PDA

View Full Version : Should athletes records be stripped for Steriods etc?



NYYFAN
12-03-04, 12:48 PM
Should records be stripped from athletes if it's proven they used banned substances?

Stole this poll from CNN....

ChewieTobbacca
12-03-04, 01:36 PM
I thought I was goign to vote yes but then I thought and came up with a resounding no!

First, its tough to say how much roids might have affected a specific reecord or anything. Maybe a single season record, but who is to say a fluke didn't occur in the first place?

Next, some players have proved extreme consistency over a long period, who knows how cumulative records are affected in the first place?

Also, do you strip everyone's? Does that mean Bonds 73 is out, McGwire's 70 is out, and we go to Sosa until someone says he used steroids if he did?

And who is to say the rest of the league doesn't have a ton of roid users, just to keep up in pace with the big dogs, and the entire era is already tainted?

And think of the future - genetic engineering. What do you do then? Ban people forever for being born with genetic engineered parts that made them better, stronger, faster?

This is just the beginning of possibilities but I say no, don't strip records.

Sandman
12-03-04, 02:02 PM
I don't see any practical way of doing this. Do you take players and teams out of the record books?

It's always a bit ridiculous when the NCAA takes away titles from teams years after the fact.

burke615-RSN
12-03-04, 02:14 PM
Whether steroids do or do not increase performance is not really the point. The point is whether someone is cheating or not. [That said, steroids are banned from every sporting league I can think of (including IOC) and it must be for a reason. If they do not increase an athlete's performance, why would they subject themselves to it?] They are banned; taking them is cheating. Basically, if you cheat, you are out. Period.

Whether you can catch everyone is also not the point. The police don't just stop giving speeding tickets because they know they won't catch everyone. So in answer to the hypothetical re: Mac and Sammy, yes, if one is proved to have taken steroids and the other is only suspected, then you remove the record of the one, and leave the other until/unless it can be proved that the other juiced up as well. If that means stripping a title years after the fact, so be it.

I just don't buy the "but everyone else does it" defense. If you know it is wrong, the fact that everyone else does it doesn't make it right.

Yosef
12-03-04, 02:14 PM
If you're going to strip records from steroid users, you must ask yourself if pitchers that have been caught scuffing the ball or players found using corked bats should have their records stripped as well. Considering that no one would know the time frame for how long this cheating has been going or how large of an enhancement, if any, the corking or scuffing had on the player's performance, the answer is probably no.

How does this apply to steroid usage?

1. Steroids is just one of many ways players can cheat. It shouldn't receive special treatment as being worse than corking and other forms of cheating.

2. No one knows how long Bonds & Co. have been using steroids.

3. No one knows what kind of affect these drugs have had on player performance. On the one hand you have Barry Bonds, single season HR record holder. On the other, you have Jeremy Giambi, Benito Santiago, etc.


So, if treating steroids strictly as one of many forms of cheating, I don't really think there's any reason to strip or put asterisks on any records. Corking and steroids are both ways players cheat to enhance performance and no one can reasonably argue that this cheating actually enhances performance significantly, if at all.

On a sidenote it seems that ,at least at this point in time, no one can prove Barry and others actually knew they were using steroids. So, would you also strip records from a player that might not have known his performance was being enhanced?

Anyway,
All this adds up to is "No".

Yosef
12-03-04, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by burke615-RSN
Whether steroids do or do not increase performance is not really the point. The point is whether someone is cheating or not. [That said, steroids are banned from every sporting league I can think of (including IOC) and it must be for a reason. If they do not increase an athlete's performance, why would they subject themselves to it?] They are banned; taking them is cheating. Basically, if you cheat, you are out. Period.

Whether you can catch everyone is also not the point. The police don't just stop giving speeding tickets because they know they won't catch everyone. So in answer to the hypothetical re: Mac and Sammy, yes, if one is proved to have taken steroids and the other is only suspected, then you remove the record of the one, and leave the other until/unless it can be proved that the other juiced up as well. If that means stripping a title years after the fact, so be it.

I just don't buy the "but everyone else does it" defense. If you know it is wrong, the fact that everyone else does it doesn't make it right.

Sorry, but there has been no precedent in baseball saying cheating automatically means banning. Players have used cork and pine tar to enhance hitting in the past, but this has only resulted in suspensions. If you want to start banning players and stripping records, every instance of cheating would have to be scrutinized throughout the history of baseball to make sure that punishments have been handed out evenly.

Here's a thought, how about deterring players from cheating in the first place? In addition to stiff penalties handed out after players have been caught cheating, the IOC also has guidelines on drug testing before events. This is done in order to prevent fiascos such as the one MLB is currently suffering from. MLB needs to get a real drug policy.

burke615-RSN
12-03-04, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Yosef
If you're going to strip records from steroid users, you must ask yourself if pitchers that have been caught scuffing the ball or players found using corked bats should have their records stripped as well. Considering that no one would know the time frame for how long this cheating has been going or how large of an enhancement, if any, the corking or scuffing had on the player's performance, the answer is probably no.I disagree entirely. If you are caught with a corked bat, you should be treated as if you had been corking for at least that year. You are a cheater one way or the other, and that should not be tolerated.

Personally, I'm a "throw the bums out" person. If you cheat, I don't think you have any business playing professionally. And that would go as much for my favorite player, Ortiz, if he were discovered cheating as it does for Giambi.

