@olb31 said:
they all do something and have been since at least the 70's, maybe earlier. my high school football lteam did roids in 1980. so you know if high school's were doing them in 1980 certainly the pros were. plus many of the "roids" were never illegal until 2002, i believe.
I've mentioned often in similar threads that classmates at my high school in the 80s were taking steroids, as well. This was in a small town in flyover country out in the boondocks, by guys with no chance of playing anywhere beyond high school. Yes, they were known to be the football players and the wrestlers, but they played all of the other sports, as well.
If the guys in my school could access it, then just about anyone anywhere could have gotten it.
The idea that steroids didn't find its way into baseball until the late 90s is naive, and I just roll my eyes when people act as if they've definitively sorted out who did it "clean" and who did it "dirty".
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
Craig..
Even if you have "hard evidence" you should be left with some doubt, because even that isn't irrefutable proof. For example: Fingerprints, widely considered hard evidence... quite unreliable. DNA samples? 99% accurate barring human error, but sometimes only identifies proximity.
Further, the lack of hard evidence doesn't, itself, offer firm proof of your position any more than not seeing a tiger in the dark means the path is safe.
Now, will you allow me my opinion or do you want to continue to promote a misunderstanding of "what evidence is"?
i'm with you. steriods or no steroids clemens is probably the best pitcher of all-time. bonds is one of the top 5 players of all-time.
personally i think they all do something to get an edge. the astros they out right cheated as an organization. there are no limits what players or teams won't go to win/make $$$$.
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
Not true. His statistics are circumstantial evidence of his usage. Sometime in mid 1996 he was reborn and became superman.
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
Craig..
Even if you have "hard evidence" you should be left with some doubt, because even that isn't irrefutable proof. For example: Fingerprints, widely considered hard evidence... quite unreliable. DNA samples? 99% accurate barring human error, but sometimes only identifies proximity.
Further, the lack of hard evidence doesn't, itself, offer firm proof of your position any more than not seeing a tiger in the dark means the path is safe.
Now, will you allow me my opinion or do you want to continue to promote a misunderstanding of "what evidence is"?
you (or anyone else) are welcome to your own opinion, as incorrect as it may be.
you have offered nothing but strawmen.
what is conjecture? it is something that you BELIEVE is true, but that is not proven to be true.
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
Not true. His statistics are circumstantial evidence of his usage. Sometime in mid 1996 he was reborn and became superman.
we have gone over statistical "evidence" on this message board ad nauseam over the years. If you are willing to go down that rabbit hole there are a whole bunch of players for which there is statistical "evidence" of PED use.
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
Craig..
Even if you have "hard evidence" you should be left with some doubt, because even that isn't irrefutable proof. For example: Fingerprints, widely considered hard evidence... quite unreliable. DNA samples? 99% accurate barring human error, but sometimes only identifies proximity.
Further, the lack of hard evidence doesn't, itself, offer firm proof of your position any more than not seeing a tiger in the dark means the path is safe.
Now, will you allow me my opinion or do you want to continue to promote a misunderstanding of "what evidence is"?
you (or anyone else) are welcome to your own opinion, as incorrect as it may be.
you have offered nothing but strawmen.
what is conjecture? it is something that you BELIEVE is true, but that is not proven to be true.
can you prove Clemens used steroids?
Can you prove he didn’t? I simply think there’s more evidence that he did. If an asteroid is hurtling towards Earth and you have to guess if he did or didn’t to save the planet? You are going to say he did and we both know it. If not… donate your brain to science.
@craig44 said:
we have zero idea who really tested positive and who didnt.
This isn't quite accurate. David Ortiz has admitted he tested positive on that 2003 test. You can argue whether the test was accurate or not - personally, I think Manfred casts doubt in order to protect Ortiz and other superstars rather than because of actual knowledge the tests weren't accurate - but Ortiz tested positive.
Comments
I've mentioned often in similar threads that classmates at my high school in the 80s were taking steroids, as well. This was in a small town in flyover country out in the boondocks, by guys with no chance of playing anywhere beyond high school. Yes, they were known to be the football players and the wrestlers, but they played all of the other sports, as well.
If the guys in my school could access it, then just about anyone anywhere could have gotten it.
The idea that steroids didn't find its way into baseball until the late 90s is naive, and I just roll my eyes when people act as if they've definitively sorted out who did it "clean" and who did it "dirty".
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Craig..
Even if you have "hard evidence" you should be left with some doubt, because even that isn't irrefutable proof. For example: Fingerprints, widely considered hard evidence... quite unreliable. DNA samples? 99% accurate barring human error, but sometimes only identifies proximity.
Further, the lack of hard evidence doesn't, itself, offer firm proof of your position any more than not seeing a tiger in the dark means the path is safe.
Now, will you allow me my opinion or do you want to continue to promote a misunderstanding of "what evidence is"?
craig44
i'm with you. steriods or no steroids clemens is probably the best pitcher of all-time. bonds is one of the top 5 players of all-time.
personally i think they all do something to get an edge. the astros they out right cheated as an organization. there are no limits what players or teams won't go to win/make $$$$.
Not true. His statistics are circumstantial evidence of his usage. Sometime in mid 1996 he was reborn and became superman.
Keith Hernandez
is the phillies dude taking? raleigh? judge? ohtani? or just bonds mcgwire sosa and the gang
you (or anyone else) are welcome to your own opinion, as incorrect as it may be.
you have offered nothing but strawmen.
what is conjecture? it is something that you BELIEVE is true, but that is not proven to be true.
can you prove Clemens used steroids?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
we have gone over statistical "evidence" on this message board ad nauseam over the years. If you are willing to go down that rabbit hole there are a whole bunch of players for which there is statistical "evidence" of PED use.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Can you prove he didn’t? I simply think there’s more evidence that he did. If an asteroid is hurtling towards Earth and you have to guess if he did or didn’t to save the planet? You are going to say he did and we both know it. If not… donate your brain to science.
This isn't quite accurate. David Ortiz has admitted he tested positive on that 2003 test. You can argue whether the test was accurate or not - personally, I think Manfred casts doubt in order to protect Ortiz and other superstars rather than because of actual knowledge the tests weren't accurate - but Ortiz tested positive.
I bet if Garvey wore pinstripes from 71 to 83 he would be in the HOF.
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658