Maybe without steroids Bonds' "true" home run total would have been 690 now. Maybe 590 or 450. Maybe it would have been 746, exactly what it is today. Nobody knows. That's why someone invented barstools, to argue about this stuff.

That line is a nice bit o' writin' Mr. Kaufman.

Best Regards

John

Segregation affected everyone equally. Steroids do not.

Segregation was not cheating, i.e. "A covert attempt to gain an advantage in competition not available to others." Steroids are.

End of comparison.

If you want a better comparison, let's say we discovered that, oh I don't know, Cap Anson had bribed certain official scorers to give him hits when he actually grounded out. And the records from that era were lost, so we couldn't double-check. And we didn't know whether he got an extra 20, 200 or 500 hits from bribery. How would that affect our view of his career? Would we just chalk that up to the 'official scorer bribery era?'

Frankly, I don't care about the "cheating" aspect of steroids, and I'm also not really concerned about the integrity of individual records. There's a context for everything.

I think the whole discussion about "cheating" is just a distraction from the main point, which is whether or not the players would be better off without steroids in baseball. I think they would be, and the MLBPA and MLB owe it to the players to try to get drugs out of baseball.

By refusing to acknowledge Bonds' record by attending the game at which he sets it, Selig, who has yet to announce what he'll do, would be saying it's not legitimate. He would effectively say that Bonds' "true" home run total is zero, which is nonsense.

Maybe without steroids Bonds' "true" home run total would have been 690 now. Maybe 590 or 450. Maybe it would have been 746, exactly what it is today. Nobody knows. That's why someone invented barstools, to argue about this stuff.

But by not attending, it's entirely possible that Selig thinks, like many of us, that Bonds' "true" home run total may be just what Kaufman says---maybe "690 now. Maybe 590 or 450." Whatever his thoughts on that might be, that doesn't mean that Selig "would effectively say that Bonds' 'true' home run total is zero, which is nonsense." The true nonsense is Kaufman's trying to reconcile his first paragraph with his second.

By not attending, Selig can be just as agnostic about Bonds's "true" total as anyone. What he won't be saying is that he's agnostic about how Bonds may have arrived at that total. Big difference.

Segregation affected everyone equally. Steroids do not.

Segregation was not cheating, i.e. "A covert attempt to gain an advantage in competition not available to others." Steroids are.

End of comparison.

If you want a better comparison, let's say we discovered that, oh I don't know, Cap Anson had bribed certain official scorers to give him hits when he actually grounded out. And the records from that era were lost, so we couldn't double-check. And we didn't know whether he got an extra 20, 200 or 500 hits from bribery. How would that affect our view of his career? Would we just chalk that up to the 'official scorer bribery era?'

Is this right?

No.

To reflect on his error, Graham has just been sent to 1921 as a black man in the deep south.

Enjoy, Graham. Enjoy.

Segregation affected everyone equally.

You may want to re-cast this sentence, SdeB.

>You may want to re-cast this sentence, SdeB.

Why? Segregation affected every player in major league baseball equally. It also affected every player in the Negro Leagues equally. We're talking about competitive environment, and only competitive environment -- that's obvious, isn't it? -- not larger issues of societal fairness.

Segregation affected everyone equally.

You may want to re-cast this sentence, SdeB.

Segregation affected everyone separately but equally.

"Steriods affected every player on steriods equally. It also affected every player not on steriods equally."

Hm.

Steriods was available to all players, equally.

I don't see the need to jump on Peaches Graham here. Its pretty obvious that he meant the effects were equal to Babe Ruth and the white major league players he competed against.

But due to segregation we don't know if Hank Aaron should have actually broken Josh Gibson's record instead of Ruth's. Or if Bonds passing Aaron would only make him #2.

Peaches appears to assume that using PEDs is cheating, evidently because it is against the rules and involves the use of drugs, which are heavily demonized in our society. But it is not at all obvious to me that any rules violation is cheating, particularly in a context when everyone can use PEDs if they want and many, maybe most, do. It is also against the rules to alter the baseball, but many pitchers do it, and more than a few have been elected to the HOF either for doing it or in spite of doing it. Some of them we call cheaters, some we don't, but I don't see anyone calling for Gaylord Perry's eviction from the HOF, and for the most part, batters accept defacing the baseball as part of the game. I've often read that it's against the rules for a catcher to block the plate, but all of them do it, and we don't call any of them cheaters. My point is that rules violations are not, in and of themselves, treated as cheating by the players of any professional sport that I have followed. The label of cheating is generally reserved for a subclass of rules violations, and others are accepted as part of the game.