I'd also like to point out that cheating has two "flavors": premeditated and reactive. I agree with of A. Bartlett Giamatti's attitude, as described by George Will in "Men At Work: The Craft Of Baseball". If I can sum this up properly (using a modern example) he considered something like the famed "slap" of the ALCS to be less of an infraction than scuffing the ball or using a corked bat (or steroids, I might add.) One is just a reaction - however improper - of someone in a physical competition. The other is a premeditated act designed to put yourself at an advantage over your opponents.

burke615-RSN
12-03-04, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Yosef
Sorry, but there has been no precedent in baseball saying cheating automatically means banning. Players have used cork and pine tar to enhance hitting in the past, but this has only resulted in suspensions. If you want to start banning players and stripping records, every instance of cheating would have to be scrutinized throughout the history of baseball to make sure that punishments have been handed out evenly.

Here's a thought, how about deterring players from cheating in the first place? In addition to stiff penalties handed out after players have been caught cheating, the IOC also has guidelines on drug testing before events. This is done in order to prevent fiascos such as the one MLB is currently suffering from. MLB needs to get a real drug policy. And precedent matters because??? There was no precedent for banning players who threw ball games in 1919 either. The real question is: do we want steroids (and other cheating) in sports or not? My answer is no. I absolutely agree that steroid testing should be part of every sport, but I disagree with the way most sports implement penalties. I would like a zero tolerance policy. The first time you are caught, you are out of the sport, for life. No records, no hall of fame, no payment for the rest of your contract. Done.

As for historical records, I don't really care if you leave the old ones alone, as long as you can get rid of the current cheaters. I suppose you could make the case that then you have "unfair" targets, but does that really matter? There is already a distinction between the "dead ball era" and modern baseball, so now you would just have a distinction between the "cheating era" and now. ;)

Sadly, all of this is moot, because unless our beloved commissioner has suddenly - let's just say "changed his ways" to stay within community standards - there is no way anyone is going to get banned for anything. Meh.

Yosef
12-03-04, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by burke615-RSN
I disagree entirely. If you are caught with a corked bat, you should be treated as if you had been corking for at least that year. You are a cheater one way or the other, and that should not be tolerated.

Personally, I'm a "throw the bums out" person. If you cheat, I don't think you have any business playing professionally. And that would go as much for my favorite player, Ortiz, if he were discovered cheating as it does for Giambi.

I'd also like to point out that cheating has two "flavors": premeditated and reactive. I agree with of A. Bartlett Giamatti's attitude, as described by George Will in "Men At Work: The Craft Of Baseball". If I can sum this up properly (using a modern example) he considered something like the famed "slap" of the ALCS to be less of an infraction than scuffing the ball or using a corked bat (or steroids, I might add.) One is just a reaction - however improper - of someone in a physical competition. The other is a premeditated act designed to put yourself at an advantage over your opponents.

You can't have such a blanket no-tolerance policy and there is absolutely no precedence for it. What if a player was borrowing a bat from one of his buddies in the bottom of the 9th inning and his team was losing 10-1? You simply can never fully prove that cheating was premeditated in this situation. Similarly, no one knows that Bonds and Sheffield's actions were premeditated.

Kiwiwriter
12-03-04, 02:34 PM
Don't know. I do think steroid users should be heavily penalized. It's ridiculous. Somewhere, Roger Maris and Babe Ruth must be having a good chuckle, though.

19laura
12-03-04, 02:40 PM
No, but you put a big fat * by their name and explain why it's there! If they did if for Maris they can certainly do it for McGwire and Bonds.

~Laura

Yosef
12-03-04, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by burke615-RSN
And precedent matters because??? There was no precedent for banning players who threw ball games in 1919 either. The real question is: do we want steroids (and other cheating) in sports or not? My answer is no. I absolutely agree that steroid testing should be part of every sport, but I disagree with the way most sports implement penalties. I would like a zero tolerance policy. The first time you are caught, you are out of the sport, for life. No records, no hall of fame, no payment for the rest of your contract. Done.

As for historical records, I don't really care if you leave the old ones alone, as long as you can get rid of the current cheaters. I suppose you could make the case that then you have "unfair" targets, but does that really matter? There is already a distinction between the "dead ball era" and modern baseball, so now you would just have a distinction between the "cheating era" and now. ;)

Sadly, all of this is moot, because unless our beloved commissioner has suddenly - let's just say "changed his ways" to stay within community standards - there is no way anyone is going to get banned for anything. Meh.

You're contradicting yourself all over the place. You say you don't care about historical records, hall of famers, etc. You say you don't care that cheaters in the past may have set unfair records for today's players. You say you don't care that the past would be seen as the "cheating era."

Yet you want to strip records now? There's no consistency. If you want to bring fairness to the game, that's one thing. But you have to be willing to tell potential Hall of Famers playing until the age of 40 that because they borrowed a corked bat in the bottom of the 9th in a 20-1 game that they no longer have a place in baseball for the last 20 years, now, or ever in the future.

That's insanity.

Yosef
12-03-04, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by 19laura
No, but you put a big fat * by their name and explain why it's there! If they did if for Maris they can certainly do it for McGwire and Bonds.

~Laura

FWIW, the * next Maris' name was generally seen as a terrible mistake by MLB.

burke615-RSN
12-03-04, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Yosef

You can't have such a blanket no-tolerance policy and there is absolutely no precedence for it. What if a player was borrowing a bat from one of his buddies in the bottom of the 9th inning and his team was losing 10-1? You simply can never fully prove that cheating was premeditated in this situation. Similarly, no one knows that Bonds and Sheffield's actions were premeditated. If your buddy is willing to step up and be banned for life because it was his bat, then so be it. Otherwise, you had best be careful whose bat you borrow. You are the workman; it is your job to know your tools.

Similarly, if you stick a needle in your rear end, how is that not pre-meditated? Same with a cream - I am not a professional athlete, and even I knew that steroids come in creams. You have to be careful who you trust, because they aren't going to be the ones banned.

burke615-RSN
12-03-04, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Yosef


You're contradicting yourself all over the place. You say you don't care about historical records, hall of famers, etc. You say you don't care that cheaters in the past may have set unfair records for today's players. You say you don't care that the past would be seen as the "cheating era."

