stonewalling before Congress, not hat size.

While not quite so theatrical as Mac, Sosa's performance that day was pretty evasive. Mac's tear shower saved Sosa the glare of the limelight. If not for that, Sosa would have faced a lot of questions abouty his own veracity.

Are you saying Maris' accomplishment *should* be asterisked?

Only to the extent that I saw nothing wrong with the old Sporting News "One For the Book" record book, which read more or less:

HOME RUNS, SEASON

154 Game Season---George (Babe) Ruth, New York AL, 1927---60

162 Game Season---Roger Maris, New York AL, 1961 ---61

What's wrong with that? Why does Maris "deserve more" than that? I went to many Yankee games that year and was pulling for Maris all the way, but when he tapped out to the mound against Hoyt Wilhelm to end the Yankees' 155th game (including a tie) with but 59 home runs, nearly everyone accepted that Babe Ruth's record remained standing. Were this not the case, given the enormous amount of publicity given to Maris's chase that year, there would have been a hell of a lot more people at Yankee Stadium on the last day of the season when he finally hit #61---there were in fact fewer than 30,000.

And what's so "strawman" about raising the 224 or 800 game season? Of course I realize that it exaggerates my point, but the principle remains the same. Or doesn't it? Explain the difference, if you can. When is a "season" simply a season, and at what point of length does it become something else?

stonewalling before Congress, not hat size.

While not quite so theatrical as Mac, Sosa's performance that day was pretty evasive. Mac's tear shower saved Sosa the glare of the limelight. If not for that, Sosa would have faced a lot of questions abouty his own veracity.

Probably so, but the book on Sosa is not necessarily closed. He probably does owe McGwire a favor or two, for now at least.

HOME RUNS, SEASON

154 Game Season---George (Babe) Ruth, New York AL, 1927---60

162 Game Season---Roger Maris, New York AL, 1961 ---61

What's wrong with that? Why does Maris "deserve more" than that?

Maris deserves more than the public gave him. Surely you recognize the difference and the decades that followed?

when he tapped out to the mound against Hoyt Wilhelm to end the Yankees' 155th game (including a tie) with but 59 home runs, nearly everyone accepted that Babe Ruth's record remained standing.

That's awful. I'm very glad I don't think like that. In addition, were it not for this record, teh entire record book wouldn't have the duality of which you speak.

Because it's nonsense. Who holds the record for the most home runs in 154 games?

When Steve Courson died the other day, I read that he said he was using steroids in college, which doing the math would have been 1974-78 IIRC. So they were easily available (I'm assuming this based on the fact that a college kid could get them) in the mid-70s. So do we need to go back a generation here with the accusations?

This reminded me of an old Sports Illustrated article about steroids that quoted Courson extensively. I went back and found it- it is from an issue dated May 13, 1985.

The article doesn't mention baseball, but here are some snippets:

"It is a spreading wildfire that is touching athletes at every level of sport. From NFL stars to iron pumpers in small-town gyms, from high school bench warmers to college All-Americas, thousands of American athletes, both male and female, are routinely ingesting or injecting anabolic steroids to increase their strength or improve their all-around sense of athletic and personal self-worth....

Buffalo Bills nose tackle Fred Smerlas says he thinks 40% of NFL players use steroids. Other NFL players put the figure as high as 90%. That is probably on the high side--there's a tendency among athletes to assume that opponents, especially successful ones, are cheating--but it's clear that steroid use in the NFL is substantial, especially among linemen....

Lyle Alzado, 36, a 14-year veteran NFL defensive end formerly with Denver and Cleveland, now with the Raiders, said last week, "On some teams, between 75 and 90 percent of all athletes use steroids.' Not quarterbacks or kickers, he added, but many of the others. "Steroids create more raw power, speed, endurance. Some of the oldtime players have gotten by without using them, but a player cannot compete today at a topnotch level of football without an aid of some sort,' Alzado said....

Recent events indicate that steroid use on campuses is prevalent indeed, in spite of denials by many college coaches in football and other sports. Last month 32 Vanderbilt football players, past and present, were listed as unindicted coconspirators in a case in Nashville involving the illegal sale and distribution of steroids. The Bears' McMichael, who admits to having used steroids after his senior year at Texas, said, "Vanderbilt is the straw that broke the camel's back. There are [players at] a bunch of other schools who are doing steroids, too. The whole college deal has gotten out of hand.' Pat Donovan, 31, a Dallas Cowboy offensive lineman for nine years who retired in 1983, said, "Steroids are very, very accepted in the NFL. In my last five or six years it ran as high as 60 to 70 percent on the Cowboys on the offensive and defensive lines..."

In fact, one of the big reasons I don't watch football anymore is because of the steroids freakshow it has become. So I've voted with my feet.

But I thought this was meaningless with respect to outrage over steroids?

Maris deserves more than the public gave him. Surely you recognize the difference and the decades that followed?

And surely you realize that Maris's reclusive nature had a lot to do with that.

I'm not saying that Maris had a flawed personality. He was one of my favorite players, and got a bad rap from the New York press, beginning with one particularly nasty bit of drivel written by one of the old school tabloid hacks in Spring Training in 1962.

But if he'd moved to New York after his retirement and hung out at Toots Shor's and Dempseys, and palled around with the writers, his reputation would be been miraculously rehabilitated, I'm sure. This is a sorry commentary on the nature of modern celebrity, I'll agree, but it's also rather undeniable. And it's to his credit that to his dying days, he remained his own person, which is one of the main reasons I was a huge fan of his. He had zero BS about him.

But 154 games is 154 games, and 1962 games is 162 games. A season is a season, too, but when Maris was pursuing Ruth, all the comparison charts, all season long, were measuring Maris on a 154 game scale. It wasn't as if they waited until the end of the season to change the "rules" on him.

Which is why although I thought that Maris got a bad rap in the press, he wasn't particularly "cheated" out of a record, since it was a record (Babe Ruth's 154-game record) which he didn't break. He always received full credit for the 162 game record, which of course remained the standard for 37 years.

Because it's nonsense. Who holds the record for the most home runs in 154 games?

Ruth, although if 1998 had been cut short at 154 games, it would have been McGwire, and then probably Bonds in 2001. But by 1998 it was a moot point. There was a notation when McGwire passed 60 before 154 games, but I don't recall any mention during Bonds's season, since by then he was only chasing McGwire.

As to "character," Maris certainly stands above the other three, for whatever that's worth. By the tone of your posts, I suspect that it means a lot to you, and I certainly take note of it myself---though my own favorite Maris moment (and his, too, IIRC) took place in the field and not in the batter's box.

And surely you realize that Maris's reclusive nature had a lot to do with that.

I'm not saying that Maris had a flawed personality. He was one of my favorite players, and got a bad rap from the New York press, beginning with one particularly nasty bit of drivel written by one of the old school tabloid hacks in Spring Training in 1962.

I find those two bits nearly contradictory. Why point out his reclusivity except as a "reason" for his treatment? To say that if "Roger had just hung out more..." as a means to excuse the *public's perception of him* is the type of thing I would never want to be party to.

By the tone of your posts, I suspect that it means a lot to you,

I knew Roger Maris and his daughter Sandy 20 years ago. It means a great deal to me. And I have read a great deal about it and spoken with him about it.

Fortunately, I wasn't born, but his treatment was akin to that Bonds gets. Which is why a media portrayal of an athlete carries *NO* weight with me - and this leaves Teddy Ballgame's treatment aside.

I know what they do to those who don't give good quotes, regardless of the quality of individual. The media has had and continues to have their own vicious ways - not all of them, but it doesn't take all of them.

The single season HR record belongs to Barry Bonds and no one else, IMO. Frinstance, in 1927, the Yankees played 155 games.

In fact, one of the big reasons I don't watch football anymore is because of the steroids freakshow it has become. So I've voted with my feet.

But most people obviously haven't, given the popularity of the NFL, once again giving the lie to the claim that the public is outraged about steroids.

But 154 games is 154 games, and 1962 games is 162 games. A season is a season, too, but when Maris was pursuing Ruth, all the comparison charts, all season long, were measuring Maris on a 154 game scale. It wasn't as if they waited until the end of the season to change the "rules" on him.

