The W
Views: 100269930
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
31.10.14 0851
The W - Baseball - Et tu, Ortiz? (Page 2)
This thread has 5 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.06
Pages: Prev 1 2
(289 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (26 total)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 80 days
Last activity: 80 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.97
    Originally posted by i before e
    Does it taint their titles? Hell yes. As long as one single player from any of the teams they faced during those playoffs were clean, then the Sox had an unfair advantage (aside from the rumored sign stealing and such Patriots like shenanigans that I am sure happened).


Well this just doesn't make any sense at all. At least two Red Sox players were on illegal substances, but that doesn't mean the whole team was. So presumably the Red Sox are just as likely as any other team to have "one single player" who was clean. If a team was full of roided-up meatheads and had one clean player, that team is automatically more deserving of something than the Red Sox?


    The thing that makes me sickest of all is watching grown men being (or acting) shocked and hurt that a baseball player would do such a thing and defile the beloved sport of baseball by using PEDs. Grow up! If you don't believe every athlete in every sport is looking for a way to gain an edge over their fellow athletes you are truly an immature fool. These are the same idiots who cant grasp the concept that players and staff from rival teams get along and do business off the field. Its not for the child like concepts like pursuit of a title or personal glory that these players are juicing. Its simply because the difference between hitting, say, 20 HR and 25 home runs in a season is probably about 10 million dollars. Cheating = $$$ and as long as that's the case, players will always cheat.


But...you just seemed to imply that it was such a non-issue that the Red Sox having two confirmed players on whatever substances automatically gave them an unfair advantage over any team that had "one single player" who wasn't on such substances.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 1.8.09 1510)
i before e
Chorizo








Since: 17.10.03

Since last post: 1408 days
Last activity: 168 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.98
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by i before e
      Does it taint their titles? Hell yes. As long as one single player from any of the teams they faced during those playoffs were clean, then the Sox had an unfair advantage (aside from the rumored sign stealing and such Patriots like shenanigans that I am sure happened).


    Well this just doesn't make any sense at all. At least two Red Sox players were on illegal substances, but that doesn't mean the whole team was. So presumably the Red Sox are just as likely as any other team to have "one single player" who was clean. If a team was full of roided-up meatheads and had one clean player, that team is automatically more deserving of something than the Red Sox?


      The thing that makes me sickest of all is watching grown men being (or acting) shocked and hurt that a baseball player would do such a thing and defile the beloved sport of baseball by using PEDs. Grow up! If you don't believe every athlete in every sport is looking for a way to gain an edge over their fellow athletes you are truly an immature fool. These are the same idiots who cant grasp the concept that players and staff from rival teams get along and do business off the field. Its not for the child like concepts like pursuit of a title or personal glory that these players are juicing. Its simply because the difference between hitting, say, 20 HR and 25 home runs in a season is probably about 10 million dollars. Cheating = $$$ and as long as that's the case, players will always cheat.


    But...you just seemed to imply that it was such a non-issue that the Red Sox having two confirmed players on whatever substances automatically gave them an unfair advantage over any team that had "one single player" who wasn't on such substances.

    (edited by TheBucsFan on 1.8.09 1510)


Cheating is cheating. If Steroids were legal, then the playing field is level. If its not, then honest players get penalized for NOT cheating. Even if Manny and Ortiz were the only two players on the team using, that still spoils it for the rest of the team. Look, I am not condoning the cheating. The word cheating implies a wrong-doing. However, to be surprised by any names that come out is just naive. I am not picking on just the Red Sox. This goes for any WS champs in the past decade or even two. If you can prove that(as ridiculous as this sounds) either an equal number of players in any given match up were cheating, or EVERY one was cheating, then you won unfairly and thus your title is tainted. If we found out that a player hit a game winning HR with a corked bat, there'd be a major investigation an the opposing team would probably be disqualified. That is just one players actions determining a teams fate. The only difference here is the ball or the bat is not juiced, its the players. Should they overturn the championship wins for these "named" players teams? Absolutely not. But it does taint their victory as long as the other side had clean players.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 80 days
Last activity: 80 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.91
    Originally posted by i before e
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
        Originally posted by i before e
        Does it taint their titles? Hell yes. As long as one single player from any of the teams they faced during those playoffs were clean, then the Sox had an unfair advantage (aside from the rumored sign stealing and such Patriots like shenanigans that I am sure happened).


      Well this just doesn't make any sense at all. At least two Red Sox players were on illegal substances, but that doesn't mean the whole team was. So presumably the Red Sox are just as likely as any other team to have "one single player" who was clean. If a team was full of roided-up meatheads and had one clean player, that team is automatically more deserving of something than the Red Sox?


