CNN: Bonds was a habitual, knowing steroid abuser.

[Sublimity]

Originally Posted by abailey3313

And it's not baseball's place to enforce the law. They're entitled to reprimand players who break league rules with suspensions or fines, but they need to leave the legal mumbo-jumbo to someone else. Going backward in time and slapping someone on the wrist for doing something that was against the law but not against league rules is stepping over their boundary, I think. It's a legal matter then, not a league matter.

That's the gist of what I've been trying to say. Nice summation. Took me like four paragraphs to say that much.

[Joshv02]

No, the "against the law" argument doesn't have anything to do with baseball enforcing non-baseball rules. It has to do with if people are on the same playing field or at a disadvantage. And, as I tried to make clear, it only goes to if it is cheating, not what penalty should be handed down. I'd likely agree that the penalty should be light, but that isn't b/c it isn't cheating -- it is b/c the cheating doesn't raise to a huge competive advantage, or at least no one has adequately made that clear to me.

Thought the question of "which laws" brings up an interesting question if there is any difference in the laws here (I assume that there isn't in this instance, though, so it is likely an accademic question only).

[Sublimity]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

No, the "against the law" argument doesn't have anything to do with baseball enforcing non-baseball rules. It has to do with if people are on the same playing field or at a disadvantage. And, as I tried to make clear, it only goes to if it is cheating, not what penalty should be handed down. I'd likely agree that the penalty should be light, but that isn't b/c it isn't cheating -- it is b/c the cheating doesn't raise to a huge competive advantage, or at least no one has adequately made that clear to me.

Thought the question of "which laws" brings up an interesting question if there is any difference in the laws here (I assume that there isn't in this instance, though, so it is likely an accademic question only).

Well how are they supposed to determine that penalty? Anything they say will be arbitrarily handed out to one player when others with similar evidence against them get off completely. I would think the arbitrary nature of this whole proceeding would be something you disagree with.

[jgross68]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

What no one talks about, and what I would like to see more talked about. Is just how much steroid use improves your playing skills.
Even though it would be highly illegal and highly unhealthy, I really would like to see a study done on the impact of performance enhancing drugs and sports playing skills.

I posted a link to a Baseball Prospectus article earlier in this thread that takes an analytical approach (of course) at looking at the effects of steroids on offensive production, namely (adjusted) HR rates and "Power Spikes."

Of course, the analysis is based on several assumptions about PED use and not the kind of empirical study you're suggesting, but it does provide an interesting framework for looking at the effects of juicing. Also left unanswered, though, is the question of how steroid use has affected pitchers during the same time.

[QuestGAV]

Originally Posted by abailey3313

And it's not baseball's place to enforce the law. They're entitled to reprimand players who break league rules with suspensions or fines, but they need to leave the legal mumbo-jumbo to someone else. Going backward in time and slapping someone on the wrist for doing something that was against the law but not against league rules is stepping over their boundary, I think. It's a legal matter then, not a league matter.

Who are you arguing with at this point? 70% of the board has agreed that no official sanctions can be levied against Bonds. You're beating up a lovely looking strawman here but there's very few people who believe in what you are arguing against. I think the pertinent question at this point is how this scandal affects how we each view Bonds as individuals. Clearly it doesn't affect your view of him at all.

[abailey3313]

Originally Posted by QuestGAV

Who are you arguing with at this point?

I wasn't arguing with anyone. I was responding to a post made by Sublimity. Relax.

Originally Posted by QuestGAV

70% of the board has agreed that no official sanctions can be levied against Bonds. You're beating up a lovely looking strawman here...

So because 70% of the board has agreed on something I'm not allowed to contribute my ? Nah, don't like that.

And isn't this entire debate beating a dead horse? These same things have been said over and over and over again. If you're annoyed by the repetitiveness of the debate, get out of it.

Originally Posted by QuestGAV

...but there's very few people who believe in what you are arguing against.

What?

First you asked what I was arguing against. Apparently somewhere between the beginning and end of your thought process you figured it out. Unfortunately, like I said, I wasn't arguing against anyone. I was stating an opinion.

And I thought 70% of people agreed that baseball can't go back and pass down reprimands for this stuff? Yet somehow there are "very few people who believe in what you are arguing against"? No there's not. I'm in that 70%. And you didn't even know what I was arguing against to begin with.

Originally Posted by QuestGAV

I think the pertinent question at this point is how this scandal affects how we each view Bonds as individuals. Clearly it doesn't affect your view of him at all.

You're right. Our opinions of him probably are more important than whether or not there are legal ties to the matter (and so on and so forth).

[QuestGAV]

Originally Posted by abailey3313

You're right. Our opinions of him probably are more important than whether or not there are legal ties to the matter (and so on and so forth).