But they did. They changed the rules to say that "People chasing Babe Ruth's records will get special treatment." When Maury Wills broke Ty Cobb's mark the next year, nobody talked about listing both names in the book.

How do explain the favorable public acceptance of congress imposing theri plan on MLB?

As we've been over many times, there's a big difference between "The public thinks X" and "The public is outraged about X."

Many people think steroid use is bad, so they support a law against it. Few people "vote with their feet," because they don't care much. The former involves no costs to the average fan, while the latter involves great cost.

Oh, sure. I care about that. A lot.

But somebody mentioned why I don't get exercised about football. And it's because I don't care about football.

But the question isn't really why you don't get exercised about football, it's why you don't always get exercised about steroids.

In fact, one of the big reasons I don't watch football anymore is because of the steroids freakshow it has become. So I've voted with my feet.

I like baseball too much to do the same. But if baseball ever reaches the same point of lunacy that football does, then I'll vote with my feet there too.


I think the logic is a little strained, at least for someone who used to be a football fan. I mean, why do you think steroids are a problem (i.e. why should they be against the rules)? The health issue, right?

But you're saying the problem was so bad in football that you decided to just give up and ignore it. The problem isn't as bad in baseball, so you decide to rail about it constantly. That's the part that doesn't quite make sense.

Maybe if there had been a Football Primer whenever you gave up on the sport things would have been different. Though I guess when one really thinks about it, you haven't really done anything about the problem in baseball (other than your THT article). You've just argued about it on a message board. With football, you actually voted with your wallet, so that's something.

But the question isn't really why you don't get exercised about football, it's why you don't always get exercised about steroids.

I'm missing the big gotcha hear. As a matter of polity, I'm sure there are a number of things that I agree and/or disagree with that are occuring in the world. In some cases, I may speak on the subject. But I doubt that I could possibly right a personal polity manifesto on all matters at any point in time.

This site is a baseball related site. The subject of steroids in baseball is pretty topical. That will tend to drive comments in that area. I haven't seen anyone state "steroids are ok in football, but not ok in baseball." I think many want 'roids gone from all sports. If some people care more about baseball than football, they may show more emotion when the matter pertains to baseball.

I don't want steroids in weightlifting either, but I haven't posted about it, and to be honest, I don't know how bad the problem currently is in weightlifting. I'd very much like for all sports to be without doping, but I don't pay a large amount of attention to all sports.

If someone chooses the place where they take their stand, its often a matter of tactics. But what I really don't understand is suppose, just suppose, you were able to point out a minor inconsistencey in an argument. Do you think that will cause all the accurate information to fall down like a house of cards. There are many independent reasons to want 'roids out of baseball. Most apply to all sports. Some have unique applications in baseball. If someone focuses on baseball, it does not make them a hypocrit.

Moreover, I'm the one who has been the advancer of the public heatlh and coercive environment message. If you want to play gotcha, I'm the target. Kevin and Andy have been consistent in their posisitions.

#19

well said, if I may use that phrase

If you leave the NFL as anything other than a cripple, you have to consider yourself lucky.

Steroids are a big contributor to that factor, though. For what it's worth, I do agree with a lot of your take on the NFL. Many of these guys are just not living healthy lives even without the full contact.

Personally, I think the real problem here is that people think seriously jeopardizing their health and lives is worth it for a small chance to play a pro sport, or to improve from an all-star to an MVP. It's a reflection of a lot of the screwed up values in our society, in my opinion.

As a matter of polity, I'm sure there are a number of things that I agree and/or disagree with that are occuring in the world. In some cases, I may speak on the subject. But I doubt that I could possibly right a personal polity manifesto on all matters at any point in time.

Well, there's a difference between saying that you don't have the time/energy to battle every ill in the world, and saying you just don't care about certain ills, which is what Andy said and, to a lesser extent, what kevin originally said.

For example, it's one thing to say that we don't have the troops to fight human rights abuses everywhere they occur. It's another thing to say we just don't care about Darfur.

Furthermore, my original question to Andy wasn't why he hadn't done more about the problem of steroids in football in the past (FWIW, I don't think he's actually done anything about the problem of steroids in baseball either). It was about what would happen in the other sports going forward, now that baseball's addressing its problems to Andy's satisfaction.

But what I really don't understand is suppose, just suppose, you were able to point out a minor inconsistencey in an argument. Do you think that will cause all the accurate information to fall down like a house of cards

Moreover, I'm the one who has been the advancer of the public heatlh and coercive environment message. If you want to play gotcha, I'm the target. Kevin and Andy have been consistent in their posisitions.


It was not my intention to topple anyone's argument or to play gotcha. I don't think what we're talking about is a minor inconsistency, though, I think it gets to the heart of what we've really been arguing about. (That's generally what I try to do in most contentious arguments.)

Really, one of the reasons I'm pursuing this is to help better clarify/test my own position. I don't think there's any reason to care about steroids unless you're really concerned about the dangers. And I don't think there's any reason for Congress to get involved to the extent they have unless there's a real public health concern. So if others don't really think this is a serious public health concern, or if they don't really care about the dangers that much, then I find it hard to understand why they've been arguing so vehemently this whole time, or why they're willing to see Congress exceed its authority on this issue.

But 154 games is 154 games, and 1962 games is 162 games. A season is a season, too, but when Maris was pursuing Ruth, all the comparison charts, all season long, were measuring Maris on a 154 game scale. It wasn't as if they waited until the end of the season to change the "rules" on him.

But they did. They changed the rules to say that "People chasing Babe Ruth's records will get special treatment." When Maury Wills broke Ty Cobb's mark the next year, nobody talked about listing both names in the book.

I'll let that silly invented quote of yours slide, and I'll let the 1963 Official Baseball Guide and the 1963 Baseball Register address the substance of your argument. The Guide reads (p. 201):

"The Cobb-Wills situation was complicted by the fact that the Georgia Peach and the Tigers played 156 games in 1915 as the result of two ties, while the '62 Dodgers were involved in no deadlocks. However, in keeping with the decision on Maris, Frick held that Wills' challenge to the Cobb mark would end with the Los Angeles club's 154th decision."

And the 1963 Baseball Register's entry for Wills reads:

"Established major league record for most stolen bases, 162-game season (104), 1962"

Unlike your quote, mine are real. Now you tell me that Frick treated the two record pursuits differently.

And the HBO Special 61* is not, I'm afraid, an official source, so please don't try to cite Billy Crystal as any authority on this....

The single season HR record belongs to Barry Bonds and no one else, IMO. Frinstance, in 1927, the Yankees played 155 games.

And who's arguing that it doesn't?

And Chris, I'm not trying to "excuse" Maris's press treatment in any way, shape, or form. I am saying that as a general proposition, players who come across as Good Ole Boys and give good quotes tend to get better press than those who don't. And back in the day, New York players who stuck around the city and frequented the nightspots on a regular basis also developed friendships with the reporters, and of course this, too, resulted in favorable press coverage. If you can't differentiate between a reason and an excuse, I'm afraid I can't help you. I didn't like the tone of Maris's press coverage at the time any more than you do now, and I'm not sure exactly why you seem to be lumping me with his critics. My position on his home run record is completely independent of this.

I don't think there's any reason to care about steroids unless you're really concerned about the dangers

And on that I disagree.

And I don't think there's any reason for Congress to get involved to the extent they have unless there's a real public health concern.

And on that I agree.

There are multiple reasons to care about steroid use in Baseball. They include:

(1) Public Health Issues;
(2) Morality Issues; and
(3) Integrity of the Game issues.

Each member of the union has priortized these concerns differently. All of us see merit in the others argument. We all join others arguments at multiple times. By and large, Kevin and I have heavily pursued the first category. JC has heavily pursued the second category. Andy has heavily pursued the third category. Retardo has been heavy in both the second and third category.

Even inside these categories, our emphasis has been different. Kevin has concentrated on the risk to the individual; I have concentrated on the coercive nature of the environment. In large part, I think we all agree with each other on all our arguments on having a doping policy. We all diverge when it comes to implementation and remedies, albeit we are still closer together than the Rebel Alliance.

I didn't like the tone of Maris's press coverage at the time any more than you do now, and I'm not sure exactly why you seem to be lumping me with his critics.

Because you asked why Maris "deserved" better?

