|
|
#421
11-02-2007, 12:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
What specific logic did I use? Maybe that will help clear this up. I am just not sure what part you are referring to. [/ QUOTE ] Your assertion that using PED's is "cheating", regardless of wheter or not it is in violation of the rules, or a result of a clearly defined detection method, and arbitrarily determining who fits the description based on your own personal preferences. And your logic that the likelihood of a person's use goes up on the basis of unproven and tenous circumstantial evidence. [ QUOTE ] Tony Gwynn <font color="red"> maybe </font> Roger Clemens <font color="red"> maybe </font> Hank Aaron<font color="red"> maybe </font> Bruce Bochy<font color="red"> maybe </font> Willie Mays<font color="red"> maybe </font> Dan Marino<font color="red"> maybe </font> John Elway<font color="red"> maybe </font> Barry Bonds<font color="red"> maybe </font> Terrell Davis<font color="red"> maybe </font> Michael Chang<font color="red"> maybe </font> Jerry Rice<font color="red"> maybe </font> Mike Schmidt<font color="red"> maybe </font> Brett Favre<font color="red"> maybe </font> Roger Maris <font color="red"> maybe </font> [/ QUOTE ] For what it's worth, Aaron, Mays, Schmidt and Favre have admitted using PEDs during their careers, so using your logic, these legends are 100% definitive cheaters. Clemens was implicated directly by testimony by a former teammate, which not even Bonds has had that level of evidence, so using your logic, his likelihood is probably higher, along with his approved use of an otherwise banned substance as late as this year. Rice trained with Bonds under Anderson....so his likelihood just went up....using the "Guilt by association" of Andersons history logic as previously applied to Bonds. Marino, Elway, Davis, Chang were all BALCO clients along with Bonds....some enjoying an even longer and earlier relationship with Victor Conte....so using your logic, their likelihood went up over the average player. Bruce Bochy has a size 8 head, and that alone makes him guilty, LDO. Roger Maris hit 61 homeruns, far an above moreso than any of his over best seasons....so obviously, his likelihood goes up...considering your previous logic cited "McGwire and Sosa hit alot of homeruns!". Gwynn stated that 50% of players use greenies or some form of amphetamines after he retired, to which several angry players retorted anonymously that Tony was in the bad half of that 50%....so his likelihood goes up. I mean, seriously, using the same logic you've applied variously to Bonds to make an argument, we can see that just about anyone can be labeled a cheater when we apply it consistently to others, some of them even definitively at 100%....and curiously enough, Bonds falls about right in the middle to the lower half of the pack, at least amonsgt this list of player. Yet, I doubt you'll find many people who geniunely consider Aaron, Mays, Schmidt, and Favre to be "definite cheaters", while at the same time acknowledge that Bonds is only a "possible one". Not only is it reckless and disingenious to apply this standard to Bonds and then ignore it's consistent application to others, it's just not logical, practical, or fair. Which, of course, is why sports have rules and clearly defined detection methods in order to avoid such conjecture and speculation.....but you've already stated you disregard those rules and make up your own as you go along. Funny how that works, huh? 
|
|
#422
11-02-2007, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
So you believe everything you read? And you also believe that what is written is explicitly followed to the letter? [/ QUOTE ] When it comes to determining the accuracy of your assertion regarding MLB policy, I certainly believe the actual MLB policy itself, as written....far more so than your citation of "some article" that made patently false assertions. I mean, seriously.....is it that difficult for you to just admit you were wrong when you claimed that not all players were tested, when in reality, they are.
|
|
#423
11-02-2007, 12:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] What specific logic did I use? Maybe that will help clear this up. I am just not sure what part you are referring to. [/ QUOTE ] Your assertion that using PED's is "cheating", regardless of wheter or not it is in violation of the rules, or a result of a clearly defined detection method, and arbitrarily determining who fits the description based on your own personal preferences. And your logic that the likelihood of a person's use goes up on the basis of unproven and tenous circumstantial evidence. [ QUOTE ] Tony Gwynn <font color="red"> maybe </font> Roger Clemens <font color="red"> maybe </font> Hank Aaron<font color="red"> maybe </font> Bruce Bochy<font color="red"> maybe </font> Willie Mays<font color="red"> maybe </font> Dan Marino<font color="red"> maybe </font> John Elway<font color="red"> maybe </font> Barry Bonds<font color="red"> maybe </font> Terrell Davis<font color="red"> maybe </font> Michael Chang<font color="red"> maybe </font> Jerry Rice<font color="red"> maybe </font> Mike Schmidt<font color="red"> maybe </font> Brett Favre<font color="red"> maybe </font> Roger Maris <font color="red"> maybe </font> [/ QUOTE ] For what it's worth, Aaron, Mays, Schmidt and Favre have admitted using PEDs during their careers, so using your logic, these legends are 100% definitive cheaters. Clemens was implicated directly by testimony by a former teammate, which not even Bonds has had that level of evidence, so using your logic, his likelihood is probably higher, along with his approved use of an otherwise banned substance as late as this year. Rice trained with Bonds under Anderson....so his likelihood just went up....using the "Guilt by association" of Andersons history logic as previously applied to Bonds. Marino, Elway, Davis, Chang were all BALCO clients along with Bonds....some enjoying an even longer and earlier relationship with Victor Conte....so using your logic, their likelihood went up over the average player. Bruce Bochy has a size 8 head, and that alone makes him guilty, LDO. Roger Maris hit 61 homeruns, far an above moreso than any of his over best seasons....so obviously, his likelihood goes up...considering your previous logic cited "McGwire and Sosa hit alot of homeruns!". Gwynn stated that 50% of players use greenies or some form of amphetamines after he retired, to which several angry players retorted anonymously that Tony was in the bad half of that 50%....so his likelihood goes up. I mean, seriously, using the same logic you've applied variously to Bonds to make an argument, we can see that just about anyone can be labeled a cheater when we apply it consistently to others, some of them even definitively at 100%....and curiously enough, Bonds falls about right in the middle to the lower half of the pack, at least amonsgt this list of player. Yet, I doubt you'll find many people who geniunely consider Aaron, Mays, Schmidt, and Favre to be "definite cheaters", while at the same time acknowledge that Bonds is only a "possible one". Not only is it reckless and disingenious to apply this standard to Bonds and then ignore it's consistent application to others, it's just not logical, practical, or fair. Which, of course, is why sports have rules and clearly defined detection methods in order to avoid such conjecture and speculation.....but you've already stated you disregard those rules and make up your own as you go along. Funny how that works, huh? [/ QUOTE ] Which is why I said in a previous post: [ QUOTE ] All maybes? Some more likely than others.. [/ QUOTE ] Because there is circumstantial evidence surrounding some of those guys. I dont see how that is being disingenuous at all. OT: Greenies, from what I understand, were very widly used from at least the 60's on. Which is one of the reasons I think chasing after steroid users is silly. They have allowed PED's forever, so why start caring now.