        The thing that makes me sickest of all is watching grown men being (or acting) shocked and hurt that a baseball player would do such a thing and defile the beloved sport of baseball by using PEDs. Grow up! If you don't believe every athlete in every sport is looking for a way to gain an edge over their fellow athletes you are truly an immature fool. These are the same idiots who cant grasp the concept that players and staff from rival teams get along and do business off the field. Its not for the child like concepts like pursuit of a title or personal glory that these players are juicing. Its simply because the difference between hitting, say, 20 HR and 25 home runs in a season is probably about 10 million dollars. Cheating = $$$ and as long as that's the case, players will always cheat.


      But...you just seemed to imply that it was such a non-issue that the Red Sox having two confirmed players on whatever substances automatically gave them an unfair advantage over any team that had "one single player" who wasn't on such substances.

      (edited by TheBucsFan on 1.8.09 1510)


    Cheating is cheating. If Steroids were legal, then the playing field is level. If its not, then honest players get penalized for NOT cheating. Even if Manny and Ortiz were the only two players on the team using, that still spoils it for the rest of the team. Look, I am not condoning the cheating. The word cheating implies a wrong-doing. However, to be surprised by any names that come out is just naive. I am not picking on just the Red Sox. This goes for any WS champs in the past decade or even two. If you can prove that(as ridiculous as this sounds) either an equal number of players in any given match up were cheating, or EVERY one was cheating, then you won unfairly and thus your title is tainted. If we found out that a player hit a game winning HR with a corked bat, there'd be a major investigation an the opposing team would probably be disqualified. That is just one players actions determining a teams fate. The only difference here is the ball or the bat is not juiced, its the players. Should they overturn the championship wins for these "named" players teams? Absolutely not. But it does taint their victory as long as the other side had clean players.


What makes you so sure the Red Sox don't have any clean players? Or fewer clean players than whatever hypothetical opponent they were playing? That's the assumption you're making that doesn't make any sense.

It's stupid to reflect and try and diminish achievements based on this. If any one thing is becoming clear, it's that it is/was much, much more than just a handful of players who are/were doing this. If you believe the Red Sox were the only team with two players taking illegal substances in 2003, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm also entitled to my opinion, and my opinion is that you're naive.

The playing field WAS level in that, it seems, damn near everybody was doing it. To arbitrarily say the Red Sox don't deserve their World Series titles because of it is ridiculous. If you still believe Ryan Howard, Albert Pujols, Carlos Beltran, Carlos Delgado, or whatever other good hitter from the past decade you want to name has been clean their entire career, just because they've never been caught (that we know of), then I don't know what else to say.

And then, of course, there's the fact that this list is from testing conducted in 2003, and the Red Sox didn't win their first title until 2004. And they didn't win their second until 2007. If your attitude is "innocent until tested positive," wouldn't we need a David Ortiz test result from one of THOSE years before we start taking away World Series crowns? Considering mandatory random testing didn't start until 2004, surely that's an important distinction, in your reality.
i before e
Chorizo








Since: 17.10.03

Since last post: 1408 days
Last activity: 168 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.98
Well that's what hurts the most is that guys I like like Pujols, even if they turn out clean are always going to have that asterisk over their head especially if they accomplish great things. I don't think you are understanding my point. Clearly there is a list of 150(?) players that tested positive for steroids. I feel most teams had most players using something since the late 90's and this entire decade of course probably matches Canseco's 95% number to the man.
My writing isnt what it used to be, but I didnt mean to say the Sox (Red) had any more or less steroid users than any other team. I just am saying clearly they cheated (if one considers illegal performance enhancing drug use cheating) and therefore their ill gotten title, like any other team who used an won is somewhat tainted. Its probably me, I am the type of guy people hate to play board games with, as I always strictly enforce the rules.. I am kind of s stickler that way. I believe in fairness and a level playing field when it comes to judging the quality of an athlete or a team. If that makes me naive then so be it. A guy like Ken Griffey Jr., who may actually be clean would have been the best player of his generation had his peers also been clean, and that irks me somewhat as well. I guess thats naive too.

I think that its stupid to ignore things like this and let bygones by bygones. You cant change history, but lets not pretend that the integrity of the champions of the steroid era compare to the integrity of the champions from years prior. Cheating is a part of sports, I know, but when it happens and is caught, its idiotic to pretend it didnt happen and brush it under the rug.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.54
You wanted the best, you got... Out of Context Quote of the Week.

