MLB 2008-09 Hot Stove II

[Leo]

One form is done within the context of a single game, out in the open, policed by umpires installed to give order to the drama as it unfolds in a moment in time, in the history of the game, never to be repeated again. It's almost fucking charming. It adds lore to the game.

The other has nothing to do with the drama of a game. It's done behind closed doors. In secret. With needles and conspiracy and shame. Men lie about it. Politicians involve themselves in it. MONEY. The drama of a game on a dusty afternoon is an afterthought.

It's not done to win a game, as in the scuffing of balls, its done to pad numbers in order to pad bank accounts.

It skews the numbers and cheapens us all.

FUCK you ARod.

[bobbob1313]

ah.

 

Well, anyway...

 

I think the REAL clues you're requiring are an impossibility, unless you have a lab set up with a control group and are able to clone a player to see what he's like on roids versus what he's like on Wheaties.

 

MLB should use the same anti-doping laws that are akin to the strictest ones out there, which I'm assuming are ones put forth by the International Olympics Committee, which I'm assuming would put amphetamines on the same punishment level as steroids.

 

The biggest problem is that MLB and the MLBPA have no intent on killing the golden goose. I'm sure that Selig is quite content not to rock the boat - not with his $17,500,000 yearly salary. Drinks all around!

 

I'm almost positive amphetamines arebanned now, but they are an afterthought to the average fan, despite them being probably more widespread than steroids ever have been.

 

 

And the sentiment described in leo's post is one I will absoluely never understand. People applaud one kind of cheating and then turn around and say "FUCK YOU AROD". It's fucking stupid.

 

"Never to be repeated again?" Are you joking?

 

As for the for point about it being done to not win, how the fuck is that even possible? There is no such thing as a "selfish statistic". Everything you do on the field has an outcome on the game, and if you take steroids and they make you a better player, then it in turn helps your team. That's dumb.

 

 

And I've already said that scuffing the ball is far more dangerous to other players than using steroids, and everyone seemed to ignore that point. Ray Chapman was killed by a ball that was scuffed so bad he couldn't see when it took a curve towards his head. Scuffing the ball is an exceptionally dangerous tactic, as it basically removes all control the pitcher may have over the ball, and yet we applaud this action only because it has been a part of the game for a long time, just as amphetamines are ignored because they are accepted.

[John Smith]

I'm almost positive amphetamines arebanned now, but they are an afterthought to the average fan, despite them being probably more widespread than steroids ever have been.

 

 

And the sentiment described in leo's post is one I will absoluely never understand. People applaud one kind of cheating and then turn around and say "FUCK YOU AROD". It's fucking stupid.

 

"Never to be repeated again?" Are you joking?

 

As for the for point about it being done to not win, how the fuck is that even possible? There is no such thing as a "selfish statistic". Everything you do on the field has an outcome on the game, and if you take steroids and they make you a better player, then it in turn helps your team. That's dumb.

 

 

And I've already said that scuffing the ball is far more dangerous to other players than using steroids, and everyone seemed to ignore that point. Ray Chapman was killed by a ball that was scuffed so bad he couldn't see when it took a curve towards his head. Scuffing the ball is an exceptionally dangerous tactic, as it basically removes all control the pitcher may have over the ball, and yet we applaud this action only because it has been a part of the game for a long time, just as amphetamines are ignored because they are accepted.

 

Here's one of the diffferences I see, with spitters or foreign substances on the ball or scuffing there is an imediate remedy for those caught...they get bounced out of the game no questiosn asked. With the roids they have to be tested, then re-tested then the appeals process etc... So there is no immediate cause & effect situation and the stats gained on roids along with the contract $$ are still there. The punishment is almost immaterial for the better player. For the bit players it can be huge, but no one takes roids intending to be a utility infielder his whole career.

