Options
So, now that Manny is gone, is he HOFer material?
MCMLVTopps
Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
In my book, if you had to cheat to be good, or use drugs in a professional sport, you have self-toasted your shot at Cooperstown.
We all know about Pete Rose and gambling...he self-toasted. Anybody, A-Rod included, should be kept out of the Hall for drug use while an active player.
We all know about Pete Rose and gambling...he self-toasted. Anybody, A-Rod included, should be kept out of the Hall for drug use while an active player.
0
Comments
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>Yeah, the dumbass HOF. >>
+1
<< <i>My point is that the HOF already has plenty of members with questionable moral character. Where do you draw the line? Gambling? Drinking? Womanizing? Steroids? Greenies? etc., etc., etc.? >>
I look at it as being busted AFTER the rules were in effect as to why he should be held out more so than players who may have done the same thing BEFORE the rules were in place.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>Would you have to kick out Mantel, Mays and Aaron for doing amphetimines in the '60s? >>
Hey RECBBALL- You should post your sigline photo into the new "Things that PSA Shouldnt Slab" thread.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>Hey RECBBALL- You should post your sigline photo into the new "Things that PSA Shouldnt Slab" thread. >>
Oh come on now, my first day cover of Payton looks pretty cool, but that milk carton of Dale Murphy is a monstrosity, lol.
I did check out your thread and got a chuckle out of WalterSobchak's comment.
He drank like a fish and often came to the ballpark hungover
He screwed any woman he could find while on the road
But we're OK with all that because he kicked a*s on the field
There are dozens of players in the Hall who regularly took amphetamines to increase energy levels, play at a higher level for longer, increase reaction time, improve brain function, whetever. Those are PEDs , just in a different form.
Not only that but the potential side effects of amphetamines are far worse than those of steroids.
Manny is an idiot and Manny took PEDs.
But aside from Bonds, he's the best hitter in baseball over the past 25 years
To keep him out of the Hall would be ridiculous.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
"The argument for using amphetamines is actually worse than the argument for using steroids … it’s probably true that some players, perhaps including [Mark] McGwire, were able to return to the lineup (or the rotation, or the bullpen) sooner than otherwise because they used [anabolic steroids] illegally. In those cases, the drugs really were performance enablers; the players literally wouldn’t have been able to perform, at all, without the drugs. Amphetamines, though? Those were, for a number of decades, purely performance enhancers ... Players used amphetamines so they could play better. And to be completely frank, anybody who tells you different is either lying or foolish."
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
A player's perfomance with the drugs is better than his performance without them. They enhance performance, they are therefore PEDs.
I guess my larger point is that to take such opposite extremes - vilifying a guy like Manny while at the same time idolizing a guy like Mantle makes no sense whatsoever.
Two of the best hitters of their generations. Both deserve to be in the hall.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I hate this argument. How many body builders do you see hitting their poop to gain muscle? Do a lot of olympic atheltes go get a teener of go fast before the compete?
No, they don't.
Why?
Because they are not performance enhancing drugs.
Staying awake does not equal better athletes.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
<< <i>>>>Would you have to kick out Mantel, Mays and Aaron for doing amphetimines in the '60s?<<<
I hate this argument. How many body builders do you see hitting their poop to gain muscle? Do a lot of olympic atheltes go get a teener of go fast before the compete?
No, they don't.
Why?
Because they are not performance enhancing drugs.
Staying awake does not equal better athletes. >>
First of all, staying awake and improved mental focus and all the other benefits of speed absolutely makes a better athlete. Especially when you consider for a baseball player, his success during that game is largely dependent upon his focus during the few minutes when he's at the plate.
Bodybuilders, however, don't need the mental focus to hit a 90-mph fastball.
And the reason olympic athletes don't use the stuff is because it's banned by the IOC.
But speed, uppers, whatever you want to call them are used by many other athletes including wrestlers, gymnasts, etc.
<< <i>
<< <i>>>>Would you have to kick out Mantel, Mays and Aaron for doing amphetimines in the '60s?<<<
I hate this argument. How many body builders do you see hitting their poop to gain muscle? Do a lot of olympic atheltes go get a teener of go fast before the compete?
No, they don't.
Why?
Because they are not performance enhancing drugs.
Staying awake does not equal better athletes. >>
First of all, staying awake and improved mental focus and all the other benefits of speed absolutely makes a better athlete. Especially when you consider for a baseball player, his success during that game is largely dependent upon his focus during the few minutes when he's at the plate.
Bodybuilders, however, don't need the mental focus to hit a 90-mph fastball.
And the reason olympic athletes don't use the stuff is because it's banned by the IOC.
But speed, uppers, whatever you want to call them are used by many other athletes including wrestlers, gymnasts, etc. >>
Both your posts on the benefits of using amphetamines to boost athletic performance makes sense to me.
Super Bowl XXVIII: Buffalo Bills vs Dallas Cowboys -
Running back Emmitt Smith rushed for 132 yards and 2
touchdowns earning Super Bowl MVP honors as the Cowboys
defeated the Bills 30-13 to win their second consecutive NFL
title.
athletes
Just because staying awake and focus are two side affects of amphetamines, doesn't mean they are the only side affects and it doesn't mean the possible performance enhancement from two side affects outweighs the bad side affects.
Would not eating affect an athlete? Yup
I'm sure the paranoia helps tons.
Sleep? Who needs it!
Ask Jeffery Allison how much they help.
