12/21/24
March 16, 2006
Report: Commissioner Selig Won't Bail Out Bonds: With Congress nipping at his heels, he really has no choice. Something tells me this is going to get real ugly before it is over.
PS- So far Canseco has been right on the money, no matter what people say. So I'm trying to remember if he called out Barry Bonds. I know there was some reference, but don't recall specifics. Anyone?
posted by MW12 at 12:57 PM on March 16, 2006
Oh, the hypocrisy. According to the book excerpts that started this whole thing, Bonds started doing steroids because he didn't feel he was able to keep up with all the other players doing steroids. So, now, he is going to be the scapegoat for the MLB's failure to act. What a sham!
posted by bperk at 12:58 PM on March 16, 2006
The league has no grounds for discipline That's the long and short of it. Seeing as how he's never failed a mandatory test, they can't suspend him or kick him out based on the testimony of others. This is where the gutless agreement with the lack of teeth (with regards to steroids) baseball has had in place for so long comes back to bite them. They increased the penalties recently, but until Bonds tests positive, he's untouchable by MLB (if they want to avoid a major flap by the players' union).
posted by dyams at 01:55 PM on March 16, 2006
I agree...SHOW NO MERCY!!!! Bonds is a cheater, and what kind of message does it send to the public in general (especially our youngsters) when someone who BLANTANTLY cheats gets off the hook? At least Pete didn't physically cheat and tarnish the record books. Bonds should get a punishment FAR worse than Rose ever did. Bonds is (for all I'm concerned) positive for steroids, otherwise you'd have seen him suing the shit out of those two guys for their book. If someone defamed me like that and I knew I was innocent, I'd have called my lawyer and talked about how much we'd go for in punitive damages...
posted by chemwizBsquared at 02:36 PM on March 16, 2006
Bonds is (for all I'm concerned) positive for steroids, otherwise you'd have seen him suing the shit out of those two guys for their book. If someone defamed me like that and I knew I was innocent, I'd have called my lawyer and talked about how much we'd go for in punitive damages... That is what you would have done, therefore, no other course of action is acceptable unless one is guilty. Did I get that right?
posted by bperk at 02:40 PM on March 16, 2006
I guess Jason Giambi will also be recieving the same punishment. Every current player that has been accused of using steroids should be investigated and punished and or banned.
posted by jwhite613 at 02:55 PM on March 16, 2006
I agree with dyams absolutely. I still think Bonds juiced but my opinion doesn't mean squat, just like everyone else's. In lieu of traveling back in time and testing him, there seems to be little else that can be done unless MLB starts punishing players retroactively. Therefore: problem solved, next issue. Joking.
posted by THX-1138 at 03:12 PM on March 16, 2006
What I don't get is even if he and the others accused of using steroids, did do so and they were NOT banned during that time, why should they be punished for something that was not "cheating" under the rules? If folks Ken Jr. had managed to stay healthy and he had been the one breaking the single season HR record or chasing after Hank's all time HR record, would the crritics be as butt hurt as they seem to be now? Its like we are saying "hey you cheated! but it was legal, but we didn't: and so you should be punished for having done something that was legal because we don't like it"
posted by blakrain at 03:14 PM on March 16, 2006
What all of you guys are missing is this: None of this would even be debated right now had it not been for these two books that came out. Even Conseco's book didn't get Selig going. Selig is only addressing this issue now because the public is up in arms, and Congress once again stuck its nose into MLB business. Selig and the MLB want this to just be a very bad dream, because it's ruining their popularity, and it's taking publicity away from the WBC (Selig's Baby). P.S. Damn you prospectus!!!
posted by wingnut4life at 03:19 PM on March 16, 2006
I am sick of people saying that Bonds broke no rules. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL'S 1991 DRUG POLICY Commissioner Fay Vincent's memorandum included the following provisions: The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Those involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. Italics added for emphasis. As long ago as 1991, the use of steroids, a "controlled substance" was outlawed in Major League Baseball. Later in the memo is this passage: This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription. Italics added for emphasis. So, anyone care to keep arguing how BB did not break the rules? And the argument of so-and-so did it so I have to just to keep up is like my daughter claiming that I have to let her go to the movies because evryone else is allowed to. A childish argument at best, and one that has not held water for a very long time. The entirey of the memo can be reviewed here
posted by elovrich at 03:23 PM on March 16, 2006
That memo is a paper tiger. He wasn't caught and they weren't looking to catch. A written law is nothing if it is not enforced (and that's a vague suggestion of punishment anyway - drug testing and a punishment schedule are needed within the confines of a CBA before they have merit). If Bonds is guilty in retrospect then so are Giambi, McGwire, Sosa and any number of others who have been mentioned in books and grand jury testimonies.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:31 PM on March 16, 2006
The memo discussed the repercussions for using drugs as well (i.e. that baseball will try to treat and rehabilitate those athletes). So, the point of Selig's investigation is to get Bonds some counseling?
posted by bperk at 03:38 PM on March 16, 2006
Even if the Major League Drug Policy is a paper tiger, MLB can break out the old "for the good of the game" clause and punish Bonds in the face of insurmountable evidence that he introduced controlled substances into his body to improve his performance. MLB has to do something credible and very public about this situation or continue to lose fans. I think to most baseball fans, threatening to break Babe Ruth's home run mark, and Hank Aaron's all-time mark, while assisted by steroids is a far more significant crime than Pete Rose betting on baseball. Right or wrong, I think people perceive this as a bigger deal.
posted by ChiSox1977 at 03:44 PM on March 16, 2006
Weedy, the memo INCLUDES drug testing and punishment. That it was not enforced has more to do with the fact that Vincent received the no-confidence vote and was replaced by the 'paper tiger' of an owner/commisioner. I agree that the commish's office was not actively seeking to catch those breaking the rules at the time, it was a great time for MLB attendance and interest were recovering from the labor strife of the mid-90s due to the jacked up numbers of those in question. I am not about singling Bonds out. For the good of the game, perhaps they should just washout several seasons of statistics. What I AM about is getting baseball to address the issue, do something about it, and clean this whole mess up before the entire structure implodes on itself. Selig needs to be replaced by an independent commish, one who has no previous financial ties to the owners or the players. I hate to say it, but the last fifteen years are a loss, there is no way to rectify the wrongs that were done. But the greatest wrong, will be to do nothing and let it continue. If it means that someone has to be the first to fall beneath the sword, and it wll take a big name to make any kind of statement, then so be it.
posted by elovrich at 03:47 PM on March 16, 2006
You can't clean up the game retroactively, which is what you are advocating. Giving Bonds some sort of punishment will be nothing but symbolic. It won't change one bit the number of people who did steroids in 2001. This is a witchhunt because no one likes Bonds and someone has to pay for the past. Of course, not the people who really could have done something, but someone symbolically. Bonds seems to be the chosen fall guy.
posted by bperk at 03:51 PM on March 16, 2006
Selig has the power to suspend Bonds for the "best interest of baseball". Judge Landis suspended the Black Sox for LIFE with far less evidence. Stay tuned to see if Selig grows a set of cajones.
posted by wdminott at 03:52 PM on March 16, 2006
Landis suspended many players in the Black Sox Scandal not just one. Selig should have to investigate all players suspected of steroid use and punish all the guilty players from the steroid era. Otherwise this just looks like a witchunt. Bonds has never been liked and these people are trying anything and everything to keep him from those records.
posted by jwhite613 at 04:04 PM on March 16, 2006
Not a chance of Selig bringing down the hammer. This would interfere with his master plan of World Baseball (Classic) Domination. Not the feel good story he had hoped for.
posted by THX-1138 at 04:09 PM on March 16, 2006
Bonds is only the chosen fall guy because he has already surpassed one of the holy grails of baseball and is closing in on two more of them, aided in all cases by an illegal substance. The only reason that Bonds didn't fail a test was because he was never given one by the MLB. The only test for steroids Bonds ever had was administered by a private company, and the results turned over to MLB. Bonds, Giambi, McGuire, Sosa, or anyone else who used steroids should be banned from baseball and their records erased. I don't see any reason why we can't clean up the game retroactively.
