Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

rjgonzales

macrumors regular
Mar 14, 2006
144
0
Texas
I'm in no way defending Bonds as I am a huge baseball fan and would love nothing more than to see baseball get cleaned up...... starting with Bonds, but in a similar conversation I had with a buddy of mine, this was brought up......

What about all of the entertainers in performing arts. Musicians and Actors many who have used mind altering and performance enhancing drugs to help them perform on a higher, unfair level. What about the Grammys and Oscars they have won, beating out their peers that are not on drugs? Should we strip away their awards and achievements or perhaps just put an asterisk by their name from now on? Should they be banned from their art? What about record sales? Would the album have been as good thus sell as many records if they were sober? After baseball, do we go after these guys next?

Like I said, I'm not condoning drugs in anyway, I just wanted to get you guys' opinion.

RJ
 

highres

macrumors 6502a
Jul 1, 2005
519
4
Near the Singularity
rjgonzales said:
I'm in no way defending Bonds as I am a huge baseball fan and would love nothing more than to see baseball get cleaned up...... starting with Bonds, but in a similar conversation I had with a buddy of mine, this was brought up......

What about all of the entertainers in performing arts. Musicians and Actors many who have used mind altering and performance enhancing drugs to help them perform on a higher, unfair level. What about the Grammys and Oscars they have won, beating out their peers that are not on drugs? Should we strip away their awards and achievements or perhaps just put an asterisk by their name from now on? Should they be banned from their art? What about record sales? Would the album have been as good thus sell as many records if they were sober? After baseball, do we go after these guys next?

Like I said, I'm not condoning drugs in anyway, I just wanted to get you guys' opinion.

RJ

Bad analogy, please provide one example of any actor or musician who had an "unfair" advantage because he took drugs. Performing on a "higher", "unfair" level because of drug use is not really quantifiable or measureable in acting or music, but using PED in sports is.
 

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
highres said:
Bad analogy, please provide one example of any actor or musician who had an "unfair" advantage because he took drugs. Performing on a "higher", "unfair" level because of drug use is not really quantifiable or measureable in acting or music, but using PED in sports is.

Actually, I think it is a great example. You have made an argument for why baseball itself should have rules against using PEDs, but that is something for the players and management to work out. If the fans don't like it they have the ability to stay home. What has started much of this hysteria is the interjection of politicians, starting with the President, into what should be an internal baseball affair. In that regard, the example of entertainers is perfectly apt. Baseball players fit in the same category of individuals on which the state has no overriding need to conduct such tests. Airplane pilots, truck drivers, railroad engineers - yes; actors and baseball players and the rest of us - no! Unless you consider the need of politicians to grandstand and push the agenda of their given home team as an overriding need. When Congress and the President starts pissing in a cup for drug tests I, for one, will start to consider whether the rest of us should give up our rights against illegal searches.

Does that mean I think Baseball shouldn't have testing? No, I think the Players Union missed the boat on the much more critical issue of the health and safety of the players. For years, management has encouraged the abuse of drugs to hype the performance on the field. Does anyone really believe that after all the exposés of the 60s and 70s that management didn't know the abuse of "greenies," and later steroids, was rampant in the game? The problem is, within a framework based on the greed of the owners, players have been putting all kinds of things in their bodies in order to win fame and fortune. The Player's Union then went along because it also drove salaries up. Unfortunately, the substances have all kinds of side effects that will haunt players for years after they end their careers. No union should allow such a thing to go on.

I also think an agreed upon testing procedure is only the first step that is needed. What is necessary is to follow up with penalties on the clubs, both with heavy fines and with sanctions against post-season play if a team's players are caught using. That would end it.

What shouldn't be done is make one player the scapegoat for the sins of baseball. If Barry fails a drug test he should be penalized like any other player. Period. If he doesn't fail a test, all the calls by fans who hate him because he is not on their club or want baseball to be something it never was, or a media who hate him because he doesn't give a flying frig what they want him to do, or the foaming at the mouth prosecutors and politicians who like using him as a convenient target to advance their careers, they should all be ignored for the envy and sour grapes they represent.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
Sayhey said:
If the fans don't like it they have the ability to stay home. What has started much of this hysteria is the interjection of politicians, starting with the President, into what should be an internal baseball affair. In that regard, the example of entertainers is perfectly apt. Baseball players fit in the same category of individuals on which the state has no overriding need to conduct such tests. Airplane pilots, truck drivers, railroad engineers - yes; actors and baseball players and the rest of us - no! Unless you consider the need of politicians to grandstand and push the agenda of their given home team as an overriding need. When Congress and the President starts pissing in a cup for drug tests I, for one, will start to consider whether the rest of us should give up our rights against illegal searches.

