Sources tell SI Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003

[Devilspawn]

:mad:


In 2003, when he won the American League home run title and the AL Most Valuable Player award as a shortstop for the Texas Rangers, Alex Rodriguez tested positive for two anabolic steroids, four sources have independently told Sports Illustrated.

Rodriguez's name appears on a list of 104 players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball's '03 survey testing, SI's sources say. As part of a joint agreement with the MLB Players Association, the testing was conducted to determine if it was necessary to impose mandatory random drug testing across the major leagues in 2004.

When approached by an SI reporter on Thursday at a gym in Miami, Rodriguez declined to discuss his 2003 test results. "You'll have to talk to the union," said Rodriguez, the Yankees' third baseman since his trade to New York in February 2004. When asked if there was an explanation for his positive test, he said, "I'm not saying anything."

Phone messages left by SI for players' union executive director Donald Fehr were not returned.

Though MLB's drug policy has expressly prohibited the use of steroids without a valid prescription since 1991, there were no penalties for a positive test in 2003. The results of that year's survey testing of 1,198 players were meant to be anonymous under the agreement between the commissioner's office and the players association. Rodriguez's testing information was found, however, after federal agents, armed with search warrants, seized the '03 test results from Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., of Long Beach, Calif., one of two labs used by MLB in connection with that year's survey testing. The seizure took place in April 2004 as part of the government's investigation into 10 major league players linked to the BALCO scandal -- though Rodriguez himself has never been connected to BALCO.

The list of the 104 players whose urine samples tested positive is under seal in California. However, two sources familiar with the evidence that the government has gathered in its investigation of steroid use in baseball and two other sources with knowledge of the testing results have told Sports Illustrated that Rodriguez is one of the 104 players identified as having tested positive, in his case for testosterone and an anabolic steroid known by the brand name Primobolan. All four sources spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the evidence.

Primobolan, which is also known by the chemical name methenolone, is an injected or orally administered drug that is more expensive than most steroids. (A 12-week cycle can cost $500.) It improves strength and maintains lean muscle with minimal bulk development, according to steroid experts, and has relatively few side effects. Kirk Radomski, the former New York Mets clubhouse employee who in 2007 pleaded guilty to illegal distribution of steroids to numerous major league players, described in his recent book, Bases Loaded: The Inside Story of the Steroid Era in Baseball by the Central Figure in the Mitchell Report, how players increasingly turned to drugs such as Primobolan in 2003, in part to avoid detection in testing. Primobolan is detectable for a shorter period of time than the steroid previously favored by players, Deca-Durabolin. According to a search of FDA records, Primobolan is not an approved prescription drug in the United States, nor was it in 2003. (Testosterone can be taken legally with an appropriate medical prescription.)

Rodriguez finished the 2003 season by winning his third straight league home run title (with 47) and the first of his three MVP awards.

Because more than 5% of big leaguers had tested positive in 2003, baseball instituted a mandatory random-testing program, with penalties, in '04. According to the 2007 Mitchell Report on steroid use in baseball, in September 2004, Gene Orza, the chief operating officer of the players' union, violated an agreement with MLB by tipping off a player (not named in the report) about an upcoming, supposedly unannounced drug test. Three major league players who spoke to SI said that Rodriguez was also tipped by Orza in early September 2004 that he would be tested later that month. Rodriguez declined to respond on Thursday when asked about the warning Orza provided him.

When Orza was asked on Friday in the union's New York City office about the tipping allegations, he told a reporter, "I'm not interested in discussing this information with you."

Anticipating that the 33-year-old Rodriguez, who has 553 career home runs, could become the game's alltime home run king, the Yankees signed him in November 2007 to a 10-year, incentive-laden deal that could be worth as much as $305 million. Rodriguez is reportedly guaranteed $275 million and could receive a $6 million bonus each time he ties one of the four players at the top of the list: Willie Mays (660), Babe Ruth (714), Hank Aaron (755) and Barry Bonds (762), and an additional $6 million for passing Bonds. In order to receive the incentive money, the contract reportedly requires Rodriguez to make extra promotional appearances and sign memorabilia for the Yankees as part of a marketing plan surrounding his pursuit of Bonds's record. Two sources familiar with Rodriguez's contract told SI that there is no language about steroids in the contract that would put Rodriguez at risk of losing money.

Arguments before an 11-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena are ongoing between government prosecutors and the players' association over the government's seizure of the test results from the Long Beach lab. The agents who collected the material had a search warrant only for the results for the 10 BALCO-linked players. Attorneys from the union argue that the government is entitled only to the results for those players, not the entire list. If the court sides with the union, federal authorities may be barred from using the positive survey test results of non-BALCO players such as Rodriguez in their ongoing investigations.

Let's go Yankees! :elefant:




:tsk:

[atwater27]

Just another asterisk. Baseball is dead. Bunch of ******* douches.

[Poet]

Wow, he was my favorite player too.

[Broncospsycho77]

NBD. So long as the NY's Golden Boy (Jeter) stays outta trouble, there shouldn't be too much downfall for this.

[Nomad]

Just another asterisk. Baseball is dead. Bunch of ******* douches.

Sounds like professional sports in general! I loved playing baseball in HS (left field, center field) but I never watch MLB! I stopped watching NBA after John Stockon retired and NFL is becoming less passionate each year I watch. Back to topic, A-Rod, Bonds, Meche, and the list goes on are a bunch of overpaid douches!!

[broncophan]

NBD. So long as the NY's Golden Boy (Jeter) stays outta trouble, there shouldn't be too much downfall for this.

:confused:....................A-Rod is done.............at least his reputation is.....whatever that is worth....

Oh well.....he will continue to make his millions of dollars.....

[Gamechanger]

it never helped him shake that he's a pro at choking :tsk:

[sneakers]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1IG5houmW0Q/SL8tqi6EyvI/AAAAAAAAAJE/3zEfg_yyDlA/s320/simpsons_nelson_haha2.gif

[Requiem / The Dagda]

Not surprised in the least. I figured he was doing steroids back when he was with the Mariners. Dude got pretty big over one winter prior to Spring Ball. Makes me sad. Always liked Alex.

[BeefStew25]

Another stat freak that won't make the Hall.

[G_Money]

As I said on my Mariners board:

There were clean players who were making sure to take clearly banned and testable supplements that year so that it would show up in their tests, because they wanted drug testing.

MLB had written a provision that if fewer than 5% were using they were gonna scrap the drug testing.

The poor clean guys who were watching the roiders and HGHers destroy their numbers and cost them money and years in the league would have taken Special K and Crystal for a year if it meant getting mandatory drug testing implemented.

Players were at first going to refuse to take the test, because a refusal would pop up as an automatic failed test.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E3D7103AF931A15757C0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)


When the White Sox players briefly rebelled against the steroid testing last month, it was the first public indication of disagreement among the players.

According to three members of the White Sox organization and a baseball executive, the rebellion occurred while two baseball administrators stood next to urinals in the clubhouse bathroom in Tucson, patiently waiting for more than an hour to conduct baseball's first round of tests for steroids.

In an adjacent room, some members of the team were shouting and exchanging angry words. First baseman Paul Konerko, Gordon and more than a dozen other players were threatening to boycott the test. Their strategy was simple: they knew that by refusing to participate, their result would be recorded as positive for steroids. Their goal was to skew the results beyond the 5 percent threshold and force adoption of mandatory random testing.

Sandy Alomar, the team's veteran catcher, chastised some of the dissenters, telling them it was their duty to take the test. Finally, saying they were feeling pressure from the union, the players walked into the bathroom, where the officials dispensed dipsticks for urine tests.

Alomar said he was opposed to the players' idea because a failed drug test, even one that was failed on purpose, would brand some of the young White Sox players as steroid users.

''I understand the point that was trying to be made, but I was upset at how some of the veteran guys were trying to pull some of the young guys into this,'' Alomar said. ''They would have been branded, and if their names showed up on some steroid list, they would have had to answer questions about it. That wasn't fair to them.''

When asked about the incident recently, Gordon said he had strong feelings about what he views as an inadequate steroid-testing program in baseball, but he declined to go into detail, saying that he preferred to discuss it with the union first.

When they were basically told to stand down and just take the test, several players found other ways to fail it on purpose.

I'm still looking for the article that mentioned that players admitted off the record to taking supplements that they knew would score a positive on the drug test without actually being steroids. And it's been mentioned to me in other ways.

And now what Alomar said would happen to them looks like it very well could - that the list will come out and all those guys will be 'roiders forever more.

The ones who fell on their sword to make sure the cheaters weren't going to get around the drug testing have my respect, so there will be guys on that eventual list that I refuse to crucify. Since I dunno who they were, I'm gonna have to refuse to crucify anyone.

I don't think A-Rod was one of those guys, but I really hope the list of names of all those guys doesn't come out, because there are some of them who were "cheating" on purpose for the good of the game, and I wouldn't want to see them rolled up in this.

And I still think that HGH is gonna be put on Wheaties in 30 years in some form of anti-aging. They say it has no effect...but I kinda have to believe that's a lie. You see what Stallone looks like at 62 and you go, "Holy CRAPJACKERS, that's some fountain of youth in a bottle he's got there."

http://www.aintitcool.com/images2009/expendables.jpg

And once it survives the FDA in some form, I do think it's gonna go from illegal use by world-class athletes to legal use by average septagenarians. Once that happens, what do you do about making things illegal in sports that are doctor-recommended in regular life? Argument for another day, I guess.

~G

[BeefStew25]

G Money, valid points.

And if true, string up Bud Selig.

[keithbishop]

I'm disgusted by the report on A-Rod.

That being said, why were none of the 103 names released?
I'm not holding my breath waiting on that one.

I also want to know the names that Dana Stubblefield provided to the feds in exchange for receiving 2 years probation (as opposed to being sent to prison) in the Balco case. Word has it that big names were included in his list of NFL players and trainers involved with steroid use. I can practically guarantee that, with the heat on MLB, none of those names will be released.


This has been an awful weekend. I was looking for an article on the work pitching guru Tom House had done with Yankees prospect Ian Kennedy and stumbled across this article:

************************************************** *********************
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...ds-house_x.htm
Posted 5/3/2005 12:27 PM Updated 5/3/2005 3:58 PM

Former pitcher Tom House describes past steroid use

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Former major league pitcher Tom House used steroids during his career and said performance-enhancing drugs were widespread in baseball in the 1960s and 1970s, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday.

House, perhaps best known for catching Hank Aaron's 715th home run ball in 1974 in the Atlanta Braves' bullpen, said he and several teammates used amphetamines, human growth hormone and "whatever steroid" they could find in order to keep up with the competition.

"I pretty much popped everything cold turkey," House said. "We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses. That was the '60s, when nobody knew. The good thing is, we know now. There's a lot more research and understanding."

House, a former pitching coach with the Texas Rangers and co-founder of the National Pitching Association near San Diego, is one of the first players to describe steroid use as far back as the 1960s.

He was drafted in 1967 by the Braves and pitched eight seasons for Atlanta, Boston and Seattle, finishing his career with a 29-23 record and 3.79 ERA.

House, 58, estimated that six or seven pitchers per team were at least experimenting with steroids or human growth hormone. He said players talked about losing to opponents using more effective drugs.

************************************************** ************************

I'll admit that I was both foolish and naive. I knew good and well that one of my earliest favorite Broncos, Lyle Alzado, used steroids in the 60's and 70's. I knew that steroid use has been widespread in the NFL since the 70's. Fool that I was, I was under the impression that steroid use in MLB began in the 80's. I was way, way offbase. Having formerly differentiated MLB play from the 70's ("clean") to the 80's and beyond ("dirty"), I've been thrown for a loss.

Note to football only fans crying about PED use in MLB while pretending the NFL was clean: get off your high horse. Neither sport is clean, nor has it been for years. I don't care whether you like or loathe MLB, but get rid of the double standard. It doesn't work. Alzado and Romanowski were the only 2 Broncos who used steroids? Sure.... and Rodney Harrison + Shawne Merriman were the only other 2 AFC players. :rolleyes:

[Magnificent Seven]

Screw all baseball players! They all use steroids, period! They are still in the closets.

[keithbishop]

Yeah, that type of double standard. Exactly.

[Broncolingus]

Sources tell SI Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JZs3BL71IVk/SO2Fk8EIhuI/AAAAAAAAAa4/7_V864Hvbl0/s320/GomerPyle.jpg

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Must have been why Madonna left so quick...

[G_Money]

You can't keep drug-based improvements out of sports.

Even if you could, why would you?

Is there some way in which the atomic bomb threw enough radiation in the air that it prevented people from hitting .400 for the last 60+ years? No.

Are you really telling me that the baseball players of the 20s and 30s were better able to hit a baseball than the finely tuned ridiculous hitters of the modern era? No.

Players are better now than they were. They literally have to be, even if you consider the number of athletes who play sports other than baseball now. Fighting against that is futile and unnecessary. So why is protecting the records of guys who feasted on inferior competition so vital?

Baseball holds on to records from some sort of historical obligation to try to match numbers across all eras. Football doesn't have that. So when football players get bigger, and stronger, and faster, it's okay. They're compared against their compatriots, not players from the 40s. They have 12 month conditioning programs, speed camps, weight lifting regimens, diets, supplements... anything and everything somebody can think of to more finely tune the human machine.

