Mark McGwire's Feckless Admission of Steriod Use is too Late
NewsToBeRead
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ti-mcgwire011109&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
McGwire's feckless admission is too late
By Tim Brown
Well, of course he did.
And now that he wants something - a job, a reasonably nonbelligerent working
environment, peace of mind, forgiveness, I suppose - Mark McGwire has come a
little closer to the truth.
He and his handlers typed out a statement, sent it along to the Associated
Press and, presumably, put their hands over their ears. He later sat for an
interview with Bob Costas and was inarguably contrite.
Turns out, he had a damned good reason not to talk about the past, but we
knew that, and he knew we knew, so what exactly do we have today, the day
McGwire simply confirmed that so many of those home runs were manufactured
not in a batting cage, but in a lab (and not in a bathroom stall)?
For one, we have a man so used to hiding and lying that, years after
cheating a nation of baseball fans, he feels sorry for . himself.
"Looking back," he wrote, "I wish I had never played during the steroid
era."
Really.
Since we're all in the mood for looking back, let's consider this, Mark: You
were the steroid era.
Still are. You and every guy who made the same terrible decisions, over and
over. We've become so comfortable blaming Bud Selig and Don Fehr, we forget
the villains in this. They're McGwire, Canseco, A-Rod, Palmeiro, Bonds,
every man in the Mitchell Report, every player who put a needle in his body
and made the next player choose between that and pumping gas for a living,
everyone too cowardly to compete straight up.
The steroid era isn't a seized batch of urine samples, or Victor Conte vs.
the feds, or Selig vs. his own eyes, it's McGwire living the lie, and the
hundreds of others just like him, their angry denials as fraudulent as their
careers.
"I have always told the truth," McGwire cried a half-decade ago, when Jose
Canseco accused him of steroid use, "and I am saddened that I continue to
face this line of questioning."
So McGwire comes clean a month before spring training, perhaps enough lead
time that the St. Louis Cardinals camp at Jupiter, Fla. won't be totally
overrun by reporters and other snoops. Maybe Tony La Russa, his manager then
and his boss now, will be over the humiliation by then, having spent the
better part of the decade backing McGwire against any and all steroids
charges. "It's fabrication," La Russa said more than once, and you'd have
thought McGwire would have called La Russa before Monday, seeing as La Russa
was being such a good (and misguided) friend.
By Monday, La Russa had to come up with a whole new way to praise McGwire,
which he managed quite nimbly.
"No one on the teams I managed worked harder or better than Mark," he said
in a statement put out by the club. "And now, his willingness to admit
mistakes, express his regret and explain the circumstances that led him to
use steroids add to my respect for him. I've defended Mark because I
observed him develop his unique power hitting skill through a rigorous
physical and fundamental workout program."
That and the 10 or 12 years of Winstrol, Deca and HGH, or whatever found its
way into his shaving kit.
Except, and I'll bet La Russa wishes he'd put this in his statement, McGwire
insisted the performance-enhancing drugs he used did not actually enhance
his performance. The dosages were too low and his physical ability too
divine, turns out, for the drugs to have an impact on his body, particularly
as it related to his hitting.
"I was given the gift," he told Costas, "to hit home runs."
He said he would have hit every single one of them had he never injected a
drop of anything.
"Absolutely," he said. "I truly believe so."
So, McGwire was burdened by injuries, a 162-game season, pressures to
perform and his own league's refusal to test for performance-enhancing
drugs, even the non-performance-enhancing kind. How's a man to cope?
"What I had to go through ." he told Costas.
He began using steroids regularly, he said, in time for the '94 season. He
missed three-quarters of that season because of injury. So, the steroids he
bought and used to maintain his health (but not to hit home runs) weren't
keeping him healthy, yet he continued to use them for years. And the home
runs came anyway.
"For some reason," he said, "I kept doing it."
You know what would have been more impressive? Had McGwire in the five years
since he ducked questions from Congress come clean not for his own benefit
but for the good of the young men about to make the same awful choice he
did. He could have announced it on the Taylor Hooton Foundation website,
raising money and awareness for anti-steroids education. Instead, we get a
statement and a television appearance serving himself and his new career as
a hitting coach, just in time to come out of hiding (retirement) and start
the season.
"Now that I have become the hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals," he
wrote, "I have the chance to do something that I wish I was able to do five
years ago.
"I used steroids during my playing career and I apologize."
Yes, he could not be expected to say these things unless he became the
hitting coach for the Cardinals. Before then, clearly, he would not have had
the chance.
What's it matter now, though, right? It's one man among hundreds, maybe
thousands. He lifted the game that summer, right? Him and Sammy Sosa(notes),
so heroic, SI's Sportsmen of the Year, National League MVPs 1A and 1B, they
brought baseball back, right? They saved the sport, remember?
Sadly, it came during what would become known as the steroid era, which,
apparently, was just bad timing for McGwire.