A few points of clarification. Baseball was granted an antitrust exemption by Congress many decades ago, allowing the sport and the team owners the ability to collude in ways which would be illegal in any other industry. This is, and has been for some time, the entry point for politicians to interject themselves into the game's internal affairs. I think this situation has also allowed the owners to isolate their interests from the interests of the fans, and indirectly at least, given rise to the current doping scandal. I don't know of any fan who approves of players using PEDs, so I don't think it will do to suggest that if they don't like it, they should stay home. This is strikes me as an invitation to destroy the game we all love, despite its recent troubles.

BTW, I will be attending at least two Giants at Dodgers games this season. All other considerations aside, I hope Barry Bonds breaks his legs. :)
 

aloofman

macrumors 68020
Dec 17, 2002
2,206
3
Socal
In a way, professional athletes are really just entertainers. I've long thought it amusing that someone will seem outraged that a baseball player can make $20 million a year, but no one minds that Tom Cruise makes $20 million per movie. In many ways the athlete's abilities are far more rare and extraordinary than an actor's and their performance is much more quantifiable.

Maybe that's one way the analogy breaks down though. My parents are among the baby boomers who prefer the early Beatles songs to their later, drug-induced tunes. To my father "I Am The Walrus" doesn't compare well to "Yesterday," so from his perspective, drug use made the Beatles worse, not better. In contrast, steroids and other performance enhancers pretty clearly make an athlete better because performance is measured in much more objective ways. (At least until the athlete's body starts breaking down.)

There's one part of the analogy that I like though. Many of the fans don't care if Jimi Hendrix was tripping when he came up with "Burning of the Midnight Lamp" and many Bonds fans don't care if he was on steroids. In both cases some people hold drug use against them. In the end our judgment is partially based on how successful they were and whether we think that success is justified.
 

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
IJ Reilly said:
A few points of clarification. Baseball was granted an antitrust exemption by Congress many decades ago, allowing the sport and the team owners the ability to collude in ways which would be illegal in any other industry. This is, and has been for some time, the entry point for politicians to interject themselves into the game's internal affairs. I think this situation has also allowed the owners to isolate their interests from the interests of the fans, and indirectly at least, given rise to the current doping scandal. I don't know of any fan who approves of players using PEDs, so I don't think it will do to suggest that if they don't like it, they should stay home. This is strikes me as an invitation to destroy the game we all love, despite its recent troubles.

BTW, I will be attending at least two Giants at Dodgers games this season. All other considerations aside, I hope Barry Bonds breaks his legs. :)

IJ, while Congress has often used the removal of the exemption as a tool to get Baseball to act in certain ways, it still isn't an excuse to allow politicians the right to abrogate player's rights against unconstitutional searches. What Congress has been doing is nothing but grandstanding with the threat it will write into law its own rules mandating random testing. People should think about what it would mean to their own lives if someone could show up at any time and tell them they had to pee in a cup or lose their livelihood.

I'm also would like to clarify, I'm not advocating people stop going to baseball games or they should not voice their grips about any aspect of the game. I'm only making the observation that the power fans have is ultimately with the the withholding of their money. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And conversely, why were all of you going to games that any thinking person had to know was influenced by steroids, if it was such a crime? How many boycotted Baseball during the McGwire-Sosa homerun race? Yet many fans now are outraged.

IJ, I don't begrudge you the ill-will toward Barry. I've had the same thoughts directed toward many a Dodger. It only makes the confrontations sooo much the better. ;)
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
22,995
9,971
CT
Arn't Steroids illegal and a controlled substance, so why should Major League Baseball be exempt from such penalties, If these players are using illegal drugs they should be stopped just as we would be if we were caught smoking pot.
 

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
MacNut said:
Arn't Steroids illegal and a controlled substance, so why should Major League Baseball be exempt from such penalties, If these players are using illegal drugs they should be stopped just as we would be if we were caught smoking pot.

