Bonds cheated. Strip him of home run record?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If it ain't against the rules, it isn't an unfair advantage.

[Drake Tungsten]

I guess MLB players should start poisoning their competition, as well, since I'm pretty sure there's no rule against it. And hey, if you get poisoned by Barry Bonds, don't cry foul; it's not unfair because you should've been poisonining him too...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually I believe it is. You can't tamper with opposing players under baseball's rules.

[Drake Tungsten]

You aren't tampering with "opposing players". You're just tampering with food or drink that happens to be in those opposing player's lockers. They don't have to consume it if they don't want to, so the liability for those actions is on their head.

God, being a lawyer is so fun. Forgetting about my conscience is so freeing...

[Boris Godunov]

While what Bonds did may have been illegal, it absolutely wasn't cheating. Cheating requires knowingly breaking the rules, and there weren't any rules against it at the time. If it ain't against the rules, it ain't cheating, simple as that.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't know where you guys get off constraining "cheating" to such a narrow definition. It also encompasses fraud of all kinds, which Bond's home-run record most certainly is.

[Ned]

Well, Imran and Ming, I find it more than interesting that the use of an illegal drug to enhance performance is not in your words cheating if it is not against the rules as if there were no omnibus rule somewhere that covers this topic. I believe, though, that there is. It is called "the interest of baseball." All prior commissioners prior to Selig used this "interests of baseball" rule to keep it honest and the game clean. Did the election of Selig mark a new era where crime pays? I doubt it. It is just that Selig is a tool of the game rather than a real commissioner.

Congress needs to look closely at revoking the league's antitrust exemption unless they again appoint a real commissioner who is honest.

But just let me also say that your attitude is remarkable for it lack of concern for fair play.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You aren't tampering with "opposing players". You're just tampering with food or drink that happens to be in those opposing player's lockers

Which is intended to tamper with the opposing player. If you are going to act like a lawyer, at least do it right. Mens rea is absolutely vital.

I don't know where you guys get off constraining "cheating" to such a narrow definition. It also encompasses fraud of all kinds, which Bond's home-run record most certainly is.

So the spitball pitchers of the 1900s, before they were banned, were cheaters?

And how is it 'fraud' of any kind or shape? You act like no single baseball player has ever taken any supplements.

[Boris Godunov]

How is it fraud? Did he not really hit those home runs?

Cheating in the context of a game refers to breaking the rules, and that's certainly the way sports organizations use it. It's you who are stretching the definition.

What Bonds did may have been immoral and illegal, but so long as it was ok by baseball rules, he shouldn't be penalized by the organization for it.

[Drake Tungsten]

How is it fraud? Did he not really hit those home runs?

He wouldn't have been able to if he hadn't been using illegal performance-enhancing drugs. He only got the home run record because of this unfair advantage, which seems like cheating to me.

What Bonds did may have been immoral and illegal, but so long as it was ok by baseball rules, he shouldn't be penalized by the organization for it.

I hope, for baseball's sake, that MLB doesn't follow yours and Imran's absurd arguments. Bonds cheated and needs to be punished. If he isn't, the game will suffer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How is it an absurd argument?! It's NOT AGAINST THE RULES OF THE GAME!

[Drake Tungsten]

Semantic arguments are almost invariably absurd. This case is no different. If your entire defense of Bonds rests on the definition of one word, you don't have much to stand on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your entire condemnation of Bonds rests on the definition of ONE word. So I guess you don't have much to stand on either, by your logic?

And, besides, you are using the word wrongly. If you consider correcting your wrong usage of a word 'semantic', then so be it.

Ming, me, AND Boris have said you are wrong. I mean, since when have us three agreed on anything?

[Boris Godunov]

No, the defense of Bonds rests on the fact that what he did WAS NOT AGAINST THE RULES. Isn't it a little arbitrary to be penalizing players for things that aren't agains the rules? Would you feel comfortable being subject to a legal system that operated in such a manner?

"Hey, what you did isn't *technically* against the law, but we don't like it, so we're sending your ass to jail anyway!"

Just who has the absurd position here?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah ex post facto judgments, gotta love them Boris .