@craig44 said:
lets everyone keep in mind that Steroids, Hgh and Amphetamines were not against MLB rules until 2005, 2005 and 2011 respectively. unless a player tested positive, admitted use or was proven to have used after those years, the did not break the rules.
any ped bonds did pre 2005 was not cheating or against the rules. same goes for mcgwire, bagwell, piazza, mays, mantle, ruth, schmidt or aaron.
before that year, no ped rule had ever been collectively bargained by the MLB and players union. as MLB has antitrust exemption, all rules have to be collectively bargained, at least since 1973 I believe. so no collective bargaining=no rule=no cheating.
They actually were against the rules.
In 1990, Congress cracked down on anabolic steroids with the Anabolic Steroids Control Act, which effectively made them an illegal drug. The next year in 1991, MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent made it clear in a memo that this was very much relevant to baseball.
Via ESPN.com:
The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game…
This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription.
read what Fay Vincent himself said about his memo. I have posted it before.
Vincent has said that the memo was intended as a "moral statement" to the players rather than a "legal one"
"the only way a change could be made was through collective bargaining" "when I left baseball, there was no written policy on drug activity in baseball"
Vincent has said that he in no way banned steroids from MLB, but just passed along the information that congress considered the substances illegal without a perscription. the 1991 absolutely did not ban the use of PED.
to reiterate, there can be no rules in MLB without collective bargaining between the union and mlb. that did not happen until the 2004 offseason to go into effect in the 2005 season.
So I guess if a pitcher hits a batter with a pitch, the batter can pull out a pistol and shoot the pitcher. Nothing in the collective bargaining agreement specifically prohibits it.
Steroids were ruled an_ illegal drug_ in 1990 by Congress, after that anyone using them without a doctors prescription were violating the law.
That's really all there is to it. Baseball doesn't have to make any rulings at that point.
Furthermore the memo is quite clear (no matter what Vincent said later);
_ "Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game"_
A potential discipline that could exclude permanent expulsion of the game is not a "moral" threat.
"Any illegal drug or controlled substance" that covers all of your PEDs that I can think of, so 1990 is the year.
All you have to do is read what the Commissioner of baseball during the time said. He said there was no rule.
period.
organizations who are able to operate under anti trust exemption play by different rules than everyone else.
no collective barganing = no rule = no cheating.
Im sorry, its iron clad. dont take it from me, take it from fay vincent
Yep, no rule against bringing a machine gun onto the field and killing the opposing players, so that's ok too.
Joe, you are talking about laws. everyone else is talking about rules of a professional sports league.
the COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED rules. if you break one of those rules, you are cheating. plain and simple.
your murder scenario hyperbole is not germane to the discussion.
Actually, it is. The point is that MLB doesn't have to pass rules barring things that are already illegal.
the MLB rulebook concerns rules, procedural issues and competitive balance issues, (like draft picks, seedings, suitable and unsuitable equipment and yes, since 2005, PED.) you are talking about legalities on the local, state and federal level.
two different things. if the MLB rulebook included every single thing that was "illegal" in the criminal sense, there would be about 100,000 rules and the book would weigh 400 pounds.
you are being obtuse. Murder, rape and arson not "cheating" in MLB. Those criminal offences do not impact rules, procedural issues or competitive balance. therefore, they do not affect the MLB official rule book.
the MLB rulebook concerns rules, procedural issues and competitive balance issues, (like draft picks, seedings, suitable and unsuitable equipment and yes, since 2005, PED.) you are talking about legalities on the local, state and federal level.
two different things. if the MLB rulebook included every single thing that was "illegal" in the criminal sense, there would be about 100,000 rules and the book would weigh 400 pounds.
you are being obtuse. Murder, rape and arson not "cheating" in MLB. Those criminal offences do not impact rules, procedural issues or competitive balance. therefore, they do not affect the MLB official rule book.
So you're suggesting that MLB can't ever punish a player for an illegal activity that isn't specifically banned by an MLB rule? It's my understanding that they did exactly that in the 1980s with Steve Howe, the Pittsburgh guys, and others.
the MLB rulebook concerns rules, procedural issues and competitive balance issues, (like draft picks, seedings, suitable and unsuitable equipment and yes, since 2005, PED.) you are talking about legalities on the local, state and federal level.
two different things. if the MLB rulebook included every single thing that was "illegal" in the criminal sense, there would be about 100,000 rules and the book would weigh 400 pounds.
you are being obtuse. Murder, rape and arson not "cheating" in MLB. Those criminal offences do not impact rules, procedural issues or competitive balance. therefore, they do not affect the MLB official rule book.
So you're suggesting that MLB can't ever punish a player for an illegal activity that isn't specifically banned by an MLB rule? It's my understanding that they did exactly that in the 1980s with Steve Howe, the Pittsburgh guys, and others.
Between 1966 and 1973, marvin miller was solidifying the players union. Things were very much in flux really throughout the whole 1970s with free agency, how much power the union would have and how much control the commissioner would have. The first big drug issue was with Ferguson Jenkins in 1980. It was with cocaine and his suspension was overturned.
This started MLBs crusade against drugs of abuse and the Pittsburgh drug trials you mentioned. MLB and the players union collectively bargained the 1984 drug program and steroids and amphetamine
were specifically left out of that collective bargaining agreement. As was mandated blood/urine testing. The union conceded discipline for using drugs of addiction for holding firm on steroids/amphetamines. Ueberroth added that "steroids were not really on the radar" so the Pittsburgh trials were only about drugs of abuse, namely cocaine.
That is the difference between the 80s cocaine suspensions and PED. drugs of abuse were the only drug that had been collectively bargained into being disciplined.
So, were the only drugs "against the rules"
So, no, the commissioner cannot unilaterally go about suspending or dealing out punishment without a collective bargaining agreement in place.
@Dave99B said: @tabe I believe Roids is a bigger sin. I think that keeps Bonds out. I expect Rose will get in, after he passes away. Just one man’s opinion.
@craig44 said:
lets everyone keep in mind that Steroids, Hgh and Amphetamines were not against MLB rules until 2005, 2005 and 2011 respectively. unless a player tested positive, admitted use or was proven to have used after those years, the did not break the rules.
any ped bonds did pre 2005 was not cheating or against the rules. same goes for mcgwire, bagwell, piazza, mays, mantle, ruth, schmidt or aaron.
before that year, no ped rule had ever been collectively bargained by the MLB and players union. as MLB has antitrust exemption, all rules have to be collectively bargained, at least since 1973 I believe. so no collective bargaining=no rule=no cheating.
They actually were against the rules.
In 1990, Congress cracked down on anabolic steroids with the Anabolic Steroids Control Act, which effectively made them an illegal drug. The next year in 1991, MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent made it clear in a memo that this was very much relevant to baseball.
Via ESPN.com:
The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game…
This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription.
read what Fay Vincent himself said about his memo. I have posted it before.
Vincent has said that the memo was intended as a "moral statement" to the players rather than a "legal one"
"the only way a change could be made was through collective bargaining" "when I left baseball, there was no written policy on drug activity in baseball"
Vincent has said that he in no way banned steroids from MLB, but just passed along the information that congress considered the substances illegal without a perscription. the 1991 absolutely did not ban the use of PED.
to reiterate, there can be no rules in MLB without collective bargaining between the union and mlb. that did not happen until the 2004 offseason to go into effect in the 2005 season.
So I guess if a pitcher hits a batter with a pitch, the batter can pull out a pistol and shoot the pitcher. Nothing in the collective bargaining agreement specifically prohibits it.
Steroids were ruled an_ illegal drug_ in 1990 by Congress, after that anyone using them without a doctors prescription were violating the law.
That's really all there is to it. Baseball doesn't have to make any rulings at that point.
Furthermore the memo is quite clear (no matter what Vincent said later);
_ "Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game"_
A potential discipline that could exclude permanent expulsion of the game is not a "moral" threat.
"Any illegal drug or controlled substance" that covers all of your PEDs that I can think of, so 1990 is the year.
All you have to do is read what the Commissioner of baseball during the time said. He said there was no rule.
period.
organizations who are able to operate under anti trust exemption play by different rules than everyone else.
no collective barganing = no rule = no cheating.
Im sorry, its iron clad. dont take it from me, take it from fay vincent
Yep, no rule against bringing a machine gun onto the field and killing the opposing players, so that's ok too.
Joe, you are talking about laws. everyone else is talking about rules of a professional sports league.
the COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED rules. if you break one of those rules, you are cheating. plain and simple.
your murder scenario hyperbole is not germane to the discussion.
Actually, it is. The point is that MLB doesn't have to pass rules barring things that are already illegal.
the MLB rulebook concerns rules, procedural issues and competitive balance issues, (like draft picks, seedings, suitable and unsuitable equipment and yes, since 2005, PED.) you are talking about legalities on the local, state and federal level.
two different things. if the MLB rulebook included every single thing that was "illegal" in the criminal sense, there would be about 100,000 rules and the book would weigh 400 pounds.
you are being obtuse. Murder, rape and arson not "cheating" in MLB. Those criminal offences do not impact rules, procedural issues or competitive balance. therefore, they do not affect the MLB official rule book.
This is the single weakest argument I have ever seen on these boards.
It's like the guy who invents synthetic cocaine and when caught, claims he's innocent of wrongdoing because there's no law against synthetic cocaine.
Congress made the drugs illegal and the commissioner notified the players that these drugs were not ok.
You don't have to renegotiate the collective bargaining agreement to prohibit a newly legislated illegal act. In fact I don't believe you can renegotiate the contract until it expires or is about to. So, YES the commissioner was completely within his powers to let the union members know that they were on notice that these drugs were now outlawed.
The law of the land is a higher authority than MLB, you can't make a rule that contradicts the law.
The murder scenario, while extreme, is perfectly germane, you just refuse to admit that your position is flawed.
The players were obtaining illegal substances and using them to gain an unfair advantage, they knew they were cheating and so do we.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
lets everyone keep in mind that Steroids, Hgh and Amphetamines were not against MLB rules until 2005, 2005 and 2011 respectively. unless a player tested positive, admitted use or was proven to have used after those years, the did not break the rules.
any ped bonds did pre 2005 was not cheating or against the rules. same goes for mcgwire, bagwell, piazza, mays, mantle, ruth, schmidt or aaron.
before that year, no ped rule had ever been collectively bargained by the MLB and players union. as MLB has antitrust exemption, all rules have to be collectively bargained, at least since 1973 I believe. so no collective bargaining=no rule=no cheating.
They actually were against the rules.
In 1990, Congress cracked down on anabolic steroids with the Anabolic Steroids Control Act, which effectively made them an illegal drug. The next year in 1991, MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent made it clear in a memo that this was very much relevant to baseball.
Via ESPN.com:
The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game…
This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription.
read what Fay Vincent himself said about his memo. I have posted it before.
Vincent has said that the memo was intended as a "moral statement" to the players rather than a "legal one"
"the only way a change could be made was through collective bargaining" "when I left baseball, there was no written policy on drug activity in baseball"
Vincent has said that he in no way banned steroids from MLB, but just passed along the information that congress considered the substances illegal without a perscription. the 1991 absolutely did not ban the use of PED.
to reiterate, there can be no rules in MLB without collective bargaining between the union and mlb. that did not happen until the 2004 offseason to go into effect in the 2005 season.
So I guess if a pitcher hits a batter with a pitch, the batter can pull out a pistol and shoot the pitcher. Nothing in the collective bargaining agreement specifically prohibits it.
Steroids were ruled an_ illegal drug_ in 1990 by Congress, after that anyone using them without a doctors prescription were violating the law.
That's really all there is to it. Baseball doesn't have to make any rulings at that point.
Furthermore the memo is quite clear (no matter what Vincent said later);
_ "Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game"_
A potential discipline that could exclude permanent expulsion of the game is not a "moral" threat.
"Any illegal drug or controlled substance" that covers all of your PEDs that I can think of, so 1990 is the year.
All you have to do is read what the Commissioner of baseball during the time said. He said there was no rule.
period.
organizations who are able to operate under anti trust exemption play by different rules than everyone else.
no collective barganing = no rule = no cheating.
Im sorry, its iron clad. dont take it from me, take it from fay vincent
Yep, no rule against bringing a machine gun onto the field and killing the opposing players, so that's ok too.
Joe, you are talking about laws. everyone else is talking about rules of a professional sports league.
the COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED rules. if you break one of those rules, you are cheating. plain and simple.
your murder scenario hyperbole is not germane to the discussion.
Actually, it is. The point is that MLB doesn't have to pass rules barring things that are already illegal.
the MLB rulebook concerns rules, procedural issues and competitive balance issues, (like draft picks, seedings, suitable and unsuitable equipment and yes, since 2005, PED.) you are talking about legalities on the local, state and federal level.
two different things. if the MLB rulebook included every single thing that was "illegal" in the criminal sense, there would be about 100,000 rules and the book would weigh 400 pounds.
you are being obtuse. Murder, rape and arson not "cheating" in MLB. Those criminal offences do not impact rules, procedural issues or competitive balance. therefore, they do not affect the MLB official rule book.
This is the single weakest argument I have ever seen on these boards.
It's like the guy who invents synthetic cocaine and when caught, claims he's innocent of wrongdoing because there's no law against synthetic cocaine.
Congress made the drugs illegal and the commissioner notified the players that these drugs were not ok.
You don't have to renegotiate the collective bargaining agreement to prohibit a newly legislated illegal act. In fact I don't believe you can renegotiate the contract until it expires or is about to. So, YES the commissioner was completely within his powers to let the union members know that they were on notice that these drugs were now outlawed.
The law of the land is a higher authority than MLB, you can't make a rule that contradicts the law.
The murder scenario, while extreme, is perfectly germane, you just refuse to admit that your position is flawed.
The players were obtaining illegal substances and using them to gain an unfair advantage, they knew they were cheating and so do we.
"The law of the land is a higher authority than MLB, you can't make a rule that contradicts the law."
people do it all the time. Marijuana is illegal on the federal level, yet there are 13 head shops in my city selling the stuff for recreational use.
@craig44 said:
lets everyone keep in mind that Steroids, Hgh and Amphetamines were not against MLB rules until 2005, 2005 and 2011 respectively. unless a player tested positive, admitted use or was proven to have used after those years, the did not break the rules.
any ped bonds did pre 2005 was not cheating or against the rules. same goes for mcgwire, bagwell, piazza, mays, mantle, ruth, schmidt or aaron.
before that year, no ped rule had ever been collectively bargained by the MLB and players union. as MLB has antitrust exemption, all rules have to be collectively bargained, at least since 1973 I believe. so no collective bargaining=no rule=no cheating.
They actually were against the rules.
In 1990, Congress cracked down on anabolic steroids with the Anabolic Steroids Control Act, which effectively made them an illegal drug. The next year in 1991, MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent made it clear in a memo that this was very much relevant to baseball.
Via ESPN.com:
The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game…
This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription.
read what Fay Vincent himself said about his memo. I have posted it before.