There is a big difference between the government prosecuting someone because they have evidence of illegal drug use (in this case only illegal in the sense that a doctor hasn't prescribed them) and random searches based on no evidence. That's the difference between the cops busting down your door because they've satisfied a judge they have reasonable cause to search your home and they've been granted a warrant and being pulled off the street for a strip search because your number came up. The Supreme Court has upheld such searches in cases of public safety (Airline Pilots, etc.) but there is no reason the rest of us, including baseball players, should allow the erosion of our rights.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
22,995
9,971
CT
Sayhey said:
There is a big difference between the government prosecuting someone because they have evidence of illegal drug use (in this case only illegal in the sense that a doctor hasn't prescribed them) and random searches based on no evidence. That's the difference between the cops busting down your door because they've satisfied a judge they have reasonable cause to search your home and they've been granted a warrant and being pulled off the street for a strip search because your number came up. The Supreme Court has upheld such searches in cases of public safety (Airline Pilots, etc.) but there is no reason the rest of us, including baseball players, should allow the erosion of our rights.
For arguments sake lets say Barry was caught shooting steroids and a police officer happened to see it, should he be arrested for using an illegal substance?
 

Deepdale

macrumors 68000
May 4, 2005
1,965
0
New York
MacNut said:
For arguments sake lets say Barry was caught shooting steroids and a police officer happened to see it, should he be arrested for using an illegal substance?

Ideally yes ... but what is more likely to happen is that the observing officer would receive some autographed bats and balls plus some passes to the stadium, and everyone would continue with their business. Celebrity combined with notoriety have their perks in this sports saturated culture.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
Sayhey said:
IJ, while Congress has often used the removal of the exemption as a tool to get Baseball to act in certain ways, it still isn't an excuse to allow politicians the right to abrogate player's rights against unconstitutional searches. What Congress has been doing is nothing but grandstanding with the threat it will write into law its own rules mandating random testing. People should think about what it would mean to their own lives if someone could show up at any time and tell them they had to pee in a cup or lose their livelihood.

I'm also would like to clarify, I'm not advocating people stop going to baseball games or they should not voice their grips about any aspect of the game. I'm only making the observation that the power fans have is ultimately with the the withholding of their money. If you don't like it, don't buy it. And conversely, why were all of you going to games that any thinking person had to know was influenced by steroids, if it was such a crime? How many boycotted Baseball during the McGwire-Sosa homerun race? Yet many fans now are outraged.

I'm not sure anything you've said has challenged anything I've said. Politicians may be grandstanding, but it's the antitrust exemption that gives them this opportunity. They don't get involved with basketball or football. Baseball simply has to make the best of this special situation.

Is random drug testing by employers illegal or unconstitutional? I don't believe so. But I will go another step and ask you whether you think it would be in the best interests of the game (meaning, the owners, players and fans) to continue to ignore PED use? Nobody seems to think it is, so I'd maintain that the ethical questions surrounding having players pee into cups are entirely moot.

I've already said that it's to the lasting shame of fans that we, collectively, chose to avert our eyes from the truth while drug use was rampant during the '90s. We liked seeing records challenged and broken, and it was a tonic for the labor disputes. As a fan, I'm prepared to confess now that it was bad for the game -- much worse in the long run than the strikes. Questions will be entered into the record books for eternity, and the integrity of the game has been damaged.
 

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
MacNut said:
For arguments sake lets say Barry was caught shooting steroids and a police officer happened to see it, should he be arrested for using an illegal substance?

Yes. Substitute Barry's name with anyone else's name and the answer is the same. But that hasn't happened has it.? In fact, the government with all the "evidence" that has been released in these two new books decided not to prosecute him for possession or for perjury about use. What does that tell you about their case?
 

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
IJ Reilly said:
I'm not sure anything you've said has challenged anything I've said. Politicians may be grandstanding, but it's the antitrust exemption that gives them this opportunity. They don't get involved with basketball or football. Baseball simply has to make the best of this special situation.

Is random drug testing by employers illegal or unconstitutional? I don't believe so. But I will go another step and ask you whether you think it would be in the best interests of the game (meaning, the owners, players and fans) to continue to ignore PED use? Nobody seems to think it is, so I'd maintain that the ethical questions surrounding having players pee into cups are entirely moot.

I've already said that it's to the lasting shame of fans that we, collectively, chose to avert our eyes from the truth while drug use was rampant during the '90s. We liked seeing records challenged and broken, and it was a tonic for the labor disputes. As a fan, I'm prepared to confess now that it was bad for the game -- much worse in the long run than the strikes. Questions will be entered into the record books for eternity, and the integrity of the game has been damaged.

