what if they gave a race and nobody turned out to have raced at all?

what if they gave a race and nobody turned out to have raced at all?

The 2005 United States Grand Prix.

My personal perspective is that baseball from around 1996 to around 2006 did not represent anything like the fair competition of the era that preceded it, and those years weren't as compelling. I don't see how anyone could possibly look at a team like, say, the 2004 Red Sox and celebrate their accomplishments as equivalent to, say, the 1985 Royals.

My hopes from 2007 going forward look like they're going to be dashed, though I wouldn't necessarily equate something like a testosterone lozenge whose effects end after a day or two with the stacked anabolic steroid regimens that were a hallmark of the darkest parts of the steroid era.

This is because you don't seem to have a good grasp on PEDs. You seem to think that bulky guys and big HR numbers are both the evidence and result of heavy PED usage. But testosterone lozenges and greenies can help you hit the gym just as hard and see the increased results that the needles-in-your-butt steroids do. There were also numerous other reasons for changes to the numbers of that era - expansion, a run on new parks, a shrinking strike zone, and possibly juiced balls.

And fair competition? We're still talking about baseball right? When has there ever been an era of fair competition?

There is no benefit to anyone to mock and ridicule someone on their way out the door.


You clearly never saw Garret Anderson play in Atlanta.

"Play."

I am amused that I agree with Ray near 100% on "drug" threads

You should get that looked at.

One drugged-up cyclist beating the pantaloons off of all the other drugged-up cyclists, time and time and time again, to show that he was better than all of them?

Right -- so we can't dismiss the null hypothesis that Armstrong won because his drugs were better. You can certainly be interested in that, but there's no reason to pretend it's the same from a sporting perspective as a competition without drugs.

Right -- so we can't dismiss the null hypothesis that Armstrong won because his bikes were better. You can certainly be interested in that, but there's no reason to pretend it's the same from a sporting perspective as a competition without different bicycles.

Your statement can be read the exact same, with all the same meanings, with my changes. No one competes on a completely level playing field. Every baseball player in the north of the country is at a disadvantage from those in the south due to inclement weather at the start and end of the seasons. Access to coaching is different. Equipment is different. Nutrition is different. Again, there are no athletes that compete on exactly the same terms as those they are competing against. Drugs are just another potential drop in the bucket for why one person wins and one loses.

That's pure sophistry.

Everyone's entitled to their own tastes. If you want to enjoy roidball or roid cycling, enjoy it. No one's stopping you and your tastes are being vociferously catered to in the marketplace.

Everyone's entitled to their own tastes. If you want to enjoy roidball or roid cycling, enjoy it. No one's stopping you and your tastes are being vociferously catered to in the marketplace.

You are agressively missing the point. We (most of us anyway) are enjoying the sport and not letting the spectre of ROIDS! interfere with our enjoyment of it. We acknowledge it exists, like so many of the factors listed in 107, but don't let it poison the sport. Have rules, follow them, but let it end there, don't have it retroactively make the funof sports into a game of who is the drug villain this week and what sports memory is now tarnished.

It is like you don't want to enjoy sports or something. Joe Buck, is that you?

and possibly juiced balls.

Oh the balls were definitely juiced.

There is simply no plausible way to interpret the trajectory of run-scoring from 1985 to the present as determined by "roidball" and "non-roidball".

There is simply no plausible way to interpret the trajectory of run-scoring from 1985 to the present as determined by "roidball" and "non-roidball".

This. The idea that there's a single factor analysis that makes any sense is absurd.

That's pure sophistry.

Why? It's various shades of grey, sure, but isn't that a constant in sports? If you aint cheating you aint trying, right? I accept that pitchers tried to doctor the ball, giving them unfair advantages, I don't think their numbers should be ignored. I also think ignoring surgical procedures that physically enhance people (lasik being a prime example) is ridiculous. Why is that ok, but drugs are not? Fundamentally they are both small advantages, whether those advantages are perceived or actual is another matter.

And I did intentionally utilize 'small' as a qualification - all the advantages in the world are not going to make me a MLB level hitter. Nor are they going to make Manny Alexander anywhere near the player Bonds was. Armstrong did what no one else has done, competing against cyclists that also were using PED's, that leads me to believe he was in fact a better cyclist.

I am amused that I agree with Ray near 100% on "drug" threads

Coincidence - it's only because you're a lib who's soft on crime.

Contract language doesn't matter for recission. The whole point of recission is that there is no meeting of the minds; there is no contract. Recission does not equal termination.

That's cute. You recalling this from your contracts final last month? On what relevant issue that the parties contemplated was there no meeting of the minds?

That's cute. You recalling this from your contracts final last month? On what relevant issue that the parties contemplated was there no meeting of the minds?

I'm happy to debate this in more detail when I get back from my court appearance later this morning, #######.

Distinguish between the use of PEDs during the term of the contract and undisclosed use of PEDs in the period before using the contract. The former is clearly covered by the contractual language and gives rise to no right of recission - the Yanks have a termination right, but subject to the contract and the CBA et al.

But consider that A-Rod was using PEDs before the contract term. The Yankees made the determination to sign A-Rod, arguably, on the assumption that a PED-free A-Rod produced the value he had in the seasons immediately before the extension. If, A-Rod was violating federal law (and the rules of baseball), and in doing so, created numbers that misled the Yankees in their determination whether to enter into the contract (I don't think anyone would argue that A-Rod's performance in games was material to the Yankees determination to enter into the contract), that's arguably fraud (either constructive or actual depending on A-Rod's state of mind).

Is this a winning argument? Very doubtful. But you don't need a winner to develop leverage for settlement.

This. The idea that there's a single factor analysis that makes any sense is absurd.

Yes and no. A number of factors have doubtless influenced scoring levels -- in both directions -- over the past 30 years. But one change -- introducing the juiced ball in 1993-94 -- is by far the most important. It probably had more impact than all other factors combined.

You are agressively missing the point. We (most of us anyway) are enjoying the sport and not letting the spectre of ROIDS! interfere with our enjoyment of it. We acknowledge it exists, like so many of the factors listed in 107, but don't let it poison the sport. Have rules, follow them, but let it end there, don't have it retroactively make the funof sports into a game of who is the drug villain this week and what sports memory is now tarnished.

And you're free to do that.

#110 Not exactly juiced, just tending to the higher end of allowable.

That said, an analysis of the core of baseballs shows that they didn't meet MLB's specifications.

(see Eric Walker's site for a list of the links to studies on baseballs from what we call the steroid era)

But consider that A-Rod was using PEDs before the contract term. The Yankees made the determination to sign A-Rod, arguably, on the assumption that a PED-free A-Rod produced the value he had in the seasons immediately before the extension. If, A-Rod was violating federal law (and the rules of baseball), and in doing so, created numbers that misled the Yankees in their determination whether to enter into the contract (I don't think anyone would argue that A-Rod's performance in games was material to the Yankees determination to enter into the contract), that's arguably fraud (either constructive or actual depending on A-Rod's state of mind).

Is this a winning argument? Very doubtful.

No. It's utterly frivolous. You're arguing that the Yankees can perhaps void the contract based on a clause that was in their heads and not in the contract. If nothing about steroids is in the contract, then this argument is dead in the water. Why would they have "assumed" that he was PED-free in the years preceding the contract? Did they ask him if he was? Did he tell them he was? Did they put it in the contract? But the CBA _does_ speak to steroids; both sides knew what the penalty was if ARod was found to have used PEDs: a 50-game suspension for the first offense. Not a contract that is rendered void. That was the understanding, the "meeting of the minds."

No. It's utterly frivolous. You're arguing that the Yankees can perhaps void the contract based on a clause that was in their heads and not in the contract. If nothing about steroids is in the contract, then this argument is dead in the water. Why would they have "assumed" that he was PED-free in the years preceding the contract? Did they ask him if he was? Did he tell them he was? Did they put it in the contract? But the CBA _does_ speak to steroids; both sides knew what the penalty was if ARod was found to have used PEDs: a 50-game suspension for the first offense. Not a contract that is rendered void. That was the understanding, the "meeting of the minds."

