Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Simple question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Simple question

    We, I included, villify the fellows that use enhancers. Well how about all those who did the opposite? 2 examples of many are, Mickey Mantle, drunk half the time by his own admission. Sam McDowell who drank himself out of baseball. How many games were lost by losers and abusers? I'll take a guy trying to win over a bleery eyed talent on instinct every time!

  • #2
    There seems to be a consensus that sports should be about letting natural talent rise to the top without pharmaceutical help. We deem such pharmaceutical aids as not within the spirit of fair play we want in sports. By contrast, the achievements of the drunks, coke-heads, etc., are in spite of their addictions/lack of self-control/preferences or however else you want to describe such behavior. Whether that consensus makes any sense is a value judgment for each individual.

    Jim Albright
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Lindseynelson
      We, I included, villify the fellows that use enhancers. Well how about all those who did the opposite? 2 examples of many are, Mickey Mantle, drunk half the time by his own admission. Sam McDowell who drank himself out of baseball. How many games were lost by losers and abusers? I'll take a guy trying to win over a bleery eyed talent on instinct every time!
      I was with you right up until that last sentence.

      Don't know how many times I have to say this: Sports are entertainment. What's more entertaining... a guy who has the wife, three kids, nicely mown lawn, goes to church every week, speaks softle, and is respectful of others... or David Wells? If the production levels are equivalent, you should ALWAYS go with the guy who makes the bigger spectacle of himself.
      "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

      Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Just playing devils advocate. The uproar about "performance enhancing drugs" as an affront to the " integrity of the game" seems specious when you look at guys like Straw and doc who often were in no shape to play and were decieving the fans , the league and their employers. The enhancement users were doing everything available to ENHANCE production, not diminish it.Who are more loyal to the fans, the teammates and the league , the guys doing anything and evrything to improve performance and thus win or the guy who takes the money and gives it 75 or 80 percent?

        Comment


        • #5
          Banned substances are banned by the leagues and that prohibition is enforced by the leagues. People who are caught cheating are punished. The motive for cheating is immaterial to the fact that they were cheating.

          The team's manager can always bench a player who is too hungover to play if he feels the team's chances of winning would be enhanced by doing so.
          "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
          "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
          "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
          "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

          Comment


          • #6
            Just to throw in another perspective, alcoholism and drug abuse are understood as sicknesses these problems would in all likelihood exist whether or not that particular individual played professional sports. The same can't be said for PEDs. HGH, unlike alcohol or cocaine is not a recreational drug.
            THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

            In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ElHalo
              I was with you right up until that last sentence.

              Don't know how many times I have to say this: Sports are entertainment. What's more entertaining... a guy who has the wife, three kids, nicely mown lawn, goes to church every week, speaks softle, and is respectful of others... or David Wells? If the production levels are equivalent, you should ALWAYS go with the guy who makes the bigger spectacle of himself.
              I was with you right up until that last sentence.

              We don't have to ALWAYS do anything. Pete Rose, Denny McLain, Hal Chase, Steve Howe and Marge Schott, among others, all made spectacles of themselves. I'll go along with Mr. Albright and root for the focused athlete who brings character to his team. I live in the land of Brooks Robinson and Cal Ripken. I understand they do it different in New York.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lindseynelson
                We, I included, villify the fellows that use enhancers. Well how about all those who did the opposite? 2 examples of many are, Mickey Mantle, drunk half the time by his own admission. Sam McDowell who drank himself out of baseball. How many games were lost by losers and abusers? I'll take a guy trying to win over a bleery eyed talent on instinct every time!
                I, personally, wouldn't compare Mick with players intaking ILLEGAL substances. And Mick did play/hit homers while hunover = despite DISadvantage. JMO.
                Now Dwight the Kite of the '87 Mets is a good one. He's under contract to play for a (favored to win again by a landslide) team; does illegal substances, chills out at Smithers for a chunk of the season, thus leaving the Mets without their ACE pitcher; Mets finish, like, three games behind the Cards in NL East.
                Some would argue that Dwight the Kite cost his team the pennant, as he didn't even have a legitimate (not to mention LEGAL!) injury to warrant missing all that time and costing his team their Ace!
                Last edited by FrenchyLefebvre; 10-08-2005, 08:57 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bkmckenna
                  I was with you right up until that last sentence.

                  We don't have to ALWAYS do anything. Pete Rose, Denny McLain, Hal Chase, Steve Howe and Marge Schott, among others, all made spectacles of themselves. I'll go along with Mr. Albright and root for the focused athlete who brings character to his team. I live in the land of Brooks Robinson and Cal Ripken. I understand they do it different in New York.
                  Do I hear you! I lived in the land of Mike Schmidt (who should have been an Oriole, if not a Cub or Cardinal), who spent his career ... well everybody knows already about his infamous treatment in Philly.
                  93's "Macho Row" is still so revered by Phillies fans - even though Dykstra spent the season betting on the games (according to an LA Times article earlier this year quoting his bookie). It went virtually unnoticed - even in Philly. And this was post-Pete Rose!!!!!
                  You'd think the '80 or '83 Phillies would be tops in polls of Phillies fans regarding most endearing teams, especially after this, and the obvious that several '93 players were on the 'roids! But ask the same Philly fans about Big Mac, Raffy or Bonds? Hehehehehe.
                  It's all about flair and being "gritty". Philly's "blue collar persona" just couldn't "relate" to the milk-drinking, serious-approach to-the-job, nonflamboyant perfectionist in Schmidt. Vince McMahon could have put together the "Macho Row" team of '93. Give me the '80 or '83 squads over them anyday!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ElHalo
                    I was with you right up until that last sentence.

