yeah, but you totally approve of steroid use, and you want to see more players use them, so that has to be weighed into your opinion. Like my opinion, which is the opposite of your's, there's not much objectivity. it's locked down tight, and your comments on this board pretty much tell us that you have no interest in any reconsideration of your position. I know, because I feel the same way about my opinion.
Hold your horses.
I don't object to PED use but I don't condone it either. Steroids should probably be banned(because of the health risks) but I don't think HGH or Amphetamines should be banned.
I do think that some PED use should be allowed under a doctor's supervision. Like for example, some PEDs like HGH shorten recovery time from injury. Under the supervision of a doctor, HGH use seems safer than Cortisone shots. Plus, there's no proven performance benefit for HGH. At best, it might help players feel more refereshed or rejuvenated but it doesn't help them run faster or increase bat speed.
As for the HOF debate, I just want to see some reasonable arguments as to why Bonds and Clemens shouldn't be in given the facts that they're the best ball players on the ballot and there are already cheaters and drug abusers in the HOF.
on the subject of amphetamines, they don't increase your power, bat speed, strength, conditioning or recovery time. so any comparison to roids won't stand up to even a cursory peek into the details.
None of the benefits of PEDs have been scientifically proven but anecdotally, it's believed that Amphetamines make athletes more awake and alert. It helps baseball players see the ball better. If it helps guys see the ball better it's a PED.
I think where Steroids is different from other drugs historically used by baseball players is, Roids helped aging baseball players extend their peak years. Due to Steroids, guys like Bonds and Palmeiro performed at a high level offensively late into their 30's when historically, baseball players' bodies begin to break down at those ages.
As far as I know, there's no magic drug that will turn me into a great athlete. Enhancing my vision, strength, or recovery from injury isn't going to do me any good because I don't have the skills.
During the era that Bonds and Clemens played, they competed against lots of players who used Steroids. Due to their skills, not drugs, they dominated their era of the game.
steriods were always frowned upon by MLB & the press. you won't find a single example of an MLB exec or owner publicly or privately voicing their support for PEDs. I doubt you would find very many writers, with HOF voting creds, voicing support for the use of PEDs. everyone knew there would be a reckoning, and here it is.
I disagree. I remember the McGwire/Sosa homerun chase of 98' season. Everyone knew they were on Roids but no one cared. That season was celebrated by fans, the MLB, and the press.
The attitudes didn't really change in the Press until Bonds set the new homerun records a few years later. Bonds was a jerk for his entire career and few people were happy to see him breaking all these "sacred" records.
The sports writers still voted for Bonds to be MVP four more times, despite it being obvious from the changes in his body that he was using PEDs.
I was watching the HOF round table discussion last night on MLB. They brought up these two players, and their eligibility. here's what they said.
Clemens: it seems to be universally agreed that he started juicing after he left boston. They congratulated DD for making the decision to let Roger walk, because he was breaking down and losing effectiveness. so when they reviewed his stats, they stopped after his 13 years in boston. the idea was, those 13 years showed who the real RC was. and after those 13 years, he was, at best, borderline.
Bonds: this was less murky. the consensus was, if you take his production as a Pirate on thru to 1999 (which is assumed to be his last PED free season), he's a HOFer.
the election process isn't a mathematical equation. the votes are cast by humans, not computers. so there will always be an emotional component to it. heck, it's built into the vote with the "character clause". that's why these conversations are always so fun.
The conversations are fun when they focus on a player's worthiness based on their career Stats. When you start ignoring the Stats and focusing on morals then the conversation gets ridiculous.
Edited by soulflower, 08 January 2014 - 12:55 PM.