The virtual asterisk treated Maris badly. As would any asterisk applied now that you claim could be washed away "by removing it". the Maris asterisk never existed, but John Q Public, the same ones voting in that poll, thinks it does.

That's why you don't make someone you *think* committed adultery wear a big A unles you are sure. Once branded, always branded.

Well, Chris, since you obviously don't want to deal with the perfectly logical point that Frick made in both Maris's and Wills' cases (see the first part of that post you responded to), I'll just let you think about me what you want. I doubt if I can make myself any clearer: Maris got a raw deal in the press, but it had nothing to do with any asterisk, virtual or otherwise. And with the 162-game season having been around for 37 years between 1961 and 1998, Maris certainly held "his" record for a long enough time to overcome whatever stigma you seem to think the virtual asterisk gave him.

And I love the way you implicitly equate a virtual asterisk which was the result of a scheduling quirk with a virtual asterisk which is the result of sticking a steroid needle in your butt, cleverly trying to make us sympathize with poor McGwire and poor Bonds. Perhaps some HBO Special in 2141 will restore McGwire's and Bonds's already asterisked reputations---you can always dream, can't you? But in the meantime I suggest you try to convince the majority of fans who seem to laugh at the thought that anyone is being "unfair" to your butt boys.

Maris got a raw deal in the press, but it had nothing to do with any asterisk, virtual or otherwise.

Maris got a raw deal from the *public* because of the asterisk. Sheesh.

since you obviously don't want to deal with the perfectly logical point that Frick made in both Maris's and Wills' cases (see the first part of that post you responded to),

"Deal with"? What's to deal with?

do you think the public has ever thought twice about a Maury Wills asterisk? Have you ever seen that even referenced since? Want to "google-challenge" it?

And I don't care about that. that's someone else's argument. Did they asterisk Koufax's strikeout record?

Maris certainly held "his" record for a long enough time to overcome whatever stigma you seem to think the virtual asterisk gave him.

Well, I didn't realize you were the sole arbiter of determining such things. Do you also dictate how long an indivdual can grieve for a lost loved one?

I notice you put quotes around "his." What does that mean? It wasn't "his" record?

And I love the way you implicitly equate a virtual asterisk which was the result of a scheduling quirk with a virtual asterisk which is the result of sticking a steroid needle in your butt, cleverly trying to make us sympathize with poor McGwire and poor Bonds. Perhaps some HBO Special in 2141 will restore McGwire's and Bonds's already asterisked reputations---you can always dream, can't you? But in the meantime I suggest you try to convince the majority of fans who seem to laugh at the thought that anyone is being "unfair" to your butt boys.

this is a brutally ignorant paragraph.

I just said you shouldn't attach asterisks to unproven users (just accused), because asterisks aren't easily removed, even if they never really existed, using Maris as an example, in response to your flippant 'they can just remove it later if proven innocent'.

I'm not attempting to do anything else your paranoid mind is tellng you.

As far as "butt boys", didn't Bonds allegedly use the cream and the clear? Why would you refer to him as a butt boy?

And you keep ducking Bob Gibson's greenie 1968 as a huge outlier. Any reason you don't want to address that?

There are multiple reasons to care about steroid use in Baseball. They include:

(1) Public Health Issues;
(2) Morality Issues; and
(3) Integrity of the Game issues.


Buy why is steroid use immoral if they're not dangerous? Why are there "integrity of the game" issues if they're not dangerous? To me, all of those concerns are valid but they're all predicated on steroids being harmful.

Buy why is steroid use immoral if they're not dangerous? Why are there "integrity of the game" issues if they're not dangerous? To me, all of those concerns are valid but they're all predicated on steroids being harmful.

You may want to read the old threads, because these issues have been discussed multiple times. Here are the highpoints:

MLB could and should legislate standards devised to ensure that the essence of the game and sport retains its aesthetic and competitive feel. If you discover a new hyperdense wood whose use would increase homeruns by 20%, MLB has a legitimate basis to outlaw such an item in competition independent of any other consideration.

MLB could and in the opinion of what appears to be the vast majority of fans maintain continuity to its history because much of its appeal is based on that history. If the nature of that history is threatened, MLB is empowered to legislate anything it chooses to preserve the history. If any publisher wishes to annotate the difference in players or environment to better help explicate that history, said publisher is allowed, can, and should provide any such information it deems relevant. If MLB wants to self-publish or license any entity to publish an authorized history, it may condition such license on the disclosure of certain information.

It appears that the vast majority of baseball fans whose opinion has been recorded in multiple different mediums feel that steroid users should have information regarding thier use of the substance annotated in publications regarding baseball. MLB can consider that when making its determinations, and the determinations or solely for MLB to make.

All these items relating to the integrity of the game are independent on any harmful effect of steroids. MLB could do it for "greenies", they could to it for B-12. There judgment and most baseball fans judgment feel that steroids create enough of an unfair advantage related directly to the competitive aspect of the game that it should be done.

It is a moral issue because the players taking steroids sought to obtain an unfair advantage against the spirit of competition. Most people who don't get in semantic battles call that cheating. The fact it was done covertly exacerbates the indignation felt toward the event. The fact that it was expressly against the law exacerbates the event. The fact that it was expressly against the rules exacerbates the event. The fact that there was no greater moral purpose being served means there is nothing, nada, zilch, that serves to diminish the event.

These facts are independent of any determination of whether steroids are harmful. The fact that they are harmful and have actual performance enhancing attributes only serves to bolster the heinousness of the transgression.

Over the course of three years, these fairly common sense tests have been applied to every non-probative hypothetical that anyone could fathom from aspirin to LASIK to Gene Doping, etc.

Each remains a valid independent ground for MLB to legislate the use of Performance Enhancing Substances. Each remains an independent ground for moral indignation. And every little shade of gray where fear, uncertainty and doubt was cast upon the most logical and most reasonable conclusion has been lit by subsequent evidence.

It is a moral issue because the players taking steroids sought to obtain an unfair advantage against the spirit of competition. Most people who don't get in semantic battles call that cheating. The fact it was done covertly exacerbates the indignation felt toward the event.

bl,
you state these things as though they are facts.

"Unfair"? Call it semantics, but I don't think that's accurate.

In addition, certainly everything in the ESPN article indicates it wasn't done very "covertly". According to that article "everybody knew".

that there was no move to do anything about it, by players or management, indicates they weren't *that* distrubed, nor that viewed as cheating (in a universal sense).

Well, was it an outlier? Or. at least an outlier that could be attributed to greenies?

It was for Bob gibson.

What do you know of Gibson's greenie usage in 1968?

the same you know about Sosa's steroid usage, or heck, Mark McGwire's for that matter.

you state these things as though they are facts.

I have stated tests. Those tests were responsive to the question of why doesn't harmful read on morality. The facts have been reported elsewhere.

In addition, certainly everything in the ESPN article indicates it wasn't done very "covertly". According to that article "everybody knew".

What are you talking about Dial. The article states no such thing. But its immaterial except to the size of the transgression. Did you see the test in one sentence and the mitigating factors in the next.

But, I find your response curious. Are you saying everybody knew that Bonds juiced? That McGwire juiced? That certainly would put a new light on those Bonds apologists. And moreover, you are fond of asking us how many players used steroids, even when that question doesn't relate to any point we have made. Now you posit an argument that is entirely based on the number of people taking 'roids. So how many people do you think used.

And if you posit a high number, doesn't that just eradicate your argument that they are not performance enhancing.

that there was no move to do anything about it, by players or management, indicates they weren't *that* distrubed, nor that viewed as cheating (in a universal sense).

Did we read the same article. The one that had players making back alley deals, and had Wally Joyner flushing his 'roids down the toilet.

Why did the players do all these things if not to hide their guilt?

Geez, kevin, that's nonsense. By that reasoning, they were using greenies covertly.

Clearly PLAYERS AND MANAGEMENT weren't acting disturbed until some jackass reporters "broke the code" about what they see in the clubhouse.

I guarantee you players would deny greenie usage either.

That poll demonstrates one thing: John Q. Internet is an imbecile.

I wasn't aware that was in doubt. Have you seen the Modern Library "100 Best Novels" poll where seven of the top ten books are by either Ayn Rand or L. Ron Hubbard?

Kevin,

Chris just flat out knows everything about greenies and who took them and when. He obviously has his sources.

