AL East

AL East

Joined: Mar 20 2007, 08:55 PM

Apr 22 2016, 10:14 PM #1

Starting with Toronto:

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston ... on-by-mlb/

When everyone was frothing at the mouth over steroids, 80 games seemed like the perfect medicine. But now that we've seen it happen a few times…half a season? Is that really appropriate for a first time offender? Maybe it is. I don't know. Seems harsh.

Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone? The new defense these days isn't "I'm innocent," it's, "I don't know how this happened. I would never intentionally cheat." Which is a great face-saving excuse, because it can neither be proven nor disproven…but even if we have to be skeptical about the sincerity of the excuse, you really do have to have some chemistry background to decode the banned substance list. And then supplements themselves are all shrouded in mystery.

I suppose the right answer is that the vast majority of supplements are working on the placebo effect if they work at all, and the rest are probably cheating. But I have no idea what the basis is for banning one thing and not another. No idea.
Check it out. An avatar.
____

Fine.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Dec 10 2006, 01:35 AM

Apr 22 2016, 10:32 PM #2

rominer @ Apr 22 2016, 05:14 PM wrote: Starting with Toronto:

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston ... on-by-mlb/

When everyone was frothing at the mouth over steroids, 80 games seemed like the perfect medicine. But now that we've seen it happen a few times…half a season? Is that really appropriate for a first time offender? Maybe it is. I don't know. Seems harsh.

Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone? The new defense these days isn't "I'm innocent," it's, "I don't know how this happened. I would never intentionally cheat." Which is a great face-saving excuse, because it can neither be proven nor disproven…but even if we have to be skeptical about the sincerity of the excuse, you really do have to have some chemistry background to decode the banned substance list. And then supplements themselves are all shrouded in mystery.

I suppose the right answer is that the vast majority of supplements are working on the placebo effect if they work at all, and the rest are probably cheating. But I have no idea what the basis is for banning one thing and not another. No idea.
I think this may make some players check with their agents about those supplements he or she recommended.

80 games isn't too much, IMHO, if you're serious about creating a level playing field for players unwilling to use potentially harmful substances for a crack a multi-millions in salary. At least I hope those players exist.

And it's too little if you're serious about reining in parents and scouts who prepare the talented high school student for a chance to be drafted.
""Baseball, it is said, is only a game. True. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole in Arizona." widely attributed.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Mar 20 2007, 08:55 PM

Apr 22 2016, 11:17 PM #3

Offbase @ Apr 22 2016, 02:32 PM wrote: 80 games isn't too much, IMHO, if you're serious about creating a level playing field for players unwilling to use potentially harmful substances for a crack a multi-millions in salary.  At least I hope those players exist.
5 years ago, Chris Colabello was playing for the Worcester Tornadoes. A team managed by a guy (Ed Riley) who, if memory serves, had gone on to become a mailman after his professional baseball career didn't pan out.

If Colabello actively chose to use PEDs so that he could earn a big league salary – or, hell, a minor league salary – I couldn't entirely blame him. Not that I would condone it, but it would be hard to see him as a villain.

And that might not even be the story (although it certainly might).

The point, I think, is entirely the "potentially harmful" part, not the "performance enhancing." I just wonder if that's how it's being carried out, or if the list of banned substances is somewhat more arbitrary. I have no real knowledge of what's on the "supplement" market except to say that you'd need a Major League salary to afford a steady supply of even the most (presumably) benign GNC stuff. It all seems pretty silly to me. But then, I could never hit a curveball, so I don't really know what it's like to just need that little edge. :confused:
Check it out. An avatar.
____

Fine.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Dec 10 2006, 01:35 AM

Apr 23 2016, 12:41 AM #4

rominer @ Apr 22 2016, 06:17 PM wrote:
Offbase @ Apr 22 2016, 02:32 PM wrote: 80 games isn't too much, IMHO, if you're serious about creating a level playing field for players unwilling to use potentially harmful substances for a crack a multi-millions in salary.  At least I hope those players exist.
5 years ago, Chris Colabello was playing for the Worcester Tornadoes. A team managed by a guy (Ed Riley) who, if memory serves, had gone on to become a mailman after his professional baseball career didn't pan out.