|
|
#424
11-02-2007, 12:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
From Section 4 of the Major League Baseball Constitution [ QUOTE ] that nothing in Section 4 shall limit the Commissioner’s authority to act on any matters that involves the integrity of, or public confidence in, the national game of Baseball.” [/ QUOTE ] So as far as rules go, do you think PED's fit into this category of things that affect the integrity of baseball? Not to mention the very easy argument of: buying steroids with no prescription is breaking the law, and baseball is free to punish you for breaking the law. [/ QUOTE ] Section 1.11 (a) All players on a team shall wear uniforms identical in color, trim and style... (g) No player shall attach anything to the heel or toe of his shoe other than the ordinary shoe plate or toe plate. Shoes with pointed spikes similar to golf or track shoes shall not be worn. So I guess if you can attach them to the bottom of the shoes and have everyone wear them, then its not against the rules. That might be counterproductive though...
|
|
#425
11-02-2007, 12:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So you believe everything you read? And you also believe that what is written is explicitly followed to the letter? [/ QUOTE ] When it comes to determining the accuracy of your assertion regarding MLB policy, I certainly believe the actual MLB policy itself, as written....far more so than your citation of "some article" that made patently false assertions. I mean, seriously.....is it that difficult for you to just admit you were wrong when you claimed that not all players were tested, when in reality, they are. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with you that the policy itself is more likely to be accurate to actual happenings, but in no way is it infallible. My point still stands, regardless of your attempts to nitpick it to death, that it is possible to evade a positive test based on shortcomings in the policy.
|
|
#426
11-02-2007, 12:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] From Section 4 of the Major League Baseball Constitution [ QUOTE ] that nothing in Section 4 shall limit the Commissioner’s authority to act on any matters that involves the integrity of, or public confidence in, the national game of Baseball.” [/ QUOTE ] So as far as rules go, do you think PED's fit into this category of things that affect the integrity of baseball? Not to mention the very easy argument of: buying steroids with no prescription is breaking the law, and baseball is free to punish you for breaking the law. [/ QUOTE ] Section 1.11 (a) All players on a team shall wear uniforms identical in color, trim and style... (g) No player shall attach anything to the heel or toe of his shoe other than the ordinary shoe plate or toe plate. Shoes with pointed spikes similar to golf or track shoes shall not be worn. So I guess if you can attach them to the bottom of the shoes and have everyone wear them, then its not against the rules. That might be counterproductive though... [/ QUOTE ] Right, so put them on everybody. Or use a rocket pack on your back instead so it isnt on your shoe. The point is that something does not have to be explictly written to be against the rules.
|
|
#427
11-02-2007, 12:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
OT: Greenies, from what I understand, were very widly used from at least the 60's on. Which is one of the reasons I think chasing after steroid users is silly. They have allowed PED's forever, so why start caring now. [/ QUOTE ] How are greenies OK because they've been widely used, but steroids (which may be widely used according to former ballplayers) are not? EDIT: WHOOPS MISREAD YOUR POST, DISREGARD PLEASE.
|
|
#428
11-02-2007, 01:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the very easy argument of: buying steroids with no prescription is breaking the law, and baseball is free to punish you for breaking the law. [/ QUOTE ] <u>If</u> the steroid in question is listed on the FDA Schedule as controlled substances..... And even so, if it is listed, obtaining them with a prescription is not illegal. But don't let that detail get in the way.
|
|
#429
11-02-2007, 01:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
IIRC, the only positives to caffeine have been workout boosts for casual exercisers it has not been shown to boost performance for athletes [/ QUOTE ] ....uhhh what?
|
|
#430
11-02-2007, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds bitter over departure from Giants
[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I said in a previous post: [ QUOTE ] All maybes? Some more likely than others.. [/ QUOTE ] Because there is circumstantial evidence surrounding some of those guys. I dont see how that is being disingenuous at all. [/ QUOTE ] You don't see it as disingenuous when you say a player who has definitively admitted to using a PED during his career is a "maybe"? Despite earlier asserting that anyone who uses PEDs is a cheater? Applying the same logic objectively that you applied to Bonds, we can say with 100% certainty that Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Brett Favre, and Mike Schmidt are confirmed, known cheaters. Except, when they aren't named Barry Bonds....you change it to "maybe". Interesting. (*Note, this is not my personal belief that those gentlemen are cheaters, but the conclusion drawn by using your previous logic, to demonstrate the lack of consistency in it's application to non-Bonds players.)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
