Giambi, it's really sad...

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Single A Rookie

As to McGuire... what makes him any different from Ben Johnson? They both used enhancing drugs - just their sports differed on the legality - but essentially the results of taking the drugs where the same - to get bigger and better.

Geez, you answer your own question here; their sports differed on the legality. Johnson cheated (i.e. broke the rules of his sport) and McGwire did not cheat. That's the issue -- cheating. Why shouldn't a player improve his performance in a way that they're allowed to do? Are you going to take Jack Chesbro's 41 wins away because they outlawed the spitball after that season?

[Skipaway]

Actually the workout routines for most pro athletes are bad for health too.

I don't think there is ever a problem with athletes sacrificing their health for better performance, or you gonna tell those huge OLs to stop ballooning up?

There are more complicated reasons behind the banning of drugs.

[Single A Rookie]

Originally Posted by mlyons

Geez, you answer your own question here; their sports differed on the legality. Johnson cheated (i.e. broke the rules of his sport) and McGwire did not cheat. That's the issue -- cheating. Why shouldn't a player improve his performance in a way that they're allowed to do? Are you going to take Jack Chesbro's 41 wins away because they outlawed the spitball after that season?

Again... you missed the point... but I'm tired of having to explain every single nuance to people... try to think outside the box.... (man... my avatar is really beginning to take on meaning...)

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Single A Rookie

Look... it's obvious that many of you support using drugs in sport.

Look... it's obvious that you support using drugs in sport, but maybe don't have any good points to argue with your "friends" in bars, or just don't have enough material for your school essay. It's nice asking for help, but it's bad tricking us into doing your study for you.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Single A Rookie

It is hard to detemine what effects drugs have on a player only because there is absolutely no way to go back in time, take the player off drugs, and then see how they would perform. Can't be done... we will never have those stats. So we have to trust science and what science tells us about drugs.

I'll ask you again: what does science tell us about these drugs? I'd love it if it were more than a blanket statement...

[clutch]

Let's just say that Barry Bonds is on steroids. How do you know the steroids aren't hurting him, by making him react slower? Maybe he could have hit 77 homerun if he was off the Steroids? Just a thought and a question. Nobody knows the true effect. So you get more muscles? Big deal. I have more muscles than my friend Ray and he hits more homeruns than I do. Barry Bonds is special because his hand-eye cordination is off the charts.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by Single A Rookie

Again... you missed the point... but I'm tired of having to explain every single nuance to people... try to think outside the box.... (man... my avatar is really beginning to take on meaning...)

SAR -- without writing for others, I think this is the problem people have with the Ben Johnson post above (and the other points raised). This point can be made sylogistically, as Eck did, or narratively. Eck did such a good job for the former, I will stick to the later (and not let myself be too shown up).

People agree ahead of time what the rules are. In baseball, the players assume that they can do anything that is not explicitly prohibited. Thus, everyone is on the same playing field and plays by the same rules. If a player does something that does not break a rule, they have done nothing wrong -- indeed, everyone is on the same playing field. Therefore, you have to show a violation of a rule in order to say someone did something wrong.

BTW: Lasik is a classic modern example of a performance enhancing procedure not disallowed. I'd be willing to bet that Lasik (where they can correct vision to be better than 20:20) is more valuable than many other performance enhancing procedures/drugs. In any event (as I can't argue that statement empiraclly, and don't wish to) the point still stands.

I think people generally understand you fine, just disagree

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Single A Rookie

Again... you missed the point... but I'm tired of having to explain every single nuance to people... try to think outside the box.... (man... my avatar is really beginning to take on meaning...)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying you don't care if it's legal or not - you're making it a moral issue. In that case, I know you on't change your mind, and I respect your opinion. However, your arguments are not very convincing, and often incoherent.

[CMH]

Back on topic. Giambi went 0-3, 2BB today.

