Thread: Sources tell SI Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003

Sources tell SI Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Must have been why Madonna left so quick...

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

Originally Posted by G_Money

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]

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.

Originally Posted by King87

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.

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?????

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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?????

Who would A Fraud sue?

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.

Originally Posted by MNPatsFan

Who would A Fraud sue?

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.

Did you mean throw her under a bus or throw her through the bus, which apparently his hulkish self can do.

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.

Originally Posted by Devilspawn

Did you mean throw her under a bus or throw her through the bus, which apparently his hulkish self can do.

Good catch!

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by King87

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. [QUOTE]

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

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Originally Posted by Devilspawn

Let's go Yankees!

See i told you guys a-rod was an ass