Maris got a raw deal in the press, but it had nothing to do with any asterisk, virtual or otherwise.

Maris got a raw deal from the *public* because of the asterisk. Sheesh.

But what exactly is this "raw deal" you keep referring to? That most of the public at the time knew the difference between 154 games and 162 games? Is that your idea of a "raw deal?" Sounds to me like the public just knew that 154 isn't the same as 162---and yet that same perverse public also cheered and honored Maris for doing exactly what you and I and everyone else knows that he did---he broke the seasonal home run record.

And BTW, contrary to the myth perpetrated by the HBO movie, Maris was not booed in Yankee Stadium during his home run chase that year. Nice bit of urban legend, but completely untrue.

Chris, do yourself a lesson and do a ProQuest search on any newspaper of the time. See the 1927 comparison charts. Read the coverage. And then tell me with a straight face that Roger Maris broke the record that every one of those comparison charts was aiming him at, beginning not at the time Frick made his comment, but beginning somewhere around the middle of June, for crissakes.

What you're essentially saying is that when Maris failed to match Ruth in 154 games, everyone should have just said, "fine, let's just make it 162 games." And since they didn't, this is your idea of a "raw deal."

Sheesh yourself. And you still haven't told me what the difference would be between a 162 game season and a 224 game season for the purpose of counting stat records. You apparently think that there's no difference at all. You call that a "strawman" argument, but you refuse to explain exactly what makes it so.

I just said you shouldn't attach asterisks to unproven users (just accused), because asterisks aren't easily removed, even if they never really existed, using Maris as an example, in response to your flippant 'they can just remove it later if proven innocent'.

Never mind that about 99.99% of those who've brought up Maris's "asterisk" in the last 40+ years have been people like you, and certainly not the handful of people who may be out there trying to resurrect the Babe Ruth Fan Club. What cheers me about that paragraph is that you implicitly seem to allow for the possibility of asterisking proven users.

Why are they jackasses? Because they were doing what they are supposed to do, Inform and educate the public?

Do you think these same reporters have ever heard of amphetamines in the clubhouse - or seen them?

You think these baseball writers job is to "educate the public"? You think Bill Plaschke is educating the public? ooof.

So you have seen or heard Gibson speak on the subject of his greenie usage? And there were published reports of Gibson loading up on greenies?

What have you heard Sosa and Mac say about their steroid usage? What "published reports" do you know about Sosa?

and yet that same perverse public also cheered and honored Maris for doing exactly what you and I and everyone else knows that he did---he broke the seasonal home run record.

Sure. Maris was rated as nothing but a hero. that's how it shook out.

Not that Maris wasn't the hero that Ruth or Mantle was, and he somehow wasn't "worthy" to become the HR king.

What you're essentially saying is that when Maris failed to match Ruth in 154 games, everyone should have just said, "fine, let's just make it 162 games." And since they didn't, this is your idea of a "raw deal."

Because it isn't about "games". It's about the season. Everyone should have done that. But you must have missed the subsequent attitude about Maris.

You call that a "strawman" argument, but you refuse to explain exactly what makes it so.

You are acting as if adding 40% more games is *the same as* adding 8 (5%) more games. You are trying to make my argument appear to be weak and thus easily refuted. Look up the ####### word.

I didn't hear ANYONE say "Well, Ichiro had 8 more games to beat Sisler".

What cheers me about that paragraph is that you implicitly seem to allow for the possibility of asterisking proven users.

That is because your reading for comprehension blows.

"I'll try Congressional Hearings for 800, Alex"

These players denied taking steroids or refused to comment on it.

Yes.

Why do you suppose there aren't any articles naming names about users?

Hehe. If 61* were a tradable commodity, everybody would be shortselling it.

Never seen it.

What are you talking about Dial. The article states no such thing.

I am pretty sure there a bit where they talk about openly shooting up and saying "everybody knows about it". I think you even said in that thread that it appeared that the use was more open than you thought.

Are you saying everybody knew that Bonds juiced? That McGwire juiced? That certainly would put a new light on those Bonds apologists

There are no Bonds apologists. I'm saying people knew Caminiti did. And probably Canseco. Clearly Joyner knew Caminiti did, and instead of stopping him, he *asked him to get him some*. the article specifically talks about everyone knew who to get them from, and how they'd arrive.

And moreover, you are fond of asking us how many players used steroids, even when that question doesn't relate to any point we have made.

This is flatly untrue. The VBB has repeatedly made statements like "greenies aren't cheating because they are commonly used - almost universally" (although kevin above suddenly thinks no one used in 1968).

If steroids are commonly used, then that makes them not cheating (by this reasoning). That's why number of users matters. Also the number of users matters wrt issues like "players had to use them clandestinely" or "most players are against it". Neither of those is likely if a large percent are using.

So how many people do you think used.

And if you posit a high number, doesn't that just eradicate your argument that they are not performance enhancing.

How many used? I think a good percentage - say 30%?

And of course it doesn't say anything to my argument. How an you make all these fancy arguments and then blatantly write something so stupid? I can see that from some of the lesser VBB, but not you.

An even HIGHER number use greenies - doesn't that eradicate the VBB argument that they are not performance enhancing?

and yet that same perverse public also cheered and honored Maris for doing exactly what you and I and everyone else knows that he did---he broke the seasonal home run record.

Sure. Maris was rated as nothing but a hero. that's how it shook out.

Not that Maris wasn't the hero that Ruth or Mantle was, and he somehow wasn't "worthy" to become the HR king.

There was indeed that attitude on the part of some of the press, and in this I agree with you 100% that Maris got a raw deal. BUT that had nothing to do with the asterisk controversy. The same writers were making the same dumb comments long before the season ended, and they had to do with Maris' batting average, the expansion year's dilution of talent, and his general non-Ruthian air. Again, I found these comments as offensive then as you do now. But they were not related to the "what constitutes a season?" controversy.

You call that a "strawman" argument, but you refuse to explain exactly what makes it so.

You are acting as if adding 40% more games is *the same as* adding 8 (5%) more games. You are trying to make my argument appear to be weak and thus easily refuted. Look up the #### word.

Chris, Chris.

Is a "season" just a "season," regardless of the number of games?

You can argue this either way, and either way has its elements of logical consistency.

But you can't say that "a 162 game season is the same as a 154 game season, but a 192 game season isn't the same as a 162 game season."

Although evidently you can, because you have.

I didn't hear ANYONE say "Well, Ichiro had 8 more games to beat Sisler".

Perhaps because that record, in the public's eye, was fraught with all the romance of a match made by Mary Worth. Outside of Seattle, who even noticed? Before Ichiro approached the 256, was 1% of the public even aware of George Sisler?

What cheers me about that paragraph is that you implicitly seem to allow for the possibility of asterisking proven users.

That is because your reading for comprehension blows.

Well, here's what cheered me about that paragraph, once again:

I just said you shouldn't attach asterisks to unproven users (just accused), because asterisks aren't easily removed, even if they never really existed,

Perhaps you should read your Live Preview a bit more carefully.

Backlasher, I don't agree with how the justification for asterisking records, as you define it below. You place emphasis on the desires of the "vast majority of the fans" to "maintain continuity", but I don't think that's a good test for asteriking.

Let me explain my point with an example. As I understand it, the formation of amateur athletics in Victorian England grew out of a desire to maintain "continutiy" with the aristocratic heritage of English athletics, and to prevent the upper class from being beaten at their own games by superior members of the rabble. I am fairly certain that a upper class Englishman from this period could present a persuasive argument as to why the type of competition exemplified by the working-class athlete is not acceptable in "true" sports.

From our present point of view, we see the aristocratic Victorian athletic sensibilities as prejudiced and oppresive. What's deemed worth y of an asterisk is highly subjective and, potentially reveals more about the prejudices of the asterisk-ers than it does about the crime of the "violator".

This is not to say that no crimes in competition exist which would not be deemed worthy of an asterisk in any context. But, I disagree with your assertation that the voice of the people is a worthy test for what is sufficient to be asterisked.