Ask Josh Hamilton, I'm sure he will tell you they really helped him.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
Speed (methamphetamine)releases high levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine, which stimulates brain cells, enhancing mood and body movement. Immediately after smoking or intravenous injection, the Speed (methamphetamine)user experiences an intense sensation, called a "rush" or "flash", which lasts only a few minutes and is described as extremely pleasurable. Oral or intranasal use produces euphoria - a high, but not a rush. Users may become addicted quickly, and use it with increasing frequency and in increasing doses.
Speed (methamphetamine)use also increases the heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature, breathing rate and dilates the pupils. Other effects include temporary hyperactivity, insomnia, anorexia and tremors. High doses or chronic use have been associated with increased nervousness, irritability, paranoia, confusion, anxiety and aggressiveness. Withdrawal from high doses produces severe depression."
Wheras some of that may seem to be a benefit to a baseball hitter, as others above pointed out...but the other effects in bold are stuff that are potential extreme detriments to a baseball hitter. I could envision these side effects to make a batter an easy out with a curve ball slightly out of the zone.
In sum total, the cost benefit is most likely ZERO to a BASEBALL BATTER...and may even be a negative.
People may ask, then why did they continue to take the stuff? Two reasons, 1)the stuff is addictive, and 2)Because of perceived benefits...and the addictiveness clouds true judgement on the cost/benefit of it.
The larger issue here is that our idols who played the game in past generations were not always saints (the Hall is full of alcoholics, racists, drug users, wife beaters, cheaters, etc) and they were not above taking things to give them an edge on the field. Their motivation to take amphetamines was the same motivation that Manny had to take PEDs.
<< <i>Well we can argue about whether or not potential amphetamine side effects cancel out the benefits during game time (anorexia??)
The larger issue here is that our idols who played the game in past generations were not always saints (the Hall is full of alcoholics, racists, drug users, wife beaters, cheaters, etc) and they were not above taking things to give them an edge on the field. Their motivation to take amphetamines was the same motivation that Manny had to take PEDs. >>
Yes, one can argue all they want on the effects of amphetamines. There are some positives, and there are some equal negatives. However, when comparing them to steroid use, it is not a valid comparison at all. There are tremendous positive benefits for a hitter to take steroids...there are very little negative effects...with probably only greater risk for muscle/tendon strains as the only negative if a player gets muscle mass too large for his frame to handle. The true side effects don't materialize until later in life.
So what we have:
1)Amphetamines have some positives, and some negatives. There is no certainty as to which outweighs each other in terms of enhancing the performance of a baseball player. Logically looking at all the effects of amphetamines, it is reasonable that they most likely don't do much at all to help a hitter do better. They probably do a good job of keeping them up enough to go out after the game and binge though.
2) Steroid use is of tremendous benefit to a baseball hitter. The side effects really don't materialize until later in life. It is said that the biggest obstacle in the battle against steroid use is...that they work.
3) Morality. Don't know. However, most logical people know that the use of steroids will enhance one's performance to an extremely higher degree than amphetamines. Amphetamines are much more closer to drinking coffee, as opposed to what steroids do. With this in mind...when one guy is taking amphetamines, and another dabbling in steroids..it is more akin, in our society, to drinking beer, as opposed to smoking crack. Basically, the comparison is not valid at all.
4) In terms in how it affects the game of baseball, amphetamines had little effect, and steroids had big effect. That is really the terms of what people are judging these people by. Why would anybody get upset at players taking drugs that have minimal effect on their batting average? They don't. That is why people who took greenies aren't viewed as the same by the fans...because it didn't skew the baseball record books or landscape. Steroids on the other hand, DID skew all that stuff...and that is why a lot of people are angry about it.
THat is the difference.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
"Don't tell me amphetamines are a performance-enabler, not a performance-enhancer. That's simply a convenient rationalization to excuse amphetamine use by your favorite players. If a substance helps a player perform in any way, it is a performance enhancer."
"I remember Harmon Killebrew speaking at a dinner during Twins Fantasy Camp a couple of winters ago when he mildly criticized modern players for using steroids. Mudcat Grant then got up and pointed out that players in the '60s took amphetamines as well as something he referred to as "a horse pill" to improve their performances. Grant also told me about how he doesn't know how to respond when fans tell him how much they respect players of his generation for playing clean. He doesn't know whether to say nothing or tell them, "Wait a minute. Guys in our generation did things, too."
"That helps explain why, as Jane Leavy reported in her biography, Sandy Koufax took Butazolidine, which also was given to horses before being banned for human use or in animals raised for consumption. As Jim Bouton wrote 40 years ago, "If you had a pill that would guarantee a pitcher 20 wins but might take five years off his, life he'd take it."
What is his basis for comparison?
Same for mr. Caple. Is he a doctor? A user? What medical studies has he conducted? Qouting an artilce from a man with an opinion, just like yours, doesn't really count as evidence.
I have to know, yes or no, do you think amphetamines are just as valuable as steroids and/or hgh as a performance enhancer?
Or are you nitpicking that they tried stuff to get better so they are are on equal footing based on intent?
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
I'm even willing to admit that there is more of an overall player benefit to taking roids than speed.
But when "fans" want to virtually wipe away the last 25 years' worth of great baseball and keep every star player (except for maybe Greg Maddux) out of the Hall, it is disingenuous and hypocritical.
I dislike the selective morality, applied only to modern players, and the tremendous amount of forgiveness (or self-imposed ignorance) that fans have toward the greats of the past.
As for Grant's opinion, well I'd assume it is based on years of observation of major leaguers. And no, Caple's not a doctor. Only a baseball writer whose researched opinion carries a great deal of weight.
Here's his full article if anyone wants a good read on the HOF's hypocrisy: Link