http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=1936592
Though I can't say it was entirely unexpected, this may well open Pandora's Box.
Take care all.
Printable View
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=1936592
Though I can't say it was entirely unexpected, this may well open Pandora's Box.
Take care all.
I was actually going to make this topic, but couldn't decide where to put it.
It's a real shame, though, as someone who follows Bay Area sports very closely. Giambi had a hell of a year in 2000, and now you have to really wonder whether that was tainted by the use of steroids, much like Ken Caminiti's MVP season back in 1996.
And speaking of Caminiti, I would say it was his claim that at least 50% of ballplayers took steroids that opened the box. I'd rather not believe it until I see some concrete proof; I never doubted Giambi, for instance, until I read about his grand jury testimony a little while ago. The same thing applies to the other athletes involved intricately with the BALCO investigation: Gary Sheffield, Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery and, yes, Barry Bonds.
What now for Giambi, though? His 2004 campaign left a ton to be desired, and his ailments line up with a few of the symptoms that come from extended use of steroids. They say he'll be 100% for next spring, but he'll likely suffer from all the attention he'll receive from his admission.
This also puts Bug Selig in a heck of a bind in that if Bonds is proven to have taken steriods, what happens to all his achievements?
Take care all.
Take away any and all acheivements made by players who take steriods. If Pete Rose can't get in the hall of fame for gambling, you certainly shouldn't be able to get in for steriod use. I wants an asterisk by Bonds name for every record he breaks, if it is to be listed at all.
Yeah, I'm sure that working out is what made his hat size increase by 2 sizes in 2 years.
It was so obvious that Giambi was on roids. He lost a ton of weight and had a horrible year. I wouldn't be suprised if Ryan Klesko was on roids as well, after his injury riddled 2004.
:love:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cid
:love: :love: :love:
Completely agreed.
NoQuote:
Originally Posted by Cid
. Its not like Rose even bet against his team. He bet that his team would win. I agree....asterisk!!!!
Quick! Test everyone now before they try and stop then fire all of their over payed asses :D
I've never especially liked Barry Bonds, and Hank Aaron is just a great guy. I hope it's revealed that Bonds used steroids, too, and he gets the maximum penalty. :D
what a waste, although it all makes Billy BEane look even smarter.
I hope you all realize, of course, that Barry Bonds hasn't been proven guilty of anything. Just please remember that while you're bashing him unbasedly.
Giambi is probably through. I don't think the Yankees will want/need him around now, they'll probably pay him to play elsewhere.
To me it's just entertainment. I'm not going to give much thought to the 'integrity' of a game where people hold out because they know they can get 7 million instead of 5 million. Giambi hasn't been playing well so who cares about him. This whole thing is about Bonds, whether anyone admits it or not, and about what he has been doing for the last few years. I don't know or care what Bonds did. Drugs don't make you see the ball better and know what the pitch is, and if they did it really doesn't bother me. All I care about are two things:
1. If I am entertained
2. How my fantasy teams do
Whatever players do to maximize those two things works for me, as long as they don't hurt anyone. And Bonds is damn entertaining. Giambi, not so much anymore. It's really just a game, and if players want to take supplements to get an 'edge' in a game, then that's their risk. Of course, if I played baseball I'd probably be pissed at these guys for cheating, but I don't, so it's hard to get worked up about it.
is using steroids any worse than throwing spitballs?
You're pretty much like KB, defending players you like with a "see through paper plate KFC bias" that Del Murder so hilariously described. Why should everyone have to take Barry Bonds' word for it? You said it yourself, you defended Giambi and then look what happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
What's stupid about the testing in 2003 was that they were random, no names attached to the tests. Privacy my ass, I love how the Olympic committee is so committed to steroid policy. If only pro sports can adopt that policy, but they can't because they don't want to. The olympics attracts everyone, whether Michael Jordan is in the olympics or Jeffrey Thompson, everyone watches. If the league lost someone like Kevin Garnett, it would be devastating economically. But not like KG takes steroids, he's a freaking beanpole.
My thing is, until there is difinitive proof out there then I won't convict anyone of anything in my mind. It might be a matter of bias for some. A lot of people want to see Barry fail along with those who want him to see. The bottom line is without proof all stances are based on opinion, a base about as flimsy as a slice of greasy pizza.
As opposed to Giambi, which was proved since he admitted it. Bonds has not and will never admit anything. He's too smart for that.
Ultimately, what worries me most is the health of any athlete that has taken steriods or is thinking about it. Sure, Ken Caminiti died more because he did drugs, but I think steriods also greatly contributed to it.
Frankly Del, I must say that the mindset of the fan that you describe worries me because I think that is what drives players to push their bodies to the limit and then take something to compensate, so that they can entertain and continue to do so, even if after 3 or 4 years in retirement they die of a stroke or something to that effect. I'm not knocking your attitude at all, I just don't share it.
As much as it pains me to say this, athletes should be concerned with being role models to all the people out there in this aspect: that they shouldn't make it seem okay to take steriods and thus heighten the risk for a premature death.
I've always considered myself a purist in sports to some extent, though I like the wildcard in baseball, thus I've never been a fan of the homerun parade and perhaps, if this steriods scandal does indeed explode and is somehow put under control, baseball might benefit from it as everyone won't be so eager to juice up and hit dingers, but will instead care about winning, setting a good example, living a good and a full life. If attendance of baseball must suffer in order to allow the players to have healthy post-career lives, so be it.
Sure, there is some glory in living your life on the edge, doing extraordinay things with your time and dying before you get old, but is it worth it?
Take care all.
I've never even heard of this happeneing. Regardless, 'as long as they don't hurt anyone' includes themselves, and I hope athletes know their own limits. I sincerely doubt any aging athlete pushes himself beyond his limits because he still wants to put on a good show for the fans. Money and love of the game/lifestyle are the two things that drive these guys. In that rare extreme there are mental problems going on there, and I hope by then all the fame and money has at least given him a channel in which to deal with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
It has happened on several occasions in lesser sports such as horse racing, where the jockey's take steriods to compensate for lack of weight and thus muscle, in gymnastics (same thing), and scarily enough in many college sports as I've read about 28 cases alone in the last two years involving kids on Long Island taking steriods to try and prove they deserve better scholarships and end up having heart attacks that cripple their careers or kill them. Actually, that should be High School sports, not college sports.
In this day and age though, doesn't:
Money = being entertaining to fans?
Take care all.
If someone threw some money at me I would be very much entertained. :D
I had another, longer, more serious post started but it's late and I don't feel like going into the economics of it.
I meant it more from the standpoint that if fans think you're entertaining, then you'll get paid, and in this current climate of baseball, homeruns are what entertains the fan, thus most players want to hit homeruns and focus on ways to improve themselves in that way. I'm not sure if or how steriods helps in hitting anything, but if it doesn't, why take them anyway?
EDIT: This just in:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_yl...v=st&type=lgns
Take care all.
Good points. I'll try to break it down more tomorrow. Need to put this dusty economics degree to some use.
EDIT: Wow. The lid has just been blown right off. See, Bonds is too smart. The 'I didn't know it was steroids' defense is pretty face saving. I don't know much about creams or whatever so I'm not even sure if this is really that bad. We'll find out.
I honestly wonder though, how can you unknowingly take a steriod? Wouldn't you ask what is being rubbed on you?
Take care all.
Exactly, Bonds is full of BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
Here's a sidenote:
http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/7955468
Like baseball needs this. Just when the owners today are about to guarantee Washington D.C. a baseball team, all these stories overshadow what should be a great day for baseball.
Now I like to see Strider defend Bonds now.
well, it's not like using steroids was against major league rules. it's not like baseball made any effort to crack down on it before now. They really still haven't made a real effort to stop it.
A couple of the articles have stated that Greg Anderson, Bonds' trainer and one of the four guys indicted in the whole BALCO scandal, apparently told Bonds that the stuff he was taking was flaxweed oil and such to help alleviate fatigue and arthritis. Yes, he was afflicted with those, I would know. In 2002 and 2003, it hadn't been easy for him to play a day game after a night game, which explains why he appeared in only 143 and 130 games, respectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Bonds
If you're 40 years old, with an agenda like Bonds, you want to go out there and play as often as you can to win a title. Your personal trainer gives you something he believes will help you accomplish that end and he tells you that it's something to erase the aches and pains, don't tell me you won't take a shot with it.
He said himself, it didn't work like he was told it was intended to. The arthritis and fatigue were still there. And so he stopped. And then went out in 2004 and posted nearly the exact same numbers (better in some respects) he had in the two previous seasons.
But I'm sure you're all waiting for me to admit that I was wrong, so here you go. I was wrong. The grand jury testimony is proof enough. Everything before this point was nothing but speculation and opinion, and so those of you who felt I was somehow wrong in defending one of my favorite players against speculation and opinion -- Dingo -- I just hope you feel vindicated or something. You'd all do the same thing if it was someone else, like Chipper Jones or Alex Rodriguez or Hank Blalock or Miguel Tejada or Sammy Sosa or any other superstar that you root so hard for.
I think the thing that we all lose sight of is this: how many other records in baseball are "tainted" by steroids? How do we know Babe Ruth didn't use them? Hank Aaron? Willie Mays? Dimaggio's hit streak? What about all those pitchers? Bob Gibson? Tom Seaver? Steve Carlton? Nolan Ryan? It's never been something baseball has cracked down on or even cared about at all. Just because now it is a scandal and now players are admitting to it, that doesn't mean it hasn't been going on for decades. If you've just lost all love for the game over this, then you've been a little naive for a while.
I don't care if you defend a player, but the way you defend a player completely insults the intelligence of people who think otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
I'm a huge fan of Ray Lewis, if he's ever found guilty of that murder in Atlanta, I'd want him off my team. Do I like Ray Lewis? Yes, even though he had charges dropped against him of murder, I still wouldn't want to be near the guy in a dark alley. I root hard for him to suceed, only because it's best for the team. I like the Ravens more than I like Ray Lewis. I've seen plenty of people at CBS Sportsline bash Lewis and saying how the Baltimore Ravens are more like the Baltimore Convicts, they have good reason to say that and I don't defend the actions of the players.
In essence, if Ray Lewis was ever guilty of a crime, I won't be so brash to defend him. Usually when you're accused of something, there's a good chance you were accused for a legit reason. Not always, but most of the times...otherwise the media won't make it that much of a story. If I said Shaun Livingston took steroids, the media wouldn't automatically post "Man says Livingston took steroids", they would verify the story at all costs. But Shaun Livingston is 6'7" 175 lbs. If he took steroids, I hate to see how weak he was before steroids.
Basically, I only defend players to a limit. I'm much older and more mature to ever have an athlete as a role model. I might be a fan of Tim Duncan, but I don't look at him as my role model.
I mentioned economics before, and let's see if we can't use that to understand the motivations behind steroid use and what it means and how it is caused. A big problem is looking at MLB and other sports leagues as institutions rather than businesses. Cap says that he considers himself a sports purist, and I respect that, but I'm not one. I am however a numbers purist.
The basics of it is suppy and demand. From the fan's perspective the product at hand is entertainment. Many things go into that from the supply side: tickets, cable/satellite subscriptions, merchandise (to a lesser extent; mechandise covers a lot of other uses like investment and feelings of superiority). With the rapid advancement in technology we face this age, the sports industry has seen a huge boon in production that they could never have made before (as in, more stuff to buy = more money changing hands, or volume). With more money going into it, the people who recieve that money (athletes and owners being the main forces) are able to make what they do today, where before baseball players had to have a job in the winter just to get by. The birth of free agency and the introduction of sports agents are also factors, but without the fans buying all those $80 Bonds jerseys and satellite packages, there wouldn't be enough money to pay these people, period.
The emergence of the athlete millionare has given potential players a new incentive to get into the game. Rather than play for the love of playing or the fame, you can now get into it and make millions. When large sums of money are invloved, people will do drastic things, as we all know. This is the first glimpse of the seedy side of sports, the by any means necessary approach that now enters young players' heads. Cap was right when he said money = entertainment for fans. Indirectly, the things the fans demand is what causes teams to pay top dollar for players with those qualities. So let's now look at what exactly those qualities are, or, the demand side.
The product is entertainment. We know what fans purchase to get this product, but what exaclty are they purchasing? Well, the first and obvious thing is wins. A win is much more entertaining to a fan than a loss. Of course, a number of things go into a win for each different sport, but let's just look at baseball. From the hitting side the stats will show that a player who hits for power and can get on base helps a team win a lot more than a guy who can bunt the runners over or make a stunning defensive play. The other element is showmanship and excitement. The amount of attention and reverence the home run records make the power hitters much more popular than any other type of baseball player. Popularity generates revenue. Personality is the third major factor, though it takes a back seat to the others. Bonds is a good (though extreme since he is one of the best ever) example of how you don't have to be a personable guy to get the big dollars, but things like drugs (even steroids, just look at poor Giambi), respect for the game and the coaches, and crimes outside of sports will factor in when the fans decide who entertains them best, and therefore, who will get the most money.
