RVJ Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 Sounds good to me. I don't think they could ever get it finalized though. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylc=X3oD...ov=ap&type=lgns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantrules Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 If this goes through then they should relinquish the Denver Broncos 97 & 98 rings, the NFC Championship for the Carolina Panthers, the Oakland A's WS ring and the list can go on. The problem with this is it's still speculation and no record should be denied until there is hard proof that both Bonds, McGwire and Sosa used substances illegal to the game. Which will never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 There is no way that this happens. The domino effect (as mentioned by gantrules) would prevent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 If this goes through then they should relinquish the Denver Broncos 97 & 98 rings, the NFC Championship for the Carolina Panthers, the Oakland A's WS ring and the list can go on. The problem with this is it's still speculation and no record should be denied until there is hard proof that both Bonds, McGwire and Sosa used substances illegal to the game. Which will never happen. 293016[/snapback] Not only that, but how can you ever show that Roids was the sole reason for their success? What about the new/smaller stadiums, expansion, juiced balls etc. Marris hit 61 in a 162 game season (longer than Ruth had) and he did it in an expansion year. So why restore his record? He had outside help as well. My point, like Gant's, is that it's impossible to prove any of these factors lead to X amount of additional homeruns. The records should stand. The records will stand. People of our generation will always look down on their records (much like many looked down on Marris's), but in 50 years it will be just another blip on the baseball record book... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 you also don't know how many pitchers were/are juiced...who knows, maybe the record should be 80? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 you also don't know how many pitchers were/are juiced...who knows, maybe the record should be 80? 293186[/snapback] good freaking point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 Maris at least still has the AL record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 Not only that, but how can you ever show that Roids was the sole reason for their success? What about the new/smaller stadiums, expansion, juiced balls etc. Marris hit 61 in a 162 game season (longer than Ruth had) and he did it in an expansion year. So why restore his record? He had outside help as well. 293025[/snapback] He did, but when other records are broken with help from the 162 game season, they don't mention this fact as often. I think the true testament's to Ruth's greatness was how much better he was compared to the players he played against. Didn't he have more home runs that all other teams combined one year? Along with a 162 game season, Maris did have the majority of people rooting against him along with scattered death threats. So he had some disadvantages as well. I think the recent era should be treated like the whole live ball v. dead ball era has been. Basically a general separation of accomplishments made in different periods. It hurts the innocent players, but that seems the fairest way to treat this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTW_BillsFan Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 First, I think it's a given that steroids help with physical/athletic performance. If it didn't the players wouldn't be taking the stuff. It's not good for you and will shorten your lifespan, so why would they take it unless it helped them. Nobody cares about who has the most walks in the 90's or the most steals in 1997. There are some records that transcend the game and need to be perserved. Most homers in one season, Most homers career, Most strikeouts, batting over .400, winning the triple crown.... These records are legendary and need to be protected from cheaters in the game. You also do not need to go back and change all the records. Steroids should go against individual records, not team records, unless you could prove that 1/2 the team was using, then I would agree. One out of 27? is taking roids so team records should be removed. That's just crazy. There was an asterik by Maris's record because he played in more games. More games.... Bonds, McGwire, and probably Sosa all took roids and NOTHING should happen to them? There should be consequences for cheating and 2 great ones should be striking out all their records and no inclusion into the Hall of Fame. The hard part will be proving that they took steroids. I think we have enough evidence on McGwire and Bonds. Sosa is the hard one. We don't hear ppl coming out of the woodwork about him. So even if they make it Sosa's record, sobeit, but to let McGwire and Bonds keep their records is letting cheaters win and you should never let that happen if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 I will take the side of Barry the jerk Bonds for once. Let's say for a minute that he was on the juice, does that make it any easier to hit a baseball? Barry was a home run hitter (not to the extent he is now) but steroids aren't going to increase your home run total. If they do it's probably by a number less than 5. The real cause of the home run boom is simple. BAD PITCHING. How many teams are in the league now? How many pitchers are in the major leagues that should be in the minors? TONS. That's why the home run totals have went up, not steroids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 I will take the side of Barry the jerk Bonds for once. Let's say for a minute that he was on the juice, does that make it any easier to hit a baseball? Barry was a home run hitter (not to the extent he is now) but steroids aren't going to increase your home run total. If they do it's probably by a number less than 5. The real cause of the home run boom is simple. BAD PITCHING. How many teams are in the league now? How many pitchers are in the major leagues that should be in the minors? TONS. That's why the home run totals have went up, not steroids. 293400[/snapback] Taking steroids isn't going make it easier to make solid contact with the ball, but being buffer allows you to drive the ball farther. Balls that used to be pop-ups become home runs and balls that used to be infield line drives become doubles. If steriods didn't make a difference, why do they even bother taking them? To look good? If being stronger in general doesn't help being a slugger, why do players spend so much time in the weight room now? Not to mention the fact that steriods don't just help you build muscle but also help you recover more quickly: something that is very crucial in keeping up your batting average and slugging in the summer months. Why would bad pitching be the root cause? The population in both the United States and in other baseball nations have increased significantly. The pool of quality pitchers has grown along with expansion. I don't see why the quality of hitters would increase but the quality of pitchers wouldn't. You could argue that bad pitching has helped not everyone, but the elite hitters, but that doesn't explain the random increases in powers coming from players like Brady Anderson in recent years. I can buy that pitching and smaller ballparks have contributed to the situation, but the sole cause? C'mon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 Along with a 162 game season, Maris did have the majority of people rooting against him along with scattered death threats. So he had some disadvantages as well. LMAO! That is so true. Yankee fans booing one of their very own!!! I laugh everytime I hear that their fans are the smartest in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 First, I think it's a given that steroids help with physical/athletic performance. If it didn't the players wouldn't be taking the stuff. It's not good for you and will shorten your lifespan, so why would they take it unless it helped them. 293383[/snapback] Sorry, didn't see this. Didn't mean to repeat you in my last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunTheBall Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 I think the Giants, Cowboys, and Redskins of the early 90's were all on 'roids and they should forfeit their super bowl wins. That means 4 SB's in a row for the Bills! Dynasty Baby!! RTB P.S. Every major sport has numerous athletes taking steroids and/or other performance enhancing drugs. I find it comical that people are acting shocked that MLB has stars who took steroids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 There was an asterik by Maris's record because he played in more games. More games.... Bonds, McGwire, and probably Sosa all took roids and NOTHING should happen to them? There should be consequences for cheating... 293383[/snapback] It should be noted that using Steroids was never outlawed by the MLB until recently. I'm not condoning them, but they didn't break any MLB rule. Neither did Maris. No records will ever be taken back. It's a moot point really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 I think the Giants, Cowboys, and Redskins of the early 90's were all on 'roids and they should forfeit their super bowl wins. That means 4 SB's in a row for the Bills! Dynasty Baby!! RTB P.S. Every major sport has numerous athletes taking steroids and/or other performance enhancing drugs. I find it comical that people are acting shocked that MLB has stars who took steroids. 293530[/snapback] The Olympics strips all medals if an athlete tests positive for steroids and other performance enhancers. DQing a whole team in a team sport, as you propose in your hyperbole, is unfair to the players who did not cheat on the team. It is true that the science for cheating often will be ahead of the science testing the cheaters but in the anti-doping agency both worldwide and in the United States keep an extra sample to retest if no methods are uncovered. This happened recently actually. In the end, the best we can do to eliminate this from sports is what we have to do. Some people will get away with it, but some people get away with murder and rape, but we punish them anyway. (I am not equating cheating with murder and rape.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 P.S. Every major sport has numerous athletes taking steroids and/or other performance enhancing drugs. I find it comical that people are acting shocked that MLB has stars who took steroids. 293530[/snapback] That's the real question. It's visually obvious that steroids still exist in the NFL moreso than any other sport (15 years ago there were 4 or 5 guys who weighed over 300...now there are 100s of 'em. Something isn't right there). Yet because the NFL has the best steroid policy (even if they don't test for HGH) the perception is that the league is clean. So, what is more important? To have the sport ACTUALLY clean, or just have it APPEAR that way? Baseball will clean up the roids for the public, but they will never be rid of it...so how will you ever know for sure if a guy is on the juice or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 It should be noted that using Steroids was never outlawed by the MLB until recently. I'm not condoning them, but they didn't break any MLB rule. Neither did Maris. No records will ever be taken back. It's a moot point really. 293543[/snapback] This is a very good point. This is something that we often forget. I think, therefore, that the only punishment these people will get for their past transgressions is to their public image. Baseball cannot punish players who break rules made ex post facto. Still, I still believe that we talk about accomplishments, calling the past 15-20 years the steroid era is a fair thing to do. It is obviously nothing official, but I think it is a reasonable thing that the media and the fans can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 (edited) That's the real question. It's visually obvious that steroids still exist in the NFL moreso than any other sport (15 years ago there were 4 or 5 guys who weighed over 300...now there are 100s of 'em. Something isn't right there). Yet because the NFL has the best steroid policy (even if they don't test for HGH) the perception is that the league is clean. So, what is more important? To have the sport ACTUALLY clean, or just have it APPEAR that way? Baseball will clean up the roids for the public, but they will never be rid of it...so how will you ever know for sure if a guy is on the juice or not? 293548[/snapback] It simply should be that all the professional leagues have to adhere to the testing and punishment that is done in the Olympics. Their system isn't perfect, but it is the best one that currently exists. Edited April 1, 2005 by JohnnyB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 It simply should be that all the professional leagues have to adhere to the testing and punishment that is done in the Olympics. Their system isn't perfect but is the past one that is currently around. 293553[/snapback] No arguments here. I just doubt it will happen...it would be nice though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts