Return to Baseball Leftovers

Clemens named in Mitchell report

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

Postby Lofunzo » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:49 pm

BronXBombers51 wrote:I don't care about his perjury. If the government wants to go after him for it, so be it.

I'm talking strictly on a baseball level. Baseball has no right to punish him. Even if it could be proven that he took steroids while the MLB steroid policy is in place, there is nothing in their policy that states they are allowed to ban him from the HOF or take away his records. If Bonds gets caught using steroids, he should be held to the same standard as every other offender: 50 game suspension.

Bonds broke a US law and should be held accountable by the US legal system. The only way MLB has the right to hold Bonds accountable is if he broke one of their rules. He didn't.

I don't condone breaking US law. I have no problem with Bonds getting what he has coming to him in a courtroom. His baseball legacy and records are another matter, though. They should not be touched.


I almost want to agree with you but I can't for 1 simple reason. MLB is not above US law. It was against US law. MLB can't ignore that. That and the fact that there was a rule against using them. Unfortunately, they just didn't enforce it or test for steroids.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23082
(Past Year: -616)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

Postby jfg » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:52 pm

The old problem could have corrected itself a long time ago if Selig would have stepped down and let somebody who didn't oversee the steroid era handle the clean-up.
Image
jfg
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 5941
(Past Year: -127)
Joined: 4 Nov 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

Postby BronXBombers51 » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:56 pm

Lofunzo wrote:
BronXBombers51 wrote:You mean the way those of us on the other side of the coin get labeled "apologists"?


Actually, no.

Apologist - one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something.
Hater - one who hates or despises.

It would seem that the people here that are defending Bonds are indeed apologists. That's not in a bad way. The definition fits. I have a problem with constantly being lumped as a hater because a lot of what I have written here hasn't been flattering. Just because I say something negative about Bonds doesn't make me a hater. I don't hate the man. I don't even know him. I do dislike a lot of the things that he has done, though. There is a big difference that many people fail to see.


Actually, I do not directly defend Barry Bonds. I don't defend his actions. I don't agree with what he did. I dislike a lot of the things that he has done just as you do. I am not particularly a fan of his.

I simply argue against the hypocrisy that surrounds this whole situation. Whether I like the man or not, has nothing to do with how I feel he should be treated. I feel that everyone should be held to the same standard. Bonds isn't. That's what I'm arguing against.

Maybe you call that being an apologist. And if it isn't a negative thing, as you say, that's fine. But the phrase 'Bonds apologists' has definitely been thrown around here with a negative stigma attached to it. And I have constantly been lumped in with a 'group' that thinks that Bonds either never did steroids or a 'group' the condones doing steroids. I am neither.

Either way, there's a lot of generalizing going on in both directions.
25
BronXBombers51
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 11622
(Past Year: -297)
Joined: 8 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

Postby Lofunzo » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:59 pm

BronXBombers51 wrote:
Yoda wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:The thing that a lot of Bonds supporter is missing is that, no matter how unfairly you think that Bonds has been treated, has any of this been untrue?? The fact remains that the single season and career HR champ has been proven to be a cheat. If anyone feels the need to be put off by that, I have no problem at all. It is completely understandable. You don't have to be a racist or a "hater" to feel that way.


I don't disagree but the fact of the matter is, it is not really Bonds's fault. It is MLB. Most people don't seem to realize that it is MLB's fault that all of this happened and ultimately, Selig's since he was the leader. Yet everyone is focused on Bonds which is completely beyond me.


Exactly. Call Bonds a cheater if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that numerous others cheated right along with him. Yet, Bonds is public enemy #1. I can understand why people are put off by the HR leader being a 'cheater'. It's because these records have been built up to be something that they're not. These records didn't become dirty when Bonds got them. These records were always questionable. Is it really fair to compare Aaron's 755 to Ruth's 714 when Aaron had amphetamines working for him? Would Ruth even have hit 714 if he played against the full population?

The records aren't gospel, but many people perceive them as such. That's the problem. Bonds didn't destroy baseball. I would argue that baseball hasn't been tarnished at all, but if it was, it was MLB's doing. Not Barry Bonds.