Skip, you need to be a little less complicated and make more sense. I want to either argue/agree with you, but sometimes I just don't get your point.

What did you mean by "Are the Yankees players coached to speak like that?"

edit:

And by sense I mean easier for me.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by Single A Rookie

Again... you missed the point... but I'm tired of having to explain every single nuance to people... try to think outside the box.... (man... my avatar is really beginning to take on meaning...)

If nobody understands what you're saying, perhaps it's you and not everybody else who is at fault?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by YankeePride

Back on topic. Giambi went 0-3, 2BB today.

Skip, you need to be a little less complicated and make more sense. I want to either argue/agree with you, but sometimes I just don't get your point.

What did you mean by "Are the Yankees players coached to speak like that?"

edit:

And by sense I mean easier for me.

Sorry.

"If you feel lots of Yankee players talked the same way about their slumps, is it possible they are taught by the front office to answer questions in some specific ways?"

[Single A Rookie]

Skipaway - you obviously have not read my posts, or have no clue what is going on...

Hammer755 - my posts are quite clear, people are just not taking the time to think about things, and instead are attempting to respond with posts that they think others will find "humourous"

Long Long Name - Incorherent? Show me where... no... it is because you disagree with my logic that you call them incoherent. You yourself have had only one post in where you support your points (and do it well). Outside of that you have answered every question with a question. Not a great debate tactic...

Originally Posted by Hammer755

If nobody understands what you're saying, perhaps it's you and not everybody else who is at fault?

No.. the problem is people can't stop and think beyond what is directly in front of them, or people just like being confrontational as opposed to liking discussion. The number of "smart ass" comments and obvious misreading or overstatement of comments is immense in these forums. And Long Long Name shows he understood in the last post... and there is another who took the time and understood the comment:

Joshv2 - at least you can think outside the box You are right and that IS my point.

The restrictions placed upon the athletes are done so by us - by others. Essentially, there is no difference between McGuire and Johnson - NONE at all. They both took drugs in order to enhance their performance. And yet while Ben Johnson was humiliated in front of the world and had his livelyhood stripped from him, McGuire will be celebrated and placed in the Hall of Fame. How can the exact same action lead to such a dichotomy?

If taking drugs has, as many have argued here, "no effect" on sport, or has an "unproven effect" on sport, then a grave injustice has been done on Ben Johnson through rules placed on a sport that have no substance.

I'm glad that at least one person is capable of seeing a larger picture and is capable of thought....

[crackpott]

Originally Posted by Single A Rookie

The restrictions placed upon the athletes are done so by us - by others. Essentially, there is no difference between McGuire and Johnson - NONE at all. They both took drugs in order to enhance their performance. And yet while Ben Johnson was humiliated in front of the world and had his livelyhood stripped from him, McGuire will be celebrated and placed in the Hall of Fame. How can the exact same action lead to such a dichotomy?

Because every single one of McGwire's colleagues could have taken the drugs.

Beyond that, isn't it all relative anyway? I mean, a Canadian snowboarder had his medal taken away for smoking weed. Come on! That's supposed to INCREASE your performance? He should get an extra medal just for making it down the ****ing hill. The olympic committee bans many, many drugs. It's participants agree to follow those rules. Baseball bans almost nothing, so although you may disagree with the morals of McGwire taking Andro, you can't actually fault him.

Anyway, to me, your question is similar to the following...

Someone in boxing knocks someone out in 30 seconds without even letting the other guy get a punch in. He's celebrated. Someone on the street does the same thing. He's charged with assault. Now sure, there's a matter of consent. It's really a legal issue. In boxing, there's a voluntary assumption of risk. The same doesn't exist if you're just on the street. So the law decides which is okay, and which isn't, despite the actions being the same. The same goes for your scenario. The rules of baseball say it's okay. The rules of the olympics say it is not.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Single A Rookie

Again... you missed the point... but I'm tired of having to explain every single nuance to people... try to think outside the box.... (man... my avatar is really beginning to take on meaning...)

No, I didn't miss your point, I just think you're missing this point. Sports aren't about morality or ethics; they're about winning, and doing everything within a certain set of boundaries to get that win. To make it a moral or ethical issue, we would have to consider ousting Ty Cobb from the Hall of Fame because he was a big jerk and because he attempted to injure other players on the field. I agree with you that the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports is probably a bad thing, and I'm personally in favor of the andro ban. I certainly don't think it can be a retroactive ban, though. That's even more unfair than someone using the drug in the first place.

BTW, Johnson and McGwire did not do the same thing from a legal standpoint, either. Johnson took anabolic steroids, which he was not able to obtain legally. McGwire took an over-the-counter supplement. Surely you acknowledge a difference between legal and illegal behavior?

[crackpott]

Originally Posted by Single A Rookie

I'm glad that at least one person is capable of seeing a larger picture and is capable of thought....

And one more thing. You chastise LLN for his debating tactics, well... attacks against someones intelligence certainly isn't a very effective one either. Just because two people don't agree doesn't mean that one is not "capable of thought."

I for one agree in a sense that I do consider the accomplishments of McGwire tainted due to drug use. But I know that's just my opinion. In my last post I simply disagreed with your assumption that one sports rules have to automatically govern anothers. I'm not calling you stupid for making the comparison, it's a fair point. One which I don't see merit in myself, but again... my opinion.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by Single A Rookie

... and there is another who took the time and understood the comment:

Joshv2 - at least you can think outside the box You are right and that IS my point.

The restrictions placed upon the athletes are done so by us - by others. Essentially, there is no difference between McGuire and Johnson - NONE at all. They both took drugs in order to enhance their performance. And yet while Ben Johnson was humiliated in front of the world and had his livelyhood stripped from him, McGuire will be celebrated and placed in the Hall of Fame. How can the exact same action lead to such a dichotomy?

If taking drugs has, as many have argued here, "no effect" on sport, or has an "unproven effect" on sport, then a grave injustice has been done on Ben Johnson through rules placed on a sport that have no substance.

I'm glad that at least one person is capable of seeing a larger picture and is capable of thought....

Again, I really think that everyone understood your point They just disagree. As do I.

The point people disagree with is when you write "a grave injustice has been done on Ben Johnson through rules placed on a sport that have no substance."

Sports opperate within a set of rules. Without rules, sport wouldn't exist. Most of these rules are arbitrary and define the sport. For example, there is nothing magical about the "balk" rule. We could live without it; it may be nice to have because it helps us define the sport in the way we want, but that is all. Yet, it is enfoced b/c of its mere existance. Everyone is on the same playing field and they all have the same a priori restrictions. This is true even if they hve a good reason not to follow the rule (e.g., they are nervous; they have a nerve disorder, etc.).

The SAME is true for Ben Johnson -- everyone against whom he competes is supposed to follow the same rules regarding the ingestion of substances. No one in Johnson's sport is allowed to utilize a car, either. Yet, NASCAR drivers are allowed to. There is nothing magical here. It is how the sport defines itself.

There is no grave injustice against Johnson. Johnson agrees to the rules ex ante. He knows what they are (or could if he chose to find out). He then must follow them or change them before hand. When a pitcher balks it is breaking a rule. It is by definition something to be stopped. It really doesn't matter if a balk is a good rule to enforce or not.

Sports rules are not the same as real life rules. IRL, we can argue that a rule must be morally correct to be enforceable. In fact, you could argue that people must not follow immoral rules. This is not true for sports rules. We don't have people write a Letter from a Birmingham Jail (or from a Saint Loius Clubhouse) b/c they were caught balking. There is no moralism in sports rules (other than those rules that are unrelated to the sport, like segregation rules) other than that based upon procedure -- people must simply know the rule before it is enforced. The rule could be "don't ingest carrots" and I wouldn't think it a grave injustice so long as everyone knew before hand (stupid, yes; injustice, no).

Again, I am not saying anything different than has been posted before me.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Single A Rookie

Skipaway - you obviously have not read my posts, or have no clue what is going on...

You obviously have not read my posts, or have no clue what is going on...

It's a shame so many people tried to help you get it.

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally Posted by Single A Rookie

Again... you missed the point... but I'm tired of having to explain every single nuance to people... try to think outside the box.... (man... my avatar is really beginning to take on meaning...)

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ad.php?t=69097 ????

[Single A Rookie]

Crakcpott - my comment was not directed to anyone who was debating the topic intelligently... it was directly to those whose only purpose was to respond with flippant off hand comments in the hopes of being funny or sounding "cool."

And in regard to Rabagliati, many agreed that if he was high on weed he should have indeed been given a second medal for being able to do what he did - but others will point out he had just enough in his system to remove some of his inhibitions without removing his competative edge

Originally Posted by Joshv02

Again, I really think that everyone understood your point They just disagree. As do I.

hey josh... good to see you back...

Originally Posted by Joshv02

The point people disagree with is when you write "a grave injustice has been done on Ben Johnson through rules placed on a sport that have no substance."

Actually... I think Johnson got what he deserves... by quoting only the second half of my sentance you take it out of context.

Full quote-

If taking drugs has, as many have argued here, "no effect" on sport, or has an "unproven effect" on sport, then a grave injustice has been done on Ben Johnson through rules placed on a sport that have no substance

which was in regard to the people telling me that:

the is no proof that "performance enhancing drugs actually enhance performance" and that "scientific proof" is conjecture.

After all, should Johnson therefor be able to claim that the drugs had nothing to do with his victory and the medal should be stripped from Lewis and returned to him? After all, there are people in this thread saying there is no hard proof that drugs to anything to aid an athlete...

Originally Posted by Joshv02

Sports rules are not the same as real life rules. IRL, we can argue that a rule must be morally correct to be enforceable. In fact, you could argue that people must not follow immoral rules. This is not true for sports rules. We don't have people write a Letter from a Birmingham Jail (or from a Saint Loius Clubhouse) b/c they were caught balking. There is no moralism in sports rules (other than those rules that are unrelated to the sport, like segregation rules) other than that based upon procedure -- people must simply know the rule before it is enforced. The rule could be "don't ingest carrots" and I wouldn't think it a grave injustice so long as everyone knew before hand (stupid, yes; injustice, no).

hehehe.. i love that carrot example. Made me chuckle. And good point... and for that reason alone would be reason enough to ban Johnson. But we both know that the reaction on Johnson was not so much in regard to him "breaking the rules" but that he took Steroids (and then like an idiot didn't own up to it, and instead claimed conspiracy!).

And I know that rules in real life do not match sport.. otherwise there would be 4 or 5 assault charges in each hockey game every night...

The problem is that people are looking for a way around the rules. By name, the drug was not on the MLB banned list, but does not the intent within the rules still remain that you shouldn't use performance enhancers? New synthetic drugs hit the market secretly and it will take time before they are placed on the list, but we all know that they shouldn't be taken. It's a gray area I agree, but I think McGuire's initial reaction, and the reaction of all those afterwards indicate that at least on some level they know that it was not a "sportsmanlike" thing to do. I think that the argument "well, MLB didn't have it on the banned list yet" is a weak one from athletes...

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Single A Rookie

By name, the drug was not on the MLB banned list, but does not the intent within the rules still remain that you shouldn't use performance enhancers?

That's definitely a no. There are tons of harmful way to enhance performance, and most of them are legal, like the workout routine of most athletes, or some of the diet.

And a rule is a rule is a rule. It's always WRONG trying to assume the intent of rules and laws and enforce them by that.

I think the most glaring mistakes in most of your arguments are basically mixing what should have been in rules, and how the rules should be followed.