Bingo. You crapped the bed Hal, now sleep in in, you cynical, nepotistic, sh1tbox. Enjoy.

No. It's utterly frivolous. You're arguing that the Yankees can perhaps void the contract based on a clause that was in their heads and not in the contract. If nothing about steroids is in the contract, then this argument is dead in the water. Why would they have "assumed" that he was PED-free in the years preceding the contract? Did they ask him if he was? Did he tell them he was? Did they put it in the contract? But the CBA _does_ speak to steroids; both sides knew what the penalty was if ARod was found to have used PEDs: a 50-game suspension for the first offense. Not a contract that is rendered void. That was the understanding, the "meeting of the minds."

Not under NY law. Better to have it in the contract, but not necessary. Particularly if the Yankees could show actual fraud.

Zop, what do you think the Yankees' chances of prevailing on that argument are? Seriously.

Whatever "happened" was provisional on the games being fair

Here is the disconnect: you care about what "happened" and the people arguing with you care about what happened.

You're using language in a weird way. Those baseball and basketball games, and those Tours, unquestionably happened. It's a reasonable position to say that you don't consider them legitimate; not so much to act as if they never happened in the first place.

I would think that you wouldn't want any sort of whitewashing; you'd want it to be out there forever that X won illegitimately.

I don't see how anyone could possibly look at a team like, say, the 2004 Red Sox and celebrate their accomplishments as equivalent to, say, the 1985 Royals.

What baffles me is how SBB can spend so much time arguing on an internet site where people regularly disagree with him, yet nevertheless be unable to imagine that such people actually exist.

It's nothing like that because their cheating procured the players that they competed with. No one at Michigan tolerated such a thing and the university scrubbed them and their "accomplishments" from the collective memory bank without the slightest nudge from the NCAA. They've been unwelcome ever since.

I know this was a few posts back, but it's ########, so I need to correct it. Webber is not allowed contact with the college until 2013, per the penalties imposed on him. The others have and will continue to be honored by the school.

I don't see how anyone could possibly look at a team like, say, the 2004 Red Sox and celebrate their accomplishments as equivalent to, say, the 1985 Royals.

Damn right they're not equivalent. The 85 Royals made dubious use of the best of seven ALCS (when everyone knows the best of 5 model that had been in use up until that point is the inherently correct one), to "beat" the Jays despite them winning 3 games first.

Not at all like what happened in the 2004 ALCS.

Here is the disconnect: you care about what "happened" and the people arguing with you care about what happened.

I only dipped my toe in the metaphysics of the word because other people did. Armstrong is not officially recognized as the Tour de France winner even though he crossed the finish line first and otherwise qualified to be the winner. The two concepts are easily distinguishable for anyone who wishes to distinguish them.

What baffles me is how SBB can spend so much time arguing on an internet site where people regularly disagree with him, yet nevertheless be unable to imagine that such people actually exist.

Of course they exist. I don't share their aesthetic conclusions -- and that's really what they are.

As noted, MLB owners are not obligated to offer fair and sporting baseball in the marketplace, and consumers are under no obligation to prefer fair and sporting baseball to any other type of baseball.

I am amused that I agree with Ray near 100% on "drug" threads and near 0% on Political threads.

you're not the only one.

oh dear ... sugar bear shooting blanks finally got a chance to trot out 'sophistry', not that he knows how to use it. you've made his month.

I don't see how anyone could possibly look at a team like, say, the 2004 Red Sox and celebrate their accomplishments as equivalent to, say, the 1985 Royals.

oh, now you've done it. the royals did NOT win that world series! they had it handed to them by denkinger!!!11!!!!!!1!!!

huh, i guess his method does work.

Cashman is doing a chat at ESPN.com this afternoon, so one could ask him about contract-voiding and objective pipes and such.

Bingo. You crapped the bed Hal, now sleep in in, you cynical, nepotistic, sh1tbox. Enjoy.

Actually, Hank crapped the bed. Hal is trying to clean up the mess.

Anyway, what's the likelihood that the Yankees planted the whole Bosch story in the first place? Is Howie Spira still living?

So what do you guys think of Jack Morris's chances of making the Hall next year?