MLB could and in the opinion of what appears to be the vast majority of fans maintain continuity to its history because much of its appeal is based on that history. If the nature of that history is threatened, MLB is empowered to legislate anything it chooses to preserve the history. If any publisher wishes to annotate the difference in players or environment to better help explicate that history, said publisher is allowed, can, and should provide any such information it deems relevant. If MLB wants to self-publish or license any entity to publish an authorized history, it may condition such license on the disclosure of certain information.

It appears that the vast majority of baseball fans whose opinion has been recorded in multiple different mediums feel that steroid users should have information regarding thier use of the substance annotated in publications regarding baseball. MLB can consider that when making its determinations, and the determinations or solely for MLB to make.

You can argue this either way, and either way has its elements of logical consistency.

But you can't say that "a 162 game season is the same as a 154 game season, but a 192 game season isn't the same as a 162 game season."

Although evidently you can, because you have.

192? What happened to 224?

And you have some nerve attempting to lecture me about elements of logical consistency with your record on amphetamines.

Perhaps you should read your Live Preview a bit more carefully.

there's nothing wrong with what I wrote. Your reading comprehension blows.

I am pretty sure there a bit where they talk about openly shooting up and saying "everybody knows about it". I think you even said in that thread that it appeared that the use was more open than you thought.

Yep. The article sure does talk about one player witnessing one other player shoot up. And even that is far more open and notorious than I thought.

And it also gives that players reaction to that incident. That they were amazed that such activity was occurring. Because most people had an opinion of that activity.

And moreover, as I've now said for the 100th time, it doesn't matter if they are dropping their drawers in the dugout and getting an ass injection with Tim McCarver doing the play-by-play.

There was no ambiguity whatsoever in my original statement about clandestine activity, such as taking undetectable drugs and claiming it was flaxseed oil, just exacerbates the moral transgression. Its not an element of the moral transgression.

There are no Bonds apologists.

LOL. And I thought that "Nieporent voted 1000 times in that poll, Monty." would be the funniest thing in this thread. I'm not real interested in reinventing the wheel. Anyone who wants to examine whether the Bonds apologists are a hoax can go read Retardo's wiki and try to resolve those links into the new Disney layout of Primer Baseball Think Factory Blog Sponsored by 999 Entertainment.

Also the number of users matters wrt issues like "players had to use them clandestinely" or "most players are against it". Neither of those is likely if a large percent are using.

You never answered this in the last thread Chris. Do you think there is a vast conspiracy out there; that all the players are lying; that all the fans are lying; that they really don't think what they have expressly said they think.

Because I'm trying to understand your argument. You aver that 30% of the players are juicing. You base this on, well I haven't figure that out yet. And because 30% are juicing. Its impossible for a majority of players to be against testing (because those 30% make up a majority?). And because they aren't really against testing, they don't consider an illegal, rule abridging activity done for the sole purpose of gaining a competitive advantage to be cheating. And we know this to be true because, we don't call similarly situated events cheating, like putting fraudulent information on your taxes , no, wait, its because a Union member once pointed out that if the vast majority of people engage in a behavior and its socially excepted, we don't generally regard it as cheating.

And it was presented based on an assertion that EVERYBODY IS DOING GREENIES. You think greenies are a higher percentage. Tell me what you think that number is, are we just talking 31% or are we talking 90%.

Because I told you, I don't know. It doesn't effect my desire to remove those PEDS from competition. Its not probative to whether steroid usage is cheating. Its an independent determination.

doesn't that eradicate the VBB argument that they are not performance enhancing?

I haven't seen anybody raise that argument. Personally, I'm quite certain they are performance enhancing. I've seen some argue about the relative level of performance enhancement. I've seen them trot out some interesting numbers regarding this alleged greenie era, where no 'roids were used, or used in neglible portions, and the difference in results leaguewide and in outliers during that period.

I've seen them show differences according to age with respect to steroids. And they are making a good argument, even if a non-conclusive argument.

And moreover, I've seen a lot of the Rebel Alliance throw out some of the most wildass theories I've ever seen in the course of three years. THe usual recipe was any FUD that had any evidentiary component regardless of how outlandish or unreasonable the proposition. Then rhetorically, they would start talking about "null hypothesis" and "burdens of proof" whereby they accepted a given that was heavily weighed and completely unreasonable AND THEN REQUIRE THEIR OPPONENTS TO PROVE OTHERWISE TO STANDARDS HIGHER THAN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. As long as their was 1 infantessimle piece of hope they would continue believeing St. Barry didn't take steroids, that steroids didn't pose a health risk, that steroids don't improve performance. From Gene Orza's mouth to their ears.

And then, I've seen every report shatter that faith like an ACL under pressure from steroid infused muscle. Remember "Tom House said they were using 'roids in teh 70s." Remember the ESPN report, Mr. House was an isolated experimenter. But I imagine a small number did, there are a couple that immediately come to mind.

MLB could and should legislate standards devised to ensure that the essence of the game and sport retains its aesthetic and competitive feel. If you discover a new hyperdense wood whose use would increase homeruns by 20%, MLB has a legitimate basis to outlaw such an item in competition independent of any other consideration.

MLB could do that, but there are so many other changes that have dramatically affected the "aesthetic and competitive feel" of the game over time that MLB hasn't touched (or has actively embraced). While I believe steroid use is cheating, I'm not convinced that they are primarily responsible for the boost in home runs in recent years except among a few players. Unless steroid use is much more prevalent than most of us here believe.

Furthermore, it appears to me that most fans prefer the high scoring, home run-happy version of the game from an aesthetic standpoint as long as it's not steroid-fueled. I don't agree with them on this, and I know Andy doesn't, but I think that puts us in the minority. Fans, unfortunately, don't really seem to *want* MLB to return to the aesthetic of the 70s and 80s.

MLB could and in the opinion of what appears to be the vast majority of fans maintain continuity to its history because much of its appeal is based on that history. If the nature of that history is threatened, MLB is empowered to legislate anything it chooses to preserve the history. If any publisher wishes to annotate the difference in players or environment to better help explicate that history, said publisher is allowed, can, and should provide any such information it deems relevant. If MLB wants to self-publish or license any entity to publish an authorized history, it may condition such license on the disclosure of certain information.

It appears that the vast majority of baseball fans whose opinion has been recorded in multiple different mediums feel that steroid users should have information regarding thier use of the substance annotated in publications regarding baseball. MLB can consider that when making its determinations, and the determinations or solely for MLB to make.

First off, I'm not concerned with what MLB *can* do or what other fans want it to do, I'm concerned with what it *should* do. Furthermore, I'm concerned with what *we* should do and what *we* should care about. The fact that MLB can do something has nothing to do with whether I should advocate them to do it. I would add that I think a lot of fans wouldn't want the record books to be annotated if they didn't believe steroids were harmful, or if steroids weren't illegal.

But more to the point, what do the above paragraphs have to do with the integrity of the game? Integrity, to me at least, has to do with fairness and honesty. In other words, steroids are only an affront to the integrity of the game because they are illegal and against the rules. But there should be a good reason for them to be illegal and/or against the rules - and to me, aesthetics isn't a good reason. Harmfulness is.

It is a moral issue because the players taking steroids sought to obtain an unfair advantage against the spirit of competition. Most people who don't get in semantic battles call that cheating. The fact it was done covertly exacerbates the indignation felt toward the event. The fact that it was expressly against the law exacerbates the event. The fact that it was expressly against the rules exacerbates the event. The fact that there was no greater moral purpose being served means there is nothing, nada, zilch, that serves to diminish the event.

Again, though, *why* was it unfair? Because steroids are against the rules and illegal. And *why* are they illegal? Because they are harmful. And *why* are they against the rules? Because they are harmful and performance-enhancing. So again, it all relies on harmfulness in some way.

Over the course of three years, these fairly common sense tests have been applied to every non-probative hypothetical that anyone could fathom from aspirin to LASIK to Gene Doping, etc.

If you say so. I don't see the logic. When I read all those threads about how steroids were different from other performance-enhancing substances and tools, I thought the main argument was harm. If not for the harm, what's the real difference?

You can argue this either way, and either way has its elements of logical consistency.

But you can't say that "a 162 game season is the same as a 154 game season, but a 192 game season isn't the same as a 162 game season."

Although evidently you can, because you have.

192? What happened to 224?

It's still there in Hypothetical Land. But what about 192? That was the PCL standard season for decades. Is a 192 game season the same as a 162 game season in your eyes, for the purpose of counting stat records? And if not, WHY NOT?

