Baseball should either put up or shut up

OOP - I just want to tell you that I couldn't respond to you about Pujols in the other thread, but you made a good point after I posted the pic of him. I think that sports journalists have to be more skeptical these days, that was my point. I hope Albert is totally clean; I really like him. But he is gigantic. Now, as far as we know, he's always been like that, but I'm just trying to cast a skeptical eye towards him, and others. There are tons of guys using, but only a few guys who have been implicated so far. Hey, I love Clemens, but doesn't anyone have questions about him?

I was at Wal-Mart and I saw that magazine, and I was like "Whoah. His arms look like a cartoon character." I just wanted to see what others thought. You're right, however, it wasn't the best thread to put it up on. My bad.

 

Thanks. Glad you see my point. And I have heard rumblings about Clemens, just because he has stayed so good into his 40s. I understand the skepticism, but I an uncomfortable assuming the worst without any evidence at all, flimsy or otherwise.

 

I totally respect that.

And I certainly understand your point. You were right, and you were respectful to me, so of course you deserved a response, IMO.

Plus, you're a fellow comic geek! Ha ha.

 

No one has 'credibility' on an anonymous message board. But some people bring more than others to a discussion, which you surely have in this case, so I am asking you again for your anonymous opinion:

Is it that you think Bonds did nothing wrong, but other players are guilty...or Bonds is guilty but so is everyone else...or no one is guilty, this is all a joke.

And by 'guilty,' I mean taking drugs in some form that were illegal by federal law at that time, and are now banned by MLB.

 

21, I can tell by the way in which your questions are framed that your mind is already made up regarding the answers. How can you can you listen while wearing ear plugs?

The following blog contains a couple of thought provoking questions. Why don't you warm up by reading these. And keep in mind that it's possible that evidence involving a big, strong and much celebrated pitcher may soon be linked to Radomski.


Home Run Watch
Written by tom rohrs
Bleacher Report
Friday, 04 May 2007

As Barry Bonds creeps ever closer to Hank Aaron's career home run mark, the baseball world is going to pieces.

Fans are haunted by the prospect of steroids staining the game's most hallowed record. Commissioner Bud Selig is exploring expansion opportunities in Asia and Latin America so he'll have a good excuse to be out of the country when the big day arrives. Even the Giants brass is mulling how to low-key Number 756.

All because Barry did what many other top players were doing around the turn of the century: He used un-banned substances to improve his performance.

What has gone mostly unmentioned in the post-BALCO era is the fact that Barry hit his "tainted" homers off of JUICED PITCHERS. That's right—Major League Baseball turned a blind eye to steroids, and you can bet that many of the game's top hurlers were getting the performance edge right along with the sluggers.

In fact, you could probably make the case that performance-enhancing drugs do more to help a pitcher than a hitter, because a hitter's success depends on vision as much as strength...and I've yet to see evidence that steroids have ever improved anyone's eyes.

Which begs the question: Why are all the so-called journalists out there giving pitchers a free pass while they rush to crucify the guys in the batter's box?

Of course, there's no evidence against the pitchers of the Steroid Era—but then again baseball's absurd no-testing policy means there's little evidence against the hitters either.

My take? Yes, the hitters were juiced...and so were their nemeses on the mound. It was an even battle fought under the prevailing rules of the day.

Like they say: All's fair in drugs and war.

By acknowledging the truth as it was, we can say that Barry Bonds didn't cheat—he competed on equal terms against the pitchers of his generation. We can also say that he deserves the record he's about to break. Actually, if it's true that hurlers gained a more significant edge than hitters in Bud Selig's drugged-up game, then maybe we should think about putting an asterisk next to Hammerin' Hank's precious record:

*No home runs were hit against performance-enhanced pitchers.

 

Translation:

 

I'm pretty open-minded and I'd also like to hear where you stand on the question that 21 posed.

 

"The one storyline that has captivated even the most casual of baseball fans is Barry Bonds' pursuit of the holy grail of sports records, Hank Aaron's home-run record."

Excuse me? I thought no one cares? (I don't, for one.) Isn't that the consensus?

 

Shortly following the Big Bang--and I mean very shortly--the electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces were merged in a state known as guage symmetry. Creamora seems to exist in some primordial state in which responses to reasonable questions, irony and self-mockery are all merged into one state.
If his intelligence could be established, that would also represent a merger of intelligence and stupidity, which would represent a kind of grand unification state. We could call it the state of Grand Villafication.

 

People like to say they don't care about Bonds breaking the record but they'll be watching AND talking about it. There will be a full house and huge TV ratings when he does it.

 

So change my mind. I thought that's why you were here.

The phrasing of my question was pretty broad, I thought...I even made it multiple choice for you.

So you give me a blog to read, and suggest that a big name pitcher will/may soon be named. Duh. Let's assume ten big name pitchers are named, and ten more big name hitters. No one here would be surprised.

And so I would ask you again: Do you believe Bonds did nothing wrong, but other guys did, or do you believe everyone did something wrong, so the literal playing field is level?

 

I admire your persistance.