Scott Dierking Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 It is a childish exercise with you. If there isn't documentation, that means there wasn't any in the 80's...okay, got it. If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a noise? Only if you're there to document it, right Scotty? Got it. I ask for when the first documented steroid abuse was reported, and leave it to Yankee fans throw the fit (Or Nightstalker). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morrissey Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Got it. I ask for when the first documented steroid abuse was reported, and leave it to Yankee fans throw the fit (Or Nightstalker). Fit, I'm laughing at you. If you ain't bashing the Yankees, you're not happy. I actually feel sorry for you. Oh, it's going to be a fun season. :rl::rl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 If you're going to believe Canseco, you have to believe it all...not just the parts to fit your agenda. Below, Canseco says that roids were around in the 80's and 90's like a cup of coffee. NPR.org, December 13, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 If you're going to believe Canseco, you have to believe it all...not just the parts to fit your agenda. Below, Canseco says that roids were around in the 80's and 90's like a cup of coffee. NPR.org, December 13, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=3 This is interesting, show some tied to steroids as early as the mid 80's, but the prevalance started in the late 80's to early 90's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted January 30, 2009 Author Share Posted January 30, 2009 this thread became entertaining at least....lol. except for one thing...piazza aint gay, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morrissey Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 this thread became entertaining at least....lol. except for one thing...piazza aint gay, lol. Why, he shot you down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted January 30, 2009 Author Share Posted January 30, 2009 Why, he shot you down? lol..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 It's not beyond the realm of possibility that some players were using steroids as early as the 70's. I think that's around the time when the Olympics banned them, which could very well have caught some player's eyes. I doubt it would have caught on though until some time after free agency was introduced and the top players started making significantly more money. Canseco started using them in either 1983 or 1984. Of course there has been an increasing prevalence from whenever it started to where it peaked in the late 1990's and early-mid 2000's. Bonds started using them after the McGwire/Sosa thing and the media only really started talking about it in 2002 after Ken Caminiti admitted to using. So the 1990's and early-mid 2000's are all definitely tainted and are meaningless compared to other championships, especially the late 90's and early 2000's. The late 1980's are somewhat tainted, and the late 70's to mid 80's championships might be tainted to a lesser extent but there's no real evidence that it was widespread. Specifically considering the Yankee's championships, 1998, 1999, and 2000 are definitely tainted, kind of like the Pat's superbowls, and 1996 is tainted but not so much as the other three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piney Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 It's not beyond the realm of possibility that some players were using steroids as early as the 70's. I think that's around the time when the Olympics banned them, which could very well have caught some player's eyes. I doubt it would have caught on though until some time after free agency was introduced and the top players started making significantly more money. Canseco started using them in either 1983 or 1984. Of course there has been an increasing prevalence from whenever it started to where it peaked in the late 1990's and early-mid 2000's. Bonds started using them after the McGwire/Sosa thing and the media only really started talking about it in 2002 after Ken Caminiti admitted to using. So the 1990's and early-mid 2000's are all definitely tainted and are meaningless compared to other championships, especially the late 90's and early 2000's. The late 1980's are somewhat tainted, and the late 70's to mid 80's championships might be tainted to a lesser extent but there's no real evidence that it was widespread. Specifically considering the Yankee's championships, 1998, 1999, and 2000 are definitely tainted, kind of like the Pat's superbowls, and 1996 is tainted but not so much as the other three. if everyone was juicing how tainted can they be? If you even go on the avg percentage like, say 45% of all teams were using then it was an even playing field, at least in that circumstance. I mean, playing with and without the DH is more of a factor than steroids would have been. Unless we are going to believe that none of the teams the Yankees faced i the playoffs between 1996 and 2001 had steroid users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Steroids is just improved technology for cheating. Does it suck for the magic and mythos of the game, sure. Does it suck for the business? Nope. Teams cheat. Players cheat. Steroids was just the newest, most advantagous way. Willie Mays and friends were taking speed in the 60's, should their base stealing numbers be investigated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 if everyone was juicing how tainted can they be? If you even go on the avg percentage like, say 45% of all teams were using then it was an even playing field, at least in that circumstance. I mean, playing with and without the DH is more of a factor than steroids would have been. Unless we are going to believe that none of the teams the Yankees faced i the playoffs between 1996 and 2001 had steroid users. The thing is that you can't really say each team had an equal number of juicers because the teammates of the guys who are juicing are probably more likely to use them, therefore there will be a higher percentage of juicers on teams that already have players using and a lower number on other teams. Using your logic, it doesn't matter what percentage of players were using because they have to have been evenly spread out among all of the teams, which is next to impossible. Another thing to consider is that using helps some players more than it helps others. It absolutely can't be considered to have been an even playing field no matter how you look at it. It's just not realistic to think that an equal number of steroid using players, gaining an equal benefit could be on every team to make it all balance out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Steroids is just improved technology for cheating. Does it suck for the magic and mythos of the game, sure. Does it suck for the business? Nope. True. If I'm not mistaken, I think their profits have gone up every single year since the McGwire/Sosa competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.