But, we let a man up. We forgive. We hope somebody out there learns from
this. Hell, we weren't taking many of those 583 home runs seriously anyway,
certainly not the 135 he hit over 1998-99. The man is eighth on the all-time
home run list (tied at the moment with Alex Rodriguez(notes)) and barely
sniffs a quarter of the Hall of Fame ballots. We knew. And he knew we knew.
You know what would have been nice, though?
Had McGwire not wasted our time.
Not in 1998. And not on Monday.
Clown John Burke
> ..http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ti-mcgwire011109&prov=yhoo&type...
>
> McGwire's feckless admission is too late
Why, is he dead?
Fran
> ..http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ti-mcgwire011109&prov=yhoo&type...
>
>
> By Tim Brown
>
> Well, of course he did.
>
> And now that he wants something - a job, a reasonably nonbelligerent working
> environment, peace of mind, forgiveness, I suppose - Mark McGwire has come a
> little closer to the truth.
>
> He and his handlers typed out a statement, sent it along to the Associated
> Press and, presumably, put their hands over their ears. He later sat for an
> interview with Bob Costas and was inarguably contrite.
>
> Turns out, he had a damned good reason not to talk about the past, but we
> knew that, and he knew we knew, so what exactly do we have today, the day
> McGwire simply confirmed that so many of those home runs were manufactured
> not in a batting cage, but in a lab (and not in a bathroom stall)?
>
I'm wondering why this item is of interest to anyone in
rec.sport.cricket. I have heard of Mark McGwire (sp?) and knew he was
some baseball hero, but that's it. I don't care about elite baseball
and don't see why his admission that he took steroids, or his angst
about it should concern anyone at all.
The idea that his achievement, whatever it was, was "manufactured not
in a batting cage, but in a lab (and not in a bathroom stall)?" is
vacuous. Steroids may well make it possible for you to maintain
training regimes that allow you to get better, develop more explosive
muscle power, recover more quickly from injury etc but they don't give
you skills you can't acquire thorugh pertinent skill development.
Rather, they allow you to make better use of the skills you have by
relieving you of some of the constraints of your physiology. The
claimant here is blurring the line between predisposing factors and
decisive factors in performance.
His prepubescent snicker at the "bathroom stall" is an attempt to
adduce scatology to make a case that is unconvincing and moralising to
boot. In the end, sports people are entertainers rather than moral
exemplars. If they entertain, they do their job, and if they entertain
at a very high standard, they do it best of all. This chap plainly
felt he needed steroids to give the public what they wanted, and one
suspects he was right, in just the same way that models in fashion
magazines are airbrushed prettier and younger, TV newsreaders appear
in makeup and politicians colour their hair and use botox to look more
electable.
Should a bricklayer who takes a steroid so he can lay more bricks be
sacked for cheating at bricklaying? Not in my opinion.
Fran
StraightDrive
"NewsToBeRead" <NewsTo...@USA.Com> wrote in message
news:hiip5i$181$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> ..
> http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ti-mcgwire011109&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
>
> McGwire's feckless admission is too late
>
> By Tim Brown
>
> Well, of course he did.
>
> And now that he wants something - a job, a reasonably nonbelligerent
> working
> environment, peace of mind, forgiveness, I suppose - Mark McGwire has come
> a
> little closer to the truth.
>
> He and his handlers typed out a statement, sent it along to the Associated
> Press and, presumably, put their hands over their ears. He later sat for
> an
> interview with Bob Costas and was inarguably contrite.
>
> this. Hell, we weren't taking many of those 583 home runs seriously
> anyway,
> certainly not the 135 he hit over 1998-99. The man is eighth on the
> all-time
> home run list (tied at the moment with Alex Rodriguez(notes)) and barely
> sniffs a quarter of the Hall of Fame ballots. We knew. And he knew we
> knew.
>
> You know what would have been nice, though?
>
> Had McGwire not wasted our time.
>
> Not in 1998. And not on Monday.
>
>
>
Which western athlete does not take illegal steroids is the question.......
THEY ALL CHEAT.........thats how they win all those olmypic gold
medals.......by cheating.....
R Bharat Rao
> The idea that his achievement, whatever it was, was "manufactured not
> in a batting cage, but in a lab (and not in a bathroom stall)?" is
> vacuous. Steroids may well make it possible for you to maintain
> training regimes that allow you to get better, develop more explosive
> muscle power, recover more quickly from injury etc but they don't give
> you skills you can't acquire thorugh pertinent skill development.
> Rather, they allow you to make better use of the skills you have by
> relieving you of some of the constraints of your physiology. The
> claimant here is blurring the line between predisposing factors and
> decisive factors in performance.
>
> Should a bricklayer who takes a steroid so he can lay more bricks be
> sacked for cheating at bricklaying? Not in my opinion.
