[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
MLB and their affiliates certainly didn’t complain about all the publicity when the home-run records were being chased and broken.[/quote]
You would think MLB should be a bit more grateful to McGwire and Sosa for making the game relevant to people after the strike.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Pete Rose should not be allowed in. Betting not only on the sport you play/coach in but betting on the actual games you play/coach is too far across the line.
[/quote]
Pete Rose was betting on his own team to win. He did it as a manager and is punished as a player. I think it should be a requirement that coaches have to bet on their team to win. It would make things a lot more interesting. After the game they have to walk over to the other coach and pay them in front of everybody.[/quote]
I really like this idea lol
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
The classic argument I hear from Bonds supporters is that steroids can’t help you hit a baseball. One of the BALCO chemists, Patrick Arnold refutes this claim:
[i]Beyond just name dropping top baseball players in association with steroids, Arnold also provided some great insight into the frame of mind The Clear sets players in by saying, “The best way I can put it is it puts you in the zone and athletes know what that means. I liken it to an animal that’s, that’s hunting like a lion or something. The way a lion can stand there still and zone in on the kill.”
Costas asked Arnold if he believed that these steroids could not only add power resulting in home runs but also improved hand-eye coordination and bat speed which would result in a greater batting average to which Patrick remarked, “No doubt in mind, that’s what the research shows.” This was very interesting as it shattered the common ideology that steroids can’t help a person hit a baseball.[/i]
If there was no benefit to steroids and other substances then why would athletes even risk using? They’re not called PEDs for nothing.
My issue is not with the use PEDs, but having a level playing field. Either implement strict testing for everyone or stop testing altogether.[/quote]
What a joke, “being in the zone” = having self confidence when you step to the plate. No matter how confident you are, roidz are not going to give you better hand eye coordination.
Interesting how most ppl dont care about the writers dumbass moral crusade against the evil roidz.
[/quote]
How is this a joke? Other drugs have been found to improve concentration and coordination. This is one of chemists who helped make the stuff saying that the research showed improved hand-eye coordination. What is so unbelievable about that?[/quote]
The fact is that PEDs allow you to swing a bat faster, which allows you to wait on a pitch longer. At the major league level, those extra few miliseconds make a HUGE difference.
[/quote]
Bonds and Clemens were 2 of the greatest players of their generation, the roidz made them 2 of the greatest players of all time.
How many players were juiced up during this era? How many hit 70 homeruns…?
[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
If MLB turned a blind eye to steroid use in the 80’s and 90’s and didn’t do much about it, thereby tacitly approving it, why should the players who used or allegedly used be punished for it now? MLB and their affiliates certainly didn’t complain about all the publicity when the home-run records were being chased and broken.[/quote]
Players like Bonds and Sosa brought a lot to the game, juiced or not. They made BB interesting and drew in a lot of fans. Beating the players over the head about suspected PED usage just sprays a shit mist over the entire sport.
I say allow a certain amount of PED usage. Give the players a list of what they CAN use and let it go at that. Have a random drug test done on everyone of them on a once-a-month basis. Anything that comes up outside of the approved list, they get a 50-game vacation.
Rob
Why should players get a pass just because they made things interesting? Is cheating not cheating anymore?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why should players get a pass just because they made things interesting? Is cheating not cheating anymore? [/quote]
Technically MLB banned steroids in 1991 but did not implement testing until 2003. That would be akin to buying your kid a car and telling him not to speed. And when after several years without a ticket, although you witnessed him speeding numerous times, you reward him with a Corvette because he never got a ticket. Oh, and you are the traffic cop. Is it cheating if you know the ruling body is not going to enforce the rule, or is it a justifiable defense to believe MLB was merely paying lip service to the public on the issue? If there was not going to be any negative reaction from MLB why would you not set your family up for life with the additional millions of dollars earned by using.
There could be a valid reason why MLB did not test for steroids during that time. I’m not aware of it though because the Pirates sucked for so long that I usually tuned out by middle of May when they had no hope to make the playoffs.
