Purple Haze wrote:Why wouldn't you want the TRUTH? You don't think it's unfair to only focus on Bonds, when we know many, many, players have taken enhancement drugs over many, many seasons...
You really shouldn't have said "we" there.
I "know" no such thing.
That is because your to young, and misinformed
Congress thought it serious enough to hold hearings in the 1970's.. So why don't "WE" know many players were using 'roids???
You really are just an ass, aren't you?
I'm not at all young, first of all. Sticking a little smiley after making a comment like that doesn't hide the fact that you're trying to annoy me...
You said, "we know many, many, players have taken enhancement drugs over many, many seasons...".
I regard "many, many players" to be quite a lot. Heck..."many players" is a lot....2 "many's" is a boatload.
Their is absolutely no reason for me to believe that "many, many players" were taking steroids ins the 50's. I think is debatebale that "many, many players" were taking steroids in the 90's, to be honest.
Are you an ass?
I never said many payers were taking 'roids in the 50's.. I said 'roids have been around in USA sports since before the 50's...
I claimed that throughout the years we know many players have taken 'roids.. Thus the need for Congress to step in (Which they never do) in the 1970's because the use of 'roids, and the ill effects were running wild, and needed to be cleaned up...
Not gonna argue anymore about the fact that 'roids have been around for many, many years... and It is only fair to question ALL records going back before Aaron's HR record...Since we know that 'roids was such a problem before he set the record... (or the Congress wouldn't have held the congressional hearings on the subject)
That was my point from the initial post..We must put it ALL in perespective and not just the last 10 years...
One reason the steroid focus is on recent players is that baseball players tended to avoid the weight room until very recently. It was widely believed that bulking up too much was bad for your swing.
Bonds, among others, challenged this assumption by spending a ton of time working out and conditioning. Regardless of whether or not he took steroids, you can't take away the fact that he's probably put more time into conditioning than any other ML player.
Bonds wasn't the first to go into the weight room, but it's a rather recent phenomenon. I can still remember arguments about whether or not baseball players should be working out at all!
Steroids is a weight room drug. When ball players were avoiding the weight room, they probably weren't much tempted by steroids. There were, of course, other temptations (e.g., 'greenies', coke, booze, etc.)
"The game has a cleanness. If you do a good job, the numbers say so. You don't have to ask anyone or play politics. You don't have to wait for the reviews." - Sandy Koufax
CubsFan7724 wrote:I can tell you the best performance enhancing drugs they used 30-50 years ago were greenies. Any steroids were probably primitive, dangerous, and rather ineffective horse testostarone based kind.
Why are you guys ignoring the facts.. Steroids were bad enough before the 70's for Congress to have gotten involved in the early 1970's, and hold congressional hearings...(Meaning it was wide spread in the 60's as far as people around, and following baseball were concerned) Those are the facts.. You can change it all you want to fit your arguement, but Steroids were bad enough, and effecting the game of baseball enough to call for the hearings.. They believed the commish of baseball when he claimed there would be more strict poilicy put in place..Which never actually transpired.. But the facts are this.. Steroids was such a major issue, and well known in the late 60's they had to have "Congress" call congressional hearings on the matter.. That is VERY serious, and not casual use..as your brushing it off to be...
Funny how it's so much more serious now, because your alive to witness it... Yet it was just as serious then, just not as many people cared about it, because athletes didn't make millions of dollars.. So it all come's down to money$$$... Not what is fair, or accurate...Those are the facts!
Very good argument. I was actually thinking about this subject the other day and wondered how there is proof that steroids were not used when they were'nt being tested. As has been said,bulk is only aquired by a workout regimen but,is not nessacary for steroids to be utilized. If we are going to discount one players performance then we must at least question a few others.
Haze...some of your "facts" are on target, but some of your other history is, well, hazy. The use of steroids in sports never appeared in any way, shape or form till the East German weightlifters showed up in either the late 1950's or early 1960's. They didn't start showing up here till years later, at which time they were basically the sole domain of bodybuilders. If there was a congressional investigation at the time you state, it must have been a very well kept secret as I can find no record of this. Perhaps you can provide some documentation.
There's little secret that they first made their way into the NFL in the early 1970's, which isn't surprising since there's always been a connection of sorts between bodybuilders and football players. But as for baseball, they weren't around. Maybe they were known about, but no one was using. A big reason was the longstanding belief that an abundance of muscle impeded one's ability to swing the bat (obviously, that myth has been exploded).
Canseco may not have much overall credibility, but he's on target when he declares that he was the first steroid superstar.
Your contention that others among us are ignorant to the facts can only be proven with factual data. You have none because there is none. Thus, all you're left with is bizarre speculation. Personally, I would say that anyone suspecting Roger Maris was using steroids is certifiable.
seems you guys are arguing without a point. haze made his comment, which makes perfect sense, because he's sick of people always focusing on the now. i dont kcts abounow the fat when steroids became prevalent in sports (especially baseball) but how are we supposed to know some of our "holiest" (to us Americans anyway) records are legit? his point had only to do with our obsession with a handful of guys who broke the rules, rather than looking at the bigger picture. just thinking outside of the box, i believe, is what he was suggesting...and not to be so narrowly focused on singular events.
People are obsessed with the now because ... it's the now. What's done is done. You can't change the past. And the odds of digging up anything conclusive about what guys did two decades ago are pretty slim, if they did anything at all.
I don't pretend to be an expert. Maybe Aaron, Maris, Kofax, and everybody else was juicing. But it appears that if they were, they managed to cover their tracks and get away with it. But if someone can bring to light evidence that they juicing, hey, more power to them ... it just seems unlikely, though.
The trail is still pretty fresh with the likes of McQwire and Bonds, and if they are guilty, isn't that something that should be addressed? You can't change the past, but you can address what's happening in the present and what might happen in the future.
Personally, I think all the records that have ever been set or broken should stay on the books. We can all put our own mental astericks by any names that we feel are less than deserving ... there's certainly going to be enough commetary and opinions flying around the "important" records, that people can find out the facts and decide for themselves how legitimate and/or impressive they are.
But I don't think you should let known juicers in the Hall of Fame, and possibly eject them if they're already there. The Hall of Fame should be about more than numbers. And I think that if you're caught using illegal performance enhancing drugs two or three times, you should be banned from the MLB for life. I really don't understand what the sport, the fans or legitimate players have to gain from a more leniant stance.