posted by irunfromclones at 04:14 PM on March 16, 2006
I don't see any reason why we can't clean up the game retroactively. Umm, how are you going to discover who the drug users are? Do you just get to pick a few of the homerun hitters to go after? What about the fact that pitchers seem to be getting caught under the new policy? Should we just pretend not to notice? Or maybe we can get sports writers from SF to do in-depth research on every baseball player that played during the steroids years? It would be even better if we can get another grand jury hearing and ask about every single other player who played during those years, too. The only reason that Bonds didn't fail a test was because he was never given one by the MLB. Please provide a source for this. As far as I know, Bonds was tested the same as everyone else when he was on the disabled list.
posted by bperk at 04:26 PM on March 16, 2006
The producers of Bonds' "all-access" reality show are salivating.
posted by rxreed at 04:49 PM on March 16, 2006
I agree with many of the above (Weedy, bperk, THX). You absolutely can't go back in time and punish Bonds just because you don't like him or because he's closing in on Aaron's record. I drove 35 miles per hour over the speed limit six years ago, and other people know about it, so does this mean they can tell the police now and I can be punished? After all, it WAS against the rules/law. Of course not. Bonds will continue to play until he either tests positive or retires. Get over it. And this in no way means I agree with any of it. Baseball brought this whole thing on itself by acting like ostriches with their heads in the sand while this was going on. Everyone suspected Bonds was juicing when he experienced this major body transformation. Do you think major league baseball didn't suspect something too? Get real. People love the long-ball, and baseball was only too happy to enjoy the fruits of Bonds' success. Don't feel sorry for MLB.
posted by dyams at 05:33 PM on March 16, 2006
Giving Bonds some sort of punishment will be nothing but symbolic. Symbolic punishment is better than no punishment at all. Is it possible to symbolically behead someone?
posted by wfrazerjr at 05:33 PM on March 16, 2006
Let's say that we could be commisioner for a day. What would we do to try to straighten this mess (which I think we would all agree it is) up? You have the fans to contend with, the player's and their union, not to mention Congress. Selig and all of baseball allowed a shameful period in the game to perpetuate and did little to nothing to prevent it. The cat is out of the bag and kitty just won't go back in. You can't symbolically punish someone without the burden of proof
posted by THX-1138 at 05:50 PM on March 16, 2006
Punish this link. Oh, you are. Never mind.
posted by chrisly13 at 06:15 PM on March 16, 2006
As far as I know, Bonds was tested the same as everyone else when he was on the disabled list. doesn't matter bperk. if the allegations are true and he's taken (taking) HGH, MLB doesn't even test for that, so test him as many times as you want. won't matter. someone with as much as stake as him wouldn't be using anything that's currently being tested for.
posted by ninjavshippo at 06:41 PM on March 16, 2006
If I were commich for a day? 2 things, and they would be unpopular and get Me fired, but would the next commish have the gonads to change it back? First) Segregate all statistics from 1991 to the present. They exist, there is nothing to change that, but they CAN be regarded differently, just as we now talk of the 'dead-ball' era. Second) Declare that no future commissioner can at any time in the past have been financially linked to a ballclub, or have belonged or worked for the players' union.
posted by elovrich at 07:31 PM on March 16, 2006
I don't know if baseball had any kind of rules against taking steroids, but Vincent memo isn't evidence that they did. The commissioner has zero power to institute such a policy. Vincent found that out the hard way; he was forced out precisely because he tried to unilaterally set baseball policy. If there was a drug policy, you'd find it in baseball's rule book (not the rule book for umpires, the rule book with rules such as Rule 5 (as in the draft) and Rule 21 (the rule under which Rose was sentenced). Unfortunately, this book is not widely available. If we want to ban players who took performance enhancing drugs and remove seasons affected by such drugs from the history books, we'd have to wipe out virtually everything that's happened in baseball since 1946, since that is the year that amphetamines started being widely used. I'm not sure what the point of that would be. Meanwhile, we've already started enhancing players thru surgery. LASIK can give some players better eyesight than most people are born with. Some shoulder surgeries result in players being able to throw harder than before. This kind of thing will become much more prevelant in the future, as players with artificial body parts come to dominate the majors. That will probably be the only thing hat will stop players from using drugs to get better.
posted by spira at 07:33 PM on March 16, 2006
The commissioner has zero power to institute such a policy. Just what do you think the commisioner is supposed to do if not set policy?
