The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus this argument puts me on life tilt. Greenies WERE NOT AGAINST THE RULES until just a couple of years ago! IT WAS NOT CHEATING when Aaron used greenies!

Arrrrgghhhh!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

See RedBean's post.

Also, I could care less about people using greenies or steroids.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
Man, before this thread i just thought myturn2raise was a poor poster. But this is just like horrible drivel spewing out your mouth. And youre soooo convinced its true. Its pretty awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been thinking of starting a newsletter..guess you don't want it




ie......use the ignore if you don't like me

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Greenies WERE NOT AGAINST THE RULES until just a couple of years ago! IT WAS NOT CHEATING when Aaron used greenies!


[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious here, but if the situation with Hank puts you on "lifetilt", why do you apply a shockingly different double standard in regards to Bonds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious here, why are you so deliberately disingenuous, when you are obviously a smart person who can't have possibly forgotten the ridiculous arguments we had about this a couple of weeks ago?

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you assume Bonds used the "clear" and the "cream" as alleged in 2003....THG and HGH were not added to the MLB banned substance list until 2004/2005, with THG being tested for ever since, and Bonds not failing a single test, nor any allegations made of him using since they were banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that Bonds began taking "illegal steroids" in 1999. They were banned from baseball in 1991. Ergo, if my assumption is correct, then Bonds was cheating, and Aaron wasn't.

And I have already stated that I believe Bonds quit taking steroids once testing was instituted, so whether he's tested positive in the past 2 years has little to do with anything.

But I promised myself I wouldn't get sucked into this again.... argggg

[MyTurn2Raise]

not to mention that the chemists are so far ahead of the testing that it's LOLarious

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume that Bonds began taking "illegal steroids" in 1999. They were banned from baseball in 1991. Ergo, if my assumption is correct, then Bonds was cheating, and Aaron wasn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Myth.

Have you seen the full text of Vincent's memo that "banned steroids", or are you just going off what you read in SI?

If you'd like to see a copy of the entire memo, lemme know, and I can get one faxed over.

First and foremost, the memo only addressed possession of otherwise prescribed steroids without a prescription.

It also failed to define "steroid", in specific...what steroids were included, nor did it mention any method of detection, punishment, or appeal.

FWIW.... cortisone is a steroid, codeine is a steroid, tylenol-3 is a steroid, and even cholesterol is classified as steroid.

Using your liberal interpretation of Vincent's memo....err..I mean SI's liberal interpretation....then virtually every player who had a non-prescribed cortisone shot, took a non-prescribed codeine pill from the clubbie or trainer, or <u>ate a ham sandwich</u> could be considered a "cheater".

Do you really think Tony Gwynn got a Doctor to prescribe him all those hamburgers?

C'mon, man.

In fact, human semen is a steroid, so some cum-guzzling pooper-pusher in the closet during his MLB career would be a "cheater" too. (Paging Billy Bean)

Not to mention, it has never been proven that Bonds actually used illegal steroids, much less is it known whether or not they were prescribed.

Even using the strictest, liberal interpretation of Vincent's memo....if the player has a prescription in his name for the substance....even if the Doctor is illegally prescribing the substance...then it violates no rule.

The entire memo focused on a detailed plan to curb the use of substances of abuse (coke, etc), and mentioned "abusing prescription medication, including steroids, without a prescription in players name."

When the MLBPA and MLB negotiated their agreement following the memo, strict language was put into place regarding the drugs of abuse, and not a single mention of steroid or rules regarding their use was included....at the insistence of the union.

The simple truth is MLB instituted its steroid policy in 2002 during CBA negotiations, with survey testing in 2003, which converted into league wide testing in 2004.

[ QUOTE ]

And I have already stated that I believe Bonds quit taking steroids once testing was instituted, so whether he's tested positive in the past 2 years has little to do with anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has everything to do with this discussion, as your entire belief regarding him is founded on the myth that steroids were "banned in 1991" by a memo that has been mischaracterized and misrepresented by the media.

Admit as much, you haven't even seen the memo yourself, yet you are putting your entire belief regarding Bond's guilt upon it.

Much like the Blind Faith of religion, you seem to have the same in the media when it comes to justifying your hate for Bonds.

[MyTurn2Raise]

hahahhahahhahahah

i just want to state that the media has so profoundly shaped my viewpoint on all issues that, of course, I'm their muppet here too




lollerskates


BTW-I'm pretty sure Bonds did the cum-guzzling thing

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Greenies WERE NOT AGAINST THE RULES until just a couple of years ago! IT WAS NOT CHEATING when Aaron used greenies!


[/ QUOTE ]

Minor nitpick:

Amphetamine use as described by Aaron in his own words was in violation of federal law at the time, which in turn was in violation of his MLB player contract.

THG, which Bonds is alleged to have taken somewhere between 1999-2003, was not made illegal by federal law until 2004, nor was it banned from baseball until 2005.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume that Bonds began taking "illegal steroids" in 1999. They were banned from baseball in 1991. Ergo, if my assumption is correct, then Bonds was cheating, and Aaron wasn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Myth.

Have you seen the full text of Vincent's memo that "banned steroids", or are you just going off what you read in SI?

If you'd like to see a copy of the entire memo, lemme know, and I can get one faxed over.

First and foremost, the memo only addressed possession of otherwise prescribed steroids without a prescription.

It also failed to define "steroid", in specific...what steroids were included, nor did it mention any method of detection, punishment, or appeal.

FWIW.... cortisone is a steroid, codeine is a steroid, tylenol-3 is a steroid, and even cholesterol is classified as steroid.

Using your liberal interpretation of Vincent's memo....err..I mean SI's liberal interpretation....then virtually every player who had a non-prescribed cortisone shot, took a non-prescribed codeine pill from the clubbie or trainer, or <u>ate a ham sandwich</u> could be considered a "cheater".

Do you really think Tony Gwynn got a Doctor to prescribe him all those hamburgers?

C'mon, man.

In fact, human semen is a steroid, so some cum-guzzling pooper-pusher in the closet during his MLB career would be a "cheater" too. (Paging Billy Bean)

Not to mention, it has never been proven that Bonds actually used illegal steroids, much less is it known whether or not they were prescribed.

Even using the strictest, liberal interpretation of Vincent's memo....if the player has a prescription in his name for the substance....even if the Doctor is illegally prescribing the substance...then it violates no rule.

The entire memo focused on a detailed plan to curb the use of substances of abuse (coke, etc), and mentioned "abusing prescription medication, including steroids, without a prescription in players name."

When the MLBPA and MLB negotiated their agreement following the memo, strict language was put into place regarding the drugs of abuse, and not a single mention of steroid or rules regarding their use was included....at the insistence of the union.

The simple truth is MLB instituted its steroid policy in 2002 during CBA negotiations, with survey testing in 2003, which converted into league wide testing in 2004.

[ QUOTE ]

And I have already stated that I believe Bonds quit taking steroids once testing was instituted, so whether he's tested positive in the past 2 years has little to do with anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has everything to do with this discussion, as your entire belief regarding him is founded on the myth that steroids were "banned in 1991" by a memo that has been mischaracterized and misrepresented by the media.

Admit as much, you haven't even seen the memo yourself, yet you are putting your entire belief regarding Bond's guilt upon it.

Much like the Blind Faith of religion, you seem to have the same in the media when it comes to justifying your hate for Bonds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that it's a myth that steroids were illegal under baseball rules in 1991?

Sure, I'd like to see a copy of the entire memo.

According to ESPN (are they out to get Bonds too?), the 1991 Vincent memo said "This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids."

The ESPN report goes on to say that Bud Selig circulated an almost identical memo in 1997.

All the red herrings about ham sammiches and semen are amusing but really have nothing to do with this. The fact that other things might have qualified as steroids doesn't mean that performance-enhancing steroids weren't, in fact, banned.

Your semanticamacation machine is revved up, I see, but hopefully people reading this thread will see through it and understand that steroids were, in fact, banned by Vincent's memo in 1991.

But really, enjoy your blind worship of a man who was the only member of his team who couldn't even be bothered to re-take the field last night for Fan Appreciation Night after his last home game as a Giant.

Edit: wait, here's the 1991 memo. I encourage everyone to read it and see if you agree with Redbean's contention that it's a "myth" that steroids were banned from MLB by this memo.

[vhawk01]

Its a little funny that you are making fun of RedBean for being a semantic nit when he mentions that the memo doesn't, in any way, clarify exactly what is meant by steroids.

The reason this is funny is because you are being a gigantic semantic nit if you think this memo has anything to do with steroids.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason this is funny is because you are being a gigantic semantic nit if you think this memo has anything to do with steroids.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the part of the memo where it says illegal drugs are prohibited, "including steroids" ???

???