I’m pretty sure the book addresses after 2002 as well as prior to that. I believe “coming forward” is, in fact, what the book does.
What does this have to do with getting an unfair advantage playing baseball? That’s what baseball is worred about, not enforcing society’s laws. Sexual dysfunction & joint atrophy are the risks the player takes. Wife beating is criminal and is under the purview of those who enforce those laws.
Alcohol causes some people health problems and some to beat their wives, should anyone drinking alcohol be banned from baseball?
Someone posited (Can’t remember who, sorry) that anabolic steroids does the same thing as lifting, it just accelerates the process. I was pointing out that lifting weights doesn’t have the side effects using steroids has.
And yes, again, if somoene is caught drinking on the job, they should be punished. Just. Like. Everyone. Else.
The book isn’t written by MLB, but two reporters for the SF Chronicle. You can argue that he broke the rules after 2002 based on the book, but there are no positive tests. Hell, we aren’t even sure if the book will correspond to what the grand jury testimony was, because we aren’t allowed to get at the grand jury testimony. If I was in baseball, I think I’d need a bit more proof before I started suspending people.
Oh. How about that. It was you. Sorry.
Lifting weights, when done correctly, does not have the detrimental side effects that anabolic steroids have. So saying they do the same thing is wrong. They both build muscle mass. But saying they do the same thing is like saying having unprotected sex with someone with a veneral disease is the same as having unprotected sex with someone who does not have a veneral disease.
Have you read the book? Do you know what’s in it other than the one excerpt? Have you reviewed all the material? Do you have an inside track to what was told by a trainer with first hand knowledge that none of the rest of this have? How is the statement of someone with firsthand knowledge like Jeff Anderson automatically suspect?
I’ve always thought it interesting that people with something to hide, instead of saying “I didn’t do it,” usually fall back on “prove it.”
You are kind of talking about banning a player. I think it’s far for him to say “prove it”. Baseball is supposedly going to do its own investigation based on it. Then it’ll know what actually happened. They aren’t simply relying on the book and I think that’s a good move. They are actually going to try to prove it and not rely on 2nd hand accounts.
If they find he violated the rules (ie, cheating), then they can do with him as they wish. After all, with Pete Rose they did an internal investigation as well (Dowd Report). But doing the same stuff simply based on book, a 2nd hand account, would be ridiculous. They may come to the same conclusion, or not.
No, I’m saying if it’s proven that he used, he should be punished, not only by baseball but to the extent of the law.
I believe he got immunity for his testimony to the grand jury. Not sure, but I think that was the deal.
And if the investigation said he violated the drug policy, they can suspend him for 2 years, ban him from the game, whatever. Though I think a lot of people who are mad want astericks in the records books or whatever. I seriously doubt that’ll happen. Mostly because then you’ll open a debate on who was on what when with whoever were the previous record holders (when was McGwire on steroids… and does andro count? Was Sosa on them? Was Maris on greenies?), and that’s just a mess. And secondly because baseball isn’t going to do a seperate record thing again.
No immunity for perjury in any event, which is what his testimony is looking like now.
I’m not saying he should be banned, or his numbers stricken from the records. I hate the guy, but I’m not arguing against him so much as the people who say steroids should be allowed in baseball.
They’re dangerous substances, they’re illegal for a reason, and now that there’s a policy in place (twenty years too late, IMO, but finally in place), it should be enforced. There are all kinds of reasons to not use, and the health of our athletes is the primary one, IMO.
As for going back prior to 2002; I’ve got mixed feelings about that. I can see good reasons for and against.
I realize you’re not advancing this, but whoever posited this was wrong. There are some studies that suggest there are certain supplements (like creatine) that merely serve to accelerate the benefit weightlifting would have provided anyway, though there are mixed opinions even on that. But prevailing wisdom asserts that steroids used at the level that people like Bonds used them do not just accelerate an otherwise inevitable growth in strength–steroids raise the upper limit of an individual’s strength, albeit in conjunction with lifting as a rule. Bonds gained 15 pounds of muscle in 100 days when he first started abusing steroids. 100 days. Try that sometime with just lifting. I have lifted weights for years, and I have never experienced that kind of growth in that time frame. And I can lift a good bit.
You want to be the biggest and strongest you can possibly be? Get a trainer like Barry Bonds’ who will find the optimal balance of steroids, human growth hormone, weightlifting, etc. Ken Caminitti said it felt like being Superman, it was almost indescribable. I know people who have used them. The effect is absolutely incredible. You can, like Bonds, gain muscle so quickly that your body’s frame can’t support it. It is more than a “greenie” edge. It is to transform into something different than you were before.
I have never experienced the sort of growth Bonds did in such a short period of time. I don’t know anyone who has who didn’t juice up. Remember, I’m not talking about gaining athletic ability here–just brute strength and muscle mass. For those who would argue that Barry was just tapping into his superior physique, I’d refer you to pictures from his early career when he was decidedly mesomorphic, at best. The rest of the universe, unlike Barry, struggles to maintain muscle mass as we get older. It gets harder and harder, not easier. Unless you have a chemical edge.
I respect your opinion, but I do think steroid use, at all, should make your records invalid. It is that much of a cheating edge. To me it’s the equivalent of betting on baseball, it goes to the integrity of the game that much. Just my opinion.
I understand what you’re saying, and that case can certainly be made.
This is why I say I can see good arguments both for and against about going back before 2003.
If we don’t, then records will stand for people who did not earn them honestly and are less deserving than those players who did. It will encourage use by current and future players, which is what we want stopped.
If we do, then we open a whole hornets nest. How far back do we go? Do we strike the records, or put asterisks next to them? Is it fair to affect their records if they used prior to the 2003 season but not after? How about guys who used before that date, but are now retired?
I think it would HUGELY impact baseball to have that many statistics affected if the use of anabolic steroids is as widespread as many people are saying, and the best way to handle it is to go forward with a zero tolerance policy.
Yep, I see your point. Unfortunately, I have the burden of being a fanatical baseball fan, one of those nitwit purists who protested inter-league play and the wild card in the playoffs, so I am above these practical issues. It’s all about the game, you see. 
Can someone please tell me what it is that makes this news? Thousands or millions of people have been saying for years that Bonds used performance enhancing drugs. Now, two more people are saying the same thing. The only difference is, they’re saying it in a book.
Now, frankly, I have no clue whether he used steroids or not (owing primarily to the fact that I don’t really follow sports much). Maybe he did. But a couple of guys writing a book saying that he did does not constitute evidence. Yeah, yeah, they did years of research, or so the book reviews tell us. What was that research? Where’s the evidence? Again, maybe they really do have evidence. In that case, that’s what I’d like to see, not just the assertations.
Did you read the SI article? They outline the evidence. You may not find it compelling, but here it is.
I’d consider the book presentation of evidence and research :shrug:
I doubt they’ve got any physical evidence, however – it’s almost certainly all circumstantial. When I say “circumstantial”, I am specifically not making the point that the evidence presented in the book is weak – I think they have the de facto equivalent of a positive steroids test.
Um, you don’t need to guess. I gave you a cite. There is circumstantial evidence, physical evidence (though perhaps not the type you were envisioning) and eyewitnesses. Assign whatever credibility to it all that you so desire.
So am I (and I’m against the DH as well)… which is why I don’t want those bastards in the front office to even lay a finger on those records. The beauty of baseball records is that they all come together. It’s like double ledger accounting in that, in the end, everything matches up. To wreck that symmatry of baseball statistics would be worse than any one player or group of players could ever do to the game.