12/30/24
November 17, 2005
Baseball owners approve new steroid policy: No brainer, here. Not really news. However, my comment. I think in the future, when we look back on who had the greatest impact on professional baseball (perhaps sports in general) in the early 21st century, one name might top the list: Jose Canseco.
posted by graymatters to baseball at 11:50 AM - 79 comments
Jose wasn't just talking shit to get heard. I think he was actually telling the truth about a lot of the things in his book. The fact that he said something that turned out to be true does not take away from the point that he was, in fact, "talking shit to get heard." He wanted the publicity, he wanted the money and that's why he wrote the book (and why he does things like appear on the Surreal Life). To suggest any other modest/noble reason is to give Canseco far too much credit.
posted by grum@work at 12:21 PM on November 17, 2005
What grum said...even though he still sucks...
posted by MeatSaber at 12:28 PM on November 17, 2005
It's about time they got rid of the slap on the wrist penalities and really did something about the steroide issue. Everyone did a lot of talking but nothing got resolved (kind of like an episode of Oprah) finally we see some action from the owners. Canseco is totally a whore for the spotlight. I hate snitches.
posted by HATER 187 at 12:30 PM on November 17, 2005
Was Canseco a media whore? Absolutely. Was he saying things that people knew were true and just didn't want to hear? Right again. He had no more a noble reason to "out" everyone other than make a few bucks and relive his 15 minutes. However, that can't overshadow the fact that the man has in someway affected the future of not only MLB but possibly all other professional sports in this and other countries. It's hard to believe, but Jose Canseco has changed the face of professional sports for the better.
posted by willthrill72 at 12:42 PM on November 17, 2005
I'm not saying he was being modest or noble grum, all I'm saying is that if he was just talking to hear himself, he would probably be talking about who he screwed rather than the steroid topic. Then again, I haven't read the book, so he might have touched on that, too. Hater, would you rather he snitch and expose that these guys are cheating, or would you rather just have things the way they were? I know what you're saying, but at least Canseco coming forward brought light upon this subject. And when that fly ball bounced off his cranium and over the wall, that shit was hilarious.
posted by Desert Dog at 02:14 PM on November 17, 2005
I hate snitches. I'm totally going to tell Jose you said that.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 02:18 PM on November 17, 2005
Show me any one who isn't out to make a buck, then I will write a book for him! Remember an "atta boy" don't pay the bills.
posted by Joe Veltri at 02:33 PM on November 17, 2005
Canseco becomes HOF eligible in 2007. Probably (definitely?), would never make it on stats and ability alone. Might he get a few extra votes because of his snitching?
posted by graymatters at 02:41 PM on November 17, 2005
Fuck that. I know I'm going to sound like a Canseco apologist because of some of my earlier posts, but Baseball blacklisted a fading star because they were afraid of the Steroid issue coming out. But McGwire and Sosa are heroes, and Fat Jason Giambi gets 120 million. Fuck it, write a book and make some money, in the end, thats what it all comes down to in this world. No one has any more honor.
posted by The Gangstinator at 02:45 PM on November 17, 2005
Jose was a real piece of work,But it's a shame that a guy like him,for whatever reasons,has to be the one to get the "ball rolling".Kudos to the Owners for at least trying to get it right. Now ,however we're going to have to wait and see if this new set of standards applies to everyone or just small time players,like a minor league shortstop and Matt Lawton.
posted by Tubby Fan at 02:50 PM on November 17, 2005
And a small time player like Rafael Palmeiro?
posted by cl at 04:09 PM on November 17, 2005
Kudos to the Owners for at least trying to get it right. You've got to be joking, right? I mean, seriously, you're joking...or drunk...or clinically insane...right?
posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:32 PM on November 17, 2005
Desert Dog I hate the steroides as much as you but snitching in the form of a tell-all book, its obvious why he ratted these guys out. He was just as big a part of the problem as McGuire or Sosa. If he came out while he was playing then it would be a little different. Imagine him coming out when McGuire "broke" the single season home record. He only ratted out the obvious guys (except Palmero that one threw me for a fucking loop) Why aren't they looking at pitchers more they seem more inclined to use steroids then hitters would be?
