Mitchell Report effect on baseball simmers

[tysok]

Originally Posted by lencombs

I don't need a bottle of old piss to back up my theory on Clemens, the Mitchell report, and Roger's abscence in the media this week vehomently denying these charges, while his team-mate Andy Pettite has admitted that he has used, is plenty circumstantial evidence in my historical leagues.

Clemens denied it the day it came out. I don't think it would make any difference if he released a statement every day since saying the same thing... in my mind it would hurt him more actually. One of those "me thinks he protests too much".

As for your theory, absolutely. There's enough evidence for you to decide he's guilty and stick to your theory. Your opinion doesn't make it so though, but it is your opinion. The evidence at the moment isn't enough to say definitively either way... suspicions abound, and unfortunately the minute a guys name is mentioned he's guilty in the eyes of a lot of fans. There isn't enough evidence that he could be found guilty even in a civil suit, without enough for that it's not my place to judge.

Pettitte admitting it certainly increases the supposition, but it's still not proof.

One reporter I heard today taling about this was surprised that most of the names were only heresay, and in some cases (she singled out Jack Cust) the evidence there wasn't even enough that she could have printed it in the newspaper...

Steroids and HGH help you recover faster, just because a guy has never hit 100 mph on the gun doesn't mean he may not have taken for what the drugs were originally created for. I love Maddux, don't think he would or did do anything, but unfortunately the cloud of suspicion has to be over him as well.

[kagnew35]

My thoughts, 1. These guys have DESTROYED the game, NOTHING in the last 20 years is fully believable, even the clean guys with outstanding years are suspect. The report admits being only the tip of the iceberg.
2. I see little if any comments on what the numbers bein put up now have done to older players who didn't use. Guys like Jim Rice whose achievments have been diminished.
3. Am very tired of "lets get past it" forgive and forget ideas. These guys CHEATED, diminished others. All should be banned for life.
4. As for testing, do not most businesses require drug tests as preemployment necessities??? Why are athletes diifferent, cause they have powerful union???
I will be going bAck to 1990 AND DELETING ALL USERS NAMES FROM LAHMAN DB.

[Carplos]

Originally Posted by kagnew35

My thoughts, 1. These guys have DESTROYED the game, NOTHING in the last 20 years is fully believable, even the clean guys with outstanding years are suspect. The report admits being only the tip of the iceberg.
2. I see little if any comments on what the numbers bein put up now have done to older players who didn't use. Guys like Jim Rice whose achievments have been diminished.
3. Am very tired of "lets get past it" forgive and forget ideas. These guys CHEATED, diminished others. All should be banned for life.
4. As for testing, do not most businesses require drug tests as preemployment necessities??? Why are athletes diifferent, cause they have powerful union???
I will be going bAck to 1990 AND DELETING ALL USERS NAMES FROM LAHMAN DB.

The righteous indignation amongst baseball fans has been the best part of the Mitchell Report, to be honest.


LOLOLOL 4reelz.

[Modern Relic]

Originally Posted by jazzrack

... maybe, but its not cheating if its not against the rules.

I hear this argument a lot. How would you respond to the quote below?

The Mitchell report took issue with assertions that steroids were not banned before the 2002 collective bargaining agreement.

They had been covered, it said, since management's 1971 drug policy prohibited using any prescription medication without a valid prescription, and were expressly included in Vincent's 1991 drug policy. Taken from an article on ESPN.com located here.

[Tekneek]

Don't hold these guys to a higher standard (or lower) than you would any other person in the world.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Don't hold these guys to a higher standard (or lower) than you would any other person in the world.

Bull. Public figures have obligations. So do people being paid millions of dollars a year. Athletes have inherent obligations - sportsmanship, integrity, fairness. These guys are all three, and we have every right to hold them to higher standards.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Modern Relic

management's 1971 drug policy prohibited using any prescription medication without a valid prescription, and were expressly included in Vincent's 1991 drug policy

Hah! That means steroid use has been illegal since 1971!.

[Carplos]

Were either of those agreed to by the union?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Bull. Public figures have obligations. So do people being paid millions of dollars a year. Athletes have inherent obligations - sportsmanship, integrity, fairness. These guys are all three, and we have every right to hold them to higher standards.