I still want to know what does--and doesn't--constitute a "season" in your mind, for purposes of fairly comparing counting stat records. Take as many words as you like.

And you have some nerve attempting to lecture me about elements of logical consistency with your record on amphetamines.

Lincoln observed that calling a mule a horse doesn't make him one. And saying that amphetamines are the same as steroids doesn't make it so, either, Chris. Though I certainly do admire your persistency of insistency. They don't call you "Mr. Greenie" for nothing.

Perhaps you should read your Live Preview a bit more carefully.

there's nothing wrong with what I wrote. Your reading comprehension blows.

Well, I'll try it for a third time. What, exactly, didn't I comprehend about this paragraph? You tell me. Once again, in your words:

I just said you shouldn't attach asterisks to unproven users (just accused), because asterisks aren't easily removed, even if they never really existed,

If that sentence doesn't imply that asterisks might fairly be applied to proven users, then again, tell me what it does imply. You can keep repeating your opinion of my reading incomprehension, but it might be more helpful to explain exactly what it was that I was miscomprehending. You wrote the words, not me.

Backlasher, I don't agree with how the justification for asterisking records, as you define it below. You place emphasis on the desires of the "vast majority of the fans" to "maintain continuity", but I don't think that's a good test for asteriking.

Then you don't have to buy the book that contains the asterisks.

I see all these arguments relating to "don't asterisk" and by all means keep making them, because precisely what you don't want to be the test is the test regardless of your arguments.

This isn't a rights based issue. No player has an inalienable right to be in the HoF; no player has an inalienable right to have their statistics displayed by accompanying information.

What information is conveyed is entirely up to the publisher. What MLB puts its trademark on is entirely up to MLB.

If you don't want asterisks, keep making your pleadings. Convince those others that they shouldn't be there because:___________________. Because they make the decision on publication, and if they offend the sensibilities of the baseball consuming public, they are going to have to talk to Nieporent's invisible hande.

In fact, as an intellectual exercise, I would love if MLB published an asterisk addition, and the Bonds Apologist Press posted a non asterisk addition. The Rebel alliance last argument is economics. Let's compare apples to apples. Lets see who people vote with their money when their is real competition and elastic goods.

Furthermore, it appears to me that most fans prefer the high scoring, home run-happy version of the game from an aesthetic standpoint as long as it's not steroid-fueled. I don't agree with them on this, and I know Andy doesn't, but I think that puts us in the minority.

For the record, Dave, IMO baseball is at its aesthetic peak today. I would love to have tapes of the dead ball era, and I'm sure that I would enjoy them immensely, but the combination of speed, power, and world talent today makes it my favorite overall era, at least on the field. (The marketing and the ballpark experience is another story altogether.) I hate steroid users, but until BALCO showed Bonds for what he was, I often argued that he was in the same general class as Ruth, and as a hitter possibly even better. But in the overall scheme of things, dirtballs like Bonds and McGwire are relatively minor blips on the radar.

In fact, as an intellectual exercise, I would love if MLB published an asterisk addition, and the Bonds Apologist Press posted a non asterisk addition. The Rebel alliance last argument is economics. Let's compare apples to apples. Lets see who people vote with their money when their is real competition and elastic goods.

Hear, hear. And I'd bet that given equal marketing, the asterisked version would win out.

Hmmm...I'm not really happy with the post I made above, so let me try an analogy (I generally don't like complicated anagies, so I apologize for introducing one here. I apologize in advance if the argument leads the thread too far off topic.)

This conversation kind of reminds me of those commercials a few years ago telling kids that if they buy drugs, they are supporting terrorism. I can certainly understand the argument that because drug money supports terrorism (or gangs, or organized crime), one shouldn't buy them. I don't have a problem condemning drug users or drug dealers for those reasons.

But I think one also has to recognize that drug money only supports terrorism/organized crime/gangs because drugs are illegal. If you think there's a good reason for drugs to be illegal, then you're probably comfortable with this.

But if you believe there's no good reason for drugs to be illegal, you're probably a little uncomfortable with this situation, and you probably think the right thing to do is to legalize them. That doesn't mean you morally excuse the drug users and drug dealers who break the law without regard for the consequences of their actions. It doesn't mean you shouldn't condemn them or punish them. But it means that while you do that, you should also spend some energy supporting a more logical law.

Unless there is a sound underpinning to the anti-drug laws, that is.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the steroid question is somewhat analogous. Steroids are illegal and against the rules. Players who use them are by definition cheating, gaining an unfair advantage, and should be condemned and punished. If MLB wants to footnote the records in some way, that is their right, and I can understand why people would support that.

But you have to realize that--by definition in this case--players who use steroids are only "cheating" because it's against the rules/illegal. If you think steroids should be against the rules and illegal, then you are perfectly comfortable with this situation.

But if you don't think there's a good reason for steroids to be against the rules/illegal, then you probably are a little uncomfortable with this situation, and you probably think the right thing to do is legalize them. That doesn't mean you morally excuse the cheaters who broke the rules without regard for how it might affect fan perception of the game. It doesn't mean you shouldn't condemn them or punish them. But it means that while you do that, you should also spend some energy supporting more logical rules and laws.

Unless there is a sound logical underpinning to the anti-steroid rules/laws, that is.

Now, to me, the harmfulness of steroids is a good reason for them to be illegal. And the fact that they are also performance-enhancing (in contrast with heroin or coke) is a good reason for them to be against the rules in baseball.

Aesthetics isn't a good reason for illegality to me, and it's one I would pretty vehemently disagree with. It's also not a good reason for making steroids against the rules of baseball, IMO. It's not a *bad* reason, per se--there are certainly other rules in sports that are mainly for aesthetic purposes. Sports are entertainment, so aesthetics matter.

But people who feel that way shouldn't get very aggravated in discussions about whether steroids should be illegal/against the rules.
And they shouldn't demonize their opponents in those arguments, because ultimately the disagreement is just about aesthetics - not about morals.

Anyway, this post isn't really meant to be argumentative or to "prove" anything. I'm just trying to hash out my own thoughts on the subject a little more clearly, and trying to help you understand where I'm coming from.

MLB could do that, but there are so many other changes that have dramatically affected the "aesthetic and competitive feel" of the game over time that MLB hasn't touched (or has actively embraced).

Then advocate for those changes. People and organizations don't move linearly. If you have a pet peeve knock yourself out. I might agree. I don't have to cure cancer before I develop a anti foot fungus.

I'm not convinced that they are primarily responsible for the boost in home runs in recent years except among a few players.

You don't need to be. Steroid policy can be based on many different INDEPENDENT criteria. Moreover, you aren't taking away an inalienable right. You don't need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that 'roids are the proximate cause. You don't even need to be convinced they are a contributing factor. If you have reasonable suspision, it might even be worth an experiment (and its looking like a successful experiment).

Are you concerned that enforcing the rule regarding time outs in the batters box is effecting inalienable rights? Do you think people are losing an inalienable right? Are you not convinced that time outs are causing game lengths to be longer, so we can't legislate its use.

And one of the big problems is even if I show you how and why MLB should legislate steroid usage based on even simple criteria, you want keep those things seperate. I'm sure there are scores out there thinking, "But yeah, steroids aren't ..." and they completely miss that they are in this domain.

MLB has every right to legislate conduct based merely on the effect of the game. You don't need some super theory beyond a shadow of a doubt to make that case.

IN FACT, MLB ALREADY DID EXACTLY THAT THING AND PROHIBITED STEROIDS MANY YEARS AGO.

Its only when you start considering the policing of the action through anonymous piss tests that you need something stronger. And you have it, and its pretty unassailable. In fact only Big Roid User is even dense enough to try to argue that one anymore.

But there should be a good reason for them to be illegal and/or against the rules - and to me, aesthetics isn't a good reason.

So if I develop a composite bat that can outperform all other bats in batted ball distance by 20%, you don't think it should be outlawed because its not harmful.

If I build a park with a 290 power alley, you think its ok because its not harmful.

Did it bother you when they changed the rules on glove sizes?

Furthermore, it appears to me that most fans prefer the high scoring, home run-happy version of the game from an aesthetic standpoint as long as it's not steroid-fueled.

