|
|
#151
11-06-2007, 02:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Question for RedBean, If steroids were illegal from 96-02, doesn't that imply that they were against the rules? [/ QUOTE ] They werent illegal anymore than morphine is illegal. [/ QUOTE ] Ummm.... your reasoning here is so bizarre. Its illegal to have a prescription drug without a valid medical reason(obv). If you have a Dr. prescribing them without a valid medical reason he stands to lose his license quickly. So yeah it would be illegal to simply be prescribed these drugs for performance enhancing benefits, hence the point I was trying to make. 
|
|
#152
11-06-2007, 02:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Because he is the singular person here that is willing to go to great lengths to defend BB [/ QUOTE ] he's not the only one, its just he's so good at it, the rest just let him take care of business [/ QUOTE ] QFT. No need to waste time arguing when RB does it way better than I ever could. Bonds was the best player in MLB before the steroid era, during the steroid era, and even now in his 40's is 1 of the most feared hitters after the steroid era. IMO, anybody who doesn't vote for him on the HOF ballot should immediately have their voting privileges revoked for life. And this is coming from a die hard Reds fan who has no interest in Bonds besides the fact that he is the best I've ever seen.
|
|
#153
11-06-2007, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Then replot it if you want. HR's per 500 AB have bounce around from between 13 to just below 15 since 1994, with 2006 not being too far off peak. While significant, it is not nearly as big a jump as you see pre 1994. [/ QUOTE ] Some things you aren't considering: 1. Expansion has a great effect on the talent pool, especially pitching. 2. Exapansion in 1993, and then in 1998 caused a noticeable effect in the rise in HR production. Take a look at this chart I whipped up:  Prior to expansion 1979-1992 average: 9.36 After 1993 expansion, from 1993-1997: 12.20 After 1998 exapnsion, from 1998-2007: 13.81 (obv, 1987 was quite an aberration, cover it with your thumb on the chart, and you see three distinct groupings.)
|
|
#154
11-06-2007, 02:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
The only problem I have with your reasoning here is this: you constantly harp about Hank admitting his use of 'greenies' and then you trot him out for this example. You can't have it both ways here. He is either dirty as you often claim or he is clean and the precedent for Bonds. [/ QUOTE ] Why do you insist that I simplify Hank Aaron as either "dirty" or "clean"? Hank is a great baseball player who hit a ton of homeruns and admitted to using greenies once. It is what it is....no more, no less. I certainly don't think Hank Aaron is a dirty baseball player, nor do I think greenies aided in any of his 755 homeruns. My apologies if you got that impression. In fact, Hank is a great baseball player who admitted using greenies once. Willie Mays did the same, as did Mike Schmidt, and I certainly don't think either of them are dirty either. I simply acnowledge that it is what it is...without feeling the need to oversimplify a man of great accomplishment into a digital "dirty" or "clean" label. Granted, I pointed out Hank's use to highlight the hypocrisy in the media, as they refused to print even a mention of his prior admission during the entire chase, calling him the epitome of clean. And when I originally posted the hypothetical of a ballplayer who took PED's just once, the consensus was that one time made someone a cheater.....until they discovered the example was Hank Aaron, and then the hypocrisy kicked in.... Funny how that works, huh?
|
|
#155
11-06-2007, 02:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Ummm.... your reasoning here is so bizarre. Its illegal to have a prescription drug without a valid medical reason(obv). If you have a Dr. prescribing them without a valid medical reason he stands to lose his license quickly. So yeah it would be illegal to simply be prescribed these drugs for performance enhancing benefits, hence the point I was trying to make. [/ QUOTE ] What about a steroid that is not illegal, nor requires a prescription? To be quite honest, you're reasoning seems to be quite bizarre, in that you are assuming that the alleged substance was illegal by federal law at the time, and required a prescription.
|
|
#156
11-06-2007, 02:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The only problem I have with your reasoning here is this: you constantly harp about Hank admitting his use of 'greenies' and then you trot him out for this example. You can't have it both ways here. He is either dirty as you often claim or he is clean and the precedent for Bonds. [/ QUOTE ] Why do you insist that I simplify Hank Aaron as either "dirty" or "clean"? Hank is a great baseball player who hit a ton of homeruns and admitted to using greenies once. It is what it is....no more, no less. I certainly don't think Hank Aaron is a dirty baseball player, nor do I think greenies aided in any of his 755 homeruns. My apologies if you got that impression. In fact, Hank is a great baseball player who admitted using greenies once. Willie Mays did the same, as did Mike Schmidt, and I certainly don't think either of them are dirty either. I simply acnowledge that it is what it is...without feeling the need to oversimplify a man of great accomplishment into a digital "dirty" or "clean" label. Granted, I pointed out Hank's use to highlight the hypocrisy in the media, as they refused to print even a mention of his prior admission during the entire chase, calling him the epitome of clean. And when I originally posted the hypothetical of a ballplayer who took PED's just once, the consensus was that one time made someone a cheater.....until they discovered the example was Hank Aaron, and then the hypocrisy kicked in.... Funny how that works, huh? [/ QUOTE ] And the reason I call you intellectually dishonest is the way you characterize hank differently in each post. You act like hes a cheater when it suits your needs and like hes clean when it doesn't. You only admitted Hank used greenies once after that was brought to your attention. You were trying to say he was a habitual, admitted user and got called out on it. There are several things with your Bonds arguements that bother me. I don't care either way since I hate baseball and find it extremely boring. But when you say Bonds never tested positive as proof of something it blows my mind. The big thing about the Clear was that it was supposed to not be detected. So many designer steroids are designed to pass tests that most steroid tests become meaningless. So Bonds testing positive is not something that completely clears as you seem to believe.
|
|
#157
11-06-2007, 02:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ummm.... your reasoning here is so bizarre. Its illegal to have a prescription drug without a valid medical reason(obv). If you have a Dr. prescribing them without a valid medical reason he stands to lose his license quickly. So yeah it would be illegal to simply be prescribed these drugs for performance enhancing benefits, hence the point I was trying to make. [/ QUOTE ] What about a steroid that is not illegal, nor requires a prescription? To be quite honest, you're reasoning seems to be quite bizarre, in that you are assuming that the alleged substance was illegal by federal law at the time, and required a prescription. [/ QUOTE ] If you have no valid prescription for the drug it is illegal. How difficult is that? Federal law regarding control of substances has not substantially changed in the past 10 years. I have no clue why you think it has.
|
|
#158
11-06-2007, 03:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
More fun with charts:
 Methodology: 1. HR rate = Homeruns per 500 PA 2. Determine each players HR rate for each year (age 30 to 39.) 3. Then, divide that rate by the overall league rate for each respective year.
|
|
#159
11-06-2007, 03:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
You only admitted Hank used greenies once after that was brought to your attention. You were trying to say he was a habitual, admitted user and got called out on it. [/ QUOTE ] You sir, are the one being outright dishonest. I previously posted that Hank Aaron admitted to using amphetamines, and cited the book and page number on which it was done. That is a fact. I never said Hank was a habitual user. That is you lying. [ QUOTE ] There are several things with your Bonds arguements that bother me. [/ QUOTE ] It bothers me when you make patently false assertions as to what I have said, in the process of calling *me* dishonest. [ QUOTE ] But when you say Bonds never tested positive as proof of something it blows my mind. [/ QUOTE ] I've only claimed it to be proof that he hasn't violated the MLB Steroid Policy as written, which requires a failed test to consider a player in violation, short of an admission or conviction. No matter how you feel otherwise, it is an undisputed fact that Barry Bonds has not failed a test, has not been convicted, nor has he admitted use. It is *the* clearly stated burden of proof to be considered by the MLB Steroid policy....yet you have a problem with me citing it. Sweet....
|
|
#160
11-06-2007, 03:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You only admitted Hank used greenies once after that was brought to your attention. You were trying to say he was a habitual, admitted user and got called out on it. [/ QUOTE ] You sir, are the one being outright dishonest. I previously posted that Hank Aaron admitted to using amphetamines, and cited the book and page number on which it was done. That is a fact. I never said Hank was a habitual user. That is you lying. [ QUOTE ] There are several things with your Bonds arguements that bother me. [/ QUOTE ] It bothers me when you make patently false assertions as to what I have said, in the process of calling *me* dishonest. [ QUOTE ] But when you say Bonds never tested positive as proof of something it blows my mind. [/ QUOTE ] I've only claimed it to be proof that he hasn't violated the MLB Steroid Policy as written, which requires a failed test to consider a player in violation, short of an admission or conviction. No matter how you feel otherwise, it is an undisputed fact that Barry Bonds has not failed a test, has not been convicted, nor has he admitted use. It is *the* clearly stated burden of proof to be considered by the MLB Steroid policy....yet you have a problem with me citing it. Sweet.... [/ QUOTE ] Are you really trying to say that when you cited Hank's usage you were only saying he used one time? hahahaha. Anyone can go back and read your post. I believe a poster 2 or 3 posts later called you out and you completely ignored the fact. In fact, even within the past few days you have put Hank into the same breath as admitted dopers, without adding that he only used once. Very similar to the rugby argument you had where neglected to add that the competition was only among 4 teams. And then you completely ignore the point about the Clear being untestable, again. Done arguing.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
