Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
“I’m telling you I don’t like cheaters. They don’t belong in the game,” Lasorda told reporters Tuesday.
(And just checking, is Mark McGwire still the hitting coach?)
Who's going to be the next one to denounce him? Steve Garvey? Carlos Perez? Luis Polonia?
I don't like Tommy Lasorda and he doesn't belong in the game.
Again, we have someone who is actually involved in the game of baseball who does not want players to have to compete with cheaters. Unlike the apologists posting here.
So . . Tommy hated notorious spitballer Don Drysdale? And he loathed notorious ball scuffer Don Sutton, too, right?
The good news is that baseball players have decided they do not want to compete with cheats.
But what do they know, as compared with a smattering of internet lawyers and sophists?
But what do they know, as compared with a smattering of internet lawyers and sophists?
OK -- players and former players are far better sources of insight than a smattering of internet lawyers and sophists.
Primarily their experience with the sport and its players, which bestows upon them greater knowledge (*) of the sport's mores and should-be mores.
It's their game and their sport; it's not internet lawyers' and sophists' game.
(*) And access to the raw materials from which knowledge and insight are derived.
Baseball players being closer to baseball and other baseball players and having closer experience with the sport's mores is not an opinion. It's a self-evident fact.
Nor is the conclusion that players are the ultimate arbiters of the way the sport should be played an "opinion." That's also a statement of reality.
You disagree that the evidence supports the proposition. Fine. But evidence was provided.
No, but then again the identity of the participants in the game have nothing to do with the mores of how the game is played, or fair play and competition within the playing of the game.
There's nothing remotely subjective about the observation that players are closer to the sport and its mores, and experience them more immediately, than outsiders.
Why is it so odd that not all crimes are equal and within the confines of baseball.
If someone provided a rational explanation for why PED use is worse than scuffing balls besides the constant aping of "home run go far", I think there would be quite less of a commotion among this community.
while Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds looked superhuman.
Re: #13 -- I'm still trying to figure out just how dumb 10 cheating dogs are. Twice as dumb as five cheating dogs or half as dumb?
I'm not saying I agree or disagree but it seems like the idea that steroids made a mockery of HR records is more offensive to fans and players who have a romantic notion of the history of the game than individuals using spitballs, corked bats, scuffed balls or whatever to gain an edge. Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry looked like human beings when pitching -- albeit somewhat shady human beings, while Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds looked superhuman. The "unfairness" of a superhuman dominating mere humans seemed more wrong than a shady human "bending" the rules. It would be like the difference between scuffing a ball and going into the future to get a magic pill that turned you into Superman and coming back to the present to dominate baseball. One is a bit shady. The other is flat out unfair and shouldn't count.
Compared to Thomas, the other guys were scrawny little shits when they came into professional baseball.
Actually, the next step is for the "community" to comprehend that if they have deficiencies in seeing things like the superhuman/human dichotomy that the rest of the world sees rather easily, the problem lies not with the rest of the world, but with them.
Wherein the deficiencies exhibited regularly by one faction ("Amps and roids both enhance performance, what's the difference?") are projected onto a different faction
Somebody please remind me if anyone who ever played for Tommy's beloved Dodgers ever got busted for PEDs, and whether that cheating cheater was immediately given his unconditional release or simply added back to the active roster as soon as he was eligible.
I mean, Steve Howe was a habitual drug user including coke and had meth in his system at the time of his death
I helped Patrick McGoohan Escape
Does McGoohan ever manage to escape from the prison?
Why is it so odd that not all crimes are equal and within the confines of baseball. There have been virtually unanimously agreed upon distinctions of gamesmanship (spitballs/corked bats/pine tar on pitchers fingers) vs. flat out cheating, though I confess I'm not sure why amps have historically been given a pass.
I totally get that, and have emailed back and forth with some writers who have said things similar enough. The next step is getting them to recognize that guys like Alex Sanchez and late-career Colon were dopers too, and as Ray is so quick to point out in each thread, Frank Thomas was a huge man. If they still don't buy it, then we've added a step before seeing their flawed logic, but it's still incredibly flawed logic.
It's clear to me, and demonstrated here by Tommy LaSorda, that all this steroid outrage is purely and simply (OK, 98%) about players hitting more home runs than they "should."
If the Steroid Era had led to a vast increase in double and triples, with no effect on home runs, I honestly think none of these professional outrage-ists would care.
No, but your unsupported assertion that this closer proximity is inherently a positive thing is, by nature, subjective.
This. This quote right here is why many of the people who post on this site are seen as inflexible, completely void of nuance. Like vampires you suck the blood out of the sport, you remove anything that is ENJOYABLE about the game of baseball. You reduce many of these threads to a "lesson" in semantics. A lesson many of us tire of.
But you'd think he was a moron based on what most people say here.
It's called perspective. Nuance. For folks who accept without much skepticism the validity of WAR and other stats that require the bending of numbers and calculations that might have puzzled NASA scientists in 1964, you seem to think steroids are a simple little issue.
Amphetemines? What did amphetamines do?
So you burn him because he had guys on his teams over the course of three decades who may have tossed a spitter or use amphetamines?
Cyclists "cheated" for decades too, (some of them), but then in the 1970s and especially in the 1980s they started using drugs that absolutely destroyed the competitive balance of the sport.
It puzzles me that the (general) MO from many here is to simply apologize for anything players did with regards to putting illegal drugs into their bodies and making a mockery of the record books.
In 1904, nearly half of the cyclists who completed the tour (including the top four finishers, and the winners of literally every stage) were disqualified for such things as riding in cars or on trains for part of the course, throwing down nails and broken glass to puncture the tires of the riders behind them, blocking sections of the course with barricades, accepting illegal food and drink, and inducing gangs of spectators to accost and assault competing riders.
If they get caught, they should pay whatever penalty is described in the CBA, and that should be the end of it.
Lasorda also wanted gays out of the game.
Is it the HR record that's the issue then?
I really think this board should avoid all discussion of PEDs. For more than a decade this board has been dominated by PED denialists who will advance any argument, no matter how bogus to support the PED users. Nobody really cares what you guys "think" about this issue.
But I'm actually happy that Maris's single-season record was broken, because I think McGwire, Bonds, and Sosa (or Ruth, Foxx, and Greenberg) were all legitimately better HR hitters than him, and I personally would rather see "big" records in the hands of all-time greats than short-time flukes.
It really seems to me that, historically, the more strident, emotional, "it's black-and-white, no shades of gray" side in the Great Steroid Debate has been the anti-steroid zealots, not the apologists.
Link with charts and graphs, sworn affidavits, blood tests, IP addresses, diagrams of chemical reactions of steroids in the human body, etc, plz, Joe, or none of it happened.
Though roids have been banned from serious athletic competition for decades, gold medals taken away from users, star soccer, tennis, and tracksters banned for a year, two years, four years, no such rejectionist faction has grown up around those sports. Only in baseball.
No, the debate shifted over time. First, the "apologists" claimed "no proof". Then, when proved, they claimed "no benefit". Then, when benefit was proved, or, admitted, the argument became "but what about amps?"
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.9681 seconds, 53 querie(s) executed