Barry Bonds

[Tomasso]

Originally Posted by hchamp

A guy using steroids isn't exploiting his employees, stealing from the electorate, or abusing little kids. He's just hurting himself. And the thrust of his article is regulate performance-enhancing drugs so that no-one is hurt. What's wrong with that?

When athletes reap fortunes from doctoring their physique, youngsters will emulate. But, in any event, it's a disingenuous tactic. BTW, your defense of Bonds/ steroids is untenable and speaks to your morals or lack thereof.

 

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by Tomasso

When athletes reap fortunes from doctoring their physique, youngsters will emulate. But, in any event, it's a disingenuous tactic. BTW, your defense of Bonds/ steroids is untenable and speaks to your morals or lack thereof.

I was wondering how long it would take before the personal attacks started. That article by Moore was written for you.

And you're saying little kids are taking steroids because of Barry Bonds? You'd think the press would be all over that if it were true.

 

[Pariolino]

Originally Posted by hchamp

I was wondering how long it would take before the personal attacks started. That article by Moore was written for you.

And you're saying little kids are taking steroids because of Barry Bonds? You'd think the press would be all over that if it were true.
Our Tommy is not much of a debater, so he reverts to these kinds of things when he gets spanked

.

 

[NoVaguy]

Originally Posted by hchamp

A guy using steroids isn't exploiting his employees, stealing from the electorate, or abusing little kids. He's just hurting himself. And the thrust of his article is regulate performance-enhancing drugs so that no-one is hurt. What's wrong with that?

(The better analogy with your examples is to acknowledge that evils exist and do whatever is necessary to ensure no-one is hurt.)

No, but a player doing steriods is reducing the earnings and value of the players who chose not to do the illegal drugs.

Think of it this way - assume there are two players, A and B. player A is a 35-110-.310 player and player B is 30-100-.300 players absent of the illegal steroids. In our little thought experiment, both are competing for essentially the same last spot on a team. Best player gets the $5 Million contract.

But player B decides to cheat and break the legal rules for an advantage, sacrificing his future health, and possibly shifting the risk and danger of steroid induced mental and health problems on society. And goes up to 40-125-.330 in his performance.

The result is that player B gets the contract, player A does not make the team. In essence, player B has cheated player A out of $5 million. Player A certainly has a grievance against player B.

In reality, though, it is tough to identify the A's and the B's. And multiple positions are available. But in general, we can see an illegal wealth transfer from the A's to the B's. And you can see the pressure put on the marginal A's -> stay clean and get forced out, versus switch to the B's and get the contract.

That's why I don't mind the hell that Barry is going through - it's changing the costs of the actions for all of the other players in the league and increasing the value of being an A player. And it reduces the effect of shifting the risk and danger of steroid induced mental and health problems on society.

 

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by NoVaguy

No, but a player doing steriods is reducing the earnings and value of the players who chose not to do the illegal drugs.

Think of it this way - assume there are two players, A and B. player A is a 35-110-.310 player and player B is 30-100-.300 players absent of the illegal steroids. In our little thought experiment, both are competing for essentially the same last spot on a team. Best player gets the $5 Million contract.

But player B decides to cheat and break the legal rules for an advantage, sacrificing his future health, and possibly shifting the risk and danger of steroid induced mental and health problems on society. And goes up to 40-125-.330 in his performance.

The result is that player B gets the contract, player A does not make the team. In essence, player B has cheated player A out of $5 million. Player A certainly has a grievance against player B.

In reality, though, it is tough to identify the A's and the B's. And multiple positions are available. But in general, we can see an illegal wealth transfer from the A's to the B's. And you can see the pressure put on the marginal A's -> stay clean and get forced out, versus switch to the B's and get the contract.

That's why I don't mind the hell that Barry is going through - it's changing the costs of the actions for all of the other players in the league and increasing the value of being an A player. And it reduces the effect of shifting the risk and danger of steroid induced mental and health problems on society.

First, your example is a poor one because any player who can hit .300 will make some major league team and be rewarded accordingly. So no-one is being cheated.

But even accepting your premise, higher reward should go the player who is willing to take more risk. This is the way it works in business and the markets, where the purest form of competition exists. And it's the way it works in life. The guy who sticks his neck out and approaches the girl deserves to get her.

As for the financial burden of health problems, if steroids help a player earn millions of dollars, then he can pay for his own medical care.