Vincent has said that the memo was intended as a "moral statement" to the players rather than a "legal one"
"the only way a change could be made was through collective bargaining" "when I left baseball, there was no written policy on drug activity in baseball"
Vincent has said that he in no way banned steroids from MLB, but just passed along the information that congress considered the substances illegal without a perscription. the 1991 absolutely did not ban the use of PED.
to reiterate, there can be no rules in MLB without collective bargaining between the union and mlb. that did not happen until the 2004 offseason to go into effect in the 2005 season.
So I guess if a pitcher hits a batter with a pitch, the batter can pull out a pistol and shoot the pitcher. Nothing in the collective bargaining agreement specifically prohibits it.
Steroids were ruled an_ illegal drug_ in 1990 by Congress, after that anyone using them without a doctors prescription were violating the law.
That's really all there is to it. Baseball doesn't have to make any rulings at that point.
Furthermore the memo is quite clear (no matter what Vincent said later);
_ "Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game"_
A potential discipline that could exclude permanent expulsion of the game is not a "moral" threat.
"Any illegal drug or controlled substance" that covers all of your PEDs that I can think of, so 1990 is the year.
All you have to do is read what the Commissioner of baseball during the time said. He said there was no rule.
period.
organizations who are able to operate under anti trust exemption play by different rules than everyone else.
no collective barganing = no rule = no cheating.
Im sorry, its iron clad. dont take it from me, take it from fay vincent
Yep, no rule against bringing a machine gun onto the field and killing the opposing players, so that's ok too.
Joe, you are talking about laws. everyone else is talking about rules of a professional sports league.
the COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED rules. if you break one of those rules, you are cheating. plain and simple.
your murder scenario hyperbole is not germane to the discussion.
Actually, it is. The point is that MLB doesn't have to pass rules barring things that are already illegal.
the MLB rulebook concerns rules, procedural issues and competitive balance issues, (like draft picks, seedings, suitable and unsuitable equipment and yes, since 2005, PED.) you are talking about legalities on the local, state and federal level.
two different things. if the MLB rulebook included every single thing that was "illegal" in the criminal sense, there would be about 100,000 rules and the book would weigh 400 pounds.
you are being obtuse. Murder, rape and arson not "cheating" in MLB. Those criminal offences do not impact rules, procedural issues or competitive balance. therefore, they do not affect the MLB official rule book.
This is the single weakest argument I have ever seen on these boards.
It's like the guy who invents synthetic cocaine and when caught, claims he's innocent of wrongdoing because there's no law against synthetic cocaine.
Congress made the drugs illegal and the commissioner notified the players that these drugs were not ok.
You don't have to renegotiate the collective bargaining agreement to prohibit a newly legislated illegal act. In fact I don't believe you can renegotiate the contract until it expires or is about to. So, YES the commissioner was completely within his powers to let the union members know that they were on notice that these drugs were now outlawed.
The law of the land is a higher authority than MLB, you can't make a rule that contradicts the law.
The murder scenario, while extreme, is perfectly germane, you just refuse to admit that your position is flawed.
The players were obtaining illegal substances and using them to gain an unfair advantage, they knew they were cheating and so do we.
as far as new things being invented and not being illegal until there is a law, also happens all the time. look at bump stocks, binary trigger systems and pistol braces. pistol braces and stocks are very very very very nearly the same thing. just like a natural drug and a synthetic one. yet there were no laws in place when they were first developed. same with binary trigger systems. I could go on, but I don't think I need to.
there will be substances created in the future that will make steroids seem irrelevant, but you can be sure there will be no laws against them at first. same with andro. it was perfectly fine, until it wasn't.
This started MLBs crusade against drugs of abuse and the Pittsburgh drug trials you mentioned. MLB and the players union collectively bargained the 1984 drug program and steroids and amphetamine
were specifically left out of that collective bargaining agreement.
You sure about that? Here's what UPI said in 1984 regarding the exact drug policy:
No mention of exclusions anywhere. "The possession or use of illegal drugs is strictly prohibited." This would cover steroids as of 1990 even though the agreement was made in 1984.
The idea that MLB can't punish players for crimes is laughable. The standard player contract gives wide disciplinary latitude to the commissioner for the exact reason that the rulebook can't possibly cover everything.
@craig44 said:
lets everyone keep in mind that Steroids, Hgh and Amphetamines were not against MLB rules until 2005, 2005 and 2011 respectively. unless a player tested positive, admitted use or was proven to have used after those years, the did not break the rules.
any ped bonds did pre 2005 was not cheating or against the rules. same goes for mcgwire, bagwell, piazza, mays, mantle, ruth, schmidt or aaron.
before that year, no ped rule had ever been collectively bargained by the MLB and players union. as MLB has antitrust exemption, all rules have to be collectively bargained, at least since 1973 I believe. so no collective bargaining=no rule=no cheating.
They actually were against the rules.
In 1990, Congress cracked down on anabolic steroids with the Anabolic Steroids Control Act, which effectively made them an illegal drug. The next year in 1991, MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent made it clear in a memo that this was very much relevant to baseball.
Via ESPN.com:
The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game…
This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription.
read what Fay Vincent himself said about his memo. I have posted it before.
Vincent has said that the memo was intended as a "moral statement" to the players rather than a "legal one"
"the only way a change could be made was through collective bargaining" "when I left baseball, there was no written policy on drug activity in baseball"
Vincent has said that he in no way banned steroids from MLB, but just passed along the information that congress considered the substances illegal without a perscription. the 1991 absolutely did not ban the use of PED.
to reiterate, there can be no rules in MLB without collective bargaining between the union and mlb. that did not happen until the 2004 offseason to go into effect in the 2005 season.
So I guess if a pitcher hits a batter with a pitch, the batter can pull out a pistol and shoot the pitcher. Nothing in the collective bargaining agreement specifically prohibits it.
Steroids were ruled an_ illegal drug_ in 1990 by Congress, after that anyone using them without a doctors prescription were violating the law.
That's really all there is to it. Baseball doesn't have to make any rulings at that point.
Furthermore the memo is quite clear (no matter what Vincent said later);
_ "Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game"_
A potential discipline that could exclude permanent expulsion of the game is not a "moral" threat.
"Any illegal drug or controlled substance" that covers all of your PEDs that I can think of, so 1990 is the year.
All you have to do is read what the Commissioner of baseball during the time said. He said there was no rule.
period.
organizations who are able to operate under anti trust exemption play by different rules than everyone else.
no collective barganing = no rule = no cheating.
Im sorry, its iron clad. dont take it from me, take it from fay vincent
Yep, no rule against bringing a machine gun onto the field and killing the opposing players, so that's ok too.
Joe, you are talking about laws. everyone else is talking about rules of a professional sports league.
the COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED rules. if you break one of those rules, you are cheating. plain and simple.
your murder scenario hyperbole is not germane to the discussion.
Actually, it is. The point is that MLB doesn't have to pass rules barring things that are already illegal.
the MLB rulebook concerns rules, procedural issues and competitive balance issues, (like draft picks, seedings, suitable and unsuitable equipment and yes, since 2005, PED.) you are talking about legalities on the local, state and federal level.
two different things. if the MLB rulebook included every single thing that was "illegal" in the criminal sense, there would be about 100,000 rules and the book would weigh 400 pounds.
you are being obtuse. Murder, rape and arson not "cheating" in MLB. Those criminal offences do not impact rules, procedural issues or competitive balance. therefore, they do not affect the MLB official rule book.
This is the single weakest argument I have ever seen on these boards.
It's like the guy who invents synthetic cocaine and when caught, claims he's innocent of wrongdoing because there's no law against synthetic cocaine.
Congress made the drugs illegal and the commissioner notified the players that these drugs were not ok.
You don't have to renegotiate the collective bargaining agreement to prohibit a newly legislated illegal act. In fact I don't believe you can renegotiate the contract until it expires or is about to. So, YES the commissioner was completely within his powers to let the union members know that they were on notice that these drugs were now outlawed.
The law of the land is a higher authority than MLB, you can't make a rule that contradicts the law.
The murder scenario, while extreme, is perfectly germane, you just refuse to admit that your position is flawed.
The players were obtaining illegal substances and using them to gain an unfair advantage, they knew they were cheating and so do we.
and by the way, if you want to change the rules of an antitrust exempt league with a very strong players union, you sure do have to have it collectively bargained.
but don't ask me, ask peter ueberroth, fay vincent donald fehr marvin miller and others.
steroids and amphetamines were specifically left out of the 1984 MLB drug program. it was negotiated by both MLB and the players union.
i am sorry if it offends your constitution, but steroids and amphetamines were not part of any MLB drug program until 2005. that means they were not part of the rules, or the drug program. fay vincents memo was just that, a memo. it held no more weight than if you or I had written a memo.
but dont take my word for it, take fay vincents. he said so himself.
This started MLBs crusade against drugs of abuse and the Pittsburgh drug trials you mentioned. MLB and the players union collectively bargained the 1984 drug program and steroids and amphetamine
were specifically left out of that collective bargaining agreement.
You sure about that? Here's what UPI said in 1984 regarding the exact drug policy:
No mention of exclusions anywhere. "The possession or use of illegal drugs is strictly prohibited." This would cover steroids as of 1990 even though the agreement was made in 1984.
The idea that MLB can't punish players for crimes is laughable. The standard player contract gives wide disciplinary latitude to the commissioner for the exact reason that the rulebook can't possibly cover everything.
This started MLBs crusade against drugs of abuse and the Pittsburgh drug trials you mentioned. MLB and the players union collectively bargained the 1984 drug program and steroids and amphetamine
were specifically left out of that collective bargaining agreement.
You sure about that? Here's what UPI said in 1984 regarding the exact drug policy:
No mention of exclusions anywhere. "The possession or use of illegal drugs is strictly prohibited." This would cover steroids as of 1990 even though the agreement was made in 1984.
The idea that MLB can't punish players for crimes is laughable. The standard player contract gives wide disciplinary latitude to the commissioner for the exact reason that the rulebook can't possibly cover everything.
from page 34 of the Mitchell report:
"in june 1984, the owners and the players association agreed to a joint program that provided for treatment for players who were found to use, or had admitted using, certain drugs of abuse. Steroids and amphetamines were not on the schedule of prohibited substances."
UPI Archives
June 28, 1984
The new drug rules for major-league baseball
NEW YORK -- 1. The possession or use of illegal drugs is strictly prohibited.
In 1990 Steroids were classified as illegal.
Any player involved with a controlled substance not covered by the joint program shall be subject to such discipline as in the opinion of the Commissioner may be appropriate
We're done now.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
UPI Archives
June 28, 1984
The new drug rules for major-league baseball
NEW YORK -- 1. The possession or use of illegal drugs is strictly prohibited.
In 1990 Steroids were classified as illegal.
Any player involved with a controlled substance not covered by the joint program shall be subject to such discipline as in the opinion of the Commissioner may be appropriate
We're done now.
you have managed to either not read this thread or you missed the point. we have already hashed out Vincents memo, which in his own words was not a "rule" and gave the commissioner absolutely no power to do anything.
the commissioner (or anyone else for that matter) can say or write whatever they want. in MLB, they run on special rules.
until a rule change or program is negotiated and voted on/approved by the union and the owners, it is not a rule or program.
steroids AND amphetamines were specifically left out of the 1984 drug program. the OFFICIAL program that was negotiated, voted on and passed. they were not "outlawed" until the end of 2004 season negotiated drug program was negotiated/instituted.
here's the question i have for you, craig44. and for the record, i think you know i like you. we've chatted in private. you're smart and knowledgeable. but i am 1,000% genuinely curious about this.
forget what anyone else may or may not have done for a moment. regardless of what the rules stated at the time, if a player knowingly and willingly attempts to game the system by doing something that they -- in their heart of hearts -- know is wrong, is that particular someone honestly worthy of a sport's highest honor?
you have managed to either not read this thread or you missed the point. we have already hashed out Vincents memo, which in his own words was not a "rule" and gave the commissioner absolutely no power to do anything.
the commissioner (or anyone else for that matter) can say or write whatever they want. in MLB, they run on special rules.
until a rule change or program is negotiated and voted on/approved by the union and the owners, it is not a rule or program.
steroids AND amphetamines were specifically left out of the 1984 drug program. the OFFICIAL program that was negotiated, voted on and passed. they were not "outlawed" until the end of 2004 season negotiated drug program was negotiated/instituted.
No, you missed his point. What was quoted was the 1984 drug program and agreement, not Vincent's memo. The rules listing, at least as presented by UPI in 1984, does not have exclusions for steroids or amphetamines at all.
you have managed to either not read this thread or you missed the point. we have already hashed out Vincents memo, which in his own words was not a "rule" and gave the commissioner absolutely no power to do anything.
the commissioner (or anyone else for that matter) can say or write whatever they want. in MLB, they run on special rules.
until a rule change or program is negotiated and voted on/approved by the union and the owners, it is not a rule or program.
steroids AND amphetamines were specifically left out of the 1984 drug program. the OFFICIAL program that was negotiated, voted on and passed. they were not "outlawed" until the end of 2004 season negotiated drug program was negotiated/instituted.
No, you missed his point. What was quoted was the 1984 drug program and agreement, not Vincent's memo. The rules listing, at least as presented by UPI in 1984, does not have exclusions for steroids or amphetamines at all.
he is missing the exclusions part. both steroids and amphetamines were excluded. as was mandatory testing. that was collectively bargained into the agreement. Fehr was adamant about it, and ueberroth was ambivalent toward steroids.
the 1984 drug program was all about drugs of abuse.
If steroids and amphetamines were already specified in the drug program, why would vincent have written a memo? he was attempting to legislate from the bench, so to say, but he himself said there was no policy on steroids or amphetamines at the time.
keep in mind, I am not saying this, I don't have to, the commissioner at the time was.
@galaxy27 said:
here's the question i have for you, craig44. and for the record, i think you know i like you. we've chatted in private. you're smart and knowledgeable. but i am 1,000% genuinely curious about this.
forget what anyone else may or may not have done for a moment. regardless of what the rules stated at the time, if a player knowingly and willingly attempts to game the system by doing something that they -- in their heart of hearts -- know is wrong, is that particular someone honestly worthy of a sport's highest honor?
thank you galaxy27, I have the same sentiments for you. you are a great contributor here.
I would say that no one was gaming the system if there were no rule in place. it seems to me that if what they were doing was not against a rule, its fair game. literally, fair game.
for example, look at some of the things that are "against the rules" now, that were perfectly fine in the past:
Andro is against the rules now, but was not years ago. many players used it, including hall of famer Mike Piazza
amphetamines are also currently against the rules. but we know scores of hall of famers used that particular drug.
spitballs and altering the baseball have been against the rules since 1920. many hall of famers have done that and even continue to do so
now, when those things were not against the rules, were the players who participated gaming the system? should they be punished in arrears for things that were not against the rules when they played, but are now?
it like if I took a credit or deduction on my taxes this year, but that credit is taken away 10 years from now, did I cheat on my taxes when I took it?
to extend the discussion, I think we can all imagine that athletes are using substances today that will be banned in subsequent years. should the players currently using be disciplined when a rule is agreed upon that "outlaws" those substances?
he is missing the exclusions part. both steroids and amphetamines were excluded. as was mandatory testing. that was collectively bargained into the agreement. Fehr was adamant about it, and ueberroth was ambivalent toward steroids.
