Guest sith lord Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 MLB Commisshioner Bud Selig to announce investigation into Barry Bonds' alleged steroid use, even though league sources say the chances of a suspension is unlikely. My question is: Then why is there even an investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 So they are going to investigate whether or not he did something that wasnt against the rules of baseball at the time he was allegedly doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 They are probably doing because of PR and pressure from Congress. Certain steriods, without a perscription, were illegal in the US at that time. I believe it has been alleged that he was taking some of those, which would be illegal in MLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 So they are going to investigate whether or not he did something that wasnt against the rules of baseball at the time he was allegedly doing it? That's the way I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 They are probably doing because of PR and pressure from Congress. Certain steriods, without a perscription, were illegal in the US at that time. I believe it has been alleged that he was taking some of those, which would be illegal in MLB. Then why just Barry Bonds? What about McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Giambi, Sheffield and Canseco just to name a few? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 It's all BS until I see MLB investigate teams - particularly coaches and trainers. You think someone that makes a living helping athletes work out wouldn't notice steroid use? I don't. The league throws players under the bus but ignores everyone from the top down that promoted/allowed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Then why just Barry Bonds? What about McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, Giambi, Sheffield and Canseco just to name a few? Because someone else already did all the legwork on Bonds and wrote a book about it, so it's easier. And because everyone already hates Bonds. And because baseball is going to need a scapegoat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Because someone else already did all the legwork on Bonds and wrote a book about it, so it's easier. And because everyone already hates Bonds. And because baseball is going to need a scapegoat. Unfortunately, you're probably right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 They need to let this **** rest. It wasn't illegal at the time, PERIOD! If you're going to investigate Barry investigate the whole league. Do you think none of the pitchers he faced ever used, how about the outfielders, the shortstops? Everyone in the league was using because HR's sell tickets, lights our pitchers sell tickets. It's all about the $$$ and the fact they could do it legally should put an end to the contraversy. Fact of the matter is you have to be able to put the bat on the ball, no matter how strong you are. Barry can hit, always has been able to. As far as asteriks, why don't we put one beside the babe and Hank Aaron. Does anyone honestly believe those guys could hit the way they did against today's pitchers? It's all relative to where the sport is at. Everyone in the league had access to the same substances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 They need to let this **** rest. It wasn't illegal at the time, PERIOD! If you're going to investigate Barry investigate the whole league. Do you think none of the pitchers he faced ever used, how about the outfielders, the shortstops? Everyone in the league was using because HR's sell tickets, lights our pitchers sell tickets. It's all about the $$$ and the fact they could do it legally should put an end to the contraversy. Fact of the matter is you have to be able to put the bat on the ball, no matter how strong you are. Barry can hit, always has been able to. As far as asteriks, why don't we put one beside the babe and Hank Aaron. Does anyone honestly believe those guys could hit the way they did against today's pitchers? It's all relative to where the sport is at. Everyone in the league had access to the same substances. It was illegal because he is alleged to have taken controlled substances. That is and was against league rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 It was illegal because he is alleged to have taken controlled substances. That is and was against league rules. Are you now saying he was taking drugs, because I've never heard that one before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooney Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Selig is a hypocrite. MLB and the media are both complicit in this whole mess. EVERYONE knew that McGwire and Canseco were on the juice and more than likely Sosa. Brady Anderson hit 50 HR's !! When Bonds, Giambi and Caminetti started looking like bodybuilders, MLB didn't bat an eye. They were trying to win back fans after the strike with the longball. I don't remember one mediot bringing up the obvious use of steroids/supplements. All you heard was that the ball was "juiced". Now they are all on their soapbox. I too wonder, if Bonds were replaced with the much more likeable McGwire, if this witch hunt would be going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70th Week Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Everyone had access to those substances but that doesnt mean everyone used them.thus,the unfair advantage. :slap: I would ban him and everyone who has ever said they have used them and there would be no one in the hall of fame that did.lets clean house. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 It was illegal because he is alleged to have taken controlled substances. That is and was against league rules. Since when have any steroids been legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Everyone had access to those substances but that doesnt mean everyone used them.thus,the unfair advantage. :slap: I would ban him and everyone who has ever said they have used them and there would be no one in the hall of fame that did.lets clean house. :applause: Jose Canseco estimated that 85% of the players in baseball used steroids. Even if his estimates are way off base, let's say by 40%, that's still 45% using steroids. If you banned them all there would be no baseball. This didn't happen over night and Barry Bonds wasn't the first or the last to use them. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/special_report/news/2002/05/28/verducci_insider/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 So they are going to investigate whether or not he did something that wasnt against the rules of baseball at the time he was allegedly doing it? Pretty much. Although the rules could be read broadly enough to have prohibited them before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 It's all BS until I see MLB investigate teams - particularly coaches and trainers. You think someone that makes a living helping athletes work out wouldn't notice steroid use? I don't. The league throws players under the bus but ignores everyone from the top down that promoted/allowed it. xactly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 So they are going to investigate whether or not he did something that wasnt against the rules of baseball at the time he was allegedly doing it? Exactly, there is not use in this. He wasn't doing anything that was against the rules of the game, unlike Raffy he never go caught. My problem with all of this is what about all the other cheaters, why only Bonds. Who gives a dam if he breaks the record, it is baseballs fault. Are they going to put disclaimers under Sosa and Mark, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 They are probably doing because of PR and pressure from Congress. Certain steriods, without a perscription, were illegal in the US at that time. I believe it has been alleged that he was taking some of those, which would be illegal in MLB. doesn't matter the statue of limitations on steroids is 5 years, if he did it in 98 -2000 there is nothing they can do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 doesn't matter the statue of limitations on steroids is 5 years, if he did it in 98 -2000 there is nothing they can do Ah, but perjury is a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschurm Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 If there is a serious investigation and they find irrefutable evidence that Bonds took steroids, although there was no rule against it he should not ever be awarded any mention in any record book period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 If there is a serious investigation and they find irrefutable evidence that Bonds took steroids, although there was no rule against it he should not ever be awarded any mention in any record book period. If that's the case every player eligible for consideration should be investigated before being allowed into the HOF. Why single out one guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.