Author Topic: Steriods and the Hall of Fame  (Read 1682 times)

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7937
  • Gender: Male
Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« on: April 12, 2011, 08:03:58 AM »
I was watching one of the ESPN sports channels. And the Hosts were talking about the use of Performance Enhancing drugs and chance of being elected to the Hall of Fame. The hosts went on for a while about there being little or no chance of certain players getting in, and then they broke for commercial. The first commercial was for 5HR Energy and how it was helping some guy get up in the morning. Later there was one on Amblin(?) and it helping you get to sleep at night. During the day, I became aware of commercial after commercial for some kind of wonder chemical to make your life better. At some point, I began to wonder: what is exactly is this stupid crusade over performance enhancing drugs. They were available and obviously used by almost all the players of that era. Just like Americans use innumerable other drugs and chemical enhancements. I also realize that all the steroids in the world, won't enable me to hit a major league fastball. So I realize it isn't a question of these drugs giving them an ability they didn't already possess. Most of these drugs simply made the training routines they went through easier. You lift the same weights, you just put on muscle faster. It can't be to preserve comparability between old and new records. Athletes are bigger, stronger and faster then they used to be. And the equipment is better. So why this idea that it is somehow "cheating" to use all the factors available to improve your game. I could make a case that all records before 1947 should be segregated as minority players weren't in the big leagues. So why this - what seems to me irrational - prejudice against steroid users? And why are they supposed to be different then the majority of Americans. It seems to be that something more than mere drug use is involved. These players were from the first big money era of professional sports, and it seems these hosts resent that more than anything else.


"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33300
  • Gender: Male
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2011, 08:58:37 AM »
The problems of drugs changes the equation of running faster and throwing harder and faster, jumping higher, even hitting a ball harder and farther.
I assume you are referring to base ball specifically here?

The problem is the dishonor it does to those before them in the quest to be the very best at what they do.
Drugs in this case(imo), are simply cheating, but if they are here to stay, lets have an asterisk next to the record that had fallen, denoting that an enhancing drug had been used.

Point is, why not just use a motorcycle to round the bases, after all, it was the player driving the bike...

I used to own a chain of health clubs bearing my name, I had a hard and fast rule about drugs, if it didn't come from food, it doesn't belong in my club.
If someone was using steroids in my club, they were shown the door.
The damage it does to the body is amazing, it really does some serious premature aging.

Maybe we need two leagues, one that uses drugs and the other that touts ones natural abilities?
Then again, neither would appeal to me, seeing how sportsmanship is a lost and dying art...
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7937
  • Gender: Male
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2011, 06:12:24 AM »
The problems of drugs changes the equation of running faster and throwing harder and faster, jumping higher, even hitting a ball harder and farther.
I assume you are referring to base ball specifically here?

The problem is the dishonor it does to those before them in the quest to be the very best at what they do.
Drugs in this case(imo), are simply cheating, but if they are here to stay, lets have an asterisk next to the record that had fallen, denoting that an enhancing drug had been used.

Point is, why not just use a motorcycle to round the bases, after all, it was the player driving the bike...

I used to own a chain of health clubs bearing my name, I had a hard and fast rule about drugs, if it didn't come from food, it doesn't belong in my club.
If someone was using steroids in my club, they were shown the door.
The damage it does to the body is amazing, it really does some serious premature aging.

Maybe we need two leagues, one that uses drugs and the other that touts ones natural abilities?
Then again, neither would appeal to me, seeing how sportsmanship is a lost and dying art...

On this I disagree with you Solar. The quest to "be the best that they can be" would include everything that is at hand. You said that if it doesn't come in food it doesn't belong on your club. Are we going back to the stone age? No aspirin for a headache? No Tylenol for aches and pains? No salves and ointments for cuts and bruises. Do you think the War on Drugs is a good idea - despite it chipping away at our Constitutional rights and putting more and more power into the hands of the police. Oh wait, they're doing it for our good. My point is this; we use drugs constantly in our society. In all manner of shapes and varieties. About the same time that we stepped out of the trees, we stopped relying on our natural abilities. How did a weakling, with no fangs, no claws and fairly slow, get to the top of the food chain? Drugs are simply further along a continuum that starts with stone hand axes. They are simply another tool. Should training methods revert to earlier eras? Diets? Equipment? Sportsmanship is an idea invented by "gentlemen" to differentiate themselves from those "vulgar" types. The American ideal has always been winning. And athletes have always been out there looking for that "edge". And my point about the sportscasters was that their hatred for steroids is irrational in light of how their regular lives operate. IOW, don't preach to me on the "evils" of marijuana - and then go out a kill half a bottle of bourbon. They're just different drugs and it all boils down to preference. One other thing sportscasters, like the rest of the media, are at heart, leftists. I don't think they really "like" most of the millionaires that they cover.
Last thing, as for the player driving the motorcycle around the bases, that would be against the rules. But there is nothing inherently "wrong" with it (besides the fact that the bike won't fit in the batters box among other problems), it's just one of the arbitrary choices being made. As for that asterisk thing, are we going to put one before all records set before Jackie Robinson entered the big leagues? How about one for all pitching records before they lowered the mound? Fielding records before the era of large gloves?
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33300
  • Gender: Male
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2011, 07:07:17 AM »
On this I disagree with you Solar. The quest to "be the best that they can be" would include everything that is at hand. You said that if it doesn't come in food it doesn't belong on your club. Are we going back to the stone age? No aspirin for a headache? No Tylenol for aches and pains? No salves and ointments for cuts and bruises.
They are sold over the counter aren't they?
Quote
Do you think the War on Drugs is a good idea - despite it chipping away at our Constitutional rights and putting more and more power into the hands of the police. Oh wait, they're doing it for our good.
Society sets the rules, if you are stupid enough to get caught in public breaking the law that society deems important, then you will suffer the consequences, e.g drunk driving comes to mind.
But based on the way you are approaching this, I assume you want those laws lifted as well, seeing how they dictate ones life as being intrusive?
Quote
My point is this; we use drugs constantly in our society. In all manner of shapes and varieties. About the same time that we stepped out of the trees, we stopped relying on our natural abilities. How did a weakling, with no fangs, no claws and fairly slow, get to the top of the food chain? Drugs are simply further along a continuum that starts with stone hand axes. They are simply another tool. Should training methods revert to earlier eras? Diets? Equipment?
Yes, exercise is still part of the regime isn't it?

Quote
Sportsmanship is an idea invented by "gentlemen" to differentiate themselves from those "vulgar" types. The American ideal has always been winning. And athletes have always been out there looking for that "edge".
Sad, Sportsmanship used to be an American ideal. Do disagree with the meaning of sportsmanship?
"Fairness in following the rules of the game"

Quote
And my point about the sportscasters was that their hatred for steroids is irrational in light of how their regular lives operate. IOW, don't preach to me on the "evils" of marijuana - and then go out a kill half a bottle of bourbon. They're just different drugs and it all boils down to preference. One other thing sportscasters, like the rest of the media, are at heart, leftists. I don't think they really "like" most of the millionaires that they cover.
Irrelevant, I could care less what an armchair quarterback thinks.

Quote
Last thing, as for the player driving the motorcycle around the bases, that would be against the rules. But there is nothing inherently "wrong" with it (besides the fact that the bike won't fit in the batters box among other problems), it's just one of the arbitrary choices being made. As for that asterisk thing, are we going to put one before all records set before Jackie Robinson entered the big leagues? How about one for all pitching records before they lowered the mound? Fielding records before the era of large gloves?
Last time i looked, Robinson was human, or are you making a point I'm not getting?
As to the rest, if they have a historical impact on statistics, then yes, there should be an asterisk.