 

No such thing as a selfish statistic? Ever seen Sammy Sosa play? When he was in his roided up prime he was one of the most selfish players I had ever seen play the game. Cubs down 2 - 1 runner son second and third one out, all they need is solid contact and Sammy would swing for the big one every time. He drove mangers, team amtes and fans nuts with his quest for stats. Bonds homerun quest, if what has been written is to be believed, was all based on selfishness. He hated that McGwire was getting so much attention for hitting homers and he wanted some of that so he roided up and pursued his numbers...pure selfishness. Going to other sports my favorite stat hog of all time has to be Dominique Wilkins, never met a shot he didn't like or a pass he did like. So I fully believe in selfish stats ans the selfish atheletes who pursue them.

[Lammycat]

I'm almost positive amphetamines arebanned now, but they are an afterthought to the average fan, despite them being probably more widespread than steroids ever have been.

 

 

And the sentiment described in leo's post is one I will absoluely never understand. People applaud one kind of cheating and then turn around and say "FUCK YOU AROD". It's fucking stupid.

 

"Never to be repeated again?" Are you joking?

 

As for the for point about it being done to not win, how the fuck is that even possible? There is no such thing as a "selfish statistic". Everything you do on the field has an outcome on the game, and if you take steroids and they make you a better player, then it in turn helps your team. That's dumb.

 

 

And I've already said that scuffing the ball is far more dangerous to other players than using steroids, and everyone seemed to ignore that point. Ray Chapman was killed by a ball that was scuffed so bad he couldn't see when it took a curve towards his head. Scuffing the ball is an exceptionally dangerous tactic, as it basically removes all control the pitcher may have over the ball, and yet we applaud this action only because it has been a part of the game for a long time, just as amphetamines are ignored because they are accepted.

In defense of Carl Mays and the spitball: spitballs were not banned from the sport until after the season in which Chapman was killed. The ball that was in play was almost always dirtied before it was tossed and Mays wasn't the only pitcher altering the ball. Also, Chapman wasn't wearing a helmet (typical of the era, too). Even after the ban on the spitball, Mays and others were allowed a grandfather clause to continue pitching with them after the ban.

 

Comparing amphetamines (energy/speed pills) and drugs that physically alter your body to gain advantage is weak, imo. Calling a spitball and steroids the same thing ("cheating") is not valid, imo. You want to lump it all into one group and others (myself) make distinctions, just as jaywalking and car jacking vary. It's hypocritical to you. It's apples and oranges to me.

[bobbob1313]

My biggest problem is, as I've said, people get so angry about steroids, but then you can almost see their eyes light as they describe the guile and cunning it takes for other types of cheating.

 

And I like your defense of carl mays: it wasn't illegal. Sounds familiar.

 

John smith makes a valid point re: cause and effect, however.

[Lammycat]

The Fay Vincent memo (distributed in 1991) addresses the banning of steroids/peds. I realize there are misconceptions surrounding that memo and the reluctance of MLB to instill the ban effectively, but it was still on the books by then....

[OOO]

My understanding was that steroids are a worse form of cheating not because of their effect on the game or the players, but the assumption that some kids will grow up with the idea that the only way to be a superstar is to take steroids, which have a health risk. I don't know if I agree with that argument, but kids growing up wanting to take steroids is literally harming the fans, whereas most other forms of cheating (Ty Cobb beating up fans excluded) do not.

[bobbob1313]

The Fay Vincent memo (distributed in 1991) addresses the banning of steroids/peds. I realize there are misconceptions surrounding that memo and the reluctance of MLB to instill the ban effectively, but it was still on the books by then....

 

Did I post the quote from Selig during the congressional hearing where he admitted that there was no rule on the book? If not I'll post it when I get home.

[MrRain422]

You did.

 

Either way, the argument keeps going back to the point that spitballs are okay because the punishment is small. Then it's pointed out that until 2003 there was no punishment at all for steroids and therefore, by the same reasoning that spitballs are okay, that steroids must have been okay until 2003. So then it's pointed out once again that this argument doesn't hold true because I don't know why, it just doesn't. Etc etc etc.

[MrRain422]

Comparing amphetamines (energy/speed pills) and drugs that physically alter your body to gain advantage is weak, imo. Calling a spitball and steroids the same thing ("cheating") is not valid, imo. You want to lump it all into one group and others (myself) make distinctions, just as jaywalking and car jacking vary. It's hypocritical to you. It's apples and oranges to me.

