“Drugs are bad, mmkay.”
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
THIS is why I hate hypocrisy and demagoguery…
Mufasa[/quote]
What about douchebaggery?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I don’t get it…
Some of the most “beloved” Dugouts in History were full of guys doing uppers, drinking like Sailors, humping everything with 2 legs that was at least partially warm, and had ideas on race and women that would make a Grand Dragon blush.
And this guys is reviled for doing something never proven that he did; and even if he did, is a substance that does not account for all he has accomplished?
Where is the balance in all this?
THIS is why I hate hypocrisy and demagoguery…
Mufasa[/quote]
But the thing is, and I may be completely off-base here, but I don’t think people hate him for the alleged steroid use. I think people hate for his personality and just look for more reason to dislike him, steroids included.
Not that i care, but…
Bonds is not a well-mannered black man and so will draw arrows for that alone.
But on another note (perhaps):
Tell me, did Ruth or Cobb have astericks beside their careers? They played in the segregated era, when excellent, world class athletes were prevented from competing with them.
Did Aaron have an asterisk beside his career? He played in an era of expanding teams and therefore more mediocre pitching.
The US is deceitfully led into a disasterous war and the US congress places steriods in baseball as top priority.
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
The science of hitting a baseball.
Now I may be a little bias as baseball was my sport of choice but I honestly believe that hitting a baseball is the single hardest/most impressive sports act there is.
A 90 mile/hour fastball reaches the plate in about .41
The average swing time is .28 and the fastest around .17
The average time to decide to swing or take is .17 to .21
A baseball bat has a diameter of around 2 2/3 inches
This means the batter has to start swinging when the ball os just over half way to the plate and he has to accurately predict where the ball is going to be.
[/quote]
And if you’re successful 30% of the time, you’re an All Star; 40% of the time, and you’re the greatest ever. I agree, hitting is the most demanding skill in professional sports.
Now here’s a new question regarding Bonds to ponder:
Why has he maintained his ‘enhanced’ size? Is Bonds still using? Or did he never use?
He’s maintained the same (or very similar) size to when he was apparently using – unlike, say, Giambi who shriveled up like a grape in the sun after admitting and quitting.
This year, post-steroid scandal, he’s batting over .300 and has slapped out 17 HRs in 197 ABs, just under 1 HR per 10 ABs.
[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
tmay11 wrote:
The science of hitting a baseball.
Now I may be a little bias as baseball was my sport of choice but I honestly believe that hitting a baseball is the single hardest/most impressive sports act there is.
A 90 mile/hour fastball reaches the plate in about .41
The average swing time is .28 and the fastest around .17
The average time to decide to swing or take is .17 to .21
A baseball bat has a diameter of around 2 2/3 inches
This means the batter has to start swinging when the ball os just over half way to the plate and he has to accurately predict where the ball is going to be.
And if you’re successful 30% of the time, you’re an All Star; 40% of the time, and you’re the greatest ever. I agree, hitting is the most demanding skill in professional sports.
Now here’s a new question regarding Bonds to ponder:
Why has he maintained his ‘enhanced’ size? Is Bonds still using? Or did he never use?
He’s maintained the same (or very similar) size to when he was apparently using – unlike, say, Giambi who shriveled up like a grape in the sun after admitting and quitting.
This year, post-steroid scandal, he’s batting over .300 and has slapped out 17 HRs in 197 ABs, just under 1 HR per 10 ABs.
[/quote]
Nobody questions the difficulty of hitting a ball.
I think that the big question regarding Bonds ‘alleged’ steroid use is not if it really helped him jack more homeruns in a given year, the real question is, ‘is the longevity of his career too artificially boosted’?
I personally don’t feel either way about it, but I do think that its a valid question with regards to the record (not really the HOF). As someone said earlier, staying healthy and rebounding quickly from injury is part of being ‘great’.
[quote]holifila wrote:
I think that the big question regarding Bonds ‘alleged’ steroid use is not if it really helped him jack more homeruns in a given year, the real question is, ‘is the longevity of his career too artificially boosted’?
I personally don’t feel either way about it, but I do think that its a valid question with regards to the record (not really the HOF). As someone said earlier, staying healthy and rebounding quickly from injury is part of being ‘great’.[/quote]
If it really is a valid question with regards to the homerun record than they should have done something about it in 2001 when he broke the single season record!
It is tough to take something away from someone for something that has not been proven!
[quote]Kalle wrote:
holifila wrote:
I think that the big question regarding Bonds ‘alleged’ steroid use is not if it really helped him jack more homeruns in a given year, the real question is, ‘is the longevity of his career too artificially boosted’?
I personally don’t feel either way about it, but I do think that its a valid question with regards to the record (not really the HOF). As someone said earlier, staying healthy and rebounding quickly from injury is part of being ‘great’.
If it really is a valid question with regards to the homerun record than they should have done something about it in 2001 when he broke the single season record!
It is tough to take something away from someone for something that has not been proven![/quote]
I’m not suggesting that. I guess that my point is that some are suggesting that steroids wouldn’t necessarily help him to hit better. But helping him to maintain his strength and energy throughout the long seasons over the years would be an important benefit. Longevity is the reason he’s gotten this far as to the record.
Personally, I don’t care about Bonds or this record. I love baseball but the value that baseball people put towards some of these numbers is somewhat offputting for me.