I don't buy it. Baseball players are just like anybody else, just happening to be better at baseball than a lot of other people. I would not hold them to a different standard than anybody else in the world. Maybe you, and others, like to have double standards in the world, but I don't work that way. Still, if you would have a problem with anybody doing this then that would be a different story.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I don't buy it. Baseball players are just like anybody else, just happening to be better at baseball than a lot of other people.

Bull. They get paid millions, they are public figures and household names, and they are professional athletes. With all that, like it or not, comes a great deal of responsibility.

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I would not hold them to a different standard than anybody else in the world.

People need to be held to standards proportional to their place. It's not a big thing if I use steroids - and I do - but it's a huge thing if Roger Clemens does.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

People need to be held to standards proportional to their place. It's not a big thing if I use steroids - and I do - but it's a huge thing if Roger Clemens does.

In your opinion, of course. I strive to hold all people to the same standard.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

In your opinion, of course. I strive to hold all people to the same standard.

Which is ludicrous and socialistic, because people of different responsibilites and different privileges and different capabilities are all automatically people of different standards.

You want to hold a moron to the same standards as someone with a 200 IQ?

You want to hold a spastic to the same standards as a Olympian?

You want to hold a child to the same standards as an adult?

You want to hold a McDonald's clerk to the same standards as a plasma physicist?

That's beyond wrong - it's laughable and all the way to silly.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Which is ludicrous and socialistic, because people of different responsibilites and different privileges and different capabilities are all automatically people of different standards.

Why?

You want to hold a moron to the same standards as someone with a 200 IQ?

When it comes to questions of ethics and integrity, I certainly do.

You want to hold a spastic to the same standards as a Olympian?

When it comes to questions of ethics and integrity, I do.

You want to hold a child to the same standards as an adult?

Obviously not. I expect them to be learning the right ways though.

You want to hold a McDonald's clerk to the same standards as a plasma physicist?

When it comes to questions of ethics and integrity, I do.

That's beyond wrong - it's laughable and all the way to silly.

Go on with your extra standards of behavior for people. I don't really think it has to be that complicated. I don't expect a baseball player to be anymore responsible or ethical than any other adult human being on this planet. I expect the same ethics and values from all people. You don't have to be rich, in a public role, or even highly educated to have good ethics, values, and integrity.

[Bonedwarf]

I'm with Wolf on this. These are PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES. They are not called PROFESSIONAL DRUG USERS. Taking the stage as a professional athlete, IMO, carries with it certain obligations and responsibilities to those who pay to see you. The guy who walks up to bat and then hits it out of the park. Those who have paid his wages should rightfully expect it to be a display of his athletic prowess. Not the prowess of a guy in a lab.

I don't give a damn about the excuses like "I didn't know what it was". That's crap. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions. I guarantee if you've been to the doctor recently and had a shot, you know what it was for, and what it was.

I don't expect the guy at the gas station to be drug free. Hell, to be quite honest, having been a pump jockey myself in the past, I'd be amazed if they were drug free. (Even I can't make the claim, though only weed. Never anything stronger, despite my co-workers best efforts offering me E, acid etc...)

But when I sit down to see one team play another, I expect the team that performs the best to have come upon that ability honestly. The results and records are meaningless if the winner or holder is hiding a syringe behind his back.

Whether steroids were illegal or not at the time is beside the point IMO. It's common sense that receiving a medicinal advantage to perform better in a paid sporting endeavour is both wrong and unethical.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Bonedwarf

I'm with Wolf on this. These are PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES. They are not called PROFESSIONAL DRUG USERS. Taking the stage as a professional athlete, IMO, carries with it certain obligations and responsibilities to those who pay to see you. The guy who walks up to bat and then hits it out of the park. Those who have paid his wages should rightfully expect it to be a display of his athletic prowess. Not the prowess of a guy in a lab.

...

I don't expect the guy at the gas station to be drug free. Hell, to be quite honest, having been a pump jockey myself in the past, I'd be amazed if they were drug free. (Even I can't make the claim, though only weed. Never anything stronger, despite my co-workers best efforts offering me E, acid etc...)

Is the "pump jockey" a professional drug user? If not, why would a professional athlete become a professional drug user? Either they both are, or neither are.

Whether steroids were illegal or not at the time is beside the point IMO. It's common sense that receiving a medicinal advantage to perform better in a paid sporting endeavour is both wrong and unethical.

