08-18-2005, 11:39 AM #1
What is the deal with steroids and MLB?
They say that taking steroids creates an uneven playing field for those players that dont take them, but in my opinion, in order to have an even playing field that means everyone has to spend the same amount of hours in the batting cage, the same amount of hours running drills, the same amount of hours in the gym, the same amount of hours doing everything....so basically there can never be a "level playing field." If athletes wanna take their game to the next level by taking AAS then that is a risk they should be aloud to take and if there are any consequences as a result of taking them then they should have to live with them. Is it just me or does this make sense to anyone else?
08-18-2005, 06:27 PM #2Originally Posted by kaptainkeezy04
You are totally missing the point of "evening the playing field." The cagework, fielding drills, lifting weights ect. are all work ethic issues. Say two people are doing all the same ammount of hard work of the afore mentioned, but one of the is juicing...which one is going to be better. The one taking aas, obviously. Thats what is meant by evening the playing field.
08-18-2005, 08:48 PM #3
The real problem isn't the amount of work each athlete does, the real reason the playing field will never be level is genetics. David Eckstein can never naturally be as good a power hitter as say Pujols. So should he be penalized because he got crappy genetics? Steroids at least lessen the role genetics play in professional sports, though they don't completely remove it.
08-18-2005, 09:10 PM #4Originally Posted by SprinterOne
True but thats what they want...they want genetic athletes not performance enhanced athletes. Sports has been like that since the original olympics in greece. All the genetically gifted athletes compete and the not so gifted ones have day jobs thats just how it goes. Anyways with that theory would that make it possible for someone like say David Letterman to compete at professional sport levels.
08-18-2005, 09:17 PM #5Originally Posted by Samson7
08-19-2005, 02:15 PM #6Originally Posted by Samson7
08-19-2005, 02:17 PM #7
Oh yeah i forgot...booyakasha.
08-19-2005, 02:40 PM #8Originally Posted by kaptainkeezy04
08-19-2005, 02:59 PM #9
The issue in baseball is that all these great records that have stood the test of time for many years are on the verge of being broken by people who are breaking the rules of the game. Hank Aaron never used steroids , Willie Mays never even worked out in the offseason, he had to get another job to make enough money because his baseball salary wasnt that great. So now by allowing athletes to use steroids you would have to create a whole new category for all of these records.
Banning steroids will even the playing field in the sense that now the players just have their god given talents and genetics to improve naturally to the best of their abilities. In sports, thats as even as it gets.
Why bring up eckstein as an NBA center ? that comparison has no point here. He's genetically screwed but made the most of it the right way unlike players who are genetically gifted that get greedy and want to break records that should stand for a much longer period of time (Aarons HR Record).
08-19-2005, 07:06 PM #10Originally Posted by 7f8
My point was that genetics plays a role in sports, thus it is never an even playing field. My point with Eckstein was to show that no matter how hard he worked, he could not do anything in sports. Maybe using an NBA Center was too much, but he would probably even struggle as an NBA point guard. In any case, saying removing steroids creates a level playing field is a joke. What about guys who use hardcore supplements that other players don't even know about, or are afraid to use? Is that a level playing field?
08-21-2005, 09:02 PM #11
My opinion of an even playing field is everyone who competes with each other has to be in the same weight class
08-21-2005, 11:41 PM #12Originally Posted by SprinterOne
Exactly what i have been trying to say. The "level playing field" thing is what they start from not the final product of work. It is where all players start from...all athletes before probably the mid 80's had to rely on genetics and work ethic. Look i dont care if players juice or not, but im just trying to tell you what the MLB stance on performance enhancing drugs is. The way they see it is, every player should start from genetics and let wrok ethic take them the rest of the way. They want to make it fair for the players who dont want to break the law by using performance enhancing drugs...Thats been my point all along
08-23-2005, 11:38 PM #13Originally Posted by 7f8
08-24-2005, 10:49 AM #14
You obviously have never played baseball on a very high level if you think the career home run mark is pointless. Baseball is an individual sport but at the same time a team sport. You need to hit the ball on your own, you need to make the plays, theres no linebacker there to pick you up if you mess up which is why individual records in baseball are important.
Why do we keep records? well why do we have a hall of fame then.. who cares what some guy did in the game then.. why do we even keep a book or season statistics then ? you clearly just want to watch them run around on tv.. thats not baseball, baseball is very history oriented and statistically oriented and if you can't accept that and respect the players who came before you and succeeded and even learn something from them then you really arn't much of a ballplayer.
keezy you are kidding yourself if you think bonds doesnt care about the home run record he has and the one he will break if he ever comes back from the knee injury. i guarantee you that is one of the motivating factors for him to do roids.. you also say that bonds and mcguire made their sports better to watch, well how did they do that? they broke records... way to contradict yourself man
08-24-2005, 04:46 PM #15
my point was that nobody enters a sport thinking "hey i wanna break a record" and anyone who actually steps out on the field thinking i wanna break the record instead of thinking i wanna win is a jackass.
08-24-2005, 08:52 PM #16Originally Posted by SprinterOne
08-24-2005, 10:04 PM #17Originally Posted by mark956101957
Originally Posted by mark956101957
08-25-2005, 10:59 PM #18Originally Posted by SprinterOne
08-26-2005, 12:37 AM #19Originally Posted by mark956101957
And let's not forget, it was these same steroid users who brought the game back from the dead when they started hitting all these long balls. So obviously that is what fans want to see. I think most fans have always speculated that these guys used, but they just didn't care. Now that they know they do, guess what, they still don't care. They still watch, they still buy tickets. Sure, maybe they dislike it from a records standpoint but that is all.
Also, gear hasn't just changed the history of baseball, it's changed the history of sports. Just like equipment, juiced balls, weight training, etc. I just still can't understand how a steroid user can crucify these guys. Why should it be OK for you to use it but not them, because they play a demanding sport with millions on the line? I just don't get it.
Last edited by SprinterOne; 08-26-2005 at 12:39 AM.
08-26-2005, 12:01 PM #20
SprinterOne, may I ask why you are so in favor of professional baseball players using steroids ? Whatever happened to when heart and desire decided how far a person got in a sport (the aforementioned Eckstein) and not how often the person juices (giambi). It seems to me that your mind is made up that steroids are the future of sports. Thankfully you have no say in MLB. Yea heart will still play a role, but heart will be decided by how often you juice to reach your goals.
Why should steroids rule sports? Because someone is genetically challenged they need to juice to "catch up"? Why? I'm genetically challenged from a baseball standpoint but I refuse to juice because I despise people like Rafael Palmeiro who made his LIVING by using steroids and cheating his way into the 500 home run club for the past decade. I also don't juice because I like the look on the pitchers face after they see someone my size hit a homer off of them and stare in disbelief.
No it has not hurt the fans attendance but it has hurt the game and the players. Now more players feel inclined to use supplements that could have horrible side effects if they arn't extremely careful just so they can compete with the rest of the top players who are on roids. Now more kids feel they have to juice to be able to make it to the big leagues or even get drafted. I know a local college team that i have a friend on and half the team admittedly juices, I know another player who plays for a top D-1 program down south and yes a number of players on that team do juice or did it in HS to get where they are today... But no SprinterOne juice is only GOOD for people and nothing bad could come from that. If you support MLB players using steroids then you clearly support setting a bad example for every amateur baseball player on this planet.
Sadly you sound like you are an owner of a team who is more concerned with revenue than the good of the players and the future of the game. That is truly sad from a fan of the game...
And from an argument up above. .. you really have to be naive to think that players juice to "help their teams win". They juice to boost their stats which then leads to a bigger contract . Although boosting their stats will help their team, you have to have your head in the sand to think that they are willing to risk their wellbeing in the future to better their team....
08-26-2005, 05:36 PM #21
As American as Baseball and Apple Pie. Ever hear that expression! Baseball to the true fan didn't start when they became fans it started back in the early 1900's. I am not shocked that so many athletes of many sports use gear but when we are talking about the history of baseball and records like those of Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron. These players today that juiced should not be allowed to be in the same status as players of old. Why. Cause its not fair. Screw genetics its part of life, if you have a God given talent as Hank Aaron did than lets honor that but when your ability is greatly enhanced because you are on steriods and all of the sudden you are classified with the greats who did not have gear that is not fair. I think Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. Even if he is a slime bag and a gambler that didn't enhance his playing. But to see Barry Bonds slam 70 something home runs in one year due to the use of steriods and have the ability to catch the greats like Babe and Hank that is not fair, thats all I am saying.
08-26-2005, 05:40 PM #22Junior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Under ur mothers bedsheet
I hear ya. Great Post!
08-26-2005, 11:20 PM #23
i agree with some of what yall are sayin, but the simple fact is, no matter how much yall approve or disapprove of it steriods have become a part of professional baseball and other levels and they arent gonna be leavin anytime soon. I speak this from my own personal experiences and what i have seen. it has honestly come to a point where you almost HAVE to use gear or somethin just to keep up and compete now days. i know its a shame to hear and i wish it wasnt like it is.
08-27-2005, 01:30 AM #24Originally Posted by 7f8
The only thing I don't like about legalizing it is that younger people may be tempted to take it. But like anything (cigarettes, alcohol, rec drugs) if under age kids are going to do it, they're going to do it.
Originally Posted by 7f8
Last edited by SprinterOne; 08-27-2005 at 01:32 AM.
08-27-2005, 09:33 AM #25
That last comment was directed more to kaptainkeezy thats why i said from an argument above because i didnt want to go up and re read =/
Isn't the point of competition ruined if you have to rely on steroids to compete rather than your own body?
08-27-2005, 09:38 AM #26Originally Posted by 7f8
But this question could be asked for a lot of things. Isn't the sport of competition ruined when golf clubs allow the short hitters to become long hitters? Isn't the sport of competition ruined when tennis rackets allow women to serve over 110mph? Isn't the sport of competition ruined when the baseball is wound tighter so it will travel farther?
Also, with all the supplements out there don't you think players who pursue this avenue also get an unfair advantage over those that don't, or never had access to them?
08-27-2005, 10:20 AM #27
Everyone can have access to everyday normal supplements such as creatine, protein etc... because its cheap and easily accessible. Every women has the opportunity to use those rackets and all golfers do too without have potentially harmful side effects. A baseball player on the verge of becoming a regular in the big leagues should not have to be forced to take steroids to earn a job if they dont feel comfortable with the side effects. If everyone else is taking them then they will feel obligated and get a feeling of "if i dont take them i'll never make it". That is when the sport will no longer be one because they will have to take supplements that can endanger their health just to earn a living.
08-27-2005, 02:56 PM #28
Please list the harmful side effects of steroids when taken properly and under the supervision of a doctor.
Also, do you really think a low level golfer has the same access to equipment as Tiger Woods? Nike pretty much gives Tiger his equipment, that low level guy barely making a living has to pay for it if he wants it. So is that fair? Not only that, when Nike is developing a new ball or club or whatever, you think they get input from that low level golfer? To say that outlawing steroids makes the game fair or the playing field level is just crazy.
Originally Posted by 7f8
08-28-2005, 05:02 PM #29Originally Posted by LD_18
08-28-2005, 06:47 PM #30Originally Posted by mark956101957
Of course, gene doping may finally be the ultimate solution to removing steroids from sports, lmao.
11-05-2005, 03:26 AM #31Originally Posted by Samson7
11-05-2005, 03:27 AM #32Originally Posted by mark956101957
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)