I just noticed this post in full. The problem is that the records in a way are gospel. Baseball is a numbers game. Much more than any other sport. Does anyone know what the leading career rushing yards is?? For a season?? What about the NBA?? You get the point. Baseball is all about numbers and Bonds holds the 2 greatest numbers there are. That means a lot and his supporters seems to ignore that.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23082
(Past Year: -616)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

Postby Lofunzo » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:01 pm

BronXBombers51 wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:
BronXBombers51 wrote:You mean the way those of us on the other side of the coin get labeled "apologists"?


Actually, no.

Apologist - one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something.
Hater - one who hates or despises.

It would seem that the people here that are defending Bonds are indeed apologists. That's not in a bad way. The definition fits. I have a problem with constantly being lumped as a hater because a lot of what I have written here hasn't been flattering. Just because I say something negative about Bonds doesn't make me a hater. I don't hate the man. I don't even know him. I do dislike a lot of the things that he has done, though. There is a big difference that many people fail to see.


Actually, I do not directly defend Barry Bonds. I don't defend his actions. I don't agree with what he did. I dislike a lot of the things that he has done just as you do. I am not particularly a fan of his.

I simply argue against the hypocrisy that surrounds this whole situation. Whether I like the man or not, has nothing to do with how I feel he should be treated. I feel that everyone should be held to the same standard. Bonds isn't. That's what I'm arguing against.

Maybe you call that being an apologist. And if it isn't a negative thing, as you say, that's fine. But the phrase 'Bonds apologists' has definitely been thrown around here with a negative stigma attached to it. And I have constantly been lumped in with a 'group' that thinks that Bonds either never did steroids or a 'group' the condones doing steroids. I am neither.

Either way, there's a lot of generalizing going on in both directions.


I don't mean it in a negative way at all. In a literal sense, you are defending him and are therefore an apologist. I have said some things against Bonds but that doesn't make me a hater. That was basically my point.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23082
(Past Year: -616)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

Postby BronXBombers51 » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:02 pm

Lofunzo wrote:
BronXBombers51 wrote:I don't care about his perjury. If the government wants to go after him for it, so be it.

I'm talking strictly on a baseball level. Baseball has no right to punish him. Even if it could be proven that he took steroids while the MLB steroid policy is in place, there is nothing in their policy that states they are allowed to ban him from the HOF or take away his records. If Bonds gets caught using steroids, he should be held to the same standard as every other offender: 50 game suspension.

Bonds broke a US law and should be held accountable by the US legal system. The only way MLB has the right to hold Bonds accountable is if he broke one of their rules. He didn't.

I don't condone breaking US law. I have no problem with Bonds getting what he has coming to him in a courtroom. His baseball legacy and records are another matter, though. They should not be touched.


I almost want to agree with you but I can't for 1 simple reason. MLB is not above US law. It was against US law. MLB can't ignore that. That and the fact that there was a rule against using them. Unfortunately, they just didn't enforce it or test for steroids.


MLB is not above US law, but they also aren't an extension of it. Legal matters are to be dealt with by the legal system. MLB can't punish him simply because he broke a US law. Otherwise, they could conceivably punish him for breaking ANY US law. If he got a speeding ticket or DUI, he'd be subject to punishment.

If MLB feels that something is a punishable offense for some reason (in this case, gaining a competitive advantage through drugs) then they need to specify that. MLB did not do that. As you say, they did not enforce it. There was no policy. How can you all of a sudden punish him for something he did back then? Again, if he did steroids while the policy is in place, he should be subject to the punishment that their policy details....first offense = 50 game suspension.

It's as if the US government made cigarettes illegal tomorrow....and then punished people who smoked 5 years ago.
25
BronXBombers51
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 11622
(Past Year: -297)
Joined: 8 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

Postby BronXBombers51 » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:08 pm

Lofunzo wrote:
BronXBombers51 wrote:
Yoda wrote:
I don't disagree but the fact of the matter is, it is not really Bonds's fault. It is MLB. Most people don't seem to realize that it is MLB's fault that all of this happened and ultimately, Selig's since he was the leader. Yet everyone is focused on Bonds which is completely beyond me.


Exactly. Call Bonds a cheater if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that numerous others cheated right along with him. Yet, Bonds is public enemy #1. I can understand why people are put off by the HR leader being a 'cheater'. It's because these records have been built up to be something that they're not. These records didn't become dirty when Bonds got them. These records were always questionable. Is it really fair to compare Aaron's 755 to Ruth's 714 when Aaron had amphetamines working for him? Would Ruth even have hit 714 if he played against the full population?