That's interesting. I'm always curious what brings on these assertions. I generally make assertions based on testimony and polls. I'm wondering where you get this. Is it from the fact that attendance went up with steroid testing in place and home runs going down. Or does using economics only work as an argument when it can be spun to match a point of view.

Because I don't know or pretend to know the souls of baseball fans. I know what they say, adn they say they don't like steroids. But you could be right that they like home runs. I hope MLB knows what their fans want though.

Again, though, *why* was it unfair? Because steroids are against the rules and illegal. And *why* are they illegal? Because they are harmful. And *why* are they against the rules? Because they are harmful and performance-enhancing. So again, it all relies on harmfulness in some way.

I'm sorry it doesn't work that way. You can take illegal out, leave against the rules and make an independent argument that they are against the rules because they are performance enhancing. And you don't need "against the rules" to say there is cheating. There is no rule in college football that says you can't read the other team's playbook. That is still cheating.

But more important, this is angels on the head of a pin. Steroids are harmful. Steroids are illegal. Steroids are against the rules of the game. I don't understand the purpose of this exercise.

I thought the main argument was harm. If not for the harm, what's the real difference?

The main argument is harm. It doesn't reduce the legitimacy of any other INDEPENDENT argument. But Retardo has them linked, I'm not going to repeat three years worth of discussion on morality, analegesics, and the basis of law, in a post.

If you don't knw the difference between a steroid and an aspirin; you will find it all in the earlier threads. And if you look, you can usually find the difference between an independent argument by the use of numbers. You'll see precious few long logical progressions with each step requiring a preferential an unreasonable reading in most union posts.

If 61* were a tradable commodity, everybody would be shortselling it.

When evrybody is short, I start going long.

players who use steroids are only "cheating" because it's against the rules/illegal.

No, I realize that is one of the reasons they are cheating.

But it means that while you do that, you should also spend some energy supporting more logical rules and laws.

That is fine. Spend all the energy that you desire on implementing policy change. I'm happy to discuss that matter INDEPENDENT of the question of the morality of the offenders. Its others that want to throw everything in the sink and treat it like its a house of interdependent cards.

Because your assertion is wrong. I very much think that marijuana should not be a Schedule I drug. I very much think that drug laws have too harsh a sentencing penalty.

But that doesn't mean that I think a drug dealer has a moral get out of jail free card. And more to the point, I don't think people that possess have some super duper argument that they are above punishment.

I do think that someone acting civilly disobedient to effect change deserves respect AND they should be prepared to take the penalty for their action.

Because the morality exists independent of the rule, and the rule exists independent of the morality. In most cases, there is an intersection of the basis for both. But its not a linear progression of A begets B begets C. A exists, B exists. They may have an intersection in their basis. To believe otherwise would imply that an act is morally good up until the temporal point when it is specifically legislated against, or that 255 people are thesole arbiter of morality.

That's facially false because Codes of Ethics, the Golden Rule, etc. aren't legislated.

Think in sets, not in lines. Think in terms of serialization rather than straight line progresssions.

When evrybody is short, I start going long.

Just when they think they know the answer, I change the question!"

Then advocate for those changes. People and organizations don't move linearly. If you have a pet peeve knock yourself out. I might agree. I don't have to cure cancer before I develop a anti foot fungus.

Why should I? I'm not saying that MLB is being inconsistent; I'm saying there is no aesthetic continuity. It's a false ideal because it didn't exist in the first place.

You don't need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that 'roids are the proximate cause. You don't even need to be convinced they are a contributing factor. If you have reasonable suspision, it might even be worth an experiment (and its looking like a successful experiment).

Perhaps I worded that too lightly. I'm not saying I think there's insufficient evidence that steroids were the main cause of the power increase of the 1990s. I'm saying I don't think steroids were the main case of the changes to the game that took place in the 1990s. I think they likely *contributed*, and for certain players they had a huge impact. But the league slugging percentage in Shea Stadium was about .380 in the 1980s. It was .435 in 2004 before the new testing regime. And it was .426 last year. HRs per team per game were 1.03 in 2005, after being 1.12, 1.07, and 1.04 the three previous years. In 1990, they were 0.79.

So even if SGL dropped another 10 points next year, even if home runs dropped by another .09, the game would still be dramatically different from what it was 15 years ago.

MLB has every right to legislate conduct based merely on the effect of the game. You don't need some super theory beyond a shadow of a doubt to make that case.

I apparently can't say this often enough. This conversation isn't about what MLB has the *right* to do, it's about what they *should* do.

That's interesting. I'm always curious what brings on these assertions. I generally make assertions based on testimony and polls. I'm wondering where you get this. Is it from the fact that attendance went up with steroid testing in place and home runs going down. Or does using economics only work as an argument when it can be spun to match a point of view.

Don't you remember 1998 and 2001? I agree with you that fans dislike steroids (we differ on the degree of that dislike). But independently of steroids, fans appear to love home runs and offense.

------------------------------------------
Because your assertion is wrong. I very much think that marijuana should not be a Schedule I drug. I very much think that drug laws have too harsh a sentencing penalty.

But that doesn't mean that I think a drug dealer has a moral get out of jail free card. And more to the point, I don't think people that possess have some super duper argument that they are above punishment.

Go back and re-read my post. I specifically said that questioning whether the law was a good one does not exempt thje lawbreaker from punishment or condemnation. I said it about half a dozen times.

Because the morality exists independent of the rule, and the rule exists independent of the morality. In most cases, there is an intersection of the basis for both. But its not a linear progression of A begets B begets C. A exists, B exists. They may have an intersection in their basis. To believe otherwise would imply that an act is morally good up until the temporal point when it is specifically legislated against, or that 255 people are thesole arbiter of morality.


No, again you're misreading my post. I am not arguing that things are *only* wrong once they're illegal. That's a moronic position. I am arguing that they should only be illegal if there is a good reason for them to be illegal (that good reason doesn't have to be a moral reason - though if it's not, then you shouldn't characterize opponents of the law as immoral).

And I think it is a clear progression. *Something* has to beget the law; maybe it's not morality, but laws don't just spring up without reason, and if they do, they're bad laws.

If you don't knw the difference between a steroid and an aspirin; you will find it all in the earlier threads.

I think it's funny that you simply assume every argument you've ever made is completely logical and convincing.

You'll see precious few long logical progressions...in most union posts.

Well, of course not :)

----------------------------------------------------------

Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's necessarily indefensible or wrong to support stronger steroid rules on aesthetic grounds. I just don't find that position persuasive - it's not sufficient for me for a variety of reasons.

It's still there in Hypothetical Land. But what about 192? That was the PCL standard season for decades. Is a 192 game season the same as a 162 game season in your eyes, for the purpose of counting stat records? And if not, WHY NOT?

Asked and answered.

I still want to know what does--and doesn't--constitute a "season" in your mind, for purposes of fairly comparing counting stat records. Take as many words as you like.

A Season is the number of games played. If and when they play 192, I'll let you know. You can just play with yourself in Hypothetical Land.

It's funny, because again you attempt to hold my position to a set of rules you don't apply to yourself.

What's that called again?

If that sentence doesn't imply that asterisks might fairly be applied to proven users, then again, tell me what it does imply.

It implies nothing. We didn't just start this discussion - you aren't operating with complete ignorance - er, maybe you are.

All asterisks are wrong. One of the biggest reasons is the indictment of non-users being called cheaters.

You act as if I should explain my position in ever stinking post.

Oh, and BL, how is what Andy's asking *not* a "gotcha" attempt?

So clean up your own house before telling me how dirty mine is.

Yep. The article sure does talk about one player witnessing one other player shoot up. And even that is far more open and notorious than I thought.

And it also gives that players reaction to that incident. That they were amazed that such activity was occurring. Because most people had an opinion of that activity.

The amazement was that it was being done so openly. And you skipped the part about what was said "everybody knows".

Anyone who wants to examine whether the Bonds apologists are a hoax can go read Retardo's wiki

Define the term - then we'll judge if that's what they are. If your position is "anyone that thought Bonds wasn't juicing and defended him on the premise of innocent until proven guilty", well, "apologist" a terrible descriptor. Find another word.

You are a lawyer, right? Are the "Free Mumia" people just "Mumia Apologists" to you?

