Comments on: Say it isn’t so, Roger: steroids and baseball http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:47:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Natural Bodybuilding | Chloe Bishop http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-111898 Natural Bodybuilding | Chloe Bishop Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:32:02 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-111898 It's sad that some people / athletes find the need to resort to drugs / steroids, even though they are aware of the possible risks and potential consequences. Yes, using steroids may give one an edge, but one has to consider the long-term effects, which, in my opinion are just NOT worth it. Plus, it's completely unnecessary because there are ways to <a href="http://www.bodybuildingworkoutguidereviews.info/" rel="nofollow">build muscles naturally without the use of steroids or harmful supplements!</a> It’s sad that some people / athletes find the need to resort to drugs / steroids, even though they are aware of the possible risks and potential consequences.

Yes, using steroids may give one an edge, but one has to consider the long-term effects, which, in my opinion are just NOT worth it.

Plus, it’s completely unnecessary because there are ways to build muscles naturally without the use of steroids or harmful supplements!

]]> By: Ted http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-50567 Ted Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:37:56 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-50567 <strong>Ted...</strong> You weave a web of lies! Lies I say.... Ted…

You weave a web of lies! Lies I say….

]]> By: Mitch http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-50069 Mitch Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:02:54 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-50069 What I notice about the Mitchell Report is the rush to non-judgment. People in the street, sportscasters, talk show hosts, other ballplayers are falling all over themselves to say that the report is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. My question: so what? This isn't a court of law; that's not the standard. There are hundreds of ballplayers who didn't get named in the report. Some got missed, like the coward Mark McGwire and his partner in 1997, Sammy Sosa, but many more, probably most, didn't get missed because they didn't use steroids. I think the mere fact of being named, that these ballplayers put themselves in a position to be named is sufficient to doubt their denials. Where there's smoke, there's fire, in other words. But everybody seems to be in the mode of "I won't believe it if it isn't proven (and there's no proof I'll ever accept!)." Wow. Way to make a stand. Remember, baseball is private, despite its anti-trust exemption and the quasi-governmental nature of most stadia. It's made up of 30 or so private businesses. The only due process the owners have to follow is the collective bargaining agreement, not federal law, at least when it comes to banning players or doling out suspensions. So it's okay to think the players that were named may have actually used steroids. And it's okay to have an opinion about that, even if it's negative regarding the players. Many problems in this country come from an unwillingness to judge (or be judged), an unwillingness to expect standards of behavior, not just from athletes but from anyone. That said, I agree with Richard Aubrey. I don't care anymore. Team allegiance belongs in high school. I can't root for a bunch of guys who aren't from my state and have difficulty following the law. I'm just a spectator now. What I notice about the Mitchell Report is the rush to non-judgment. People in the street, sportscasters, talk show hosts, other ballplayers are falling all over themselves to say that the report is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. My question: so what? This isn’t a court of law; that’s not the standard. There are hundreds of ballplayers who didn’t get named in the report. Some got missed, like the coward Mark McGwire and his partner in 1997, Sammy Sosa, but many more, probably most, didn’t get missed because they didn’t use steroids. I think the mere fact of being named, that these ballplayers put themselves in a position to be named is sufficient to doubt their denials. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, in other words.

But everybody seems to be in the mode of “I won’t believe it if it isn’t proven (and there’s no proof I’ll ever accept!).” Wow. Way to make a stand. Remember, baseball is private, despite its anti-trust exemption and the quasi-governmental nature of most stadia. It’s made up of 30 or so private businesses. The only due process the owners have to follow is the collective bargaining agreement, not federal law, at least when it comes to banning players or doling out suspensions.

So it’s okay to think the players that were named may have actually used steroids. And it’s okay to have an opinion about that, even if it’s negative regarding the players. Many problems in this country come from an unwillingness to judge (or be judged), an unwillingness to expect standards of behavior, not just from athletes but from anyone.

That said, I agree with Richard Aubrey. I don’t care anymore. Team allegiance belongs in high school. I can’t root for a bunch of guys who aren’t from my state and have difficulty following the law. I’m just a spectator now.

]]> By: douglas http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49908 douglas Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:58:12 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49908 Justin: <i>"As LabRat said, most of these substances will do nothing for actual strength. Only Anabolic Steroids will actually do anything for actual strength (although the gains are marginal at most, and mainly just add bulk). Andro and HGH improve muscle repair and recovery times, which helps with the wear and tear of the season and age (not strength), but it’s much less of a big deal than most make it to be."</i> Uh, if you're a decent hitter, but you're leaving a dozen balls on the warning track a season, don't you think that 'marginal' strength increase will matter? What about those 18 balls that went <i>just</i> foul that might have gone fair with just the slightest improvement of bat speed? Oh yeah, it matters. What you consider 'marginal' is huge at the top levels of competitive sports. Think how hundredths or even thousandths of a second matter in many sport- same thing. That's not even taking into account how the faster repair and recovery will increase output as you play injured less- that will make for serious strength increases, as well as speed and even focus and rhythm. Justin: “As LabRat said, most of these substances will do nothing for actual strength. Only Anabolic Steroids will actually do anything for actual strength (although the gains are marginal at most, and mainly just add bulk). Andro and HGH improve muscle repair and recovery times, which helps with the wear and tear of the season and age (not strength), but it’s much less of a big deal than most make it to be.”

Uh, if you’re a decent hitter, but you’re leaving a dozen balls on the warning track a season, don’t you think that ‘marginal’ strength increase will matter? What about those 18 balls that went just foul that might have gone fair with just the slightest improvement of bat speed? Oh yeah, it matters. What you consider ‘marginal’ is huge at the top levels of competitive sports. Think how hundredths or even thousandths of a second matter in many sport- same thing. That’s not even taking into account how the faster repair and recovery will increase output as you play injured less- that will make for serious strength increases, as well as speed and even focus and rhythm.

]]> By: Donald Wolberg http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49830 Donald Wolberg Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:17:22 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49830 Tom is correct in part, but the fact is that the issue is also an internal to baseball matter with rules of conduct that have been violated. The sport is entiteld to hold players responsible for their actions separate from a public legal proceeding. It is no different from any other profession that polices itself and its practioners. In a court of law, where many of these people may end up because they may have lied to public officials under oath or taken illegal drugs punishable by law, rules of evidence and presumption of innocence would prevail. It is unfortunate; baseball is America's game and has been such for perhaps 120 years. The game has been abused and damaged in a way not seen since the Blacksox episode and much, much more than the Pete Rose episode harmed the sport. The only reaction that is appropriate will be a fierce banning of players and removal of records by these drug tainted individuals. Tom is correct in part, but the fact is that the issue is also an internal to baseball matter with rules of conduct that have been violated. The sport is entiteld to hold players responsible for their actions separate from a public legal proceeding. It is no different from any other profession that polices itself and its practioners. In a court of law, where many of these people may end up because they may have lied to public officials under oath or taken illegal drugs punishable by law, rules of evidence and presumption of innocence would prevail. It is unfortunate; baseball is America’s game and has been such for perhaps 120 years. The game has been abused and damaged in a way not seen since the Blacksox episode and much, much more than the Pete Rose episode harmed the sport. The only reaction that is appropriate will be a fierce banning of players and removal of records by these drug tainted individuals.

]]> By: Tom http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49787 Tom Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:57:28 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49787 I am more than slightly troubled by the public release of the Mitchell Report. It appears to be based largely on claims, even hearsay, by a few minions in supporting roles-trainers et al. It reminds me more than a little of the Duke lacrosse malignant misadministration of justice. The ballplayers named are deemed guilty, as the lacrosse team was, by most of today's posters because they were named as guilty by Mitchell. So they must be guilty, right? Like the lacrosse players, the ballplayers are all "rich, priviledged (maybe not all white, though) guys". But due process, where is that? How can they prove their innocence, given they might, just might, be innocent? Beware of schadenfreude. I am more than slightly troubled by the public release of the Mitchell Report. It appears to be based largely on claims, even hearsay, by a few minions in supporting roles-trainers et al. It reminds me more than a little of the Duke lacrosse malignant misadministration of justice. The ballplayers named are deemed guilty, as the lacrosse team was, by most of today’s posters because they were named as guilty by Mitchell. So they must be guilty, right? Like the lacrosse players, the ballplayers are all “rich, priviledged (maybe not all white, though) guys”. But due process, where is that? How can they prove their innocence, given they might, just might, be innocent?
Beware of schadenfreude.

]]> By: Donald Wolberg http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49736 Donald Wolberg Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:34:17 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49736 A much younger DeNiro was also was the co-star of "Beat the Drum Slowly," about a so-so catcher soon to die and the players, coaches and managers who responded to him all within the context of the "game" and what it meant. This newest sports corruption is a long way from Heaven in Iowa, Shoeless Joe and "Field of Dreams." The fist of justice, although liargely misplaced, cam down hard on Shoeless Joe and the Blacksox for even the appearance of corruption. Babe Ruth was fined for overdoing hotdogs and beer and Hank Aaron was a real hero. The use of drugs to get beefier is a s corrupt as Pete Rose's gambling. The players should be banned from the sport--Shoeless Joe was tossed for life for $250. Their records are meaningless unless compared to other drug filled bodies and are meaningless in the world of "normal" atheletes. A much younger DeNiro was also was the co-star of “Beat the Drum Slowly,” about a so-so catcher soon to die and the players, coaches and managers who responded to him all within the context of the “game” and what it meant. This newest sports corruption is a long way from Heaven in Iowa, Shoeless Joe and “Field of Dreams.” The fist of justice, although liargely misplaced, cam down hard on Shoeless Joe and the Blacksox for even the appearance of corruption. Babe Ruth was fined for overdoing hotdogs and beer and Hank Aaron was a real hero. The use of drugs to get beefier is a s corrupt as Pete Rose’s gambling. The players should be banned from the sport–Shoeless Joe was tossed for life for $250. Their records are meaningless unless compared to other drug filled bodies and are meaningless in the world of “normal” atheletes.