These are the time-honored arguments that have been brought out time
and again by the steriod-apologists, and all been debunked. Yes,
McGwire (and Bonds and Sosa) and may others were born with the near
super-human skills that allowed them to hit projectiles hurtling
towards them at near 100mph with a round bat. No one is saying that
steriods made them good enough to play MLB.
What they did was give them the extra boost -- a mere 5% increase in
performance -- that allowed them to dominate the sport. The early
steroid studies, also brought up by the same apologists -- showed that
steriods had negligible impact on performance. These studies have
since been shown to be flawed -- there is a measurable increase in
performance, about 5%, in some areas -- not just improving recovery
time and training, etc.
Put it this way, 5% is more the difference between Usain Bolt and the
last non-qualifier for the Olympic semi-finals -- anyone still think
5% doesn't matter?
ObCricket: I have no doubt that some cricketers are taking steroids (a
few have even been caught) to improve performance. Look for
cricketers who have shown unusual increase in body mass and a surge in
performance late in their career, or perhaps some unusually muscle-
bound freaks. The same "works like a lab-rat in the gym" excuses were
trotted out in US sports a decade ago, and have been debunked. You
don't get bigger, faster, stronger in your 30s -- you just don't --
without help. There is just too much money in cricket for some idiots
not to take advantage of the help you can get from a syringe.
I wouldn't give a rat's backside about this, except steriods do very
very nasty things to you, and unfortunately the effect is not just on
the athletes. There is such a culture of "body beautiful" that some
kids start working out seriously since the 6th grade, and steriods are
available to middle-school kids who want to bulk up to be better at
some sport. These are middle-schoolers just becoming teenagers....
Thats the problem with condoning steroids.
Bharat
eusebius
> On Jan 13, 1:12 am, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't give a rat's backside about this, except steriods
> Thats the problem with condoning steroids.
>
> Bharat
Nor could I care less about this latest spamthread, but just
wondering, which is it, steriods or steroids? This thread (were it
sentient) seems rather confused on this subject, dare I say it seems
confused on a great many subjects.
Steve Cutchen
<c61c4a92-18a2-4296...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
eusebius <euseb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dood, it's "O" before "I" except after "Y"
R Bharat Rao
Hah -- guess I need to put the old spell-checker back when typing on
my tiny laptop keyboard:-)
Bharat [guessing he is mixing other words where 2 keys next to each
other also occur next to each other in a word]
Fran
> On Jan 13, 1:12 am, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea that his achievement, whatever it was, was "manufactured not
> > in a batting cage, but in a lab (and not in a bathroom stall)?" is
> > vacuous. Steroids may well make it possible for you to maintain
> > training regimes that allow you to get better, develop more explosive
> > muscle power, recover more quickly from injury etc but they don't give
> > you skills you can't acquire thorugh pertinent skill development.
> > Rather, they allow you to make better use of the skills you have by
> > relieving you of some of the constraints of your physiology. The
> > claimant here is blurring the line between predisposing factors and
> > decisive factors in performance.
>
> > Should a bricklayer who takes a steroid so he can lay more bricks be
> > sacked for cheating at bricklaying? Not in my opinion.
>
> These are the time-honored arguments that have been brought out time
> and again by the steriod-apologists, and all been debunked.
For instance ... where?
> Yes,
> McGwire (and Bonds and Sosa) and may others were born with the near
> super-human skills that allowed them to hit projectiles hurtling
> towards them at near 100mph with a round bat. No one is saying that
> steroids made them good enough to play MLB.
>
Indeed, nobody can even claim that steroids improved their ability to
strike the ball with accuracy. At most one might say that steroids
improved their ability to recover from injury or to train and build
explosive power. All the power in the world won't help you hit a home
run unless you strike the ball fairly cleanly though.
> What they did was give them the extra boost -- a mere 5% increase in
> performance -- that allowed them to dominate the sport. The early
> steroid studies, also brought up by the same apologists -- showed that
> steriods had negligible impact on performance. These studies have
> since been shown to be flawed -- there is a measurable increase in
> performance, about 5%, in some areas -- not just improving recovery
> time and training, etc.
>
> Put it this way, 5% is more the difference between Usain Bolt and the
> last non-qualifier for the Olympic semi-finals -- anyone still think
> 5% doesn't matter?
I doubt the 5%. While hitting the ball 5% further may well be large
enough to make the difference between an outfield catch and a home run
you still have to hit the ball.
But even allowing that this is so, why should anyone care? The purpose
of elite sport is entertainment.
If there were no way of testing for steroids, HGH or whatever would
the entertainment be inferior?
> ObCricket: I have no doubt that some cricketers are taking steroids (a
> few have even been caught) to improve performance. Look for
> cricketers who have shown unusual increase in body mass and a surge in
> performance late in their career, or perhaps some unusually muscle-
> bound freaks. The same "works like a lab-rat in the gym" excuses were
> trotted out in US sports a decade ago, and have been debunked. You
> don't get bigger, faster, stronger in your 30s -- you just don't --
> without help. There is just too much money in cricket for some idiots
> not to take advantage of the help you can get from a syringe.
>
Again why should anyone care? The purpose of elite sport is
entertainment.
If there were no way of testing for steroids, HGH or whatever would
the entertainment be inferior?
> I wouldn't give a rat's backside about this, except steriods do very
> very nasty things to you,
Not if you don't use them they don't. Most of these substances have
therapeutic applications. Used according to medical advice they are on
balance worthwhile.
> and unfortunately the effect is not just on
> the athletes.
> There is such a culture of "body beautiful" that some
> kids start working out seriously since the 6th grade, and steriods are
> available to middle-school kids who want to bulk up to be better at
> some sport.
So you want to attack the symptom rather than the cause. Why not
attack the way in which elite sport is treated as something more than
an amusement? Why not attack the fact that people can make a very
privileged living out of elite sport?
> These are middle-schoolers just becoming teenagers....
> Thats the problem with condoning steroids.
It's not surprising that the veneration and privilege gfiven out to
elites (including elite sportsfolk) invites imitators. Kids of 12 and
13 wanting breast enlargements or slimming beyonfd the needs of
health. But you want to make it a moral issue about substances rather
than a social issue about elites.
Very silly
Fran
R Bharat Rao
> It's not surprising that the veneration and privilege gfiven out to
> elites (including elite sportsfolk) invites imitators. Kids of 12 and
> 13 wanting breast enlargements or slimming beyonfd the needs of
> health. But you want to make it a moral issue about substances rather
> than a social issue about elites.
>
> Very silly
Let me get this right.
Sports is a big deal, Kids, therefore, imitate sportsmen. (Some)
Sportsmen abuse steroids to enhance performance. Some kids abuse
steroids. Abusing steroids has bad impact on kids.
You agree so far, I think.
And you think the way to deal with this culture of sports abuse is to
say "Sports should not be a big deal?"
I don't think "very silly" covers it.
I may think that Hollywood actors don't deserve $10M salaries, but
they get the money. Face it, sports is big bucks, and big prestige,
whether you or I like it or not (I do, for the record -- I enjoy
watching sports hugely and don't grudge the sportsmen a penny they
earn, and hope they make more.) The amount of bytes burned on this
ng is ample proof of the passion that sports can engender.
Forgive me for taking a more practical approach to stemming steroid
abuse in kids than saying "Kids, don't make a bid deal about sports."
Bharat
jzfredricks
> run unless you strike the ball fairly cleanly though.
I disagree with this.
During the process of striking a ball minute corrections are made.
Strength helps with this. Higher batspeed means you can also start
your swing later.
No one on this planet can tell us how many home runs would've fallen
short if it wasn't for the steroid use.
Fran
> On Jan 14, 1:24 am, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's not surprising that the veneration and privilege gfiven out to
> > elites (including elite sportsfolk) invites imitators. Kids of 12 and
> > 13 wanting breast enlargements or slimming beyonfd the needs of
> > health. But you want to make it a moral issue about substances rather
> > than a social issue about elites.
>
> > Very silly
>
> Let me get this right.
>
> Sports is a big deal, Kids, therefore, imitate sportsmen.
It's *made* a big deal by there being big money in it. Different
thing.
> (Some)
> Sportsmen abuse steroids to enhance performance.
They don't "abuse" steroids. Steroids are not living or coscious
things. They use them to gain advantage.
> Some kids abuse
> steroids. Abusing steroids has bad impact on kids.
>
They do this if they do in just the way kids use drugs to get academic
advantage or their parents pressgang them into becoming geeks so that
one day they will be rich.
It's an unequal world.
> You agree so far, I think.
>
Nope, I don't
> And you think the way to deal with this culture of sports abuse is to
> say "Sports should not be a big deal?"
>
The answer is to subvert elite sport so that it is not a big deal.
> I don't think "very silly" covers it.
>
It does cover your position.
> I may think that Hollywood actors don't deserve $10M salaries, but
> they get the money.
That's right, because they are valuable entertainment products.
> Face it, sports is big bucks, and big prestige,
> whether you or I like it or not (I do, for the record -- I enjoy
> watching sports hugely and don't grudge the sportsmen a penny they
> earn, and hope they make more.)
Then you have no rational business complaining about steroids or
anything else performance-enhancing. You're merely a moraliser.
> The amount of bytes burned on this
> ng is ample proof of the passion that sports can engender.
>
It's a lot of fun.
> Forgive me for taking a more practical approach to stemming steroid
> abuse in kids than saying "Kids, don't make a bid deal about sports."
Your approach isn't the least bit "practical". It's a moralising cri
de coeur based on arbitrary notions of the sports/cultural aesthetic.
Fran
StraightDrive
"eusebius" <euseb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c61c4a92-18a2-4296...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
I am sure he can spell words better than 99% of the westernfucks whose
native language is English.....
Human filth like Eusebius whose low IQ brains cant even figure a thing
called "typo" amuses me to no end......
R Bharat Rao
Actually there is a fairly easy way -- just look at the massive
decline in homeruns once drug testing was instituted in MLB.
Steroids help build muscle mass and increase explosive strength --
they won't help you hit the ball, but will help you hit it harder. So
balls that would habe been warning track flyouts now end up 5 rows
back. Anyone who thinks steroids don't help at the highest echelons
of sports is just... wrong
Bharat
Fran
1. Does steroid use subtract from or add to good judgement?
2. What is 'roid rage'?
3. Would a steroid user be more or less likely than a non-steroid user
to play the percentages well?
4. If more attempts at home runs are made, would this add to or
subtract from the entertainment?
Fran
viper
"Clown John Burke" <clown_jo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:feac0d36-81ad-484e...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Why, is he dead?
Pointless sport, no relevance to Cricket. That's like posting the
darts news in a chess ng
Viper
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>On Jan 14, 5:51�ｿｽpm, R Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 1:24�ｿｽam, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > It's not surprising that the veneration and privilege gfiven out to
>> > elites (including elite sportsfolk) invites imitators. Kids of 12 and
>> > 13 wanting breast enlargements or slimming beyonfd the needs of
>> > health. But you want to make it a moral issue about substances rather
>> > than a social issue about elites.
>>
>> > Very silly
>>
>> Let me get this right.
>>
>> Sports is a big deal, �ｿｽKids, therefore, imitate sportsmen. �ｿｽ
>
>It's *made* a big deal by there being big money in it. Different
>thing.
That's rubbish.
Cricket was a big deal in the 60s and 70s and the money was a long way
from big then.
Nor is it overly big in a lot of minor sports
>
>> (Some)
>> Sportsmen abuse steroids to enhance performance.
>
>They don't "abuse" steroids. Steroids are not living or coscious
>things. They use them to gain advantage.
consult a dictionary
hell
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abuse
"1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's
authority. "
in fact looking at the origin of the word
" Origin:
1400�ｿｽ50; (v.) late ME abusen < MF abuser, v. deriv. of abus < L
abu-sus misuse, wasting, equiv. to abu-t(i-) to use up, misuse (ab-
ab- + u-ti- to use ) + -tus suffix of v. action; (n.) late ME abus <
MF abus or L abu-sus"
it looks like the meaing you're denying it is the original one...
>
>> Face it, sports is big bucks, and big prestige,
>> whether you or I like it or not (I do, for the record -- I enjoy
>> watching sports hugely and don't grudge the sportsmen a penny they
>> earn, and hope they make more.) �ｿｽ
>
>Then you have no rational business complaining about steroids or
>anything else performance-enhancing. You're merely a moraliser.
Crap.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Jeff Urs
> Pointless sport, no relevance to Cricket. That's like posting the
> darts news in a chess ng
Actually, baseball can take much of the credit for the vast
improvement in fielding in cricket over the last couple of decades.
Not that Mark McGwire was known for his fielding.
--
Jeff
Fran
<newsunspammel...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:38:07 -0800 (PST), Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 14, 5:51 pm, R Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 14, 1:24 am, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > It's not surprising that the veneration and privilege gfiven out to
> >> > elites (including elite sportsfolk) invites imitators. Kids of 12 and
> >> > 13 wanting breast enlargements or slimming beyonfd the needs of
> >> > health. But you want to make it a moral issue about substances rather
> >> > than a social issue about elites.
>
> >> > Very silly
>
> >> Let me get this right.
>
>
> >It's *made* a big deal by there being big money in it. Different
> >thing.
>
> That's rubbish.
> Cricket was a big deal in the 60s and 70s and the money was a long way
> from big then.
>
Chalk and cheese. Cricket was nowhere near as big a deal then as now,
and neither performance-enhancing drugs nor even performance-enhancing
training were a factor. Up until about the 1980s, performnance-
enhancing substances were limited to the Olympics and professional
body-building.
The increase in resources flowing into elite sport, the collapse of
the unsustainable disrtinction between professional and amateur
athletes and the demand this created for more scientific ways of
competing, including of course performance-enhancing substances tore
this down.
If you want to reduce drugs in sport you have to make sport less
profitable. You have to starve it of serious funds. Until that occurs
there will always be a kind of sporting arms race between the
contenders in sport and of course the regulating bodies (no pun
intended). The whole thing is paradoxical of course because the main
reason that the sports regulators are involved is to protect the
merchantability of the product, which action fuels the people they try
to restrain.
The quality of the spectacle would decline if the sport were
deprofessionalised of course, but if you're really worried about
"drugs" is that pertinent?
> Nor is it overly big in a lot of minor sports
>
>
Proves my point. That's why they are minor. I very much doubt drug-
taking is going to be a serious factor in international croquet or
curling.
>
> >> (Some)
> >> Sportsmen abuse steroids to enhance performance.
>
> >They don't "abuse" steroids. Steroids are not living or coscious
> >things. They use them to gain advantage.
>
> consult a dictionary
> hellhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abuse
> "1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's
> authority. "
>
> in fact looking at the origin of the word
> " Origin:
> 1400–50; (v.) late ME abusen < MF abuser, v. deriv. of abus < L
> abu-sus misuse, wasting, equiv. to abu-t(i-) to use up, misuse (ab-
> ab- + u-ti- to use ) + -tus suffix of v. action; (n.) late ME abus <
> MF abus or L abu-sus"
>
> it looks like the meaing you're denying it is the original one...
>
I was having a laugh ... punning ... you've heard of that?
I was hoping to draw him into dropping the rhetoric and explaining why
he was bothered about performance-enhancing drugs.
>
>
> >> Face it, sports is big bucks, and big prestige,
> >> whether you or I like it or not (I do, for the record -- I enjoy
> >> watching sports hugely and don't grudge the sportsmen a penny they
> >> earn, and hope they make more.)
>
> >Then you have no rational business complaining about steroids or
> >anything else performance-enhancing. You're merely a moraliser.
>
> Crap.
That's what you have offered here, but it's nice that you acknowledge
it
Fran
Fran
> On Jan 15, 5:48 pm, "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote:
>
> > Pointless sport, no relevance to Cricket. That's like posting the
> > darts news in a chess ng
>
> Actually, baseball can take much of the credit for the vast
> improvement in fielding in cricket over the last couple of decades.
That's partly true -- though I think "much of" exaggerates. One of
Australia's fielding coaches does come from baseball and one can see
the improvement in the approach to and release of the ball in the
field by some players. Nevertheless, the advent of limited overs
cricket with the greater emphasis on fielding, improvements in ground
management/maintenance and the professionalisation of the sport that
began in earnest in the late 1970s almost certainly contrbuted most to
this.
Viper's point was that this post had nothing to do with cricket, which
was right.
Fran
cricketrulez
> Up until about the 1980s, performnance-
> enhancing substances were limited to the Olympics and professional
> body-building.
Guess you haven't exactly read up on this subject. Look up NFL and
steroid use in the 70's and 80's.
> If you want to reduce drugs in sport you have to make sport less
> profitable. You have to starve it of serious funds. Until that occurs
> there will always be a kind of sporting arms race between the
> contenders in sport and of course the regulating bodies (no pun
> intended). The whole thing is paradoxical of course because the main
> reason that the sports regulators are involved is to protect the
> merchantability of the product, which action fuels the people they try
> to restrain.
Boy, are you clueless. You don't have to starve the whole sport. Just
the culprits who cheat. Yes, Steroid use w/o therapeutic reason is
cheating. Make the risk not worth the reward, like nullifying their
contract and throwing them out of the game for good
> The quality of the spectacle would decline if the sport were
> deprofessionalised of course, but if you're really worried about
> "drugs" is that pertinent?
Nope, after the recent overhaul, with less homeruns, baseball is just
as popular.
> > Nor is it overly big in a lot of minor sports
>
> Proves my point. That's why they are minor. I very much doubt drug-
> taking is going to be a serious factor in international croquet or
> curling.
If there is enough cash at stake and if there is drug which would
help, yes, it would be problem even in curling. Eliminating the cash/
resources is definitely not the fix the problem.
>
> I was hoping to draw him into dropping the rhetoric and explaining why
> he was bothered about performance-enhancing drugs.
Are you that dense?
1) The rules as such (as arbitrary as they are) prohibit the use of
PED's. Each sport has its own arbitrary rules. If you don't wish to
abide by those rules, don't play
2) Use of PED's is inherently unsafe.
> > >Then you have no rational business complaining about steroids or
> > >anything else performance-enhancing. You're merely a moraliser.
Nothing wrong with being a moraliser. Keeps this world sane. There are
rules about not shagging women (or men) against their will and whole
bunch of locked up criminals would who wish such rules would go away.
How dare the society moralise against these individuals and
criminalize their actions!!!!
> > All the power in the world won't help you hit a home
> > run unless you strike the ball fairly cleanly though.
Cluesless Sheila! Being able to hit a baseball accurately requires bat
speed and that is directly correlated to strength and the distance the
ball travels is also correlated to this strength. Without the accurate
contact and distance baseball hitters are as useless. By increasing
their strength, the steroids served as force multipliers and it helped
players who should have been put out to farm set new records. These
players have either retired or have become irrelevant due to poor
performance once testing came into picture.
Fran
> On Jan 15, 7:22 pm, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > enhancing substances were limited to the Olympics and professional
> > body-building.
>
> Guess you haven't exactly read up on this subject. Look up NFL and
> steroid use in the 70's and 80's.