 

First off, amphetamines do alter your body chemistry. That's how they work, and that's the whole point of using them. Greenies give players a huge advantage over the course of a long season -- they allow them to fight off physical fatigue and maintain a higher level of performance all season long than they would otherwise. Making this distinction between steroids and spitballs makes some sort of sense (I guess) but the distinction between steroids and speed is a whole lot smaller than you're admitting.

[Lammycat]

Yeah that sounds about right. That's been my take all along: "It just doesn't." Thanks for the input.

[MrRain422]

Sorry, I just think that the reasoning that spitballs are okay because the penalty is minor is completely irreconcilable with the belief that pre-2003 steroid use was a huge sin against the game, because, again, the penalty at that time was even less (nothing at all) than the penalty for throwing a spitball. If there's another reason why spitballs are okay then fine, but please elaborate on it, because that argument fails on its own logic.

 

And as far as I can tell, there's no real difference at all between using greenies in the 1970s and using steroids in the 1990s. Both violated federal law, neither were against major league rules or had an MLB-imposed sanction on the books for use, and both physically altered body chemistry to give players a physical advantage. So what's the difference? Why shouldn't Hank Aaron be given the same treatment as A-Rod?

[bobbob1313]

Because when players back then cheated, it was charming.

[Winston Legthigh]

Ray Chapman was killed by a ball that was scuffed so bad he couldn't see when it took a curve towards his head.

Why is that solely the fault of the scuffed ball and not the fault of shitty lighting? The event took place at twilight - who knows if he would have been able to see a white ball? Were there any more beanballs thrown that night? Have beanballs disappeared since this pitch was outlawed?

[bobbob1313]

Why is that solely the fault of the scuffed ball and not the fault of shitty lighting? The event took place at twilight - who knows if he would have been able to see a white ball? Were there any more beanballs thrown that night? Have beanballs disappeared since this pitch was outlawed?

 

How many players have died even as an indirect result of steroid use. The fact of the matter is, the league felt it necessary to outlaw the spitball following this incident, so they obviously felt it had an effect. A spitball is an extremely dangerous maneuver for painfully obvious reasons. I don't see how anyone can celebrate their usage and then out of the other side of their mouth, vilify steroid users. That absolutely boggles my mind. It's not like people are saying "the spitball is bad, but steroids are worse." People are absolutely celebrating spitballers. Does that not strike anyone else besides myself and MrRain as ridiculous?

[Leo]

I'm almost positive amphetamines arebanned now, but they are an afterthought to the average fan, despite them being probably more widespread than steroids ever have been.

 

 

And the sentiment described in leo's post is one I will absoluely never understand. People applaud one kind of cheating and then turn around and say "FUCK YOU AROD". It's fucking stupid.

 

"Never to be repeated again?" Are you joking?

 

As for the for point about it being done to not win, how the fuck is that even possible? There is no such thing as a "selfish statistic". Everything you do on the field has an outcome on the game, and if you take steroids and they make you a better player, then it in turn helps your team. That's dumb.

 

 

And I've already said that scuffing the ball is far more dangerous to other players than using steroids, and everyone seemed to ignore that point. Ray Chapman was killed by a ball that was scuffed so bad he couldn't see when it took a curve towards his head. Scuffing the ball is an exceptionally dangerous tactic, as it basically removes all control the pitcher may have over the ball, and yet we applaud this action only because it has been a part of the game for a long time, just as amphetamines are ignored because they are accepted.

Really bob?

 

Yeah, at the risk of being labeled "stupid" and "dumb" by an arrogant, intolerant near-adolescent who is so taken with his own opinion that where anyone dares offer a counter opinion, he takes it personally and attacks and judges as if his notions were original and sacred and beyond reproach, "FUCK YOU AROD:"

for, after being asked point-blank if you used steroids and the like, lying and saying no;

for, after being asked if you were ever tempted, lying and saying no;

for lying and telling us that you were above that type of behavior, believing that your conduct was forever secret;

for manipulating us in to believing that you would remain clean and lead an honest assault on the record books;

for, after being revealed, asking us to forgive you your youth and empathize the with pressure those millions placed on you;

and, for then totaling deflecting by playing the victim of the system and a stalking reporter.