>
The exclusions you mention are literally not listed in rules. UPI published what appears to be the full set of rules and there are no exclusions.
If steroids and amphetamines were already specified in the drug program, why would vincent have written a memo?
To reiterate that steroids, which were not illegal when the agreement was signed, were covered by the agreement since it specifies illegal drugs and steroids were illegal as of 1990.
If they were specifically excluded as you've indicated, why would Vincent write a memo that contradicts the written contract? That makes absolutely no sense.
keep in mind, I am not saying this, I don't have to, the commissioner at the time was.
he is missing the exclusions part. both steroids and amphetamines were excluded. as was mandatory testing. that was collectively bargained into the agreement. Fehr was adamant about it, and ueberroth was ambivalent toward steroids.
>
The exclusions you mention are literally not listed in rules. UPI published what appears to be the full set of rules and there are no exclusions.
If steroids and amphetamines were already specified in the drug program, why would vincent have written a memo?
To reiterate that steroids, which were not illegal when the agreement was signed, were covered by the agreement since it specifies illegal drugs and steroids were illegal as of 1990.
If they were specifically excluded as you've indicated, why would Vincent write a memo that contradicts the written contract? That makes absolutely no sense.
keep in mind, I am not saying this, I don't have to, the commissioner at the time was.
Vincent was not the commissioner in 1984 though.
I have read all that UPI wrote about the 1984 drug program. they did not post the program in its entirety. just the highlights, like any news agency would. I have been unable to find the actual 1984 drug program in its entirety, but I have quoted two commissioners, including the one involved in the 1984 drug program. I have also quoted the mitchell report, that gave a history of negotiated drug programs in MLB. when asked specifically about steroids, Ueberroth said "steroids werent really on the radar." that statement would have been in regards to why steroids, amphetamines and manadatory testing were left out of the 84 agreement.
I will take the words of two commissioners (who both knew the joint drug program) and the Mitchell report (George Mitchell had access to anything he wanted when drafting the report) over an incomplete news report.
Vincents memo was purely a moral opinion, as he himself has stated. if there were already rules for steroids he would not have written the memo. He knew though, the agreed upon drug program and that it excluded those drugs.
If there was already rules about steroids/amphetamines and the like, why would there have been need for the 2004 collectively bargained drug program? If, as you state there already were rules in place for the commish to act and suspend players on PED, why the 2004 rules? they would have been redundant.
I will answer, because the previous agreed upon drug programs were for drugs of abuse. that is why in the 1984 plan, you see all this wording about rehab etc. it was about getting players off cocaine and the like. Ueberroth himself said as much. that was a big part of why he took the job.
Look! You can take all the enhancer stuff you want however if you do not have any skills it does you no good. Many rules have been broken in MLB however many are in the Hall.
In that case I say he belongs along with Clemens.
If there was already rules about steroids/amphetamines and the like, why would there have been need for the 2004 collectively bargained drug program? If, as you state there already were rules in place for the commish to act and suspend players on PED, why the 2004 rules? they would have been redundant.
The 2004 program brought in testing, which was not there before.
If there was already rules about steroids/amphetamines and the like, why would there have been need for the 2004 collectively bargained drug program? If, as you state there already were rules in place for the commish to act and suspend players on PED, why the 2004 rules? they would have been redundant.
The 2004 program brought in testing, which was not there before.
in a nutshell, the 2004 drug program was necessary because MLB had never had an official steroid policy in the past. if they had, they just would have followed it.
Setting aside the debate on when the drugs became illegal, I have read that three of Bonds' samples have been retested using better tests and he failed them.
So, we all know he cheated before and after whatever date you choose to put on when the drugs became against the MLB's collectively bargained agreement.
He should NEVER get in, in my opinion.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Setting aside the debate on when the drugs became illegal, I have read that three of Bonds' samples have been retested using better tests and he failed them.
So, we all know he cheated before and after whatever date you choose to put on when the drugs became against the MLB's collectively bargained agreement.
He should NEVER get in, in my opinion.
Joe, was Christy Mathewson cheating when he used the spitball back in 1914?
Setting aside the debate on when the drugs became illegal, I have read that three of Bonds' samples have been retested using better tests and he failed them.
So, we all know he cheated before and after whatever date you choose to put on when the drugs became against the MLB's collectively bargained agreement.
He should NEVER get in, in my opinion.
Joe, was Christy Mathewson cheating when he used the spitball back in 1914?
First off, the conversation was about Bonds, but we can wander off some more. Pointless, really, but I usually learn on these little forays into baseball history.
Off the top of my head, I remember something about the spitball was banned at one point, but the guys who were throwing it prior to that were allowed to continue throwing it. I am not sure if Christy falls into that category.
I looked it up, it was banned in 1920, so I would guess he was not cheating. I guess it's a good thing there was no CBA at the time or it wouldn't have been banned until it was up for renegotiation. It looks like the owners didn't think it was cheating, just that it depressed scoring and cost them money. They didn't actually ban it because it was "wrong". It became wrong when it cost them revenue.
The spitball is illegal, but when it doesn't do what the pitcher wants, it comes in like a medium speed fastball with no break on it and is an easy pitch to hit.
Your position seems clear; take one "greenie" and your just as bad as a guy who artificially puts on a hundred pounds of muscle by injecting himself with drugs.
As I have said countless times in the past, there are degrees of bad behavior. It's wrong to cheat, but if your cheating has no effect or a minimal effect on the competition, it really isn't something to get worked up about. Jaywalking when there is no traffic is not the same as doing it during rush hour. Both the same action, but the results are going to be drastically different.
When you figure out how to cheat that makes good players great and great ballplayers unbelievably great, that's when it becomes a "big deal". Bonds was a great player who was probably capable of hitting about 500 home runs and being a terrific all around player. He figured out how to smash every offensive record in the book. Guys like Aaron and Mantle probably didn't hit any more home runs by dabbling with greenies. Still cheating, but one thing just doesn't compare to another................at all.
Until steroids were more available and understood in the 1980's, there was nothing that would really change the game unfairly. Amphetamines sometimes helped and sometimes hurt your performance. The spitball helped a few pitchers who mastered it (or mastered the mind game associated with it) but MLB really didn't enforce the rule. Ron Luciano addressed it in his book "The Umpire Strikes Back". He said they were not instructed to eject pitchers from the game they thought were doctoring the balls, only to check on it if the other team complained.
Mathewson, not a cheater.
Who's next on your "was this guy a cheater" list?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Setting aside the debate on when the drugs became illegal, I have read that three of Bonds' samples have been retested using better tests and he failed them.
So, we all know he cheated before and after whatever date you choose to put on when the drugs became against the MLB's collectively bargained agreement.
He should NEVER get in, in my opinion.
Joe, was Christy Mathewson cheating when he used the spitball back in 1914?
First off, the conversation was about Bonds, but we can wander off some more. Pointless, really, but I usually learn on these little forays into baseball history.
Off the top of my head, I remember something about the spitball was banned at one point, but the guys who were throwing it prior to that were allowed to continue throwing it. I am not sure if Christy falls into that category.
I looked it up, it was banned in 1920, so I would guess he was not cheating. I guess it's a good thing there was no CBA at the time or it wouldn't have been banned until it was up for renegotiation. It looks like the owners didn't think it was cheating, just that it depressed scoring and cost them money. They didn't actually ban it because it was "wrong". It became wrong when it cost them revenue.
The spitball is illegal, but when it doesn't do what the pitcher wants, it comes in like a medium speed fastball with no break on it and is an easy pitch to hit.
Your position seems clear; take one "greenie" and your just as bad as a guy who artificially puts on a hundred pounds of muscle by injecting himself with drugs.
As I have said countless times in the past, there are degrees of bad behavior. It's wrong to cheat, but if your cheating has no effect or a minimal effect on the competition, it really isn't something to get worked up about. Jaywalking when there is no traffic is not the same as doing it during rush hour. Both the same action, but the results are going to be drastically different.
When you figure out how to cheat that makes good players great and great ballplayers unbelievably great, that's when it becomes a "big deal". Bonds was a great player who was probably capable of hitting about 500 home runs and being a terrific all around player. He figured out how to smash every offensive record in the book. Guys like Aaron and Mantle probably didn't hit any more home runs by dabbling with greenies. Still cheating, but one thing just doesn't compare to another................at all.
Until steroids were more available and understood in the 1980's, there was nothing that would really change the game unfairly. Amphetamines sometimes helped and sometimes hurt your performance. The spitball helped a few pitchers who mastered it (or mastered the mind game associated with it) but MLB really didn't enforce the rule. Ron Luciano addressed it in his book "The Umpire Strikes Back". He said they were not instructed to eject pitchers from the game they thought were doctoring the balls, only to check on it if the other team complained.
Mathewson, not a cheater.
Who's next on your "was this guy a cheater" list?
Ok, good. we agree. Mathewson was not a cheater in 1914.
now, why was he not a "cheater" in 1914, but in 1920 all of a sudden he is a cheater? he did everything the same.
the ONLY thing that changed was the rule.
I only used Mathewson as an example, I could have used any number of pitchers from that era
now, to your second point. when you add your morality to rules you have already lost the discussion. it doesnt matter whether you think amphetamines helped, helped less than steroids, actually hurt performance or did none of the above. additionally, it doesnt matter if you think steroids were helpful, hurtful or indifferent. It also doesnt matter what you think about doctoring the baseball.
It matters what the rules say. players (and businessmen, stockbrokers anyone really) will always go right up to the line to get the biggest advantage in their field. the problem lies when they cross the line. it is the difference between legal/illegal and cheating/not cheating. wherever the line is, that is where most people will find themselves.
So... until there is a rule, there is no rule to break. before 1920, there was no rule on doctoring the ball. So, no cheating. It doesnt matter what your moral judgments are, there was no rule. after 1920, there absolutely was a rule, so, the same actions performed in 1914 are now over the line and are considered cheating.
He has admitted to using Androstenedione in the 1990s. He said he stopped in 1998. Andro was placed on the MLB joint drug program banned list at the end of the 2004 season.
assuming what Piazza said was true, and he did stop in 1998, Did he "cheat"
PS, he also admitted to using amphetamines. they were added to the banned list in 2011. Does that make him a double cheater?
Setting aside the debate on when the drugs became illegal, I have read that three of Bonds' samples have been retested using better tests and he failed them.
So, we all know he cheated before and after whatever date you choose to put on when the drugs became against the MLB's collectively bargained agreement.
He should NEVER get in, in my opinion.
Joe, was Christy Mathewson cheating when he used the spitball back in 1914?
First off, the conversation was about Bonds, but we can wander off some more. Pointless, really, but I usually learn on these little forays into baseball history.
Off the top of my head, I remember something about the spitball was banned at one point, but the guys who were throwing it prior to that were allowed to continue throwing it. I am not sure if Christy falls into that category.
I looked it up, it was banned in 1920, so I would guess he was not cheating. I guess it's a good thing there was no CBA at the time or it wouldn't have been banned until it was up for renegotiation. It looks like the owners didn't think it was cheating, just that it depressed scoring and cost them money. They didn't actually ban it because it was "wrong". It became wrong when it cost them revenue.
The spitball is illegal, but when it doesn't do what the pitcher wants, it comes in like a medium speed fastball with no break on it and is an easy pitch to hit.
Your position seems clear; take one "greenie" and your just as bad as a guy who artificially puts on a hundred pounds of muscle by injecting himself with drugs.
As I have said countless times in the past, there are degrees of bad behavior. It's wrong to cheat, but if your cheating has no effect or a minimal effect on the competition, it really isn't something to get worked up about. Jaywalking when there is no traffic is not the same as doing it during rush hour. Both the same action, but the results are going to be drastically different.
When you figure out how to cheat that makes good players great and great ballplayers unbelievably great, that's when it becomes a "big deal". Bonds was a great player who was probably capable of hitting about 500 home runs and being a terrific all around player. He figured out how to smash every offensive record in the book. Guys like Aaron and Mantle probably didn't hit any more home runs by dabbling with greenies. Still cheating, but one thing just doesn't compare to another................at all.
Until steroids were more available and understood in the 1980's, there was nothing that would really change the game unfairly. Amphetamines sometimes helped and sometimes hurt your performance. The spitball helped a few pitchers who mastered it (or mastered the mind game associated with it) but MLB really didn't enforce the rule. Ron Luciano addressed it in his book "The Umpire Strikes Back". He said they were not instructed to eject pitchers from the game they thought were doctoring the balls, only to check on it if the other team complained.
Mathewson, not a cheater.
Who's next on your "was this guy a cheater" list?
Ok, good. we agree. Mathewson was not a cheater in 1914.
now, why was he not a "cheater" in 1914, but in 1920 all of a sudden he is a cheater? he did everything the same.
>
He actually was NOT a cheater in 1920 since he was no longer pitching, but if he had been pitching he would have been exempt.
the ONLY thing that changed was the rule.
I only used Mathewson as an example, I could have used any number of pitchers from that era
Same thing as above. MLB said it was OK as long as you were throwing it before the rule change.
>
now, to your second point. when you add your morality to rules you have already lost the discussion. it doesnt matter whether you think amphetamines helped, helped less than steroids, actually hurt performance or did none of the above. additionally, it doesnt matter if you think steroids were helpful, hurtful or indifferent. It also doesnt matter what you think about doctoring the baseball.
You seem rather confused here. Your HOF may have nothing to do with morality, but the actual HOF has several moral requirements. That's the OP's question; "Does Bonds finally get in?" He can't, he doesn't qualify. Where steroids are concerned, there's no opinion about it, it's a fact that steroids increase the bodies size, strength and ability to heal itself. New studies suggest that they may actually improve hand/eye coordination as well. Amphetamines can in fact make you nervous and shaky inhibiting your ability to perform. after a certain point, the body builds up such a tolerance they don't work at all. These are not opinions.
>
It matters what the rules say. players (and businessmen, stockbrokers anyone really) will always go right up to the line to get the biggest advantage in their field. the problem lies when they cross the line. it is the difference between legal/illegal and cheating/not cheating. wherever the line is, that is where most people will find themselves.
>
Steroids are WAY over that line.
So... until there is a rule, there is no rule to break. before 1920, there was no rule on doctoring the ball. So, no cheating. It doesnt matter what your moral judgments are, there was no rule. after 1920, there absolutely was a rule, so, the same actions performed in 1914 are now over the line and are considered cheating.
Yes, you are correct on the spitball, I have agreed already.
>
Can you see the parallel I have painted?
>
Of course there's a parallel, it just is (as I said before) one of, if not the single weakest offered up on these boards.
Just because the owners and union didn't sit down and agree to adding illegal drugs to the agreement currently in place, does not in fact make it "legal".
