[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think someone who used certain substances in a certain time period were certainly cheating in a spirit of the rules sense but not in a punishable sense.


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the "spirit of the rules" as you wish they had been?

This isn't an issue of the spirit/letter of the law, considering that a policy against steroids didn't even exist, so it's hard to go against the spirit of something that didn't exist.

It's not as if I am interpreting the policy differently than you, and we arguing the semantics of spirit versus letter.....the policy was non-existent until the 2003 season.

That said, what "rule" do you think pre-2003 steroid use "against the spirit" of?


[ QUOTE ]

Retroactive punishment is a dumb ass idea.


[/ QUOTE ]

Says the guy who thinks Bonds cheated a rule from 1996-2002 that wasn't in effect until 2003.

Sweet...

[/ QUOTE ]


Ahh....you see, there is a difference between cheating a "rule" and cheating in the "spirit of the rules" sense.

See, if I thought he was cheating a rule I would say he should get punished. But since I dont think that, I dont think he should be punished. See how that works?

As for the spirit of the rules that I keep bringing up, do you disagree that there are some unwritten rules/codes that ballplayers generally adhere to, and that it is possible that PED's could to some degree be in violation of one of those unwritten rules?

And just to head this off, this is my opinion. An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. My ideas and thoughts can be changed by discussion. Facts, something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation, cannot be changed by discussing opinions.