posted by elovrich at 07:37 PM on March 16, 2006
If Barry did do steriods. They were not against the rules of the game at time of the use. Who is to say if the records that are held, where not helped by enhancing drugs. They did not test at the time of present records
posted by mklytle at 07:41 PM on March 16, 2006
I am heartened by the fact that so many people are refusing to get caught up in the lynch mob mindset that guys like Gene Wojciehowski are in. IMHO, if Selig is going to suspend Bonds, his next act should be resigning as commissioner. I don't know how in the world he is going to say that Bonds got away with it without the aiding and abetting of everyone in the MLB establishment including Donald Fehr and himself. The declaration that steroids would be "eradicated" after Selig, Alderson, Manfred and others pooh-poohed occasional press reports of wide-ranging abuse is the equivalent of Renault's infamous declaration that he was "Shocked! Shocked that gambling is going on here!" in Casablanca. Everyone who cares about baseball saw the Congressional hearings and how slick Selig and his legal henchmen thought they were after the pols were done making McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, et al sweat like pigs under the glare of cameras and with the full weight of the Federal government upon them. But both Selig and Fehr got a wake-up call fast, and realized that after years of threatening to clean baseball's house for it if it they wouldn't do it themselves, this time the politicians meant it. Under pressure to lose their authority and livelihood as the power brokers of America's former pastime, Selig and Fehr grimaced, then kissed and made up. But, as the old saying goes, you can't unring a bell. If Bonds was cheating then, guess what? There's nothing that can be done about it now, just like there's nothing that can be done about the fact MLB's glory days were built atop a foundation of racism and discrimination. Similarly, revising past statistics is NOT an option. Once that ball stops rolling, where will it end? Will game-winning home runs in post-season games be erased from history if the player hitting them has a book written about him? If so, what about ball-altering hurlers Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton's places in the Hall of Fame? Should their busts be removed and placed in a Cooperstown, NY dumpster? The court of public opinion is what will judge Bonds until he dies, just as the asterisk singling out Roger Maris' long-standing HR record (which, contrary to popular belief, was NOT instituted by MLB) followed Maris to his grave and beyond to protect the legacy of the greatest player ever, Babe Ruth. As a Giant fan, I am looking forward to this season being over, Bonds record or not, and, as sore as I am about the inability of the G-men to win it all while having the best player in the game for a baker's dozen years (pun not intended), I don't think I will care if they win the World Series. I want the Bonds show to end, and the GIANTS show to begin -- but not while those that allowed it the juiced-player era to happen skate away unscathed. Bottom line: if Barry goes, Bud goes!
posted by L.N. Smithee at 08:05 PM on March 16, 2006
To continue to argue that the use of steroids was not against the rules is fallacy. The Commissioner has the ability to "determine...what preventive, remedial or punitive action is appropriate" (Article II, Sec. 2., para. c of the Major League Constitution, June 2005 Update) This, in conjunction with Article XI, Sec. 3. "The Commisioner ...may...promulgate bulletins and directives binding on the Major League Clubs (including without limitation their owners, officers, directors and employees) in matters relating to...the game of baseball that are not inconsistent with this Constitution. These two passages give the force of law, in regards to baseball, to Fay Vincent's policy memo, referrenced in an earlier post by me. The Major League Constitution, June 2005 Update is available for any who care to read it
posted by elovrich at 08:09 PM on March 16, 2006
Bonds won't be punished because Bud Selig deems that as "in the best interest of baseball". Money is the best interest of baseball.
posted by INOALOSER at 08:14 PM on March 16, 2006
Smithee, I agree with you. as I said on My original post: the last 15 years are a loss. No, you cannot unring a bell, you cannot selectively excise certain events from a season, without affecting the whole, to remove one players achievements is not possible. You either need to do a)nothing, or b) wipe the entire period, whether it is a year, a decade, or more, from the books. Publish an addendum including those years if you like, but do something. Is it fair to those who did nothing wrong? No. But guess what, it isn't fair that I can't hit a curveball low and away either, or that the strike of 94-95 wiped out my chance to make it into organized ball. Bonds is not the only culprit. There are others. I do not know, nor do I care about, the reasons that the press seems to want to single him out. I DO care about this 'grand old game', and I fear that if nothing is done, then it will be changed in a more drastic way than the DH, the elimination of the reserve clause, and the lowering of the pitchers mound ever could. Some of these things have been good for the game, others bad, but all have altered it. Addressing this issue head on or not, either will alter it tremendously. Which is more likely to leave a game that is recognizable?
posted by elovrich at 08:21 PM on March 16, 2006
There can be no note next to Bonds' records, unless it also states that MLB and the Player's Union ignored the growing problem for years. Many players "cheated" because the game allowed them to get away with it, we will never know how many. the fans demanded change, and it took a few years for MLB to listen. Then the Players' Union wanted to use the testing as a contract bargaining chip! Even the players own union kept the testing out of baseball for as long as they could. Steroids were used at all levels of talent, from the Barry Bonds quality players to the third string catchers. The game will recover over time, but the ones who get caught now need to be banned. You can't erase the past or the records of cheaters, but for god's sake, we need to clean up this game and move on!
posted by SAVANX at 09:53 PM on March 16, 2006
Records aside, the point that everyone seems to be overlooking is that the juice brothers, Bonds, Canseco, McGwire, Palmiero, et al (the list goes on ad nauseum) are supposed to be role models for todays kids. They might not have asked for it, but it goes with the territory of being a major league star and getting millions a year to play a game that most people would play for free. What kind of message do the young fans get when they see these guys testifying (or performing verbal acrobatics) before Congress? What about when they see the headlines about the books and the fingerpointing between the juice brothers? It just seems to me that there's a lot more at stake than egos and records. The reputation of the great American pastime has received a great big shiner, and all anyone does is sit around thumb-in-anus. The fact that the Babe fueled his performance with beer, hotdogs, cigars and cigarettes was the subject of a lot of talk in those times, but it ain't nothing like the juice.
posted by jm_mosier at 09:54 PM on March 16, 2006
i have an easy solution.....let barry play...but WALK HIM EVERY TIME he comes to bat........don't let him swing.....in only days he'll get the idea that other players aren't gonna play with him anymore..and he'll pick up his syringe and vials...and GO HOME...good riddance to bad rubbish
posted by tommybiden at 10:29 PM on March 16, 2006
Selig's a puss. Does he liken himself to a president, or leader of a major country? "Oh, what if I've angered my people?" Look, I'm tired of Bonds, this over-sized zagnut. Does he have the stats, PRE-STEROID stats, to go HOF? Yes. Is he HOF caliber? Hmmmmmm... I've said this before: The Congressional hearings were a joke! Some of the most UNRELIABLE and UNTRUSTWORTHY, questioning ballplayers about THEIR ethical behavior!!! Bonds is everything the media craves...highlight clips, sound bytes(good or bad), questionable behavior and THAT ATTITUDE! If Barry Bonds were in the forest, and something happened to him, would(or should) I care...?
posted by wolfdad at 10:36 PM on March 16, 2006
elovrich - The commissioner is pretty much a figurehead, but at the same time the job is a powerful platform if you know how to use it. He can only act with the support of the owners, because that's who he works for. Selig actually deserves credit for realizing this; he's managed to get the owners to agree on a large number of issues. I may not agree with a lot of what Selig has done, but he's used the little power he has very effectively. If you look at any city's laws, you will find lots of things written down as law that no one pays any attention to. A law is not a law if absolutely no one pays attention to it. Tyhe state can't all of a sudden use that law to target someone - that's called selective prosecution, and it's not allowed. There's the law that's in the books, and then there's the law that's actually practiced. Vincent's edicts were like the trees that fall in the forest unheard and unseen. They did not change the practice and policy of major league baseball at all. On paper, according to the agreement between the owners and the players, teams could test players for steroids if they had reason to suspect the player of using. Not one team ever used that clause to test a player. Not one. And why only the last 15 years? There's no justification to complain about steroids and not amphetamines. If anything, amphetamines have a more direct influence on player performance Hank Aaron was almost certainly using amphetamines - he would've had to go way out of his way not to - when he broke Ruth's record. Maris may very well have been using them too in 1961. Where's the outrage about them? Players have been using illegal, performance enhacing drugs for longer than most of us have been alive. This has been well known by almost everybody around baseball since at least 1970. There's absolutely nothing new under this sun.
posted by spira at 10:39 PM on March 16, 2006
Spira, You make several good points, and your equating the Drug Policy of 1991 to laws on the books that are not enforced is apropos, if not completely accurate. I am not sure what laws you have in mind, but while reading what you wrote, obsolete, or outdated laws came to mind. And that is where the comparison breaks down for me. The drug policy was not an obsolete or outdated regulation, it was needed and very timely, as is turns out it was ahead of its time in some ways. I am not sure where you get your opinion of Aaron's supposed use of amphetamines, I have no opininon either way as I have seen no evidence for or against. The reason to limit to the last 15 years is simple, and has nothing to do with steroids vs. amphetamines. and everything to do with the arguements that people are making to get Bonds off of the hook. Prior to 1991, there was no drug policy, per se. I would not care to punish those who truly did not break the rules, even if what they did was illegal. Do people cheat? Of course they do, it is human nature to try to get ahead, fairly or otherwise. If you make rules to prevent the cheating or diminish it, those who will circumvent the rules will find new and more clever ways to do so. But, to say that cheating has always been going on, so it is unreasonable to fight against it, or try to do anything about, is defeatist. You build a better mouse, I will continue to build a better mousetrap. It can go on forever, but who wins if the trap builders stop trying? I am not singling out steroids over amphetamines, as I said the policy dates back to 1991, so I would limit any actions to that time. I would be interested though, in where you get corroboration for your statement that amphetimines have a more direct influence on player performance than steroids do.
posted by elovrich at 11:49 PM on March 16, 2006
If Barry Bonds were in the forest, and something happened to him, would(or should) I care...? Perfect. Couldn't have said it better.
posted by sublime4390116 at 01:12 AM on March 17, 2006
Bonds cheated, Bonds cheated waaaaaaaaaaaaa!! You all sound like a bunch of 8 year olds. For all you baseball "purists".....get over it. The game stopped being pure as soon as the first paycheck was issued to play it. IT'S ALL ENTERTAINMENT!!! I didn't care if Keith Richards was strung out on smack playing Satisfaction and I don't care if Barry Bonds is on crack hitting balls into McCovey cove. IT'S ALL ENTERTAINMENT!!!
posted by SFGiant at 01:27 AM on March 17, 2006
If 2 guys swear i was speeding 8 yrs ago can the cops give me a ticket for it now?
posted by scottyooooo at 07:49 AM on March 17, 2006
If 2 guys swear i was speeding 8 yrs ago can the cops give me a ticket for it now? That's what I said a few posts ago. The answer, of course, is "No." Just like chronic speeders, all the people in charge can do is try to catch them in the act. Same with Bonds. Laws and rules exist all over the place, but if they're not enforced, they're worthless. That's what MLBs drug and steroid policies are about. They've always been written down, but nobody wanted to go to lengths to levy consequences on the abusers. It took those embarrassing Congressional hearings to force them to deal with the abusers. Until Bonds tests positive, he's untouchable by the baseball brass. If it's proven he committed perjury while testifying at any time, maybe that could be a reason to have him suspended. Otherwise, forget it and get on with the season.
posted by dyams at 09:17 AM on March 17, 2006
I agree with the fact it is hard to prove the past. Has anybody seen how Ken Griffey has bulked up in the last two years? oh but thats ok fans like him. Anyway inocent until proven guilty. a few years ago everybody was using some kind of supplement so leave it alone it's what he is doing now. and again he has not tested positive so until he does then he deserves to be punished.
posted by Dammit at 09:26 AM on March 17, 2006
Somebody call the vet. This horse has been beaten to death, and his animal steroids have been stolen...
posted by wingnut4life at 09:27 AM on March 17, 2006
Barry Bonds should be banned from Baseball just like Pete Rose, but Pete didnt need steroids to get his numbers he loved the game like the kid he is
posted by Ohio,Ger at 09:39 AM on March 17, 2006
So what will the celebration be like if and when he beats Babe's record? Probrably nothing like I could hope for. And I also believe the the Giants organization and Dusty Baker are just as guilty for turning a blind eye. I'm sure that the Giants will throw him one hell of a party. Maybe he will retire and compete against Jerry Rice in the next dance competition. Unless there's some drug that makes you dance good, I'll take Jerry to win.