Anything that can be demonstrated to be a "performance enhancer" that was not at least disclosed before the competition, is certainly unfair and unethical. There is a presumption that you are competing on the same level. If they were all using the same performance enhancers, though, then the playing field would continue to be level.

When it comes to ethics and integrity, it doesn't mean that everybody plays by the same rules regardless of what they are doing. It means that you aren't trying to take shortcuts through the rules of whatever you are doing. My point is that we shouldn't accept lower ethical standards in any walk of life, or hold others to a higher one. We should expect all people to have integrity and ethics regardless of their role in life.

[Bonedwarf]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Is the "pump jockey" a professional drug user? If not, why would a professional athlete become a professional drug user? Either they both are, or neither are.

Fine, let me put it another way then. It's perfectly acceptable for a pump jockey to sleep with a customer. However it's NOT acceptable when that customer sleeps with their doctor. He is considered to have acted unethically etc... It's a double standard, yes. I am not trying to pretend it isn't a double standard. Someone on the lowest rung of the ladder can, in society, be considered differently than someone of a much higher standing.

My mother had an affair with the family doctor. This made the front page of the local paper two days in a row, and every national paper, including a two page centre in one of the Sunday papers.

If she had shagged the gardner, the grocer etc... It's not news. The position of the individual she did this with, however, has certain ethics and responsibilities attached to it by society, and therefore when they violate those, the punishment is far greater, and the story is considered to be of greater importance.

When it comes to ethics and integrity, it doesn't mean that everybody plays by the same rules regardless of what they are doing. It means that you aren't trying to take shortcuts through the rules of whatever you are doing. My point is that we shouldn't accept lower ethical standards in any walk of life, or hold others to a higher one. We should expect all people to have integrity and ethics regardless of their role in life.

I see your point, and it's a fair one. However, for the guy at the gas station, there is no moral or ethical imperative to prevent him from doing whatever he wants to his body. Nobody expects him to be a druggie. However nobody can, rightfully, expect him not to be.

Whereas when you build your entire career on performing in athletic competition that others pay to see, I firmly believe that you are honour bound to respect certain ethics, and if you fail to do so, should be punished far more harshly than the minimum wage pump jockey who smokes a bit of pot on the weekend.

Man, this is not the kind of debate I can handle when I have a headache like I have right now. So you'll forgive me if I don't respond again until later. But may I just say I am enjoying the cut and thrust of a good, mature debate. It's a rarity on the internet.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Why?

Because, and I repeat myself, depending on who and what you are, the standards vary.

I can sleep with my clients and it's no big thing. If my doctor or my lawyer do it, they will lose their job and maybe even their licenses.

I can take steroids and it's no big thing. If an Olympic athlete does it, it's all over for him.

I can visit a prostitute and if people hear about it it's no big thing but if a U.S. senator does it he's in big trouble.

I can have sex with one of my female employees, and if it gets out it's no big deal, my boss would tell me behind closed doors that I was being stupid, but if a U.S. president does it he gets impeached.

If I gave my dog, who is a rescued dog, away it wouldn't be a big deal, but if I was a TV star it would be a huge issue and be in the newspapers and all over the web.

I have a neighbor who has a kid who is "developmentally disabled." He does bad things sometimes, things that no normal child would get slack cut for, but he gets slack cut for him because of what he is and that we all know that he really doesn't know better.

The standards you are to be held to vary and depend on who and what you are.

[Bonedwarf]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

The standards you are to be held to vary and depend on who and what you are.

Exactly. Whatever your position in the world, it carries with it certain expectations and standards of behaviour, and they differ from person to person, job to job.

[Modern Relic]

Originally Posted by Carplos

Were either of those agreed to by the union?

I don't know. Does it matter? And I ask that seriously. Is their approval needed for something like this?

All I know is that the 1971 and 1991 rulings have been widely referenced lately. I haven't seen one word disputing them.

[jasonn29tn14]

Originally Posted by JHruska

Greg Maddux looks like a cross between the CPA who lives down the street in any middle class suburb and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. His fastball has never touched 90 mph, his success has hinged almost entirely on pinpoint control and a computer-like memory (two things steroids cannot help), and if he ever finds a muscle on that pudgy body of his he may die of shock. It's just impossible for me to believe that he was ever a juicer.

I used to watch the Braves religeously back in the early to mid 90s. Back then Maddux threw his fastball around 91-93 regularly - and was the most dominant pitcher I've ever seen.