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
He has admitted to using Androstenedione in the 1990s. He said he stopped in 1998. Andro was placed on the MLB joint drug program banned list at the end of the 2004 season.
assuming what Piazza said was true, and he did stop in 1998, Did he "cheat"
PS, he also admitted to using amphetamines. they were added to the banned list in 2011. Does that make him a double cheater?
Piazza never failed a test that I can see.
Andro is a vitamin pill sold to make people think they will become like Arnold Swartzenegger. It was an over the counter supplement when he said he used it.
Amphetamines are not a PED (I don't know why you keep insisting on bringing them up), but he claims he used them while they were "legal". Hard for me to care about something that doesn't do anything.
Looking at his numbers, I don't see anything like Bonds/McGwire/Sosa's. Mike hit 35 HRs his first full season and never hit more than 40 in a season after that. I really don't get the argument that says he was a user. Bonds averaged 25 HRs a year for his first 5 full seasons and then was hitting 45 a year and then 73 once.
I would vote for Mike.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Setting aside the debate on when the drugs became illegal, I have read that three of Bonds' samples have been retested using better tests and he failed them.
So, we all know he cheated before and after whatever date you choose to put on when the drugs became against the MLB's collectively bargained agreement.
He should NEVER get in, in my opinion.
Joe, was Christy Mathewson cheating when he used the spitball back in 1914?
First off, the conversation was about Bonds, but we can wander off some more. Pointless, really, but I usually learn on these little forays into baseball history.
Off the top of my head, I remember something about the spitball was banned at one point, but the guys who were throwing it prior to that were allowed to continue throwing it. I am not sure if Christy falls into that category.
I looked it up, it was banned in 1920, so I would guess he was not cheating. I guess it's a good thing there was no CBA at the time or it wouldn't have been banned until it was up for renegotiation. It looks like the owners didn't think it was cheating, just that it depressed scoring and cost them money. They didn't actually ban it because it was "wrong". It became wrong when it cost them revenue.
The spitball is illegal, but when it doesn't do what the pitcher wants, it comes in like a medium speed fastball with no break on it and is an easy pitch to hit.
Your position seems clear; take one "greenie" and your just as bad as a guy who artificially puts on a hundred pounds of muscle by injecting himself with drugs.
As I have said countless times in the past, there are degrees of bad behavior. It's wrong to cheat, but if your cheating has no effect or a minimal effect on the competition, it really isn't something to get worked up about. Jaywalking when there is no traffic is not the same as doing it during rush hour. Both the same action, but the results are going to be drastically different.
When you figure out how to cheat that makes good players great and great ballplayers unbelievably great, that's when it becomes a "big deal". Bonds was a great player who was probably capable of hitting about 500 home runs and being a terrific all around player. He figured out how to smash every offensive record in the book. Guys like Aaron and Mantle probably didn't hit any more home runs by dabbling with greenies. Still cheating, but one thing just doesn't compare to another................at all.
Until steroids were more available and understood in the 1980's, there was nothing that would really change the game unfairly. Amphetamines sometimes helped and sometimes hurt your performance. The spitball helped a few pitchers who mastered it (or mastered the mind game associated with it) but MLB really didn't enforce the rule. Ron Luciano addressed it in his book "The Umpire Strikes Back". He said they were not instructed to eject pitchers from the game they thought were doctoring the balls, only to check on it if the other team complained.
Mathewson, not a cheater.
Who's next on your "was this guy a cheater" list?
Ok, good. we agree. Mathewson was not a cheater in 1914.
now, why was he not a "cheater" in 1914, but in 1920 all of a sudden he is a cheater? he did everything the same.
>
He actually was NOT a cheater in 1920 since he was no longer pitching, but if he had been pitching he would have been exempt.
the ONLY thing that changed was the rule.
I only used Mathewson as an example, I could have used any number of pitchers from that era
Same thing as above. MLB said it was OK as long as you were throwing it before the rule change.
>
now, to your second point. when you add your morality to rules you have already lost the discussion. it doesnt matter whether you think amphetamines helped, helped less than steroids, actually hurt performance or did none of the above. additionally, it doesnt matter if you think steroids were helpful, hurtful or indifferent. It also doesnt matter what you think about doctoring the baseball.
You seem rather confused here. Your HOF may have nothing to do with morality, but the actual HOF has several moral requirements. That's the OP's question; "Does Bonds finally get in?" He can't, he doesn't qualify. Where steroids are concerned, there's no opinion about it, it's a fact that steroids increase the bodies size, strength and ability to heal itself. New studies suggest that they may actually improve hand/eye coordination as well. Amphetamines can in fact make you nervous and shaky inhibiting your ability to perform. after a certain point, the body builds up such a tolerance they don't work at all. These are not opinions.
>
It matters what the rules say. players (and businessmen, stockbrokers anyone really) will always go right up to the line to get the biggest advantage in their field. the problem lies when they cross the line. it is the difference between legal/illegal and cheating/not cheating. wherever the line is, that is where most people will find themselves.
>
Steroids are WAY over that line.
So... until there is a rule, there is no rule to break. before 1920, there was no rule on doctoring the ball. So, no cheating. It doesnt matter what your moral judgments are, there was no rule. after 1920, there absolutely was a rule, so, the same actions performed in 1914 are now over the line and are considered cheating.
Yes, you are correct on the spitball, I have agreed already.
>
Can you see the parallel I have painted?
>
Of course there's a parallel, it just is (as I said before) one of, if not the single weakest offered up on these boards.
Just because the owners and union didn't sit down and agree to adding illegal drugs to the agreement currently in place, does not in fact make it "legal".
Ok, you are grasping at straws here, but lets first clarify the doctored baseball argument. and i think you could agree, a player in 1914 could throw all the doctored baseballs he wanted within the rules, right.
another player could not throw a doctored baseball in 1925 and still be playing within the rules. correct?
what is the ONLY difference between being a "cheater" and not? you've got it, THE RULES. rules matter.
now, as to your morality clause example. it is ridiculous. there are many many many many examples of dirtbags and cheats already in the HOF. did morality keep them out? there are so many examples here, that I wont even name them. the HOF website lists integrity, sportsmanship and character.
now. if a player plays a sport within what the rule book states at the time he played, how is he breaking the "morality" clause? if there was no rule about throwing a spitball in 1917, a pitcher who employed such tactics is not showing any lack of integrity, sportsmanship or character. he is simply playing within the rules.
the same applies to the conversation at hand. there was no rule against steroids during the period the players mentioned above played. they didnt break any rules.
just the same as a spitballer in 1912 was fully playing "fair"
He has admitted to using Androstenedione in the 1990s. He said he stopped in 1998. Andro was placed on the MLB joint drug program banned list at the end of the 2004 season.
assuming what Piazza said was true, and he did stop in 1998, Did he "cheat"
PS, he also admitted to using amphetamines. they were added to the banned list in 2011. Does that make him a double cheater?
Piazza never failed a test that I can see.
Andro is a vitamin pill sold to make people think they will become like Arnold Swartzenegger. It was an over the counter supplement when he said he used it.
Amphetamines are not a PED (I don't know why you keep insisting on bringing them up), but he claims he used them while they were "legal". Hard for me to care about something that doesn't do anything.
Looking at his numbers, I don't see anything like Bonds/McGwire/Sosa's. Mike hit 35 HRs his first full season and never hit more than 40 in a season after that. I really don't get the argument that says he was a user. Bonds averaged 25 HRs a year for his first 5 full seasons and then was hitting 45 a year and then 73 once.
I would vote for Mike.
wrong. Dr Gary Wadler in an interview with ESPN
Q: In your expert opinion, should Androstenedione be known as a supplement or a drug, a steroid?
Wadler: Androstenedione is a steroid, always was a steroid, always will be a steroid and should be treated with utmost respect and as a drug and not as a dietary supplement.
andro is not a vitamin pill. It is not a suppliment. go try and buy it today. it increases testosterone production and is absolutely a steroid.
It is a perfect parallel. Mike Piazza used Andro before it was on the banned list. he didnt have to test positive for it, he admitted it. he also admitted quitting before 2005.
Setting aside the debate on when the drugs became illegal, I have read that three of Bonds' samples have been retested using better tests and he failed them.
So, we all know he cheated before and after whatever date you choose to put on when the drugs became against the MLB's collectively bargained agreement.
He should NEVER get in, in my opinion.
Joe, was Christy Mathewson cheating when he used the spitball back in 1914?
First off, the conversation was about Bonds, but we can wander off some more. Pointless, really, but I usually learn on these little forays into baseball history.
Off the top of my head, I remember something about the spitball was banned at one point, but the guys who were throwing it prior to that were allowed to continue throwing it. I am not sure if Christy falls into that category.
I looked it up, it was banned in 1920, so I would guess he was not cheating. I guess it's a good thing there was no CBA at the time or it wouldn't have been banned until it was up for renegotiation. It looks like the owners didn't think it was cheating, just that it depressed scoring and cost them money. They didn't actually ban it because it was "wrong". It became wrong when it cost them revenue.
The spitball is illegal, but when it doesn't do what the pitcher wants, it comes in like a medium speed fastball with no break on it and is an easy pitch to hit.
Your position seems clear; take one "greenie" and your just as bad as a guy who artificially puts on a hundred pounds of muscle by injecting himself with drugs.
As I have said countless times in the past, there are degrees of bad behavior. It's wrong to cheat, but if your cheating has no effect or a minimal effect on the competition, it really isn't something to get worked up about. Jaywalking when there is no traffic is not the same as doing it during rush hour. Both the same action, but the results are going to be drastically different.
When you figure out how to cheat that makes good players great and great ballplayers unbelievably great, that's when it becomes a "big deal". Bonds was a great player who was probably capable of hitting about 500 home runs and being a terrific all around player. He figured out how to smash every offensive record in the book. Guys like Aaron and Mantle probably didn't hit any more home runs by dabbling with greenies. Still cheating, but one thing just doesn't compare to another................at all.
Until steroids were more available and understood in the 1980's, there was nothing that would really change the game unfairly. Amphetamines sometimes helped and sometimes hurt your performance. The spitball helped a few pitchers who mastered it (or mastered the mind game associated with it) but MLB really didn't enforce the rule. Ron Luciano addressed it in his book "The Umpire Strikes Back". He said they were not instructed to eject pitchers from the game they thought were doctoring the balls, only to check on it if the other team complained.
Mathewson, not a cheater.
Who's next on your "was this guy a cheater" list?
Ok, good. we agree. Mathewson was not a cheater in 1914.
now, why was he not a "cheater" in 1914, but in 1920 all of a sudden he is a cheater? he did everything the same.
>
He actually was NOT a cheater in 1920 since he was no longer pitching, but if he had been pitching he would have been exempt.
the ONLY thing that changed was the rule.
I only used Mathewson as an example, I could have used any number of pitchers from that era
Same thing as above. MLB said it was OK as long as you were throwing it before the rule change.
>
now, to your second point. when you add your morality to rules you have already lost the discussion. it doesnt matter whether you think amphetamines helped, helped less than steroids, actually hurt performance or did none of the above. additionally, it doesnt matter if you think steroids were helpful, hurtful or indifferent. It also doesnt matter what you think about doctoring the baseball.
You seem rather confused here. Your HOF may have nothing to do with morality, but the actual HOF has several moral requirements. That's the OP's question; "Does Bonds finally get in?" He can't, he doesn't qualify. Where steroids are concerned, there's no opinion about it, it's a fact that steroids increase the bodies size, strength and ability to heal itself. New studies suggest that they may actually improve hand/eye coordination as well. Amphetamines can in fact make you nervous and shaky inhibiting your ability to perform. after a certain point, the body builds up such a tolerance they don't work at all. These are not opinions.
>
It matters what the rules say. players (and businessmen, stockbrokers anyone really) will always go right up to the line to get the biggest advantage in their field. the problem lies when they cross the line. it is the difference between legal/illegal and cheating/not cheating. wherever the line is, that is where most people will find themselves.
>
Steroids are WAY over that line.
So... until there is a rule, there is no rule to break. before 1920, there was no rule on doctoring the ball. So, no cheating. It doesnt matter what your moral judgments are, there was no rule. after 1920, there absolutely was a rule, so, the same actions performed in 1914 are now over the line and are considered cheating.
Yes, you are correct on the spitball, I have agreed already.
>
Can you see the parallel I have painted?
>
Of course there's a parallel, it just is (as I said before) one of, if not the single weakest offered up on these boards.
Just because the owners and union didn't sit down and agree to adding illegal drugs to the agreement currently in place, does not in fact make it "legal".
Ok, you are grasping at straws here, but lets first clarify the doctored baseball argument. and i think you could agree, a player in 1914 could throw all the doctored baseballs he wanted within the rules, right.
another player could not throw a doctored baseball in 1925 and still be playing within the rules. correct?
what is the ONLY difference between being a "cheater" and not? you've got it, THE RULES. rules matter.
now, as to your morality clause example. it is ridiculous. there are many many many many examples of dirtbags and cheats already in the HOF. did morality keep them out? there are so many examples here, that I wont even name them. the HOF website lists integrity, sportsmanship and character.
now. if a player plays a sport within what the rule book states at the time he played, how is he breaking the "morality" clause? if there was no rule about throwing a spitball in 1917, a pitcher who employed such tactics is not showing any lack of integrity, sportsmanship or character. he is simply playing within the rules.
the same applies to the conversation at hand. there was no rule against steroids during the period the players mentioned above played. they didnt break any rules.
just the same as a spitballer in 1912 was fully playing "fair"
It also doesn't matter what you "think" or "feel" about amphetamines and their efficacy. they are currently on the banned list. as of 2011.
did all the players who used them "cheat" before they were banned?
Setting aside the debate on when the drugs became illegal, I have read that three of Bonds' samples have been retested using better tests and he failed them.
So, we all know he cheated before and after whatever date you choose to put on when the drugs became against the MLB's collectively bargained agreement.
He should NEVER get in, in my opinion.
Joe, was Christy Mathewson cheating when he used the spitball back in 1914?
First off, the conversation was about Bonds, but we can wander off some more. Pointless, really, but I usually learn on these little forays into baseball history.
Off the top of my head, I remember something about the spitball was banned at one point, but the guys who were throwing it prior to that were allowed to continue throwing it. I am not sure if Christy falls into that category.
I looked it up, it was banned in 1920, so I would guess he was not cheating. I guess it's a good thing there was no CBA at the time or it wouldn't have been banned until it was up for renegotiation. It looks like the owners didn't think it was cheating, just that it depressed scoring and cost them money. They didn't actually ban it because it was "wrong". It became wrong when it cost them revenue.
The spitball is illegal, but when it doesn't do what the pitcher wants, it comes in like a medium speed fastball with no break on it and is an easy pitch to hit.
Your position seems clear; take one "greenie" and your just as bad as a guy who artificially puts on a hundred pounds of muscle by injecting himself with drugs.
