Do you care if Baseball players are juiced?

**Kane Knight** · 03-05-2004, 08:36 PM

Poll coming...

**Kane Knight** · 03-05-2004, 08:38 PM

I ask because some people seem to care, and some seem not to care at all...

What's your opinion, and why?

Do you think others want to see a clean game, or home run frenzies?

**Jesus Shuttlesworth** · 03-05-2004, 08:41 PM

I dunno, I mean I like seeing homeruns and shit but I dont think juicin' should be allowed personal. Kinda puts a blackmark on the game, and the records these guys are breaking.

**Jesus Shuttlesworth** · 03-05-2004, 08:42 PM

but for the health reasons I really don't care, if somebody wants to hurt their body by taking 'roids then its up to them

03-05-2004, 09:10 PM

Her's the thing. Steroids aren't a new thing. They've been available since forever. What I'm saying is why is it that we only look at todays athelete as a roid user and not someone say from the 70's.
I'd rather the league was balanced, maybe they should make it mandatory that steriods be used.

03-05-2004, 09:11 PM

I don't really give a shit. But like sTiMa said, It really puts a bad mark on the records, especially Bonds' 73 homers. And if Bonds ever breaks Aaron's mark there is going to be a lot of scrutiny there too.

**Splaya** · 03-05-2004, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loose Cannon

I don't really give a shit. But like sTiMa said, It really puts a bad mark on the records, especially Bonds' 73 homers. And if Bonds ever breaks Aaron's mark there is going to be a lot of scrutiny there too.

Thing is cannon is that Bonds is going to break the record. He's only like 35 or 36 and he has at least 4-6 more years left in him with only like 120 homers left (if that). I say bring on the scrutiny because he is going to do it.

**Krow** · 03-05-2004, 10:57 PM

Neither Bonds nor McGwire would've broken the season record if the balls weren't "juiced" via reconfiguration a few years back. To regain fan attendance after the strike, some say. So steroids are a moot point.

**Shaggy** · 03-11-2004, 02:21 PM

I would have to say no to using steriods. It wouldnt be good cause you know that there would be a few players who would be against it and you cant really compare them to the steriod users. The ones who dont take it and do good probably wont be talked about and the ones that do and do really good because of it will all the attention. I dont care much for millions of home runs hit. yes they are fun to watch and get you all excited but it should be fair to all players. Just like little league. They never hit homeruns and then when the day came for that person to finally hit one the whole team was excited and over joyed. That would be great for the sport. Sure it wouldnt be as interesting as it was before but it would be more challenging.

**Ol Dirty Dastard** · 03-11-2004, 06:36 PM

Hero, do you honestly think Roger Maris juiced?

**ct2k** · 03-11-2004, 06:41 PM

Yes i mind if some take them and some don't, that's not equal.

**VonErich Lives** · 03-11-2004, 06:53 PM

I'm against it... I think it being illegal has something to do with it.

Personally, someone wants to kill themselves I could careless, but roid are illegal.

going to be interesting, congress is once again threatining to pull the anti-trust for baseball if they don't do something about Roids.

**DegenerationY** · 03-11-2004, 07:16 PM

Pretty much what Stima said.

Although I do wonder if 'roids went as far back as Ruth, et al.

Then no records would be tainted, seeing as how the originals would be tainted to begin with.

**VonErich Lives** · 03-11-2004, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DegenerationY

Pretty much what Stima said.

Although I do wonder if 'roids went as far back as Ruth, et al.

Then no records would be tainted, seeing as how the originals would be tainted to begin with.

The only substance ruth was on, was booze.

**Guest #1** · 03-11-2004, 07:25 PM

On one view, I can see 'roids as a continuation of development in sports; such as new training techniques or equipment improvements. There has been alot of changes in the tools and preparation that athletes have to work with in innovating and evolving the game. I've old newspaper articles where people of the time were critical of Babe Ruth's record because it came at a time when the balls have been changed, so this type of consideration has been happening over a long period of time.

That said, I am against 'roids and other performance enhancing drugs and here is why. What sports is, in its essence is a challenge of human condition. We try to see who is fastest, strongest, which team cooperates best, and so on. To what extent can we adapt a body beyond what they were genetically limited to and still feel we are watching a human challenge. It becomes a slippery slope, and probably one we already are sliding down. As an entertainment, such is fine, but sports does go beyond that. It is an accomplishment of an entire group of people. There are (to my estimation) only three things that can really bring a population together to some extent; war, tragedy and sports - only one is positive. I watched the DVD of Pride of the Yankees the other day, and that kind of sentiment has been taken from sports. If one can look at the movies and cultural tales of this generation, I doubt it would be as "golden" as earlier sport events even with the records falling as they are. 'Roids are a short-term gain against long-term payback, and that type of win-at-all-cost attitude is a major problem with sports today, IMO.

