View Poll Results: Should records be stripped from athletes if it's proven they used banned substances?

Voters
93. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    64 68.82%
  • No

    29 31.18%
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 67
  1. #1
    God Bless the Scooter NYYFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001

    Should athletes records be stripped for Steriods etc?

    Should records be stripped from athletes if it's proven they used banned substances?

    Stole this poll from CNN....

    'Kick ass. Pop champagne. And get some ho's.'

  2. #2
    NYYF Triple Crown


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    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.

  3. #3
    NYYF MVP


    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Staten Island, NY
    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.

  4. #4
    Designated For Assignment burke615-RSN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Central Massachusetts
    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.

  5. #5
    Addicted Member

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Waterbury, CT & Boston, MA
    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".

  6. #6
    Addicted Member

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Waterbury, CT & Boston, MA
    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.

  7. #7
    Designated For Assignment burke615-RSN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Central Massachusetts
    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.

  8. #8
    Designated For Assignment burke615-RSN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Central Massachusetts
    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.

  9. #9
    Addicted Member

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Waterbury, CT & Boston, MA
    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.

  10. #10
    100 victories in 100 battles Kiwiwriter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Newark, NJ, and Christchurch, NZ

    Dumping the records?

    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.
    Best, DHL
    "My intensity is intense." -- Roger Clemens
    "He that sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother." -- Henry V
    "A Yankee fan is bred to a harder thing than triumph." -- Me

  11. #11
    Devoted Member
    19laura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Chicago
    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

  12. #12
    Addicted Member

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Waterbury, CT & Boston, MA
    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.

  13. #13
    Addicted Member

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Waterbury, CT & Boston, MA
    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.

  14. #14
    Designated For Assignment burke615-RSN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Central Massachusetts
    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.

  15. #15
    Designated For Assignment burke615-RSN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Central Massachusetts
    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.

  16. #16
    Addicted Member

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Waterbury, CT & Boston, MA
    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.

  17. #17
    Addicted Member

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Waterbury, CT & Boston, MA
    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.

  18. #18
    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

  19. #19
    athletes are stripped of medals at the olympics if they teset positive for a drug, are they not?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jersey Yankee
    Who in their right mind would pay several thousand bucks to have some chick poop on their face like a beard?


  20. #20
    Released Outright NYYBombshell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    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.

  21. #21
    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.

  22. #22
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Jersey Yankee
    Who in their right mind would pay several thousand bucks to have some chick poop on their face like a beard?


  23. #23
    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.

  24. #24
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Jersey Yankee
    Who in their right mind would pay several thousand bucks to have some chick poop on their face like a beard?


  25. #25
    Yes. No doubt for me

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts