CubsFan7724 wrote: Purple Haze wrote: CubsFan7724 wrote: Purple Haze wrote:
CubsFan7724 wrote:How about because those guys weren't about to break the holiest record in sports, the career home runs record. Theres your reason why BASEBALL fans care now.
How do you know the records weren't set while on some type of enhancement drug?
You can't and that is my point..Regardless if you agree with it, or not.. We don't know, who or when the drugs were being used, since we know for a fact they have been used for more than 50 years in our sports society....
Easy, theres far more evidence that Bonds took steroids than Aaron took horse testosterone.
Still doesn't prove that the record wasn't set under the influence of an enhancement..and that is my point
This is ridiculous. It may have, but you cant prove that it was either. And the burden of proof is on you. Case closed. You can make a legit case Bonds took steroids. You can't do that with Aaron.
Case closed...see..exactly... Run away from the discussion... This wasn't about Bonds, but of course all you guys can do is cry..Bonds, Bonds, Bonds... (This was about ALL players who have done enhancement drugs, and holding them all accountable, or none of them..Bonds is only one piece in a much bigger puzzle)
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...
OK..What about Maris in 1961? Don't you think his power surge came out of nowhere, and never appeared again... Isn't that a Red Flag too?
What about all the pitchers throughout the years???
If these hitters had to face juiced up pitchers who's velocity has increased imensley, because of there use of enhancement drugs... Are you going to hold the picthing records accountable over the last 35-40 years? or does it make it fair if the majority of players were all juicing, (Picthers and hitters)? Would that make it an even playing field? Because ultimately isn't that what we are upset with..That maybe the playing field wasn't the same when past records were set, compared to the present?
Is it fair to ignore records set, because we didn't have testing in place to catch the user's? and question records that were set when nothing was actually illegal, but now is? and only punish those who haven't done anything different than what they were shown when comming up thorugh the system by older veterans..Yet we have the technology now to detect what has ALWAYS been there?
Just wanted to raise other possibilities, since NO ONE has ALL the facts..and to make an accurate assesment over a long period of time, you need to have an equal way of judging the past, and place it into context...
I can agree to disagree..Just wanted to spark a disscussion