If Colabello actively chose to use PEDs so that he could earn a big league salary – or, hell, a minor league salary – I couldn't entirely blame him. Not that I would condone it, but it would be hard to see him as a villain.

And that might not even be the story (although it certainly might).

The point, I think, is entirely the "potentially harmful" part, not the "performance enhancing." I just wonder if that's how it's being carried out, or if the list of banned substances is somewhat more arbitrary. I have no real knowledge of what's on the "supplement" market except to say that you'd need a Major League salary to afford a steady supply of even the most (presumably) benign GNC stuff. It all seems pretty silly to me. But then, I could never hit a curveball, so I don't really know what it's like to just need that little edge. :confused:
Yes. It is, or should be I think, about the potentially harmful part. For example, if HGH aids recovery from injury and poses no long term health risk, why ban it? Don't professional athletes need some help given the stresses on their bodies that the rest of us do not experience?

Steroids and testosterone are different levels of risk if I've understood the available information I've seen correctly.

If there's very little or no risk for nearly everyone, then performance enhancing is a bogus classification. But if more than some very low and scientifically established percentage of athletes are at risk from using a substance then professional athletes should absolutely be subject heavy penalty for using it.
""Baseball, it is said, is only a game. True. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole in Arizona." widely attributed.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Mar 20 2007, 08:55 PM

May 15 2016, 05:50 PM #5

Can't really say that these guys are innocent just because they insist that they're innocent…but it will be interesting to see where this leads.

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/chri ... sts-051416
Check it out. An avatar.
____

Fine.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Mar 20 2007, 08:55 PM

May 16 2016, 02:11 AM #6

And here go the Blue Jays:
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/178354174 ... ers-fracas

I know there's other history there. But you know what part of the problem is?

There's nothing wrong with that slide. Baseball did not need to create a rule to address that slide. That was not the Chase Utley slide*. But you create that rule, and now you've created a different set expectations from players about how the game is going to be played. So, then, "hard nosed" becomes "dirty," and dirty demands retaliation, when all that was was a hard slide.






*And really, baseball didn't need to create a rule to address the Utley slide, either, as that should have been dealt with under the rules as they previously existed.
Check it out. An avatar.
____

Fine.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Dec 10 2006, 01:35 AM

May 16 2016, 01:39 PM #7

rominer @ May 15 2016, 09:11 PM wrote: And here go the Blue Jays:
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/178354174 ... ers-fracas

I know there's other history there. But you know what part of the problem is?

There's nothing wrong with that slide. Baseball did not need to create a rule to address that slide. That was not the Chase Utley slide*. But you create that rule, and now you've created a different set expectations from players about how the game is going to be played. So, then, "hard nosed" becomes "dirty," and dirty demands retaliation, when all that was was a hard slide.






*And really, baseball didn't need to create a rule to address the Utley slide, either, as that should have been dealt with under the rules as they previously existed.
I agree.

Also Bautista is no Coco Crisp.
""Baseball, it is said, is only a game. True. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole in Arizona." widely attributed.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Dec 12 2006, 12:10 PM

May 16 2016, 02:33 PM #8

Looks like Odor and Coco might have gone to the same summer camp. I liked watching Beltre hold onto Bautista until he could deliver him to a teammate.
They're here. Every April, they're here. At 1:05 or at 7:05, there is a game. And if it gets rained out, guess what? They make it up to you.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Dec 12 2006, 07:05 AM

Jul 25 2016, 04:44 PM #9

Aroldis Chapman is no longer a Yankee. Traded to the Cubs for shortstop prospect Gleyber Torres, outfield prospect Billy McKinney, right-hander Adam Warren, and a PTBNL. Huge prospect haul for the pinstriped devils.
"I think I was just saving all my postseason wins for the Red Sox.”-David Price
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Mar 20 2007, 08:55 PM

Jul 31 2016, 05:12 PM #10

Andrew Miller is now an Indian.

One can only hope that this means the end of the clean-cut Yankee look. It didn't hurt his pitching, but it really didn't work for him otherwise.
Check it out. An avatar.
____

Fine.
Quote
Like
Share