For all that , "Fuck you ARod."

 

You see Bob, the act can be forgiven. Ask Giambi and Pettite. It's the response that disrespects us that engenders the rath. Know what I mean?

 

No, I'm not joking. I have been been to and watched several hundred baseball games and, unbelievable as it may seem, not one has been repeated by another. They were all different! The dramas were all singular. This may somehow be lost on someone who views baseball through the latest statistical fad and scoffs at the subtle "charm" others see in the game.

 

Monday's bobbob argument as to the reasonableness of steroid use was "the millions" at stake. It was the money argument, wasn't it? It wasn't about winning games. Remember? So now you want it both ways. I'm shocked. The thing about baseball, as I'm sure your numbers have told you, is that a win depends on a myriad of variables that extend far beyond one player doping. Doping is about personal numbers and contracts and money, period. Ask your boy Bonds. He didn't give a fuck about his teammates or his fans or the wins (or his kid for that matter - using him as a shield to deflect reporters from pressing him on doping). It was all about his numbers.

[bobbob1313]

If you try to improve as a player by taking steroids so you can make more money, your team will improve. It doesn't matter why they did it, the end result is they play better and their team improves.

And your characterization of the way I watch baseball is intentionally stupid. Whatever. You implied that a spitball is used in an isolated situation. That's bullshit and you know it. Just as nobody really believes players when they say they just did steroids once, it would be ridiculous to believe someone only uses a spit/scuff ball once.

And I'll say it again, applauding one cheater and then saying "FUCK YOU AROD" is stupid. I have no problem saying that. Do you really hold it against him for lying when nothing was at stake? If you cheated on a girlfriend and they asked with no evidence whether you did, would you say "yes". Very few people would. Arod is a human, as much as we like to put athletes up on another level, they are humans and are subject to the same weaknesses we all have. That's why I'm not quick to crucify any of them.

 

And I always laugh when people talk about me as if I'm the only one who writes off people who disagree with them. I am also a well known fan of people who bring up age in their arguments. Good stuff! It makes you seem much more intelligent.

[Winston Legthigh]

People are absolutely celebrating spitballers.

Link?

[Lammycat]

How many players have died even as an indirect result of steroid use. The fact of the matter is, the league felt it necessary to outlaw the spitball following this incident, so they obviously felt it had an effect. A spitball is an extremely dangerous maneuver for painfully obvious reasons. I don't see how anyone can celebrate their usage and then out of the other side of their mouth, vilify steroid users. That absolutely boggles my mind. It's not like people are saying "the spitball is bad, but steroids are worse." People are absolutely celebrating spitballers. Does that not strike anyone else besides myself and MrRain as ridiculous?

Actually, I'm pretty sure it was decided that the spitball would be banned at the beginning of the season in which Ray Chapman was killed. Even with the death, pitchers using it prior to the end of that season were allowed to continue using it. Odd.

 

I'll address the other stuff later (greenies v. steroids and "celebration" of spitballs, pine tar, etc. v. steroids, MLB policy and Bud's Congressional testimony).

[Leo]

Oh, I see! I misunderstood the nature of this "discussion." I was merely offering an answer to your question of how one form of cheating is different than PED. I wasn't aware that this was an "argument" to be won and lost; that this was somehow an extension of how "intelligent" we "seem."

I'm not too concerned with how intelligent I seem. I'm comfortable with my limitations.

What I meant to imply (which I apparently failed at accomplishing) was that the scuffing of a ball, along with other gametime cheats, is performed during the game, in isolated situations. It is a situational cheat, as opposed to a "universal" cheat, if you will. Obviously, Gaylord Perry made a career of throwing spitters, he didn't do it just once. He probably greased it a little more when facing Pete Rose than he would when throwing to, I don't know, Bud Harrelson. The point is, it was done in the context of a particular game, to get out of a particular inning, get through a particular at bat - one that will never be repeated again. At the risk of romanticizing too much, it was tactical. That is where the "charm" comes in, for me anyway.

