numerous occasions.

 

It is probably because he's a muscle-bound, Schwatzennager-look-a-like, 'roid head himself. :clap:

Those who say that the use of PED's is the biggest sin use the records that were broken and stats as your biggest argument. And stats wouldn't be effected if players were gambling on baseball?

 

Absolutely they would. Now that - and not an issue such as which would turn off more fans - is a legitimate criteria to use in determining which is worse. You obviously feel gambling would have a greater effect. I think PED's would. It's a judgment call that I'll never be able to convince you on or vice-versa because we don't have a gambling "era" to look back on and see the real effects such as we do PED's.

Absolutely they would. Now that - and not an issue such as which would turn off more fans - is a legitimate criteria to use in determining which is worse. You obviously feel gambling would have a greater effect. I think PED's would. It's a judgment call that I'll never be able to convince you on or vice-versa because we don't have a gambling "era" to look back on and see the real effects such as we do PED's.

 

 

 

And this post just comfirms my point that you guys are trying to argue which one has had a bigger effect on baseball, and not which is a bigger baseball sin. When the players were using steroids they were at least trying to win, but if you had players gambling on baseball, and trying to throw the game. Well I just don't see how you can't see that as a bigger problem for the game.

And this post just comfirms my point that you guys are trying to argue which one has had a bigger effect on baseball, and not which is a bigger baseball sin. When the players were using steroids they were at least trying to win, but if you had players gambling on baseball, and trying to throw the game. Well I just don't see how you can't see that as a bigger problem for the game.

 

What? The integrity of the game still can't be seriously compromised if players are cheating by taking taking illegal drugs, regardless of whether they are doing so to try to better themselves? Come on.

 

And, of course, the exact same argument can be made for those players/managers gambling on their team to win. They would obviously be doing everything they possibly could to win the game for their team, as it would directly benefit them. So I guess you could say if baseball allowed players to gamble to WIN, it would clearly be a non-issue and potentially even a benefit to the game, huh?

What? The integrity of the game still can't be seriously compromised if players are cheating by taking taking illegal drugs, regardless of whether they are doing so to try to better themselves? Come on.

 

And, of course, the exact same argument can be made for those players/managers gambling on their team to win. They would obviously be doing everything they possibly could to win the game for their team, as it would directly benefit them. So I guess you could say if baseball allowed players to gamble to WIN, it would clearly be a non-issue and potentially even a benefit to the game, huh?

 

 

Why do you continue to try and put words into people's mouths. I have NEVER, No NOT EVER, said that players cheating by taking illegal drugs didn't hurt the integrity of the game, or was a non issue. It is/was a very big issue, but to say it's a worse sin than gambling on baseball is just unbelievable IMO.

Since it seems that Clyde, myself and 17 others will never be able to convince Cooperstown, and the other 19 of you that are so, so wrong, then I guess this will be my last post in this thread. :lol:

Since it seems that Clyde, myself and 17 others will never be able to convince Cooperstown, and the other 19 of you that are so, so wrong, then I guess this will be my last post in this thread. :lol:

 

Don't say "never." You just need to come up with a solid argument. :lol:

Because it's all conjecture and stories that lack specificity. You have no idea who used back then, how much, how often, for how long, what effect it had, etc. We have a bit more detailed information as to who was involved in the steroid saga and the effect it had on some of these players.

 

Come on, implying steroids is not a serious issue because fans are still interested in America's pastime is weak. And you also happened to pick the best performing teams in large population markets that will always have strong tickets sales. And really, if the degree to which one of these "sins" turns off fans is the final criteria to use to determine which is worse, it's a pointless argument given no one could accurately assess what would happen if there were some gambling crisis. In the end, I suspect fans for those teams that are still competitive would still show up.

 

We disagree. I think fans don't care. They want to be entertained and want their players going all out. Roids? Who cares as long as I'm entertained.

 

I think fans personalize it. In general, they're against it. However, when you say "what if its Manny?" or "what if its Big Papi?" then they start to rationalize which is what we've seen in almost every case so far.

 

Show me the outrage and I'll buy your argument.

Who has stated that steroids is not a serious issue?

 

My ol' buddy Clyde has implied it on numerous occasions.

 

It is probably because he's a muscle-bound, Schwatzennager-look-a-like, 'roid head himself. :clap:

 

You're like Hannity trying to misconstrue a fact.:lol:

 

My point is that is the lesser of the two evils. It can be a serious issue yet have fans that don't react to it with much passion.

 

Mountaintop mining is a serious issue yet it doesn't get much notice or get the pulse up of many.

 

Back to you, Sean.