Re: Dingers Without 'Roids
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yankee hater
I request a citation from a study where it showed HGH didn't improve offense.
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomi...her-should-you
Quote:
How would you 'know' we won't have another deadball type era? In fact with the trend toward specialized pitching and emphasize on defense, thanks to stats such a Range Factor, a downward trend seems obviously a very real option.
I don't "know." Nobody "knows" anything about the future. But the deadball era was the deadball era for a reason - dead balls. There is no way, barring changes to the balls or bats or something, that we are going back to THAT low level of offense. Decreased offense as compared to late 90s/early 2000s? Sure. But I don't foresee a drop to meager offensive levels.
Re: Dingers Without 'Roids
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yankee hater
Yes - and there are innocent people locked up and guilty people walking free. The fact of the matter is, and you of all people show know this, is in life, if you don't get caught, you're assumed innocent. Its not hyprocrisy, its the fundamental building block of law. (Unless you think it's hypocrisy to place people in jail based on dna evidence because several people walked free before the tests were implemented into criminal science - but surely, only someone dense would think that.)
I do believe in innocent until proven guilty - which is exactly why I do not believe that people with some evidence against them should be barred entry to the Hall of Fame. Circumstantial evidence does not mean that they DID take steroids. Without a positive test, it is not possible to 100% for sure say that someone did something.
It is hypocrisy to ignore McGwire's andro while he's chasing the record, and then year's later villify him for it. Nevermind the fact that andro was a legal substance that anybody could go to the local GNC and buy and there were no rules by baseball prohibitting its use.
BUT, again, the only players that have been specifically barred entry into the Hall of Fame are those that have broke a rule that carried a punishment of a lifetime ban. Taking steroids when these players allegedly took them did not carry any punishment whatsoever. Now, 3 positive tests = lifetime ban. You cannot apply TODAY'S punishments to crimes from years ago.
This entire era was riddled with steroid use. The best players of this era should go into the Hall of Fame, just as it always has been.
Re: Dingers Without 'Roids
Re: Dingers Without 'Roids
If you read the Mitchell report page 18 says steroids were illegal as early as 1971 without a vaild prescription. All those that are using the "it wasn't illegal until collective bargaining in 2002" is dead wrong. Anyone possessing or taking steroids broke the rules, bottom line.
Quote:
It is hypocrisy to ignore McGwire's andro while he's chasing the record, and then year's later villify him for it. Nevermind the fact that andro was a legal substance that anybody could go to the local GNC and buy and there were no rules by baseball prohibitting its use.
I agree.
Re: Dingers Without 'Roids
Not quite true, from what I've read. There were certain drugs which were made to be illegal, but then new ones came along that were still legal (including, most notably, Andro). Then there were bills passed in 2001 and 2004 which made a whole bunch more illegal.
That's the actual law though. In terms of Major League Baseball, nothing was really "illegal" until the 2002 CBA, and then they added some more in this last CBA. So technically, in terms of MLB, no one broke any rules until 2002.
Anyway... who really cares. The owners will do a big song and dance about it for the next couple of years, and the MLBPA will cry about it while they go along with it all anyway. I said months ago that I could really care less about this stuff anymore. It's just boring. I've tuned out to most of it anymore.
Re: Dingers Without 'Roids
No the key is a valid prescription, they were illegal to use as early as 1971. Again read page SR10 and SR11 of the report even the commissoner at the time says so.
Re: Dingers Without 'Roids
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Reade
If you read the Mitchell report page 18 says steroids were illegal as early as 1971 without a vaild prescription. All those that are using the "it wasn't illegal until collective bargaining in 2002" is dead wrong. Anyone possessing or taking steroids broke the rules, bottom line.
Steroids were against the rules, but the MLB had no punishment guidelines. It's unfair for the MLB to try and correct the problem it helped create by punishing people under guidelines that did not exist at the time they broke the rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reade
No the key is a valid prescription, they were illegal to use as early as 1971. Again read page SR10 and SR11 of the report even the commissoner at the time says so.
Some steroids were illegal as early as 1971, but Ohms is right that the law was not updated until this millenium. And furthermore, a "notice" went out in 1990 or so from the Commissioner stating that since steroids were illegal, they were prohibbited by the MLB. That's really it. There was no punishment guidelines, no actual hard rules, because those require collective bargaining. They were against the law, and therefore "prohibitted" by the MLB, but we've never prevented entry into the Hall of Fame based on players breaking drug laws.
Re: Dingers Without 'Roids
In the cocaine scandal in the '80's players were suspended after the fact, that does set a precedent for Selig to take action justifiably.
Re: Dingers Without 'Roids
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wang_chi7
In the cocaine scandal in the '80's players were suspended after the fact, that does set a precedent for Selig to take action justifiably.
Note that none of the players actually served their suspensions, as they had provisions which allowed them to play if they donated a portion of their salary to drug programs and do community service work. They were suspended directly after the trials that they were involved in (ie. after investigations). Also, what were the rules on the books regarding cocaine use?
Also, these players weren't barred entry into the Hall of Fame, as many are calling for regarding the steroid-using players. I don't have a problem with suspending known drug users - denying them entry into the Hall of Fame is a different story. I also don't think hearsay is enough justification to suspend someone.