There are no gametime tactics involved in PED. That is where the distinction lies. And that is why it seems to me that PED has nothing to do with an actual, particular game - a W or a L. It has to do with the user's career, his individual numbers. Obviously, Ws and Ls result from PED use, but that just doesn't seem to be the priority when using and then lying about using.

The age reference was unfortunate. My apologies.

[Smokestack Joe]

Yahoo Fantasy Baseball sign up opened today!!

[Lammycat]

I think I referred to getting away with a spit ball during a game as "almost an art form." I think this has been twisted into "absolutely celebrating" it.

 

I'm with Leo in that the transgressions of a corked bat, too much pine tar, spit ball are all relevant to single (in a game framework) acts that are, in my eyes, relatively minor compared to altering ones physical make up in order to out-perform others who choose not to cheat, which in the end hinge on pay day, stats, etc. I also realize that others see no difference in one form of cheating to another. Eh.

 

This discussion has gone in circles and will contiunue to. It's also not confined to the VC as every other discussion around steroids basically comes down to the two opposing views shown here.

 

I am curious as to the source of the Selig Congressional testimony and wonder how/why it counters MLB policy up until that statement. How does Selig say this and just sweep the Vincent memo and other MLB policy under the rug?

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I believe that Selig's testimony was only that there was no punishment for it before a certain date, no?

[bobbob1313]

I think I referred to getting away with a spit ball during a game as "almost an art form." I think this has been twisted into "absolutely celebrating" it.

 

I'm with Leo in that the transgressions of a corked bat, too much pine tar, spit ball are all relevant to single (in a game framework) acts that are, in my eyes, relatively minor compared to altering ones physical make up in order to out-perform others who choose not to cheat, which in the end hinge on pay day, stats, etc. I also realize that others see no difference in one form of cheating to another. Eh.

 

This discussion has gone in circles and will contiunue to. It's also not confined to the VC as every other discussion around steroids basically comes down to the two opposing views shown here.

 

I am curious as to the source of the Selig Congressional testimony and wonder how/why it counters MLB policy up until that statement. How does Selig say this and just sweep the Vincent memo and other MLB policy under the rug?

 

MLB, the Owners and the commissioner cannot, as far as I can tell, unilaterally impose regulations like that without it being first collectively bargained. The Player's Union is very strong in this way.

 

Some more interesting tidbits regarding the "legality" of steroids within the game:

 

QUOTE

For those who believe that steroids were against the rules of MLB beginning in 1991, I suggest you follow this link to MLB.com:

 

url="http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/news/drug_policy.jsp?content=timeline"]http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/news/drug_policy.jsp?content=timeline[/url]

 

It states that in 1998: "A jar of androstenedione is discovered in the locker of St. Louis slugger Mark McGwire. . . McGwire admits he uses the steroids precursor and goes on to hit a then record 70 homers. Using steroids' date=' precursors or performance-enhancing drugs is not illegal at that point in Major League Baseball."

 

Again, this is from the MLB website itself. Despite what the media widely has reported, including the CNNSI.com article today, the memo issued by Commissioner Fay Vincent in 1991 prohibiting steroids in baseball did not apply to players who were members of the MLBPA. Nor did the memo issued in 1997 by Commissioner Bud Selig reiterating the prohibition of steroids apply to players who were members of the MLBPA.

 

"Mr. Waxman: Let me interrupt you, because I have limited time. In 1991, it became baseball's drug policy the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Those were the rules in 1991.

 

Mr. Selig: They were not the rules. They were not enforceable. They were our statement of purpose, but they had to be collectively bargained."[/quote']

 

re spitballs: A few people have described it in terms that make it appear is if it is not only cheating, but should be celebrated as another skill in a player's repetoire. To me, to discuss cheating in this way is to celebrate it.

 

And the greenies question still hangs over this entire discussion.

[MattZ]

Not even sure why I'd throw my hat in the ring on this, but here's what I think:

 

1. Spitballs, corked bats, amphetamines and steroids are all forms of cheating.

 

2. There are degrees of cheating.

 

3. The cutoff, for me, is cheating within the chalklines and cheating behind closed doors off the field. Is there any reason for me to draw a line there? I suppose not. But I do. And that line is what it's all about for me.