**Adder** · 03-11-2004, 07:30 PM

Give them all 'roids. Entertain me. The Romans got to watch Christians eaten alive by lions, the least they can do is give me juiced up baseball players.

03-11-2004, 07:34 PM

About the baseball records, you guys have to understand that the game back then was much different then the game today. Putting steroids aside for a sec, back in the deadball era, (1900-1920) a lot of pitching records were set that still exist today. Take Cy Young's 511 victories, Ed Walsh's 1.82 career ERA, Jack Chesbro's 41 Wins in a Single Season, Walter Johnson's 110 Shutouts etc. Now these records were not just because pitchers usually pitched nine inings and worked on a 4 man rotation, but also because pitchers were aloud to put all kinds of crap on the ball, the same ball was used all game, unless it got lost, and the mound was closer.

Now go back to what I said about pitchers putting all kinds of crap on the ball. Back in those days, pitchers were A loud to rub mud, dirt, vaseline, tobacco, and whatever else on the ball. You name it, it was probably rubbed on the ball at one point or another. So what point am I trying to prove here. Well what I'm saying is that the records have always been tainted in one way or another. Pitchers had an advantage back that they don't have today. And Pitchers still kept using those methods (Gaylord Perry with Vaseline) even when they became illegal to get an advantage over the batter. So it's hard to say that the Homerun records could be tainted because of steroids, because in reality, almost all the records all tainted in one way or another.

**mitch_h** · 03-11-2004, 11:29 PM

I kinda wonder if roids help players psychologically more than they do physically.

**Jesus Shuttlesworth** · 03-12-2004, 12:05 AM

thats a good point mitch_h I mean..Bonds jacks like 500 feet blasts...how many feet does 'roids really add?

**mitch_h** · 03-12-2004, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sTiMa34

thats a good point mitch_h I mean..Bonds jacks like 500 feet blasts...how many feet does 'roids really add?

Yea, I mean the hardest thing to do in all of sports is to hit a baseball. Roids or not you have to swing the bat a certain way and hit a ball at a certain spot that is travelling over 90 mph. How much do roids help? Is it just a confidence thing. I dunno it's just something I kinda think about.

03-12-2004, 10:54 PM

I'm not saying anyone was or is on juice. I'm just saying it's not a new thing.

**VonErich Lives** · 03-13-2004, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YOUR Hero

I'm not saying anyone was or is on juice. I'm just saying it's not a new thing.

How far back do you define "new"?

10yrs? 20yrs? 50yrs?

View Poll Results: Do you care about steroid use in Baseball?
Yes	12	66.67%
No	4	22.22%
No opinion	2	11.11%
Voters: 18. You must log in or register to vote on this poll.

03-11-2004, 02:21 PM	#9
Shaggy Yipee Kai Yay!!! Posts: 5,705	I would have to say no to using steriods. It wouldnt be good cause you know that there would be a few players who would be against it and you cant really compare them to the steriod users. The ones who dont take it and do good probably wont be talked about and the ones that do and do really good because of it will all the attention. I dont care much for millions of home runs hit. yes they are fun to watch and get you all excited but it should be fair to all players. Just like little league. They never hit homeruns and then when the day came for that person to finally hit one the whole team was excited and over joyed. That would be great for the sport. Sure it wouldnt be as interesting as it was before but it would be more challenging. EDGE OWNS ALL KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!!

03-05-2004, 08:36 PM	#1
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	Do you care if Baseball players are juiced? Poll coming... �There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old�s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.� --John Rogers

03-05-2004, 08:38 PM	#2
Kane Knight Ron Paul 4 EVA Posts: 152,467	I ask because some people seem to care, and some seem not to care at all... What's your opinion, and why? Do you think others want to see a clean game, or home run frenzies?

03-05-2004, 08:41 PM	#3
Jesus Shuttlesworth Posts: 42,765	I dunno, I mean I like seeing homeruns and shit but I dont think juicin' should be allowed personal. Kinda puts a blackmark on the game, and the records these guys are breaking.

03-05-2004, 08:42 PM	#4
Jesus Shuttlesworth Posts: 42,765	but for the health reasons I really don't care, if somebody wants to hurt their body by taking 'roids then its up to them

03-05-2004, 09:10 PM	#5
YOUR Hero Guest Posts: n/a	Her's the thing. Steroids aren't a new thing. They've been available since forever. What I'm saying is why is it that we only look at todays athelete as a roid user and not someone say from the 70's. I'd rather the league was balanced, maybe they should make it mandatory that steriods be used.

