I still think you're all missing the point. First, unless I am mistaken, I thought the "clear" wasn't illegal or banned at the time Bonds was taking it. Again, I'm not clear on the timing, so I may be mistaken. But second, and more pressingly, I cannot fathom how these drugs are considered "cheating". It's not the case that you rub some goo on your chest and suddenly become a he-man musclebound greek god- you still have to put in hours and hours in the gym working out your body, you just recover a little faster, can push yourself a little further. If a sedentary computer jockey like myself took these drugs, I'd be a sedentary computer jockey with a flabby midsection the next day anyway. And somehow, if a sedentary computer jockey like myself "dopes up" on lattes in the morning, or hits the free soda in the breakroom when I'm on a coding frenzy at work at night- how is this "legal"? Shouldn't my company fire me for taking "performance enhancing drugs"? Our whole society is founded on the coffee bean; people push themselves out of bed groggily, get a cuppa joe to artificially stimulate themselves when they should be back sleeping, getting a full 8-9 hours a night. Instead, we use doping mechanisms to get ourselves to work each day, despite the health risks of taking all that caffeine and the sleep deprivation- we dope ourselves just to keep our jobs! And yet- McGwire, Bonds, Giambi- these guys are an outrage because they take drugs to keep their jobs?!? We have a whole culture built on taking drugs to change our lives, to "cheat" what nature is doing. Feeling sad? Take these pills, they'll put new chemicals in your brain and make you haaapppy! Feeling old, feeling wrinkled or less than perfect? Go to your doctor, he'll give you human growth hormones that'll have you feeling and looking 10 years younger! Kids acting like, well, kids? No worries- force them to take some pills, and they'll be sedate and placid, easily plopped in front of the tv for the active parent on the go to get some freedom! Age and nature caught up with you, and now you can't get a boner? Well, take a pill, and get hard as a rock, at 65 years old! Because it's certainly natural for elderly men to be banging away like 19-year-olds... So why is it when an athlete decides to get an edge, we all become a bunch of fucking pinch-nosed prudes, a bunch of Christian Scientists who believe the "natural" way is better, that any technological advantage is "impure" or threatens the integrity of the sport? Why, when an athlete takes a drug that can help them achieve a higher level of performance, is this an outrage?! Why on earth is that?
Why, when an athlete takes a drug that can help them achieve a higher level of performance, is this an outrage?! Why on earth is that? Because jealousy breeds contempt, in this case. They make way more money than us, and we'll look for any reason to put them on an impossible pedestal and then knock them down. And by "we", I mean the sport-obessessed and the media, not the average person. Oh, and the "good old days" factor. Can't forget that. EVERYTHING was better in the "good old days". Nobody cheated and everyone played fair in the "good old days". Yup, them was good times. Yesiree. Indeed.
Because jealousy breeds contempt, in this case. Speak for yourself, grum. My disgust is over what the PED-users' choice of chem does to others. It's really very simple. Stuff isn't banned because it's performance-enhancing; if that were true, they'd ban water and lean protein. It isn't banned because it's harmful; if that were true, they'd ban cyanide. But no one cares if athletes drink water and eat lean protein, because it doesn't hurt them, and no one makes rules against athletes taking cyanide, because they have no reason to take it -- it wouldn't help them. The stuff is banned because it's both performance-enhancing and harmful. If Bonds, or whoever, juices and hits a gazillion home runs, what do you think is going to happen? If "everyone" in the elite level of a sport is juicing, what do you think will happen? Do you really want to have sports where nobody has a choice but to use this shit?
Do you really want to have sports where nobody has a choice but to use this shit? They do have a choice. I'm pretty sure players like Wakefield, Eckstein, Perez, Moyer, etc. don't need and haven't used PED. If you know it's a harmful substance, don't use it. Especially since it isn't going to help you as a fielder, and it definitely won't help your batting eye, and I can't see how it's going to help you make that curve ball break any better than before. The main advantage (if there even is one) is that you might hit the ball a BIT further than before. Maybe. But you'll still have to hit the damn thing, and unless the PED gives you hawk-vision, you'll just swing a bit harder when they drop that 12-to-6 curve past you. I wonder how many of these ballplayers would have had the same "improvements" if they were given sugar pills and told they were PED?
Hal, you're a rationalization machine. But it all rings too hollow. Think of the cultural consequence of the message this sends. Think of how steriods have impacted any other athlete in any other sport. The better ethical decision is a ban, the better business decision is a ban. The rest is all completely bankrupted reasoning.
The better ethical decision is a ban, the better business decision is a ban. I might agree with the first one, but the second one is clearly false. How do you think professional and high level amateur sport became a multi-billion dollar industry? By continually increasing the gap between what is possible from the elite athlete and what is possible from the rest of us. The better (ie. pragmatic) business decision is to hunker down, ride this one out, and focus your next marketing campaign on the pitchers.
The better (ie. pragmatic) business decision is to hunker down, ride this one out, and focus your next marketing campaign on the pitchers. Smithers - perhaps, if the story goes away. And this one has ungodly legs, especially if congress gets involved. No baseball has to weather the storm all right - by reacting appropriately. If baseball has no integrity in the eyes of the consumer, it will suffer financially, absolutely. Especially a sport that carries so much of its reputation on its relationship with history - and comparing statistics of players of mutliple eras. This is Maris' asterisk and the Black Sox all over again. It's not a John Rockeresque slight PR issue. How do you think professional and high level amateur sport became a multi-billion dollar industry? By continually increasing the gap between what is possible from the elite athlete and what is possible from the rest of us. Maybe. But I would argue that part of baseball's appeal (as well as sports such as soccer, hockey - basically anything that's not football or basketball) is that we (fans) are also attracted to ordinary men doing the extraordinary. That we fundamentally believe that with the right talent, and hard work, we could be our heroes. It's why Earl Boykins is popular everywhere- why Ichiro amazes and other examples too numerous to mention. I agree with you that some athletes appeal to us because they embody unattainable perfection - but that's not baseball. I have Monday off. Late night.
(i don't have monday off. working late tonight. so i may wake up in a few hours and the following post may read as total horseshit) If baseball has no integrity in the eyes of the consumer, it will suffer financially right now i'm not seeing that baseball as a whole has lost integrity but rather individual players, the ones that admit to it (giambi, bonds) and the ones we still suspect (sosa, etc.). i'm just not getting the "i'm turned off to baseball forever" vibe from people that i saw with the strike. (granted it's a small sample size which consists of mostly yankee fans/blogs if that means anything. what's come out in the past week isn't really a shock to anyone.) will that change change depending on decisions made either by baseball or congress? possibly. but as of right now everyone just seems to want to move on. weedy, i've never looked at any pro athlete as being an ordinary person doing extraordinary things. the men and women that can to make it to that level and perform well enough to sustain a career have something the rest of us schmucks don't whether it be physical or psychological.
Hey, daddisamm is a visionary and I think some of these visions might become true... No wonder why the Red Sox won the MLB trophy last season, they really enhance their performance against my team the Yankees and them like it wasn't enough they enhance their performance against the daddisamm's Twins. I don't agree with the speculations lets go and get the facts. Lets test everybody and implement new rules were players can be banned from the sport like they did to Pete Rose. posted by LROD at 2:25 PM CST on December 4 My point here is that we dont know--All we have are speculations. Can any fan honestly say that thier favorite team is Clean from Steroids??? I know I cant--My point was and is that NOBody is beyond suspision.
Goddam - really? The only pro athlete I legitmatly know is Jeff O'Neil - and he's far from superhuman. I've seen NBA players whoes primary attribute seems to be 'tall'. The physical advantage certainly many have, but overcoming pressure and competition and other psychological attributes are hardly the sole property of those that play pro-sports. These guys hardly seem beyond our criticism most of the time, let alone occupy a realm beyond our understanding and comprehension.
hmm, maybe i didn't phrase it right. i'm not calling them superhuman. but i wouldn't call them ordinary either. whether it's exceptional height, strength, speed, hand-eye coordination, whatever, these are attributes that most people who aren't pro athletes don't have. and yes, of course athletes aren't the only people who can overcome pressure and competition and stuff like that. i can see how you could read that from my comment, but that's not how i meant it.