Yet you want to strip records now? There's no consistency. If you want to bring fairness to the game, that's one thing. But you have to be willing to tell potential Hall of Famers playing until the age of 40 that because they borrowed a corked bat in the bottom of the 9th in a 20-1 game that they no longer have a place in baseball for the last 20 years, now, or ever in the future.

That's insanity. I see no lack of consistency. It is consistent for players actively playing. If Congress passes a law that makes a certain type of pollution illegal, do they go back and find every company that has done it for the last 100 years and fine them? No, they deal with it on a "going forward" basis. Yes, it isn't perfect, but we leave in the real world, not utopia.

Yosef
12-03-04, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by burke615-RSN
If your buddy is willing to step up and be banned for life because it was his bat, then so be it. Otherwise, you had best be careful whose bat you borrow. You are the workman; it is your job to know your tools.

Similarly, if you stick a needle in your rear end, how is that not pre-meditated? Same with a cream - I am not a professional athlete, and even I knew that steroids come in creams. You have to be careful who you trust, because they aren't going to be the ones banned.

So you just admitted your previous arguments are baseless. You don't even care if premeditation is involved or not.

If a Cal Ripken borrowed a corked bat from a September call up he had just started mentoring and it was the bottom of the 9th, 20-1 and Cal is retiring at the end of the month.... who cares? Ban him? He should have known that the youngster was nothing but scum using a corked bat? Make it so he didn't exist in those hundreds and hundreds of games?

What happens when the clean up hitter refuses to hit in the bottom of the 20th inning in a tied World Series Game 7 with the bases loaded, and benches emptied? All because he has no bats and needs to employ a don't trust anyone type attitude?

These would be much larger disasters.

Yosef
12-03-04, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by burke615-RSN
I see no lack of consistency. It is consistent for players actively playing. If Congress passes a law that makes a certain type of pollution illegal, do they go back and find every company that has done it for the last 100 years and fine them? No, they deal with it on a "going forward" basis. Yes, it isn't perfect, but we leave in the real world, not utopia.

You can't compare baseball with government legislation. And that was not the argument I was trying to make.

You are inconsistent in your reasoning behind WHY banning should take place. You say you don't care about records, but are eager to strip them? You say who cares about the past becoming the cheating era if we only strip records from now on. Why not just let THIS be the "cheating" era? It will bring about a level playing field (I'm assuming that must be what you want, but your thoughts are hard to follow), but you obviously have no interest in the integrity of the record books.

Born2BaYankeeFan
12-03-04, 03:18 PM
yes, no questions asked. you cheat you lose somehow. cheaters never win. i hate bonds to begin with now i would spit in his face. i luv giambi, i have defended him in previous posts, but i cant hardly stand next to a cheater. i just wish jason luck and he recover from his mistakes

RhodeyYankee2638
12-03-04, 03:40 PM
athletes are stripped of medals at the olympics if they teset positive for a drug, are they not?

NYYBombshell
12-03-04, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638
athletes are stripped of medals at the olympics if they teset positive for a drug, are they not?


Yes they are. Therefore if you're caught using a banned substance and you break a record during that season......bye bye record.

derekjeter916
12-03-04, 04:06 PM
For everyone who voted "yes" (and that is the majority): can someone please explain to me just how you would implement these changes? It's impossible to strip all the "tainted" records. It's impossible to even know which ones are tainted. What are they supposed to do, barge into Jason Giambi's and Barry Bonds' house, rip the awards off the walls and take them out of all the record books? Maybe they could add an asterisk or a footnote noting that certain records MAY have been affected by steroids (because after all, you have no way of knowing how much of it is attributable to steroids), but it's not really possible to strip every tainted record from the books. For that matter, even if it was possible I wouldn't think they should do it. This steroids era may be viewed as a dark era in baseball, but you can't pretend it just didn't happen. It's a part of baseball history. Like it or hate it, you can't erase history, and you'll fail if you try.

RhodeyYankee2638
12-03-04, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by derekjeter916
For everyone who voted "yes" (and that is the majority): can someone please explain to me just how you would implement these changes? It's impossible to strip all the "tainted" records. It's impossible to even know which ones are tainted. What are they supposed to do, barge into Jason Giambi's and Barry Bonds' house, rip the awards off the walls and take them out of all the record books? Maybe they could add an asterisk or a footnote noting that certain records MAY have been affected by steroids (because after all, you have no way of knowing how much of it is attributable to steroids), but it's not really possible to strip every tainted record from the books. For that matter, even if it was possible I wouldn't think they should do it. This steroids era may be viewed as a dark era in baseball, but you can't pretend it just didn't happen. It's a part of baseball history. Like it or hate it, you can't erase history, and you'll fail if you try.

Right now, this is a big problem. MLB needs to set precedent. Barry Bonds and Giambi were offensive forces for a good while, the best in the game. If they have tests proving they tested positive for steroids, and/or a confession, they should be banned from baseball. I know it sounds harsh, but its cheating. And its not just using a corked bat every once in a while. Its impossible to know exactly when or how much it ahs helped the players that took steroids. I remember hearing that Pete Rose committed the biggest sin in baseball, betting on it. I think its more of a sin for false records and false players to line the books and base paths

derekjeter916
12-03-04, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638


Right now, this is a big problem. MLB needs to set precedent. Barry Bonds and Giambi were offensive forces for a good while, the best in the game. If they have tests proving they tested positive for steroids, and/or a confession, they should be banned from baseball. I know it sounds harsh, but its cheating. And its not just using a corked bat every once in a while. Its impossible to know exactly when or how much it ahs helped the players that took steroids. I remember hearing that Pete Rose committed the biggest sin in baseball, betting on it. I think its more of a sin for false records and false players to line the books and base paths

However much of a sin you think it is, and however important it is for MLB to crack down on this, you still didn't answer my question. How would this be put into place? It's impossible to do this, to deal with every statistic for every player who's ever taken steroids. Half the league is probably taking steroids. You can't do that to every one. And you can't ban every one either, or else you'll have...well, half a league. And who wants to watch half a league play the other half? Regardless of your morals, baseball is a business. And they're not going to ban everybody who's ever taken steroids, because it would be a crushing- and perhaps even fatal- blow to that business.