The records aren't gospel, but many people perceive them as such. That's the problem. Bonds didn't destroy baseball. I would argue that baseball hasn't been tarnished at all, but if it was, it was MLB's doing. Not Barry Bonds.


I just noticed this post in full. The problem is that the records in a way are gospel. Baseball is a numbers game. Much more than any other sport. Does anyone know what the leading career rushing yards is?? For a season?? What about the NBA?? You get the point. Baseball is all about numbers and Bonds holds the 2 greatest numbers there are. That means a lot and his supporters seems to ignore that.


I agree...that is the problem. That's the entire problem. People take these records very seriously. My point is....they shouldn't. They've never been completely clean and they never will. Athletes will always look for a competitive advantage. It's a fact of life. They will strive for the records, the fame and the money.

People have the preconceived notion that these record books were squeaky clean before Bonds came along. It's simply not true. The bottom line is, you can't compare players from different eras based on these raw numbers. It's not fair to compare Aaron's HR total to Ruth's, just as it's not fair to compare Bonds' to Aaron's.

I understand that the records are huge in baseball. My point is that they shouldn't be.
25
BronXBombers51
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 11622
(Past Year: -297)
Joined: 8 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

Postby BronXBombers51 » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:10 pm

Lofunzo wrote:
I don't mean it in a negative way at all. In a literal sense, you are defending him and are therefore an apologist. I have said some things against Bonds but that doesn't make me a hater. That was basically my point.


Understood and agreed. There have definitely been generalizations made by many on both sides of the argument that are really unneeded. I, myself, will try to be more careful in this regard.
25
BronXBombers51
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 11622
(Past Year: -297)
Joined: 8 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

Postby Lofunzo » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:12 pm

BronXBombers51 wrote:I agree...that is the problem. That's the entire problem. People take these records very seriously. My point is....they shouldn't. They've never been completely clean and they never will. Athletes will always look for a competitive advantage. It's a fact of life. They will strive for the records, the fame and the money.

People have the preconceived notion that these record books were squeaky clean before Bonds came along. It's simply not true. The bottom line is, you can't compare players from different eras based on these raw numbers. It's not fair to compare Aaron's HR total to Ruth's, just as it's not fair to compare Bonds' to Aaron's.

I understand that the records are huge in baseball. My point is that they shouldn't be.


I just thought of this and believe that there is a lot of truth to it but how about the fact that Bonds was proven to be a cheater as he was breaking the records?? I obviously wasn't around when Ruth and Aaron reached their marks but were their indiscretions known at the time?? I would think not. That has to play a part in this. Ruth and Aaron had already cemented their legacies long before the other stuff came out.

BronXBombers51 wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:
I don't mean it in a negative way at all. In a literal sense, you are defending him and are therefore an apologist. I have said some things against Bonds but that doesn't make me a hater. That was basically my point.


Understood and agreed. There have definitely been generalizations made by many on both sides of the argument that are really unneeded. I, myself, will try to be more careful in this regard.


Whatever, apologist.

Signed,

Hater.

:-D :-D
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23082
(Past Year: -616)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

Postby Philliebuster » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:13 pm

Yoda wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:The thing that a lot of Bonds supporter is missing is that, no matter how unfairly you think that Bonds has been treated, has any of this been untrue?? The fact remains that the single season and career HR champ has been proven to be a cheat. If anyone feels the need to be put off by that, I have no problem at all. It is completely understandable. You don't have to be a racist or a "hater" to feel that way.


I don't disagree but the fact of the matter is, it is not really Bonds's fault. It is MLB. Most people don't seem to realize that it is MLB's fault that all of this happened and ultimately, Selig's since he was the leader. Yet everyone is focused on Bonds which is completely beyond me.


Do some hate bonds because he is black...i'm sure a small percentage does. WIll someone hate Arod when he breaks Bonds record because he is not black, sure a small percentage will. But the media "witch-hunt" as some call it toward Bonds is not because he is black, it's because he has the unlikability on par with Hillary Clinton, and the he broke another black man's most coveted record in all of sports.
Philliebuster
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1237
(Past Year: -1)
Joined: 28 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: New Jersey

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron