Announcement

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 3, 2004, 12:47

How exactly are you going to catch them without testing?

Don't you read threads? The answer you seek is located within

.

**Tuberski** · March 3, 2004, 12:47

Well, if you are going to take away the records of these guys, better get rid of Gaylord Perry's 300+ wins and kick him out of the hall.

He cheated, admitted he cheated, and got away with it.

ACK!

**DinoDoc** · March 3, 2004, 12:48

All I saw was a pedantic discussion that sterioid use isn't really cheating and everyone does it anyway coming from you and Ming.

**Ming** · March 3, 2004, 12:55

Originally posted by DinoDoc
All I saw was a pedantic discussion that sterioid use isn't really cheating and everyone does it anyway coming from you and Ming.

Uhhhh... no. I was stating that steriod use was NOT against the rules in the past and they have never tested the players for it in the past, so to label players who had done so in the past as cheaters isn't acurate. And I stated their records should stand, because they didn't violate any rules. This year, the rules have now changed, and anybody caught should be treated harsher than the current rules allow... and I never implied that everyone was doing it....

But besides that... you seem to have the general gist of the thread

**Tuberski** · March 3, 2004, 13:01

ACK!

**DinoDoc** · March 3, 2004, 13:01

Originally posted by Ming
and I never implied that everyone was doing it....

That was Imran with his idiotic Ruth comment.

Originally posted by Ming
Uhhhh... no. I was stating that steriod use was NOT against the rules in the past and they have never tested the players for it in the past, so to label players who had done so in the past as cheaters isn't acurate.

Like I said. People argueing that steroid use isn't really cheating.

I seem to have the general thrust of the thread down. Despite sarcastic smilies.

**Tuberski** · March 3, 2004, 13:18

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That was Imran with his idiotic Ruth comment.
Like I said. People argueing that steroid use isn't really cheating.

I seem to have the general thrust of the thread down. Despite sarcastic smilies.

Of course steroid use is cheating, however, until this year it wasn't against the rules.

ACK!

**Ming** · March 3, 2004, 13:31

Originally posted by Tuberski
Of course steroid use is cheating, however, until this year it wasn't against the rules.

Cheating is usually defined as breaking the rules. Players have been doing many things throughout the years to enhance their performance. Everything from working out with weights, better diets, vitamins, other supplements, drugs like speed, pain killers, and yeah, steroids. Until MLB outlawed the use of steriods, I don't see how the term "cheater" can be used.

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 3, 2004, 13:33

People argueing that steroid use isn't really cheating.

It wasn't. Now it will be.

That was Imran with his idiotic Ruth comment.

How is it idiotic when it is true?

**GePap** · March 3, 2004, 13:33

Originally posted by Ming

Cheating is usually defined as breaking the rules. Players have been doing many things throughout the years to enhance their performance. Everything from working out with weights, better diets, vitamins, other supplements, drugs like speed, pain killers, and yeah, steroids. Until MLB outlawed the use of steriods, I don't see how the term "cheater" can be used.

Cheating is having an unfair advantage over somoene else. Since the rules did not ban use of drugs, ion theory all players were free to use them, thus giving no real unfair advantage to those who took drugs, since the other simply opted out of taking them.

**Sava** · March 3, 2004, 13:39

I think the baseball records should be seperated by eras... deadball... modern... then "steroid"

the entire era should have an asteriks next to it... some players didn't do steroids, but, it's almost impossible to prove who did and who didn't. We can guess and speculate, but because other factors have increased home run totals also: dilluted pitching skill due to expansion, smaller ballparks, juiced players, new bat designs, new ball designs.

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 3, 2004, 13:43

the entire era should have an asteriks next to it... some players didn't do steroids, but, it's almost impossible to prove who did and who didn't.

What about Speed in the 50s and 60s? They deserve asteriks?

**Ned** · March 3, 2004, 14:36

Originally posted by Tuberski

Of course steroid use is cheating, however, until this year it wasn't against the rules.

ACK!

My sentiments.

I hope this issue is discussed over the summer. If there is enough outrage at this, perhaps baseball will do something. I still feel it is a outrage that Bonds 73 will be there for all history because in the future players will be tested and will have to break THAT record fairly. It might be impossilble, which makes it UNFAIR to everyone involved in the game, for all time.

World records in track and field are not recognized for cheats no matter how the cheating is done. We really need to do something about those home run records.

**Sava** · March 3, 2004, 14:37

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

the entire era should have an asteriks next to it... some players didn't do steroids, but, it's almost impossible to prove who did and who didn't.

What about Speed in the 50s and 60s? They deserve asteriks?

It wasn't quite a problem back then as steroids is now.

**Capt Dizle** · March 3, 2004, 14:40

I grew up watching guys win home run titles with number from 35-40. Every year.

Then we have little guys who hit the ball off the end of their bat and it goes out. Wonder how that makes a guy like Mike Schmidt feel?

No, I gave up following pro baseball a long time ago and I do not miss it. But each year I look forward to spring and hearing the mitts pop. I'll stick with the kids where the dreams aren't about money.

Announcement

Bonds cheated. Strip him of home run record?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment