Congress and steroids in baseball.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

They may not have been prohibited in baseball at the time, but in the eyes of the LAW they were an ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE.

Then prosecute them under the law. Put them in jail. I don't see what bearing that has on any records. Hell, we have kept the records for people who have violated the rules of baseball (hello Rollie Fingers).

[DaddyTorgo]

great. then toss them in jail! I'm all for that. Hell, shouldn't Pete Rose be in jail (or have served jail time actually) for gambling??


but that's not reality. reality is the rich live by a different set of rules. and no steroid-using ballplayer would ever see the inside of a jail cell of any type. So hit them where it hurts, in their perceived "immortality" in the record books. Wipe it out.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

but that's not reality. reality is the rich live by a different set of rules. and no steroid-using ballplayer would ever see the inside of a jail cell of any type. So hit them where it hurts, in their perceived "immortality" in the record books. Wipe it out.

But they didn't violate any rules of baseball, so no dice. If you wipe them out of the record books, I want to see Gaylord Perry out of the Hall, I want everyone who played in the 60s to have their records wiped out. I want everyone who played before blacks were allowed in the game to have their records wiped out. If we are engaging in ethical engineering of record books, lets go all the way instead of just having a steroid witch hunt.

You wipe the 90s out, you best wipe the entire thing, because after that, the record book has even less meaning that anyone could possibly have thought it had before.

[Danny]

I happen to agree that from a records standpoint, I don't believe any of these records should be wiped out for the reasons stated by Blackadar and Arlie. McGwire is still a hall of famer.

That doesn't mean I have to like or respect McGwire. Of course, to him, my opinion means nothing, but to me his opinion means nothing, so it's all good .

[TroyF]

I'm not suggesting we take these guys out of the record books. I think that part is irrelevant. I really don't care.

But I'm damned well happy McGwire was forced to testify. He can have his statistics. He can have his spot in the hall of fame. He doesn't have to get my undying respct for it and I don't have to compare him to the great sluggers in the games history anymore.

This supposed intent to embarras? That's a bunch of BS. Those players were called to discuss a problem. Palmeiro and Sosa stepped up to the plate and denied the allegations. If it's proven later that they lied, they'll lose their credibility as well. McGwire didn't. Despite saying only a couple of weeks earlier that he never was a user, he refused to say under oath that he didn't take em.

So not only did he use illegal drugs to improve his place in history, he continued to lie about it after the fact. Boy, I see where you guys are coming from now. I should give him my undying respect forever.

Bleh. Not gonna happen. He did the roids. He lied. He can deal with the backlash.

[Easy Mac]

wait Sosa and Palmiero have credibility? We're talking about the same guys right? Mr. Cork and Mr. Viagra? Talk about guys putting a little pop in their bats.

[dawgfan]

I generally agree with Blackie and Arlie on this one. I just don't get the level of indignation being placed by certain people on the suspected steroid users. Do they deserve praise for what they've done? Of course not. But neither do I think they deserve the level of scorn that some seem to have for them.

Here's a question for all those that denigrate people like Bonds, McGwire, Canseco, Caminiti, and any other strongly suspected steroid-user: How much do you think the steroids contributed to their success?

To put it in even finer detail - how much difference do you think there is in a guy who uses extensive weight training and flexibility training (as has been documented for Barry Bonds) and takes all the legal supplements available, like Creatine and whatnot, and someone that does all that and takes steroids/HGH/etc.?

Let us also consider the contention from some that pitchers have actually been as likely or more likely to use illegal supplements as hitters? What then are we supposed to make of these hitting numbers?

I fall firmly in the camp that believes that the biggest reasons for the offensive increase in the last 2 decades can be attributed to:

1. A huge increase in the acceptence and sophistication of weight training by baseball players;
2. Smaller ballparks;
3. Shrinking strike zones;
4. Evolving hitting approaches that decreased the negativity of the strikeout and increased players swinging for the fences;
5. Diminishing amount of pitchers throwing inside;
6. Harder bats;

People have a hard time with the fact of statistical variability - the idea that a season like Brady Anderson's 50HR year could've just been a fluke. The fact that nobody had seriously threatened Maris' HR record for decades, and then it was surpassed with regularity, people want to think something sinister happened. Maybe McGwire and Bonds gained 20 HR by juicing, maybe they gained 5 - we'll never really know.

It's a shame that it ever came to this. Baseball and the player's union especially should've averted this by taking proactive stances against steroids years ago. Steroids weren't unknown in the late-'80's - that's when Lyle Alzado was preaching the evils of his steroid use. Something should've been done by the player's union to protect the health of their members and by baseball to protect the integrity of the game.

That said, I also agree with Blackie and Arlie in that I don't see why this issue is raising so much more ire than the issue of greenies (speed) which were performance-enhancing, cheating like bat-corking and scuffing balls which were performance-enhancing, eras when baseball discriminated against minorities (and I challenge the assertion this wasn't illegal - it just wasn't successfully challenged at the time), eras when questionable tactics were commonplace (mudballs that were hard to see, players spiking others on the basepaths, etc.)

Much as people like to think of baseball stats as being timeless, they're anything but - you have to consider the context in which any stat was generated. As such, I don't feel "cheated" by the offensive explosion of today any more than I feel fans in the late '20's and '30's were "cheated" by the even greater offensive explosion of that era.

I think some people ought to get off their moral high horse on this issue. Don't respect McGwire, Bonds, Canseco, etc. - that's your right. But to claim moral outrage and to say their numbers should be wiped from the books, well, that's complete overkill.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I generally agree with Blackie and Arlie on this one. I just don't get the level of indignation being placed by certain people on the suspected steroid users. Do they deserve praise for what they've done? Of course not. But neither do I think they deserve the level of scorn that some seem to have for them.

Here's a question for all those that denigrate people like Bonds, McGwire, Canseco, Caminiti, and any other strongly suspected steroid-user: How much do you think the steroids contributed to their success?

To put it in even finer detail - how much difference do you think there is in a guy who uses extensive weight training and flexibility training (as has been documented for Barry Bonds) and takes all the legal supplements available, like Creatine and whatnot, and someone that does all that and takes steroids/HGH/etc.?

Let us also consider the contention from some that pitchers have actually been as likely or more likely to use illegal supplements as hitters? What then are we supposed to make of these hitting numbers?

I fall firmly in the camp that believes that the biggest reasons for the offensive increase in the last 2 decades can be attributed to:

1. A huge increase in the acceptence and sophistication of weight training by baseball players;
2. Smaller ballparks;
3. Shrinking strike zones;
4. Evolving hitting approaches that decreased the negativity of the strikeout and increased players swinging for the fences;
5. Diminishing amount of pitchers throwing inside;
6. Harder bats;

People have a hard time with the fact of statistical variability - the idea that a season like Brady Anderson's 50HR year could've just been a fluke. The fact that nobody had seriously threatened Maris' HR record for decades, and then it was surpassed with regularity, people want to think something sinister happened. Maybe McGwire and Bonds gained 20 HR by juicing, maybe they gained 5 - we'll never really know.

It's a shame that it ever came to this. Baseball and the player's union especially should've averted this by taking proactive stances against steroids years ago. Steroids weren't unknown in the late-'80's - that's when Lyle Alzado was preaching the evils of his steroid use. Something should've been done by the player's union to protect the health of their members and by baseball to protect the integrity of the game.

That said, I also agree with Blackie and Arlie in that I don't see why this issue is raising so much more ire than the issue of greenies (speed) which were performance-enhancing, cheating like bat-corking and scuffing balls which were performance-enhancing, eras when baseball discriminated against minorities (and I challenge the assertion this wasn't illegal - it just wasn't successfully challenged at the time), eras when questionable tactics were commonplace (mudballs that were hard to see, players spiking others on the basepaths, etc.)

Much as people like to think of baseball stats as being timeless, they're anything but - you have to consider the context in which any stat was generated. As such, I don't feel "cheated" by the offensive explosion of today any more than I feel fans in the late '20's and '30's were "cheated" by the even greater offensive explosion of that era.

I think some people ought to get off their moral high horse on this issue. Don't respect McGwire, Bonds, Canseco, etc. - that's your right. But to claim moral outrage and to say their numbers should be wiped from the books, well, that's complete overkill.

Best post of the thread.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

great. then toss them in jail! I'm all for that. Hell, shouldn't Pete Rose be in jail (or have served jail time actually) for gambling??

.

uh, he did (I guess it was more about taxes, but basically for gambling)

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I still view taking steroids as cheating.

If McGwire took roids (as I suspect he did), he is getting what he deserves.

You may view it that way, but until it was against the rules it was not technically cheating. It may violate the spirit of 'fair play', but there isn't much of that left in professional sports anyway. A professional athlete is going to try everything they can that is not against the rules, and many will even break the existing rules if they think they can get away with it for a while.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I could give a crap about the MLB guys health or the past records. What a horrible message that has been sent though. We'll reward you handsomely for breaking federal law, MLB will look the other way and nobody will ever rat on you. Nice.

So, the problem is that people aren't willing to break away from MLB and support an independent baseball league that would be tougher on these things? If people were really upset about it, MLB would start a dive in terms of support and be out of business in a few years. Some people would get the bones together to start up a league that was tough on all of these things and it would flourish because people would be demanding that sort of accountability. Fact is, people don't care that much. Are you walking away from Major League Baseball because of the way they handled this? People should let the market handle it instead of calling in the government. If MLB knew they had to be tough or nobody would buy a ticket or watch a game on TV, you can bet the policy would change overnight.

[Tekneek]

What about George Brett and some pine tar? He's in the Hall of Fame and he was caught breaking an existing rule. Let's toss him out the door, too.

[KWhit]

Pine tar? You're comparing this to pine tar?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Pine tar? You're comparing this to pine tar?

Rules are rules. If we want to blast these guys for doing something that wasn't covered by the rules, we should certainly come out harsh on those who did break the rules. (EDIT: Even if the rules violations do not appear to grant them any particular measurable advantage)

It's ok to not like them as a person for it, but to say their baseball accomplishments should be thrown out for something that wasn't even against the rules is another thing entirely. That's my only point with that statement.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Pine tar? You're comparing this to pine tar?

KWhit,

It's the best they can do. The people who are defending these guys know what they did. They know they took illegal substances and they know they did it soley for personal gain.

So they can't argue the ethics of the situation. The way they argue is to say:

1) It wasn't against the rules in baseball. (forget that it was illegal as a federal law, that's irrelevant)

2) There is no conclusive proof that taking them helped inflate their records. (which in my mind is a non issue, because it doesn't change the fact they were using an illegal substance in order to get an extra edge)

3) If God forbid we have the gall to criticize them, we also have to stand up on the soap box and complain about every other player in the history of the game who broke a single rule. They have all become equal. From Babe Ruth getting drunk to George Brett putting pine tar too far up the bat. Next thing you know, we are going to hear that some guy who hit out of order or overran a guy on the basepath should also be put in the same group.

4) This is the one that really gets me: They try to say these poor, innocent little players are being railroaded and getting unfair treatment. These poor millionares who cheated and then lied to us for years are being made to answer tough questions. Then they are having to deal with some criticism for their actions. We should be ashamed at ourselves for criticizing these guys.

Sorry, I don't feel ashamed. I have lost respect for some of them. And while I don't care if they get in the hall of fame or their records stand, I have every right to look at the utterly selfish actions they undertook and call them on it.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by TroyF

KWhit,

It's the best they can do. The people who are defending these guys know what they did. They know they took illegal substances and they know they did it soley for personal gain.

Where are the criminal charges? I don't know they did it, and nobody seems willing to put their neck out and charge them with a crime either. They have a right to not incriminate themselves that should be respected regardless of what axe you have to grind. I think the spirit of 'fair play' has been tossed aside by professional sports long ago and this sort of thing is just the progression of that way of thinking. It's why players who knew about it weren't ratting anybody out and why management that knew about it wasn't doing anything about it either. Everyone involved no longer feels confined by the spirit of fair play in the game.

So they can't argue the ethics of the situation. The way they argue is to say:

1) It wasn't against the rules in baseball. (forget that it was illegal as a federal law, that's irrelevant)

If it was illegal, the impetus is on law enforcement to enforce the law. With so many people seemingly knowing about it, how did law enforcement not invesitgate this horrible crime? Baseball records and statistics are confined to the rules of baseball, not the laws of the United States. This seems obvious to me.