"But overall, yes Hollywood has finally fallen in love with the wang." (Torchslasher)


    Originally posted by i before e
    Cheating is cheating. If Steroids were legal, then the playing field is level. If its not, then honest players get penalized for NOT cheating. Even if Manny and Ortiz were the only two players on the team using, that still spoils it for the rest of the team. Look, I am not condoning the cheating. The word cheating implies a wrong-doing. However, to be surprised by any names that come out is just naive. I am not picking on just the Red Sox. This goes for any WS champs in the past decade or even two. If you can prove that(as ridiculous as this sounds) either an equal number of players in any given match up were cheating, or EVERY one was cheating, then you won unfairly and thus your title is tainted. If we found out that a player hit a game winning HR with a corked bat, there'd be a major investigation an the opposing team would probably be disqualified. That is just one players actions determining a teams fate. The only difference here is the ball or the bat is not juiced, its the players. Should they overturn the championship wins for these "named" players teams? Absolutely not. But it does taint their victory as long as the other side had clean players.


Then by that logic, can we just declare every title since the, oh, strike to be tainted? Everyone in that era was probably either on PED's or played alongside someone who was juicing. How many players were on amphetamines before those got banned? So I'm not sure you could draw the line at just equal numbers, considering Manny Ramirez and Manny Alexander aren't exactly on the same level.

But players great and less-so were juicing. See: List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report by team (en.wikipedia.org); all 30 teams are on the list, and the two teams with the fewest players (Twins and White Sox) had four each. Admittedly, this isn't the greatest, most definitive resource; just because a player was on this list, doesn't mean they were juicing at the time. The fact is every team, to some degree, probably benefited from players on PED's. So if you're going to say the Red Sox were tainted, the other 29 teams are as well.

...except the Nationals and Pirates, who just can't seem to get the right steroids.



i before e
Chorizo








Since: 17.10.03

Since last post: 1408 days
Last activity: 168 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.98
    Originally posted by drjayphd
      Originally posted by i before e
      Cheating is cheating. If Steroids were legal, then the playing field is level. If its not, then honest players get penalized for NOT cheating. Even if Manny and Ortiz were the only two players on the team using, that still spoils it for the rest of the team. Look, I am not condoning the cheating. The word cheating implies a wrong-doing. However, to be surprised by any names that come out is just naive. I am not picking on just the Red Sox. This goes for any WS champs in the past decade or even two. If you can prove that(as ridiculous as this sounds) either an equal number of players in any given match up were cheating, or EVERY one was cheating, then you won unfairly and thus your title is tainted. If we found out that a player hit a game winning HR with a corked bat, there'd be a major investigation an the opposing team would probably be disqualified. That is just one players actions determining a teams fate. The only difference here is the ball or the bat is not juiced, its the players. Should they overturn the championship wins for these "named" players teams? Absolutely not. But it does taint their victory as long as the other side had clean players.


    Then by that logic, can we just declare every title since the, oh, strike to be tainted? Everyone in that era was probably either on PED's or played alongside someone who was juicing. How many players were on amphetamines before those got banned? So I'm not sure you could draw the line at just equal numbers, considering Manny Ramirez and Manny Alexander aren't exactly on the same level.

    But players great and less-so were juicing. See: List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report by team (en.wikipedia.org); all 30 teams are on the list, and the two teams with the fewest players (Twins and White Sox) had four each. Admittedly, this isn't the greatest, most definitive resource; just because a player was on this list, doesn't mean they were juicing at the time. The fact is every team, to some degree, probably benefited from players on PED's. So if you're going to say the Red Sox were tainted, the other 29 teams are as well.

    ...except the Nationals and Pirates, who just can't seem to get the right steroids.


This will be my last post on the subject, I feel kind of silly posting so many times as it is. I agree with what you are saying except the one thing. I know I am basically contradicting myself here, but I cant help it. I feel people need to (and they are) realize that these guys are almost all using and accept that as fact. Yet, when a player is named, and hence caught cheating, I feel that taints any accomplishments they had. That goes for all 29 teams. And yes, as more players are named, and more evidence arises for each league champion that proves that team had major contributors that were using, then those championships become tainted as well. We have to accept the fact, but we cant brush it under the rug, if that makes any sense.
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 4.06
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: The worst managed inning in baseball history
Next thread: MLB Trade Deadline Deals (Non-Waiver)
Previous thread: Phillies trade for Lee, Francisco
(289 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I think one of the reason why the stats are not unified is that a lot of players have bonuses for leading the league in some stat category.
- calvinh0560, Rule changes in baseball (2003)
Related threads: Curt Schilling announces retirement - Jim Rice gets the call - Red Sox sign John Smoltz - More...
The W - Baseball - Et tu, Ortiz? (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.085 seconds.