"A-Fraud," indeed....


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/02/07/alex-rodriguez-steroids/index.html?eref=T1

Lets be honest. You're a complete and utter moron if you actually think any athlete is clean especially if they are in the top few percents of their respective sport.

The only athlete I'll even slightly believe is Lance Armstrong and only based on this one theory. His cancer stripped his body and allowed him to rebuild it to be perfectly built for cycling. That said, if it were possible to retest his samples 20 years from now, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they detected some sort of foreign substance.

So yeah, people who think athletes are not on steroids and other performance enhancing drugs = complete and utter morons.

Congress really needs to put this whole "bailout" thing aside for now and re-open more MLB investigations so as a country we can finally get to the bottom of this mess!

Just allow doping in sports. Then tax the shit out of the doping drugs. Win-win.

Basically the lesson of the "steroids era" of baseball is "don't get caught." Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Pettitte and now A-Rod are probably out of the Hall of Fame. But you know somebody who was using is going to get in.

boredom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just allow doping in sports. Then tax the shit
> out of the doping drugs. Win-win.

Exactly. People want to see records broken, historic plays, etc. Let 'em!

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

WHo really cares if professional athletes drug it up? I sure as fuck don't.

Exactly. Let them drug it up and then die young just to get their name in a book and be known as the guy who "wasn't good enough to do it without drugs".

Fitting end if you ask me.

He is a DIRTY player. No surprise that his blood stream is DIRTY too.
Ralph (the angry one).

496 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WHo really cares if professional athletes drug it
> up? I sure as fuck don't.


Baseball is weird that way because of its reliance on statistics. You have plenty of NFL players who probably used steroids who are either in the Hall of Fame or will have no problem getting in.

What I don't get about baseball is the "purists" always talk about keeping the integrity of the numbers. At the same time, Babe Ruth wouldn't have had 714 home runs if he weren't a left-handed hitter in Yankee Stadium (the old stadium's dimensions gave left-handed hitters a distinct advantage), if he faced more pitchers like Walter Johnson who could throw a 90 mph-plus fast ball (common today but not in the 1920s and 30s) or if they used relievers like they do today (with fresh arms commonly use in the last three to four innings with a fast ball-throwing closer). In other words, if Babe Ruth were playing today, I doubt he would have 714 home runs.

A-Rod comes clean on being dirty...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/02/09/arod.admits/index.html?cnn=yes


I have to give the guy credit. He did the right thing.

WashingTone Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 496 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WHo really cares if professional athletes drug
> it
> > up? I sure as fuck don't.
>
>
> Baseball is weird that way because of its reliance
> on statistics. You have plenty of NFL players who
> probably used steroids who are either in the Hall
> of Fame or will have no problem getting in.
>
> What I don't get about baseball is the "purists"
> always talk about keeping the integrity of the
> numbers. At the same time, Babe Ruth wouldn't have
> had 714 home runs if he weren't a left-handed
> hitter in Yankee Stadium (the old stadium's
> dimensions gave left-handed hitters a distinct
> advantage), if he faced more pitchers like Walter
> Johnson who could throw a 90 mph-plus fast ball
> (common today but not in the 1920s and 30s) or if
> they used relievers like they do today (with fresh
> arms commonly use in the last three to four
> innings with a fast ball-throwing closer). In
> other words, if Babe Ruth were playing today, I
> doubt he would have 714 home runs.


Well it goes both ways. Babe was also a pitcher for many of his early years which limited his ability to hit in games. In one year, he had about 325 at bats, which is probably only about 60% of the at bats of a line player like Lou Gehrig. His at bat stats really didnt take off until his 6th season.

You also need to remember that baseball allowed the spitter and other ball techniques until about 1919 or 1920. For those that are uninformed, up until (or soon after the beanball death of Ray Chapman), baseball allowed for the same ball to be used for as long as possible. It it was fouled off but in play, you kept playing with it. If it was pitched into the dirt, you kept playing with it. If a bird shit on it, you kept playing with it. Assuming that the ball was still around by the 3d inning, it was about as soft as some of those desk "squeeze balls" that folks use to relieve tension (i.e., it was mush). It was also dirty and hard to see. Baseball stats clearly show that prior to Chapman's death, baseball was a pitcher's game and big score games were virtually non existent. Filthy, soft baseballs were the main contributor to this.

Yeah, the Polo Grounds had very shallow left and right field corners. This did lead to a lot of line shot homers. On the other hand, the deep center field was basicially an airport - close to 500 feet to deep center versus the 405 to 415 today. Most right/left center points are in the range of 365 to 385 today versus the 450 at the Polo Grounds. Deep shots to right or left center or dead away center had ZERO chance unless you absolutely killed the ball.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2009 04:28PM by ITRADE.