#41
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why would Bud Selig watch Bonds?
It's not like testing is fool proof. Far from it, it seems.
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why would Bud Selig watch Bonds?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Who's to say Arod isn't on roids? Or anyone for that matter. [/ QUOTE ] They test, not to mention baseball players have a level of familiarity with steroids akin to the average poster on this board. [/ QUOTE ] People seem to feel entitled to condemn others for taking steroids although they've never tested positive - why should some be immune to that treatment (ARod) and not others (Sosa)? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why would Bud Selig watch Bonds?
[ QUOTE ]
So when A-Rod hits number 800 in 9 years do you guys think that the celebration will be a lot better/more fun/universal? [/ QUOTE ] When Hank broke Ruth's record in 1974, the commish at the time had an open disdain for him passing Ruth, and refused to attend any games where he could break the record. Ruth's widow refused invitations to attend, saying "No matter how many homeruns Aaron hits, Babe will always be the real home run king." Aaron was booed in opposing stadiums heavily once he got within 5-10 homers of Babe. Sports journalists mitgated Hank's passing Ruth by quantifying that he took many more games and at-bats, and were quick to point out how much more dominat Ruth was in his era, etc. Many prominent sports journalists proclaimed that Hank may have totaled more through "longevity" or the "watering down of the expansion era", but they would always recognize the Babe as the TRUE home run king. Some even went as far as to denote the two records for their differences in eras. I don't know how many of you guys were even around then, but I can assure you it wasn't all cookies and cream for Hank...and were not talking about the well documented death threats from wild crazy nuts....we're talking also about the sports media, and the guys who ran baseball who didn't want to give him the proper credit. Of course, revisionist history 30+ years later they try to have you believe it was a great big party, and they were all in Hank's corner and he was beloved by all as he magically passed the Babe. Ironically enough, it seems eerily similar, and if anything, there is more support for Bonds now, than there was for Aaron then..and that's a sad fact many don't realize and those that do fail to admit. Outside of Atlanta and Milwaukee, many were openly rooting for Aaron to get injured, get sick, have an unfortunate accident, calls to retire during the '73 offseason because he didn't "deserve it" ...whatever...as long as he didn't pass the Babe...etc. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why would Bud Selig watch Bonds?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think people genuinely think the record is tainted by steroids. I certainly do. [/ QUOTE ] Newsflash: More pitchers were detected using steroids than hitters. [/ QUOTE ] I hope you see why this argument is really poorly constructed |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why would Bud Selig watch Bonds?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think people genuinely think the record is tainted by steroids. I certainly do. [/ QUOTE ] Newsflash: More pitchers were detected using steroids than hitters. [/ QUOTE ] I hope you see why this argument is really poorly constructed [/ QUOTE ] It's not so much an argument as it is just pointing out that pitchers are just as likely (or more) to use steroids as hitters. Everyone was using. All records are tainted, blah blah blah, and blacks couldn't play against Ruth, and international players weren't common against Aaron. If you think steroids are a serious problem in baseball and that it severely taints the records that we hold so dearly, you're probably an idiot. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why would Bud Selig watch Bonds?
HR's are becoming so yawn nowadays. I am curious if in 25 years we all will be seeing guys crush 70-80 in a year pretty regularly.
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why would Bud Selig watch Bonds?
A rod is on pace for 70 this year... I would be pretty happy to see him hit 60 even. I personally still find it to be a pretty exciting achievement and i think the country will be really into it if a-rod has any shot at the single season record.
edit: nm i thought arod had 39 not 34 for some reason. still, having him chase 60 will be exciting and another month like april will put him on a sick pace |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why would Bud Selig watch Bonds?
[ QUOTE ]
It's not like testing is fool proof. Far from it, it seems. [/ QUOTE ] Very much so. But typically it's false positives that are the problem. Regardless, testing has likely greatly reduced the quantity and quality of drug use. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why would Bud Selig watch Bonds?
Arod is nowhere close to being on pace for 70 this year. He doesn't really have a shot at the single season record, he has never hit more than 57. Then again if he gets the same totally insane mid 30s power surge the other guys got, he would have a chance. That seems very unlikely for pretty obvious reasons. However he is almost 2/3s of the way to the all time mark at 32 years old and is having his best year ever right now, add that to how consistent and healthy he has been for the first 10 years of his career and you have a very large chance of him having the all time mark some day.
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why would Bud Selig watch Bonds?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think people genuinely think the record is tainted by steroids. I certainly do. [/ QUOTE ] Newsflash: More pitchers were detected using steroids than hitters. [/ QUOTE ] I hope you see why this argument is really poorly constructed [/ QUOTE ] It's not so much an argument as it is just pointing out that pitchers are just as likely (or more) to use steroids as hitters. Everyone was using. All records are tainted, blah blah blah, and blacks couldn't play against Ruth, and international players weren't common against Aaron. If you think steroids are a serious problem in baseball and that it severely taints the records that we hold so dearly, you're probably an idiot. [/ QUOTE ] Amen. |
|
|