 

[Brian278]

Originally Posted by hchamp

First, your example is a poor one because any player who can hit .300 will make some major league team and be rewarded accordingly. So no-one is being cheated. But even accepting your premise, higher reward should go the player who is willing to take more risk. This is the way it works in business and the markets, where the purest form of competition exists. And it's the way it works in life. The guy who sticks his neck out and approaches the girl deserves to get her. As for the financial burden of health problems, if steroids help a player earn millions of dollars, then he can pay for his own medical care.
Even in "business and the markets" there are regulations to keep people from being hurt at the expense of profit for individual businesses. Just like there are rules in baseball (and since I know you'll point out their weren't any explicit baseball rules against it) laws against using anabolic steroids in such a manner. This isn't about taking BP until your hands bleed or outworking everyone. It's about knowingly and willingly breaking the rules when others aren't even though they can. You don't think Griffey could've done them and had 50-100 more home runs by now? Maybe thrown in some HGH to help stay off the DL? No, he played hard with his natural talent and will retire a beloved figure in all of baseball, not just in his home stadium. He didn't **** with history, and in hindsight will likely serve as the antithesis of what was wrong with this era that Bonds represents. And yes, .300 hitters always will make a team, but what about the guy batting 8th who lost his spot to the guy on the Cream and the Clear who suddenly has a power burst? What about the pitcher getting sent down to Triple A because the some guys prospects got hooked up with the right chemists and picked up 5 mph on their fastball and some extra bite on their slider? When mediocre players become very good players, average players who followed the rules get passed by. You can't create an environment in professional baseball at large where players are forced to use potentially physically harmful artificial means to compete. It trickles down through the minor leagues and into college and high school ball and suddenly you have 16 year olds doing permanent damage to themselves to get a chance to be drafted or get a scholarship. You'd be naive to think this isn't already happening on some level, but to condone it as a mere "competition" is a dangerous road to go down. What next? Corking bats is fine by you? Nicking a ball with a razor for a little extra movement is just "sticking your neck out"?

 

[hchamp]

Originally Posted by Brian278

Even in "business and the markets" there are regulations to keep people from being hurt at the expense of profit for individual businesses. Just like there are rules in baseball (and since I know you'll point out their weren't any explicit baseball rules against it) laws against using anabolic steroids in such a manner. This isn't about taking BP until your hands bleed or outworking everyone. It's about knowingly and willingly breaking the rules when others aren't even though they can. You don't think Griffey could've done them and had 50-100 more home runs by now? Maybe thrown in some HGH to help stay off the DL? No, he played hard with his natural talent and will retire a beloved figure in all of baseball, not just in his home stadium. He didn't **** with history, and in hindsight will likely serve as the antithesis of what was wrong with this era that Bonds represents.

And yes, .300 hitters always will make a team, but what about the guy batting 8th who lost his spot to the guy on the Cream and the Clear who suddenly has a power burst? What about the pitcher getting sent down to Triple A because the some guys prospects got hooked up with the right chemists and picked up 5 mph on their fastball and some extra bite on their slider? When mediocre players become very good players, average players who followed the rules get passed by.

You can't create an environment in professional baseball at large where players are forced to use potentially physically harmful artificial means to compete. It trickles down through the minor leagues and into college and high school ball and suddenly you have 16 year olds doing permanent damage to themselves to get a chance to be drafted or get a scholarship. You'd be naive to think this isn't already happening on some level, but to condone it as a mere "competition" is a dangerous road to go down. What next? Corking bats is fine by you? Nicking a ball with a razor for a little extra movement is just "sticking your neck out"?

There was no rule against steroids and though it was illegal it wasn't enforced, so it was de facto legal since there were no legal penalties. Therefore, the only calculation for a player was whether he was willing to take the risk of future health problems. Every player had this option. The players who were willing to accept this risk deserved to reap the rewards. Simple as that.

Now that steroids and other ped's have been banned, the risk of using them have increased, maybe enough to dissuade most players. If some still choose to take this chance, then good for them. If they get caught, they'll be punished. That's the way it works everywhere else.

As for the trickle-down effect, I think Moore's suggestion is worth exploring. Why not regulate the use of ped's at all levels so that they are taken under medical supervision? This will help ensure the medical side-effects are minimized while also leveling the playing field.

 

[Tomasso]

Originally Posted by Pariolino

Our Tommy is not much of a debater, so he reverts to these kinds of things when he gets spanked
So long, for now.

I'm thinkin' Manton.

 

[Manton]

Originally Posted by Tomasso

I'm thinkin' Manton.

Guess again. I actually think you are right in this thread and made a lot of good arguments. But you're still a jackass.

 

[WSW]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/spor...-bonds.html?hp

 

[Brian278]

I'd be shocked if he ever plays baseball again.

 

[WSW]

I guess he won't have to boycott his Hall of Fame ceremony anymore.