Steroids are one of those things. Those are bad, though, remember, not at all like the good improvements we've made in sports medicine in the last 50 years. Why? Because they destroy parts of your anatomy. Like testicles and brain cells and hearts. If they made all those parts better, would they be allowed? Probably. Why? Because everyone would take them, because they're good for you.

Like workout regimens, and diets, and speed programs, and supplements.

Baseball players have used steroids. They also sanded baseballs, spit on baseballs, corked bats, and in any number of other ways attempted to cheat. There are cheaters in the hall of fame who were not roiders. Why is it better to get away with sanding or filing a baseball than to shoot drugs to make you stronger?

You might say it's not better, but it is, because those guys are in the Hall and they were known cheats at the time.

It was not illegal to use steroids when many of the players were using them. Why are we using it to keep them out of the hall? Scuffing the baseball WAS cheating.

It's just this ridiculous numbers game. Football doesn't play it, so they get away with roids and cheats in the public eye. They find who they can find and punish em, and that's that. Nobody says, "Stone Rodney Harrison! He should never show his face again!" He takes his 4 games, comes back and plays. It's a minor thing. "Don't be a cheat, Rodney. Dumbass. Now get back on the field after we give you a mini-vacation and take away some game checks. Next."

Baseball holds on to their cherished records, and so cheats cause more of an issue in the sport.

But when HGH isn't cheating any more - when it or any number of other drugs are approved for the populace at large and they make the human machine even more finely tuned - then all the records will still fall. It's inevitable that these increases in human athletic potential are coming. You see what Bonds and Big Mac and Sosa - and now potentially A-Rod - have done, and you think about what that sort of bonus will do to every ball player, when every one does it, and....what?

Are you supposed to be sad?

You change the rules, like football does, to maintain some form of balance, and you move on.

Hitters killin you? Expand the zone, or change the mound height, and watch them all crumble.

If you want to balance it, there are ways. If you need to keep historical records in perspective and comparable to modern stats, there are ways.

But losing our damn minds over the idea that some people cheated is idiotic. Deal with the problem, not the perception of a problem. Fix the cheating as much as you can, punish the guys that get caught, adapt the rule book and move on with your game.

Baseball better watch how football deals with their records and cheats, or they're gonna have more problems, not fewer.

Is Ryan Howard clean? Pujols? How would you know? How could you? There's always something that's undetectable. The cheaters are always ahead of the system.

We can all run around with our heads cut off about the fact that a guy is willing to shoot himself in the ass with drugs that make him Superman in exchange for contracts worth tens or HUNDREDS of millions of dollars, but really, how surprising is that?

I'd do it. Obviously so would hundreds of professional athletes.

Just police yourself as well as you can - which means getting your moronic union to sign off on blood tests - and adapt your game to the situation, instead of holding out some 50s view of the world in black and white and pretending your players will behave like Wally and the Beav and adapt the situation back to your game with a shrug and a "gee whiz, I sure promise not to do that again, by golly."

Damn.

~G

[Poet]

You can't keep drug-based improvements out of sports.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try your hardest.


Even if you could, why would you?
To keep the game clean and balance.


Is there some way in which the atomic bomb threw enough radiation in the air that it prevented people from hitting .400 for the last 60+ years? No.

Probably not, but I guess it is possible. ;)


Are you really telling me that the baseball players of the 20s and 30s were better able to hit a baseball than the finely tuned ridiculous hitters of the modern era? No.

Yes. Today's hitters play in smaller ballparks and when you look at players like Ruth, Mantle, etc etc etc and you see theirs stats and compare it to our players today, I think you could make the case that our greatest generation of players may have been in that era.


Players are better now than they were. They literally have to be, even if you consider the number of athletes who play sports other than baseball now. Fighting against that is futile and unnecessary. So why is protecting the records of guys who feasted on inferior competition so vital?

Not even close. There is not a pitcher alive today that could carry the workload that Cy Young and company did back then. Players have to take roids to get to 500 homers. Back in the day you had better and more impressive hitters with nothing like that. Ted Williams> than any hitter in the game today. By far. Not even close, there is no one clean who is on the same level as him. The same thing for Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, etc etc etc.

I don't think you can say it's inferior competition. Our players today are bigger, stronger, faster, have longer careers and their numbers are coming up short. Those players did it clean, these players did not. They cheated, they made themselves into superhumans compared to OTHER superhumans with a drug. You are almost romanticizing cheating.


Baseball holds on to records from some sort of historical obligation to try to match numbers across all eras. Football doesn't have that. So when football players get bigger, and stronger, and faster, it's okay. They're compared against their compatriots, not players from the 40s. They have 12 month conditioning programs, speed camps, weight lifting regimens, diets, supplements... anything and everything somebody can think of to more finely tune the human machine.

Because the numbers mean more. Why? Because football, hockey, soccer, any other sport has never meant more to America than baseball has in trying times like the great depression and the world wars.

Football doesn't have that because it is much more of a team game. Baseball is the closest to an individual team sport as you can ever have. Half the time it is like tennis in that it is one man versus another man.

Football is also a game based on strength and size. Baseball was not. You want your WRs to be strong so they can fight for a ball or punish a CB who tries to jam them at the LOS. You want your QB to be strong like McNair, McNabb, Big Ben, Culpepper, etc etc etc so they can break tackles. You want your defensive ends to have enough arm strength to be able to bullrush an offensive lineman the play after he murders that same lineman with a finesse move. Obviously the strength means more. The game is based around offensive and defensive lineman smacking into each other.

The way we view football is based on huge big men. That's why two years after the Patriot Panther Superbowl no one batted an eye when half the defensive line for the Panthers tested positive for roids.

But you aren't, IMO, telling the entire truth. Not all enhancers make you bigger or stronger. Hell, they put McGwire on HGH because he was getting too bulky. There are other benefits like that and faster healing.



Steroids are one of those things. Those are bad, though, remember, not at all like the good improvements we've made in sports medicine in the last 50 years. Why? Because they destroy parts of your anatomy. Like testicles and brain cells and hearts. If they made all those parts better, would they be allowed? Probably. Why? Because everyone would take them, because they're good for you.
Doubtful. If they improved upon everything the common man and woman may use it. It would still be outlawed by leagues because of the huge impact it makes. At the very least people would recongize how great the impact was and it would be known as an era. The same "steroid" era we are in right now.





Like workout regimens, and diets, and speed programs, and supplements.

No, not like those. Workout regimens, diets, and speed programs don't do what steroids and HGH do. Not to that extent. That is a bad classification. A gun is a gun, but a handgun and an assault rifle are on two different levels.


Baseball players have used steroids. They also sanded baseballs, spit on baseballs, corked bats, and in any number of other ways attempted to cheat. There are cheaters in the hall of fame who were not roiders. Why is it better to get away with sanding or filing a baseball than to shoot drugs to make you stronger?

No one thinks it is better. But, once again, different levels. After Sammy Sosa got caught corking his bat there was a huge explosion in anger. A scientist the NEXT day went on ESPN and proved that a corked bat hurt you. It is still illegal. But making your bat better to hit balls is not going to be as helpful as making your entire body being able to make hit balls.

Those players you talk about should be kicked out of the HOF. Just because they won't be doesn't mean your line of thinking is correct.




You might say it's not better, but it is, because those guys are in the Hall and they were known cheats at the time.
No, it isn't better. The ignorance of sportswriters does not make it better. It just means that as usual you had a bunch of stupid people in charge of voting. That does not change the actual morality of anything.


It was not illegal to use steroids when many of the players were using them. Why are we using it to keep them out of the hall? Scuffing the baseball WAS cheating.


It was still against the rules of the game because they are illegal drugs. Well, a lot of them were. Scuffing the ball was cheating. It gave an unfair advantage. If people knew a pitcher who did it most of their career then that pitcher should not be in the hall.


It's just this ridiculous numbers game. Football doesn't play it, so they get away with roids and cheats in the public eye. They find who they can find and punish em, and that's that. Nobody says, "Stone Rodney Harrison! He should never show his face again!" He takes his 4 games, comes back and plays. It's a minor thing. "Don't be a cheat, Rodney. Dumbass. Now get back on the field after we give you a mini-vacation and take away some game checks. Next."

Football does play it, just in another way. Some fans can tell you who has the record for the most TD receptions, passing yards, etc etc etc. Most fans of baseball probably know more about the equivalent records for their sports. However, football is by far the biggest fantasy sport in any big sport in America.

No one says stone Rodney Harrison because it's redudant. People have been saying that about him forever. And it does work the same way in baseball. Everyone loved Andy Pettite when he admitted to usage. But only when he said he used it to get back into playing shape after an injury. That's what Harrison said.

Another reason why baseball players are held to a higher standard is simply because they are looked at as role models more often. It doesn't take a genius mind to realize that NFL players get arrested more often. Hell, look how many arrests Cincy, Jacksonville, and San Diego have racked up the past three years? NFL and NBA players are usually looked at as thugs after we get done glamorizing them on game day. No one ever hears about baseball players doing that crap because they're baseball players. The entire culture around the game is different.



Baseball holds on to their cherished records, and so cheats cause more of an issue in the sport.

You're damn right they do. And they should. For all the reasons I have stated above. All sports should. If you have the most TDs, yards, completions, etc etc etc you should have the fans know about that. It makes far more sense.


But when HGH isn't cheating any more - when it or any number of other drugs are approved for the populace at large and they make the human machine even more finely tuned - then all the records will still fall. It's inevitable that these increases in human athletic potential are coming. You see what Bonds and Big Mac and Sosa - and now potentially A-Rod - have done, and you think about what that sort of bonus will do to every ball player, when every one does it, and....what?

You're right, the records will still fall. Or...will all of them? The last real threat to the HR record that wasn't a cheat was Griffey Jr. And his stupid ass refused to stretch before games and tore his hamstring so many times that it wasn't even funny. Those records were created by the greatest of all time. There aren't any players playing today who aren't cheating who can touch their damn jock strap. Eventually, sure the records will be broken. But the fact of the matter is that it took a player who was already going into the HOF to load up on every last thing he could get to break the HR record. Yeah, those records would have been standing for a damn long time. Much longer than you would like to admit.


Are you supposed to be sad?

No. Walter Payton rooted for Barry Sanders to break his record (which never happened). He even said that he would like it if someone did. Marino rooted for Payton. You should never be sad when someone does it legitimately. But when people have to cheat to step onto your tier to do it, it's a damn shame.


You change the rules, like football does, to maintain some form of balance, and you move on.

Or, in this case you don't change the rules and you outlaw the same crap that is now.


Hitters killin you? Expand the zone, or change the mound height, and watch them all crumble.
What relevance does this have to cheating?



If you want to balance it, there are ways. If you need to keep historical records in perspective and comparable to modern stats, there are ways.

Then employ them and stop people from cheating. Why are you even debating this?



~G[/QUOTE]
:tsk:

[Poet]

I had to two post this thing because between G and myself we hit damn near 14,000 words.



But losing our damn minds over the idea that some people cheated is idiotic. Deal with the problem, not the perception of a problem. Fix the cheating as much as you can, punish the guys that get caught, adapt the rule book and move on with your game.

People have become disgusted, no one has lost their damn minds. The perception of the problem IS the problem. People like the hallowed records that are so titanic and so hard to do because they mean something. And the fact that players who either were jealous of Sosa and McGwire who cheated, then turn to cheating (Bonds), or when players who couldn't hack it without cheating (see every player who was borderline making or staying in the majors who cheated), OR pieces of crap like Rafiel Palmerio make a career out of cheating they get pissed off. And if that doesn't piss you off you aren't thinking clearly.



Baseball better watch how football deals with their records and cheats, or they're gonna have more problems, not fewer.
Football just ignores it. That isn't dealing with it and you know better. I KNOW that YOU know better.



Is Ryan Howard clean? Pujols? How would you know? How could you? There's always something that's undetectable. The cheaters are always ahead of the system.

That's kind of why this crap is so despicable. But, in the end it will come back to haunt you. Your cheating actions will always be able to benefit someone in the know.


We can all run around with our heads cut off about the fact that a guy is willing to shoot himself in the ass with drugs that make him Superman in exchange for contracts worth tens or HUNDREDS of millions of dollars, but really, how surprising is that?

There are plenty of things that are awful or suck in this world that are common place. They aren't surprising. That does not take away from how much they suck.


I'd do it. Obviously so would hundreds of professional athletes.

That's the problem.


Just police yourself as well as you can - which means getting your moronic union to sign off on blood tests - and adapt your game to the situation, instead of holding out some 50s view of the world in black and white and pretending your players will behave like Wally and the Beav and adapt the situation back to your game with a shrug and a "gee whiz, I sure promise not to do that again, by golly."

I don't think they are trying to go back to a 50's view of the world.

Damn.

[keithbishop]

No one says stone Rodney Harrison because it's redudant. People have been saying that about him forever. And it does work the same way in baseball. Everyone loved Andy Pettite when he admitted to usage. But only when he said he used it to get back into playing shape after an injury. That's what Harrison said.


"Loved" is pushing it. I suppose, at times, love can be equated to getting the wind knocked out of you and getting kicked in the teeth simultaneously ;) ..... which is what it felt like when Andy's story came out. Grudging respect is the best I can do, and only because he came clean (sort of .... "I only used HGH once....I mean only a couple of times.... I mean only ______ "). I'm glad he didn't deny use, but Clemens and Bonds can vouch for the fact that only a complete idiot would use, then deny.

Andy wasn't just another pitcher, he was home grown and was a member of my all-time Yankees team (something I don't take lightly). I didn't care what his excuse was. From a sacred spot next to Ron Guidry to being just another guy.... it still hurts. As disgusted as I am with A-Rod's story, Andy's was much worse (to me, not to the sport). I'll root for both when they wear pinstripes (team first, players second), but that's the best I can do.

I'm not going to pin a medal on any player who has used PED's. Let me rephrase that: on any player who has been caught. I don't even want to think about what % of today's players are/have been users. 50? 70? 80? Nothing would surprise me at this point.

I don't want to know who used steroids in the 70's (let me cling to at least the illusion of a brief period of clean play in my time as a baseball fan).

As for the NFL, cheating is cheating. Wanting to run faster, hit harder, or hold up better as a blocker isn't a bit different in my eyes than wanting to hit more HRs. It can't be justified in either sport. (Bleep) double standards. I am livid that Dana Stubblefield's list of users will never see the light of day. Am I really the only football fan who is aware of his Balco trial/ cooperation with the feds/ 2 year probation sentence? Sadly, I don't expect that story to receive any more publicity than Mike Leach would for failing to pay late fees at Blockbuster. I can't look the other way as a fan of either sport.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Mike and Mike are talking about this right now. Can anyone smell a major lawsuit as this was suppose to be an anonymous test - names never were suppose to come out?????

[keithbishop]

That's a possibility, but the players union messed up badly. Instead of destroying the results immediately after the tests were taken (as even a tiny bit of common sense would dictate), a decision was made to hold onto the samples in hopes of re-testing leading to false positives. The feds seized all documents a year later. Interesting definition of "confidential" to say the very least.

That mess aside, I'm dying to know how only 1 name out of 104 gets released. It should be all or none.

[G_Money]

King,

I can't dispute the greatness of former players, nor would I want to. I love the history of the game. But one reason Ruth hit so many home runs is there weren't as many good pitchers. There were amazing pitchers, but there weren't as many, even with fewer off-days between starts which leads to even more pitchers now. Which is sad, considering how bad our pitching depth is with expansion and 5 day starters instead of 4. He was an incredible hitter, and obviously one of the greatest of all time, and he rightfully deserves his place in history, and within his era was far and away the dominant power hitter, so much so it wasn't even close. He was also a great pitcher. Ruth has to be the GOAT as far as power because no one - NO ONE - was even within shouting distance of him.

And if he threw to Bonds, he would get killed. And if he had to hit Randy Johnson, he would get killed.

Guys who were head and shoulders better at what they did stood out, because there were a lot of guys playing who were just guys. Pitchers threw all the time, because half the time it was just batting practice they threw and the zone was different. They were soft-tossing to the schmucks and only really put some muscle behind it when the coupla dangerous guys game up. You can't do that now. Guys now get their work in on the side on off days. Back in the day, they'd pitch those days, but it was still just getting your work in.

So many things across eras are off. Bat size, glove size, field size, called strike zone, mound height, bat material, color of athletes, pool of athletes... Which is why I don't understand not being able to tweak those things to "normalize" results in the same way they did when they changed the mound back in the 60s.

I quote Satchel Paige all the time. I think Walter Johnson is one of the most incredible pitchers that ever lived. Hank Greenberg was a giant of his or any time.

But why are we comparing modern sports to that?

Jesse Owens was an incredible sprinter, but he doesn't still have any records.

Mark Spitz was an incredible swimmer, but somebody's beaten all his marks.

Those are individual sports too. You can't compare them across eras by stats.

People in baseball like to think they can. That's the point of stats like OPS+, to normalize for era, because they hit more HRs now. I guess I haven't figured out why HR+ stats can't be cranked out to make stat-heads (which I have been accused of being, btw) feel more comfortable with the fact that workouts and offseason programs and supplements and diets and yes, steroids have changed the baseline of the game.

You CAN'T stop people from cheating, King. They've been cheating since they started playing sports. With baseball scuffing, filing, rubbing some dirt on it, spitballs, stealing signs, whatever. Then they graduated to uppers so that guys could be more alert. Forever baseball players scoffed at lifting weights, because they were told it would make them less able to hit a baseball. Whoops.

So is it cheating now that they work out and older ballplayers didn't? I mean, that's an unfair advantage, right?

You say no, that only illegal things should be banned, but then you say that non-harmful supplements should also be banned for the integrity of the game. Better start closing down the health stores, man. People are on vitamins and protein shakes and all sorts of regimens.

"Yeah, but those guys still aren't breaking HR records without steroids, so it's okay." Is that the argument? Only when it makes them good enough to break hallowed records should supplements be outlawed? It's based on the effectiveness of the supplement and not whether it's harmful and/or illegal?

The only sport I can think of besides baseball that compares itself across eras is golf - and modern golfers don't play with the same equipment, or on the same size courses as the older players did. Golf understands that you can only fight technology and progress so much, and so tweaks the courses to achieve the same effect that older courses gave to past players. And it seems to work for them.

I'm not against regulating steroids. You have to - HAVE to. Baseball's steroid program is still a joke compared to the Olympics or the NFL, unless something's changed when I wasn't looking.

But baseball players are better role models than football players? Like Ty Cobb? Those drunks Ruth and Mantle? Juan Marichal, who took a bat to another players head? Richie Sexson, who got a DUI a couple weeks after getting to Seattle? Players that beat their wives, or deal drugs, or cut guys up with a machete in their homeland (yes, that happened)? Who piss away careers on coke habits? C'mon now man. Baseball has half the players of football, they should have fewer incidents. Because inner city black kids don't play baseball, I suppose you do get fewer urban incidents. Many of the crimes commited in MLB happen in the offseason back in dirt-poor Latin American countries, so you don't get to find out about it. National heroes get a pass for wife-beating in the Dominican. But enough happen here. MLB JUST DOESN'T PUNISH DUI AND WIFE-BEATING.

Larussa fell asleep at the wheel he was so drunk, and IIRC not a damn thing happened to him. Dontrelle Willis? DUI. Dozens and dozens of other players? DUI. Suspensions? Not a one.

Don't talk to me like baseball is the last sacred ground of wholesome athletes. Baseball, once again, just has less rigorous standards than that bastion of bad eggs, football. "Our sport doesn't have steroid users!" "Your sport doesn't test for steroids, how would you know?" "Our sport is not filled with thugs!" "Your sport doesn't punish thugs, so most of your fan base wouldn't know about it, would they?"

This laser-focus on the names of the people on that list - Curt Schilling opened his big mouth again and wants to see names named - dilutes the focus from what should be done and puts it back on the past, where MLB loves to focus its attention.

Does it suck that cheaters and a-holes and liars and wife-beaters and drug-users and thugs are in sports? Sure.

What do you do about it? You test as much as you can (which MLB still doesn't), you punish everyone who breaks the law (which MLB still doesn't), and you make sure that the cheaters and the change doesn't wreck the game (which MLB shows no real inkling of understanding). They would still like to think that baseball players are not cheaters and thugs, and that if they ask nicely, maybe the cheating will stop.

It's not going to stop. And as technology improves, the players who currently play the game will resemble less and less the players that used to. It's just how life works.

Unless your name is Ichiro, I guess. That kid's 99 pounds of Dy-No-Mite who can play in any era.

~G

[MNPatsFan]

Mike and Mike are talking about this right now. Can anyone smell a major lawsuit as this was suppose to be an anonymous test - names never were suppose to come out?????Who would A Fraud sue?:confused:

I seriously doubt that A Fraud would be stupid enough to sue because he would only be opening up a can of worms similar to the can of worms Roger Clemens opened when he sued his former trainer. That clearly has not worked out well for Clemens. I wonder, however, if A Rod would through his wife and/or lover under the bus like Clemens did.:confused:

[Devilspawn]

Who would A Fraud sue?:confused:

I seriously doubt that A Fraud would be stupid enough to sue because he would only be opening up a can of worms similar to the can of worms Roger Clemens opened when he sued his former trainer. That clearly has not worked out well for Clemens. I wonder, however, if A Rod would through his wife and/or lover under the bus like Clemens did.:confused:
Did you mean throw her under a bus or throw her through the bus, which apparently his hulkish self can do. :tsk:

Two big winners in this (pending the list) are Manny and Junior Griffey. IF they are clean, which at this point I'm not sure about ANYONE, then you can call them the greatest homerun hitters of this tainted era.

What surprises me is that A-Rod and Bonds were all-stars before taking steroids, so why go this route? Just because of a few more homeruns? And they're both "unlikable" personalities, although I think A-Rod gets a little too much undeserved flack.

I know OB420's answer, but KB do you think the Yankees should drop Alex? I was thinking about it and then I saw an article in the NY Daily News that suggested the Yanks release him and eat his contract. I think it MAY happen unless the fans give him tons of support, which is not likely to happen.

[MNPatsFan]

Did you mean throw her under a bus or throw her through the bus, which apparently his hulkish self can do. :tsk::lol::lol: Good catch!:salute:

I meant throw and clearly was typing too quickly and not adequately proof-reading what I was typing.:tsk:

[Poet]

King,


I can't dispute the greatness of former players, nor would I want to. I love the history of the game. But one reason Ruth hit so many home runs is there weren't as many good pitchers. There were amazing pitchers, but there weren't as many, even with fewer off-days between starts which leads to even more pitchers now. Which is sad, considering how bad our pitching depth is with expansion and 5 day starters instead of 4. He was an incredible hitter, and obviously one of the greatest of all time, and he rightfully deserves his place in history, and within his era was far and away the dominant power hitter, so much so it wasn't even close. He was also a great pitcher. Ruth has to be the GOAT as far as power because no one - NO ONE - was even within shouting distance of him.

Can you say that though? If you took Babe Ruth, put him in this era, and he grows up with the same things that our athletes now have and I think he is just as good. That is 100% speculation, based off assumptions. But, both of us are doing that. You and I can't really prove a lot of these things.


And if he threw to Bonds, he would get killed. And if he had to hit Randy Johnson, he would get killed.

I'm still not sold on him getting killed by Johnson. If you brough Randy Johnson back to his era Johnson would not hold up very long. When you throw that hard that often it takes its toll on the body. That's why I assume that if you put Johnson back then he would adjust but still be as good. I think you could of have to assume that.


Guys who were head and shoulders better at what they did stood out, because there were a lot of guys playing who were just guys. Pitchers threw all the time, because half the time it was just batting practice they threw and the zone was different. They were soft-tossing to the schmucks and only really put some muscle behind it when the coupla dangerous guys game up. You can't do that now. Guys now get their work in on the side on off days. Back in the day, they'd pitch those days, but it was still just getting your work in.
There aren't players who are head and shoulders above others now? Since Pujols hasn't tested positive, it looks like he is the best player. Seeing how put ups great numbers, literally great numbers year in and out I don't see anyone on his level that is clean. Then you have guys like Ichiro who bat a stupid percentage consistently, Howard who looks like he is the best HR and RBI man in the game, you have an upper, elite tier. That does not change.


So many things across eras are off. Bat size, glove size, field size, called strike zone, mound height, bat material, color of athletes, pool of athletes... Which is why I don't understand not being able to tweak those things to "normalize" results in the same way they did when they changed the mound back in the 60s.

That I will give you. Not to mention crap like all the stupid sized ballparks, steriods, and most importantly, beer and food selection at the games. ;)


I quote Satchel Paige all the time. I think Walter Johnson is one of the most incredible pitchers that ever lived. Hank Greenberg was a giant of his or any time.

But why are we comparing modern sports to that?

Because baseball has been around so long it is a part of history. It literally is true American history. For a long time it truly was America's pastime. That's why.

We compare it the same as we day for football. Hell, how many truly great players are there in NFL history? For baseball? Far far more for baseball right? And when you have a discussion of who the greatest 1b, 2b, P, C, LF RF OF, etc etc etf that goes on forever. But for football most people's lists are going to always roughly have (right or wrong) Barry Sanders or Jim Brown, Jerry Rice, Montana/Marino/Elway/Unitas etc etc etc. You do the same for baseball and you get much more variety. There are a whole lot less staples IMO. Baseball is a game based on it's history. It just is, and the records mean more. It's been that way for a long time. So when you get cheaters using illegal drugs to alter those records that they couldn't get to otherwise, it's a low blow.


Jesse Owens was an incredible sprinter, but he doesn't still have any records.

Mark Spitz was an incredible swimmer, but somebody's beaten all his marks.

Once again, give them what we have now. Bring them to this era. If they were such freaks then they would be freaks now. You give them the better food, training, regimen, knowledge, etc etc etc and it stands to reason that Spitz, Owens, Babe Ruth, or Jim Brown steps into this era and says "Whose yer daddy?"


Those are individual sports too. You can't compare them across eras by stats.
That's fair, and that's true. But, what is fun to do, and what I think you can do, to a fairly large extent, is look at the eras, pick up the big themes from them, and start to adjust things. Hall of Fame voters have to do it all the time. A big debate in this era of the NFL is how much offense do you need to be a HOFer? LT is a HOF back. He will get in. But, a lot of his records are less than impressive when you put them in perspective. He plays in the worst era of tackling. By far. He played in an era where offense is everything, rules are in his favor, and hell the TD record that he broke was broken by Emmitt, then by Faulk, then by Holmes, then by Alexander. So, while it is hard as hell to do, it is in fact doable. What made LT so dominant, IMO, was that he broke the record with games left to go and added upon it.

You have to take into account those things, I agree.



People in baseball like to think they can. That's the point of stats like OPS+, to normalize for era, because they hit more HRs now. I guess I haven't figured out why HR+ stats can't be cranked out to make stat-heads (which I have been accused of being, btw) feel more comfortable with the fact that workouts and offseason programs and supplements and diets and yes, steroids have changed the baseline of the game.

Agreed. But I am going back to what I said earlier; offseason programs and diets are natural, things like supplements and the like are not. However, compare those to steriods. Those are like handguns, steriods are tanks. That's the difference. You want to know how much of an impact roids make? An old OF with bad wheels and a bad back was able to start knocking in 60 dingers a year like it was going out of style in the BLINK OF AN EYE. Yeah, I'll be sure to tell Brandon Phillips and Votto to get on those programs and diets and supplements. They will be knocking in 60 a year forever.

You CAN'T stop people from cheating, King. They've been cheating since they started playing sports. With baseball scuffing, filing, rubbing some dirt on it, spitballs, stealing signs, whatever. Then they graduated to uppers so that guys could be more alert. Forever baseball players scoffed at lifting weights, because they were told it would make them less able to hit a baseball. Whoops.


So is it cheating now that they work out and older ballplayers didn't? I mean, that's an unfair advantage, right?

No, it isn't. Nothing stopped those players from doing anything like that. They probably would have if they had the knowledge. They didn't. But that is such a far cry from taking roids that I fail to see a point here G.


You say no, that only illegal things should be banned, but then you say that non-harmful supplements should also be banned for the integrity of the game. Better start closing down the health stores, man. People are on vitamins and protein shakes and all sorts of regimens.

The day that someone finds some magical vitamin shake that gives you the same effects roids do is the same day that this argument becomes relevant.


"Yeah, but those guys still aren't breaking HR records without steroids, so it's okay." Is that the argument? Only when it makes them good enough to break hallowed records should supplements be outlawed? It's based on the effectiveness of the supplement and not whether it's harmful and/or illegal?

In a sense yes. It sure as hell is. When vitamins, workouts, and all that get to the point were it starts making a whole slew of players shatter and break records, talk to me. The difference is that vitamins are good for you. Working out is good for you. Supplements are good for you. It takes something freakishly bad and harmful like Roids to turn you into Bonds. It's almost poetic justice in that sense.


The only sport I can think of besides baseball that compares itself across eras is golf - and modern golfers don't play with the same equipment, or on the same size courses as the older players did. Golf understands that you can only fight technology and progress so much, and so tweaks the courses to achieve the same effect that older courses gave to past players. And it seems to work for them.
The NFL does it as well. Sportswriters compare modern players to older players. They look at numbers, everyone's numbers. The difference is that football is looked at more of team and winning game, and baseball is more of a stat game.



~G

;) god that was long

[Poet]

;) god that was long

I didn't lie.

[/QUOTE]I'm not against regulating steroids. You have to - HAVE to. Baseball's steroid program is still a joke compared to the Olympics or the NFL, unless something's changed when I wasn't looking.


Seeing how it took you so long to type this post, steriods may have been banned, and the common cold may have been cured. ;)

[QUOTE]But baseball players are better role models than football players? Like Ty Cobb? Those drunks Ruth and Mantle? Juan Marichal, who took a bat to another players head? Richie Sexson, who got a DUI a couple weeks after getting to Seattle? Players that beat their wives, or deal drugs, or cut guys up with a machete in their homeland (yes, that happened)? Who piss away careers on coke habits? C'mon now man. Baseball has half the players of football, they should have fewer incidents. Because inner city black kids don't play baseball, I suppose you do get fewer urban incidents. Many of the crimes commited in MLB happen in the offseason back in dirt-poor Latin American countries, so you don't get to find out about it. National heroes get a pass for wife-beating in the Dominican. But enough happen here. MLB JUST DOESN'T PUNISH DUI AND WIFE-BEATING.


Ty Cobb was a piece of shit. Ruth was a drunk, which is legal. But he did a lot of good things too. So yes, in some respects he was a good role model. But hell, MLB players get DUIs and beat their wives, and NFL and NBA players sell crack, tote guns, get DUIs AND beat their wives, plus a ton of other crap. So yes, because the baseball players are not as bad, they are better role models.


Larussa fell asleep at the wheel he was so drunk, and IIRC not a damn thing happened to him. Dontrelle Willis? DUI. Dozens and dozens of other players? DUI. Suspensions? Not a one.

Don't talk to me like baseball is the last sacred ground of wholesome athletes. Baseball, once again, just has less rigorous standards than that bastion of bad eggs, football. "Our sport doesn't have steroid users!" "Your sport doesn't test for steroids, how would you know?" "Our sport is not filled with thugs!" "Your sport doesn't punish thugs, so most of your fan base wouldn't know about it, would they?"

Compare it to the other sports and yes, it is. When was the last time a MLB player pulled a gun on a cop? When was the last time a baseball player did anything like Pacman? Do you see baseball players going out to clubs with a bunch of thugs and gangstas running around? When was the last coke charge?
There are bad people in baseball. Just like there are bad people who play any sport, or partake in any profession. But the amount of those guys in baseball does not come close to the NFL or the NBA. Not even close.



This laser-focus on the names of the people on that list - Curt Schilling opened his big mouth again and wants to see names named - dilutes the focus from what should be done and puts it back on the past, where MLB loves to focus its attention.

I still think that is kind of good. If you CRUSH the big names I think it would be somewhat of a deterrent.


Does it suck that cheaters and a-holes and liars and wife-beaters and drug-users and thugs are in sports? Sure.
Yes, very much so. And that is why there is so much outrage. Earlier you said people were losing their minds over it. Do you still honestly feel that way? I think all the outrage (well, most of it) is justified and rationale.



What do you do about it? You test as much as you can (which MLB still doesn't), you punish everyone who breaks the law (which MLB still doesn't), and you make sure that the cheaters and the change doesn't wreck the game (which MLB shows no real inkling of understanding). They would still like to think that baseball players are not cheaters and thugs, and that if they ask nicely, maybe the cheating will stop.
They loved the cheating. I still think that Selig saw Sammy and Mark M. crush all those dingers and just turned away. There is no way I will ever believe that he had no clue.



It's not going to stop. And as technology improves, the players who currently play the game will resemble less and less the players that used to. It's just how life works.
That's fine, but as technology improves is different than injecting yourself in the ass with chemicals that give you the strength to lift a car and slap a grizzly bear around.


Unless your name is Ichiro, I guess. That kid's 99 pounds of Dy-No-Mite who can play in any era.

He actually roided up and is weighing in at a freakish 105!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

[G_Money]

Compare it to the other sports and yes, it is. When was the last time a MLB player pulled a gun on a cop? When was the last time a baseball player did anything like Pacman? Do you see baseball players going out to clubs with a bunch of thugs and gangstas running around? When was the last coke charge?

There are bad people in baseball. Just like there are bad people who play any sport, or partake in any profession. But the amount of those guys in baseball does not come close to the NFL or the NBA. Not even close.

Work is keeping me extra busy, but on this, just off the top of my head or things that aren't exactly commonplace:

Kevin Mitchell in a drunken rage cut the head off his girlfriend's cat.

Didn't Albert Belle try to run down kids on Halloween with his car?

Ugueth Urbina chopped up some workers on his farm with a machete, covered them with paint thinner and set them ON FIRE. They were still alive at the time.

I don't remember Plaxico or Pacman doing that.

Just because almost all football players are American and more than half of baseball players are foreign, don't confuse the issue. American crimes all happen here, are reported here, and get splashy news coverage here. Except for domestic abuse and DUI stuff from baseballers, which MLB sweeps under the rug because it's apparently not worth suspending players for. I guess I'm not sure why doing cocaine is bad, but punching your wife is okay.

Baseball players are not choirboys. No, most of the Dominicans and Venezuelans and Puerto Ricans aren't going down to the hip-hop club and waving guns around, but that doesn't make them sparkling citizens and better human beings by default.

It just means their crimes happen elsewhere. They all go home for the offseason, where they can get anything they want and do almost anything they want, because they're national treasures with money to burn.

You keep talking about how it's not okay to be a cheater regardless of whether you get caught or not, or whether you're in the HOF or not.

Well, it's also not okay to commit crimes, regardless of whether those crimes are reported or prosecuted.

You don't know the private lives of the people you admire on the field, regardless of what type of field that is. "Baseball players are better people than football players or basketball players because their crimes aren't reported, and don't happen on these shores" is a bad argument. A crime not being reported is not the same as one not being committed, and there are plenty of crimes committed by baseball players that never make the news.

MLB used to say the same things about its players' steroid usage. "Not a problem. Very minimal. We don't test for it, but I'm sure that's true." Once they test for it, apparently there are a bunch of users.

Which makes sense.

"MLB players don't commit crimes like other athletes" seems strange. Why wouldn't they? Are they from better backgrounds? Well, for the most part no. Poverty is poverty, violence is violence, and if you've ever been to the Carribbean or Central America there's a lot of both. Does MLB screen its players better to weed out the thugs? No. This isn't like golf, where the price to play the game is so high it weeds out thug mentality by the very nature of the sport. Anybody can get a stick and a ball and play baseball.

So why is there less crime among baseball players? Either it's because the percentage of black people in the sport is smaller in baseball and much higher in football, and black people commit disproportionate amount of crimes simply because of the color of their skin and not their monetary or living circumstances (something that people have had trouble supporting for a while now), or it's because the athletes attracted to baseball are of a more genteel and less-violent ilk, and so the violence prone are weeded out and play other sports...

Or there isn't less crime.

Maybe less gun crime, but just because one culture finds it okay to walk around strapped and the other just gets drunk and beats their wives or cuts people up with machetes doesn't make one violent crime better than the other.

Just something to chew on.

~G

[OB]

:mad:



Let's go Yankees! :elefant:




:tsk:

See i told you guys a-rod was an ass :coffee:

[OB]

PS - And Phelps is such a loser/bad guy/criminal for using MJ :coffee:

[OB]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/NBCSports/Interactives%20and%20Slideshows/MLB/ss-090207-arod/ss-090207-arod-08.ss_full.jpg

DJ is all like - What a dic :D

[Devilspawn]

By RONALD BLUM, AP Baseball Writer 28 minutes ago


NEW YORK (AP)—Alex Rodriguez admitted Monday that he used performance-enhancing drugs from 2001-03, saying he did so because of the pressures of being baseball’s highest-paid player.

“When I arrived in Texas in 2001, I felt an enormous amount of pressure. I felt like I had all the weight of the world on top of me and I needed to perform, and perform at a high level every day,” the New York Yankees star said in an interview with ESPN that was broadcast Monday shortly after it was recorded.

Rodriguez, who for years has denied using steroids, was given a $252 million, 10-year contract by the Texas Rangers in December 2000.

His admission came two days after Sports Illustrated reported he tested positive for steroids in 2003, one of 104 players who tested positive during baseball’s survey testing, which wasn’t subject to discipline and was supposed to remain anonymous.

“Back then it was a different culture. It was very loose. I was young. I was stupid,” he said. “I was naive, and I wanted to prove to everyone that, you know, I was worth, you know—and being one of the greatest players of all time.”

Rodriguez hit 52, 57 and 47 homers in his three seasons with the Rangers, winning the first of three AL MVP awards during his final season with Texas. Because the Rangers were uncompetitive, he pushed for a trade to the Yankees in February 2004. Although he’s won two more MVP awards in pinstripes, he’s been a postseason failure and has never been to the World Series.
In this Feb. 20, 2008 file photo, New York Yankees' Alex Rodriguez, left, talks with Andy Pettitte as they stretch during spring training baseball workouts in Tampa, Fla. How A-Rod responds to a report that he tested positive for steroids in 2003 will likely frame his pursuit of the career home run record and could define his playing days in the view of fans and Hall of Fame voters.
In this Feb. 20, 2008 file pho…
AP - Feb 9, 9:53 am EST

“It was such a loosey-goosey era. I’m guilty for a lot of things. I’m guilty for being negligent, naive, not asking all the right questions,” Rodriguez said. “And to be quite honest, I don’t know exactly what substance I was guilty of using.”

SI.com reported he tested positive for Primobolan and testosterone.

“And I did take a banned substance and, you know, for that I’m very sorry and deeply regretful. And although it was the culture back then and Major League Baseball overall was very—I just feel that—You know, I’m just sorry. I’m sorry for that time. I’m sorry to fans. I’m sorry for my fans in Texas. It wasn’t until then that I ever thought about substance of any kind, and since then I’ve proved to myself and to everyone that I don’t need any of that.”

Rodriguez directly contradicted a December 2007 interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” when he said, “No” when asked whether he’s ever used steroids, human growth hormone or any other performance-enhancing substance.

“I’ve never felt overmatched on the baseball field,” he said then. “I felt that if I did my, my work as I’ve done since I was, you know, a rookie back in Seattle, I didn’t have a problem competing at any level.”