Tosh and asterisks.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why should players get a pass just because they made things interesting? Is cheating not cheating anymore? [/quote]
Technically MLB banned steroids in 1991 but did not implement testing until 2003.
Is it cheating if you know the ruling body is not going to enforce the rule, or is it a justifiable defense to believe MLB was merely paying lip service to the public on the issue?
[/quote]
Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I see it as cheating. Whether testing occurred or not doesn’t matter to me.
If there is a rule to keep a level playing field and you break said rule to get an advantage over other, that is cheating to me. Whether the rule was lip service to the fans or not.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
On a side note, if Pete Rose wasn’t allowed in than I don’t see why guys like Clemens should either. [/quote]
IMO…Pete Rose should be in.
On a side to your side: I read that the Pete Rose HOF gets more visitors every year than the actual HOF.
[/quote]
This reminds me I need to see if he’s still signing autographs at the Mandalay Bay before I go to Vegas in March.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why should players get a pass just because they made things interesting? Is cheating not cheating anymore? [/quote]
Technically MLB banned steroids in 1991 but did not implement testing until 2003.
Is it cheating if you know the ruling body is not going to enforce the rule, or is it a justifiable defense to believe MLB was merely paying lip service to the public on the issue?
[/quote]
Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I see it as cheating. Whether testing occurred or not doesn’t matter to me.
If there is a rule to keep a level playing field and you break said rule to get an advantage over other, that is cheating to me. Whether the rule was lip service to the fans or not. [/quote]
So where do you draw the line on ‘cheating?’ The HoF is filled with cheaters if you go strictly by the rulebook or banned substance list.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Pete Rose should not be allowed in. Betting not only on the sport you play/coach in but betting on the actual games you play/coach is too far across the line.
[/quote]
Pete Rose was betting on his own team to win. He did it as a manager and is punished as a player. I think it should be a requirement that coaches have to bet on their team to win. It would make things a lot more interesting. After the game they have to walk over to the other coach and pay them in front of everybody.[/quote]
Well he SAYS he was betting on his team winning. There’s really no way to prove that.
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why should players get a pass just because they made things interesting? Is cheating not cheating anymore? [/quote]
Technically MLB banned steroids in 1991 but did not implement testing until 2003.
Is it cheating if you know the ruling body is not going to enforce the rule, or is it a justifiable defense to believe MLB was merely paying lip service to the public on the issue?
[/quote]
Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I see it as cheating. Whether testing occurred or not doesn’t matter to me.
If there is a rule to keep a level playing field and you break said rule to get an advantage over other, that is cheating to me. Whether the rule was lip service to the fans or not. [/quote]
So where do you draw the line on ‘cheating?’ The HoF is filled with cheaters if you go strictly by the rulebook or banned substance list.[/quote]
I say let them all in, except people that bet on the game.
Maddox was first ballot, and he was notorious for scuffing the ball…in essence that’s cheating
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
On a side note, if Pete Rose wasn’t allowed in than I don’t see why guys like Clemens should either. [/quote]
IMO…Pete Rose should be in.
On a side to your side: I read that the Pete Rose HOF gets more visitors every year than the actual HOF.
[/quote]
Caesar’s Palace?
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Pete Rose should not be allowed in. Betting not only on the sport you play/coach in but betting on the actual games you play/coach is too far across the line.
[/quote]
Pete Rose was betting on his own team to win. He did it as a manager and is punished as a player. I think it should be a requirement that coaches have to bet on their team to win. It would make things a lot more interesting. After the game they have to walk over to the other coach and pay them in front of everybody.[/quote]
Agreed. I don’t think gambling on the outcome of your team’s games is wrong at all so long as you’re betting on your team to win.
It’s funny how the writers forgot that “greenies” were used by players before the roidz became popular.
As previously mentioned in this thread, the writers are butt hurt losers who got picked last in school and are now jumping at the chance for revenge. Similar to those douches in life who become cops.