As I have said countless times in the past, there are degrees of bad behavior. It's wrong to cheat, but if your cheating has no effect or a minimal effect on the competition, it really isn't something to get worked up about. Jaywalking when there is no traffic is not the same as doing it during rush hour. Both the same action, but the results are going to be drastically different.
When you figure out how to cheat that makes good players great and great ballplayers unbelievably great, that's when it becomes a "big deal". Bonds was a great player who was probably capable of hitting about 500 home runs and being a terrific all around player. He figured out how to smash every offensive record in the book. Guys like Aaron and Mantle probably didn't hit any more home runs by dabbling with greenies. Still cheating, but one thing just doesn't compare to another................at all.
Until steroids were more available and understood in the 1980's, there was nothing that would really change the game unfairly. Amphetamines sometimes helped and sometimes hurt your performance. The spitball helped a few pitchers who mastered it (or mastered the mind game associated with it) but MLB really didn't enforce the rule. Ron Luciano addressed it in his book "The Umpire Strikes Back". He said they were not instructed to eject pitchers from the game they thought were doctoring the balls, only to check on it if the other team complained.
Mathewson, not a cheater.
Who's next on your "was this guy a cheater" list?
Ok, good. we agree. Mathewson was not a cheater in 1914.
now, why was he not a "cheater" in 1914, but in 1920 all of a sudden he is a cheater? he did everything the same.
>
He actually was NOT a cheater in 1920 since he was no longer pitching, but if he had been pitching he would have been exempt.
the ONLY thing that changed was the rule.
I only used Mathewson as an example, I could have used any number of pitchers from that era
Same thing as above. MLB said it was OK as long as you were throwing it before the rule change.
>
now, to your second point. when you add your morality to rules you have already lost the discussion. it doesnt matter whether you think amphetamines helped, helped less than steroids, actually hurt performance or did none of the above. additionally, it doesnt matter if you think steroids were helpful, hurtful or indifferent. It also doesnt matter what you think about doctoring the baseball.
You seem rather confused here. Your HOF may have nothing to do with morality, but the actual HOF has several moral requirements. That's the OP's question; "Does Bonds finally get in?" He can't, he doesn't qualify. Where steroids are concerned, there's no opinion about it, it's a fact that steroids increase the bodies size, strength and ability to heal itself. New studies suggest that they may actually improve hand/eye coordination as well. Amphetamines can in fact make you nervous and shaky inhibiting your ability to perform. after a certain point, the body builds up such a tolerance they don't work at all. These are not opinions.
>
It matters what the rules say. players (and businessmen, stockbrokers anyone really) will always go right up to the line to get the biggest advantage in their field. the problem lies when they cross the line. it is the difference between legal/illegal and cheating/not cheating. wherever the line is, that is where most people will find themselves.
>
Steroids are WAY over that line.
So... until there is a rule, there is no rule to break. before 1920, there was no rule on doctoring the ball. So, no cheating. It doesnt matter what your moral judgments are, there was no rule. after 1920, there absolutely was a rule, so, the same actions performed in 1914 are now over the line and are considered cheating.
Yes, you are correct on the spitball, I have agreed already.
>
Can you see the parallel I have painted?
>
Of course there's a parallel, it just is (as I said before) one of, if not the single weakest offered up on these boards.
Just because the owners and union didn't sit down and agree to adding illegal drugs to the agreement currently in place, does not in fact make it "legal".
Ok, you are grasping at straws here, but lets first clarify the doctored baseball argument. and i think you could agree, a player in 1914 could throw all the doctored baseballs he wanted within the rules, right.
another player could not throw a doctored baseball in 1925 and still be playing within the rules. correct?
Incorrect.
>
what is the ONLY difference between being a "cheater" and not? you've got it, THE RULES. rules matter.
now, as to your morality clause example. it is ridiculous. there are many many many many examples of dirtbags and cheats already in the HOF. did morality keep them out? there are so many examples here, that I wont even name them. the HOF website lists integrity, sportsmanship and character.
>
Ridiculous or not; "integrity, sportsmanship, character".
Bonds was worse, and we are aware of it before he could get in. If you want to start tossing guys out of the HOF, that could be discussed.
now. if a player plays a sport within what the rule book states at the time he played, how is he breaking the "morality" clause? if there was no rule about throwing a spitball in 1917, a pitcher who employed such tactics is not showing any lack of integrity, sportsmanship or character. he is simply playing within the rules.
You keep going back to the spitball. I already answered that. Guys were allowed to use it in some cases, guys who weren't allowed were cheating. The voters get to decide if it's important. Gaylord Perry is the guy who comes to mind who got in even though everyone "knew" he threw it. If you want him removed, I wouldn't object.
>
the same applies to the conversation at hand. there was no rule against steroids during the period the players mentioned above played. they didnt break any rules.
Yes they did. The "unholy three" all failed tests or admitted to use when it was illegal. You are really confusing me.
>
just the same as a spitballer in 1912 was fully playing "fair"
>
"Will Bonds finally get in?"
Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Bonds failed in half of the requirements; integrity, sportsmanship, character.
"Will Bonds finally get in?"
NO.
Off to work. Have a great day!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Setting aside the debate on when the drugs became illegal, I have read that three of Bonds' samples have been retested using better tests and he failed them.
So, we all know he cheated before and after whatever date you choose to put on when the drugs became against the MLB's collectively bargained agreement.
He should NEVER get in, in my opinion.
Joe, was Christy Mathewson cheating when he used the spitball back in 1914?
First off, the conversation was about Bonds, but we can wander off some more. Pointless, really, but I usually learn on these little forays into baseball history.
Off the top of my head, I remember something about the spitball was banned at one point, but the guys who were throwing it prior to that were allowed to continue throwing it. I am not sure if Christy falls into that category.
I looked it up, it was banned in 1920, so I would guess he was not cheating. I guess it's a good thing there was no CBA at the time or it wouldn't have been banned until it was up for renegotiation. It looks like the owners didn't think it was cheating, just that it depressed scoring and cost them money. They didn't actually ban it because it was "wrong". It became wrong when it cost them revenue.
The spitball is illegal, but when it doesn't do what the pitcher wants, it comes in like a medium speed fastball with no break on it and is an easy pitch to hit.
Your position seems clear; take one "greenie" and your just as bad as a guy who artificially puts on a hundred pounds of muscle by injecting himself with drugs.
As I have said countless times in the past, there are degrees of bad behavior. It's wrong to cheat, but if your cheating has no effect or a minimal effect on the competition, it really isn't something to get worked up about. Jaywalking when there is no traffic is not the same as doing it during rush hour. Both the same action, but the results are going to be drastically different.
When you figure out how to cheat that makes good players great and great ballplayers unbelievably great, that's when it becomes a "big deal". Bonds was a great player who was probably capable of hitting about 500 home runs and being a terrific all around player. He figured out how to smash every offensive record in the book. Guys like Aaron and Mantle probably didn't hit any more home runs by dabbling with greenies. Still cheating, but one thing just doesn't compare to another................at all.
Until steroids were more available and understood in the 1980's, there was nothing that would really change the game unfairly. Amphetamines sometimes helped and sometimes hurt your performance. The spitball helped a few pitchers who mastered it (or mastered the mind game associated with it) but MLB really didn't enforce the rule. Ron Luciano addressed it in his book "The Umpire Strikes Back". He said they were not instructed to eject pitchers from the game they thought were doctoring the balls, only to check on it if the other team complained.
Mathewson, not a cheater.
Who's next on your "was this guy a cheater" list?
Ok, good. we agree. Mathewson was not a cheater in 1914.
now, why was he not a "cheater" in 1914, but in 1920 all of a sudden he is a cheater? he did everything the same.
>
He actually was NOT a cheater in 1920 since he was no longer pitching, but if he had been pitching he would have been exempt.
the ONLY thing that changed was the rule.
I only used Mathewson as an example, I could have used any number of pitchers from that era
Same thing as above. MLB said it was OK as long as you were throwing it before the rule change.
>
now, to your second point. when you add your morality to rules you have already lost the discussion. it doesnt matter whether you think amphetamines helped, helped less than steroids, actually hurt performance or did none of the above. additionally, it doesnt matter if you think steroids were helpful, hurtful or indifferent. It also doesnt matter what you think about doctoring the baseball.
You seem rather confused here. Your HOF may have nothing to do with morality, but the actual HOF has several moral requirements. That's the OP's question; "Does Bonds finally get in?" He can't, he doesn't qualify. Where steroids are concerned, there's no opinion about it, it's a fact that steroids increase the bodies size, strength and ability to heal itself. New studies suggest that they may actually improve hand/eye coordination as well. Amphetamines can in fact make you nervous and shaky inhibiting your ability to perform. after a certain point, the body builds up such a tolerance they don't work at all. These are not opinions.
>
It matters what the rules say. players (and businessmen, stockbrokers anyone really) will always go right up to the line to get the biggest advantage in their field. the problem lies when they cross the line. it is the difference between legal/illegal and cheating/not cheating. wherever the line is, that is where most people will find themselves.
>
Steroids are WAY over that line.
So... until there is a rule, there is no rule to break. before 1920, there was no rule on doctoring the ball. So, no cheating. It doesnt matter what your moral judgments are, there was no rule. after 1920, there absolutely was a rule, so, the same actions performed in 1914 are now over the line and are considered cheating.
Yes, you are correct on the spitball, I have agreed already.
>
Can you see the parallel I have painted?
>
Of course there's a parallel, it just is (as I said before) one of, if not the single weakest offered up on these boards.
Just because the owners and union didn't sit down and agree to adding illegal drugs to the agreement currently in place, does not in fact make it "legal".
Ok, you are grasping at straws here, but lets first clarify the doctored baseball argument. and i think you could agree, a player in 1914 could throw all the doctored baseballs he wanted within the rules, right.
another player could not throw a doctored baseball in 1925 and still be playing within the rules. correct?
what is the ONLY difference between being a "cheater" and not? you've got it, THE RULES. rules matter.
now, as to your morality clause example. it is ridiculous. there are many many many many examples of dirtbags and cheats already in the HOF. did morality keep them out? there are so many examples here, that I wont even name them. the HOF website lists integrity, sportsmanship and character.
now. if a player plays a sport within what the rule book states at the time he played, how is he breaking the "morality" clause? if there was no rule about throwing a spitball in 1917, a pitcher who employed such tactics is not showing any lack of integrity, sportsmanship or character. he is simply playing within the rules.
the same applies to the conversation at hand. there was no rule against steroids during the period the players mentioned above played. they didnt break any rules.
just the same as a spitballer in 1912 was fully playing "fair"
It also doesn't matter what you "think" or "feel" about amphetamines and their efficacy. they are currently on the banned list. as of 2011.
It's neither "think" or "feel" it's know.
>
did all the players who used them "cheat" before they were banned?
REALLY bored with talking about amphetamines. how about guys who drank way too much coffee.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
He has admitted to using Androstenedione in the 1990s. He said he stopped in 1998. Andro was placed on the MLB joint drug program banned list at the end of the 2004 season.
assuming what Piazza said was true, and he did stop in 1998, Did he "cheat"
PS, he also admitted to using amphetamines. they were added to the banned list in 2011. Does that make him a double cheater?
Piazza never failed a test that I can see.
Andro is a vitamin pill sold to make people think they will become like Arnold Swartzenegger. It was an over the counter supplement when he said he used it.
Amphetamines are not a PED (I don't know why you keep insisting on bringing them up), but he claims he used them while they were "legal". Hard for me to care about something that doesn't do anything.
Looking at his numbers, I don't see anything like Bonds/McGwire/Sosa's. Mike hit 35 HRs his first full season and never hit more than 40 in a season after that. I really don't get the argument that says he was a user. Bonds averaged 25 HRs a year for his first 5 full seasons and then was hitting 45 a year and then 73 once.
I would vote for Mike.
wrong. Dr Gary Wadler in an interview with ESPN
Q: In your expert opinion, should Androstenedione be known as a supplement or a drug, a steroid?
Wadler: Androstenedione is a steroid, always was a steroid, always will be a steroid and should be treated with utmost respect and as a drug and not as a dietary supplement.
andro is not a vitamin pill. It is not a suppliment. go try and buy it today. it increases testosterone production and is absolutely a steroid.
It is a perfect parallel. Mike Piazza used Andro before it was on the banned list. he didnt have to test positive for it, he admitted it. he also admitted quitting before 2005.
did he "cheat"
I had a doctor tell me I had a pulled muscle once and I knew it was something real bad, turns out it was a DVT that could have killed me. Your Doctor's opinion is not accepted.
Ando is a firecracker, injectable anabolic steroids are nuclear bombs, both go "BANG".
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Setting aside the debate on when the drugs became illegal, I have read that three of Bonds' samples have been retested using better tests and he failed them.
So, we all know he cheated before and after whatever date you choose to put on when the drugs became against the MLB's collectively bargained agreement.
He should NEVER get in, in my opinion.
Joe, was Christy Mathewson cheating when he used the spitball back in 1914?
First off, the conversation was about Bonds, but we can wander off some more. Pointless, really, but I usually learn on these little forays into baseball history.
Off the top of my head, I remember something about the spitball was banned at one point, but the guys who were throwing it prior to that were allowed to continue throwing it. I am not sure if Christy falls into that category.
I looked it up, it was banned in 1920, so I would guess he was not cheating. I guess it's a good thing there was no CBA at the time or it wouldn't have been banned until it was up for renegotiation. It looks like the owners didn't think it was cheating, just that it depressed scoring and cost them money. They didn't actually ban it because it was "wrong". It became wrong when it cost them revenue.
The spitball is illegal, but when it doesn't do what the pitcher wants, it comes in like a medium speed fastball with no break on it and is an easy pitch to hit.
Your position seems clear; take one "greenie" and your just as bad as a guy who artificially puts on a hundred pounds of muscle by injecting himself with drugs.
As I have said countless times in the past, there are degrees of bad behavior. It's wrong to cheat, but if your cheating has no effect or a minimal effect on the competition, it really isn't something to get worked up about. Jaywalking when there is no traffic is not the same as doing it during rush hour. Both the same action, but the results are going to be drastically different.
When you figure out how to cheat that makes good players great and great ballplayers unbelievably great, that's when it becomes a "big deal". Bonds was a great player who was probably capable of hitting about 500 home runs and being a terrific all around player. He figured out how to smash every offensive record in the book. Guys like Aaron and Mantle probably didn't hit any more home runs by dabbling with greenies. Still cheating, but one thing just doesn't compare to another................at all.
Until steroids were more available and understood in the 1980's, there was nothing that would really change the game unfairly. Amphetamines sometimes helped and sometimes hurt your performance. The spitball helped a few pitchers who mastered it (or mastered the mind game associated with it) but MLB really didn't enforce the rule. Ron Luciano addressed it in his book "The Umpire Strikes Back". He said they were not instructed to eject pitchers from the game they thought were doctoring the balls, only to check on it if the other team complained.
Mathewson, not a cheater.
Who's next on your "was this guy a cheater" list?
Ok, good. we agree. Mathewson was not a cheater in 1914.
now, why was he not a "cheater" in 1914, but in 1920 all of a sudden he is a cheater? he did everything the same.
>
He actually was NOT a cheater in 1920 since he was no longer pitching, but if he had been pitching he would have been exempt.
the ONLY thing that changed was the rule.
I only used Mathewson as an example, I could have used any number of pitchers from that era
Same thing as above. MLB said it was OK as long as you were throwing it before the rule change.
>
now, to your second point. when you add your morality to rules you have already lost the discussion. it doesnt matter whether you think amphetamines helped, helped less than steroids, actually hurt performance or did none of the above. additionally, it doesnt matter if you think steroids were helpful, hurtful or indifferent. It also doesnt matter what you think about doctoring the baseball.
You seem rather confused here. Your HOF may have nothing to do with morality, but the actual HOF has several moral requirements. That's the OP's question; "Does Bonds finally get in?" He can't, he doesn't qualify. Where steroids are concerned, there's no opinion about it, it's a fact that steroids increase the bodies size, strength and ability to heal itself. New studies suggest that they may actually improve hand/eye coordination as well. Amphetamines can in fact make you nervous and shaky inhibiting your ability to perform. after a certain point, the body builds up such a tolerance they don't work at all. These are not opinions.
>
It matters what the rules say. players (and businessmen, stockbrokers anyone really) will always go right up to the line to get the biggest advantage in their field. the problem lies when they cross the line. it is the difference between legal/illegal and cheating/not cheating. wherever the line is, that is where most people will find themselves.
>
Steroids are WAY over that line.
So... until there is a rule, there is no rule to break. before 1920, there was no rule on doctoring the ball. So, no cheating. It doesnt matter what your moral judgments are, there was no rule. after 1920, there absolutely was a rule, so, the same actions performed in 1914 are now over the line and are considered cheating.
Yes, you are correct on the spitball, I have agreed already.
>
Can you see the parallel I have painted?
>
Of course there's a parallel, it just is (as I said before) one of, if not the single weakest offered up on these boards.
Just because the owners and union didn't sit down and agree to adding illegal drugs to the agreement currently in place, does not in fact make it "legal".
Ok, you are grasping at straws here, but lets first clarify the doctored baseball argument. and i think you could agree, a player in 1914 could throw all the doctored baseballs he wanted within the rules, right.
another player could not throw a doctored baseball in 1925 and still be playing within the rules. correct?
Incorrect.
>
what is the ONLY difference between being a "cheater" and not? you've got it, THE RULES. rules matter.
now, as to your morality clause example. it is ridiculous. there are many many many many examples of dirtbags and cheats already in the HOF. did morality keep them out? there are so many examples here, that I wont even name them. the HOF website lists integrity, sportsmanship and character.
>
Ridiculous or not; "integrity, sportsmanship, character".
Bonds was worse, and we are aware of it before he could get in. If you want to start tossing guys out of the HOF, that could be discussed.
now. if a player plays a sport within what the rule book states at the time he played, how is he breaking the "morality" clause? if there was no rule about throwing a spitball in 1917, a pitcher who employed such tactics is not showing any lack of integrity, sportsmanship or character. he is simply playing within the rules.
You keep going back to the spitball. I already answered that. Guys were allowed to use it in some cases, guys who weren't allowed were cheating. The voters get to decide if it's important. Gaylord Perry is the guy who comes to mind who got in even though everyone "knew" he threw it. If you want him removed, I wouldn't object.
>
the same applies to the conversation at hand. there was no rule against steroids during the period the players mentioned above played. they didnt break any rules.
Yes they did. The "unholy three" all failed tests or admitted to use when it was illegal. You are really confusing me.
>
just the same as a spitballer in 1912 was fully playing "fair"
>
"Will Bonds finally get in?"
Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Bonds failed in half of the requirements; integrity, sportsmanship, character.
"Will Bonds finally get in?"
NO.
Off to work. Have a great day!
not sure how you could sat a player throwing a spitball in 1914 is playing within the rules and another player doing the same in 1925 is cheating could be incorrect?
If what Bonds did was during a period when it was not against the rules, how is he breaking the morality clause? no rule was broken. it seems you are inserting YOUR morality clause here.
not sure who the "unholy 3" are that tested posititve. maybe arod, palmiero and manny?
at any rate, anyone who is proven to have broke the rules should be suspended banished from the hall and all that. but if it involves steroids it would have had to happen post 2005 and for amphetamines post 2011. I dont think i have said anything contrary to that.
He has admitted to using Androstenedione in the 1990s. He said he stopped in 1998. Andro was placed on the MLB joint drug program banned list at the end of the 2004 season.
assuming what Piazza said was true, and he did stop in 1998, Did he "cheat"
PS, he also admitted to using amphetamines. they were added to the banned list in 2011. Does that make him a double cheater?
Piazza never failed a test that I can see.
Andro is a vitamin pill sold to make people think they will become like Arnold Swartzenegger. It was an over the counter supplement when he said he used it.
Amphetamines are not a PED (I don't know why you keep insisting on bringing them up), but he claims he used them while they were "legal". Hard for me to care about something that doesn't do anything.
Looking at his numbers, I don't see anything like Bonds/McGwire/Sosa's. Mike hit 35 HRs his first full season and never hit more than 40 in a season after that. I really don't get the argument that says he was a user. Bonds averaged 25 HRs a year for his first 5 full seasons and then was hitting 45 a year and then 73 once.
I would vote for Mike.
wrong. Dr Gary Wadler in an interview with ESPN
Q: In your expert opinion, should Androstenedione be known as a supplement or a drug, a steroid?
Wadler: Androstenedione is a steroid, always was a steroid, always will be a steroid and should be treated with utmost respect and as a drug and not as a dietary supplement.
andro is not a vitamin pill. It is not a suppliment. go try and buy it today. it increases testosterone production and is absolutely a steroid.
It is a perfect parallel. Mike Piazza used Andro before it was on the banned list. he didnt have to test positive for it, he admitted it. he also admitted quitting before 2005.
did he "cheat"
I had a doctor tell me I had a pulled muscle once and I knew it was something real bad, turns out it was a DVT that could have killed me. Your Doctor's opinion is not accepted.
Ando is a firecracker, injectable anabolic steroids are nuclear bombs, both go "BANG".
you are absolutely wrong with respect to andro. it is widely considered a steroid. that is why it was banned.
answer the question: Did Piazza cheat? he used a substance when it was not on the banned list. the same substance was later added to the banned list, though not when he admittedly used it.
did he cheat??
there is a reason you are avoiding the question...
Setting aside the debate on when the drugs became illegal, I have read that three of Bonds' samples have been retested using better tests and he failed them.
So, we all know he cheated before and after whatever date you choose to put on when the drugs became against the MLB's collectively bargained agreement.
He should NEVER get in, in my opinion.
Joe, was Christy Mathewson cheating when he used the spitball back in 1914?
First off, the conversation was about Bonds, but we can wander off some more. Pointless, really, but I usually learn on these little forays into baseball history.
Off the top of my head, I remember something about the spitball was banned at one point, but the guys who were throwing it prior to that were allowed to continue throwing it. I am not sure if Christy falls into that category.
I looked it up, it was banned in 1920, so I would guess he was not cheating. I guess it's a good thing there was no CBA at the time or it wouldn't have been banned until it was up for renegotiation. It looks like the owners didn't think it was cheating, just that it depressed scoring and cost them money. They didn't actually ban it because it was "wrong". It became wrong when it cost them revenue.
The spitball is illegal, but when it doesn't do what the pitcher wants, it comes in like a medium speed fastball with no break on it and is an easy pitch to hit.
Your position seems clear; take one "greenie" and your just as bad as a guy who artificially puts on a hundred pounds of muscle by injecting himself with drugs.
As I have said countless times in the past, there are degrees of bad behavior. It's wrong to cheat, but if your cheating has no effect or a minimal effect on the competition, it really isn't something to get worked up about. Jaywalking when there is no traffic is not the same as doing it during rush hour. Both the same action, but the results are going to be drastically different.
When you figure out how to cheat that makes good players great and great ballplayers unbelievably great, that's when it becomes a "big deal". Bonds was a great player who was probably capable of hitting about 500 home runs and being a terrific all around player. He figured out how to smash every offensive record in the book. Guys like Aaron and Mantle probably didn't hit any more home runs by dabbling with greenies. Still cheating, but one thing just doesn't compare to another................at all.
Until steroids were more available and understood in the 1980's, there was nothing that would really change the game unfairly. Amphetamines sometimes helped and sometimes hurt your performance. The spitball helped a few pitchers who mastered it (or mastered the mind game associated with it) but MLB really didn't enforce the rule. Ron Luciano addressed it in his book "The Umpire Strikes Back". He said they were not instructed to eject pitchers from the game they thought were doctoring the balls, only to check on it if the other team complained.
Mathewson, not a cheater.
Who's next on your "was this guy a cheater" list?
Ok, good. we agree. Mathewson was not a cheater in 1914.
now, why was he not a "cheater" in 1914, but in 1920 all of a sudden he is a cheater? he did everything the same.
>
He actually was NOT a cheater in 1920 since he was no longer pitching, but if he had been pitching he would have been exempt.
the ONLY thing that changed was the rule.
I only used Mathewson as an example, I could have used any number of pitchers from that era
Same thing as above. MLB said it was OK as long as you were throwing it before the rule change.
>
now, to your second point. when you add your morality to rules you have already lost the discussion. it doesnt matter whether you think amphetamines helped, helped less than steroids, actually hurt performance or did none of the above. additionally, it doesnt matter if you think steroids were helpful, hurtful or indifferent. It also doesnt matter what you think about doctoring the baseball.
You seem rather confused here. Your HOF may have nothing to do with morality, but the actual HOF has several moral requirements. That's the OP's question; "Does Bonds finally get in?" He can't, he doesn't qualify. Where steroids are concerned, there's no opinion about it, it's a fact that steroids increase the bodies size, strength and ability to heal itself. New studies suggest that they may actually improve hand/eye coordination as well. Amphetamines can in fact make you nervous and shaky inhibiting your ability to perform. after a certain point, the body builds up such a tolerance they don't work at all. These are not opinions.
>
It matters what the rules say. players (and businessmen, stockbrokers anyone really) will always go right up to the line to get the biggest advantage in their field. the problem lies when they cross the line. it is the difference between legal/illegal and cheating/not cheating. wherever the line is, that is where most people will find themselves.
>
Steroids are WAY over that line.
So... until there is a rule, there is no rule to break. before 1920, there was no rule on doctoring the ball. So, no cheating. It doesnt matter what your moral judgments are, there was no rule. after 1920, there absolutely was a rule, so, the same actions performed in 1914 are now over the line and are considered cheating.
Yes, you are correct on the spitball, I have agreed already.
>
Can you see the parallel I have painted?
>
Of course there's a parallel, it just is (as I said before) one of, if not the single weakest offered up on these boards.
Just because the owners and union didn't sit down and agree to adding illegal drugs to the agreement currently in place, does not in fact make it "legal".
Ok, you are grasping at straws here, but lets first clarify the doctored baseball argument. and i think you could agree, a player in 1914 could throw all the doctored baseballs he wanted within the rules, right.
another player could not throw a doctored baseball in 1925 and still be playing within the rules. correct?
Incorrect.
>
what is the ONLY difference between being a "cheater" and not? you've got it, THE RULES. rules matter.
now, as to your morality clause example. it is ridiculous. there are many many many many examples of dirtbags and cheats already in the HOF. did morality keep them out? there are so many examples here, that I wont even name them. the HOF website lists integrity, sportsmanship and character.
>
Ridiculous or not; "integrity, sportsmanship, character".
Bonds was worse, and we are aware of it before he could get in. If you want to start tossing guys out of the HOF, that could be discussed.
now. if a player plays a sport within what the rule book states at the time he played, how is he breaking the "morality" clause? if there was no rule about throwing a spitball in 1917, a pitcher who employed such tactics is not showing any lack of integrity, sportsmanship or character. he is simply playing within the rules.
You keep going back to the spitball. I already answered that. Guys were allowed to use it in some cases, guys who weren't allowed were cheating. The voters get to decide if it's important. Gaylord Perry is the guy who comes to mind who got in even though everyone "knew" he threw it. If you want him removed, I wouldn't object.
>
the same applies to the conversation at hand. there was no rule against steroids during the period the players mentioned above played. they didnt break any rules.
Yes they did. The "unholy three" all failed tests or admitted to use when it was illegal. You are really confusing me.
>
just the same as a spitballer in 1912 was fully playing "fair"
>
"Will Bonds finally get in?"
Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Bonds failed in half of the requirements; integrity, sportsmanship, character.
"Will Bonds finally get in?"
NO.
Off to work. Have a great day!
not sure how you could sat a player throwing a spitball in 1914 is playing within the rules and another player doing the same in 1925 is cheating could be incorrect?
If what Bonds did was during a period when it was not against the rules, how is he breaking the morality clause? no rule was broken. it seems you are inserting YOUR morality clause here.
not sure who the "unholy 3" are that tested posititve. maybe arod, palmiero and manny?
Three more bad people, but no, Sosa and Bonds tested positive, McGwire (and Bonds) admitted to it.
at any rate, anyone who is proven to have broke the rules should be suspended banished from the hall and all that. but if it involves steroids it would have had to happen post 2005 and for amphetamines post 2011. I dont think i have said anything contrary to that.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
you are heading down a rabbit hole for which there is no exit if your defense of andro is that even though it is a banned substance, it wasnt as bad as ........
there will always be varying strength PED. the only standard we can use to judge is the banned list. it is the only standard that matters.
not sure how you could sat a player throwing a spitball in 1914 is playing within the rules and another player doing the same in 1925 is cheating could be incorrect?
Are you reading my responses? I answered that several times. I copied the following from a previous post. Please read for my answer;
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
"You keep going back to the spitball. I already answered that. Guys were allowed to use it in some cases, guys who weren't allowed were cheating. The voters get to decide if it's important. Gaylord Perry is the guy who comes to mind who got in even though everyone "knew" he threw it. If you want him removed, I wouldn't object."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
He has admitted to using Androstenedione in the 1990s. He said he stopped in 1998. Andro was placed on the MLB joint drug program banned list at the end of the 2004 season.
assuming what Piazza said was true, and he did stop in 1998, Did he "cheat"
PS, he also admitted to using amphetamines. they were added to the banned list in 2011. Does that make him a double cheater?
Piazza never failed a test that I can see.
Andro is a vitamin pill sold to make people think they will become like Arnold Swartzenegger. It was an over the counter supplement when he said he used it.
Amphetamines are not a PED (I don't know why you keep insisting on bringing them up), but he claims he used them while they were "legal". Hard for me to care about something that doesn't do anything.
Looking at his numbers, I don't see anything like Bonds/McGwire/Sosa's. Mike hit 35 HRs his first full season and never hit more than 40 in a season after that. I really don't get the argument that says he was a user. Bonds averaged 25 HRs a year for his first 5 full seasons and then was hitting 45 a year and then 73 once.