All in all the data points to the prototypical power hitter as the most in demand, and consequently, will get the most money. Most young players see this, and develop themselves with that in mind. Pitchers, too, notice that most young players are evaulated on the velocity of their fastball, and try to compensate based on that. The sports market is a competition, not between teams, but between players for the 'job' of top paid player or ace pitcher. In competition there are many things that can get you ahead, and in sports steroids are one of them. As long as steroids exist they will be used by those who value the benefit of millionare over the potential costs and risk of that cost. The notable costs are damage to your body and penalties for being caught, adjusted by a risk factor. If the risk factor increases, then the costs for using increase and the amount of use decreases. As long as there is some chance of not being caught (and there always will be, no testing policy is 100% foolproof) there will always be those who use banned sustances to get ahead, because there is always an equilibrium for each risk factor.
The conclusion is that, as a whole, the need for seroids exists because there is a competition to be the best power hitter. Players want to be power hitters because they make the most profit (profit = money + fame/other benefits). Power hitters have the most profit because they are in the most demand. The demand for power hitters exist because that is what the fans will pay for. And the fans want entertainment. Economics has just proved that money = entertainment for fans. :)
What does this have to do with Bonds and Giambi? Well, little. Economics is about describing things as a whole, an individual player or indiviual fan is of not much importance. Their reasons for taking steroids or alleged steroids may be different than I described. But this does describe how I view things. All I see are numbers and equlibruim. For so long the league was in equilibrium, but when the steroid policy changes, you get this type of fallout. Given enough time the league will reach a new equilibrium and this will die down until more policy changes come into effect. Do I think there should be an asterisk by Bonds's name in the record books or that Giambi should have his MVP stripped? Of course not. They are just part of the equilibruim in place for the policies at the time. You cannot rate player based on individual traits that produce stats. There are only stats. Should Larry Walker get an asterisk because he played in hitter-friendly Colorado all those years? Should the NL East get an asterisk because they had to face Greg Maddux all those years?
The only problems are when people get hurt, as Cap described. Those types of stories are truly sad. Who is at fault for that? It's the copout answer of no one and everyone. Everyone because each group involved: players, fans, owners are all contributors to the product that is put before us. No one because this is the state of things as they play out with the policies in place. I guess if you are really looking for someone to blame, it is those that make the policies not strict enough (commisioner's office) or those who hider them from becomming so (players' union). The great economic battle between unions and management! It won't stop, trust me.
EDIT: This post was written earlier today so it doesn't take into account current discussions, it was just something I felt like doing. Please carry on, and play nice. :)
I still say Bonds' using steroids is no worse than the rest of the players who are using steroids that haven't been outed. I guarantee you more pitchers use steroids than hitters. Who's the best pitcher on the juice? How will you know? Mark Prior's been hurt a lot. Roy Halladay? Esteban Loaiza didn't look so sharp this year. You just don't know. In the end, the only person who really suffers from steroid use is the person who uses them, and the family too, if health becomes an issue.
Anytime you idolize another person you are setting yourself up for disappointment. Nobody's perfect and nobody should be worshipped as such.
I agree with that. You are only hurting yourself. Steroids don't help you see a slider or put the bat on the ball. The Bonds lovers will come out and defend him, and the Bonds haters will come out and bash him. In the end his stats will go into the hall of fame and the public will be left to judge what they will.
Steroids don't help eye coordination, but it does help your muscles to develop bat speed. That gives Bonds a fraction of a second more to think about the pitch thrown to him, and in baseball that's a HUGE advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
According to polls done by ESPN and CBS, most say Bonds stats should either be removed or have an asterisk next to them. While only 10% of the people believe Bonds should have those stats stand. I would say keep the stats, but have an asterisk. Why? Because baseball, football, hockey, and even basketball all had steroid users in past decades. Yet science didn't catch up until now.
Although people may think I'm biased when I say this, but players in the NBA are least likely to use steroids. Although there are big guys in the league like Ron Artest and Shaq Daddy, many of the players aren't nearly as bulked up as athletes of the other 3 major sports. And basketball isn't about strength, it's more about skill. You can still hit a jumper when you're 40 like you did when you're 20, with SLIGHTLY less accuracy. When you look at the physiques of the players in the league, they look huge(and they are, relatively speaking), but compare them to football players they're sticks. Does anyone remember Michael Jordan at the plate? He looked like a beanpole, but on the court he looked more muscular. The average weight for a player 6'6" in the league is about 205 lbs. It's almost 100 lbs. more for a player of similar height in pro football. Not saying NBA athletes aren't guilty of steroids, but they are highly unlikely due to the NBA's strict substance abuse policies.