Let me ask you, if you were competing for a job, only one available, and everyone had to take a test, but the rule was, no calculators were allowed, but the guy that got the job cheated and used a calculator.
How would you view the issue?
Remember, Sports also has a rule about steroids...
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7937
  • Gender: Male
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2011, 08:55:39 AM »
Quote
They are sold over the counter aren't they?
So were steroids originally. You should check into the Drug laws and exactly why some drugs are banned. It often has nothing to do with their supposed good or bad effects. But other less savory sociological reasons.
Quote
Society sets the rules, if you are stupid enough to get caught in public breaking the law that society deems important, then you will suffer the consequences, e.g drunk driving comes to mind.
But based on the way you are approaching this, I assume you want those laws lifted as well, seeing how they dictate ones life as being intrusive?
So all the rules that society sets make sense or are fair? Sometimes these rules aren't base on anything more than preference. Haven't we seen enough of the Left making rules "for our own good"? In any case yes, I want them lifted. I see no profit in spending society's time and money rescuing people from the rewards of their own stupidity. Banning drunk driving is not intrusive, as it resides in the area of privilege - which driving is; but lighting up in the privacy of my living room or using steroids in my gym? Why are we spending time and money trying Barry Bonds, doesn't the Federal government have enough bank robbers, terrorists and serial killers to run down?
Quote
Yes, exercise is still part of the regime isn't it?
I believe you missed my point. You should remember that at one point steroids were NOT banned. And why are they seen as anything other than another tool? What is the difference between a new and more advanced piece of training equipment and drugs? Simply another way to get from point A to point B.
Quote
Sad, Sportsmanship used to be an American ideal. Do disagree with the meaning of sportsmanship?
"Fairness in following the rules of the game"
Would that be anything like whatever it was Gaylord Perry used to put on the baseball. Or George Brett putting pine tar all the way up the barrel of the bat? Some tennis player going ballistic at the line judge? A golfer taking a mulligan? Or are those just some of the none sportsmanlike things we "wink" at.
Quote
Irrelevant, I could care less what an armchair quarterback thinks.
Uh, not when it was one of my main points in the first place.
Quote
Last time i looked, Robinson was human, or are you making a point I'm not getting?
As to the rest, if they have a historical impact on statistics, then yes, there should be an asterisk.
Point is, if you're going to make a big deal out of steroids, why should we show the same respect for records set when large portions of the population weren't even allowed to compete. Eras change. The people playing the games change. My point is that it makes no more sense to ban steroid users that it does to throw out records from other eras.
Quote
Let me ask you, if you were competing for a job, only one available, and everyone had to take a test, but the rule was, no calculators were allowed, but the guy that got the job cheated and used a calculator.
How would you view the issue?
Remember, Sports also has a rule about steroids...
If I were the boss I want to give the job to the sneaky SOB who managed to sneak the calculator in, and use it, without being caught. I never assumed life was fair. If I were the guy competingfor the job, why wouldn't I rat him out?
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33300
  • Gender: Male
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2011, 01:26:31 PM »
So were steroids originally. You should check into the Drug laws and exactly why some drugs are banned. It often has nothing to do with their supposed good or bad effects. But other less savory sociological reasons. So all the rules that society sets make sense or are fair? Sometimes these rules aren't base on anything more than preference. Haven't we seen enough of the Left making rules "for our own good"? In any case yes, I want them lifted. I see no profit in spending society's time and money rescuing people from the rewards of their own stupidity. Banning drunk driving is not intrusive, as it resides in the area of privilege - which driving is; but lighting up in the privacy of my living room or using steroids in my gym? Why are we spending time and money trying Barry Bonds, doesn't the Federal government have enough bank robbers, terrorists and serial killers to run down?I believe you missed my point. You should remember that at one point steroids were NOT banned. And why are they seen as anything other than another tool? What is the difference between a new and more advanced piece of training equipment and drugs? Simply another way to get from point A to point B. Would that be anything like whatever it was Gaylord Perry used to put on the baseball. Or George Brett putting pine tar all the way up the barrel of the bat? Some tennis player going ballistic at the line judge? A golfer taking a mulligan? Or are those just some of the none sportsmanlike things we "wink" at.Uh, not when it was one of my main points in the first place.Point is, if you're going to make a big deal out of steroids, why should we show the same respect for records set when large portions of the population weren't even allowed to compete. Eras change. The people playing the games change. My point is that it makes no more sense to ban steroid users that it does to throw out records from other eras.If I were the boss I want to give the job to the sneaky SOB who managed to sneak the calculator in, and use it, without being caught. I never assumed life was fair. If I were the guy competingfor the job, why wouldn't I rat him out?
I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree, for a society to function, there needs to be rules.
You see no problem screwing the other guy, if it means getting ahead, I get that from this statement:
"If I were the boss I want to give the job to the sneaky SOB who managed to sneak the calculator in, and use it, without being caught. I never assumed life was fair. If I were the guy competingfor the job, why wouldn't I rat him out?"