posted by HATER 187 at 04:50 PM on November 17, 2005
Jose came into my store and became a customer. I like him. My wife read his book. She hates him. The end.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 05:26 PM on November 17, 2005
Hater, you're right. He's making money for his loose-lippedness(?). But at least the truth is starting to surface about the juice. Man, I totally did not want to believe these pro athletes were using these performance enhancers. Call me gullible, an idealist or whatever. I guess the kid in me still puts some pro athletes on a pedestal, so to speak. I just don't want to believe it is so widespread. But I guess I'm not a kid anymore. It's very disappointing. But I'm still a sports fan. Hopefully, my 2 young boys will get the pleasure out of both playing and watching sports as I do.
posted by Desert Dog at 05:47 PM on November 17, 2005
All these so-called heros did everything to give themselves an advantage ( to make more money) in baseball, and the only thing that bothers you is that Canseco snitched? Let's quit playing baseball and form a rollerball league!
posted by INOALOSER at 07:39 PM on November 17, 2005
- The fact that some major-leaguers are doping should not come as a surprise to anybody. - The new policy will not (and no policy could) completely eliminate steroid use. There will always be cheaters. - Canseco's off-the-cuff estimates of the prevalence of drug use are almost certainly wildly off base. The fact that there are some users does not prove that "everybody's doing it." Canseco has a powerful reason to convince himself that steroid use is widespread -- it allows him to believe that he was not "really" a cheater. I've brought this up before, but: in 2003, MLB conducted survey testing -- no penalties for a positive test, results completely anonymous. They had 5-7% positives. Granted, we know that some players were using undetectable drugs, but there is no way that steroids were ever as widespread as Canseco alleged. No way.
posted by Amateur at 10:50 PM on November 17, 2005
I know this comment is likely to get shouted down by the masses, but here goes nothing. I honestly have zero problem with athletes not just baseball players taking steroids or any other substance performance enhancing or not. I for one think it would be nice to live in a world where people were allowed to engage in pretty much any activity they wanted to as long as it didn't DIRECTLY effect another person in an harmful manner. I am aware that allowing things like performance enhancing drugs effects players indirectly by making them feel as if they need to engage in those activities in order to keep up. Some inevitably would, which is fine by me. Some wouldn't which is ok as well. Even during the steroid era many players didn't use the substances and did anywhere from ok to outstanding stats wise. Call me a dreamer but that's my take.
posted by Fade222 at 11:24 PM on November 17, 2005
I agree with you in principle, Fade. People should generally be free to harm themselves however they want. But what if you're a wide receiver getting hit by two huge mucle-bound freaks and then suffer a career-ending injury? Or you're on the receiving end of a chemically-enhanced left hook in the boxing ring? Maybe there should be separate leagues and sports competitions for all the steroid junkies. Where there are no drug tests and when you enter, you acknowledge the associated risks. The choice is between laissez faire or a complete ban with testing. You can't do it half-arsed, but this is where where most sports administrators end up.
posted by owlhouse at 12:50 AM on November 18, 2005
One question or point I have, which I know has been raised before - If they have this new "tough" policy for doping, are they going to look at how much these guys numbers slump? Why you ask? Look at how bad Giambi's numbers dropped when he got off the sauce. Yes, i have a point here - when they see how bad these numbers start to drop are they going to take away these records and titles some of these guys got and give it back to those who rightly deserve it. These guys who hit a crap load of homers while only ingesting beer and hot dogs? Bonds, McGwire, Sosa etc... - need to have their numbers stripped.
posted by Stealth_72 at 07:07 AM on November 18, 2005
Bonds, McGwire, Sosa etc... - need to have their numbers stripped. I agree an asteris or however you spell this thing * is not enough. If they used an an * what would it say after, steroide era record. Pete Rose got banned for less. Screw the aferomentioned cheaters.
