I dunno. The homerun crown is the crown jewel of baseball records. Hank Aaron is probably my favorite non-Phillie player of all-time. I bought into the McGwire hoopla when he broke the record, though I feel like a dope now–but then I believed it was because we were seeing greatness, the breaking of a record that rightly stood until someone worthy surpassed it.
Now we know it was all bullshit. I feel cheated. How exciting would it be to have a legitimate record holder, someone who snuck up on Hank’s record until we all noticed and held our breath while we waited for that last homerun, the one that made him immortal? I don’t know how old you are, but I remember Henry Aaron getting the record. It was awesome.
Bonds will pass the Babe, then Hank, and it just sickens me. Perhaps he’ll never be surpassed, not if steroid abuse is stringently guarded against. And Bonds, who hit–what?–300 homeruns with aid of steroids will forever be the homerun king. Nope, I don’t see this one evening out, everything ain’t gonna “match up.”
Of course it will… because no one is going to touch the stats. Pete Rose may have bet on baseball, but no one is going to touch his record. No matter what someone does off the field, what happens on the field is permanently recorded - no Commish will ever touch it. He’ll get lynched. Keeping a proper accounting of what happened on the field is sacred and even if baseball tries to wipe it out (never happen), the sabermatricians and other stat keepers won’t follow suit (Hell, they never followed the Elias Sports Bureau before, why now?).
And of course with all the relevations about greenies, Aaron’s record may not be ‘legitimate’ in the eyes of those who are against performance enhancers.
Not to mention one of the greatest records in all of baseball history, 2130 consecutive games played, may also be ‘tainted’ seeing as how amphetamines help ward off fatigue and they were all over the place in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Ripken was popping greenies (in fact I think it is more likely than not that he was).
The difference is that I don’t see this mythic past. Every record is flawed. Ruth didn’t play against the best players, Aaron was probably on amphetamines, in the 90s batters and pitchers were on steroids. Part of the same progression of history.
First, I never said anything about “on the job”. But, people are punished for drinking on the job because it negatively affects performance, not because of the effects it has on their health. Plus the punishment is coming from the team, not the league; it has nothing to do with cheating or gaining an unfair advantage.
If a player is using and it’s not against the rules, how in the world does this constitute cheating?
Oh, good god. We’re not talking about what happened prior to 2002. We’re talking about now. Quit living in the past. There’s a rule against it, there’s a law against it.
You don’t like it, we get it.
So, when I was hooked on body building (early 20s) ((MY early 20s, not THE early 20s, you bunch of uncle fuckers)), and I was taking ginsing and protein shakes, and scarfing bananas tuna and eggs, those other guys that I actually saw injecting weren’t just being stupid (even as a youth, I had some scruples), they were committing a felony act.
Man, the things one finds out they don’t know after all…
Still, in my mind anyways, Barry isn’t an ass because he may (or may not ::giggle:: ) take steroids, he takes steroids (if proven) because he’s an ass.
Mo, Linda’s asking about you. Stop by and say hey?
Oh, I don’t know. People are willing to demonize Bonds whether or not there’s a rule against it. They would still consider it “cheating” regarldess of the rules. And I still don’t have a good answer as to why steroids have become the Great Satan of sports. Athletes have been using performance enhancing chemicals for decades, why the steroid witchhunt now? And I still haven’t got a satisfactory answer as to why the line is drawn at steroids. Where’s the outrage for players having performance enhancing surgery?
But if he broke the rule, send him to therapy and subject him to the penalties.
He’s done a thorough job of demonizing himself. He’s worked hard to make himself as unlikable and unadmirable a person as possible. Now, everyone has an excuse for whatever anti-Bonds feelings they’d like to entertain.
Are you seriously making the argument that there’s a performance enhancing surgery? Give me a break. The only thing that’s even close is the Tommy John surgery, and there’s no evidence that it improves performace. For every guy who came back stronger there’s 10 who were never the same, and most people accredit the improvements following the surgery to maturity (they are always 2 years older and more experienced), strengthened muscles due to physical therapy and most critically restructured mechanics taught by professionals instead of high school coaches and untrained fathers.
As to why there’s more vigor over steroids compared to amphetimines or anything else, well it’s because steroids effect is so obvious and persistent. Greenies have an effect of one game, steroids last entire careers. Greenies have a very intangible impact, the logic being that it helps focus and mental fatigue. There’s little evidence of a direct correlation between performance and use. That doesn’t excuse them, but it’s why the pubic is more angry about steroids. Steroids turn 12 year careers into 18 year careers and turn slap-hitting middle infielders into triple crown threats. Steroids not only make players stronger, they improve physical recovery time and reaction time.
The quantity of impact between steroids and any other performance enhancer is an order of magnitude greater. Hence the outrage.