The biggest farse in baseball history happened one year ago. In case you don't know it was Bonds breaking the home run record.
Printable View
The biggest farse in baseball history happened one year ago. In case you don't know it was Bonds breaking the home run record.
Nah......Bonds could have broke that record clean or roids by swinging his bat with one hand over the years against the pitching Ruth set the record against. Pitchers roided up too....Quote:
Originally Posted by Reade
Is it right...no, it is the biggest farse in baseball history....no way. One might say Shoeless Joe, Pete Rose, The Mitchell Report, Paul O'Neil, ticket prices, Ventura getting pummelled by Ryan, Joe Morgan, Fox's 'lead off first graphic', and countless more were bigger farces :)
I think thats too much logic for all the Bonds haters.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue9
Yep.
Well...B*nds lived in a different era than Ruth. Training techniques have vastly improved since then. In general, everyone is a better player than in Ruth's day. So, yes, B*nds would have crushed the pitchign from that era.Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue9
But, Ruth was more better than his contemporaries than B*nds was his. Ruth hit over two times the home runs as the next best guy in his day. B*nds never did that.
That is always an interesting argument. One could easily counter however and state that the game has evolved into a billion dollar business and is much more popular and competitive than ever before. Players look at is as a career and not an extracirricular activity. Because of all that there is less of a drop off in talent from the best to the worst and much more talent spread throughout the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Yeah, Bonds wasn't as good as Ruth. So what?
But then, Bonds was much better than Ruth in several ways.
So his home run record is a farce...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
So, because Ruth was a more valuable player, Bonds' home run record is a farce?
Yeah, that makes sense...
I think thats the Dodger fan in him speaking. If Bonds didnt have the natural ability before roids, then the record would be a farce.
How do you feel about Clemens, are his records and stats farcical?
If you think Barry Bonds, or anybody else's records from this era, are a farce, than you have to admit that this entire era is a farce and none of the records are "valid."
But, I don't think many people would want to admit that, so instead, it's better to just pick a few guys you hate and claim they're farces while completely ignoring the entire era.
thats pretty much my point in bringing up clemens. Bonds is just the most prolific because he didn't play nice with the media. And now they can openly try to trash his rep and single him out. While being easier on other prolific hitters and pitchers.
I don't ignore the entire era, but I don't put a whole lot of stock in records from this era either.
Baseball is an evolving game. To straight compare stats across 80 years is apples to quasars.
Nobody is doing so...Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
No man. I've been there booing my ass off at LoDuca ever since he signed with the Nats and ever since I saw thisQuote:
Originally Posted by rogue9
http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/res...dodgernote.jpg
LoDuca was one of my favorite players since the first game I saw him play in Albuquerque. I feel, well, cheated on.
They should not have censored the #, then we could call and yell at him!
I'll tell him to his taking in the ass face
The whole thing is so sad, really. I remember when Bonds came up with Pittsburgh; you knew the kid was something special. I think there was a good possibility for him to have made the Hall of Fame without taking any drugs at all...but now, we'll never know. And five, seven, ten years from now, I really shudder to think of the health problems he's going to have. It's just a crying shame.
If he retired after the 1997 season (1998, I think, is the commonly accepted year in which Bonds started using steroids), he'd have belonged in the Hall of Fame. There's no question he was a HOFer with or without steroids.Quote:
Originally Posted by oriole^
You know... there was this show about the Olympics on the other night, and one of the subjects that they were talking about was of course "doping"/PED's/Steroids. The historians on the show made a big point about how the Greek athletes of the day would be completely baffled at our aversion to PED's.
I'd be willing to bet that in 10-15 years "PED" usage will be a common practice, and personally I'm all for it.
why are you all for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Don't get into it with him. He's also for the legalization of all drugs....a tree hugging liberal who thinks we should all ride bikes to work and school, and a strong advocate and practitioner of gay marriage :D:D:D:p:p:pQuote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Simple, it makes for better performances. Since sports are entertainment, better performances make for better entertainment. As long as there's medical supervision (so there aren't guys dropping over dead or anything), I don't see what the problem is.
Plenty of people are doing so...
Wow...you know me pretty wellQuote:
Originally Posted by dickay
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by dickay
:p
...and, you're only partially right anyway. You're way, way off on at least part of that.
Sports aren't for entertainment, for the atheletes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
...:eek:
huh?
:confused:
How do you come to that conclusion?
The atheletes aren't in the sport for the entertainment.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Some are in it for money.
Some are in it for fame.
Some are in it for the thrill of competition.
Some are in it for the pure pleasure of pushing themselves to the limit.
Some are in it for lots of other reasons.
OK, yea, but their all entertainers. Musicians don't record albums just to be entertainers either, Actors don't act just to be entertainers, etc... (well, most don't anyway. The best don't). Their professionals at their craft, but the product that their crafting is all ultimately entertainment.
All 3 of these can be considered "for entertainment", and so can money and fame to a lesser extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Yeah, i made up the part about you being a tree hugger :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I'm not, but only partly because of the "integrity of the sport". Granted, I like a level playing field, too, but the issue of most concern would be the long-term damage that the users are doing to their health.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Should that be YOUR concern though? Shouldn't that be the concern of those considering taking such drugs, and those that monitor the usage?
It should be the concern of anyone who doesn't want to see people faced with the choice of take this potentially damaging substace or not participate in the activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
In 10-15 years, I think we'll have a much better understanding of these drugs, as well as probably having newer, different, perhaps better and less damaging drugs, and we can make a more informed decision then.
YES!! That should be all of our concern, and I know ohms hates it when it goes down this road because it shoots his argument out of the water....but there is no doubt that the use of PED's at the proffessional level translates to the use at the ametuer level and all the way down to our youth. A few years ago, half the football team at one of the high schools in my state (CT.) were found to be users.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Athletes aren't role models...but their use of PED's, when perceived by our youth gives them an edge...is detrimental to our society and a danger to our kids. Look at what the drug testing program in Texas high schools alone is costing!!! Our society has to curb its use of this stuff, because there are in fact concrete medical studies that shows the negative effects even small doses can have on children.
You'll be hard-pressed to ever convince me that any drug is safe