You never answered this in the last thread Chris. Do you think there is a vast conspiracy out there; that all the players are lying; that all the fans are lying; that they really don't think what they have expressly said they think.

I don't think there is a vast conspiracy. I don't think it is necessary that children sit in car seats until they are 8 years old. I don't think children under the age of 15 should have to ride in the back seat.

I don't care what other fans think. They are poorly informed. But yes, I think fans are inconsistent - and effectively lying about any moral outrage they feel, if stated.

I think players would love to have off-season workouts of any kind banned.

Because I'm trying to understand your argument. You aver that 30% of the players are juicing. You base this on, well I haven't figure that out yet.

Wow, that was dishonest. I didn't claim 30%. I guessed. That your chickenshit position means you won't guess is just garbage. You have no problem guessing about anyone in particular is using.

Why don't you just completely lie about what I have said, and pretend I was claiming I could list the names of users?

And because 30% are juicing. Its impossible for a majority of players to be against testing (because those 30% make up a majority?).

Was your sole purpose of asking me to guess a percentage so you could make up some stupid rant? Because your silly rant here is already covered where I guessed 30%.

And because they aren't really against testing, they don't consider an illegal, rule abridging activity done for the sole purpose of gaining a competitive advantage to be cheating. And we know this to be true because, we don't call similarly situated events cheating, like putting fraudulent information on your taxes , no, wait, its because a Union member once pointed out that if the vast majority of people engage in a behavior and its socially excepted, we don't generally regard it as cheating.

Pretty much. Do you think the players consider amphetamines cheating?

And it was presented based on an assertion that EVERYBODY IS DOING GREENIES. You think greenies are a higher percentage. Tell me what you think that number is, are we just talking 31% or are we talking 90%.

No way. Not after the way you just treated a guess at steroids. You are arguing far too dishonestly at this point.

You tell me what percentage you think amphetamines are being used.

Who do you think asserts that everyone is using them? "The Bonds Apologists"? Are you not reading the comments from players, management, the media, the history, Ball Four, Tom House?

Oh, testimony and polls only count when it sides with your position. Check.

I still want to know what does--and doesn't--constitute a "season" in your mind, for purposes of fairly comparing counting stat records. Take as many words as you like.

A Season is the number of games played. If and when they play 192, I'll let you know. You can just play with yourself in Hypothetical Land.

So your "principle," then, is that "154=162" is a noble standard, whereas "I really don't want to comment on whether or not 162=192." Fine by me, Mr. President.

It's funny, because again you attempt to hold my position to a set of rules you don't apply to yourself.

What "inconsistency?" Here's what I've said all along:

154=154
162=162
192=192

Etc.

You can still further define a "season" as any season, regardless of length. This is your position, and mine too.

Our difference is only that you leave out the word "further." And from this molehill of semantics you've created quite a mountain of indignation, I must say. It's almost as if you've appointed yourself as the Guardian Angel of Roger Maris's grave or something, smiting all those who dare defend a simple mathematical tautology.

I just said you shouldn't attach asterisks to unproven users (just accused),

If that sentence doesn't imply that asterisks might fairly be applied to proven users, then again, tell me what it does imply.

It implies nothing.

Glad you cleared that up, though I wouldn't try that one out on a logic prof.

Glad you cleared that up, though I wouldn't try that one out on a logic prof.

Nice snippage, dishonest as it was.

What "inconsistency?" Here's what I've said all along:

We didn't just meet.
"But you can't say that "taking steroids is cheating because they were illegal and banned, but taking amphetamines, that were illegal and banned, isn't cheating.""


Although evidently you can, because you have.

So your "principle," then, is that "154=162" is a noble standard, whereas "I really don't want to comment on whether or not 162=192."

And this is misstating my position - which is pretty much teh VBB MO.

My guidance is 155 ≈ 162, and while I doubt that 162 ≈ 192, I'll decide on that when it comes to fruition. Until then, there's no need to make any assessment of it.

Your "principle" is all about lines in the sand, unless you don't feel like it, Mr. Vice President.

Baseball players, owners reach deal on steroids

I think this deal should have an asterisk if they reached it on steroids.

So your "principle," then, is that "154=162" is a noble standard, whereas "I really don't want to comment on whether or not 162=192."

And this is misstating my position - which is pretty much teh VBB MO.

My guidance is 155 ≈ 162, and while I doubt that 162 ≈ 192, I'll decide on that when it comes to fruition. Until then, there's no need to make any assessment of it.

Well, I suppose a "guidance" is as good a principle, even though your particular guidance was not the one in place at any point of the 1961 season. I'll leave you to your equivalancies befuddlement, and leave the math critique to the math professors.


What "inconsistency?" Here's what I've said all along:

We didn't just meet.

[Pause for changing the subject and introducing an extraneous quote on a completely different subject]

"But you can't say that "taking steroids is cheating because they were illegal and banned, but taking amphetamines, that were illegal and banned, isn't cheating.""

Although evidently you can, because you have.

You might take this one up, BTW, with other members of our little cabal, since I've never dwelled on the "cheating" or "illegality" aspects of steroids, as opposed to their distorting effects on the record books. I would be just as much opposed to them if they were fully legal and mandated by Congress. Both steroids and amphetemines are "cheating," and for that matter so are spitballs, but their effect on the game is the distinction that one makes the first pernicious, the next relatively benign, and the third a minor curiosity. You can agree or disagree with any of this, and try to stretch this into yet another tedious showdown on your favorite subject (GREENIES! GREENIES! GREENIES! HYPOCRITE! HYPOCRITE! HYPOCRITE!), but no thanks, at least for now.

First, let me admit that Andy's quotes show that MLB did treat the Wills situation like the Maris one. I don't believe the public did, though; I don't recall reading about any controversy over it. (Perhaps that's because Frick short-circuited any controversy with his ruling, rather than because people didn't care, though.)

They also show the idiocy of the entire situation, however. Apparently it's "Most X in a season because it would be unfair to award the record to someone who played more games, unless those extra games were the result of ties in which case it would be perfectly fair."

-----

Buy why is steroid use immoral if they're not dangerous? Why are there "integrity of the game" issues if they're not dangerous? To me, all of those concerns are valid but they're all predicated on steroids being harmful.

That's correct. There are really only three underlying arguments:

1) Health: that of players, and of course Think Of The Children
2) Rules-are-rules: steroids are bad because using them is breaking the rules; it doesn't matter if the rule is arbitrary.
3) Aesthetics: steroids lead to too many home runs.

The rest is obfuscation. The third argument has nothing to do with morality. The second does, but only as a statement about what is, not about what should be; that is, one can say that it's immoral to break the rules, but that tells us nothing about what the rules should say.

The only argument about morality is that steroid use pressures others into using, and it's immoral to pressure other people into risking their health.

-----

That's interesting. I'm always curious what brings on these assertions. I generally make assertions based on testimony and polls. I'm wondering where you get this. Is it from the fact that attendance went up with steroid testing in place and home runs going down. Or does using economics only work as an argument when it can be spun to match a point of view.

Economics works, but you're doing the spinning. Unless steroid testing caused the Expos to move from Montreal to Washington, you can't attribute attendance increases to steroid testing, because that move is the clear cause of the increase. Aside from that move, leaguewide (that is MLB, not just the NL) attendance dropped, not rose.

Of course, I wouldn't be so bold as to attribute the leaguewide drop to steroid testing either, even though historically offense and attendance have correlated strongly.

First, let me admit that Andy's quotes show that MLB did treat the Wills situation like the Maris one. I don't believe the public did, though; I don't recall reading about any controversy over it. (Perhaps that's because Frick short-circuited any controversy with his ruling, rather than because people didn't care, though.)

Combination of both, David. Also, Wills's run was somewhat eclipsed by the Dodgers' historic collapse in the last week of the season.

And you have to realize that in spite of what's been implied here, the public almost unanimously cheered Maris in his run at Ruth's record, and gave him full credit for the record he did break, which was the season record. I followed that race as closely as anything I've ever followed in baseball, and I know what I'm talking about.

Mythology dies hard, though, and I guess it makes for a better narrative to ascribe to the general public the views of a few churlish sportswriters, who kept harping on things like Maris's batting average---as if he were going after Rogers Hornsby's record and not Babe Ruth's.