I would vote for Mike.
wrong. Dr Gary Wadler in an interview with ESPN
Q: In your expert opinion, should Androstenedione be known as a supplement or a drug, a steroid?
Wadler: Androstenedione is a steroid, always was a steroid, always will be a steroid and should be treated with utmost respect and as a drug and not as a dietary supplement.
andro is not a vitamin pill. It is not a suppliment. go try and buy it today. it increases testosterone production and is absolutely a steroid.
It is a perfect parallel. Mike Piazza used Andro before it was on the banned list. he didnt have to test positive for it, he admitted it. he also admitted quitting before 2005.
did he "cheat"
I had a doctor tell me I had a pulled muscle once and I knew it was something real bad, turns out it was a DVT that could have killed me. Your Doctor's opinion is not accepted.
Ando is a firecracker, injectable anabolic steroids are nuclear bombs, both go "BANG".
you are absolutely wrong with respect to andro. it is widely considered a steroid. that is why it was banned.
answer the question: Did Piazza cheat? he used a substance when it was not on the banned list. the same substance was later added to the banned list, though not when he admittedly used it.
did he cheat??
there is a reason you are avoiding the question...
Again, asked and answered;
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Piazza never failed a test that I can see.
Looking at his numbers, I don't see anything like Bonds/McGwire/Sosa's. Mike hit 35 HRs his first full season and never hit more than 40 in a season after that. I really don't get the argument that says he was a user. Bonds averaged 25 HRs a year for his first 5 full seasons and then was hitting 45 a year and then 73 once.
I would vote for Mike.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Ok, you are grasping at straws here, but lets first clarify the doctored baseball argument. and i think you could agree, a player in 1914 could throw all the doctored baseballs he wanted within the rules, right.
another player could not throw a doctored baseball in 1925 and still be playing within the rules. correct?
Incorrect.
Joe, here is the quote i was referring to with your answer of "incorrect"
I was speaking of two hypothetical players in the example. one playing before the spitball ban, one playing after. one would have been playing within the rules, the other breaking the rules, though they were doing the exact same thing.
how is that example incorrect? maybe I should have specified that the 2nd player was not grandfathered in.
and yes, I have read every one of your posts. I do value what you contribute even if i may disagree.
@craig44 said:
you are heading down a rabbit hole for which there is no exit if your defense of andro is that even though it is a banned substance, it wasnt as bad as ........
there will always be varying strength PED. the only standard we can use to judge is the banned list. it is the only standard that matters.
I guess you would sentence a shopper who eats a single grape without paying to the same punishment as a serial killer. They're both criminals.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
He has admitted to using Androstenedione in the 1990s. He said he stopped in 1998. Andro was placed on the MLB joint drug program banned list at the end of the 2004 season.
assuming what Piazza said was true, and he did stop in 1998, Did he "cheat"
PS, he also admitted to using amphetamines. they were added to the banned list in 2011. Does that make him a double cheater?
Piazza never failed a test that I can see.
Andro is a vitamin pill sold to make people think they will become like Arnold Swartzenegger. It was an over the counter supplement when he said he used it.
Amphetamines are not a PED (I don't know why you keep insisting on bringing them up), but he claims he used them while they were "legal". Hard for me to care about something that doesn't do anything.
Looking at his numbers, I don't see anything like Bonds/McGwire/Sosa's. Mike hit 35 HRs his first full season and never hit more than 40 in a season after that. I really don't get the argument that says he was a user. Bonds averaged 25 HRs a year for his first 5 full seasons and then was hitting 45 a year and then 73 once.
I would vote for Mike.
wrong. Dr Gary Wadler in an interview with ESPN
Q: In your expert opinion, should Androstenedione be known as a supplement or a drug, a steroid?
Wadler: Androstenedione is a steroid, always was a steroid, always will be a steroid and should be treated with utmost respect and as a drug and not as a dietary supplement.
andro is not a vitamin pill. It is not a suppliment. go try and buy it today. it increases testosterone production and is absolutely a steroid.
It is a perfect parallel. Mike Piazza used Andro before it was on the banned list. he didnt have to test positive for it, he admitted it. he also admitted quitting before 2005.
did he "cheat"
I had a doctor tell me I had a pulled muscle once and I knew it was something real bad, turns out it was a DVT that could have killed me. Your Doctor's opinion is not accepted.
Ando is a firecracker, injectable anabolic steroids are nuclear bombs, both go "BANG".
you are absolutely wrong with respect to andro. it is widely considered a steroid. that is why it was banned.
answer the question: Did Piazza cheat? he used a substance when it was not on the banned list. the same substance was later added to the banned list, though not when he admittedly used it.
did he cheat??
there is a reason you are avoiding the question...
Again, asked and answered;
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Piazza never failed a test that I can see.
Looking at his numbers, I don't see anything like Bonds/McGwire/Sosa's. Mike hit 35 HRs his first full season and never hit more than 40 in a season after that. I really don't get the argument that says he was a user. Bonds averaged 25 HRs a year for his first 5 full seasons and then was hitting 45 a year and then 73 once.
I would vote for Mike.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK, you didnt say whether you considered Piazza a "cheater", just that he never failed a test and you would vote for him.
so... if your standard for a player having "cheated" by using steroids is a failed test, you must absolutely agree with my position.
there were no tests before 2003, and the 2003 testing was simply a survey that has been disavowed by the commissioner as not conclusive because there were numerous false positives. true testing began in the 2005 season.
@craig44 said:
you are heading down a rabbit hole for which there is no exit if your defense of andro is that even though it is a banned substance, it wasnt as bad as ........
there will always be varying strength PED. the only standard we can use to judge is the banned list. it is the only standard that matters.
I guess you would sentence a shopper who eats a single grape without paying to the same punishment as a serial killer. They're both criminals.
we are not talking about sentencing here. we are discussing the difference between cheating and not cheating. in the court of public opinion, which is basically what the HOF voters are, getting jabbed once with a steroid is just as damning as 1,000 times. at least in the mind of voters.
gary sheffield said he only used one time, and that one time he didnt even know what he was using.
@craig44 said:
you are heading down a rabbit hole for which there is no exit if your defense of andro is that even though it is a banned substance, it wasnt as bad as ........
there will always be varying strength PED. the only standard we can use to judge is the banned list. it is the only standard that matters.
Well to you. I have no problem if you look at it that way.
I use my own judgement and think for myself. I always will.
Steroids were a huge problem in the MLB not because they were another form of trying to get an unfair advantage, but because they worked so well.
Did you ever read Canseco's books? He states a lot of claims that turned out to be absolutely correct. Guys that made a mockery of the record books should never get in the HOF. You can't keep EVERYBODY out.
Would you really keep Hank Aaron out? Please answer.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
In my opinion...
.
A lot of people really undersell the positive affects amphetamines have on concentration and focus. Yes, there are issues with addction, efficacy, and tolerance. But any current MLB player who has an excption due to his "ADHD" is at an extreme advantage. There might be/are for sure some big names who are on this list
As far as I know, the MLB Hall of Fame is the only one of the four major US sports HOFs that includes language which allows voters to exclude possible candidates due to behavioral or moral reasons, etc. It seems to me that they don't go out of their way to only include candidates who are of exceptional character. I might be wrong.
I guess you would sentence a shopper who eats a single grape without paying to the same punishment as a serial killer. They're both criminals.
we are not talking about sentencing here. we are discussing the difference between cheating and not cheating. in the court of public opinion, which is basically what the HOF voters are, getting jabbed once with a steroid is just as damning as 1,000 times. at least in the mind of voters.
>
We most certainly are, the post is about getting into the HOF. The sentence is you don't get in if guilty.
>
gary sheffield said he only used one time, and that one time he didnt even know what he was using.
Sheffield had a lot more issues than just failing a test.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
the MLB rulebook concerns rules, procedural issues and competitive balance issues, (like draft picks, seedings, suitable and unsuitable equipment and yes, since 2005, PED.) you are talking about legalities on the local, state and federal level.
two different things. if the MLB rulebook included every single thing that was "illegal" in the criminal sense, there would be about 100,000 rules and the book would weigh 400 pounds.
you are being obtuse. Murder, rape and arson not "cheating" in MLB. Those criminal offences do not impact rules, procedural issues or competitive balance. therefore, they do not affect the MLB official rule book.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
So you're suggesting that MLB can't ever punish a player for an illegal activity that isn't specifically banned by an MLB rule? It's my understanding that they did exactly that in the 1980s with Steve Howe, the Pittsburgh guys, and others.
Between 1966 and 1973, marvin miller was solidifying the players union. Things were very much in flux really throughout the whole 1970s with free agency, how much power the union would have and how much control the commissioner would have. The first big drug issue was with Ferguson Jenkins in 1980. It was with cocaine and his suspension was overturned.
This started MLBs crusade against drugs of abuse and the Pittsburgh drug trials you mentioned. MLB and the players union collectively bargained the 1984 drug program and steroids and amphetamine
were specifically left out of that collective bargaining agreement. As was mandated blood/urine testing. The union conceded discipline for using drugs of addiction for holding firm on steroids/amphetamines. Ueberroth added that "steroids were not really on the radar" so the Pittsburgh trials were only about drugs of abuse, namely cocaine.
That is the difference between the 80s cocaine suspensions and PED. drugs of abuse were the only drug that had been collectively bargained into being disciplined.
So, were the only drugs "against the rules"
So, no, the commissioner cannot unilaterally go about suspending or dealing out punishment without a collective bargaining agreement in place.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I love that Skechers commercial sooooo much.
This is the single weakest argument I have ever seen on these boards.
It's like the guy who invents synthetic cocaine and when caught, claims he's innocent of wrongdoing because there's no law against synthetic cocaine.
Congress made the drugs illegal and the commissioner notified the players that these drugs were not ok.
You don't have to renegotiate the collective bargaining agreement to prohibit a newly legislated illegal act. In fact I don't believe you can renegotiate the contract until it expires or is about to. So, YES the commissioner was completely within his powers to let the union members know that they were on notice that these drugs were now outlawed.
The law of the land is a higher authority than MLB, you can't make a rule that contradicts the law.
The murder scenario, while extreme, is perfectly germane, you just refuse to admit that your position is flawed.
The players were obtaining illegal substances and using them to gain an unfair advantage, they knew they were cheating and so do we.
"The law of the land is a higher authority than MLB, you can't make a rule that contradicts the law."
people do it all the time. Marijuana is illegal on the federal level, yet there are 13 head shops in my city selling the stuff for recreational use.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
as far as new things being invented and not being illegal until there is a law, also happens all the time. look at bump stocks, binary trigger systems and pistol braces. pistol braces and stocks are very very very very nearly the same thing. just like a natural drug and a synthetic one. yet there were no laws in place when they were first developed. same with binary trigger systems. I could go on, but I don't think I need to.
there will be substances created in the future that will make steroids seem irrelevant, but you can be sure there will be no laws against them at first. same with andro. it was perfectly fine, until it wasn't.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You sure about that? Here's what UPI said in 1984 regarding the exact drug policy:
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/06/28/The-new-drug-rules-for-major-league-baseball/6164457243200/
No mention of exclusions anywhere. "The possession or use of illegal drugs is strictly prohibited." This would cover steroids as of 1990 even though the agreement was made in 1984.
The idea that MLB can't punish players for crimes is laughable. The standard player contract gives wide disciplinary latitude to the commissioner for the exact reason that the rulebook can't possibly cover everything.
and by the way, if you want to change the rules of an antitrust exempt league with a very strong players union, you sure do have to have it collectively bargained.
but don't ask me, ask peter ueberroth, fay vincent donald fehr marvin miller and others.
steroids and amphetamines were specifically left out of the 1984 MLB drug program. it was negotiated by both MLB and the players union.
i am sorry if it offends your constitution, but steroids and amphetamines were not part of any MLB drug program until 2005. that means they were not part of the rules, or the drug program. fay vincents memo was just that, a memo. it held no more weight than if you or I had written a memo.
but dont take my word for it, take fay vincents. he said so himself.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I took it straight from the Mitchell report.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
from page 34 of the Mitchell report:
"in june 1984, the owners and the players association agreed to a joint program that provided for treatment for players who were found to use, or had admitted using, certain drugs of abuse. Steroids and amphetamines were not on the schedule of prohibited substances."
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
UPI Archives
June 28, 1984
The new drug rules for major-league baseball
NEW YORK -- 1. The possession or use of illegal drugs is strictly prohibited.
In 1990 Steroids were classified as illegal.
Any player involved with a controlled substance not covered by the joint program shall be subject to such discipline as in the opinion of the Commissioner may be appropriate
We're done now.
you have managed to either not read this thread or you missed the point. we have already hashed out Vincents memo, which in his own words was not a "rule" and gave the commissioner absolutely no power to do anything.
the commissioner (or anyone else for that matter) can say or write whatever they want. in MLB, they run on special rules.
until a rule change or program is negotiated and voted on/approved by the union and the owners, it is not a rule or program.
steroids AND amphetamines were specifically left out of the 1984 drug program. the OFFICIAL program that was negotiated, voted on and passed. they were not "outlawed" until the end of 2004 season negotiated drug program was negotiated/instituted.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
here's the question i have for you, craig44. and for the record, i think you know i like you. we've chatted in private. you're smart and knowledgeable. but i am 1,000% genuinely curious about this.
forget what anyone else may or may not have done for a moment. regardless of what the rules stated at the time, if a player knowingly and willingly attempts to game the system by doing something that they -- in their heart of hearts -- know is wrong, is that particular someone honestly worthy of a sport's highest honor?
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
No, you missed his point. What was quoted was the 1984 drug program and agreement, not Vincent's memo. The rules listing, at least as presented by UPI in 1984, does not have exclusions for steroids or amphetamines at all.
he is missing the exclusions part. both steroids and amphetamines were excluded. as was mandatory testing. that was collectively bargained into the agreement. Fehr was adamant about it, and ueberroth was ambivalent toward steroids.
the 1984 drug program was all about drugs of abuse.
If steroids and amphetamines were already specified in the drug program, why would vincent have written a memo? he was attempting to legislate from the bench, so to say, but he himself said there was no policy on steroids or amphetamines at the time.
keep in mind, I am not saying this, I don't have to, the commissioner at the time was.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
thank you galaxy27, I have the same sentiments for you. you are a great contributor here.
I would say that no one was gaming the system if there were no rule in place. it seems to me that if what they were doing was not against a rule, its fair game. literally, fair game.
for example, look at some of the things that are "against the rules" now, that were perfectly fine in the past:
Andro is against the rules now, but was not years ago. many players used it, including hall of famer Mike Piazza
amphetamines are also currently against the rules. but we know scores of hall of famers used that particular drug.
spitballs and altering the baseball have been against the rules since 1920. many hall of famers have done that and even continue to do so
now, when those things were not against the rules, were the players who participated gaming the system? should they be punished in arrears for things that were not against the rules when they played, but are now?
it like if I took a credit or deduction on my taxes this year, but that credit is taken away 10 years from now, did I cheat on my taxes when I took it?
to extend the discussion, I think we can all imagine that athletes are using substances today that will be banned in subsequent years. should the players currently using be disciplined when a rule is agreed upon that "outlaws" those substances?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
>
The exclusions you mention are literally not listed in rules. UPI published what appears to be the full set of rules and there are no exclusions.