I personally like having rules, it gives me something with which to work within, a boundary, something that we all agree upon, that makes the playing field fair.
Take our social contract of obeying a simple red light, or stop sign, or even the fact that we drive on the right side of the street.
These are rules as a society we all agree upon, but using your logic, its ok to break them if it benefits you?
We all need boundaries in life, it is these boundaries that we all measure our efforts against.

Conservatives have always been about rules and structure, it is the lib that constantly wants to move the boundary line.
Whats next, murder will be just another lifestyle?
Do you get my point? We all need guidelines to work within, so as to measure success .
But keep moving the goal post, and eventually the whole thing becomes meaningless.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7937
  • Gender: Male
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2011, 08:25:26 AM »
Quote
I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree, for a society to function, there needs to be rules.
Yes, but these rules need to make sense and to not have been arbitrarily imposed. Also society has to have decided upon these rules. Look at Prohibition, something the was foisted upon the nation by a loud minority for "our own good". By the time it was done, there were more drinkers in the US, than before it had began. And organized crime had grown into a national menace.
Quote
You see no problem screwing the other guy, if it means getting ahead, I get that from this statement:
No, simple recognition that "nice guys finish last", and sometimes it's better to screw him before he gets the chance to screw you.
Quote
I personally like having rules, it gives me something with which to work within, a boundary, something that we all agree upon, that makes the playing field fair.
That's assuming that WE did ALL agreed upon them and they weren't something arbitrarily imposed. Which is the point I raised with PED. This is a society steeped in drugs. As I noted from something to get you up in the morning to something to help you get to sleep at night. So why did we arbitrarily ban them in this instance? The reasons given make no since in light of other instances of not so fair play.
Quote
Take our social contract of obeying a simple red light, or stop sign, or even the fact that we drive on the right side of the street.
These are rules as a society we all agree upon, but using your logic, its OK to break them if it benefits you?
We all need boundaries in life, it is these boundaries that we all measure our efforts against.
But rules of the road are safety rules. Made in an effort to make driving safe for all of us. To go back to your motorcycle on the base paths, what catcher would want try covering the plate if the "runner" was coming in atop a powered vehicle?
BTW, it should be understood that simply because I'm against SOME rules at SOME times, it does not follow that I am against ALL rules at ALL times. Because I think some rules are silly that doesn't naturally lead to the conclusion that I'm an anarchist.
Quote
Conservatives have always been about rules and structure, it is the lib that constantly wants to move the boundary line.
Conservatives have never been about rules simply for rules sake. It's our leftist friends who want absolute control of every endeavor.
Quote
Whats next, murder will be just another lifestyle?
In what why does allowing murder - or even taking a neutral position on it - enhance public safety? In what way does use of steroids harm public safety? If it doesn't harm the public, why are we making laws against it?
Quote
Do you get my point? We all need guidelines to work within, so as to measure success .
But keep moving the goal post, and eventually the whole thing becomes meaningless.
Sure - if you can explain why a particular substance - which once wasn't banned - was. You speak of moving the goal posts, so how is changing the rules on PED's less than moving the goal posts. Especially in light of other "goal post moves"; like lowering the mound, changes to the strike zone, or changes in equipment and training methods or making the season longer or shorter. Explain to me why using a drug is any different than any of those other changes - unless of course you simply don't "like" drugs. On that case you, simply would like to legislate a personal preference, and that isn't conservative.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33300
  • Gender: Male
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2011, 01:47:09 PM »
Yes, but these rules need to make sense and to not have been arbitrarily imposed. Also society has to have decided upon these rules. Look at Prohibition, something the was foisted upon the nation by a loud minority for "our own good". By the time it was done, there were more drinkers in the US, than before it had began. And organized crime had grown into a national menace.No, simple recognition that "nice guys finish last", and sometimes it's better to screw him before he gets the chance to screw you.That's assuming that WE did ALL agreed upon them and they weren't something arbitrarily imposed. Which is the point I raised with PED. This is a society steeped in drugs. As I noted from something to get you up in the morning to something to help you get to sleep at night. So why did we arbitrarily ban them in this instance? The reasons given make no since in light of other instances of not so fair play.But rules of the road are safety rules. Made in an effort to make driving safe for all of us. To go back to your motorcycle on the base paths, what catcher would want try covering the plate if the "runner" was coming in atop a powered vehicle?
BTW, it should be understood that simply because I'm against SOME rules at SOME times, it does not follow that I am against ALL rules at ALL times. Because I think some rules are silly that doesn't naturally lead to the conclusion that I'm an anarchist.Conservatives have never been about rules simply for rules sake. It's our leftist friends who want absolute control of every endeavor.In what why does allowing murder - or even taking a neutral position on it - enhance public safety? In what way does use of steroids harm public safety? If it doesn't harm the public, why are we making laws against it?Sure - if you can explain why a particular substance - which once wasn't banned - was. You speak of moving the goal posts, so how is changing the rules on PED's less than moving the goal posts. Especially in light of other "goal post moves"; like lowering the mound, changes to the strike zone, or changes in equipment and training methods or making the season longer or shorter. Explain to me why using a drug is any different than any of those other changes - unless of course you simply don't "like" drugs. On that case you, simply would like to legislate a personal preference, and that isn't conservative.

Did these players not sign a contract stating they would abide by the rules set forth?
If they break the rules, should they not be punished by the league?

As to lowering the mound, or changing the strike zone, I honestly don't remember why it was done, but did it effect the fans, did their children suddenly feel compelled to do something destructive to their bodies?
Point is, kids and people in general emulate these players, (God only knows why), but its a reality of life, so when these guys take the short cut to developing strength, kids see no problem with taking the easy path as well.

So what happens when bionics enters the equation, robotic arms and legs, given the pace of advancement in computers and prosthetics, will these players be allowed to compete?

Sports is a reflection of society, so why hold the rule breakers in a special place in the record books?
It really comes down to a question of morality.
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7937
  • Gender: Male
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2011, 03:34:05 PM »
Quote
Did these players not sign a contract stating they would abide by the rules set forth?
If they break the rules, should they not be punished by the league?
Again you miss the point, I never asked that they be let off Scot free, I only noted that the rules are stupid. And serve no rational reason.
Quote
As to lowering the mound, or changing the strike zone, I honestly don't remember why it was done, but did it effect the fans, did their children suddenly feel compelled to do something destructive to their bodies?
Point is, kids and people in general emulate these players, (God only knows why), but its a reality of life, so when these guys take the short cut to developing strength, kids see no problem with taking the easy path as well.
Uh, oh. We're into the "role model" excuse. To quite Charles Barkley on the subject of athletes as role models :"Just because I can dunk a basketball, doesn't mean I should raise your kids". Role models should be parents, and others close to the family. Not strangers on some far off playing field.
Quote
So what happens when bionics enters the equation, robotic arms and legs, given the pace of advancement in computers and prosthetics, will these players be allowed to compete?
Why not? Will these enhancements be available to all players?
Quote
Sports is a reflection of society, so why hold the rule breakers in a special place in the record books?
Because the rules make no sense, like the rules that used to keep blacks out of major sports. Do you think those rules made sense? How did they reflect on society, except badly.
Quote
It really comes down to a question of morality.
No, it comes down to a question of your personal beliefs. I see no more wrong with using PED's than I do with taking the handful of pills every morning that are - hopefully - keeping me alive. Much as I'd like to "caveman" it, and remove all these artificial life extenders from my existence, I've grown fond of the living, breathing thing.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Solar

  • '
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33300
  • Gender: Male
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2011, 03:45:14 PM »
Again you miss the point, I never asked that they be let off Scot free, I only noted that the rules are stupid. And serve no rational reason.Uh, oh. We're into the "role model" excuse. To quite Charles Barkley on the subject of athletes as role models :"Just because I can dunk a basketball, doesn't mean I should raise your kids". Role models should be parents, and others close to the family. Not strangers on some far off playing field.Why not? Will these enhancements be available to all players?Because the rules make no sense, like the rules that used to keep blacks out of major sports. Do you think those rules made sense? How did they reflect on society, except badly.No, it comes down to a question of your personal beliefs. I see no more wrong with using PED's than I do with taking the handful of pills every morning that are - hopefully - keeping me alive. Much as I'd like to "caveman" it, and remove all these artificial life extenders from my existence, I've grown fond of the living, breathing thing.
I think I see the disconnect finally.
You actually think these drugs are harmless if used under a doctors supervision, correct?
well heres the problem with that, they are not!
I have a lot of experience with the subject, first hand, even witnessed a death of a 19 yro have a massive heart attack.
Like all drugs, there is a safe way to use them, but when it comes to gaining muscle mass, that is abusing what the drug was originally designed for.

Screwing with the body, and playing God is never a good idea.

“I'm sick, and I'm scared.  Ninety percent of the athletes I
 know are on the stuff.  We're not born to be 300 pounds
 or jump 30 feet.  But all the time I was taking steroids,
 I knew they were making me play better.  I became very
 violent on the field and off. I did things only crazy
 people do.  Now look at me.  My hair's gone, I wobble
 when I walk and have to hold on to someone for support,
 and I have trouble remembering things.  My last wish?
 That no one else ever dies this way.”
 
– Lyle Alzado (1949-1992), NFL Football Player
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 03:49:10 PM by Solar »
Koolaid is for kids, TEA is for adults

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7937
  • Gender: Male
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2011, 08:45:34 AM »
Quote
We're not born to be 300 pounds or jump 30 feet.
No - Lyle Alzado was not born to be 300 pounds or jump 30 feet. There are people who are. He desperately wanted to play football - at a specific position. I wonder what would have happened had he been content to be Lyle Alzado, the linebacker - as opposed to Lyle Alzado the defensive lineman. Watched the Combine workouts. All sorts of fleet footed 300 pounders. In a way it can be said that Lyle wanted to "jump" a generation, instead of watching "Lyle jr." do those things. I remember reading that the famous 1943 Chicago Bears team - the one that beat the Redskins 73 - 0 - had offensive linemen that average 215 pounds. In contrast the 1985 Chicago high school champions had an offensive line that averaged 250 pounds. I think he difference between you and I, is that I see no difference between improved genetics, training, or nutrition and using PED's. I see it as irrational to try and draw some moral difference between them. I have no problem with "Tommy John" surgery or arthroscopic knee procedures. I only wish they were around in the days of Sandy Koufax and Joe Namath. And if they could have taken drugs that did the same thing, that would be fine also. We  (hopefully) advance constantly, and someday our grandkids make look back on we "old fogies", and wonder why we would have played a game with such primitive equipment and before the advent of quick healing drugs.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline Dan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3089
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2011, 12:15:38 PM »
Joe Namath tore up his knee in college and they didn't have them means to fix him like they can today. So basically his entire storied pro careers was achieved on a bad knee. Before that he was an amazing athlete who could dunk a basketball. Just imagine how good Namath would have been if he had docs capable of putting him back together like the guys today. No one will ever know how good he could have been if he had the same advantages as the guys of today.
If you believe big government is the solution then you are a liberal. If you believe big government is the problem then you are a conservative.

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7937
  • Gender: Male
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2013, 02:54:18 PM »
Well, the anti steroiders got their way. Watch when a lot of the current baseball writers past from the scene, a lot of old baseball injustices will get taken care of.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14019
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2013, 06:17:28 PM »
I think it should be up to the governing body of the sport or league, but I think use of steroids should be banned.

First off, it hurts the game.  Yes, you want to be bigger, stronger, and faster, but there is more to the game (basketball, football, whatever) than brute force.  You still need to shoot a ball.  You still need to read a defense.  You still need to be able to cut off an angle of an advancing player.  You still need to run your route.  A lot of players are lazy and don't want to practice as hard, or do fall victim to the "I need to do this because the other guy is juicing and will outperform me" trap.

Secondly, it is destructive to the body over time.  If a kid has a dream to get into a pro league, and practices and plays and finally does it, he shouldn't be penalized to never achieve greatness because he didn't shoot up.  People evolve over time, yes, but that is the natural part of the game.  Pitchers, for example, take steroids because of the recovery time.  It isn't right that a pitcher who has practiced and plays his whole life, and with all things being equal, would be one of the greats, because he has to let his arm heal for a few days while the juicer is ready the next night, he loses out.  Sports should be about your skill and putting the results of your dedication against the next guy's, along with any natural advantage you have.  If you have ever believed and preached practice to a kid, then you really can't be OK with juicing.  Otherwise, you have to tell the kid "practice real hard and when you get to college, juice up so you have a shot at the pros".

I am pulling out my hair enough with the pussification of sports, like the NFL and NBA, that we really don't need to compound it with steroids.  A player who knows the rules and chooses to disobey is a bad person morally, and should really be never heard from again once they are caught.
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."  -Milton Friedman

Offline mdgiles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7937
  • Gender: Male
Re: Steriods and the Hall of Fame
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2013, 12:01:48 PM »
I think it should be up to the governing body of the sport or league, but I think use of steroids should be banned.

First off, it hurts the game.  Yes, you want to be bigger, stronger, and faster, but there is more to the game (basketball, football, whatever) than brute force.  You still need to shoot a ball.  You still need to read a defense.  You still need to be able to cut off an angle of an advancing player.  You still need to run your route.  A lot of players are lazy and don't want to practice as hard, or do fall victim to the "I need to do this because the other guy is juicing and will outperform me" trap.
Somehow people have gotten the idea, that all you need to do is take a couple of steroids and then go out and hit the La-Z-Boy. In reality, what PEDs allow you to do, is workout longer and harder, and build muscle quicker. As I've noted before, all the steroids in the world won't make you able to hit a major league fastball. But many players who have a great deal of GOD given talent, simply want to get by on that. There against steroids, because they're not willing to put in the time and effort.
Quote
Secondly, it is destructive to the body over time.
So are ALL professional sports. Theres a reason football players have trouble walking up a flight of stair by the time they are 50.
Quote
If a kid has a dream to get into a pro league, and practices and plays and finally does it, he shouldn't be penalized to never achieve greatness because he didn't shoot up.
And how is he being penalized? Because people who were exactly at the same level as he were to shoot up AND work longer and harder? What you're calling for is mandated mediocrity - except for the few special ones.
Quote
People evolve over time, yes, but that is the natural part of the game.
Not only people, but the game itself. People today would laugh at the season, pre Ruth home run record, of "Home Run Baker (He hit 11 home runs in 1911, 10 in 1912, 12 in 1913 and nine in 1914.)What about the equipment? Ever see todays gloves compared to gloves of earlier era. And we now have players from one side the world to the other. Should they be banned because they aren't white Americans, as it used to be? The sport itself changes.
Quote
Pitchers, for example, take steroids because of the recovery time.  It isn't right that a pitcher who has practiced and plays his whole life, and with all things being equal, would be one of the greats, because he has to let his arm heal for a few days while the juicer is ready the next night, he loses out.
Is it fair that pitchers these days have advantages over pitchers of earlier era? Is it fair that some pitchers have magnificent speed, but can't find the strike zone. Is it fair that some pitchers have received excellent coaching, while others had trouble even affording a ball, bat and glove - and coaching was something people in another universe received.
Quote
Sports should be about your skill and putting the results of your dedication against the next guy's, along with any natural advantage you have.
In your dreams. To quote the great Vince Lombardi:"Winning isn't every thing, it's the ONLY thing. Yeah you would really follow a team who were magnificent competitors, but were on a hundred year losing streak. You a Chicago Cubs fan?
Quote
If you have ever believed and preached practice to a kid, then you really can't be OK with juicing.  Otherwise, you have to tell the kid "practice real hard and when you get to college, juice up so you have a shot at the pros".
Where did the idea start that juicers don't practice. I think that comes back to society itself, and their belief that drugs immediately fix a problem, even without any effort on your part. And the first thing you should tell a kid going to college, is get that degree, most of the people in college ball don't make the pros. You can lift weights and juice in college, until you're a 350lb mountain of muscle - it won't help you when a cat quick 285lb defensive end, goes around you like your feet are set in concrete.
Quote
I am pulling out my hair enough with the pussification of sports, like the NFL and NBA, that we really don't need to compound it with steroids. A player who knows the rules and chooses to disobey is a bad person morally, and should really be never heard from again once they are caught.
And if the rule itself is arbitrary, and makes little or no sense. In any case, would it make any difference to you, if the rules were changed so that anyone who wanted to, could use PEDS? The truth of the matter is, we may be reaching the point where the human body make no longer be able to hold up under the abuse required, by many sports, without PEDS. Seen the NFL's preseason?
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

 

Powered by EzPortal