Why are Steriods the only form of cheating people care about?

[adb280z]

A guy like Gaylord Perry cheated his way into the Hall of Fame and people joke about it but a steroid guy is crucified, what's the difference?

[Arsis]

Because the archaic print media is a feeble attempt to stay relevant told them it is what they should care about.

[Morrissey]

Well that's "gamesmanship" your speaking off. And you're right, it's cheating.

I remember Whitey Ford saying Yogi use to cut up the ball with his wedding ring.

[adb280z]

Well that's "gamesmanship" your speaking off. And you're right, it's cheating.

I remember Whitey Ford saying Yogi use to cut up the ball with his wedding ring.

Guess both of em should be kicked out of the Hall now.

[Morrissey]

Guess both of em should be kicked out of the Hall now.

Haha, funny story.

Jim Kaat was being interviewed on the MLB Network last night and he mentioned a game where an umpire caught him with pine tar under his cap. The umpire said to him, you have a foreign substance on your cap Jim, I have to kick you out. So Kaat said, It's not foreign.. it's from North Carolina.

[ZachEY]

I believe because there is an illegal substance at play, so it's more than just illegal in baseball, it's illegal in America.

Also, there's a health issue, and the fear that young kids will emulate the illegal and unhealthy behavior if it is rewarded or ignored as opposed to punished.

[piney]

Jose Conseco is your answer..

see, when Jose Conseco's first book came out, most of the very notable writers then vilified him as a bum, sellout, and a guy writing a book of lies because no MLB team would sign him so he could get to 500hrs.

These same writers, who defended MLB and the players now have egg on their faces and Conseco is looking better and better.

These guys don't care about illegal substances, they never called for any baseball player involved with recreational drugs to be kicked out of baseball forever.

This isn't about role models, because none of these writers asked for wife beaters to be kicked out of baseball forever.

Guys like Bill Madden are now a joke, guys who write how the Yankees should cut A-rod and eat $200 mil while never ever printing a word about Doc Gooden, Daryl Strawberry, or David Justce to be treated the same.

Hell, this guy would probably be ok with Ugeth Urbina making a comeback....

this is about bruised egos and guys who never did their job right, the are reporters with sources and if the drug usage was as prevalent in the clubhouse as some say, they would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to have at least a little insight.

Baseball writers suck, they are without a doubt the most pompous and empty headed people I have ever witnessed.

[BroadwayJoe12]

Long gone are the days of respectable and reputable journalism, it's almost a crime to mention either of the adjectives in the same sentence as most of our journalists. Sports journalists used to go into the profession for sheer admiration of the sport they loved, the players that played the game they loved so much and to be a part of it anyway they could. Now, it seems that it's just a paycheck and a way to tear someone or something down. It seems as though journalists have no loyalty to the players or the sport they supposedly love, but to themselves and getting in the spotlight. It's just pathetic.

I also question about the notion of the "purity" of the game back in the day. I have never enjoyed this argument, but amphetamine use was rampant in the 60's and 70's throughout pro sports, especially baseball; what better way to get up for a hundred plus games than poppin some "greenies?" Players always were looking for a competitive advantage, and while these didn't alter their physique it did alter their physiological performances, by giving them the extra energy edge that our players today have to go about in a different way. My favorite player of all time Mickey Mantle was said to have used amphetamines quite frequently, but I, nor anyone else would take away any of his accomplishments...and rightly so.

Also, I have always wondered about who was or wasn't on steroids. Steroids were in the early production stages in the 40's and 50's and was aproved by the FDA in the late 50's, I believe dbol. I don't want to bring this up to say Aaron or any of them were on it, but can anyone honestly say with 100% certainty that they weren't on Amphetamines or steroids?? No, it's not possible. They get the benefit of the doubt, becuase the they are in the past and the only thing the media cares about is the present. Give this thirty years and people will realize how amazing a player Bonds, Arod, Sosa and McGuire were. How McGuire and Sosa saved baseball and for that with their statistical accomplishments belong in the HOF.

One of the arguments for why those players couldn't be on steroids is that they don't have the physique that shows clear signs of steroid use...well, did 160 lb Alex Sanchez look like it? The fact of the matter is that steroids aided with the weighlifting regimen is what gives our athletes these bodies, not steroids alone. We have no way of knowing wither the players of the 50s and on were on them to gain functional strength, and we never will.