That interview came after he opted out of his $252 million contract and agreed to a $275 million, 10-year contract with the Yankees.
All I read in that article were excuses and self doubt. Loosey goosey culture my ass. Under pressure my left foot. Needed to prove I was worth the contract my left nut.

We should get rid of him. He's going to receive the Charles Smith treatment, but worse.

[OB]

By RONALD BLUM, AP Baseball Writer 28 minutes ago


All I read in that article were excuses and self doubt. Loosey goosey culture my ass. Under pressure my left foot. Needed to prove I was worth the contract my left nut.

We should get rid of him. He's going to receive the Charles Smith treatment, but worse.

Should have gotten rid of him when I said - before he cost us more money - the guy is a chode

[Devilspawn]

Should have gotten rid of him when I said - before he cost us more money - the guy is a chode
Yeah but we're filthy rich! :elefant:

:tsk:

Let's watch the backlash with him vs. Pettitte's backlash. Pettitte, being a man of God and character or whatever, received harsh criticism, but not hatred. We forgave him and while it may have tarnished him a bit, we still rooted for him. Not this time. A-Rod lied to us. And I believed him too. I don't hate him nor do I like him. I was on his side when he was heavily criticized by the fans every out he made. But whatever.

Now my list of "I hope this mofo didn't do the stuff or I'll be crushed" includes:

Junior Griffey
Mariano
Jeter
Bernie
Jorge
Manny
Ortiz (although I won't shed a tear)
Pujols
Mr. Met
Stellar pitchers over 40
Frank Thomas

I can't think of others, but if any of these names are on the list, it would hit home for the sake of the game.

[Poet]

Work is keeping me extra busy, but on this, just off the top of my head or things that aren't exactly commonplace:

Kevin Mitchell in a drunken rage cut the head off his girlfriend's cat.

Didn't Albert Belle try to run down kids on Halloween with his car?

Ugueth Urbina chopped up some workers on his farm with a machete, covered them with paint thinner and set them ON FIRE. They were still alive at the time.

I don't remember Plaxico or Pacman doing that.

I don't know if Belle did that or didn't do that. But, Leonard Little literally killed someone with his DUI. Then there is good ole Rae Carruth (spelling?). Ahman Green beat his wife. Then I can literally just pull up all the Cincy, Jville, SD, etc etc etc charges. The NFL gets more press about their thugs and such because there are more.

Urbina....takes the cake.


Just because almost all football players are American and more than half of baseball players are foreign, don't confuse the issue. American crimes all happen here, are reported here, and get splashy news coverage here. Except for domestic abuse and DUI stuff from baseballers, which MLB sweeps under the rug because it's apparently not worth suspending players for. I guess I'm not sure why doing cocaine is bad, but punching your wife is okay.

Baseball players are not choirboys. No, most of the Dominicans and Venezuelans and Puerto Ricans aren't going down to the hip-hop club and waving guns around, but that doesn't make them sparkling citizens and better human beings by default.

You got me on the cocaine and wife thing. I don't get how either of them are good, but I think there is a special place in hell for men who beat women. But, I disagree about the foriegn stuff. They partake in our sport, but we look at baseball as an American thing. They aren't Americans. They don't reflect our culture, or what we do. Dog and chicken fighting over here is looked at as taboo. As it should. But, wasn't it Pedro and Omar Mania (spelling, and he is the GM of the Mets) that got blasted for watching that crap overseas?

At the risk of sounding mean, I just don't count it.


It just means their crimes happen elsewhere. They all go home for the offseason, where they can get anything they want and do almost anything they want, because they're national treasures with money to burn.

Once again, if someone leaves the country, and goes to their home country to committ crimes, on any level, how does the reflect on us? They aren't us. Literally, they stay here for their job. But their friends, family, and past life is over here. If Vladimir Guerra goes out and gets a DUI it would be big news, simply because he is a big name. If Derek Jeter goes out and gets a DUI, it would be huge news because of his name. One of their actions reflects upon us. The other does not.


You keep talking about how it's not okay to be a cheater regardless of whether you get caught or not, or whether you're in the HOF or not.

Well, it's also not okay to commit crimes, regardless of whether those crimes are reported or prosecuted.

You're damn right.


You don't know the private lives of the people you admire on the field, regardless of what type of field that is. "Baseball players are better people than football players or basketball players because their crimes aren't reported, and don't happen on these shores" is a bad argument. A crime not being reported is not the same as one not being committed, and there are plenty of crimes committed by baseball players that never make the news.

It's the truth. I would bet you however much you want that the amount of violent crimes, or crimes in general in the MLB is less than the NFL. The NFL has players who run around and pull guns out on people. They get more domestic charges, more DUI s, they commit more crimes. They also have a tendency to get shot more often. This isn't a coincidence. Now you aren't "better" as a human being for being in the MLB compared to someone being in the NFL. But, the NFL players sure seem to have more of a "thug" mentality than the MLB does.


MLB used to say the same things about its players' steroid usage. "Not a problem. Very minimal. We don't test for it, but I'm sure that's true." Once they test for it, apparently there are a bunch of users.

Which makes sense.
Yeah, it does make sense. Bug Selig is the worst commissioner I have ever seen. The steroids era happened on his watch, and he gets to have that as his legacy forever. He's earned it.



"MLB players don't commit crimes like other athletes" seems strange. Why wouldn't they? Are they from better backgrounds? Well, for the most part no. Poverty is poverty, violence is violence, and if you've ever been to the Carribbean or Central America there's a lot of both. Does MLB screen its players better to weed out the thugs? No. This isn't like golf, where the price to play the game is so high it weeds out thug mentality by the very nature of the sport. Anybody can get a stick and a ball and play baseball.

I don't believe I said they don't commit crimes like other athletes, and if I did I misspoke and I am a moron. What I have been trying to say, and what I think:confused: I said, is that they don't commit as manycrimes.

The MLB has been trying for quite some time to spark the interest of the inner city community in the MLB. I remember on Jackie Robinson day last season, or maybe the year before, that they had several old school players talk about that. Is that the answer? Maybe, maybe not.



So why is there less crime among baseball players? Either it's because the percentage of black people in the sport is smaller in baseball and much higher in football, and black people commit disproportionate amount of crimes simply because of the color of their skin and not their monetary or living circumstances (something that people have had trouble supporting for a while now), or it's because the athletes attracted to baseball are of a more genteel and less-violent ilk, and so the violence prone are weeded out and play other sports...
See my response above. I would assume that it isn't so much that people are black than it is that poverty stricken people are at a higher rate to commit crimes. Since there are more people from a poverty stricken area in the NFL, that is my guess.



Or there isn't less crime.

If there isn't less crime in the MLB I would be shocked. If there is an equal amount, or close to it, I would be floored if the NFL didn't have a higher rate of violent crime


Maybe less gun crime, but just because one culture finds it okay to walk around strapped and the other just gets drunk and beats their wives or cuts people up with machetes doesn't make one violent crime better than the other.

In sports DUI's, domestic abuse, and gun charges are common place. Machete choppage is so rare (I feel comfortable saying this) in modern day sports that I don't think you can really try to imply that baseball players do it as much as the other crimes.


Just something to chew on.

~G

My hands hurt.

[CoachChaz]

I pretty much expect to find that almost every athlete cheats in one way or another. It's part of the game and with so many of them out there, who can blame the rest for trying, just so they can level the playing field. Screw it...just legalize it all and see what happens.

[Poet]

I pretty much expect to find that almost every athlete cheats in one way or another. It's part of the game and with so many of them out there, who can blame the rest for trying, just so they can level the playing field. Screw it...just legalize it all and see what happens.

:tsk:

[Broncospsycho77]

I wouldn't be surprised if that estimate of 90% of players shoot up was completely accurate.

[G_Money]

Edit: As i read this over, it looks a little harsh, but I'm really not intending it to be. I'm finding this to be far more interesting at the moment than any other discussion we could be having, so try to give me some leeway in tone if it comes across too harshly. I'm enjoying the argument, not trying to pick a fight. :beer:

Though my ultimate goal is to cripple King's hands so that I win by default. Mwahahaha...

On with the argument.

~G


You got me on the cocaine and wife thing. I don't get how either of them are good, but I think there is a special place in hell for men who beat women. But, I disagree about the foriegn stuff. They partake in our sport, but we look at baseball as an American thing. They aren't Americans. They don't reflect our culture, or what we do. Dog and chicken fighting over here is looked at as taboo. As it should. But, wasn't it Pedro and Omar Mania (spelling, and he is the GM of the Mets) that got blasted for watching that crap overseas?

At the risk of sounding mean, I just don't count it.

...

Once again, if someone leaves the country, and goes to their home country to committ crimes, on any level, how does the reflect on us? They aren't us. Literally, they stay here for their job. But their friends, family, and past life is over here. If Vladimir Guerra goes out and gets a DUI it would be big news, simply because he is a big name. If Derek Jeter goes out and gets a DUI, it would be huge news because of his name. One of their actions reflects upon us. The other does not.

*blinks*

So you're really saying that foreign players committing crimes doesn't reflect on us, because they're foreign. So their crimes in their countries are not really of consequence to the argument that there are substantially more violent crimes and DUIs in the NFL than there are in MLB.

Carlos Guillen can get a DUI or two (and he has) but he isn't considered a criminal because he's foreign, which is why it doesn't affect your argument fewer baseballers are criminals? Does that mean that now foreign-born players aren't role models to domestic kids?

I guess I'm confused by the argument (which is now far afield from A-Rod, but screw him, this is more interesting). Points of the argument as I read it while trying and failing to work instead of post about this:

1) MLB players are better role-models for kids because they commit fewer crimes, so we care more about the crimes they do commit, like steroid abuse, since they're supposed to be better role-models.

2) Far more crimes per capita, especially violent crimes, are committed by the inner-city, poverty-stricken blacks that play football than by the foreign-born, poverty-stricken Latinos that play baseball.

3) If 2 is not true, then it doesn't matter anyway because foreign-born Latinos are not Americans, and so are not role models to young Americans and not reflective of our societal norms anyway cuz they're from other countries.

4) So even if you account for the fact that there are twice as many NFL players so there should be twice as much crime, NFL players by default will HAVE to have a bunch more crime since we're counting all their players, but cherry-picking only white players and the 4% or whatever of black players still in the league that are American-born, like Milton Bradley.

5) All crimes are not equal, and DUI crimes are not considered violent crimes even though lives were endangered. Same with spousal-abuse crimes, because members of both sports commit them (though only one sport suspends players for them). Gun crimes and drug crimes are the only crimes that carry weight in the NFL vs MLB crime-stats throw-down, and since more NFL players commit gun crimes, football's obviously the more criminal sport.

Um...is that right?

Because 1) infers that ball-players are role-models across race, but then you discount that with 3). Kids apparently look up to baseball players more because they're not thugs, only they might be the same kinds of thugs except only in their own countries, which apparently doesn't matter to an 8 year old who only should care about a crime committed on his own soil.

If Martians were allowed to play baseball and they ate live babies, are kids supposed to still look up to them as role models because they only eat live babies in the offseason, while they're back on Mars, so Earth Morality really can't be applied to them? I mean, they do what they want on their planet, and we only care about what happens on this one with baggy-pantsed black kids, right? Martians aren't American, so their Martian ethics don't apply. In a global world where my 8 year old can talk to an 8 year old in China via teleconference in his classroom or on my home webcam and blogs carry news with instantaneous efficiency, I'd think jurisdictional ethics and morals are a little outmoded.

Or maybe 8 year olds should only look up to domestic-born players, even though foreign-born players dominate the popularity charts.

What exactly is it that you're advocating as far as role models in baseball? White guys - or at least domestically-raised athletes - who at the most "only" drink and drive or maybe beat their wives but don't do drugs or wave guns around, because guns and drugs are way worse than drinking and spousal abuse?

So Jeter hasn't gotten a DUI yet, but Joba Chamberlain has. Leyritz killed a woman while drunk driving, but he wasn't playing any more so that doesn't count, right? Jeter cheats on his girlfriends, but maybe they're not exclusive. A-Rod cheated on his wife and roided up, Johnny Damon cheated on his...

But there were no guns involved, so thank God the NYY and baseball are making sure to be such good role models for the kids.

It's not violent crime. Except for that pesky DUI death thing, I guess. As long as my kids make sure to follow the examples of the domestic-born people who cheat on their wives and cheat at their sport and drive drunk, it's okay. Just don't carry a gun or sling dope, son, and try not to hit anybody while driving all boozed up, because that's bad.

You believe baseball has a more moral player base. I don't. Maybe a bunch of foreign players and middle-class white kids don't wave around as many guns as poverty-born black ones, but that's hardly the only crime in the world, or the only dangerous act that can be undertaken by a sports figure.

I guess comparing the relative morality of the player bases just leaves me with the thought that Charles Barkley was right, and he is not a role model, and neither are many of the sports role models out there.

Admire their work ethic and their athletic prowess, but their off the field actions are always subject to doubt, and building them up to be heroes just leaves one with the ability to be disappointed by their eventual mortality. Regardless of the sport they play.

Are there role models in sports? You damn well better believe it. There are some amazing people out there doing amazing things for their communities and their sports. But choose them on an individual basis, from all available facts, not because of the sport they play or the country they come from, because that's the way to get let down when the criteria fails.