RhodeyYankee2638
12-03-04, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by derekjeter916


However much of a sin you think it is, and however important it is for MLB to crack down on this, you still didn't answer my question. How would this be put into place? It's impossible to do this, to deal with every statistic for every player who's ever taken steroids. .

Its very difficult, I'll give you that. I'm sure MLB could figure out a way to deal with this, there aer other events and sports which strip atheletes of records, see previous posting


Half the league is probably taking steroids. .

Thats a very bold statement.


. And they're not going to ban everybody who's ever taken steroids, because it would be a crushing- and perhaps even fatal- blow to that business

Yeah, lets stick with our policy which we have in place for steroid use, 3 strikes and.... THEN YOU GET SUSPENDED. I think if you asked most people, this scenario is very bad for the game. And this is 2 people, 2 people. Imagine if half the league is on steroids, like you said, imagine how thats gonna be for business. Make an example of them and stop pussying around. Thats my message to selig

Babe Rules
12-03-04, 04:25 PM
Yes. No doubt for me

KP88
12-03-04, 04:36 PM
Ambiguity aside, implementation aside...

Taking steroids is cheating. Records and titles should be stripped, since they were not earned fairly. They were earned by cheating.

To attempt to justify or rationalize this in any way baffles me.

Yosef
12-03-04, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638


Right now, this is a big problem. MLB needs to set precedent. Barry Bonds and Giambi were offensive forces for a good while, the best in the game. If they have tests proving they tested positive for steroids, and/or a confession, they should be banned from baseball. I know it sounds harsh, but its cheating. And its not just using a corked bat every once in a while. Its impossible to know exactly when or how much it ahs helped the players that took steroids. I remember hearing that Pete Rose committed the biggest sin in baseball, betting on it. I think its more of a sin for false records and false players to line the books and base paths

How can you propose banning players for steroid use when the guidelines for punishment are nowhere near as severe???

That's ridiculous. You can't change the guidelines after someone has broken a rule in order to punish them extra hard.

How about changing the rules so that every player gets tested and is suspended for 10 games if tested positive? The reason steroid use has become so rampant is because MLB has virtually looked the other way the entire time, not because there wasn't a severe no-tolerance policy. There was basically no policy at all.

Rose did commit the biggest sin of any athlete. Cheating has and always will be a part of sports. There may be more players cheating now than before, that is the main problem. They're trying to stay on a level playing field in order to compete with their peers. Betting on sports on the otherhand, leaves fans with the fear that their best player may be losing on purpose to gain a few extra bucks.

Yosef
12-03-04, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by KP88
Ambiguity aside, implementation aside...

Taking steroids is cheating. Records and titles should be stripped, since they were not earned fairly. They were earned by cheating.

To attempt to justify or rationalize this in any way baffles me.

Actually, bannings and stripping of records and titles is unjustified and irrational. Explain to me how going from a passive tolerance policy to a sudden no-tolerance policy is rational and justified.

edit: I'm not defending players' actions. They weren't justified in cheating. But you can't strip the records of just this group of guys and not look back at baseball history to those who may have cheated in the past. Stripping records is just irrational to me in that respect.

KP88
12-03-04, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Yosef


Actually, bannings and stripping of records and titles is unjustified and irrational. Explain to me how going from a passive tolerance policy to a sudden no-tolerance policy is rational and justified.

edit: I'm not defending players' actions. They weren't justified in cheating. But you can't strip the records of just this group of guys and not look back at baseball history to those who may have cheated in the past. Stripping records is just irrational to me in that respect.

To go back decades in baseball history is impossible. I agree with you there.

My point is this: Precedent must be set NOW. Bud and the boys can no longer ignore this issue, not when one of the most sacred records in all of sports is in question.

Banishment is a little harsh, IMO. Suspensions, fines, and/or complete public humiliation is a start. This just can't be allowed to continue any further.

RhodeyYankee2638
12-03-04, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Yosef


How can you propose banning players for steroid use when the guidelines for punishment are nowhere near as severe???

That's ridiculous. You can't change the guidelines after someone has broken a rule in order to punish them extra hard.

How about changing the rules so that every player gets tested and is suspended for 10 games if tested positive? The reason steroid use has become so rampant is because MLB has virtually looked the other way the entire time, not because there wasn't a severe no-tolerance policy. There was basically no policy at all.
.

I assume both Bonds and Giambi breached contract. I also assume both Bonds and Giambi broke the law. I really do not feel comfotable with any major league team paying guys millions upon millions of dollars for basically lying to us. We will never know if Giambi was really an MVP candidate nor will we know if Bonds would have 700+ HR's if it wasn't for the juice. They have disgraced baseball. a 10 game suspension is going to make up for perhaps 15 years of steroid abuse?? Give me a break


Rose did commit the biggest sin of any athlete. Cheating has and always will be a part of sports. There may be more players cheating now than before, that is the main problem. They're trying to stay on a level playing field in order to compete with their peers. Betting on sports on the otherhand, leaves fans with the fear that their best player may be losing on purpose to gain a few extra bucks

I didnt say the biggest sin of any athlete, I clearly said in baseball. And it wasn't my quote, it was someone elses, as I clrealy said

RhodeyYankee2638
12-03-04, 04:55 PM
Rose did commit the biggest sin of any athlete. Cheating has and always will be a part of sports. There may be more players cheating now than before, that is the main problem. They're trying to stay on a level playing field in order to compete with their peers. Betting on sports on the otherhand, leaves fans with the fear that their best player may be losing on purpose to gain a few extra bucks

By that means then, Giambi and Bonds WILL be banned. As you stated, this is more severe than "betting a few dollars" on a game, yet he is banned. I guess you would expect nothing less?? Or you simply think Rose should be reinstated

NYYFAN
12-03-04, 05:09 PM
If Bonds single season and lifetime soon to be hr records are the results of steriods and baseball in the future totally stops banned substances then those records will never be touched again...and that's a sin

goin for 27
12-03-04, 06:28 PM
My heart says yes, but how can you?

Take away a HR, say a 2 run shot. Now the final score is impacted, the pitcher who gave up the dinger is changed.

What about a Giambi error? What happens to that batter now?

It is simply impossible.

Asterisk, I guess, but how do you know how many HR's Giambi had before he went on the juice?

What a mess.

ChewieTobbacca
12-03-04, 06:51 PM
The asterik on Maris was a mistake. Asterisks and bans and stripping records should never occur.

Let me put it this way - how do we know how much it affects the game? Furthermore, how do we know how many players are using it as well? What if all of baseball was full of cheaters?

I mean, the game has never had a great old day - we've always had scandals, cheating, etc.

THink about it... 1877 with the throwing of a game... the Black Sox scandal... Pete Rose...

Oh and how about questionable hall of famers for their problems? Ty Cobb was a racist and possibly a murderer. Leo Durocher, Gaylord Perry... Babe Ruth even had his issues.

Are we going to strip their records too?

Let's not be foolish here - steroids is bad, but youre buying the media hype - its the big issue today where the long ball is big, but its not somethign we can say will ban someone entirely from the game. Hell, Rose's record of hits is still up even though he has been banned.

Are we going to ban McGwire too?

And I hope people who wait a while will realize this to be true - cheating to win is bad, cheating to lose is way way worse.

Furthermore, what else do we do? Steroids and supplements have existed since weight lifters in the 70s, maybe even earlier. How do we know the whole thing?

This can't happen. Let Bonds be questioend by public opinion - let it it happen 20 years from now. But don't destroy the records - i bet you, these records will be broken maybe 20-50 years from now when players get even stronger through genetics, supplements, etc. Are we going to ban people who eat genetically engineered food? oh wait.. we all do.

NYYFAN
12-03-04, 07:10 PM
A guy on M & MD stated that Bonds hit only 3 balls over 450 ft up to his mid 30's and 26 over 450 ft since...amazing stat

ChewieTobbacca
12-03-04, 07:13 PM
Kinda hard to verify those distance facts since they don't keep it..

Of course.. thing is... hitting the ball that far doesnt mean much unless its direct center...

Interesting factoid... dead center in Polo Grounds was like 500 feet, only 4 players have done it before... 2 of which were Lou Brock and Hank Aaron.. you can't be saying they were on roids right? Distance that far means little...

Evil Empire
12-03-04, 08:22 PM
Yes, and do it soon, while there aren't that many records held by steroid users.

Yosef
12-03-04, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638


I assume both Bonds and Giambi breached contract. I also assume both Bonds and Giambi broke the law. I really do not feel comfotable with any major league team paying guys millions upon millions of dollars for basically lying to us. We will never know if Giambi was really an MVP candidate nor will we know if Bonds would have 700+ HR's if it wasn't for the juice. They have disgraced baseball. a 10 game suspension is going to make up for perhaps 15 years of steroid abuse?? Give me a break



I didnt say the biggest sin of any athlete, I clearly said in baseball. And it wasn't my quote, it was someone elses, as I clrealy said

Whether you like it or not, Bonds and Giambi should not and will not get treated as the collective whipping boys by MLB for the past 15 years of steroid abuse. It didn't start with them and it shouldn't end with them. If Bonds and Giambi breached their contracts, I'm fine with teams voiding them (not that any team would want to get rid of Bonds or Sheff).

You didn't answer my question: How can you propose banning players for steroid use when the guidelines for punishment are nowhere near as severe?

If you want to set precedent, you can't do it now. Make rules changes with stiffer penalities, fines, and testing. Whoever's dumb enough to continue doing steroids will be the precedent.

Yosef
12-03-04, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by RhodeyYankee2638


By that means then, Giambi and Bonds WILL be banned. As you stated, this is more severe than "betting a few dollars" on a game, yet he is banned. I guess you would expect nothing less?? Or you simply think Rose should be reinstated

I'm obviously not trying to contradict myself here. My first sentence stated "Rose did commit the biggest sin in baseball" -- that is, a sin bigger than cheating.

Is that clear?

My last sentence was "betting on sports on the otherhand, leaves fans with the fear that their best player may be losing on purpose to gain a few extra bucks"

The emphasis I placed on money with regards to Rose's actions is to show how stupid and idiotic he was. Betting on your own team, and possibly THROWING GAMES, for just a "few extra bucks", completely ruins the integrity of the game. You can never be sure who will be bought next.

IMO, if (as some say) 50% of your co-workers are taking drugs and signing multimillion dollar deals, and you're fighting for a job, and try to get on a level playing field, cheating is a much less severe offense.

Yosef
12-03-04, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by NYYFAN
If Bonds single season and lifetime soon to be hr records are the results of steriods and baseball in the future totally stops banned substances then those records will never be touched again...and that's a sin

I think A Rod has a chance to break it.