I just think the media much rather condemn a player than realize even with the supplements his accomplishments are incredible. They just don't care about what happens, but that they have something to ruin someones legacy with.

I don't condone taking steroids at all and am very dissapointed withthe ones who have, but I'm just as equally dissapointed with Selig, Major League Baseball execs and all of the media. It seems as though the finger they are pointing is coming down extra harsh becuase they are angry at themselves as well and taking it all out on the players.

[Scott Dierking]

Long gone are the days of respectable and reputable journalism, it's almost a crime to mention either of the adjectives in the same sentence as most of our journalists. Sports journalists used to go into the profession for sheer admiration of the sport they loved, the players that played the game they loved so much and to be a part of it anyway they could. Now, it seems that it's just a paycheck and a way to tear someone or something down. It seems as though journalists have no loyalty to the players or the sport they supposedly love, but to themselves and getting in the spotlight. It's just pathetic.

I also question about the notion of the "purity" of the game back in the day. I have never enjoyed this argument, but amphetamine use was rampant in the 60's and 70's throughout pro sports, especially baseball; what better way to get up for a hundred plus games than poppin some "greenies?" Players always were looking for a competitive advantage, and while these didn't alter their physique it did alter their physiological performances, by giving them the extra energy edge that our players today have to go about in a different way. My favorite player of all time Mickey Mantle was said to have used amphetamines quite frequently, but I, nor anyone else would take away any of his accomplishments...and rightly so.

Also, I have always wondered about who was or wasn't on steroids. Steroids were in the early production stages in the 40's and 50's and was aproved by the FDA in the late 50's, I believe dbol. I don't want to bring this up to say Aaron or any of them were on it, but can anyone honestly say with 100% certainty that they weren't on Amphetamines or steroids?? No, it's not possible. They get the benefit of the doubt, becuase the they are in the past and the only thing the media cares about is the present. Give this thirty years and people will realize how amazing a player Bonds, Arod, Sosa and McGuire were. How McGuire and Sosa saved baseball and for that with their statistical accomplishments belong in the HOF.

One of the arguments for why those players couldn't be on steroids is that they don't have the physique that shows clear signs of steroid use...well, did 160 lb Alex Sanchez look like it? The fact of the matter is that steroids aided with the weighlifting regimen is what gives our athletes these bodies, not steroids alone. We have no way of knowing wither the players of the 50s and on were on them to gain functional strength, and we never will.

I just think the media much rather condemn a player than realize even with the supplements his accomplishments are incredible. They just don't care about what happens, but that they have something to ruin someones legacy with.

I don't condone taking steroids at all and am very dissapointed withthe ones who have, but I'm just as equally dissapointed with Selig, Major League Baseball execs and all of the media. It seems as though the finger they are pointing is coming down extra harsh becuase they are angry at themselves as well and taking it all out on the players.

Yes, we are much better served when the media turns a blind eye to illegal activity.

If we don't know about it, it doesn't hurt us, right?

[BroadwayJoe12]

Yes, we are much better served when the media turns a blind eye to illegal activity.

If we don't know about it, it doesn't hurt us, right?

If that's how I came across than I apologize, it wasn't my intentions. I believe that the journalists have an obligation to the sport, the players and the fans to deliver news and information, however in a classy way.

There is nothing respectable about just naming A-Rods name or singling a player out in order to increase your fame, it hurts the sport and the player. The media knew about the steroid stuff just like the MLB execs did, yet only cared about it when it was making headlines after canesco came out. Steroids helped McGuire and Sosa save baseball so they turned a blind eye, but I honestly feel as though they could handle this all a hell of a lot better.

Sports writers have become borderline paparazzi and really seem to care about just themselves and not the sport. I think they had an obligation to break the steroid news, but just in a more professional way.

[neckdemon]

i think the reason is pretty clear. no one is going to die at 50 of a heart attack from throwing too many spitballs. that's the reason i think it's worse. you got kids in highschool thinking that the best way for them to make it to the pros is to take steroids........if it was throwing spitballs or corking your back that's not going to have them dying of hearfailure by 50. drugs just get a very negative stigma attached to them anyway, and most of us think that doing drugs in general is bad.....and don't want to see their kids given anymore reasons to feel like they should be doing drugs.

[Bugg]

A guy like Gaylord Perry cheated his way into the Hall of Fame and people joke about it but a steroid guy is crucified, what's the difference?