posted by volfire at 09:41 AM on March 17, 2006
Records aside, the point that everyone seems to be overlooking is that the juice brothers, Bonds, Canseco, McGwire, Palmiero, et al (the list goes on ad nauseum) are supposed to be role models for todays kids. No, they're not. They're "supposed to be" professional athletes. If they wanted to be role models, they'd have gone into teaching. You are supposed to be the role model for your kids. If you expect these knuckleheads (or anybody else, for that matter) to provide moral guidance for your kids, I daresay you're going to be sorely disappointed in how the little ones turn out. This horse hasn't just been beaten, it's been flattened out by a steam roller.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 09:58 AM on March 17, 2006
IT'S ALL ENTERTAINMENT!!! Then you are in the wrong online blog. TBH I agree with you're point. Professional athletes are not in any way obligated to be role models. It just so happens that they are amazing at what they do and are looked up to by kids, but it isn't in their job description to be a role model. There are athletes who are good role models (Lance Armstrong) but if you are expecting these superstars to be role models for your kids, you are seriously mistaken.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 10:40 AM on March 17, 2006
So, now, he is going to be the scapegoat for the MLB's failure to act. Selig should punish himself and every league and team official who looked the other way if he is going to punish Bonds. I don't like the idea of steroids being part of the game but punishing Bonds (McGwire, Sosa, whoever) is just about the stupidest thing I have heard in a long time.
posted by stofer71 at 10:59 AM on March 17, 2006
Selig should have stepped down a long time ago. This whole mess is on his shoulders as acting commissioner. He's refused to act until Congress made him, so he should be the one forced out. He's really not in a position at this point to be pointing any fingers at any players regarding this topic.
posted by dyams at 11:06 AM on March 17, 2006
posted by wingnut4life at 11:12 AM on March 17, 2006
...You are supposed to be the role model for your kids. If you expect these knuckleheads (or anybody else, for that matter) to provide moral guidance for your kids, I daresay you're going to be sorely disappointed in how the little ones turn out. Truer words have never been said.
posted by stofer71 at 11:39 AM on March 17, 2006
Fucking A, wingnut - fucking A.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:40 PM on March 17, 2006
The only thing that's more of a dead horse than this topic is the references to dead horses. If someone's sick of a topic, why keep clicking on it time after time pointing out it's a dead topic? That sign was kind of funny, though.
posted by dyams at 12:46 PM on March 17, 2006
it's really messed up that you guys are sweating Bonds start sweating the rest of the cheaters.
posted by byrdman822 at 01:11 PM on March 17, 2006
The only thing that's more of a dead horse than this topic is the references to dead horses. If someone's sick of a topic, why keep clicking on it time after time pointing out it's a dead topic? Well, someone has to keep cleaning up around here. That and referring to a topic as a dead horse is commenting on the topic in a fashion. That and calling something a dead horse can be understood as suggesting the debate is without end. That's pretty legit considering the comments above. But mostly it's appropriate because the sign is funny.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:27 PM on March 17, 2006
Did anyone see Mike Schmidt (Hall Of Fame Member) on Cold Pizza yesterday? He stated again (1st time-Bob Costas interview) that if steroids were around in his time and the other power hitters of his time were using and benefitting from their use (better #er's) he would most likely used them too.
posted by jwhite613 at 02:34 PM on March 17, 2006
The issue is no longer 'roids, its everyones unfounded hatred of Barry B. I'll skip the hateorade and stick to the Vitamin Water. I knoe it's funny hearing this come from someone with my user name.
posted by HATER 187 at 02:36 PM on March 17, 2006
wingnut4life- LOL. Bloody brilliant.
posted by irunfromclones at 03:21 PM on March 17, 2006
The issue is no longer 'roids, its everyones unfounded hatred of Barry B. And I, for one, won't stand for this hateful, disgusting attack on deceased equuines! 
Damn you all!
posted by The_Black_Hand at 08:19 PM on March 18, 2006
Can't get any uglier than the judgment already passed by the court of public opinion. Either he did it or he didn't, whether knowingly or not. Looks increasingly like he did, and did. But what is it we are really talking about here? Is it all about the astericks next to his achievements? His late season at bats in 05, coupled with his performance thus far in 06, tell me he's among the best there ever was either way...