2) There is no conclusive proof that taking them helped inflate their records. (which in my mind is a non issue, because it doesn't change the fact they were using an illegal substance in order to get an extra edge)

If you intend to throw out their baseball statistics, you should be able to quantify the difference it made for them. Is any illegal substance use grounds for dismissal of all of your baseball accomplishments? Does it have to be a federal crime, or illegal in a particular state? Where do you draw this line?

3) If God forbid we have the gall to criticize them, we also have to stand up on the soap box and complain about every other player in the history of the game who broke a single rule. They have all become equal. From Babe Ruth getting drunk to George Brett putting pine tar too far up the bat. Next thing you know, we are going to hear that some guy who hit out of order or overran a guy on the basepath should also be put in the same group.

Cheating is cheating. If it is cheating when it was not even included in the rules, you should certainly address the real episodes of "cheating." Cheating is breaking the rules, right? I don't think Babe Ruth drinking excessively is a violation of baseball rules, but him violating the Prohibition amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clearly involving illegal substances. Illegal substances that aren't known to enhance performance are alright, then?

4) This is the one that really gets me: They try to say these poor, innocent little players are being railroaded and getting unfair treatment. These poor millionares who cheated and then lied to us for years are being made to answer tough questions. Then they are having to deal with some criticism for their actions. We should be ashamed at ourselves for criticizing these guys.

This gets me. I don't understand this part. I do understand being irritated by Congress critters attempting to be critical of these players. Representatives in Congress aren't shining lights of ethics and fair play either. If the players are criminals, by all means let's have the investigation. Let's have the appropriate government agencies investigate this, make the appropriate arrests, and bring them to trial or plea them out. I don't have a problem with that at all. If all of this is as obvious as you say, their work should be easy.

Sorry, I don't feel ashamed. I have lost respect for some of them. And while I don't care if they get in the hall of fame or their records stand, I have every right to look at the utterly selfish actions they undertook and call them on it.

Absolutely. I've never suggested otherwise. You can dislike them as people as much as you want. You have the freedom to like/dislike based on any criteria you choose. However, baseball stats and records should be based on the rules in place when they happened. To retroactively change them should require, at the very least, a reasonably accurate method of quantifying the advantage gained (something to which you admit to having no measure of). Absent of that, you can change the rule going forward but you cannot rewrite history.

[KWhit]

I don't understand the agrument you guys are making with regard to greenies. You seem to be saying that since ballplayers got away with using performance enhancers in the past that they should be able to get away with it now. That's ludicrous! If I were around back then, and I saw a complete offensive explosion that has completely changed the way the game is played (not for the better, in my opinion), and I saw the game's most revered records shattered on an almost yearly basis, I would be just as outraged as I am now.

It's a silly, silly rebuttal to our anger now to ask "Well, why aren't you upset with Mickey Mantle for taking speed?" Umm... That happened before I was born.

Do you respond to people that were upset at the OJ verdict by saying, "Well, Henry Thaw got away with murdering Stanford White in 1906 and I don't see any moral outrage about that!" Probably not.

We're reacting to what is happening today.

[KWhit]

Another point:

The anger that I feel is not solely directed toward the players either. I hold MLB and the MLBPA just as responsible.

And a couple of you have commented that people are more outraged about this than they are about corked bats, etc. I for one am not. I was amazed at the free pass Sosa got. I think he should have been thrown out of the game. Bye, bye. You cheat? You're gone. I have no idea why anyone would ever believe another word he says.

But people are making a bigger deal about this because it is so pervasive. Most people agree that a LOT of players are taking steroids. If people thought a large number of players were corking their bats, I'm sure you would hear just as much about it.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by KWhit

But people are making a bigger deal about this because it is so pervasive. Most people agree that a LOT of players are taking steroids. If people thought a large number of players were corking their bats, I'm sure you would hear just as much about it.

Along that same line of thinking, a lot of people think of politicians as crooks and cheats as well. That could explain why they aren't too impressed watching them threaten steroid-using baseball players.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Arles

There are many people that are scared of taking Creatine and similar "legal" supplements (ie, with Aphedra) because there have been no long term studies on their effects.

