Steroids!

[Stuart Adams]

On MSN news - Bonds did steroids - DUH!! What are we - stupid!!!

[djunod]

I heard a comedian once say that we should just have a sport or olympics where the players could be on anything they wanted. Who really cares anyway. This country is so far beyond "Just Say No to Drugs" it's pathetic.

[Mr70]

..and Sammy Sosa is right behind him,& He knows it.

[427TJ]

And Mark McGwire.

[Xplantdad]

And Jose Canseco...and on and on!

[StealthBird]

Noooo....Bonds was on steroids?? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif

Being a baseball fan and card collector all my life, I lost interest in baseball just after the early 1990's strike. The "home runs at any cost" mentality of MLB is just sickening. There are still great HOF players in the 1990's that did not use steroids, but I'm afraid everyone's records will be tarnished now because of the rampant steroid use among the Sosa/Bonds/McGuire/Giambi sluggers.

I was hoping this scandal would cause Bonds not to break Hank Aaron's record, but MLB will stop at nothing for ratings, and will allow Bonds to continue. And they thought Pete Rose was corrupt? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

[Bill Pritchard]

[ QUOTE ]
And they thought Pete Rose was corrupt? http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/no.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen.

[Jeff H]

And it's not just the steroids that will tarnish the records. These new ballparks are much shorter than they used to be so it's easier to hit homeruns even if you're not on the juice.

[Mr70]

Like in the Car hobby,that has misrepresented clones,& other decieving trickery if not policed openly & properly..
The sports collectibles crowd pays BIG dollars for the authentic Memorabilia.Look at the prices some paid for those Bonds/McGuire/Sosa Homerun balls in the past.A few ended up in the courts fighting over true ownership.Hundreds of thousands of dollars paid,if not Millions for that REAL Merchandise.
I'll bet a few of those collectors are thinking of having a Fire sale now. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[StealthBird]

I grew up watching Hank Aaron and Willie Mays chase Ruth's record in the early 1970's. Aaron was simply the best, and he still doesn't get the credit he deserves. No steroids, average size, and yet he consistently hit 40+ homers per year batting against the likes of Bob Gibson, Steve Carlton, and other HOF pitchers. And the baseball back then was like hitting a bean bag compared to the juiced ball MLB uses today.

With the rampant steroid use today, players have lost their muscle flexibility. That's ok with MLB, they want to see 500 ft. homers, not base stealing. We'll never see the likes of a Rickey Henderson or Lou Brock again.

With the phenomenal bat speeds generated by steroid pumped players, you have to credit Curt Schilling, Roger Clemens, and Randy Johnson for being three of the best pitchers ever, and for doing it in this era.

When I saw Gary Sheffield and Sammy Sosa go from skinny, fast base stealers in the early 1990's to looking like Pro Wrestler Steve Austin, ya have to realize somethin' ain't right....

[Chris396]

I am selling all my baseball cards. After the strike I just couldn't get back into it.

[DaJudge]

If Pete Rose is banned for betting for his own team to WIN then these guys should have their record stripped and they should be banned as well. Fair is fair. The powers that be in baseball turned a blind eye to steriod use because homeruns and records being broken equaled renewed interest and bigger television ratings. It's a shame the only people the players using steriods fooled were themselves. http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif

[djunod]

I don't know... I think America has shown with their pocket book that they just love drugs.

[427TJ]

[ QUOTE ]
The powers that be in baseball turned a blind eye to steriod use because homeruns and records being broken equaled renewed interest and bigger television ratings.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to complete the equation. Renewed interest (in the game) and higher television ratings equal increased profit for the franchise owners. Baseball is a business and the business of business is to produce a profit, preferably a larger and larger profit. When an ethical problem rears its ugly head, such as illegal steroid use that makes the game more exciting by increasing home run production, the business rationalization always comes back to the bottom line: are these guys helping the team make a profit or are they not? Darryl Strawberry and Michael Irvin are two recent examples of productive players (money makers) with illegal drug problems who were given pass after pass by their respective leagues, which are controlled by team owners, who are in turn controlled by their team's bottom line. It's one thing for Bud Selig to publicly state his opposition to illegal steriod use, it would be quite another for him to go against the owners and levy stiff sanctions against players like Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds. As long as Barry's making big money for his team it's going to be hard to punish him unless evidence can be shown that he knowingly took illegal steroids. Michael Irvin and Darryl Strawberry were both coke-heads who, luckily for them, kept producing success ($$$) on the field during the period they used illegal drugs. If those two had suffered on the field from their illegal drug use (losing the team money) they'd have been gone in a second. When you ask yourself why illegal drug and steroid use keeps happening in professional sports, you must factor in the bottom line. Is money being made even though the situation sparks bad publicity? Once the negative publicity starts to have a 'negative impact' on profits, then you might see some of the "outrage" turned into real action and punishment. Oh, and actual enforcement of the rules of the game and, for that matter, the law of the country.

Mention the term "business ethics" to a group of relatively educated people and at least half of them will snicker and say something like, "Yeah, RIGHT." Why is that? Money trumps everything else, that's why. Look at Enron. The lust for increased profits took over the company and ethics, if Enron ever had any, went right out the window. Ethical rules and guidance are usually the first casualty when faced with a decision between what's right and what's profitable.

How about buying a car? Most of us are wary of claims made by the seller, such as: "Possible ties to Motion." (Sorry, but it's a good example.) We all say, "Yeah, RIGHT" and then demand proof. Until the proof is provided we are firmly skeptical.

The natural tendency of humans is to seek advantage. If cheating serves to improve our advatage then, unfortunately, cheating is how we'll do it. Naturally, the cheater never sees it as "cheating" but the victim most certainly does. Am I striking a chord here? Would you really disclose all the little problems with a car you were trying to sell? What if the buyer would never know unless you told him? What if, by not disclosing a few of the car's problems, you stood to make an additional profit of several thousand dollars? A "little white lie" to the seller is usually a "bald-faced lie" to the buyer. EBay keeps coming to mind here.

Anyway, when such questions of ethics vs. profits come to mind it's best to "follow the money," as "Deep Throat" famously told Bob Woodward (Watergate). When you ask the question "How come?," try following the money and you might find your answer sooner rather than later, or not at all.

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/scholar.gif

Okay, now I'm off to Confession!