I haven't reallly looked at any numbers though, but it will be broken again at some point. As Chewie said, players will only get stronger and stronger as time goes by.

Yosef
12-03-04, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by ChewieTobbacca
The asterik on Maris was a mistake. Asterisks and bans and stripping records should never occur.

Let me put it this way - how do we know how much it affects the game? Furthermore, how do we know how many players are using it as well? What if all of baseball was full of cheaters?

I mean, the game has never had a great old day - we've always had scandals, cheating, etc.

THink about it... 1877 with the throwing of a game... the Black Sox scandal... Pete Rose...

Oh and how about questionable hall of famers for their problems? Ty Cobb was a racist and possibly a murderer. Leo Durocher, Gaylord Perry... Babe Ruth even had his issues.

Are we going to strip their records too?

Let's not be foolish here - steroids is bad, but youre buying the media hype - its the big issue today where the long ball is big, but its not somethign we can say will ban someone entirely from the game. Hell, Rose's record of hits is still up even though he has been banned.

Are we going to ban McGwire too?

And I hope people who wait a while will realize this to be true - cheating to win is bad, cheating to lose is way way worse.

Furthermore, what else do we do? Steroids and supplements have existed since weight lifters in the 70s, maybe even earlier. How do we know the whole thing?

This can't happen. Let Bonds be questioend by public opinion - let it it happen 20 years from now. But don't destroy the records - i bet you, these records will be broken maybe 20-50 years from now when players get even stronger through genetics, supplements, etc. Are we going to ban people who eat genetically engineered food? oh wait.. we all do.

Great points.. especially on cheating to lose vs cheating to win.

SoCal Pinstriper
12-03-04, 09:15 PM
Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford both of whom admitted to doctoring the ball are desevedly in the HOF. Check my sig.

YankeePride1967
12-03-04, 09:17 PM
I think it should be up to the fan/historian to decide if the record is valid. I honestly find it hard to give McGwire or Bonds credit for breaking Maris' HR record.

ChewieTobbacca
12-04-04, 12:15 AM
And that is why Maris' HR record was questioned as well - because they played more games a season than Ruth did and Maris happened to hit #61 on the last day.

Theoertetically, if that last game was never played, you think Maris would've passed it? Probably not. But thats why in the past, there was that note that Maris played more games than Ruth did. It was a mistake and was chagned accordingly.

The game changes over each era and time.

And so no McGwire or no Bonds record? Give it to Sosa then since he isn't guilty (yet?) of any steroid allegations.

Here's a thought - what if McGwire put the Andro there (which was not banned then) to distract people away from the fact that he maybe used illegal steroids then? Hmm? What if the fact that Bonds has beat his record, he has been able to stay out of the limelight.

And think about it, wouldn't you put a supplement that wasn't banned to distract attention from other possibilities?

And here's another thought - if the best players are taking steroids, wouldn't the rest of the players as well just to keep up?

This was certainly the biggest offensive era - and all this weight lifting, possibility of steroids, and so on might mean a lot more than just a few players.

bobby jr
12-04-04, 09:48 AM
Here's an excerpt from Boswell's Washington Post column today.

Not only should Bonds be stripped of his records, he should be banned from baseball.


"Now we know how much of Barry Bonds was real and how much was fake. Half was a fraud.

"Bonds's reputation has lived by his statistics. Now, let it die by them. Forever. Before Bonds hooked up with his old friend and alleged steroid merchant Greg Anderson in '98, he had 411 homers in 6,621 at-bats, one per 16.1 at-bats. The next two years, as he acquired and adjusted to a new body, he hit 83 in 835 at-bats, one per 10 at-bats.

In the past four seasons, from ages 37 to 40, as he has done the deeds and committed the offenses against his sport for which he will always be remembered, Bonds hit 209 home runs in 1,642 at bats -- one every 7.9 at-bats.

In those four years, Bonds won four straight National League most valuable player awards, two batting titles and set the all-time single-season records for home runs, slugging percentage, on-base percentage, walks and intentional walks.

All those records are now a steroid lie. Without Anderson's illicit help, there is no reason whatsoever to believe Bonds could have approached, much less broken, any of the all-time marks for which he lusted so much that he has now ruined his name."

deranged2005
12-04-04, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by ChewieTobbacca
And here's another thought - if the best players are taking steroids, wouldn't the rest of the players as well just to keep up?


Probably not, because Bonds is in a league of their own, Giambi used to put up gross stats (2001 was a hell of an offensive year for Giambi), McGuire set the homerun record when no one had ever really come close (except Sammy).

I don't think Derek Jeter is taking steriods just to "keep up" with Giambi or Bonds. I think it really depends on the game you play (homerun hitter vs. a leadoff/OBP guy).

Yankee Bulldawg
12-04-04, 11:09 AM
i believe that juicers should be stripped of their records, in this case that includes Bonds, he should not be allowed to break Aaron's HR record and be seen as a hero that's just plain wrong in my opinion.

Dabize
12-04-04, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Yankee Bulldawg
i believe that juicers should be stripped of their records, in this case that includes Bonds, he should not be allowed to break Aaron's HR record and be seen as a hero that's just plain wrong in my opinion.

When it comes to deciding which records should be "stripped" I think it is pretty clear what the PRACTICAL priority list is, from highest to lowest

People who produced artificially enhanced stats by illegal means
People who produced altered stats directly and deliberately by "throwing" games (Shoeless Joe, Hal Chase et. al.)
People who produced enhanced stats clandestinely (but not strictly illegally) by doing disapproved (but not explicitly forbidden) things (this includes all "greenie poppers")
People who did explicitly forbidden things that have no bearing on stats (Pistol Pete, et. al.).