~G

[Devilspawn]

Edit: As i read this over, it looks a little harsh, but I'm really not intending it to be. I'm finding this to be far more interesting at the moment than any other discussion we could be having, so try to give me some leeway in tone if it comes across too harshly. I'm enjoying the argument, not trying to pick a fight. :beer:

Though my ultimate goal is to cripple King's hands so that I win by default. Mwahahaha...

On with the argument.

~G



*blinks*

So you're really saying that foreign players committing crimes doesn't reflect on us, because they're foreign. So their crimes in their countries are not really of consequence to the argument that there are substantially more violent crimes and DUIs in the NFL than there are in MLB.

Carlos Guillen can get a DUI or two (and he has) but he isn't considered a criminal because he's foreign, which is why it doesn't affect your argument fewer baseballers are criminals? Does that mean that now foreign-born players aren't role models to domestic kids?

I guess I'm confused by the argument (which is now far afield from A-Rod, but screw him, this is more interesting). Points of the argument as I read it while trying and failing to work instead of post about this:

1) MLB players are better role-models for kids because they commit fewer crimes, so we care more about the crimes they do commit, like steroid abuse, since they're supposed to be better role-models.

2) Far more crimes per capita, especially violent crimes, are committed by the inner-city, poverty-stricken blacks that play football than by the foreign-born, poverty-stricken Latinos that play baseball.

3) If 2 is not true, then it doesn't matter anyway because foreign-born Latinos are not Americans, and so are not role models to young Americans and not reflective of our societal norms anyway cuz they're from other countries.

4) So even if you account for the fact that there are twice as many NFL players so there should be twice as much crime, NFL players by default will HAVE to have a bunch more crime since we're counting all their players, but cherry-picking only white players and the 4% or whatever of black players still in the league that are American-born, like Milton Bradley.

5) All crimes are not equal, and DUI crimes are not considered violent crimes even though lives were endangered. Same with spousal-abuse crimes, because members of both sports commit them (though only one sport suspends players for them). Gun crimes and drug crimes are the only crimes that carry weight in the NFL vs MLB crime-stats throw-down, and since more NFL players commit gun crimes, football's obviously the more criminal sport.

Um...is that right?

Because 1) infers that ball-players are role-models across race, but then you discount that with 3). Kids apparently look up to baseball players more because they're not thugs, only they might be the same kinds of thugs except only in their own countries, which apparently doesn't matter to an 8 year old who only should care about a crime committed on his own soil.

If Martians were allowed to play baseball and they ate live babies, are kids supposed to still look up to them as role models because they only eat live babies in the offseason, while they're back on Mars, so Earth Morality really can't be applied to them? I mean, they do what they want on their planet, and we only care about what happens on this one with baggy-pantsed black kids, right? Martians aren't American, so their Martian ethics don't apply. In a global world where my 8 year old can talk to an 8 year old in China via teleconference in his classroom or on my home webcam and blogs carry news with instantaneous efficiency, I'd think jurisdictional ethics and morals are a little outmoded.

Or maybe 8 year olds should only look up to domestic-born players, even though foreign-born players dominate the popularity charts.

What exactly is it that you're advocating as far as role models in baseball? White guys - or at least domestically-raised athletes - who at the most "only" drink and drive or maybe beat their wives but don't do drugs or wave guns around, because guns and drugs are way worse than drinking and spousal abuse?

So Jeter hasn't gotten a DUI yet, but Joba Chamberlain has. Leyritz killed a woman while drunk driving, but he wasn't playing any more so that doesn't count, right? Jeter cheats on his girlfriends, but maybe they're not exclusive. A-Rod cheated on his wife and roided up, Johnny Damon cheated on his...

But there were no guns involved, so thank God the NYY and baseball are making sure to be such good role models for the kids.

It's not violent crime. Except for that pesky DUI death thing, I guess. As long as my kids make sure to follow the examples of the domestic-born people who cheat on their wives and cheat at their sport and drive drunk, it's okay. Just don't carry a gun or sling dope, son, and try not to hit anybody while driving all boozed up, because that's bad.

You believe baseball has a more moral player base. I don't. Maybe a bunch of foreign players and middle-class white kids don't wave around as many guns as poverty-born black ones, but that's hardly the only crime in the world, or the only dangerous act that can be undertaken by a sports figure.

I guess comparing the relative morality of the player bases just leaves me with the thought that Charles Barkley was right, and he is not a role model, and neither are many of the sports role models out there.

Admire their work ethic and their athletic prowess, but their off the field actions are always subject to doubt, and building them up to be heroes just leaves one with the ability to be disappointed by their eventual mortality. Regardless of the sport they play.

Are there role models in sports? You damn well better believe it. There are some amazing people out there doing amazing things for their communities and their sports. But choose them on an individual basis, from all available facts, not because of the sport they play or the country they come from, because that's the way to get let down when the criteria fails.

~G

a little off topic, you're at work and you can write all this? I hope you're not a security guard.

[gnomeflinger]

Sorry G, I didn't read it all. It's that whole ADD thing. Anyway, I'm trying to think of a plausible reason why MLB players are henpecked more than NFL or NHL players for drug useage. Maybe because MLB isn't as good at covering it up? :noidea:

[keithbishop]

By RONALD BLUM, AP Baseball Writer 28 minutes ago


All I read in that article were excuses and self doubt. Loosey goosey culture my ass. Under pressure my left foot. Needed to prove I was worth the contract my left nut.

We should get rid of him. He's going to receive the Charles Smith treatment, but worse.


Be honest:

Did you forgive Giambi and Pettitte?

I take it the ansewer is no. If not, how are you not a hypocrite?

If you didn't forgive Giambi and Pettitte, it would make sense to not forgive A-Rod.


Speaking for myself:

I forgave Giambi for saying 2 words "I'm sorry".

I forgave Pettitte despite his "I only used once.... OK, I only used twice..... OK, I only used _________" because an admission is an admission.

Using the same standard, I have no problem forgiving A-Rod. I'm not going to dissect his confession because I didn't dissect Andy's. All 3 lied and confessed only after getting caught. "No comment" doesn't work. Denial doesn't work. Just ask Bonds and Clemens.

I'm rooting for every player on my team.

Bonus question: I rooted for Romanowski because of his uniform despite the fact it was painfully obvious that he used steroids. Did you root against him when he was with the Raiders (at least up to the time he tried to kill one of his teammates)? Just curious.

I'm not going to preach to you or 420 (420 is too cute to preach to anyways :hug:), just asking some questions and spelling out my stance:

1. A-Rod made a huge series of mistakes.

2. He lied.

3. The HR record will still belong to Hank Aaron no matter how many A-Rod hits. His entire career remains under as much suspicion as Bonds'. I can't pick and choose "Clean from _____ to _____", Dirty from 2001 to 2003, Clean from 2004 and beyond". I can't do that. I'll leave that for red sox fans to do that with Clemens.... "He was clean until he joined the Blue Jays". Ummmm hmmmmm. Suuuuurrrrre. How convenient. :rolleyes:

4. A-Rod doesn't belong in the HOF. I won't acknowledge him if he's inducted.

5. I accept his apology, but he's just 1 of the 25 now. Were he not on my team, I wouldn't pay a bit of attention to him.

[keithbishop]

I pretty much expect to find that almost every athlete cheats in one way or another. It's part of the game and with so many of them out there, who can blame the rest for trying, just so they can level the playing field. Screw it...just legalize it all and see what happens.

Give us a seperate HOF and I could almost live with that. God, it sucks to say that.

[Poet]

Edit: As i read this over, it looks a little harsh, but I'm really not intending it to be. I'm finding this to be far more interesting at the moment than any other discussion we could be having, so try to give me some leeway in tone if it comes across too harshly. I'm enjoying the argument, not trying to pick a fight. :beer:

Though my ultimate goal is to cripple King's hands so that I win by default. Mwahahaha...

On with the argument.

~G



*blinks*


So you're really saying that foreign players committing crimes doesn't reflect on us, because they're foreign. So their crimes in their countries are not really of consequence to the argument that there are substantially more violent crimes and DUIs in the NFL than there are in MLB.

Yes. Because they do not reflect upon us as a country. They are not citizens of this country. It is not that their crimes are of no consequence, it is that they don't reflect upon us. I am not condoning their crimes.


Carlos Guillen can get a DUI or two (and he has) but he isn't considered a criminal because he's foreign, which is why it doesn't affect your argument fewer baseballers are criminals? Does that mean that now foreign-born players aren't role models to domestic kids?

Oh no, he's a criminal. But, he isn't our criminal. He does not reflect upon us as a country. I won't lie, I never have put much stock in the role model crap. My dad had it beaten into my mind that athletes are not role models. To quote an old Bengals head coach, Sam Wyche, "Athletes are not role models, hell, most of them need role models,". That doesn't take away from them actually being role models. I just like to rant about it.

But, how can they represent our country? They aren't even citizens of our country.


I guess I'm confused by the argument (which is now far afield from A-Rod, but screw him, this is more interesting). Points of the argument as I read it while trying and failing to work instead of post about this:


1) MLB players are better role-models for kids because they commit fewer crimes, so we care more about the crimes they do commit, like steroid abuse, since they're supposed to be better role-models.

I don't care about Steriods from the criminal perspective, not much. I am just arguing from the standpoint of what they do to the game. My one point about them being illegal was just to point out, more as a footnote than anything else, that when they were not "illegal" as far as MLB was concerned, they were still illegal under MLB's rule of "don't take drugs that are against the law,".

I would also point out that they are better role-models. ;)


2) Far more crimes per capita, especially violent crimes, are committed by the inner-city, poverty-stricken blacks that play football than by the foreign-born, poverty-stricken Latinos that play baseball.

I don't know about all that. What I do know is that I don't count the crimes that MLB players and NFL players commit against either leagues if that crime is committed by a person who is not a legal citizen here. Now, if you take someone who isn't a citizen here, but basically lives here, I would count that against them. At that point they are actually living here. But when you get guys who bounce home (read, another country) nah, I don't.


3) If 2 is not true, then it doesn't matter anyway because foreign-born Latinos are not Americans, and so are not role models to young Americans and not reflective of our societal norms anyway cuz they're from other countries.

I think they would still count (unfortunately) as role models. But, I don't count them because I fail to see how someone who isn't American can reflect upon our society negatively.


4) So even if you account for the fact that there are twice as many NFL players so there should be twice as much crime, NFL players by default will HAVE to have a bunch more crime since we're counting all their players, but cherry-picking only white players and the 4% or whatever of black players still in the league that are American-born, like Milton Bradley.

1280= the amount of players in the MLB. 1696= the number of players in the NFL. I am a bit lost here. I'm not cherry picking anything. Point blank players in the NFL commit more crimes. At the very least NFL players commit more violent crimes.


5) All crimes are not equal, and DUI crimes are not considered violent crimes even though lives were endangered. Same with spousal-abuse crimes, because members of both sports commit them (though only one sport suspends players for them). Gun crimes and drug crimes are the only crimes that carry weight in the NFL vs MLB crime-stats throw-down, and since more NFL players commit gun crimes, football's obviously the more criminal sport.

Um...is that right?

DUI's were ruled by federal courts to not be a violent crime. So, yes. Inherently crimes are not equal. You can get put to death for some crimes. Some crimes require jail sentences, some require prison sentences. Some require fines, other tickets. There are tons of NFL players with DUI's. The problem is that the NFL is going to match or come close to matching the MLB with drug and DUI's. The MLB will then get blown out by the amount of violent crimes.



[Because 1) infers that ball-players are role-models across race, but then you discount that with 3). Kids apparently look up to baseball players more because they're not thugs, only they might be the same kinds of thugs except only in their own countries, which apparently doesn't matter to an 8 year old who only should care about a crime committed on his own soil.

All their actions will count. However, when you try to tell me that it is right to count the crimes that MLB players from other countries commit on their own soil, while not being citizens here, I don't get it. How? How do their actions reflect upon America? Hell, even if they did it here, how does it? If I go to China and I kill 4 people, does it reflect upon China? No, because I was just visiting and went crazy. I don't get it.



If Martians were allowed to play baseball and they ate live babies, are kids supposed to still look up to them as role models because they only eat live babies in the offseason, while they're back on Mars, so Earth Morality really can't be applied to them? I mean, they do what they want on their planet, and we only care about what happens on this one with baggy-pantsed black kids, right? Martians aren't American, so their Martian ethics don't apply. In a global world where my 8 year old can talk to an 8 year old in China via teleconference in his classroom or on my home webcam and blogs carry news with instantaneous efficiency, I'd think jurisdictional ethics and morals are a little outmoded.

That is so insane that I can't even respond to it. But look at the example I brought up with Pedro and Omar. People blasted them for attending dog fighting. I didn't, because it's a different culture. Them attending dog fights means nothing to me because of that.


Or maybe 8 year olds should only look up to domestic-born players, even though foreign-born players dominate the popularity charts.
8 year olds need to hear the Sam Wyche quote more often. ;)



What exactly is it that you're advocating as far as role models in baseball? White guys - or at least domestically-raised athletes - who at the most "only" drink and drive or maybe beat their wives but don't do drugs or wave guns around, because guns and drugs are way worse than drinking and spousal abuse?