posted by HATER 187 at 08:07 AM on November 18, 2005
Maybe there should be separate leagues and sports competitions for all the steroid junkies. Where there are no drug tests and when you enter, you acknowledge the associated risks. The choice is between laissez faire or a complete ban with testing. You can't do it half-arsed, but this is where where most sports administrators end up. Jesus, I can't believe how much time I spend writing about steroids. How would a separate league solve anything? Specifically, after you opened your "open drugs" league, how would you police the "clean" league? Everybody in the clean league just signs a pledge that they're drug-free, do they? Are you naive enough to think that all the guys who want to use drugs would just happily wander over to the drug league? That nobody would want to have an unfair advantage over the competition? And a complete ban with testing is what we have right now, in almost every sport you want to name. If what you're hoping for is the complete elimination of cheating, forget it! You may as well hope for the complete elimination of tax fraud. But that doesn't mean that we should just give up, does it? I've stated my radical position here a few times before, but in short I think that (a) the "steroid problem" is limited to a small fraction of the players and (b) the current/new testing is going to work just fine at keeping that number small.
posted by Amateur at 09:41 AM on November 18, 2005
Pete Rose got banned for less. Pete Rose got banned along the same lines as others who cheat. Pete Rose cheated. Period. He bet on baseball, and on his team while he managed them. And he probably had a few steriod heads on his team to boot. He's WORSE than the 'roid heads; he affected the complete outcome of the game by himself by manipulating his players, lineup and game situations to change results of many games. The problem with the 'roid heads is the lack of proof. While you really can't place an official asterisk on any of their records until they test positive, hopefully the "purists" and fans will shame their names (God knows those guys won't feel shame themselves!) forever so the asterisk won't be necessary. I know when I tell the story to my kids, they'll get how miserable those guys are for baseball and their records aren't worth anything. The guys below them from the previous era are the real heroes of baseball.
posted by tadley86 at 10:14 AM on November 18, 2005
when they see how bad these numbers start to drop are they going to take away these records and titles Or, maybe when the owners see how badly the attendance and interest in their leagues start to drop, they will try to find a way to secretly allow steroids to build interest back up. The guys below them from the previous era are the real heroes of baseball. How do you pick which are heroes and which are not? A player may test negative for steroids and other substances for long periods of time, and then wham get hit with a positive (witness Palmeiro, who never tested positive before). If they get caught once, do you wipe out everything they did before? Or if they never get caught (McGuire, maybe Bonds who has not tested positive but clearly appears to have admitted use), is that okay? And how do we know that players from the "previous era" did not use something else that was never tested for, but which provided them with some type of advantage. I really kind of lean with Fade's comment on allowing the players to use if they want, except for one thing: it is illegal. Maybe if instead of providing for some type of ban, if they just enforced the freaking law and brought criminal actions against the players and their suppliers, the problem would solve itself. As for complaints about steroid use, I have really only heard three justifications (except for the illegality): think about the kids; it is not fair to the other non-using players; and it cheats the public. If you want to think about the kids, then do something for them such as providing for testing at the high school and college level, etc. rather than just assuming that bad publicity at the pro level will make them stop. Why is it unfair to non-using players, if they have the ability to use the stuff? 300-pound linemen crash into smaller running backs and quarterbacks all the time, but there is no cry of outrage in football. As for cheating the public, remember that sports is entertainment. If you are not entertained, then do not attend the games or watch on TV. Or do they really mean that it cheats the gambling public and the gambling syndicates? Is that what this is really about, protecting the gambling industry? Sorry for being so longwinded.
posted by graymatters at 11:50 AM on November 18, 2005
The guys below them from the previous era are the real heroes of baseball. So when did the 'previous era' end? Did you know that steroid use was well-established in American sports by the early 60's? Maybe Hank Aaron was on steroids, too! As long as you're OK with making accusations without proof, that is.
posted by Amateur at 11:52 AM on November 18, 2005
when they see how bad these numbers start to drop Fearless prediction #1: nobody's going to notice any drop, because steroids aren't having that much influence on home runs, anyway (across the league, that is). Fearless prediction #2: many fans will use the above as proof that the tests aren't working. It's a religious argument, really; if you think that steroids are a major problem, then no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise, because you can always fall back on the undetectable ones.