Don't get Perry's admission into the HoF at all. Now at Old Timer's games it's a big joke that he cheated. I don't get that. He's almost celebrated. Further as to the writers who now want to scream about A-rod and Bonds, 85% of them voted for Gaylord Perry. How do they square that?

[Bugg]

Haha, funny story.

Jim Kaat was being interviewed on the MLB Network last night and he mentioned a game where an umpire caught him with pine tar under his cap. The umpire said to him, you have a foreign substance on your cap Jim, I have to kick you out. So Kaat said, It's not foreign.. it's from North Carolina.

Kaat ahs also said that if it meant the difference between making MLB or working a real job, he would've taken steroids. Buck Showalter amde a similar point; if you're a DOminican kid like Sammy Sosa given the choice of backbreaking poverty of cutting sugar cane stalks for the next 40 years at 75 cents an hour or roids and an MLB career, what are you picking?

[ChadLover]

I believe because there is an illegal substance at play, so it's more than just illegal in baseball, it's illegal in America.

Also, there's a health issue, and the fear that young kids will emulate the illegal and unhealthy behavior if it is rewarded or ignored as opposed to punished.

Then what about greenies? They are dangerous, illegal and pretty much everyone was doing them. What is the difference between them and steroids?

[ECURB]

Then what about greenies? They are dangerous, illegal and pretty much everyone was doing them. What is the difference between them and steroids?

It is because all the old farts want to think that the game was not tainted until the roids hit... it was all perfect prior to it...

There has always been cheating... you would be a fool to think that everyone in the HOF never cheated or did something illegal...

Shame on Arod and others for cheating... doesnt mean he isnt a HOF player though.

[Arsis]

It is because all the old farts want to think that the game was not tainted until the roids hit... it was all perfect prior to it...

There has always been cheating... you would be a fool to think that everyone in the HOF never cheated or did something illegal...

Shame on Arod and others for cheating... doesnt mean he isnt a HOF player though.

It was perfect. On the Verge of collapse and Bankruptcy is perfect?

[Bugg]

It is because all the old farts want to think that the game was not tainted until the roids hit... it was all perfect prior to it...

There has always been cheating... you would be a fool to think that everyone in the HOF never cheated or did something illegal...

Shame on Arod and others for cheating... doesnt mean he isnt a HOF player though.

Love how the purists act like ther was so some golden age where every team had a fair and equal shot. But when you look at the history of baseball, that idea falls apart pretty quickly. There's a good reason the NY teams dominated the 1950s-they had more money for farm teams and to sign players than the competition. Heck, the KC A's were practically partners with the Yankees in the 1950s and 1960s, and the Sawx were in the 1920s.

Newflash to purists-even if you go as far back as the 1890s, there has never been this Shangrila you knuckleheads wish for. You're the saem goofballs who kept this "amateur" silliness going in the Olympics until very recently, another cesspool of cheating.

Explanation rather than a defense;cheating has and will always be with us. Before you lecture us again on the evils of steroids, show us how you voted on Perry. Somebody voted to put an admitted cheater in the HOF.

[Bugg]

It was perfect. On the Verge of collapse and Bankruptcy is perfect?

Then go out of business already. Has that ever happened? NO.

[ZachEY]

Then what about greenies? They are dangerous, illegal and pretty much everyone was doing them. What is the difference between them and steroids?

I'm going to have to claim ignorance here, unfortunately.

[PFSIKH]

Love how the purists act like ther was so some golden age where every team had a fair and equal shot. But when you look at the history of baseball, that idea falls apart pretty quickly. There's a good reason the NY teams dominated the 1950s-they had more money for farm teams and to sign players than the competition. Heck, the KC A's were practically partners with the Yankees in the 1950s and 1960s, and the Sawx were in the 1920s.

Newflash to purists-even if you go as far back as the 1890s, there has never been this Shangrila you knuckleheads wish for. You're the saem goofballs who kept this "amateur" silliness going in the Olympics until very recently, another cesspool of cheating.

Explanation rather than a defense;cheating has and will always be with us. Before you lecture us again on the evils of steroids, show us how you voted on Perry. Somebody voted to put an admitted cheater in the HOF.

You are definitely right on this account.

The difference in money is a lot different now. In 1988, the difference between the top and bottom team was 13 million. Last year it was a 188 million. Your point is correct in that there have always been poor and rich teams, but the difference now is far more tilted to the rich.

Another thing never mentioned is free agency and how that changed the landscape and balance of baseball