FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from

Monday, November 20, 2006

Chat Tomorrow

Just a reminder that there is a chat scheduled with yours truly on BP tomorrow at 11AM Mountain Time/1 PM Eastern. It works better for me if you can get your questions in early. See you then.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Dan, ( this is " Class ") Since I didn't get to respond to you on BP, I'll respond here.

" Question = Loaded but I'll take a stab at it. Yes, I've bashed Bonds because of his cheating and obviously in my humble opinion deservedly so. What he did was morally wrong and undermines the core product that baseball is selling - fair competition. Some have argued that Pete Rose's gambling was a much worse sin but I don't buy that. Both PEDs and the influence of gambling make it so the fan can't trust what he sees and therefore should be treated the same. What makes Bonds' (and McGwire's if you think his "I'm not here to talk about the past" mantra was a tacit admission) sins worse from a baseball perspective (not a moral one) is that they have tainted the most visible numbers in the game, and ones that will always therefore stain the game. "

Dan, I think you misunderstand the fear in Gambling. In gambling, the fear is that the results of the game have been sold to a third-party, and that there is no legitimacy to the on-field results. That the very spirit of competition doesn't exist any more. The intent of the gambler is to profit in a way unrelated to competition.

Cheating is part of the spirit of competition. An ugly part, but it's reality. Even little kids learn about the "quick count" to start a race with a one step headstart. PED-abuse is a form to gain a competitive advantage. The intent is to be better at the sport.

PEDs have the potential to hurt other players (putting them in a cheat-to-compete mode) and observers who follow the examples of the role-model players. Gambling has the potential to destroy the legitimacy of the entire sport.

Moreover, the original punishment for using steroids when Bonds or Mcgwire possibly used steroids was a referral to counseling and if counseling was refused a short suspension. This right here clearly indicates that in 1991, when the drugs were banned, health was the sole issue - It wasn't until many years later where cheating became an issue. Now, ask yourself, why was gambling banned, and what is the immediate penalty?

" But your point is about other forms of cheating and in regards to amphetamines specifically, I don't think they enhance performance to the same degree but they do enable and so for the sake of argument I'll grant your premise. To the extent that these other forms of cheating break either the rules of the game or the laws of the country then yes, I hold them in the same regard from a moral perspective. Do all of them have the same impact on baseball as an institution or on its records? Obviously no, and so from that perspective some of them are less serious in the same way that while we explain to our kids that a sin is a sin we also explain that some sins have greater impacts than others. "

Well dan, you don't have to take my word for it, but you should take Anti-Doping expert Gary Wadler's word.

" To many anti-doping experts, as well as players, there is no question that amphetamines enhance performance. A landmark 1960 study at Harvard University found that among swimmers, throwers and runners given amphetamines, 75% of the athletes showed improvement in their performances.

"Yes, they actually work," Wadler said. "

And another...
" Gary Wadler, a board member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and a professor of medicine at New York University, has argued that amphetamines may be more performance-enhancing than steroids, and habitual use of amphetamines can result in addiction. They also can lead to diminished appetite and sleeplessness. "

There's really no arguement on whether or not Amphetamines enhance an athlete's performance. They clearly do. Now if you want to argue degree, then I'd agree with you. Steroids are " better " due to the fact that to reap from it's benefits it takes hardwork, where as Greenies are just popping a pill. Steroids also provide better long term effects.

But to deny that Greenies enhance performance is flat out wrong, and those like Mike Schmidt and or Hank Aaron ( if he used more than he said he did) most likely benefitted from these drugs. And the actual impact of these drugs will still not be known that well, as with steroids, because like steroids, there are undetectable Amphetamines.
" Dr. Gary Wadler of the World Anti-Doping Agency says undetectable amphetamines are already available "

And statistically, an arguenent could also be made that the banning of doctored pitches had a larger effect on the numbers then the banning of steroids.

I would make the post myself, but it would take up too much space - So here is a link to a poster on the redszone forum who makes a fantastic case.

Any way dan, your entitled to your own opinions, if you want to view steroids as the equivalent of gambling, and as " much worse " than Ampehatmines, doctored pitches, corked bats, etc, be my guest.

And to address one more point - You say that Bonds knew it was " cheating " because he never went public with it - Well dan, how many people go public about using illegal drugs ?

Do you think players who smoke pot brag about it ?

Did Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Mike Schmidt brag about using amphetamines during their majorleague careers ?

The only drug cheat I know that brags about it is Jose Canseco - And he didn't admit to it until he retired.