posted by Amateur at 11:56 AM on November 18, 2005
So all of you "Liberals" forgot what happened to Leyel Alzedo (check spelling), the former Raider lineman?
posted by Joe Veltri at 12:52 PM on November 18, 2005
So all of you "Liberals" forgot what happened to Leyel Alzedo (check spelling), the former Raider lineman? Lyle Alzado died of a brain tumour. He took steroids for a long period of time. The two statements may have nothing to do with each other. People use steroids. People die of brain tumours. The intersections of the circles in the Venn diagram is probably pretty small. I'm not sure why you tried to single out "liberals" for you wrath, but it would probably come across a little better if you at least did your own spell checking.
posted by grum@work at 01:08 PM on November 18, 2005
What does Liberal have to do with anything? Is a Liberal for or against steroid use? I don't understand. Lyle Alzado. Died of brain cancer. He claimed it was caused by steroid use, but I don't think that there is any medical evidence of any such link. Myth that his cancer resulted from steroid use is from his interviews and blaming his disease on his prior admitted use. Any other athletes who admittedly used steroids and got brain cancer? Not sure. But one unsupported self-diagnosed victim does not make a medical fact.
posted by graymatters at 01:09 PM on November 18, 2005
Sorry, grum, you were posting while I was typing. I sound like a copycat.
posted by graymatters at 01:09 PM on November 18, 2005
Yeah that "liberals" comment was weird. For the record, I'm a conservative and think the steroid "problem" is overblown.
posted by tron7 at 01:24 PM on November 18, 2005
So maybe I should've pointed out which era of baseball I speak of when I mentioned heroes. We all know that even though steriod use came into sports as early as the early 60's maybe even the late 50's (Olympic athletes in Eastern Eurpoe), the guys that played for the love of the game and didn't get paid what the guys now make are the heroes of baseball. I'd give more credit to a clean 47 year-old Rookie of the Year Satchel Page than a 7-time MVP Barry Bonds. By the old heroes of baseball standard, and old Satchel Paige: 1948 -- signed with Bill Veeck, owner of the Cleveland Indians on his 42nd birthday. A record crowd of 78,383 for a night game watched Paige make his first major league appearance. In his first starting role, he drew 72,434 fans in Cleveland's Municipal Stadium. As the oldest rookie in baseball, he won six times against one loss, helping the Indians to a pennant and a world series appearance against the Boston Braves. 1951 -- signed by the lowly St. Louis Browns in 1951, he promptly signed old Satchel again. Incredibly, the following year, 1952 -- enjoyed one of his finest major league seasons at the age of 46 with the St. Louis Browns. Won twelve games and was selected to the All-Star team, achieving another honor as baseball's oldest selection. 1953-1956 -- with the Miami Marlins, over 50 years old, only walked 54 batters in 340 innings 1971 (August 9) -- became the first player from the Negro Leagues elected to Cooperstown's National Baseball Hall of Fame. When he accepted his award, he told the admirers that in the Negro Leagues, "there were many Satchels and many Joshes." Name a pitcher that isn't suspect of steriod use that can or will come close at that age to do those things and get paid on the same level as him. Roger Clemens couldn't hold his jock. Too many all-time greats and Hall of Famers have considered him the GREATEST PITCHER ever. By many accounts, he might have thrown over 50 no-hitters and won over 2000 games. So when did the 'previous era' end? From free agency's start. Money got bigger, players had more at stake; players started to take more chances to make more money. So all of you "Liberals" forgot what happened to Leyel Alzedo (check spelling), the former Raider lineman? What the hell does your political persuasion have to do with this? I'm sure that there are plenty of conservatiobes willing to protect Mark McGuire's All-American ass.
posted by tadley86 at 01:25 PM on November 18, 2005
"How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are?" -- Satchel Paige
posted by graymatters at 01:47 PM on November 18, 2005
"Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching." -- Satchel Paige
posted by tadley86 at 01:57 PM on November 18, 2005
Now Satch and Josh, they had a deal: Whoever played first on Elysian Field Would scout out the park, give the other a call, Tell 'im if the angels in heaven played ball. Josh he died, but Satch kept livin', Waited for the call, but he never heard nothing 'Til the eighth of June, eighty-two, He said "Josh, is that you?" Josh said, "Satch, how ya doin, the boys is fine, Playing like nineteen-twenty-nine, Playin' ain't lookin', playing all the reams, Playin' right now 'gainst the white boys' team. "It's the bottom of the ninth, we're up by one," Josh gave a little grin, "They got a runner on third with nobody out, And Satch— "Now Satch, that may sound as if we're in a spot of difficulty up here, but that ain't the bad news. That runner on third isn't just anybody, no sir, that runner on third is Ty Cobb. Why, he's so fast, he can turn out the lights and be in bed before it gets dark. That ain't the bad news, though. That man at the plate? That man at the plate: Rogers Hornsby. Why, he can hit anythin'. I seen him get a single on a throw to third! Why, one time I seen him hit the ball through a car wash, not even get it wet! That ain't the bad news. That man in the on-deck circle? That great big guy with the skinny legs? Babe Ruth. Folks up here call him the Josh Gibson of the white leagues. But that ain't the bad news. This is the bad news: Satch... "—we're puttin' you in." from The Secret of Life According to Satchel Paige, written by Bob Bossin, performed by Stringband
posted by DrJohnEvans at 02:50 PM on November 18, 2005
Tad: I am sorry that you don't know the literal deffinition of "liberal", it refers to thoughts and or action outside the norm. Glad to be of service.
posted by Joe Veltri at 02:51 PM on November 18, 2005
as early as the early 60's maybe even the late 50's (Olympic athletes in Eastern Eurpoe), the guys that played for the love of the game and didn't get paid There have been salary disuptes as long as there has been pro baseball.
posted by yerfatma at 02:51 PM on November 18, 2005
"Avoid fried foods, which angry up the blood." --Satchel Paige
posted by The_Black_Hand at 02:57 PM on November 18, 2005
Tad: I am sorry that you don't know the literal deffinition of "liberal", it refers to thoughts and or action outside the norm. Glad to be of service. Joe Veltri: I am sorry that you can't see past the literal definition of liberal.
posted by tron7 at 03:04 PM on November 18, 2005
Ha! Nice quote black hand, truly inspirational. That Satchel had a way with words.
posted by tron7 at 03:07 PM on November 18, 2005
Tad: I am sorry that you don't know the literal deffinition of "liberal", it refers to thoughts and or action outside the norm. Glad to be of service. Yes, but is that how YOU meant it? I'm sure there was some political spin there. Funny, there are so many other meanings to the word liberal; you chose the least often used one (and the one most pointed to politics.): > broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" > having political or social views favoring reform and progress > tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition > a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties > big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather" > a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem" ...if that makes me liberal, then thank you, Joe. There have been salary disuptes as long as there has been pro baseball. True. But the beginning of the free agency era saw the biggest jump in salary disputes. Guys didn't have to work two jobs anymore after free agency. Dr. John Evans - very cool.
posted by tadley86 at 03:17 PM on November 18, 2005
Say the word liberal and the liberals become indignant. No conservative I know ever objects to being called a conservative. Liberals if you are, be proud, accept it, but mostly get over it.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 03:55 PM on November 18, 2005
We are just trying to make this an informative and exciting forum.Ha Ha.
posted by Joe Veltri at 04:01 PM on November 18, 2005
Eh, it's old hat, and keeps the kids in line, ya know?
posted by DrJohnEvans at 04:09 PM on November 18, 2005
Say the word liberal and the liberals become indignant. No conservative I know ever objects to being called a conservative. Liberals if you are, be proud, accept it, but mostly get over it. Yeh, but the problem is that I'm a conservative and I think he called me a liberal. Them's fightin' words, aren't they?
posted by graymatters at 04:12 PM on November 18, 2005
I'm a conservsative, yet the use of the term 'Liberal' in this instance was used as an insult. If people feel insulted, they have every right to become indignant. And that still doesn't change the fact that this discussion should have absolutely nothing to do with either Liberalism or Conservatism. Try staying on topic.
posted by willthrill72 at 04:22 PM on November 18, 2005
Yeh, but the problem is that I'm a conservative and I think he called me a liberal. Them's fightin' words, aren't they? To the death. Try staying on topic Responses to topics are like rumors. By the time they get to the end of the line they're pretty much off message. So shoot me.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 05:01 PM on November 18, 2005
So shoot me. Sad thing is, if I did, you'd probably defend my right to own an AK-47 all the way to the hospital.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:16 PM on November 18, 2005
Sad thing is, if I did, you'd probably defend my right to own an AK-47 all the way to the hospital. Yes I would except I've seen what they can do and most probably I'd be heading for a morgue. I would submit, however, that a sadder sight might be watching you thrash your way into a gun store after you're threatened by I don't know, let's see, terrorists? After a few attacks you'll be voting to expand the 2nd to tanks and private nukes. Wait and see...
posted by STLCardinalfan at 05:37 PM on November 18, 2005
What the fuck happened to this thread!?!
posted by willthrill72 at 05:41 PM on November 18, 2005
ok i think i might have started this sorry. Just a few comments I'm a LIBERAL and I'd still defend most people's right to own an Ak-47. Also I don't take liberal as an insult i wear it as a badge of honor. Satchel Paige my be the second best pitcher in the history of baseball. Young has to be first 511 wins are you serious. Even if steriods caused Alzedo's tumor they are used differently today and in far less dosages. Oh and just to piss most everyone off Yankees Rule. Sorry had to do it.
posted by Fade222 at 05:52 PM on November 18, 2005
Yeah, them terrrorists, they're marchin' down the boulevard, a la Red Dawn. What the fuck happened to this thread!?! It was hijacked by somebody who confuses belligerence and thickheadedness with patriotism and bravery. Lot of that going around nowdays.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:53 PM on November 18, 2005
Oh and just to piss most everyone off Yankees Rule. Yanks will remain my American League team so long as ex-Cardinal player and manager Torre is there. After Torre, I'll hate the Yanks. Yeah, them terrrorists, they're marchin' down the boulevard, a la Red Dawn. Rather dismissive aren't you? Very brave. Oh, and they won't be marching. They'll simply sneak in wherever the crowds are. It was hijacked by somebody who confuses belligerence and thickheadedness with patriotism and bravery. Lot of that going around nowdays. If you don't know what else to say, just call names. Works every time, at some levels.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 06:18 PM on November 18, 2005
Thank you all. This thread has been very fucking educational. Strange, but educational.
posted by Desert Dog at 06:25 PM on November 18, 2005
name calling rocks someone called a poopy head and i almost pissed my pants. Poopy head now ranks very near the top of funniest insults I've ever heard...... We now return you to your regularly schedualed thread.
posted by Fade222 at 06:31 PM on November 18, 2005
Poopy head now ranks very near the top of funniest insults I've ever heard...... I'll claim credit for that. I wasn't the one who used it, but I did set him up. I've been laughing about it for the past two hours. I got some dope to actually call someone (me, even!) a "poopy head"! Hahahahahahaha!!!
