mountain bed Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 He was only caught because, instead of working on things like, you know, the fucking war, congress decided finding out if people cheating while playing games was the most important thing going.The committee investigating baseball is but one of a million committees investigating everything that hasn't been rendered moot by 'executive privilege'. I know you're aware of this. The war is still on the front burner. The hearing with Clemens and his trainer was something to see. Henry Waxman is truly one of the good ones. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted February 15, 2008 Author Share Posted February 15, 2008 I just don't understand why Bonds is crucified for doing something that players have been doing since the beginning of the game itself (Trying to gain a competitive edge by any means necessary, legal or illegal). It just doesn't bother me that much. It really doesn't bother me nearly as much as everyone tells me it should. Nobody hates players from the 40's-80's for the widespread use of greenies. Nobody brings up that Ruth wasn't playing against black or hispanic ball players (not his fault, but still, worthy of note). Nobody brings up that, if Bonds illegally (under the eyes of the law) used steroids, Ruth almost certainly illegally drank alcohol during prohibition years. Any argument you want to make for why Bonds is worse than anyone in the history of the game, there are examples of others. He broke the law? Ty Cobb stabbed a dude. He cheated? Loads (LOADS) of players used greenies and steroids. Ty Cobb was the Bonds of his day an a-hole through and through. I have little ddoubt that he would be a user if he were around today. Ruth...Sure he didn't play against blacks and minorities, but he also played in a much smaller league so the white-only talent was not diluted. There were players on the benchs of teams that might have been starters in a league the size of the current majors leagues. There were o teams west of the mississippi or south of the mmason dixon line either, and the players travelled by bus annd train to games. Things were different then. And yes Ruth drank and had affairs etc...but he was a llikeable guy. If bonds were not such a prick we would probably not be makign such a big deal of things. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I think there is a difference between juicing and corking a bat. Steroids can have severe physical and psychological consequences. They are illegal. If the sport is rampant with them, young guys will be juicing up to become and remain competitive. I think the seriousness and danger of steroids isn't necessarily going to be visible in Clemens, Bonds, etc.....the danger is for the younger guys, high school and college age players, who want to compete, and don't know what the hell they're doing. Is this whole congressional thing a little silly? Sure. But, hell, if Bud isn't going to do anything about it..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 He was only caught because, instead of working on things like, you know, the fucking war, congress decided finding out if people cheating while playing games was the most important thing going.No. Bonds got caught because his name was included among Olympic athletes, NFL players, and other MLB players when the BALCO labs were investigated by the Federal anti-doping commission and raided by DEA agents. He was not singled out. Congress did not get involved until later. If your beef is with how Congress utilizes it's time and money that's another issue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 If bonds were not such a prick we would probably not be makign such a big deal of things.This is a sidebar to the fact that he cheated, though. And cheating to help attain the biggest record in MLB is a big deal. At least in MLB. The fact that Bonds slandered and bad-mouthed a lot of his accusers- journalists, investigators, other players whom claimed first-hand knowledge of his use, etc. is relevant. Yeah, he's an apparently arrogant guy who, like Pete Rose, assumes he's above the game even in the face of evidence so it certainly doesn't help his case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Dude - when did your head get so big? That's just obnoxious. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Its like the movie Quiz Show. Its a bit of a public trust/institution here. I dont have any problem with Congress investigating this. I think alot of people want to know the truth. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Ruth...Sure he didn't play against blacks and minorities, but he also played in a much smaller league so the white-only talent was not diluted. There were players on the benchs of teams that might have been starters in a league the size of the current majors leagues. There were o teams west of the mississippi or south of the mmason dixon line either, and the players travelled by bus annd train to games. Things were different then. And yes Ruth drank and had affairs etc...but he was a llikeable guy. If bonds were not such a prick we would probably not be makign such a big deal of things. The league has expanded since Ruth's day, but the pool of talent for potential players has increased a whole lot more. I don't think the talent pool is diluted at all. In Ruth's day, baseball players came from white American guys, with maybe a couple Canadians or Hispanic players in the league, but barely. And now the talent pool comes from the entire world. The league has doubled in size but the population of potential baseball players has expanded to the entire world. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 The league has expanded since Ruth's day, but the pool of talent for potential players has increased a whole lot more. I don't think the talent pool is diluted at all. In Ruth's day, baseball players came from white American guys, with maybe a couple Canadians or Hispanic players in the league, but barely. And now the talent pool comes from the entire world. The league has doubled in size but the population of potential baseball players has expanded to the entire world.Not to mention hugely improved training techniques, development opportunities, nutrition analysis, etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted February 15, 2008 Author Share Posted February 15, 2008 Federal investigators...House Subcommittees... I'm sorry, but whether atheletes engaged in an age old practice of cheating or not is simply not important enough to warrant the time and money being spent by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to investigate. The federal governnment is involved because steroids are illegal and classified as acontrolled substance. Add to the the fact that baseball has an anit-trust exemption granted by congress and the appearance that MLBB is looking the other way and tolerating the use of Steroids, and this is an appropriate topic to investigate. The league has expanded since Ruth's day, but the pool of talent for potential players has increased a whole lot more. I don't think the talent pool is diluted at all. In Ruth's day, baseball players came from white American guys, with maybe a couple Canadians or Hispanic players in the league, but barely. And now the talent pool comes from the entire world. The league has doubled in size but the population of potential baseball players has expanded to the entire world. Consider to that back in Ruth's day sports was pretty well limited to Basebal, everubody played baseball annd dreamed of the bigs. Some people played basketball, football had not blossomed yet, hockey and most other sports were niche sports. There are a lot of factors to consider, including the tight control ownership had over salaries and movement of players, not to mention the improved training methods of today etc... They are different era's period, to compare is a very difficult task. There are far more factor involved than most of us will consider. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 The federal governnment is involved because steroids are illegal and classified as acontrolled substance. Add to the the fact that baseball has an anit-trust exemption granted by congress and the appearance that MLBB is looking the other way and tolerating the use of Steroids, and this is an appropriate topic to investigate. Plus, baseball is fun! Who wants to spend a full day trying to figure out a way to feed hungry children or find a way to co-exist peacefully with the rest of the world? Bo-ring! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Plus, baseball is fun! Who wants to spend a full day trying to figure out a way to feed hungry children or find a way to co-exist peacefully with the rest of the world? Bo-ring! Quit being so damned snarky, if congress doesn't address this issue who will? It's not like we have other government agencies or laws that cover this whole thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Sorry, I just can't bring myself to get all angry about this, still. Do I wish he hadn't taken steroids? Yeah, it sucks that people get all pissed off about it and it might hurt the popularity of the game (I don't think it will even a little bit), but I don't blame them, and I don't think it's worth congresses time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Plus, baseball is fun! Who wants to spend a full day trying to figure out a way to feed hungry children or find a way to co-exist peacefully with the rest of the world? Bo-ring!It's a good thing Congressional Hearings only cover baseball improprieties or we'd never get to the bottom of this. And what's with people enjoying baseball while there's still no cure for AIDS, anyway? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 The thing that really annoys me about the hearings is that they aren't focused on the problem at all. King Kaufman wrote an article about it yesterday that perfectly captured it. They're too concerned with individual people and not enough with the big picture. Is Roger Clemans lying or is Brian McNamee? Who cares? However you parse either of their words, it doesn't mean that steroids were any more or any less rampant in baseball. They want to know the details of one individual player's use, but don't seem to be getting at the broader facts about just how rampant use was, what sort of systems there were for distributing them throughout the league, etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 John Rocker came out a few days ago and said his team and the league knew he was taking steroids and actively attempted to ensure he was doing it right so he wouldn't hurt himself. Take the source for what it is (A crazy, racist, bigot who will do anything for attention), but it would be incredibly interesting if it were even remotely true. Also, I'm not sure if anyone read the link I posted earlier, but Bonds did not fail a drug test during the 73 home run season. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Also, I'm not sure if anyone read the link I posted earlier, but Bonds did not fail a drug test during the 73 home run season.But he did a year earlier. Does the timing make a difference, really? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Sorry, I just can't bring myself to get all angry about this, still. Do I wish he hadn't taken steroids? Yeah, it sucks that people get all pissed off about it and it might hurt the popularity of the game (I don't think it will even a little bit), but I don't blame them, and I don't think it's worth congresses time.Personally, I'm not angry or pissed off. I do continue to be amused at the apologists, though. I also think there may be something of an age thing, too. I've noticed more people my age and older to take offense at steroid/PED user issues than younger fans. Of course, there are plenty of baseball fans of all ages who couldn't care less if players juiced/juice or not. But I think for younger fans, especially, who were kids during the Sosa/McGwire race and for most of the 90s- they grew up watching guys break records bashing balls out of parks. It's the era of baseball you grew up with. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 But he did a year earlier. Does the timing make a difference, really? Well, in the context of Lammycat's post, where it was the final nail in the Bonds coffin, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he used during his record setting year, yes it makes a difference. He still probably used during the record setting year, but the proof isn't there. Also, I can't imagine how the prosecutors are even going to be able to use the steroids test against him, since he admitted that he unknowingly took steroids in the grand jury, and they are trying to prove that he lied at that time. It seems it will be very difficult to prove motive unless they get Anderson to testify against him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Well, in the context of Lammycat's post, where it was the final nail in the Bonds coffin, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he used during his record setting year, yes it makes a difference. He still probably used during the record setting year, but the proof isn't there.Though I never stated I believed it was the nail in the coffin to prove he used during his record-setting year. It does prove that he cheated and that he's been lying the entire time about cheating, though, which is why I questioned if it was enough proof for the apologists (most of whom have claimed "there is no proof" as a defense), regardless of the time line. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
a.miller Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I heard on ESPN this morning that good old GW has a pardon lined up for Clemens. Not sure if that's true....but it sure does fit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Also, I can't imagine how the prosecutors are even going to be able to use the steroids test against him, since he admitted that he unknowingly took steroids in the grand jury, and they are trying to prove that he lied at that time. It seems it will be very difficult to prove motive unless they get Anderson to testify against him. Isn't that why Anderson was finally released from jail last November? I assumed at the time at least that he had agreed to testify against him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I thought he was released and then put right back in, or something? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Isn't that why Anderson was finally released from jail last November? I assumed at the time at least that he had agreed to testify against him.Nope. Anderson's attorney denies that he ever testified before a grand jury, and has said that Anderson would never testify against Bonds at trial. He was probably released because they had indicted Bonds on that same day, and because he'd been imprisoned for over a year on contempt charges. That's not cause for indefinite imprisonment (at least I hope not). I thought he was released and then put right back in, or something?That was in 2006. Then he served over a year before being released in November of '07. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WilcoFan Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Congress is embarrassing itself and looking like big idiots. Fixed it for ya... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.