|
|
#71
11-03-2007, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And if he admits that it is probable that BB at some point took PED's then that moves the conversation in a completely different direction. [/ QUOTE ] What direction would that be? Lemme guess....that you think PED use is cheating? We can go ahead and skip to that step if you prefer. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] And it does matter if he took them, punishable or not. [/ QUOTE ] It matters if he violates the baseball policy, which he didn't. It only matters to *you* whether he took PEDs, because you think any and all PED use is against the rules and cheating, when it clearly isn't. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it would move the discussion to whether it is cheating or not. Which seems to be a matter that is debatable. Anyway, I am headed out for the night. Look forward to your responses. 
|
|
#72
11-03-2007, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
Ok, now it is obvious that the discussion that people want to be having is: "Using steroids or PEDs was not a violation of baseball's rules from 1996-2002, but if a player did engage in those substances during that period of time, how would we judge them?"
Obviously different people answer that question in different ways, and that is ok. Some people think that because it wasn't against baseball's rules that makes it not cheating. I don't disagree with that, it is a logical argument. Other people think that using steroids is something that taints a player's career and accomplishments, and that is defensible too. There are other logical counterarguments to that, such as Aaron likely using amphetamines, etc, etc. but we have been through them 100 times so I won't bore people. The disucssion can go on and on and on. I don't think that any one of those answers is inherently wrong or immoral, it depends on how you view things. But Redbean's refusal to have that discussion and instead keep saying over and over again "There is a zero % chance he violated MLB's rules" is dishonest.
|
|
#73
11-03-2007, 07:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Why? Because he is the singular person here that is willing to go to great lengths to defend BB. And if he admits that it is probable that BB at some point took PED's then that moves the conversation in a completely different direction. [/ QUOTE ] There's no reason for anyone else to post on the "pro-Bonds" side because RedBean handles it well himself. [ QUOTE ] And it does matter if he took them, punishable or not. He is the holder of the most holy record in sports and is arguably the GOAT. His legacy will largely be determined by the resolution/non resolution of his alleged PED use. [/ QUOTE ] His legacy shouldn't be tarnished if he hasn't violated any rules. If creatine is banned by MLB this year, will that tarnish every player who has used creatine up until this year? [ QUOTE ] Oh, and also, don't click on the thread? Would that help? [/ QUOTE ] Don't ask the same retarded question over and over and over again that you know RB won't answer? Would that help?
|
|
#74
11-03-2007, 08:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] OMG, WTF does it matter how RedBean would weight the percentage of Bonds having used steroids? Jesus Christ. Even if RB thinks he used PEDs a majority of the time, it doesn't matter because it wasn't a punishable offense by MLB. STFU about it already. [/ QUOTE ] Why? Because he is the singular person here that is willing to go to great lengths to defend BB. And if he admits that it is probable that BB at some point took PED's then that moves the conversation in a completely different direction. And it does matter if he took them, punishable or not. He is the holder of the most holy record in sports and is arguably the GOAT. His legacy will largely be determined by the resolution/non resolution of his alleged PED use. Oh, and also, don't click on the thread? Would that help? [/ QUOTE ] I think if you wanted to, you could assume that RedBean thinks it is 99% likely that Bonds used PEDs, or you could assume he thinks its .0001%, and it wouldnt make a shred of difference to anything he posts. Since I dont know RedBean or ever plan on meeting him, I dont really care what his personal opinion (read: guess) is about what Bonds took, ESPECIALLY since it doesnt impact his arguments or his position in any way.
|
|
#75
11-03-2007, 09:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Do you think Bonds took steroids or not? Simple question. The answer is yes or no. It isn't a leading question. It's a simple question of opinion. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think he took any illegal steroids in violation of baseball rules. [/ QUOTE ] So, to sum up your position, anyone can do whatever they want, whether legal or illegal, as long as there isn't anything on it in the rulebook?
|
|
#76
11-03-2007, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ] He is good...excellent skills of avoidance, misdirection, etc.
|
|
#77
11-03-2007, 09:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Do you think Bonds took steroids or not? Simple question. The answer is yes or no. It isn't a leading question. It's a simple question of opinion. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think he took any illegal steroids in violation of baseball rules. [/ QUOTE ] So, to sum up your position, anyone can do whatever they want, whether legal or illegal, as long as there isn't anything on it in the rulebook? [/ QUOTE ] They might have to deal with the cops or the FDA or something.
|
|
#78
11-03-2007, 10:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it would move the discussion to whether it is cheating or not. Which seems to be a matter that is debatable. [/ QUOTE ] Great, let's discuss it then. You think it is "cheating", not because it is in violation of the rules that govern the sport, but because "you just think it is." I disagree, and think that because it is not in violation of the rules that govern the sport, it isn't cheating.
|
|
#79
11-03-2007, 10:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
How about all the pitchers BB faced that were using PEDs? He would have been at an unfair advantage if he wasnt using PEDs himself. Have you guys considered that?
Best player of all time imo.
|
|
#80
11-03-2007, 11:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
Some people think that because it wasn't against baseball's rules that makes it not cheating. I don't disagree with that, it is a logical argument. [/ QUOTE ] Agree, it is a logical argument. [ QUOTE ] But Redbean's refusal to have that discussion and instead keep saying over and over again "There is a zero % chance he violated MLB's rules" is dishonest. [/ QUOTE ] So if I have an opinion that disagrees with yours, it makes it "dishonest"? Sweet... And when have I refused to have the discussion of whether or not PED use was against the rules during that time period? By all means, let's have that discussion. Here, I'll start: The use of steroids were not in violation of baseball rules prior to the implementation of the MLB Steroid Policy on September 30th, 2002, as part of the 2003-2006 MLB CBA. It called for the 2003 season to be a survey year with no discipline, and if more than 5% of players tested positive for any of a list of banned substances, then starting in 2004, the testing program would shift into one with clear enforcement steps. If you disagree, please to be letting me know why.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