You're right, IJ, we aren't disagreeing about much of this. I would add that the politicians haven't just limited their grandstanding to baseball, but they do have a bigger hammer with MLB than the other sports because of the threat of removal of the anti-trust exemption. As an aside, does anyone think other pro sports don't have just as big or bigger doping problems than baseball? Look at the average size of football linemen and tell me steroids aren't a problem.

To your question, no at least in the case of pre-employment testing it isn't unconstitutional for employers to require testing. It should be, but it isn't. My point was a different one though. I was talking about the threat of random testing being written into law by the government as a way of forcing a new agreement on parties to collective bargaining. A very different kettle of fish. It's not moot because it continues today in the form of pressure to "do something about Bonds."

I guess I'm more jaded than you are about the "integrity" of the game. Unless we want to reevaluate the records of the past for the inherent unfairness of the way the game operated (complete with the age of color barriers, use of early PEDs, ridiculous home field advantages, cheating through corking and loading up the baseball, etc.) I'm not very sympathetic to those who want to single out players of the recent era. I just try to evaluate each record for what it is really worth, not make something sacred out of them.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
Sayhey said:
You're right, IJ, we aren't disagreeing about much of this. I would add that the politicians haven't just limited their grandstanding to baseball, but they do have a bigger hammer with MLB than the other sports because of the threat of removal of the anti-trust exemption. As an aside, does anyone think other pro sports don't have just as big or bigger doping problems than baseball? Look at the average size of football linemen and tell me steroids aren't a problem.

To your question, no at least in the case of pre-employment testing it isn't unconstitutional for employers to require testing. It should be, but it isn't. My point was a different one though. I was talking about the threat of random testing being written into law by the government as a way of forcing a new agreement on parties to collective bargaining. A very different kettle of fish. It's not moot because it continues today in the form of pressure to "do something about Bonds."

I guess I'm more jaded than you are about the "integrity" of the game. Unless we want to reevaluate the records of the past for the inherent unfairness of the way the game operated (complete with the age of color barriers, use of early PEDs, ridiculous home field advantages, cheating through corking and loading up the baseball, etc.) I'm not very sympathetic to those who want to single out players of the recent era. I just try to evaluate each record for what it is really worth, not make something sacred out of them.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't follow basketball or football), but the other pro sports have been random drug testing for quite some time now. Baseball is the notable laggard in this area. The reason for this, IMO, is MLB's recent history of poor leadership, not the meddling of members of Congress, which has been very much after the fact. If the owners and the players had been more proactive on this issue, then politicians would not have been granted an opportunity to screw around with the game.

As little football as I watch, it seems to me that most of the linemen are little better than a bunch of overgrown, fat people. Not sure if it takes steroids to get that way, or just bad genes and over-eating. I have a hard time even seeing them as athletes. ;)

I realize, records are more than just numbers -- always have been, always will be. The integrity issue comes into play again and again, though -- particularly when consideration for Hall of Fame selection arises. Will any of the "juiced" players of this era get in, no matter what they may have accomplished? It's like the Pete Rose question -- it's never going away, and serves as a constant reminder that MLB hasn't got its house in order.

Perhaps I worry about these things because I see the game sinking in the opinion of Americans overall. It's already been eclipsed in popularity by football and basketball. I don't like the idea of it slipping even further.
 

aloofman

macrumors 68020
Dec 17, 2002
2,206
3
Socal
IJ Reilly said:
As little football as I watch, it seems to me that most of the linemen are little better than a bunch of overgrown, fat people. Not sure if it takes steroids to get that way, or just bad genes and over-eating. I have a hard time even seeing them as athletes. ;)

The extra fat is really a matter of having more inertia when it comes to lineman, but they are still athletes, far stronger than just about anyone else on the field. And they have to have a lot of stamina just to get through a game. Unfortunately they're also the ones most prone to terrible long-term joint problems, arthritis, diabetes and heart disease. All that extra weight isn't good for you whether it's muscle or fat.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
aloofman said:
The extra fat is really a matter of having more inertia when it comes to lineman, but they are still athletes, far stronger than just about anyone else on the field. And they have to have a lot of stamina just to get through a game. Unfortunately they're also the ones most prone to terrible long-term joint problems, arthritis, diabetes and heart disease. All that extra weight isn't good for you whether it's muscle or fat.