By this logic, Pete Rose comes out cleanest, with Whitey Ford and his "buckle ball" and Gaylord Perry with his spitter looking rather "strippable".

By these criteria, Giambi and Bonds may be as bad as Perry and Ford (and many others), but the jury is still out as to whether they were still doping at the time the drugs they were using became explicitly illegal.

JfromJersey
12-04-04, 12:01 PM
It's conceivable that Bonds' single season HR record may never be broken in our lifetime. You have a guy who was bound for the HOF before injesting steroids. After he started, he became a freak of nature. All the guys who hit more homers than Maris (Bonds, McGwire, Sosa) were obviously chemically enhanced.
The records wont be erased from the books, but no one in his or her right mind could ever look at these records again without shaking their heads in disgust.

ChinMusic
12-04-04, 12:34 PM
Chewwie, on the point about distance, clearly any ball that Bonds hit 450 feet on the juice, would have still been a home run off the juice. But the real question is, How many 330 foot home runs did he hit on the juice? These would just be fly outs and not home runs.

Bleys
12-04-04, 02:18 PM
I say no because it's too ambiguous. There's really no way to prove that they were taking the steroids during the time they broke the record, or if you can prove that, if the steroids helped them break the record.

What if Kerry Wood was taking steroids for his 20 strike out game, would you take that from him? What if Cal Ripken, Jr. was taking steroids for his consecutive games streak, do you strip him of that? What if years down the line Ichiro Suzuki is found taking steroids... we know he wasn't last year for his hits title, but do you strip it from him for being a cheater now because you can't be certain?

Those are extreme examples, obviously. And in the case of Bonds, McGuire, etc. it is fairly obvious that the substances they took helped them to hit homeruns. But the point is, and I hope you can see it, that this is a dangerous precendent to set because there is a HUGE ammount of grey area. You need to be VERY careful before you go stripping records.

SoCal Pinstriper
12-04-04, 02:20 PM
Should Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford, admitted cheaters be removed from the hall? Hell no! The records are in the books, and they should stay there. 1993 - until baseball adopts a sane steriod policy will simply be known as the juiced player era.

EddieCoyle
12-04-04, 04:03 PM
No way. If they strip the records of steroid users they'd have to take them away from everyone else that cheated.

Here's an excerpt from Bill James's Historical Baseball Abstract:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1983 a traveling Hillerich and Bradsby exhibit featured a Babe Ruth bat. According to Dan Gutman in It Ain't Cheatin if You Don't Get Caught , the Seattle players were admiring the bat "when outfielder Dave Henderson noticed that the round end of the bat didn't exactly match the wood of the barrel. The end was cracked, but the rest of the bat was not. "'That's a plug! said Henderson. 'This bat is corked."'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Players have been "gaining an edge" since the beginning of baseball. Over the years, the league has constantly acted to take away any unfair advatages that creative minds have come up with. The actions the league takes are called "rules".

Whether it's a pitcher wearing a white glove (now illegal), throwing a spitball (also illegal), the third base coach running up and down the base line to distract the pitcher and fielders (prompted the creation of coaches boxes) or batters using a corked bat, it is up to the league to create rules to remove unfair advantage and then, get this......ENFORCE THE RULES.

Lots of baseball's rules were created because some creative thinker came up with an angle to gain an advantage. The Hall of Fame is full of guys that "broke" rules before they were rules, and that broke the rules and didn't get caught. You can't go stripping records because when you finished there'd be none left.

BobbyMurcerFan
12-04-04, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Socal Pinstriper
1993 - until baseball adopts a sane steriod policy will simply be known as the juiced player era. And the vaunted Minor League testing policy is b/s as well:

"The minor-league program Selig prefers, tests four times a year in and out of season. Selig may not get four tests a year from the major leaguers. The minor-league system calls for a 15-day suspension for first-time offenders, 30 for the second offense, 60 for the third failed test, and a full season for a four-time offender. After that, it's a lifetime ban. " --from the NY Post.

I say you take roids once, you are banned from the game for life. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Dabize
12-04-04, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Socal Pinstriper
Should Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford, admitted cheaters be removed from the hall? Hell no! The records are in the books, and they should stay there. 1993 - until baseball adopts a sane steriod policy will simply be known as the juiced player era.

Except for the fact that Perry, for example was using the spitter AFTER 1920, when it ceased to be legal.

Before 1920 was the Spitball (as well as deadball) Era, and that was OK.

This argument might work for Giambi and Bonds - I suspect it will depend on the details of their use after all the facts come out - but Whitey and Perry et. al. should still be stripped.

SoCal Pinstriper
12-04-04, 08:22 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree..

Dabize
12-04-04, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by EddieCoyle
No way. If they strip the records of steroid users they'd have to take them away from everyone else that cheated.

Here's an excerpt from Bill James's Historical Baseball Abstract:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1983 a traveling Hillerich and Bradsby exhibit featured a Babe Ruth bat. According to Dan Gutman in It Ain't Cheatin if You Don't Get Caught , the Seattle players were admiring the bat "when outfielder Dave Henderson noticed that the round end of the bat didn't exactly match the wood of the barrel. The end was cracked, but the rest of the bat was not. "'That's a plug! said Henderson. 'This bat is corked."'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Players have been "gaining an edge" since the beginning of baseball. Over the years, the league has constantly acted to take away any unfair advatages that creative minds have come up with. The actions the league takes are called "rules".

Whether it's a pitcher wearing a white glove (now illegal), throwing a spitball (also illegal), the third base coach running up and down the base line to distract the pitcher and fielders (prompted the creation of coaches boxes) or batters using a corked bat, it is up to the league to create rules to remove unfair advantage and then, get this......ENFORCE THE RULES.