Just a FYI thing for Arles:

There has been over a thousand different short term and long term studies on the effects of creatine on the human body. If properly hydrated, creatine is an effective and safe supplement to use. It's actually something that your body naturally makes. If you like more information, I would be happy to give the list of studies for your reading enjoyment.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I don't understand the agrument you guys are making with regard to greenies. You seem to be saying that since ballplayers got away with using performance enhancers in the past that they should be able to get away with it now.

No, it's simply to point out the Elephant in the room named Hypocrisy. People that are clammering for Bonds, Sosa and McGwire to be banned from the Hall and have their records expunged are the same that look back on fellow dopers like Kofax and Mantle with great reverence.

If I were around back then, and I saw a complete offensive explosion that has completely changed the way the game is played (not for the better, in my opinion)

You must have missed 1969 (middle of greenie and cortizone use). Number shot up that season. Look at Hank Aaron (one of my fav alltime players). He hit 29 HRs in 606 ABs in 1968 at the age of 34. In 1969, at 35, he hit 44 HRs in 547 ABs. Now, people *could* blame that explosion on greenies if they wanted, but it would be as silly as blaming the explosion in the 90s on steroids.

In 1969, the mound was decreased in height and two expansion teams were added that caused an offensive explosion. If you look back in the early 90s, you will see numerous moves by baseball that caused a similar result (Tightened the ball to make it harder, brought in the fences on numerous parks, expansion teams, smaller called strike zone, shift in hitting philosophy).

It's just as silly to pass on the increase in numbers in the mid 90s on steroids as it is to pass off the increase in 1969 on other drugs of the time. There were simply too many other more legit factors at play.

We're reacting to what is happening today.

Yet most of it is in a context of the history of baseball. If you ask 100 people that are upset about steroid use, the top answer will be that it is a slap in the face to the old players that didn't cheat. That's where the history (and hypocrisy) comes in.

[KWhit]

I actually did miss 1969 since I was born in 1972, but I've heard about it.

So your position is that we can't be upset that the offensive records are being broken by cheaters (using that word loosely, I know) because the record holders were cheaters too????

I personally have never heard speculation that Ruth, Maris, or Aaron ever used performance enhancers until your post. If you have any sources, I'd be interested in reading them.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

That could explain why they aren't too impressed watching them threaten steroid-using baseball players.

And when did this happen? They never once threatened the baseball players. They threatened Selig, Fehr an company.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by duckman

Just a FYI thing for Arles:

There has been over a thousand different short term and long term studies on the effects of creatine on the human body. If properly hydrated, creatine is an effective and safe supplement to use. It's actually something that your body naturally makes. If you like more information, I would be happy to give the list of studies for your reading enjoyment.

Then why is it discouraged from use on some NCAA and NFL teams? Given it was released as a product in the early 90s, I have a hard time believing there is a great deal of evidence on long term effects on the human body. There have been some ties between liver and kidney issues and the use of Creatine (nothing definitive, of course). Most of the studies that show it is "safe" are fairly small in scope and most Drs (not paid by Creatine) feel the jury is still out.

Heck, there are many types of steroids that are also thought to be safe (with similar studies to show so) if used properly. The point here is that by allowing one type of chemical enhancer, you are essentially forcing everyone to use it to keep up with the other players. In the 70s people thought steroids were safe (they were rampant on college football campuses). Who's to say in 20 years we might find Creatine potentially causing similar serious long-term effects? Whenever you mess with your body's natural chemistry, there's a chance something bad will happen.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Danny Drickman

And when did this happen? They never once threatened the baseball players. They threatened Selig, Fehr an company.

I admit they did not make direct threats at the players who were there, but the threats of doing something were aimed at everyone having to do with baseball. Also the tone of some of the questions and comments were as if guilt were already assumed.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I actually did miss 1969 since I was born in 1972, but I've heard about it.

So your position is that we can't be upset that the offensive records are being broken by cheaters (using that word loosely, I know) because the record holders were cheaters too????

You can be upset all you want. It's just extremely hypocritical to say that the records should be removed and the players not allowed into the HoF (as some here have stated).