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:35 PM on November 18, 2005
posted by chicobangs at 07:37 PM on November 18, 2005
Sorry to make an on-topic post, but I was compelled. As someone who has been involved in editing several Baseball Encyclopedias, I can guarantee that we will not change any numbers or use any asterisks. We record history, we don't judge it. Besides, there are reasons to wipe out out virtually every baseball record ever accomplished. Amphetamines have been used since World War II, and they've had a significantly larger effect on the record book than steroids. Before 1946, of course, the talent base in baseball was ridiculously thin since black players etc. were kept out of the game. So you might as well asterisk the whole book. Other problems Drug aided hitters were facing drug aided batters - how do you deal with that? Everything ina baseball encyclopedia has to add up. For every win, there is a loss. For every run scored, there is a run allowed. You can just remove things from the record like you can from a track meet and ignore the implications. We can only identify a few of the thousands and thousands of players who have used chemical aids. These drugs were not always been banned by baseball, and it's wrongheaded to punish players for something that wasn't against the rules. Even if its against the law; baseball's law and society's law are two different things. If Pete Rose had murdered a bookie instead of betting with one, he'd be in the Hall, because in baseball, gambling is worse than murder. Besides, even recently, using these drugs is not always illegal. Many players probably used steroids only back in the Dominican Republic in the offseason while training and then were clean during the season. Thus, they did nothing illegal or against baseball's rules. And, of course, there's the reality that cheating has always been celebrated by baseball. There have been players who made the Hall by cheating, and no one's ever had a problem with it (Gaylord Perry, for example). Therea re whole books written about cheating in baseball, with the attitude "It ain't cheating if you don't get caught" And, for those who keep bringing up Pete Rose, please! Rose violated the cardinal rule of baseball, a rule so incredibly important it's posted in every clubhouse - don't gamble on baseball games, especially on those games you are involved in. There's nothing - including the murder of an entire baseball team - that would be a worse "baseball sin," because it creates doubts as to whether players and managers are always trying their best to win every game. Players who use drugs are cheating to win, something that is very, very different. Baseball is not wrestling; it would die if it were just a show and not a true competition.
posted by spira at 07:43 PM on November 18, 2005
Pete Rose should still be i n the Hall of Fame because isn't the Hall about on-field acomplishments not off-field mess-ups? By the way someone should jam a 44 ounce Louisville Slugger up Jose Conseco's ass.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 07:52 PM on November 18, 2005
Oh, and they won't be marching. They'll simply sneak in wherever the crowds are. Last time we saw them, they para-dropped, right in the middle of class. Ever since, I've had the crossbow oiled and ready. STLCF, you're single-handedly putting up with a lot of crap, but I have to ask: do you honestly believe the terrorists have a chance? If so, what qualifies as a win for them? That's what I'm lost about. Look at Hurricaine Katrina: at best, all power and destruction is going to set one US city back a year or two. Look at our friggin' GDP; who can really fight against that? Short of a full set of Robert Oppenheimer 1945 Memorial Big Boppers, what lasting effect can they have? I think the only plausible lasting negative effect is for us all to live in fear, which seems like the goal of our current administration as well. I suppose it gets votes. So who's winning?
posted by yerfatma at 07:53 PM on November 18, 2005
spira, you've got a lot of nerve, bringing experience, facts and rational thought into this thread. Thanks.
posted by chicobangs at 07:53 PM on November 18, 2005
someone should jam a 44 ounce Louisville Slugger up Jose Conseco's ass. I don't think that's a legal bat weight anymore. Consult your local sodomy laws before proceeding in private. Sorry to make an on-topic post Nice try. We have a zero-tolerance policy for new members who can stay on topic and come anywhere close to typing the Queen's English. You and STLCF, with your spelling and Strunk & White punctuation and your pretty mouths, are screwed. On preview: chico, don't ever bite my comments ever again. And if there is a next time and you manage to rip me off more pithilty than I can express myself, you're dead. Wolverines!
posted by yerfatma at 07:57 PM on November 18, 2005
Upon reflection, spira's grandfathered in. How you like them apples, Harvard?
posted by yerfatma at 07:58 PM on November 18, 2005
I'd just like to thank God, and the Academy...
posted by The_Black_Hand at 11:02 PM on November 18, 2005
do you honestly believe the terrorists have a chance? If so, what qualifies as a win for them? what lasting effect can they have? Are you kidding me? Are you on another planet? (Planet Pithity perhaps?) When people stop going to malls, restaurants, movies, sporting events and the rest, your GDP will will take a major double-digit hit. That would be a win for these sick, twisted bastards and the lasting effect will survive well beyond our lifetimes. Meanwhile you're free to bash the administration and all who would try to protect us from the inevitable. You'll also be screaming the loudest asking why somebody didn't do something like kill them in the middle east before they could get here. Nice try. We have a zero-tolerance policy for new members who can stay on topic and come anywhere close to typing the Queen's English. You and STLCF, with your spelling and Strunk & White punctuation and your pretty mouths, are screwed. Sorry if some of us aren't up to your standards. You obviously are far superior by your own admission. I would suggest you cut class and get out in the real world now and then. Of course it would be awfull to rub against the unwashed masses but you'd live through it.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 10:30 AM on November 19, 2005
yerfatma - As you saw, I don't fit the "new" description, so the apples are fine. Obviously, if I were a newbie, I would have been far too intimidated to committ such a breach of etiquette. chicobangs - You're welcome. Though my showing of nerve was only made possible by a temporary bout of insanity. Ying Yang - I think Rose in the Hall is a different discussion. I'll just say that while I wouldn't have voted for him, I've always though that he shouldn't have ben made ineligible; the voters should've had their say.
posted by spira at 01:27 PM on November 19, 2005
Sorry if some of us aren't up to your standards. St. Louie, that was a joke. Sarcasm, even. I was "complaining" the two of you could hold an actual conversation.
posted by yerfatma at 01:39 PM on November 19, 2005
...could hold an actual conversation. And chew gum at the same time too!
posted by STLCardinalfan at 03:02 PM on November 19, 2005
St. Louie, that was a joke. Sarcasm, even. They don't teach literary devices at Parris Island. They teach some hellacious vocabulary, though.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:02 PM on November 19, 2005
I spent so much time on that comment, and it was wasted on this thread. Sigh.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 05:15 PM on November 19, 2005
They don't teach literary devices at Parris Island. They teach some hellacious vocabulary, though. Not Parris Island, San Diego. You're are, however, right. I don't know too many people who use words/phrases like "literary devices". No, I'm affraid the job of the poor suckers called Marines is to keep things nice and safe so people like you can say "literary devices" and poke fun at the lesser educated. You should be proud...
posted by STLCardinalfan at 06:02 PM on November 19, 2005
Who says we're not?
posted by yerfatma at 07:09 PM on November 19, 2005
Who says we're not? No doubt you are. No argument here. Why else would the word "snob" have found its way into our language if it weren't needed as a descriptive term to define people who respond with "Who says we're not".
posted by STLCardinalfan at 07:33 PM on November 19, 2005
Ok. I'm kinda lost for what I did to offend you. Sorry.
posted by yerfatma at 08:50 PM on November 19, 2005
Don't mention it. Not offended at all.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 10:08 AM on November 20, 2005
No, I'm affraid the job of the poor suckers called Marines is to keep things nice and safe so people like you can say "literary devices" and poke fun at the lesser educated. You should be proud... Wow...you're such a working class hero, I'll bet Bruce Springsteen drinks Iron City Light out of your combat boots. Hell, even Chesty Puller knew big words and phrases like "sarcasm" and "literary devices." Don't believe the hype, STL, just because you're a former Marine, doesn't mean you have to be dumb. I served with plenty of Marines who were smart, and even better, unlike you, they never looked at intelligence as something to be ashamed of.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 11:09 AM on November 20, 2005
...looked at intelligence as something to be ashamed of Nor do I. It was you who noted what was and wasn't taught at Marine boot camp. Curious observation if you weren't there.
posted by STLCardinalfan at 12:45 PM on November 20, 2005
SpoFi? PoliFi? BitchFightFi?
posted by tron7 at 12:12 PM on November 21, 2005
Many people look at Canseco like he's some kind of crack-pot or something (which he is), but I think as the scenario plays out, Jose wasn't just talking shit to get heard. I think he was actually telling the truth about a lot of the things in his book. McGwire handled the whole situation like a deer in the headlights and Palmeiro, well, that speaks for itself. Canseco called these guys out and they did not have an answer.