Lots of baseball's rules were created because some creative thinker came up with an angle to gain an advantage. The Hall of Fame is full of guys that "broke" rules before they were rules, and that broke the rules and didn't get caught. You can't go stripping records because when you finished there'd be none left.


OK - I actually agree, because there are LOTS of people in the Whitey/Perry category, and stripping would soon get ridiculous, but what form should enforcement take?

Contract voiding?
Suspensions (long term)?
Banning?

Dabize
12-04-04, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Socal Pinstriper
We'll have to agree to disagree..

I don't really disagree with you - I'm just making the point that gambling, unless it involves throwing games, is essentially small beer. It was tolerated for many years before the 1919 scandal, and it was only taken seriously then because games were being thrown. Hal Chase, a HOF caliber Yankees (actually Highlanders) 1B, was essentially kicked out of baseball for throwing games on a separate occasion.

The whole Pete Rose thing is anomalous, since it didn't involve throwing games. The personalities of Rose and Giamatti played a big part.

SoCal Pinstriper
12-05-04, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Dabize


I don't really disagree with you - I'm just making the point that gambling, unless it involves throwing games, is essentially small beer. It was tolerated for many years before the 1919 scandal, and it was only taken seriously then because games were being thrown. Hal Chase, a HOF caliber Yankees (actually Highlanders) 1B, was essentially kicked out of baseball for throwing games on a separate occasion.

The whole Pete Rose thing is anomalous, since it didn't involve throwing games. The personalities of Rose and Giamatti played a big part. Gambling on baseball is the worst of all transgressions in my mind whether or not it involves throwing games per say.

Let's a manager has 50g on HIS team to win a game. He will manage that game like it is the proverbial 7th game of the WS to cover his bet. Every pitching move that he makes in that game affects bullpen rest for 4-5 games down the road.

The integrity of the game is damaged.

Throwing games is obviously worse, but there is a solid reason that gambling is viewed as the devil in baseball.

OBTW, I'm no anti gambling crusader. I wager every weekend on college and pro football, occasionally on hoop, and very infrequently on baseball.

reelbiggecko
12-05-04, 10:18 PM
I couldn't disagree more. If you're gambling, but not throwing games, you're not doing anything to actually alter the game, and the sanctity of the game, itself. If you're taking steroids, you are absolutely changing things, and that is a far greater sin than anything you could do off the field.

FreeYayo
12-05-04, 10:22 PM
I don't think anything should be taken away from before they tested positive, because who's to say they didn't use steroids that morning for the first time. But once found guilty of the cheating goodbye.
Same for corking bats and scuffing balls.

Bleys
12-06-04, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by reelbiggecko
If you're taking steroids, you are absolutely changing things ...

Not necessarily. Or rather, steroids aren't a magical way to win games. Jeremy Giambi admitted to taking steroids and continued to suck. Steroids help you hit the ball farther (probably), but they don't necessarily make you a better player. The saddest part of this whole thing is Bonds would still have been an all-star without steroids. And there's really no way of knowing how many of his home runs would still have been home runs had he not been on steroids.

There's a lot of grey area.

BobbyMurcerFan
12-06-04, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by Bleys
Not necessarily. Or rather, steroids aren't a magical way to win games. Jeremy Giambi admitted to taking steroids and continued to suck. Steroids help you hit the ball farther (probably), but they don't necessarily make you a better player. The saddest part of this whole thing is Bonds would still have been an all-star without steroids. And there's really no way of knowing how many of his home runs would still have been home runs had he not been on steroids.

There's a lot of grey area. And Sammy Sosa added almost 250 points to his OPS in one year by doing what? And Barry Bonds went from hitting 34 HR's in 1999 to 73 HR's in 2001 by doing what, more jumping jacks?

NYCVirago
12-06-04, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by GoRocket
I think it should be up to the fan/historian to decide if the record is valid. I honestly find it hard to give McGwire or Bonds credit for breaking Maris' HR record.

The saddest thing about all this is that baseball is much more numbers-oriented, as far as these cherished records meaning something and being known by all fans, than in any other sport. And now the single-season home run is tainted, and the all-time home run record will be.

Dooley Womack
12-06-04, 07:18 AM
And whose record did the steroid user break? An amphetimine popper? Coke user? Reefer tooter? Alcoholic? An alcoholic beverage drinker during the prohibition?

BobbyMurcerFan
12-06-04, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Dooley Womack
And whose record did the steroid user break? An amphetimine popper? Coke user? Reefer tooter? Alcoholic? An alcoholic beverage drinker during the prohibition? Which of these are you saying Roger Maris is?

Bleys
12-06-04, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by BobbyMurcerFan
And Sammy Sosa added almost 250 points to his OPS in one year by doing what? And Barry Bonds went from hitting 34 HR's in 1999 to 73 HR's in 2001 by doing what, more jumping jacks?

Hey, it's a good thing you read what I wrote. Steroids don't automatically make you a better player. That's all I said.

Besides, Bonds hit 46 homeruns, his 3rd highest total in his career, in 1993, when he obviously wasn't on the juice. He's hit over 30 homeruns 8 times before 2000. And in 1999 when he hit those 34 he played 51 less games than in 2001. That's 34 homers in 102 games, or 1 every 3. Not all that far off his 2001 pace of 1 every 2.09. Had he played those 51 games, at the same pace he would have hit 17 more homeruns... or 51 total. It's not like Barry Bonds was ever a bad player. He has always been great, steroids or not. It's really impossible to say what sort of impact steroids had on him, because steroids don't automatically make you better. As I said, some people take steroids and continue to suck. Like Jeremy Giambi. Steroids didn't make Barry Bonds into a homerun hitter--he already WAS a homerun hitter. They may have helped a few balls out of the park, but no one can ever say with certainty how many.