I personally have never heard speculation that Ruth, Maris, or Aaron ever used performance enhancers until your post. If you have any sources, I'd be interested in reading them.

Read Ball Four by Jim Bouton. Willie Mays used drink "Red Juice" (liquid form of Greenies), as did Aaron. Ruth used to drink Wiskey (banned at the time) in the dugout. Maris was also rumored to have used greenies. Here's an MSNBC article that mentioned some of this (although I don't neccessarily agree with some of the arguments):

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6642822/

There are other baseball resources that go through the specifics of drug use in the 50s to 70s. I don't have the time to find every one though. Just do a search for "greenies" and "MLB" and I'm sure some will come up.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Arles

Whenever you mess with your body's natural chemistry, there's a chance something bad will happen.

This applies to everything, including government approved drugs and vaccines.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

This applies to everything, including government approved drugs and vaccines.

I agree, which is why it is extremely important for MLB to follow the NFL and list a set of approved (and not approved) substances and test for the ones banned. Without that, people are to gravitate to the substances that give the most "bang for their buck" in all situations. Expecting them not to do so in being extremely nieve to the history of sports athletes.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Arles

Expecting them not to do so in being extremely nieve to the history of sports athletes.

It boils down to the same reason that a team will let a "bad call" stand as long as it helps them. It is similar to when an outfielder knows it was a homerun, but doesn't challenge the "bad call" of "ground-rule double" by the Umpire. Under the auspices of "fair play", both sides would want it to be right, even if they might lose that game over it. Long ago professional sports, and now all the way down to little league, dropped that spirit of 'fair play' in favor of 'whatever works out best for us.' They are willing to tolerate almost anything, as long as it works out in their favor.

That's also why it should not be MLB managing the testing. There should be a completely independent body that handles that. A body that is not ever charged with promoting or benefiting from Major League Baseball should handle the testing from start to finish.

[duckman]

http://www.prostaronline.com/bannedsubstances.html

List of Prohibited Substances
The following substances and methods are prohibited by the National Football League: *

I. ANABOLIC AGENTS
A. ANABOLIC/ANDROGENIC STEROIDS:

And related substances

B. HUMAN OR ANIMAL GROWTH HORMONE

C. BETA-2-AGONISTS (CLENBUTEROL, ETC.)

D. HUMAN CHORIONIC GONADATROPIN



II. MASKING AGENTS

A. DIURETICS



And related substances

B. EPITESTOSTERONE

C. PROBENECID



III. CERTAIN STIMULANTS



* Except as properly prescribed by Club medical personnel

IV. DOPING METHODS

Ingestion or injection of banned substances, or of supplements or other products containing banned substances. Pharmacological, chemical or physical manipulation by, for example, catheterization, urine substitution, tampering, or inhibition of renal excretion by, for example, probenecid and related compounds.

Just for those who don't know what's on the ban list in the NFL.

[Tekneek]

So, Sudafed has to be prescribed by a Doctor if you're in the NFL? And not only that, it has to be done by the TEAM medical personnel? What if you aren't under a contract? Which team's medical personnel do you get your Sudafed from?

[Easy Mac]

wow, a few things on that list can't even be sold in america anymore.

[Arles]

I'd be pleased as punch if MLB just lifted the NFL policy (obviously keeping the game ratio, ie 4 NFL games = 40 baseball games). Is anyone else surprised that congress didn't threaten to remove MLB's anti-trust exemption? It's quite a trump card and would cripple the league, owners and players if done. I would think taking an action like that would get Fehr and Selig to dance in Lady's underwear if the commission wanted.

[damnMikeBrown]

Arles,

You're a great poster...lots of good ideas well presented.

Having said that, you are obviously woefully misinformed on the subject of creatine supplementation. Did you get this idea from watching a blurb on CNN or Sportscenter? Honestly, if you're going to impugn something with such vigor, do the research.

I'll echo the above sentiment, if you need the links to -real- studies, not a 5 person interview done for a fluff piece on some news/entertainment program, let me know.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Arles

Is anyone else surprised that congress didn't threaten to remove MLB's anti-trust exemption?

They did. In fact they asked Bunning if he thought that would be a good idea. Bunning's response was something to the effect of "Everything should be on the table."