The writers are the ones making a mockery of the game, not the players who did all they could to make a living.
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Pete Rose should not be allowed in. Betting not only on the sport you play/coach in but betting on the actual games you play/coach is too far across the line.
[/quote]
Pete Rose was betting on his own team to win. He did it as a manager and is punished as a player. I think it should be a requirement that coaches have to bet on their team to win. It would make things a lot more interesting. After the game they have to walk over to the other coach and pay them in front of everybody.[/quote]
Agreed. I don’t think gambling on the outcome of your team’s games is wrong at all so long as you’re betting on your team to win.[/quote]
How sure are we that he was only betting on his team to win? If so, how sure can you be that he would continue to bet on his team only to win? What about the games that he didn’t bet on…
I do think he should be allowed in the Hall though. Just not back in baseball as part of a franchise.
“Pete Rose bet on baseball”
-Tim Kurkjian for the 566,161th time
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Pete Rose should not be allowed in. Betting not only on the sport you play/coach in but betting on the actual games you play/coach is too far across the line.
[/quote]
Pete Rose was betting on his own team to win. He did it as a manager and is punished as a player. I think it should be a requirement that coaches have to bet on their team to win. It would make things a lot more interesting. After the game they have to walk over to the other coach and pay them in front of everybody.[/quote]
Agreed. I don’t think gambling on the outcome of your team’s games is wrong at all so long as you’re betting on your team to win.[/quote]
How sure are we that he was only betting on his team to win? If so, how sure can you be that he would continue to bet on his team only to win? What about the games that he didn’t bet on…
I do think he should be allowed in the Hall though. Just not back in baseball as part of a franchise.[/quote]
Pete Rose probably cared about winning more than any other baseball player ever. I don’t see him managing any other way than to try to win. Betting against his team is contrary to everything else that he did in his career.
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why should players get a pass just because they made things interesting? Is cheating not cheating anymore? [/quote]
Technically MLB banned steroids in 1991 but did not implement testing until 2003.
Is it cheating if you know the ruling body is not going to enforce the rule, or is it a justifiable defense to believe MLB was merely paying lip service to the public on the issue?
[/quote]
Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I see it as cheating. Whether testing occurred or not doesn’t matter to me.
If there is a rule to keep a level playing field and you break said rule to get an advantage over other, that is cheating to me. Whether the rule was lip service to the fans or not. [/quote]
So where do you draw the line on ‘cheating?’ The HoF is filled with cheaters if you go strictly by the rulebook or banned substance list.[/quote]
I say let them all in, except people that bet on the game.
Maddox was first ballot, and he was notorious for scuffing the ball…in essence that’s cheating[/quote]
Can you provide a game that he was busted scuffing the ball?
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Pete Rose should not be allowed in. Betting not only on the sport you play/coach in but betting on the actual games you play/coach is too far across the line.
[/quote]
Pete Rose was betting on his own team to win. He did it as a manager and is punished as a player. I think it should be a requirement that coaches have to bet on their team to win. It would make things a lot more interesting. After the game they have to walk over to the other coach and pay them in front of everybody.[/quote]
Agreed. I don’t think gambling on the outcome of your team’s games is wrong at all so long as you’re betting on your team to win.[/quote]
How sure are we that he was only betting on his team to win? If so, how sure can you be that he would continue to bet on his team only to win? What about the games that he didn’t bet on…
I do think he should be allowed in the Hall though. Just not back in baseball as part of a franchise.[/quote]
Pete Rose probably cared about winning more than any other baseball player ever. I don’t see him managing any other way than to try to win. Betting against his team is contrary to everything else that he did in his career.
[/quote]
The ONLY person I could see giving Hustle a run for desire to win was Ty Cobb. And he was so mean he would try to end your career if you attempted to double him up on the base paths. Hell if you gave him a knife I bet he’d try to shank a bitch to get another stolen base.
Pete is only short of that category of obsession about a knife’s edge. He cared more about winning than anything, ever.