Anyway, seems to me that cheating in professional sports requires (1) a violation of the rules (or traditions), (2) the violation must affect the outcome of the game, and (3) the violation must be one that is not accepted by the participants as a normal part of competition. Use of PEDs satisfies, during some periods, the first postulated requirement. Where both pitcher and batter are using PEDs, it's not obvious to me that the second postulated requirement is satisfied. And where there is widespread usage with little complaint by the players--and I think that probably describes the environment in which Bonds used his PEDs, I'm not at all sure the third is satisfied.

I don't see the need to jump on Peaches Graham here. Its pretty obvious that he meant the effects were equal to Babe Ruth and the white major league players he competed against.

Precisely.

Peaches appears to assume that using PEDs is cheating, evidently because it is against the rules and involves the use of drugs, which are heavily demonized in our society.

Did you not read the definition I posted? It mentions neither rules nor drugs.

But it is not at all obvious to me that any rules violation is cheating, particularly in a context when everyone can use PEDs if they want and many, maybe most, do.

Everyone can use PEDs if they want? Then why don't they do so, openly?

It is also against the rules to alter the baseball, but many pitchers do it, and more than a few have been elected to the HOF either for doing it or in spite of doing it. Some of them we call cheaters, some we don't, but I don't see anyone calling for Gaylord Perry's eviction from the HOF, and for the most part, batters accept defacing the baseball as part of the game.

I don't think I mentioned anything about punishment, just pointing out what is and isn't cheating. Gaylord Perry cheated. Barry Bonds cheated. Playing in segregated baseball: not cheating.

the violation must affect the outcome of the game

This does not follow. If one of my solid B students copies off his neighbor, who is a solid D student, he gets a zero on the exam, period, even if he could have done better on his own.

I read your definition of cheating, but as your own next comment demonstrates, the "covert" aspect of your definition of cheating arises, at least in part or in cases, from the rules. And you're right, you didn't mention drugs and the reason for your views may lie elsewhere.

Everyone can use PEDs if they want? Then why don't they do so, openly?

They don't do it openly because it's against the rules, of course. But can they all do it, sure they can. As others have pointed out, MLB'ers all have access to PEDs if they want them, rendering inapplicable that part of your definition that requires an advantage "not available to others."

I don't think I mentioned anything about punishment, just pointing out what is and isn't cheating. Gaylord Perry cheated. Barry Bonds cheated. Playing in segregated baseball: not cheating.

I'm making the point that what constitutes cheating in professional sports is not as simplistic a concept as you suggest, partly because that's a worthy topic in itself and partly because I disagree with your effort to distinguish one competitive environment from another on the ground that one is cheating.

the violation must affect the outcome of the game

This does not follow. If one of my solid B students copies off his neighbor, who is a solid D student, he gets a zero on the exam, period, even if he could have done better on his own.

That's not professional sports and I don't see why that example bears on professional sports at all.

I think anyone who closely observes any professional support soon becomes aware that certain rules violations are considered unacceptable and others are considered simply part of normal competition in an endeavor where winning is the primary goal. I have tried to identify the factors that distinguish the two, but there may be other factors and these may not be the right factors. I also think that anyone who closely observes professional sports has seen that for many professionals, PEDs are, or at least in the past have been, considered part of normal competition. Before use of PEDs is transferred from the latter category to the former, it seems necessary to explain, by reference to something other than the mere existence of rules or an example from a completely different context, the reasons for the transfer. You haven't done that, so I challenge your basis for distinguishing a competitive environment marked by segregation from one marked by use of PEDs. IOW, labeling use of PEDs as cheating is not, IMO, the "end of comparison."

"Segregation affected everyone equally. Steroids do not."

Prior to 1999, the person who was most cheated by the use of steroids was certainly Barry Bonds. He was competing against Mark Mgwire and Ken Caminiti, not Hank Aaron and Roger Maris. Is there anyone who had a better year than him between 1993 and 1999 whom you do not suspect of using steroids.

They don't do it openly because it's against the rules, of course. But can they all do it, sure they can. As others have pointed out, MLB'ers all have access to PEDs if they want them, rendering inapplicable that part of your definition that requires an advantage "not available to others."

Under that definition, nothing is cheating. Trip a runner rounding third? Not cheating because they can do the same to you next inning. Bug the locker room to get covert intel? Not a problem, anyone can do that. Jeff Gillooly the opponent's all star shortstop? The other team can put a sniper in the upper deck and take out your closer.

Under that definition, nothing is cheating. Trip a runner rounding third? Not cheating because they can do the same to you next inning. Bug the locker room to get covert intel? Not a problem, anyone can do that. Jeff Gillooly the opponent's all star shortstop? The other team can put a sniper in the upper deck and take out your closer.