If you say so. To me, they look like poster children for obesity. Baseball does have its share of overweight players (pitchers, mainly), but nobody tipping the scales at 300 lbs., last I checked.
 

stonyc

macrumors 65816
Feb 15, 2005
1,259
1
Michigan
IJ Reilly said:
If you say so. To me, they look like poster children for obesity. Baseball does have its share of overweight players (pitchers, mainly), but nobody tipping the scales at 300 lbs., last I checked.
David Wells and that Ponson guy would be candidates, I think. :)
 

stonyc

macrumors 65816
Feb 15, 2005
1,259
1
Michigan
IJ Reilly said:
They weigh in officially at 250 and 255 lbs. respectively, according to mlb.com.
Yeah, I know.. but I buy their "official" listed weights about as far as I can throw them. ;)
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
22,995
9,971
CT
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2380559&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines
SAN FRANCISCO -- Barry Bonds juiced out of jealousy, Gary Sheffield followed his training buddy's lead and Jason Giambi did it to please his perfectionist father who loved the game, according to a new book.

The book says BALCO's performance-enhancing drugs were used by several athletes, including track stars Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery, NFL players such as Bill Romanowski, and sluggers including Bonds, Sheffield and Giambi.

Sheffield has admitted that he used a cream two years ago but said he did not know it contained illegal steroids. The authors, however, say Bonds' trainer, Greg Anderson, put Sheffield on injectable testosterone and a human growth hormone in 2002, and later sold him designer steroids known as the "cream" and the "clear."

Bonds also denies that he was in Ken Griffey Jr.'s house at the time another new book, "Love Me, Hate Me: Barry Bonds and the Making of an Antihero," alleges Bonds told Griffey Jr. and others that he was going to take steroids given the attention that McGwire and others who he believed were taking steroids were getting.

Sheffield adopted Bonds' heavy training program when he visited the San Francisco star after the 2001 season and lived in his home in Hillsborough, Calif., for two months, according to the book.

Though the two had a personal falling out, Sheffield wanted to maintain a relationship with Anderson so he could keep getting the drugs, the authors wrote.

On Wednesday in Tampa, Fla., Sheffield denied using any drugs mentioned in the book.

"What can I do? I'm not going to defend myself my whole life," he said. "It doesn't matter to me. I don't have anything to say. No need to. It is what it is."

The book describes how Bonds started using steroids because he was jealous of the attention paid to Mark McGwire's home run race with Sammy Sosa in 1998, and felt he needed to bulk up significantly to compete with the St. Louis Cardinals' slugger. Bonds broke McGwire's single-season record with 73 home runs in 2001.
 

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
No time to comment, but breaking news ---
Bonds lawyer sues over new book on BALCO scandal

(03-23) 13:50 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Barry Bonds' lawyer says he'll ask a judge to order that the authors of a new book detailing the Giants' slugger's alleged use of steroids turn over any profits they make.

Notice of the lawsuit came today in a letter from attorney Michael Rains' office to the agent for authors Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams. They are reporters for The Chronicle and authors of the book "Game of Shadows.''

In a phone message, Rains said he will also ask a federal judge to initiate contempt proceedings "for the use of illegally obtained" grand jury transcripts and other documents that the authors used in writing the book.

The book, published today, concerns the Bay Area laboratory known as BALCO and the athletes, including Bonds, who allegedly were illicitly supplied with performance-enhancing drugs.

According to the letter, Bonds' attorney will ask a San Francisco Superior Court judge on Friday to issue a temporary restraining order forfeiting all profits from publication and distribution of the book. In the phone message, Rains said the request would be made under the theory that the transcripts were "illegally obtained and possessed under federal law."...
SFGate.ocm
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
22,995
9,971
CT
Not really breaking since I heard about it an hr ago:p
It was a matter of time until Mr Bonds decided he should make himself look good and play the innocent one and how dare they tarnish my good name.:rolleyes:
 

iPhil

macrumors 68040
If bonds' lawyer is asking a judge to have profits surrendered on the book; IF bonds hasn't done anything wrong :confused: :confused: ..

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This book is protected under freedom of speech ..

The only reason i could figure out why bonds' lawyer is doing this because bonds' did something illegal and he's trying to cover his tracks :eek: :eek:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.