03-05-2004, 09:11 PM	#6
Loose Cannon Guest Posts: n/a	I don't really give a shit. But like sTiMa said, It really puts a bad mark on the records, especially Bonds' 73 homers. And if Bonds ever breaks Aaron's mark there is going to be a lot of scrutiny there too.

03-05-2004, 10:57 PM	#8
Krow The Enigma Posts: 939	Neither Bonds nor McGwire would've broken the season record if the balls weren't "juiced" via reconfiguration a few years back. To regain fan attendance after the strike, some say. So steroids are a moot point.

03-11-2004, 06:36 PM	#10
Ol Dirty Dastard boop/bop/beep Posts: 38,430	Hero, do you honestly think Roger Maris juiced?

03-11-2004, 06:41 PM	#11
ct2k Triple A Posts: 48,551	Yes i mind if some take them and some don't, that's not equal.

03-11-2004, 06:53 PM	#12
VonErich Lives WTF do you want? Posts: 14,760	I'm against it... I think it being illegal has something to do with it. Personally, someone wants to kill themselves I could careless, but roid are illegal. going to be interesting, congress is once again threatining to pull the anti-trust for baseball if they don't do something about Roids.

03-11-2004, 07:16 PM	#13
DegenerationY WARRIORS Posts: 9,414	Pretty much what Stima said. Although I do wonder if 'roids went as far back as Ruth, et al. Then no records would be tainted, seeing as how the originals would be tainted to begin with.

03-11-2004, 07:25 PM	#15
Guest #1 Just Hangin' Posts: 336	On one view, I can see 'roids as a continuation of development in sports; such as new training techniques or equipment improvements. There has been alot of changes in the tools and preparation that athletes have to work with in innovating and evolving the game. I've old newspaper articles where people of the time were critical of Babe Ruth's record because it came at a time when the balls have been changed, so this type of consideration has been happening over a long period of time. That said, I am against 'roids and other performance enhancing drugs and here is why. What sports is, in its essence is a challenge of human condition. We try to see who is fastest, strongest, which team cooperates best, and so on. To what extent can we adapt a body beyond what they were genetically limited to and still feel we are watching a human challenge. It becomes a slippery slope, and probably one we already are sliding down. As an entertainment, such is fine, but sports does go beyond that. It is an accomplishment of an entire group of people. There are (to my estimation) only three things that can really bring a population together to some extent; war, tragedy and sports - only one is positive. I watched the DVD of Pride of the Yankees the other day, and that kind of sentiment has been taken from sports. If one can look at the movies and cultural tales of this generation, I doubt it would be as "golden" as earlier sport events even with the records falling as they are. 'Roids are a short-term gain against long-term payback, and that type of win-at-all-cost attitude is a major problem with sports today, IMO.

03-11-2004, 07:30 PM	#16
Adder A.W.O.L. Posts: 5,862	Give them all 'roids. Entertain me. The Romans got to watch Christians eaten alive by lions, the least they can do is give me juiced up baseball players.

03-11-2004, 07:34 PM	#17
Loose Cannon Guest Posts: n/a	About the baseball records, you guys have to understand that the game back then was much different then the game today. Putting steroids aside for a sec, back in the deadball era, (1900-1920) a lot of pitching records were set that still exist today. Take Cy Young's 511 victories, Ed Walsh's 1.82 career ERA, Jack Chesbro's 41 Wins in a Single Season, Walter Johnson's 110 Shutouts etc. Now these records were not just because pitchers usually pitched nine inings and worked on a 4 man rotation, but also because pitchers were aloud to put all kinds of crap on the ball, the same ball was used all game, unless it got lost, and the mound was closer. Now go back to what I said about pitchers putting all kinds of crap on the ball. Back in those days, pitchers were A loud to rub mud, dirt, vaseline, tobacco, and whatever else on the ball. You name it, it was probably rubbed on the ball at one point or another. So what point am I trying to prove here. Well what I'm saying is that the records have always been tainted in one way or another. Pitchers had an advantage back that they don't have today. And Pitchers still kept using those methods (Gaylord Perry with Vaseline) even when they became illegal to get an advantage over the batter. So it's hard to say that the Homerun records could be tainted because of steroids, because in reality, almost all the records all tainted in one way or another.

03-11-2004, 11:29 PM	#18
mitch_h Posts: 6,727	I kinda wonder if roids help players psychologically more than they do physically.

03-12-2004, 12:05 AM	#19
Jesus Shuttlesworth Posts: 42,765	thats a good point mitch_h I mean..Bonds jacks like 500 feet blasts...how many feet does 'roids really add?

03-12-2004, 10:54 PM	#21
YOUR Hero Guest Posts: n/a	I'm not saying anyone was or is on juice. I'm just saying it's not a new thing.