[quote]holifila wrote:
Kalle wrote:
holifila wrote:
I think that the big question regarding Bonds ‘alleged’ steroid use is not if it really helped him jack more homeruns in a given year, the real question is, ‘is the longevity of his career too artificially boosted’?
I personally don’t feel either way about it, but I do think that its a valid question with regards to the record (not really the HOF). As someone said earlier, staying healthy and rebounding quickly from injury is part of being ‘great’.
If it really is a valid question with regards to the homerun record than they should have done something about it in 2001 when he broke the single season record!
It is tough to take something away from someone for something that has not been proven!
I’m not suggesting that. I guess that my point is that some are suggesting that steroids wouldn’t necessarily help him to hit better. But helping him to maintain his strength and energy throughout the long seasons over the years would be an important benefit. Longevity is the reason he’s gotten this far as to the record.
Personally, I don’t care about Bonds or this record. I love baseball but the value that baseball people put towards some of these numbers is somewhat offputting for me.[/quote]
Gotcha, I agree 100% with my limited knoweldge of steriods that seems to be the greatest asset for them in sports. Recovery
It keeps you able to be just as strong at the end of a grueling baseball season as it does in the begining.
Well why don’t they all point their speculating fingers at Julio Franco than? I mean he is practically a senior citizen and still playing and of course jacked, and played in Mexico for awhile.
To clarify I like Julio Franco he might juice he might not, makes no diffrence to me. There is no proof.
Or if we want to stay on that topic what about Roger Clemens?
I just hate how the sports media makes a player out to be the anti-christ because he might be a bit of an ass and not like answering a bunch of back stabbing sports reporters questions everyday.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
…
But the thing is, and I may be completely off-base here, but I don’t think people hate him for the alleged steroid use. I think people hate for his personality and just look for more reason to dislike him, steroids included.[/quote]
Exactly. Bonds has proven himself to be incredibly rude. He is very unlikeable. The steroids have nothing to do with his being a jerk.
People still like Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire don’t they?
[quote]Kalle wrote:
…
Or if we want to stay on that topic what about Roger Clemens?
…[/quote]
I have long suspected he is juicing.
On that note, apparently minor league pitchers are most likely to be on steroids to enable them to prevent and recover from injury quicker. Not sure how that reflects on mlb pitchers.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Kalle wrote:
…
Or if we want to stay on that topic what about Roger Clemens?
…
I have long suspected he is juicing.[/quote]
I agree. I also suspect Curt Schilling.
Nolan Ryan pitched longer, harder and healthier than either Clemens, or Schilling.
I don’t think any of them have juiced.
I know Clemens and Ryan trained like mad men, but that is hardly any evidence that they juiced.
I’ve never been a fan of Barry…the way he fields and runs the bases like he just doesn’t give a shit have been a part of his game since he first broke into the league…at least back then he had the speed to chase down a fly ball or two and steal a base, now he kind of just limps after it.
I voted for him simply because he is the greatest hitter of our generation, not out of some sort of admiration for him because I think it is a travesty that the most hallowed record in baseball will be broken by a guy who played the game not with reckless abandon, but with an obvious disdain for hustling.
[quote]Scotacus wrote:
Did Aaron have an asterisk beside his career? He played in an era of expanding teams and therefore more mediocre pitching.
[/quote]
If the numbers are any indication, the pitching pool has been way more dilluted during Bonds’ tenure than during Aaron’s. Coupled with the fact that Hank played during a time when racism was fairly rampant, segregation was still a reality during a portion of his career, and you would be hard pressed to say Hank had an easier go of it than Bonds.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Nolan Ryan pitched longer, harder and healthier than either Clemens, or Schilling.
I don’t think any of them have juiced.
I know Clemens and Ryan trained like mad men, but that is hardly any evidence that they juiced. [/quote]
I would be surprised if Clemens didn’t. Hell there are even accountants that juice, why is it hard to believe MLB pitchers would do it to extend their career and then retire every off season to avoid testing?
I would in his position.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Nolan Ryan pitched longer, harder and healthier than either Clemens, or Schilling.
I don’t think any of them have juiced.
I know Clemens and Ryan trained like mad men, but that is hardly any evidence that they juiced. [/quote]
I believe Clemens juices. A few years ago he was barely hanging on. He was about he 3rd man in the Yankees rotation after El Duque and one or two others. Then suddenly, in his 40’s, he’s back to Cy Young form. Seems suspicious to me.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Nolan Ryan pitched longer, harder and healthier than either Clemens, or Schilling.
I don’t think any of them have juiced.
I know Clemens and Ryan trained like mad men, but that is hardly any evidence that they juiced. [/quote]
Just to clarify I am not accusing anyone of juicing. Just showing how easy it is for people to do so on nothing more than pure speculation.
As evidinced by the replys to my post…
I could give two craps if X player is juicing and Y player isn’t. I have no firsthand knowledge or insight into the matter so who am I (or anyone else) to slander someone?
[quote]on edge wrote:
I believe Clemens juices. A few years ago he was barely hanging on. He was about he 3rd man in the Yankees rotation after El Duque and one or two others. Then suddenly, in his 40’s, he’s back to Cy Young form. Seems suspicious to me.[/quote]
I don’t see how that makes any difference. Are you saying that he can’t be natural because he improved his game?
Ryan went through the same phase. Do you think the Ryan express juiced because he came back to his form after a rocky spot?
Maybe Clemens is juicing - but it can only be for recovery - there is no steroid on the planet than can improve technique. Pitching is 99% mechanics.