>
Well I'll cop the correction on NFL -- still ... big money = use of
PEDs
> > If you want to reduce drugs in sport you have to make sport less
> > profitable. You have to starve it of serious funds. Until that occurs
> > there will always be a kind of sporting arms race between the
> > contenders in sport and of course the regulating bodies (no pun
> > intended). The whole thing is paradoxical of course because the main
> > reason that the sports regulators are involved is to protect the
> > merchantability of the product, which action fuels the people they try
> > to restrain.
>
> Boy, are you clueless. You don't have to starve the whole sport. Just
> the culprits who cheat. Yes, Steroid use w/o therapeutic reason is
> cheating. Make the risk not worth the reward, like nullifying their
> contract and throwing them out of the game for good
>
The trouble is that to do that you have to introduce a massively
intrusive and expensive regulatory regime to achieve something that
really makes no differnece to the entertainment. You basically have to
have big money in the sport and of course it discriminates against all
but the elite.
> > The quality of the spectacle would decline if the sport were
> > deprofessionalised of course, but if you're really worried about
> > "drugs" is that pertinent?
>
> Nope, after the recent overhaul, with less homeruns, baseball is just
> as popular.
>
It might well be, but if professional baseball disappeared one
suspects local baseball would be even more popular. Here in Australia
(and IIRC NZ) many more people play netball than watch it on TV.
> > > Nor is it overly big in a lot of minor sports
>
> > Proves my point. That's why they are minor. I very much doubt drug-
> > taking is going to be a serious factor in international croquet or
> > curling.
>
> If there is enough cash at stake and if there is drug which would
> help, yes, it would be problem even in curling. Eliminating the cash/
> resources is definitely not the fix the problem.
>
So lose the dollars. Take away the tax deductibility of elite sporting
organisations, bar government grants, exclude WADA and similar having
access to the courts to enforce its rules, ensure that privacy rules
subverted the use of evidence about drug possession in court against
sportsfolk or others, except in criminal matters.
>
>
> > I was hoping to draw him into dropping the rhetoric and explaining why
> > he was bothered about performance-enhancing drugs.
>
> Are you that dense?
>
> 1) The rules as such (as arbitrary as they are) prohibit the use of
> PED's. Each sport has its own arbitrary rules. If you don't wish to
> abide by those rules, don't play
>
That's fine. Sports bodies should be permitted to run their own show,
but the government doesn't have to cooperate.
> 2) Use of PED's is inherently unsafe.
>
Irrelevant. Issue the approriate medical warnings, discourage usage
through education and leave it at that.
> > > >Then you have no rational business complaining about steroids or
> > > >anything else performance-enhancing. You're merely a moraliser.
>
> Nothing wrong with being a moraliser. Keeps this world sane.
Only where it serves a legitimate public interest.
> There are
> rules about not shagging women (or men) against their will
That serves the public interest of freedom of individuals to choose
their lifestyle.
> and whole
> bunch of locked up criminals would who wish such rules would go away.
> How dare the society moralise against these individuals and
> criminalize their actions!!!!
>
Silly strawman
> > > All the power in the world won't help you hit a home
> > > run unless you strike the ball fairly cleanly though.
>
> Clueless Sheila! Being able to hit a baseball accurately requires bat
> speed and that is directly correlated to strength and the distance the
> ball travels is also correlated to this strength. Without the accurate
> contact and distance baseball hitters are as useless. By increasing
> their strength, the steroids served as force multipliers and it helped
> players who should have been put out to farm set new records. These
> players have either retired or have become irrelevant due to poor
> performance once testing came into picture.
Even if true, this is irrelevant isn't it?
Fran
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>On Jan 16, 2:13�pm, Jeff Urs <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote:
one point you may be unaware of is that at least Rod Marsh and the
Chappells played a fair amount of baseball at a pretty decent level.
so improvement in the 70s may owe a fair amount to it as well.
Fran
<newsunspammel...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:28:03 -0800 (PST), Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 16, 2:13 pm, Jeff Urs <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 15, 5:48 pm, "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Pointless sport, no relevance to Cricket. That's like posting the
> >> > darts news in a chess ng
>
> >> Actually, baseball can take much of the credit for the vast
> >> improvement in fielding in cricket over the last couple of decades.
>
> >That's partly true -- though I think "much of" exaggerates. One of
> >Australia's fielding coaches does come from baseball and one can see
> >the improvement in the approach to and release of the ball in the
> >field by some players. Nevertheless, the advent of limited overs
> >cricket with the greater emphasis on fielding, improvements in ground
> >management/maintenance and the professionalisation of the sport that
> >began in earnest in the late 1970s almost certainly contrbuted most to
> >this.
>
> one point you may be unaware of is that at least Rod Marsh and the
> Chappells played a fair amount of baseball at a pretty decent level.
> so improvement in the 70s may owe a fair amount to it as well.
> --
I was aware of that (Border too IIRC) but it hadn't occurred to me
when posting.
Fair call.