Not sure what your point is or who it's directed to. As reading my posts plainly indicates, however, that isn't my definition at all.

Prior to 1999, the person who was most cheated by the use of steroids was certainly Barry Bonds. He was competing against Mark Mgwire and Ken Caminiti, not Hank Aaron and Roger Maris.

"Most" cheated? What about the non-juicing pitchers that McGwire and Caminiti faced? Weren't they a bit more affected by McGwire's and Caminiti's steroids than Bonds or any other batter? And how was Bonds cheated (assuming he wasn't juicing himself in 1998) any more than any other non-juicing batter?

Funny, I thought that Bonds was competing against pitchers and opposing teams. I didn't realize that he was really engaged in some kind of a Home Run Derby. This is what too much fantasy leagueing can do for one's perspective.

But I'm glad to see that at least you realize he wasn't competing against a dead man, or a man who'd been retired for 22 years. We should be thankful for small favors.

Andy - Bonds was possibly cheated out of awards, and league leads in various statistics due to roided up opponents, as he may have cheated others in his post 1999 years. He still managed to be the best player in the game despite playing fairly from 1990-1998, which is amazing assuming the league was as juiced as many claim it was. Let me ask you this, if you had just accomplished a feat of 400 homeruns and 400 sb's, but it was overshadowed by two sluggers whom he felt were flagrant cheats, wouldn't you feel; cheated? Wouldn't it suck to have Mark Mcgwire make the all-century team, while you didn't?

I think it's pretty obvious that the reason Bonds did indeed use steroids is because he felt cheated.

Andy - Bonds was possibly cheated out of awards, and league leads in various statistics due to roided up opponents, as he may have cheated others in his post 1999 years. He still managed to be the best player in the game despite playing fairly from 1990-1998, which is amazing assuming the league was as juiced as many claim it was. Let me ask you this, if you had just accomplished a feat of 400 homeruns and 400 sb's, but it was overshadowed by two sluggers whom he felt were flagrant cheats, wouldn't you feel; cheated? Wouldn't it suck to have Mark Mcgwire make the all-century team, while you didn't?

I think it's pretty obvious that the reason Bonds did indeed use steroids is because he felt cheated.

All this may be, and in fact probably is true, but to say that Bonds was the "most" cheated is to place essentially meaningless individual awards over the basics of the competition itself, which is batter vs pitcher and team vs team, not batter on the Giants vs batter on the Cardinals or Padres. Whether or not Bonds lost out on various individual awards is by itself inconsequential to anyone but Bonds himself.

And even granting every word you write, do you really think that Bonds was "more" cheated by McGwire's juicing than the pitchers whom McGwire faced? That seems quite a stretch, to say the least, and a rather bizarrely Bonds-centric view of baseball.

The All-Century team was always going to be an imperfect barometer. And outfield space was limited (and then limited further, thanks to baseball's sticking Pete Rose into the most competitive non-pitching category, which backfired when fans did their F.U. vote). But it was ludicrous seeing the backlash focus on "where's Clemente?" when Bonds AND Rickey Henderson AND Stan Musial AND Frank Robinson were below the cutoff.

the "covert" aspect of your definition
Aw, geez, I come to BBTF to get away from Plamegate!

Andy - The pitchers Mcgwire faced were getting cheated, assuming they were clean. But then again, was Bonds cheated by roided up pitchers during 1990-1998?

I don't think Bonds was " more " cheated than others, but Mcgwire's Ruthian power certainly did downplay Bonds amazing accomplishments. And since he was the best player in the game, that was a farce.

Andy - The pitchers Mcgwire faced were getting cheated, assuming they were clean. But then again, was Bonds cheated by roided up pitchers during 1990-1998?

Of course he was, assuming he was clean prior to 1999. And of course the irony is that if he'd stayed clean he'd be far more honored today than McGwire, regardless of who held the home run record. But such are the consequences of the choices one makes.

I don't think Bonds was " more " cheated than others, but Mcgwire's Ruthian power certainly did downplay Bonds amazing accomplishments. And since he was the best player in the game, that was a farce.

No argument with any of this, either. I was only reacting to the opinion in Post #16 (which wasn't yours) that Bonds was more cheated by Mac and Caminiti than were the pitchers that those two faced.

Segregation affected everyone separately but equally.

Nice

but to say that Bonds was the "most" cheated is to place essentially meaningless individual awards over the basics of the competition itself

And that's different than placing essentially meaningless individual records over everything else?