To reiterate that steroids, which were not illegal when the agreement was signed, were covered by the agreement since it specifies illegal drugs and steroids were illegal as of 1990.
If they were specifically excluded as you've indicated, why would Vincent write a memo that contradicts the written contract? That makes absolutely no sense.
Vincent was not the commissioner in 1984 though.
I have read all that UPI wrote about the 1984 drug program. they did not post the program in its entirety. just the highlights, like any news agency would. I have been unable to find the actual 1984 drug program in its entirety, but I have quoted two commissioners, including the one involved in the 1984 drug program. I have also quoted the mitchell report, that gave a history of negotiated drug programs in MLB. when asked specifically about steroids, Ueberroth said "steroids werent really on the radar." that statement would have been in regards to why steroids, amphetamines and manadatory testing were left out of the 84 agreement.
I will take the words of two commissioners (who both knew the joint drug program) and the Mitchell report (George Mitchell had access to anything he wanted when drafting the report) over an incomplete news report.
Vincents memo was purely a moral opinion, as he himself has stated. if there were already rules for steroids he would not have written the memo. He knew though, the agreed upon drug program and that it excluded those drugs.
If there was already rules about steroids/amphetamines and the like, why would there have been need for the 2004 collectively bargained drug program? If, as you state there already were rules in place for the commish to act and suspend players on PED, why the 2004 rules? they would have been redundant.
I will answer, because the previous agreed upon drug programs were for drugs of abuse. that is why in the 1984 plan, you see all this wording about rehab etc. it was about getting players off cocaine and the like. Ueberroth himself said as much. that was a big part of why he took the job.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Look! You can take all the enhancer stuff you want however if you do not have any skills it does you no good. Many rules have been broken in MLB however many are in the Hall.
In that case I say he belongs along with Clemens.
The 2004 program brought in testing, which was not there before.
and penalties.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
in a nutshell, the 2004 drug program was necessary because MLB had never had an official steroid policy in the past. if they had, they just would have followed it.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Setting aside the debate on when the drugs became illegal, I have read that three of Bonds' samples have been retested using better tests and he failed them.
So, we all know he cheated before and after whatever date you choose to put on when the drugs became against the MLB's collectively bargained agreement.
He should NEVER get in, in my opinion.
Joe, was Christy Mathewson cheating when he used the spitball back in 1914?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
First off, the conversation was about Bonds, but we can wander off some more. Pointless, really, but I usually learn on these little forays into baseball history.
Off the top of my head, I remember something about the spitball was banned at one point, but the guys who were throwing it prior to that were allowed to continue throwing it. I am not sure if Christy falls into that category.
I looked it up, it was banned in 1920, so I would guess he was not cheating. I guess it's a good thing there was no CBA at the time or it wouldn't have been banned until it was up for renegotiation. It looks like the owners didn't think it was cheating, just that it depressed scoring and cost them money. They didn't actually ban it because it was "wrong". It became wrong when it cost them revenue.
The spitball is illegal, but when it doesn't do what the pitcher wants, it comes in like a medium speed fastball with no break on it and is an easy pitch to hit.
Your position seems clear; take one "greenie" and your just as bad as a guy who artificially puts on a hundred pounds of muscle by injecting himself with drugs.
As I have said countless times in the past, there are degrees of bad behavior. It's wrong to cheat, but if your cheating has no effect or a minimal effect on the competition, it really isn't something to get worked up about. Jaywalking when there is no traffic is not the same as doing it during rush hour. Both the same action, but the results are going to be drastically different.
When you figure out how to cheat that makes good players great and great ballplayers unbelievably great, that's when it becomes a "big deal". Bonds was a great player who was probably capable of hitting about 500 home runs and being a terrific all around player. He figured out how to smash every offensive record in the book. Guys like Aaron and Mantle probably didn't hit any more home runs by dabbling with greenies. Still cheating, but one thing just doesn't compare to another................at all.
Until steroids were more available and understood in the 1980's, there was nothing that would really change the game unfairly. Amphetamines sometimes helped and sometimes hurt your performance. The spitball helped a few pitchers who mastered it (or mastered the mind game associated with it) but MLB really didn't enforce the rule. Ron Luciano addressed it in his book "The Umpire Strikes Back". He said they were not instructed to eject pitchers from the game they thought were doctoring the balls, only to check on it if the other team complained.
Mathewson, not a cheater.
Who's next on your "was this guy a cheater" list?
Ok, good. we agree. Mathewson was not a cheater in 1914.
now, why was he not a "cheater" in 1914, but in 1920 all of a sudden he is a cheater? he did everything the same.
the ONLY thing that changed was the rule.
I only used Mathewson as an example, I could have used any number of pitchers from that era
now, to your second point. when you add your morality to rules you have already lost the discussion. it doesnt matter whether you think amphetamines helped, helped less than steroids, actually hurt performance or did none of the above. additionally, it doesnt matter if you think steroids were helpful, hurtful or indifferent. It also doesnt matter what you think about doctoring the baseball.
It matters what the rules say. players (and businessmen, stockbrokers anyone really) will always go right up to the line to get the biggest advantage in their field. the problem lies when they cross the line. it is the difference between legal/illegal and cheating/not cheating. wherever the line is, that is where most people will find themselves.
So... until there is a rule, there is no rule to break. before 1920, there was no rule on doctoring the ball. So, no cheating. It doesnt matter what your moral judgments are, there was no rule. after 1920, there absolutely was a rule, so, the same actions performed in 1914 are now over the line and are considered cheating.
Can you see the parallel I have painted?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
ok, I will play. how about Mike Piazza.
He has admitted to using Androstenedione in the 1990s. He said he stopped in 1998. Andro was placed on the MLB joint drug program banned list at the end of the 2004 season.
assuming what Piazza said was true, and he did stop in 1998, Did he "cheat"
PS, he also admitted to using amphetamines. they were added to the banned list in 2011. Does that make him a double cheater?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
>
He actually was NOT a cheater in 1920 since he was no longer pitching, but if he had been pitching he would have been exempt.
Same thing as above. MLB said it was OK as long as you were throwing it before the rule change.
>
You seem rather confused here. Your HOF may have nothing to do with morality, but the actual HOF has several moral requirements. That's the OP's question; "Does Bonds finally get in?" He can't, he doesn't qualify. Where steroids are concerned, there's no opinion about it, it's a fact that steroids increase the bodies size, strength and ability to heal itself. New studies suggest that they may actually improve hand/eye coordination as well. Amphetamines can in fact make you nervous and shaky inhibiting your ability to perform. after a certain point, the body builds up such a tolerance they don't work at all. These are not opinions.
>
>
Steroids are WAY over that line.
Yes, you are correct on the spitball, I have agreed already.
>
>
Of course there's a parallel, it just is (as I said before) one of, if not the single weakest offered up on these boards.
Just because the owners and union didn't sit down and agree to adding illegal drugs to the agreement currently in place, does not in fact make it "legal".
Piazza never failed a test that I can see.
Andro is a vitamin pill sold to make people think they will become like Arnold Swartzenegger. It was an over the counter supplement when he said he used it.
Amphetamines are not a PED (I don't know why you keep insisting on bringing them up), but he claims he used them while they were "legal". Hard for me to care about something that doesn't do anything.
Looking at his numbers, I don't see anything like Bonds/McGwire/Sosa's. Mike hit 35 HRs his first full season and never hit more than 40 in a season after that. I really don't get the argument that says he was a user. Bonds averaged 25 HRs a year for his first 5 full seasons and then was hitting 45 a year and then 73 once.
I would vote for Mike.
Ok, you are grasping at straws here, but lets first clarify the doctored baseball argument. and i think you could agree, a player in 1914 could throw all the doctored baseballs he wanted within the rules, right.
another player could not throw a doctored baseball in 1925 and still be playing within the rules. correct?
what is the ONLY difference between being a "cheater" and not? you've got it, THE RULES. rules matter.
now, as to your morality clause example. it is ridiculous. there are many many many many examples of dirtbags and cheats already in the HOF. did morality keep them out? there are so many examples here, that I wont even name them. the HOF website lists integrity, sportsmanship and character.
now. if a player plays a sport within what the rule book states at the time he played, how is he breaking the "morality" clause? if there was no rule about throwing a spitball in 1917, a pitcher who employed such tactics is not showing any lack of integrity, sportsmanship or character. he is simply playing within the rules.
the same applies to the conversation at hand. there was no rule against steroids during the period the players mentioned above played. they didnt break any rules.
just the same as a spitballer in 1912 was fully playing "fair"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
This is fun.
Next?
wrong. Dr Gary Wadler in an interview with ESPN
Q: In your expert opinion, should Androstenedione be known as a supplement or a drug, a steroid?
Wadler: Androstenedione is a steroid, always was a steroid, always will be a steroid and should be treated with utmost respect and as a drug and not as a dietary supplement.
andro is not a vitamin pill. It is not a suppliment. go try and buy it today. it increases testosterone production and is absolutely a steroid.
It is a perfect parallel. Mike Piazza used Andro before it was on the banned list. he didnt have to test positive for it, he admitted it. he also admitted quitting before 2005.
did he "cheat"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It also doesn't matter what you "think" or "feel" about amphetamines and their efficacy. they are currently on the banned list. as of 2011.
did all the players who used them "cheat" before they were banned?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Incorrect.
>
>
Ridiculous or not; "integrity, sportsmanship, character".
Bonds was worse, and we are aware of it before he could get in. If you want to start tossing guys out of the HOF, that could be discussed.
You keep going back to the spitball. I already answered that. Guys were allowed to use it in some cases, guys who weren't allowed were cheating. The voters get to decide if it's important. Gaylord Perry is the guy who comes to mind who got in even though everyone "knew" he threw it. If you want him removed, I wouldn't object.
>
Yes they did. The "unholy three" all failed tests or admitted to use when it was illegal. You are really confusing me.
>
>
"Will Bonds finally get in?"
Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Bonds failed in half of the requirements; integrity, sportsmanship, character.
"Will Bonds finally get in?"
NO.
Off to work. Have a great day!
It's neither "think" or "feel" it's know.
>
REALLY bored with talking about amphetamines. how about guys who drank way too much coffee.
I had a doctor tell me I had a pulled muscle once and I knew it was something real bad, turns out it was a DVT that could have killed me. Your Doctor's opinion is not accepted.
Ando is a firecracker, injectable anabolic steroids are nuclear bombs, both go "BANG".
not sure how you could sat a player throwing a spitball in 1914 is playing within the rules and another player doing the same in 1925 is cheating could be incorrect?
If what Bonds did was during a period when it was not against the rules, how is he breaking the morality clause? no rule was broken. it seems you are inserting YOUR morality clause here.
not sure who the "unholy 3" are that tested posititve. maybe arod, palmiero and manny?
at any rate, anyone who is proven to have broke the rules should be suspended banished from the hall and all that. but if it involves steroids it would have had to happen post 2005 and for amphetamines post 2011. I dont think i have said anything contrary to that.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
you are absolutely wrong with respect to andro. it is widely considered a steroid. that is why it was banned.
answer the question: Did Piazza cheat? he used a substance when it was not on the banned list. the same substance was later added to the banned list, though not when he admittedly used it.
did he cheat??
there is a reason you are avoiding the question...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Three more bad people, but no, Sosa and Bonds tested positive, McGwire (and Bonds) admitted to it.
you are heading down a rabbit hole for which there is no exit if your defense of andro is that even though it is a banned substance, it wasnt as bad as ........
there will always be varying strength PED. the only standard we can use to judge is the banned list. it is the only standard that matters.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Are you reading my responses? I answered that several times. I copied the following from a previous post. Please read for my answer;
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
"You keep going back to the spitball. I already answered that. Guys were allowed to use it in some cases, guys who weren't allowed were cheating. The voters get to decide if it's important. Gaylord Perry is the guy who comes to mind who got in even though everyone "knew" he threw it. If you want him removed, I wouldn't object."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Again, asked and answered;
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Piazza never failed a test that I can see.
Looking at his numbers, I don't see anything like Bonds/McGwire/Sosa's. Mike hit 35 HRs his first full season and never hit more than 40 in a season after that. I really don't get the argument that says he was a user. Bonds averaged 25 HRs a year for his first 5 full seasons and then was hitting 45 a year and then 73 once.
I would vote for Mike.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ok, you are grasping at straws here, but lets first clarify the doctored baseball argument. and i think you could agree, a player in 1914 could throw all the doctored baseballs he wanted within the rules, right.
another player could not throw a doctored baseball in 1925 and still be playing within the rules. correct?
Incorrect.
Joe, here is the quote i was referring to with your answer of "incorrect"
I was speaking of two hypothetical players in the example. one playing before the spitball ban, one playing after. one would have been playing within the rules, the other breaking the rules, though they were doing the exact same thing.
how is that example incorrect? maybe I should have specified that the 2nd player was not grandfathered in.
and yes, I have read every one of your posts. I do value what you contribute even if i may disagree.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I guess you would sentence a shopper who eats a single grape without paying to the same punishment as a serial killer. They're both criminals.
OK, you didnt say whether you considered Piazza a "cheater", just that he never failed a test and you would vote for him.
so... if your standard for a player having "cheated" by using steroids is a failed test, you must absolutely agree with my position.
there were no tests before 2003, and the 2003 testing was simply a survey that has been disavowed by the commissioner as not conclusive because there were numerous false positives. true testing began in the 2005 season.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
we are not talking about sentencing here. we are discussing the difference between cheating and not cheating. in the court of public opinion, which is basically what the HOF voters are, getting jabbed once with a steroid is just as damning as 1,000 times. at least in the mind of voters.
gary sheffield said he only used one time, and that one time he didnt even know what he was using.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Well to you. I have no problem if you look at it that way.
I use my own judgement and think for myself. I always will.
Steroids were a huge problem in the MLB not because they were another form of trying to get an unfair advantage, but because they worked so well.
Did you ever read Canseco's books? He states a lot of claims that turned out to be absolutely correct. Guys that made a mockery of the record books should never get in the HOF. You can't keep EVERYBODY out.
Would you really keep Hank Aaron out? Please answer.
In my opinion...
.
A lot of people really undersell the positive affects amphetamines have on concentration and focus. Yes, there are issues with addction, efficacy, and tolerance. But any current MLB player who has an excption due to his "ADHD" is at an extreme advantage. There might be/are for sure some big names who are on this list
As far as I know, the MLB Hall of Fame is the only one of the four major US sports HOFs that includes language which allows voters to exclude possible candidates due to behavioral or moral reasons, etc. It seems to me that they don't go out of their way to only include candidates who are of exceptional character. I might be wrong.
>
We most certainly are, the post is about getting into the HOF. The sentence is you don't get in if guilty.
>
Sheffield had a lot more issues than just failing a test.