                    Don't know how many times I have to say this: Sports are entertainment. What's more entertaining... a guy who has the wife, three kids, nicely mown lawn, goes to church every week, speaks softle, and is respectful of others... or David Wells? If the production levels are equivalent, you should ALWAYS go with the guy who makes the bigger spectacle of himself.
                    I can't imagine a Reggie hater like yourself would ever say anything like that.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 538280
                      I can't imagine a Reggie hater like yourself would ever say anything like that.
                      I really don't have much of a problem with Reggie the person. It's Reggie the baseball player (and, more specifically, Reggie the Batting Average) that I have a problem with.
                      "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

                      Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        --You can certainly make a good argument that drunks and druggies have worse character and are a bigger detriment to their teams than PED users. Both are the results of selfish behaviors. The former disregards their responiblities in the search for a good time, while the later disregards the law and rules of sport to try and improve performance. Trying to improve oneself is usually a noble effort, but when the method of doing so bends or breaks the rules to gain an unfair advantage, goes afoul of the law, risks ones health and sets a bad example for young athletes there isn't much nobility left.
                        --However, the reason I have a problem with PED users isn't a moral one at all. I can't say for certain I wouldn't make that same choice if I felt it was the only way to make it in the majors or if I felt I was being unfairly overshadowed by users around the league (For that matter I had my own issues with drugs and alcohol in my younger days and might have experienced those types of problems with my baseball career if lack of talent finished it first). The issue I have with PED users is they gain an unfair advantage and (even if you knew who they all were) its hard to evaluate their performance.
                        --Are the best players today all PED users? Are some of the best players today who aren't using actually the some of the most amazing players ever, but are being overshadowed by cheaters? How can we place PED users in their proper historical place when comparing them to preceding generations who relied on (mostly) natural methods to achieve their records.
                        --Drug and alcohol abuse hurts the team and the player. It is regretable and if some want to condemn players who have seen their careers damaged or destroyed by these problems that is understandable. However, these things do not help players perform. The demerits to their records are already bulit in by the damage they do to the players body. When evaluating Hall of Fame performance or ranking players recreational drug abuse is already accounted for, while PEDs are a very complicated issue.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by leecemark
                          --You can certainly make a good argument that drunks and druggies have worse character and are a bigger detriment to their teams than PED users. Both are the results of selfish behaviors. The former disregards their responiblities in the search for a good time, while the later disregards the law and rules of sport to try and improve performance. Trying to improve oneself is usually a noble effort, but when the method of doing so bends or breaks the rules to gain an unfair advantage, goes afoul of the law, risks ones health and sets a bad example for young athletes there isn't much nobility left.
                          --However, the reason I have a problem with PED users isn't a moral one at all. I can't say for certain I wouldn't make that same choice if I felt it was the only way to make it in the majors or if I felt I was being unfairly overshadowed by users around the league (For that matter I had my own issues with drugs and alcohol in my younger days and might have experienced those types of problems with my baseball career if lack of talent finished it first). The issue I have with PED users is they gain an unfair advantage and (even if you knew who they all were) its hard to evaluate their performance.
                          --Are the best players today all PED users? Are some of the best players today who aren't using actually the some of the most amazing players ever, but are being overshadowed by cheaters? How can we place PED users in their proper historical place when comparing them to preceding generations who relied on (mostly) natural methods to achieve their records.
                          --Drug and alcohol abuse hurts the team and the player. It is regretable and if some want to condemn players who have seen their careers damaged or destroyed by these problems that is understandable. However, these things do not help players perform. The demerits to their records are already bulit in by the damage they do to the players body. When evaluating Hall of Fame performance or ranking players recreational drug abuse is already accounted for, while PEDs are a very complicated issue.

                          Mark, that was a great post!
                          ?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            All great posts. I thought maybe we ought to take a look at this from a different angle and I am , as usual, impressed with the responses from all of you.someone pointed out that Mickey hit homeruns hung over but Bonds, Mac and raffy all hit many after " allegedly' using PEDs. How many times did a Mantle of Dave Parker or Keith Hernandez K or not be focused after "partying". Lose a pennant by one game and the stats don't care if it was the last day of the season or a May 5th "meaningless" game

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Lindseynelson
                              Just playing devils advocate. The uproar about "performance enhancing drugs" as an affront to the " integrity of the game" seems specious when you look at guys like Straw and doc who often were in no shape to play and were decieving the fans , the league and their employers. The enhancement users were doing everything available to ENHANCE production, not diminish it.Who are more loyal to the fans, the teammates and the league , the guys doing anything and evrything to improve performance and thus win or the guy who takes the money and gives it 75 or 80 percent?
                              And players like Strawberry and Gooden and Steve Howe and others got year long suspensions. There aren't nearly such punishments for steroids use.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X