I didn't see the panel with Selig, so I don't know if they threatened that action then, but they definitely did during their opening remarks while Selig was in the room.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by damnMikeBrown

Arles,

You're a great poster...lots of good ideas well presented.

Having said that, you are obviously woefully misinformed on the subject of creatine supplementation. Did you get this idea from watching a blurb on CNN or Sportscenter? Honestly, if you're going to impugn something with such vigor, do the research.

I'll echo the above sentiment, if you need the links to -real- studies, not a 5 person interview done for a fluff piece on some news/entertainment program, let me know.

Actually, I took Creatine for about 6 months. So, I feel that it's pretty safe

My point was more geared towards the "What if" 5-10 years down the line. But I will certainly admit, there is no documented proof of Creatine providing any long term side effects.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by KWhit

They did. In fact they asked Bunning if he thought that would be a good idea. Bunning's response was something to the effect of "Everything should be on the table."

I didn't see the panel with Selig, so I don't know if they threatened that action then, but they definitely did during their opening remarks while Selig was in the room.

I missed the beginning and only saw the part with Selig. It would have been great for them to lay out 3-4 parameters for a successful steroid process, give Selig and Fehr until opening day to adjust the CBA to meet that, or they face losing the anti-trust exemption.

That, IMO, would have solved the problem.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

So, Sudafed has to be prescribed by a Doctor if you're in the NFL? And not only that, it has to be done by the TEAM medical personnel? What if you aren't under a contract? Which team's medical personnel do you get your Sudafed from?

It won't be much longer before there are laws forcing Sudafed back to being prescription only due to the meth problem in the U.S.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I don't understand the agrument you guys are making with regard to greenies. You seem to be saying that since ballplayers got away with using performance enhancers in the past that they should be able to get away with it now. That's ludicrous!

I haven't seen anyone make that argument. What has been said is, if you have such a level of outrage over the steroid issue, then logically you should have a similar level of outrage over other issues in baseball's past including the abuse of amphetamines.

Originally Posted by KWhit

If I were around back then, and I saw a complete offensive explosion that has completely changed the way the game is played (not for the better, in my opinion), and I saw the game's most revered records shattered on an almost yearly basis, I would be just as outraged as I am now.

Except that the offensive explosion of today probably has much less to do with steroids than it does a number of other factors that have converged. Of course, it's much easier to point at one controversial, highly publicized thing like steroids and blame all the home runs on that than it is to realize all the other factors that are likely to have had a greater effect but aren't nearly as controversial topics.

Originally Posted by KWhit

It's a silly, silly rebuttal to our anger now to ask "Well, why aren't you upset with Mickey Mantle for taking speed?" Umm... That happened before I was born.

Do you respond to people that were upset at the OJ verdict by saying, "Well, Henry Thaw got away with murdering Stanford White in 1906 and I don't see any moral outrage about that!" Probably not.

We're reacting to what is happening today.

Nobody is saying you can't be upset with Mark McGwire if you think he took steroids. But if you're going to be upset with him for that, and if you (or others) are going to suggest that he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame or you denigrate his accomplishments, then shouldn't you apply similar standards to heroes of the past that also have questionable actions on their playing resumes?

I'm not defending players that have used illegal performance enhancers - they shouldn't have done it. However, I'm also not going to ignore the fact that the rules of the game didn't prohibit this, and that there was a big incentive for both MLB and the MLBPA to ignore this issue - $$$. Now the consequences of that inaction are coming home to roost.

What I'm saying in regards to the players accused of this is, let's keep this in perspective, and let's be smart about figuring out how this has impacted the game. From my perspective, I don't think it's had nearly the effect on results that some are assuming.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

What I'm saying in regards to the players accused of this is, let's keep this in perspective, and let's be smart about figuring out how this has impacted the game. From my perspective, I don't think it's had nearly the effect on results that some are assuming.

But if steroid use didn't have a huge impact on the numbers by Bonds and McGwire, how can the media justify all the coverage on these players and their use of steroids? Oh, wait, they can't.

In that case, Mac would have only hit 20 HRs a season without roids. Bonds would have been lucky to hit 15.