Steroids? Knock me down!

[Sneakeater]

It's not just sports. Eddie van Halen played this super-fast guitar solo in the Ak-Sar-Ben Arena in Omaha, Nebraska in October 1984. Many believe drugs were involved.

[GordonCooks]

It's not just sports. Eddie van Halen played this super-fast guitar solo in the Ak-Sar-Ben Arena in Omaha, Nebraska in October 1984. Many believe drugs were involved.

 

Yet another good example. PEDS should really be re-categorized under Life Enhancing Drugs.

[mongo_jones]

and let's not even begin to talk about sneakeater's sex life.

[Wilfrid]

When you have a situation like this in the Tour de France, I don't think we're talking about cheating any more. Breaking rules, yes, but stealing an unfair advantage over your competitors?

[AaronS]

I hope today's report forces armstrong to come clean, or at least stop lying so forcefully.

[Wilfrid]

Forget Armstrong? Why not forget the Tour entirely?

 

...whether the runners-up to Armstrong in those seven Tours will be retrospectively handed a winner's yellow jersey or whether those races will be deemed to have had no winner. The complication of elevating riders from second and third places is that so many of them have subsequently been implicated in doping scandals.

 

link

 

I ask again, doesn't it make a rather qualified kind of cheating if everyone is doing it?

[Rich]

I ask again, doesn't it make a rather qualified kind of cheating if everyone is doing it?

A resounding NO!!!

 

First EVERYONE isn't doing it. And secondly, what's the purpose of sport if the athletes are using PEDs? The concept of sport is the athleticism involved not who can afford to purchase the best and most helpful drugs.

 

If that reasoning is to be followed, then just play the games with robots - at least the drugs won't be harmful to their minds and/or bodies.

[Wilfrid]

Doping in the Tour de France.

[splinky]

i'm very excited to announce that i have the same number of tour de france wins as lance armstrong and i did it without doping.

[Wilfrid]

Chickens starting to head home for roosting purposes, as far as baseball is concerned. Listened to a couple of good discussions on ESPN recently, and heard all the points which I'd like to make myself. Not least that some of the veterans snarling about the idea of including alleged steroid-users played at a time when amphetamine use was commonplace.

 

We now have rumors floating around about Mike Piazza, who will be on the ballot for the first time this year, along with some other big names. Nobody seems to be able to point to any evidence that Piazza was a user, but there's plenty of speculation.

 

Inconveniently, Roger Clemens has actually been through a lengthy judicial process, and emerged unconvicted.

 

You can have gut feelings about whether Piazza or Clemens should be in the HoF, but I'd be interested to hear a logical defense for including the former but not the latter. An ESPN columnist tries it here, but confesses that his case is "impossibly subjective."

[Lex]

Inconveniently, Roger Clemens has actually been through a lengthy judicial process, and emerged unconvicted.

If you think Clemens didn't use steroids then I'm the queen of Roumania.

 

HOF voters are not likely to be impressed that he beat the steroid charge in court. Let me put it this way - Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion because they couldn't prove he was a racketeer. That doesn't make him a shoo in for the Hall of Fame.

 

"You can't prove I did it so you have to let me in!"

 

No.

 

Based on his Bondsian physique I think Bagwell shouldn't get in. Piazza? I need to hear more evidence. If it weren't for the steroids rumors he'd be a lock. I'm certain he won't get in this year.

 

Bonds and Clemens? There are not enough LOL emoticons to express my skepticism. Last year McGwire only got 19.5% or\f the 75% of the votes needed for the Hall. I suspect neither Bonds nor Clemens will break the 25% mark.

[GordonCooks]

Chickens starting to head home for roosting purposes, as far as baseball is concerned. Listened to a couple of good discussions on ESPN recently, and heard all the points which I'd like to make myself. Not least that some of the veterans snarling about the idea of including alleged steroid-users played at a time when amphetamine use was commonplace.

 

We now have rumors floating around about Mike Piazza, who will be on the ballot for the first time this year, along with some other big names. Nobody seems to be able to point to any evidence that Piazza was a user, but there's plenty of speculation.

 

Inconveniently, Roger Clemens has actually been through a lengthy judicial process, and emerged unconvicted.

 

You can have gut feelings about whether Piazza or Clemens should be in the HoF, but I'd be interested to hear a logical defense for including the former but not the latter. An ESPN columnist tries it here, but confesses that his case is "impossibly subjective."

 

The fact that Hank Aaron is no longer the HR leader is a travesty.

[joethefoodie]

Maybe they should just have a "steroid-wing" at the hall?

[Rich]

Maybe they should just have a "steroid-wing" at the hall?

...and they could call it the Marvin Miller wing.

[Wilfrid]

That's what I mean. Plenty of feelings, no logic.

 

There are people who have "no doubts" that Mike Piazza was a user. There are people we know were users -- they tested positive -- who did not show significant changes in physique or improvements in performance. There have been, and doubtless will be, candidates for the HoF who were users, but have never been under suspicion. There are certainly players already in the HoF who used amphetamines -- obvious performance enhancers.

 

I am sure the HoF voters will just back their gut feelings too, meaning innocent players excluded and guilty players admitted. Not much to be done about it.

 

One of many elephants in the room, the extraordinary incidence among baseball players of symptoms requiring the prescription of the stimulant Adderall.