I'm advocating nothing. I don't think any athlete is a damn role model. All I said, is simply NFL has more crime, more violent crime. The MLB has less crime, less violent crime, and the culture is different.


So Jeter hasn't gotten a DUI yet, but Joba Chamberlain has. Leyritz killed a woman while drunk driving, but he wasn't playing any more so that doesn't count, right? Jeter cheats on his girlfriends, but maybe they're not exclusive. A-Rod cheated on his wife and roided up, Johnny Damon cheated on his...

Most people, especially kids don't know who Leyritz is. But you compare that to my 05 offseason Bengals who not only get DUIs, but pull guns, run from cops, beat their girlfriends, etc etc etc and it isn't even close. Hell, a few months after the Bengal outburst Jacksonville and SD were up there, and Jville eventually passed us. :lol: It isn't even close.


But there were no guns involved, so thank God the NYY and baseball are making sure to be such good role models for the kids.
Actually, most of the guys on the Yankees are choir boys compared to a lot of other athletes. Oh, especially when you compare them to NFL players...hold on, that reminds me of a debate I had with.....oh crap we're doing that now. :D



It's not violent crime. Except for that pesky DUI death thing, I guess. As long as my kids make sure to follow the examples of the domestic-born people who cheat on their wives and cheat at their sport and drive drunk, it's okay. Just don't carry a gun or sling dope, son, and try not to hit anybody while driving all boozed up, because that's bad.


Actually if I had to choose between my kids being alcoholics who cheat on their wives or gun and dope slinging guys....I would tell him to make sure that he buys good alcohol and to always wear a rubber.


You believe baseball has a more moral player base. I don't. Maybe a bunch of foreign players and middle-class white kids don't wave around as many guns as poverty-born black ones, but that's hardly the only crime in the world, or the only dangerous act that can be undertaken by a sports figure.

Crimes are not equal. Yes, MAYBE (and I STILL doubt it) the MLB has more crime, but the NFL sports a lot more of the worst kinds of crimes.



I guess comparing the relative morality of the player bases just leaves me with the thought that Charles Barkley was right, and he is not a role model, and neither are many of the sports role models out there.

Sam Wyche baby.


Admire their work ethic and their athletic prowess, but their off the field actions are always subject to doubt, and building them up to be heroes just leaves one with the ability to be disappointed by their eventual mortality. Regardless of the sport they play.

Exactly. They are not role models. Hell, most of them need...did I ever tell you about a guy named Sam Wyche?


Are there role models in sports? You damn well better believe it. There are some amazing people out there doing amazing things for their communities and their sports. But choose them on an individual basis, from all available facts, not because of the sport they play or the country they come from, because that's the way to get let down when the criteria fails.

~G

Athletes are only role models because parents fail. Let me reiterate this one last time; actions that people take who are not Americans do not reflect upon America. If you flip it and have some Latin dude bounce out of the country in the off-season and you give him credit for building a hospital, you give him credit. Maybe his COUNTRY gets some of the credit. But, I sure as hell never saw anyone give America any of Dikembe Mutombo's credit.

[keithbishop]

Kudos to Cynthia for being there for A-Rod today. It would have been easy for her to turn her back on him so soon after the divorce. She deserves a lot of credit. :congrats:

[Devilspawn]

Be honest:

Did you forgive Giambi and Pettitte?

I take it the ansewer is no. If not, how are you not a hypocrite?

If you didn't forgive Giambi and Pettitte, it would make sense to not forgive A-Rod.
You misinterpreted my quote about letting him go, probably linking them to my other comments. It wasn't about my forgiveness, it was about media scrutiny that will shatter, cripple and perhaps destroy an already fragile ego.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=548523&postcount=25 - This link, I asked your thoughts, notice I didn't say he should be released as a roid user more than a major distraction to the team. They booed Jeter and Mariano once. What's to happen to the unlikable A-Rod?

You may or may not remember my comments about A-Rod throughout the years, on the other Broncos forum. I damn him when he fails in the clutch, but I hate the fans for booing him into oblivion and blaming him primarily for the Yankees not winning it all. I supported A-Rod during the boos, supporting meaning let the guy play. I don't hate him, I don't like him, but the needle is more towards the dislike because of his lack of clutch play. As a Yankee fan, my expections are through the roof.

When I said we should let him go because he'll receive the Charles Smith treatment, I was referring to the brutal criticism he's most likely going to get that will become a MAJOR distraction.

For those who don't follow basketball or live in New York, Charles Smith was a power forward for the Knicks during their run against the Bulls in the 90s. He was involved in an infamous play that lives in Knicks folklore to this day and is considered one of, if not the worst play in the franchise's history. It was playoff series that was tied 2-2. Game 5 took place in Madison Square Garden. The Bulls led by one point with seconds left. Charles Smith received the ball under the basket and was stopped four times on the same play, which led to a Bulls victory. Knicks fans wanted Smith to go hard and take a foul. They called him soft, a west coast player on an east coast team. The next year, even though the Knicks made the NBA Finals, Smith was booed with every shot he missed. And it got to him. He was hesitant on a few plays. He tried to win the fans back but he couldn't. That play in 1993 lingered. His already damaged relationship with the fans was beyond repair.

Now, knowing the fans blamed A-Rod for failing in the clutch as a clean player, what will our fellow brutal Yankee fans do when he fails as a now labeled dirty player, even if he's been off the stuff for over 5 years now?

How does the Charles Smith play relate to A-Rod? Well for one, the relationship with the fans. He's not a performer in the clutch, and the pressure and boos from his own fans in the harshest media market in the world bother him to the point that it effects his play. Increase that with this accusation. THAT'S why I said the Yankees should release him. Not because he lied and got caught. But because he'll come under so much scrutiny for every error and every strikeout once again, but tenfold. It may be for his own good.

I said nothing about not forgiving A-Rod. In fact, I want him to be a beast, in pinstripes or wherever because even though I'm not a fan of the person, I feel he gets TOO much heat and it would be nice to see him get some vindication.

Did I forgive Pettitte and Giambi for steroid use, even after the apology for getting caught in lying? Not at the time. It took me a while but I eventually did and moved forward and rooted for them to bounce back. I was incredibly disappointed with Pettitte, not too shocked about Giambi. That's me though. I can't forgive right away because it hurts now. Do I forgive A-Rod? Not yet and I don't think it makes me a hypocrite because it took time for me to forgive Andy and Giambi, so why should I automatically forgive A-Rod. Now if I NEVER do because of his diva label then yeah, I'd see the label of being hypocritical. But just as before, I'm going to need time.


Speaking for myself:

I forgave Giambi for saying 2 words "I'm sorry".

I forgave Pettitte despite his "I only used once.... OK, I only used twice..... OK, I only used _________" because an admission is an admission.

Using the same standard, I have no problem forgiving A-Rod. I'm not going to dissect his confession because I didn't dissect Andy's. All 3 lied and confessed only after getting caught. "No comment" doesn't work. Denial doesn't work. Just ask Bonds and Clemens.

I'm rooting for every player on my team.

Bonus question: I rooted for Romanowski because of his uniform despite the fact it was painfully obvious that he used steroids. Did you root against him when he was with the Raiders (at least up to the time he tried to kill one of his teammates)? Just curious.

I'm not going to preach to you or 420 (420 is too cute to preach to anyways :hug:), just asking some questions and spelling out my stance:

1. A-Rod made a huge series of mistakes.

2. He lied.

3. The HR record will still belong to Hank Aaron no matter how many A-Rod hits. His entire career remains under as much suspicion as Bonds'. I can't pick and choose "Clean from _____ to _____", Dirty from 2001 to 2003, Clean from 2004 and beyond". I can't do that. I'll leave that for red sox fans to do that with Clemens.... "He was clean until he joined the Blue Jays". Ummmm hmmmmm. Suuuuurrrrre. How convenient. :rolleyes:

4. A-Rod doesn't belong in the HOF. I won't acknowledge him if he's inducted.

5. I accept his apology, but he's just 1 of the 25 now. Were he not on my team, I wouldn't pay a bit of attention to him.
About Romanowski, yes, but I'm assuming you asked that thinking I'm not rooting for A-Rod. It's different because his admission came after his career was over.

I'm rooting for A-Rod to move forward, I always wanted him to silence the boos. I'm just not in forgiving mode, especially when he did it at a time when he was one of, if not the best player in the game. This time next year, knowing me, I may forgive him, but not now. It's like someone apologizing to me right after getting caught and trying to touch me on my shoulder while I'm saying "Don't touch me. Not now. The wound is too fresh. I wanna be alone with my thoughts."

[keithbishop]

You misinterpreted my quote about letting him go, probably linking them to my other comments. It wasn't about my forgiveness, it was about media scrutiny that will shatter, cripple and perhaps destroy an already fragile ego.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=548523&postcount=25 - This link, I asked your thoughts, notice I didn't say he should be released as a roid user more than a major distraction to the team. They booed Jeter and Mariano once. What's to happen to the unlikable A-Rod?

You may or may not remember my comments about A-Rod throughout the years, on the other Broncos forum. I damn him when he fails in the clutch, but I hate the fans for booing him into oblivion and blaming him primarily for the Yankees not winning it all. I supported A-Rod during the boos, supporting meaning let the guy play. I don't hate him, I don't like him, but the needle is more towards the dislike because of his lack of clutch play. As a Yankee fan, my expections are through the roof.

When I said we should let him go because he'll receive the Charles Smith treatment, I was referring to the brutal criticism he's most likely going to get that will become a MAJOR distraction.

For those who don't follow basketball or live in New York, Charles Smith was a power forward for the Knicks during their run against the Bulls in the 90s. He was involved in an infamous play that lives in Knicks folklore to this day and is considered one of, if not the worst play in the franchise's history. It was playoff series that was tied 2-2. Game 5 took place in Madison Square Garden. The Bulls led by one point with seconds left. Charles Smith received the ball under the basket and was stopped four times on the same play, which led to a Bulls victory. Knicks fans wanted Smith to go hard and take a foul. They called him soft, a west coast player on an east coast team. The next year, even though the Knicks made the NBA Finals, Smith was booed with every shot he missed. And it got to him. He was hesitant on a few plays. He tried to win the fans back but he couldn't. That play in 1993 lingered. His already damaged relationship with the fans was beyond repair.

Now, knowing the fans blamed A-Rod for failing in the clutch as a clean player, what will our fellow brutal Yankee fans do when he fails as a now labeled dirty player, even if he's been off the stuff for over 5 years now?

How does the Charles Smith play relate to A-Rod? Well for one, the relationship with the fans. He's not a performer in the clutch, and the pressure and boos from his own fans in the harshest media market in the world bother him to the point that it effects his play. Increase that with this accusation. THAT'S why I said the Yankees should release him. Not because he lied and got caught. But because he'll come under so much scrutiny for every error and every strikeout once again, but tenfold. It may be for his own good.

I said nothing about not forgiving A-Rod. In fact, I want him to be a beast, in pinstripes or wherever because even though I'm not a fan of the person, I feel he gets TOO much heat and it would be nice to see him get some vindication.

Did I forgive Pettitte and Giambi for steroid use, even after the apology for getting caught in lying? Not at the time. It took me a while but I eventually did and moved forward and rooted for them to bounce back. I was incredibly disappointed with Pettitte, not too shocked about Giambi. That's me though. I can't forgive right away because it hurts now. Do I forgive A-Rod? Not yet and I don't think it makes me a hypocrite because it took time for me to forgive Andy and Giambi, so why should I automatically forgive A-Rod. Now if I NEVER do because of his diva label then yeah, I'd see the label of being hypocritical. But just as before, I'm going to need time.


About Romanowski, yes, but I'm assuming you asked that thinking I'm not rooting for A-Rod. It's different because his admission came after his career was over.

I'm rooting for A-Rod to move forward, I always wanted him to silence the boos. I'm just not in forgiving mode, especially when he did it at a time when he was one of, if not the best player in the game. This time next year, knowing me, I may forgive him, but not now. It's like someone apologizing to me right after getting caught and trying to touch me on my shoulder while I'm saying "Don't touch me. Not now. The wound is too fresh. I wanna be alone with my thoughts."


My phone wouldn't stop ringing this morning. I was probably on the phone as I read that post, but I didn't even catch the "should release him" part.

Bill Madden (wrote the article you refer to) says yes. I say no. He's almost as high on my $@#& list as Lupica. If you ever catch me agreeing with either of them, I'm probably not feeling well. I'm probably the wrong person to ask about anything written by Madden or Lupica. I very rarely pay attention to the NY papers as is. I don't care for the Times, hate the Daily News, and loathe the Post with every fiber of my being. Tabloids do nothing for me. Lohud and NJ.com work just fine. I read a few blogs (Chad Jennings writes my favorite) and Pinstripes Plus religiously.

Madden is a moron. He was a writer when Bonds/Sosa/McGwire were running after records and waits until now to say someone should be released. He constantly trashes the Yankees minor league system, claiming we have nothing to look forward to from home grown players in the near future. I've been furious at him for over a year and disregard everything he says. Trashing our minor leaguers = making me go from zero to furious in the blink of an eye.

I have nothing in common with the "fans" that booed A-Rod and I won't pay heed to them. I've never booed a Yankee, nor will I in the future. It just isn't in me. Reality dictates that no one will release a player with $245 + mil. left on his deal. You don't release a player of his talent. It isn't going to happen. I've been wrong before, but am willing to risk a "mark my words" on this one.
The boo birds targeted Mantle and Mo once upon a time. F them. The same breed made Maris' life a living hell.... makes my blood boil just thinking about it. I'm fully aware that I can't do so physically from here in Kansas, but, at least in spirit, it is my sworn duty to be the antithesis to everything they represent. Take that for whatever it's worth. I don't care if they boo or who they target. I will back every member of my teams: The GCL Yankees, Staten Island, Charleston, Tampa, Trenton, Scranton, and the big team. I follow each and every one of those teams religiously.

The first 2 comments I've seen were from Bruney and Posada. More will be forthcoming. Posada has his back (Bruney, too). Good enough for me.

I was curious of your stance on Pettitte/Giambi. No, needing time to forgive A-Rod isn't hypocritical. It wouldn't be hypocritical to have forgiven none of them, either. Picking and choosing among those guilty of the same crime is what I would have a problem with.

The only differences between Bonds and A-Rod in my book:
1 wears a Yankees uniform
1 came clean

Neither belongs in the HOF. Hank Aaron will remain the HR king for a long time. Right or wrong, that's my stance and it won't change.

A-Rod's story is easy to deal with compared to Pettitte's. Nettles has always been my 3B. He'll never have a challenger. Mattingly will always be my favorite Yankee. Pettitte was one of my top 4 current players until his HGH use was revealed. Jeter, Mo, and Posada are tied at the top of my current list.

These days, it takes time for players from other organizations to get my full acceptance. It takes rings to join my elite list for non home grown players. Damon is an exception because I've thought the world of him since his Royals debut. Moose put in the required time. A-Rod met neither requirement. He was the most talented player I've ever seen, but that went out the window Saturday. He means no more to me than any other player on the team and has only himself to blame. I'll root like hell for him, but that's it.

I asked about Romanowski because I had no question he used steroids as a member of the Broncos (I knew it when he joined the team). I assumed Raiders fans were under the same impression, but that's a matter of opinion/perspective because he didn't test positive until the end of his career. I rooted for him in his Broncos tenure, but was happy to see him leave.

[Devilspawn]

My phone wouldn't stop ringing this morning. I was probably on the phone as I read that post, but I didn't even catch the "should release him" part.

Bill Madden (wrote the article you refer to) says yes. I say no. He's almost as high on my $@#& list as Lupica. If you ever catch me agreeing with either of them, I'm probably not feeling well. I'm probably the wrong person to ask about anything written by Madden or Lupica. I very rarely pay attention to the NY papers as is. I don't care for the Times, hate the Daily News, and loathe the Post with every fiber of my being. Tabloids do nothing for me. Lohud and NJ.com work just fine. I read a few blogs (Chad Jennings writes my favorite) and Pinstripes Plus religiously.

Madden is a moron. He was a writer when Bonds/Sosa/McGwire were running after records and waits until now to say someone should be released. He constantly trashes the Yankees minor league system, claiming we have nothing to look forward to from home grown players in the near future. I've been furious at him for over a year and disregard everything he says. Trashing our minor leaguers = making me go from zero to furious in the blink of an eye.

I have nothing in common with the "fans" that booed A-Rod and I won't pay heed to them. I've never booed a Yankee, nor will I in the future. It just isn't in me. Reality dictates that no one will release a player with $245 + mil. left on his deal. You don't release a player of his talent. It isn't going to happen. I've been wrong before, but am willing to risk a "mark my words" on this one.
The boo birds targeted Mantle and Mo once upon a time. F them. The same breed made Maris' life a living hell.... makes my blood boil just thinking about it. I'm fully aware that I can't do so physically from here in Kansas, but, at least in spirit, it is my sworn duty to be the antithesis to everything they represent. Take that for whatever it's worth. I don't care if they boo or who they target. I will back every member of my teams: The GCL Yankees, Staten Island, Charleston, Tampa, Trenton, Scranton, and the big team. I follow each and every one of those teams religiously.

The first 2 comments I've seen were from Bruney and Posada. More will be forthcoming. Posada has his back (Bruney, too). Good enough for me.

I was curious of your stance on Pettitte/Giambi. No, needing time to forgive A-Rod isn't hypocritical. It wouldn't be hypocritical to have forgiven none of them, either. Picking and choosing among those guilty of the same crime is what I would have a problem with.

The only differences between Bonds and A-Rod in my book:
1 wears a Yankees uniform
1 came clean

Neither belongs in the HOF. Hank Aaron will remain the HR king for a long time. Right or wrong, that's my stance and it won't change.

A-Rod's story is easy to deal with compared to Pettitte's. Nettles has always been my 3B. He'll never have a challenger. Mattingly will always be my favorite Yankee. Pettitte was one of my top 4 current players until his HGH use was revealed. Jeter, Mo, and Posada are tied at the top of my current list.

These days, it takes time for players from other organizations to get my full acceptance. It takes rings to join my elite list for non home grown players. Damon is an exception because I've thought the world of him since his Royals debut. Moose put in the required time. A-Rod met neither requirement. He was the most talented player I've ever seen, but that went out the window Saturday. He means no more to me than any other player on the team and has only himself to blame. I'll root like hell for him, but that's it.

I asked about Romanowski because I had no question he used steroids as a member of the Broncos (I knew it when he joined the team). I assumed Raiders fans were under the same impression, but that's a matter of opinion/perspective because he didn't test positive until the end of his career. I rooted for him in his Broncos tenure, but was happy to see him leave.
Lupica makes me laugh. I'm indifferent towards Madden.

I'm with you about rings. Actually it's best that A-Rod didn't win a ring with us yet. He can vindicate himself in most eyes by carrying his team in the clutch to the championship or just coming in the clutch period. This could re-write his chapter in NYC. Anything else and he's a lifetime villain.

It's usually a case by case basis on how disappointed I am, even though they all get the same initial level of non-forgiveness from me. Depending on what they do going forward determines if I will ever forgive them:

Pettitte - Disapointing being that he was a self proclaimed "man of God." Almost a baseball version of Kurt Warner. Had commercials about his faith. Humble, soft spoken, great player for us. I'm glad he didn't do it during the dynasty, but he did it. I forgave him but he disappointed me the most (so far).

Clemens, Palmiero - Flat out liars. No forgiveness.

McGuire - Don't want to talk about the past then let's not talk about forgiveness.

Sosa - This is a personal one because I went to junior high and high school with his cousin. Still, I didn't forgive him when he had one of the most impromtu language barrier moments in history. Comical. No forgiveness, and I told his cousin that too, although I still root for him a bit to repair the damage he did.

Bonds - Man he's riding this until the wheels fall off. No forgivness until he admits it, then we'll see. Probably not.

Giambi - I eventually forgave him and I rooted so hard for him during his comeback.

Fernando Vina - Didn't care about the player, but I liked how he carried himself. I forgave him eventually.

Paul Byrd - Gave excuses. I actually liked Paul Byrd for the last decade. I'm still on the fence.

Lyle Alzado - I remember his attempted comeback for the Raiders, I think it was 90 or 91. Guy was HUGE at that point, but we all knew. This was the first time steroids hit home. I forgave him, he came from an era where he was one of many. Sad circumstance, if the roids did cause his cancer. It was a soft spot for me and it's because of him that I have this long period of not forgiving.

[keithbishop]

Lupica makes me laugh. I'm indifferent towards Madden.

I'm with you about rings. Actually it's best that A-Rod didn't win a ring with us yet. He can vindicate himself in most eyes by carrying his team in the clutch to the championship or just coming in the clutch period. This could re-write his chapter in NYC. Anything else and he's a lifetime villain.

It's usually a case by case basis on how disappointed I am, even though they all get the same initial level of non-forgiveness from me. Depending on what they do going forward determines if I will ever forgive them:

Pettitte - Disapointing being that he was a self proclaimed "man of God." Almost a baseball version of Kurt Warner. Had commercials about his faith. Humble, soft spoken, great player for us. I'm glad he didn't do it during the dynasty, but he did it. I forgave him but he disappointed me the most (so far).

Clemens, Palmiero - Flat out liars. No forgiveness.

McGuire - Don't want to talk about the past then let's not talk about forgiveness.

Sosa - This is a personal one because I went to junior high and high school with his cousin. Still, I didn't forgive him when he had one of the most impromtu language barrier moments in history. Comical. No forgiveness, and I told his cousin that too, although I still root for him a bit to repair the damage he did.

Bonds - Man he's riding this until the wheels fall off. No forgivness until he admits it, then we'll see. Probably not.

Giambi - I eventually forgave him and I rooted so hard for him during his comeback.

Fernando Vina - Didn't care about the player, but I liked how he carried himself. I forgave him eventually.

Paul Byrd - Gave excuses. I actually liked Paul Byrd for the last decade. I'm still on the fence.

Lyle Alzado - I remember his attempted comeback for the Raiders, I think it was 90 or 91. Guy was HUGE at that point, but we all knew. This was the first time steroids hit home. I forgave him, he came from an era where he was one of many. Sad circumstance, if the roids did cause his cancer. It was a soft spot for me and it's because of him that I have this long period of not forgiving.

LOL. I'm just the wrong guy to ask about Madden and Lupica. I won't even pretend to be objective in my thoughts of them.


Lyle Alzado. I loved him as a Bronco. I was just a kid and new nothing about steroids back then. I only saw him in his last 2 years as a Bronco. One of the saddest stories in sports. He still has a place in my pantheon of favorites. Had I known then what I know now, that wouldn't have been the case, but I'll still give him an exception to my normal rules. R.I.P. , Lyle.

Sosa's language barrier moment made me laugh too hard to be as upset with him to the level of the others. I never cared for the guy, but his entertainment value in front of congress was off the charts. The dumbest defense strategy ever? Yeah, but it almost worked... sort of.... in the eyes of some. Reminded me a bit of Garrett Morris on SNL. I always loved Chico Escuela.


I not only share Pettitte's faith, but stumble and fall all the time despite knowing better. I can certainly understand the human aspect of what he did, but that doesn't lessen how much it hurt me.

[Poet]

I guess I feel bad for athletes in this sense. If you do cheat, you are looked at as an awful human being.

If Barry Bonds is a damn liar, and a cheat, but a great a great father, and a great man in his community, what does that make him? Honestly, I think if you are a great dad and a great community guy, it outweights cheating in a game.

Bonds was the first player who came to mind, you could insert A-Rod, Sosa, etc etc etc etc.

Who knows in the end, right?

[keithbishop]

Do I have to say it? OK. Peter Gammons was very classy today.

[Poet]

Do I have to say it? OK. Peter Gammons was very classy today.

Gammons is very good at his job.

[Devilspawn]

When asked why Alex lied to Katie Couric, he said: "at the time, Peter, I wasn't even being truthful with myself. How am I going to be truthful with Katie or CBS?"

Um, isn't that like, lying? I think that one answer will get critiqued more than anything else.

[Poet]

When asked why Alex lied to Katie Couric, he said: "at the time, Peter, I wasn't even being truthful with myself. How am I going to be truthful with Katie or CBS?"

Um, isn't that like, lying? I think that one answer will get critiqued more than anything else.

I think he gave it a real answer. He was asked why he did it. It was a legitimate answer. I wasn't being honest with myself, why would I then be honest with others?

It doesn't excuse it, but that is actually more of a direct answer than most questions get. Well, at least as far as steriods and cheating questions go. :D

[Devilspawn]

Although I am certain Sosa did PEDs, I don't see how anybody can lump him into that group of players without any concrete evidence against him.
His response. I studied it a lot because his english isn't perfect, but it's not like for example El Duque who recently started conducting interviews without a translator. El Duque was just learning the language and while his english is very broken, it's not crippling to where he needs to go back to the translator.

If it was a player who always had a translator with him during interviews, then yeah. Sure people would've doubted him if he said no, but the fact that he has a bunch of press conferences during his homerun chase, then all of a sudden he can't speak it at all? It hurt him. What's sad is that he's Dominican pride, Latino pride, a player who has so many accomplishments that's heroic and iconic.

[keithbishop]

When asked why Alex lied to Katie Couric, he said: "at the time, Peter, I wasn't even being truthful with myself. How am I going to be truthful with Katie or CBS?"

Um, isn't that like, lying? I think that one answer will get critiqued more than anything else.

I have a giant problem with grading his confession. Yes, he cheated. Yes, he lied. Yes, he had the chance to come clean during the Couric interview. With those things in mind, how many of the 103 unnamed saw the Couric interview and decided to lead by example with a full confession? The same number that stepped forward today and followed his lead after the Gammons interview.

[bengaaaaals1688]

When asked why Alex lied to Katie Couric, he said: "at the time, Peter, I wasn't even being truthful with myself. How am I going to be truthful with Katie or CBS?"

Um, isn't that like, lying? I think that one answer will get critiqued more than anything else.

I think the answer that will get critiqued the most, which is the one I have been critiquing the most, is when he was almost preaching this it was the culture of the game crap (when he was being asked about people), and then when Gammon's asked him about the culture of the game, he said, "I kind of have tunnel vision so I don't look left or right, and I couldn't really tell you much about the "culture" or the clubhouse."

[dogfish]

poor a-roid, the pressure of his $250 million deal was just too much. . .


SMH