]]> By: Synova http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49711 Synova Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:56:25 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49711 tatter, my post was all about regulation and having it and the right of many different groups to regulate... just not the government. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, what happens now isn't that owners tell players they have to use steroids. If it were that straightforward and honest the situation I described would be more probable. It's regulated NOW isn't it? Steroids are illegal NOW aren't they? So how can it be that regulation would solve the problem. Players are told, "You can't take steroids" but they know that others do take them and they need to compete, but if they get caught they get destroyed so there is no honest choosing, there is no honest "natural baseball" for which players and fans and owners can chose "with their feet" or "enhanced baseball" where players publicly use enhancements and players and fans and owners can prefer if they chose. I think that's what probably happened to natural bodybuilding. In order to have it, there needed to be a public and honest acknowledgment that the "other" competitions were dominated by *illegal* drugs. And who's going to do that? tatter, my post was all about regulation and having it and the right of many different groups to regulate… just not the government.

Unless I’m sorely mistaken, what happens now isn’t that owners tell players they have to use steroids. If it were that straightforward and honest the situation I described would be more probable. It’s regulated NOW isn’t it? Steroids are illegal NOW aren’t they?

So how can it be that regulation would solve the problem.

Players are told, “You can’t take steroids” but they know that others do take them and they need to compete, but if they get caught they get destroyed so there is no honest choosing, there is no honest “natural baseball” for which players and fans and owners can chose “with their feet” or “enhanced baseball” where players publicly use enhancements and players and fans and owners can prefer if they chose.

I think that’s what probably happened to natural bodybuilding. In order to have it, there needed to be a public and honest acknowledgment that the “other” competitions were dominated by *illegal* drugs. And who’s going to do that?

]]> By: Richard Aubrey http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49699 Richard Aubrey Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:35:49 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49699 Robert DeNiro starred in a movie with Wesley Snipes about baseball and fans. It was called "The Fan", for some reason. DeNiro's character was obsessed with Snipes' character's chances at an MLB record. So much so that he knifed the other guy who had a shot. At one point, DeNiro's character called in to a sports talk show. Honestly, he sounded no different than the jillions of others who call in to sports talk shows. Why the announcer picked up on him as being a nutcase is beyond me. I see guys in the breakroom with their heads in the sports section as if they're cramming for a final. Sports are fun, if you play them, or to watch if have played them. This mania for sports is beyond me. There's so much money that abuse is guaranteed. What the hell difference does it make? The only thing I can think of is that rooting for a team is low-risk. The fun of winning, if quantified, might max out at, say, ten. But losing is only say, a negative five. So, all in all, everybody nets out ahead. Still, BFD, say I. I have a distant relative who was pitching AAA ball until his shoulder gave out. That was despite what was known as the Tommy John surgery where a tendon is taken from someplace and put into the shoulder for extra durability. I'm glad--and perhaps he is--that he is no longer facing the choice of juice or lose. Robert DeNiro starred in a movie with Wesley Snipes about baseball and fans. It was called “The Fan”, for some reason.
DeNiro’s character was obsessed with Snipes’ character’s chances at an MLB record. So much so that he knifed the other guy who had a shot.
At one point, DeNiro’s character called in to a sports talk show. Honestly, he sounded no different than the jillions of others who call in to sports talk shows. Why the announcer picked up on him as being a nutcase is beyond me.
I see guys in the breakroom with their heads in the sports section as if they’re cramming for a final.

Sports are fun, if you play them, or to watch if have played them.

This mania for sports is beyond me. There’s so much money that abuse is guaranteed. What the hell difference does it make?

The only thing I can think of is that rooting for a team is low-risk. The fun of winning, if quantified, might max out at, say, ten. But losing is only say, a negative five. So, all in all, everybody nets out ahead.

Still, BFD, say I.

I have a distant relative who was pitching AAA ball until his shoulder gave out. That was despite what was known as the Tommy John surgery where a tendon is taken from someplace and put into the shoulder for extra durability. I’m glad–and perhaps he is–that he is no longer facing the choice of juice or lose.

]]> By: Tatterdemalian http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49694 Tatterdemalian Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:46:15 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/13/say-it-isnt-so-roger-steroids-and-baseball/#comment-49694 "A libertarian would say that athletes have the right to chose, team management has a right to chose, leagues have a right to chose, and consumers (the spectators and fans) have a right to chose." Unfortunately, this is a situation where the "right to chose" means you get a choice between juicing and getting fired and replaced with a player who juices. "We don't require you to mess yourself up with steroids, but it is the only way you'll get to keep your job." Situations like this provide yet more examples why libertarianism must be balanced with regulation. “A libertarian would say that athletes have the right to chose, team management has a right to chose, leagues have a right to chose, and consumers (the spectators and fans) have a right to chose.”

Unfortunately, this is a situation where the “right to chose” means you get a choice between juicing and getting fired and replaced with a player who juices. “We don’t require you to mess yourself up with steroids, but it is the only way you’ll get to keep your job.” Situations like this provide yet more examples why libertarianism must be balanced with regulation.

]]>