Points taken, for the most part. I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not (my sarcasm detector is being serviced at the moment). In case it is, I would say that it is more important what we think as individuals than what the legal/official implications are. Because it's unlikely (and unjust) for Bonds to be subject to any official sanctions it's left in our hands as baseball fans to judge whether Bonds was what his numbers said he was or something somewhat less.

FWIW, I posted a poll because I am interested in how people feel about that question.

http://ootpdevelopments.com/board/sh...d.php?t=113556

[AnotherAlias]

Since I haven't repeated myself today about this yet, I'll do so now.

Bonds cheated. He broke the laws of this country when he decided to inject steroids into his body and turn himself into a damn science project, just so he could hit the ball farther than anyone else in baseball.

There...I got it off my chest for today, thanks guys.



+1

[Sublimity]

Originally Posted by QuestGAV

Who are you arguing with at this point? 70% of the board has agreed that no official sanctions can be levied against Bonds. You're beating up a lovely looking strawman here but there's very few people who believe in what you are arguing against.

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

Since I haven't repeated myself today about this yet, I'll do so now.

Bonds cheated. He broke the laws of this country when he decided to inject steroids into his body and turn himself into a damn science project, just so he could hit the ball farther than anyone else in baseball.

There...I got it off my chest for today, thanks guys.

[QuestGAV]

Originally Posted by Sublimity

You will notice that in that particular post AA did not advocate any particular official sanction be taken against Bonds, just opined that his own personal opinion had been greatly changed towards the negative side of the spectrum.

[Sublimity]

Originally Posted by QuestGAV

You will notice that in that particular post AA did not advocate any particular official sanction be taken against Bonds, just opined that his own personal opinion had been greatly changed towards the negative side of the spectrum.

Well, this is what started it all, as far as my part, really.

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

So steroids weren't illegal according to law?

I see...

That would seem to imply AA thinks MLB should be able to punish him since it was illegal according to the law. As he was repeating his earlier sentiments, I can only guess he was continuing that line of thinking.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

There is a connection between illegal activity and cheating if that illegal activity can aid on-field performance. Steroids being illegal means that law-abiding baseball players were at a disadvantage to those who were illegally-taking steroids. That competitive disadvantage is rooted in legality, but it extends to cheating by definition, so long as one defines cheating as an unfair competitive advantage, and so long as one accepts the premise that obeying the law should not put one at a disadvantage.

I'm just going to quote this since it seems like none of the "baseball shouldn't enforce the law" people read it/responded to it.

[Sublimity]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

I'm just going to quote this since it seems like none of the "baseball shouldn't enforce the law" people read it/responded to it.

Ok, I missed that one.

In that case, it's baseball's fault. They didn't have a rule about it despite knowing about it and "knowing" its effects. (I put the word knowing in quotation marks because nobody really knows the effects of steroids on a major league baseball player aside from the ability to increase muscle mass.)

Is a player who took steroids wrong, even before they were against MLB rules? Absolutely. They were illegal. But that doesn't mean MLB can punish them for it.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

I'm just going to quote this since it seems like none of the "baseball shouldn't enforce the law" people read it/responded to it.

Mylons responded to this argument, but you are right that others did not.

[Sublimity]

Originally Posted by jgross68

...and since I had a little extra time this morning, here are couple more graphs showing the HR/BIP ratios for Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Bonds, McGwire and Sosa by age. Somebody asked for these; Sublimity or phenom, maybe? Anyway, the first graph shows all six players on the same panel which gets a little tough to read. The second graph shows each player on his own panel. The dotted lines represent the overall average HR/BIP for all six players and the first- and third-quartile regions to help show statistical outliers. Again these numbers are taken from raw totals; no adjustment for era, ballpark, league, etc. was done. Enjoy!

EDIT: I noticed that I goofed up Babe Ruth's BIP numbers, skewing his HR/BIP ratio much lower. Revised graphs are attached. My bad!

Since jgross demanded the props, I will oblige. Thanks jgross, those are great.

His post is here so you can find the attachments more easierly. http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...&postcount=453

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by Sublimity

Ok, I missed that one.

In that case, it's baseball's fault. They didn't have a rule about it despite knowing about it and "knowing" its effects. (I put the word knowing in quotation marks because nobody really knows the effects of steroids on a major league baseball player aside from the ability to increase muscle mass.)

Is a player who took steroids wrong, even before they were against MLB rules? Absolutely. They were illegal. But that doesn't mean MLB can punish them for it.

The problem with this logic is that it puts the onus on baseball to be an all-knowledgeable legislative body. Baseball administration is not composed of justices and physiologists and scientists. Baseball not being the tip-of-the spear in proactivity and discovery on cutting-edge sciences and legal matters should not absolve the moral obligations of the participants, obligations which arguably include not cheating.

[Sublimity]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

The problem with this logic is that it puts the onus on baseball to be an all-knowledgeable legislative body. Baseball administration is not composed of justices and physiologists and scientists. Baseball not being the tip-of-the spear in proactivity and discovery on cutting-edge sciences and legal matters should not absolve the moral obligations of the participants, obligations which arguably include not cheating.

If they had simply said "Taking any non-FDA approved drug, or taking a regulated medication without being prescribed by a doctor, will not be tolerated by MLB and will suffer the following penalties: blah blah blah" would have been different. If they had mentioned "steroids or similar stimulants designed to promote artificial growth" or something of the sort, it would have been different. They were entirely silent on the issue. That's my problem with it.

They don't need to list every single drug that's not allowed. But they've gotta have something. Otherwise they've intentionally left it out of their hands and in the hands of a lawmaking body that deals with it, which in this case would be the US government. Which is fine. As long as they leave it to the US government to dole out the punishments as well.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by Sublimity

If they had simply said "Taking any non-FDA approved drug, or taking a regulated medication without being prescribed by a doctor, will not be tolerated by MLB and will suffer the following penalties: blah blah blah" would have been different. If they had mentioned "steroids or similar stimulants designed to promote artificial growth" or something of the sort, it would have been different. They were entirely silent on the issue. That's my problem with it.

They don't need to list every single drug that's not allowed. But they've gotta have something. Otherwise they've intentionally left it out of their hands and in the hands of a lawmaking body that deals with it, which in this case would be the US government. Which is fine. As long as they leave it to the US government to dole out the punishments as well.

I think that is a convenient excuse to support your given position on the matter, honestly.

The ultimate problem with your stance is that you cannot regulate that which you do not know.

Should baseball right now have a policy on the books about genetic engineering? That's becoming feasible, and will likely impact sports in the next generation, so maybe we'd agree that baseball should come out with a policy. Cool.

Well, what about mechanical arms and limbs and robotics? It's very possible that robotic arms will be around within the next century that could perform in pro sports, no? Cool. So baseball makes policy about mechanical limbs.

This may seem far-fetched and tangental, but both are possible, and both are forseeable, and both are applicable to your stance that baseball needs policies on this stuff before it becomes an issue on the diamond. The above two policies may be feasible. But, what if genetic engineering is made illegal? Would baseball still have to explicity outlaw it in advance? Why? And what about that problem that is entirely unforseeable? The problem that is completely unheard of until it is discovered--the cancer on baseball that is latent until it is revealed during or after its effects on the game?

I don't think it's necessarily relevant to baseball's treatment of Bonds that baseball was aware of illegal steroids yet didn't make an explicit policy for them. Must baseball make explicit that illegal competitive advantages are against the rules? I don't see that as necessary now nor as practical moving forward. I think it's a cop-out used to try to exonerate Bonds.

The bottom line is that, if Bonds knowingly took steroids, he knowingly gave himself an illegal competitive advantage and gave others an illegal competitive disadvantage. He put himself in a position to exalt himself illegally above law-abiding baseball players. I see baseball's steroid policy or lack thereof doing very little to affect that fundamental moral deficiency.

[Joshv02]

I'm trying to figure out why people think MLB didn't outlaw steriods earlier than the current CBA.

So, I'm looking at baseball's old memo outlining its Drug Policy and Prevention Program, available here http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs.htm#1991Memo .

The Memo clearly states that "[t]he possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possion, sale or use of any illlegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commission and risk permanent expulsion from the game. . . The prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steriods or prescription drugs for which the indivudal in possession of thed drug does not have a prescription." (Emphasis added)

Perhaps the Memo had to be a subject of bargaining and therefore the Memo had no effect? But, the provisions were enforced for illegal drugs...

I'm not sure why we think baseball didn't outlaw steriods until the most recent CBA. I think they just started testing but the prohibition always existed. Am I wrong?

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

The problem with this logic is that it puts the onus on baseball to be an all-knowledgeable legislative body. Baseball administration is not composed of justices and physiologists and scientists. Baseball not being the tip-of-the spear in proactivity and discovery on cutting-edge sciences and legal matters should not absolve the moral obligations of the participants, obligations which arguably include not cheating.

Except that the issue of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs had continually come up in collective bargaining negotiations and each time both sides had agreed not to prohibit them. If an issue specifically comes up in collective bargaining and still doesn't have a rule against it, doesn't that actually absolve the participants of moral obligation in the matter -- at least in regards to MLB? This wasn't a gray area -- the players' union and owners had come to an agreement that steroids wasn't an issue.