Fran
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>On Jan 16, 5:33�pm, Mad Hamish
>I was aware of that (Border too IIRC) but it hadn't occurred to me
>when posting.
>
That rings a bell about Border, probably why he was so deadly at
midwicket...
viper
"Fran" <fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f88e0120-e361-4eb0...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
Fran
I think his contribution has been almost exclusively in the area of ground
fielding, particularly the shoulder and elbow position, as well as the shift
in body weight, upon release. I would suggest that he has made some strong
improvements to the standard of the deeper field positions. Australian teams
have always been strong in terms of prep, hand postion, hand/eye
co-ordination and courage. Let's face it, gully point and covers are no
place for the light hearted.
I think you're right though Fran, the overall rise in standard can be
attributed to one day cricket
Viper
jr92
Should a bricklayer who chooses NOT to take a proven, dangerous,
illegal drug and therefore, can't quite keep up with the "juiced"
bricklayer be sacked because he did NOT cheat???
Not in my opinion.
> Fran- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fran
Nor mine. That's why we have unions and labour standards.
Fran
jr92
You miss the point by a mile, although you probably do it
intentionally. But the likes of you prove a point I made many years
ago, when the steriod issue was only a rumor floating around MLB.
Back then, I predicted that those, like you, who either supported
steriod use, or at the very least, didn't give a damn one way or
another about it, would first DENY it's use in the first place.
The denial went on for several years, until proven beyond a shadow of
doubt that many many many Major League players used them.
I then predicted the likes of you would minimize steroids affects on
players,
I hit a home run on both counts.
Bonds, Mcguire, and Sosa could know the stuffings out of a baseball to
begin with.
They already had the talent long before indulging in illegal
substances.
Streriods did not give these guys the ability to hit the ball long, or
hard.
It just enhanced these abilities.
Mcguire went from never hitting over 47 home runs to 70 in a year.
Bonds went from never hitting over 46 to 73 in one year.
Sosa, went from less than 40, to 60 or more 4 times.
The list goes on and on and on and on and on..................
> > What they did was give them the extra boost -- a mere 5% increase in
> > performance -- that allowed them to dominate the sport. The early
> > steroid studies, also brought up by the same apologists -- showed that
> > steriods had negligible impact on performance. These studies have
> > since been shown to be flawed -- there is a measurable increase in
> > performance, about 5%, in some areas -- not just improving recovery
> > time and training, etc.
>
> > Put it this way, 5% is more the difference between Usain Bolt and the
> > last non-qualifier for the Olympic semi-finals -- anyone still think
> > 5% doesn't matter?
>
> I doubt the 5%. While hitting the ball 5% further may well be large
> enough to make the difference between an outfield catch and a home run
> you still have to hit the ball.
>
Once again, all above could hit the ball. Suddenly they hit it even
better, Why?????
> But even allowing that this is so, why should anyone care? The purpose
> of elite sport is entertainment.
>
After admitting you are wrong, then you try to push off baseball as
some sort of WWF wrestling.
Many players who played for a living during this scandulous era chose
to play fair, be legal, and not put their health at risk. Most paid a
terrible price. The best usually didn't put up as good offensive
numbers as their similary talented but steriod-enhanced counterparts,
and,because they didn't put up quite as good of offensive numbers,
usually made less money.
They were the lucky ones.
Lesser talented players who might normally be starters, lost their
starting positions to those who chose to juice up.
Less fortunate players who normally would be substitutes lost their
jobs, and LIVIHOOD, to those who didn/t play by the rules.
You still think it is alright????????
jr92
More importantly, that is the reason we have LAWS, being the vast
majority of bricklayers are not members of unions to begin with. And,
of course, most employers of bricklayers are intelligent enought to
not knowingly hire workers indulging in illegal substances in the
first place, as they know in the long run it is not in their best
interest to do so.
Fran
No drug tests are permitted on union-organised building sites in
Australia. While building sites are subject to the same laws on
psychoactive and mind-altering substances as the rest of the country
the remaining substances -- steroid derivatives, HGH, caffeine etc.
are perfectly legal.
Using such a substance under medical direction to recover from injury
would probably be encouraged.
Fran
Fran
Yes. You don't specify the problem and seem confused as to the nature
of the objection. As far as I can tell you seem to be arguing that
people aren't entitled to gamble with their health to make extra
money. Is that what you are claiming?
You speak of "less fortunate players" referring to those who didn't
"juice up". Surely this was their *choice* rather than their
*fortune*?
Surely you can't be arguing that people aren't entitled to gamble with
their health to make extra money? The whole of elite sport is a
process of gambling with your health to make extra money.
Fran
Lew Pitcher
> On Jan 13, 1:12?am, Fran <fran.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The idea that his achievement, whatever it was, was "manufactured
>> not in a batting cage, but in a lab (and not in a bathroom
>> stall)?" is vacuous. Steroids may well make it possible for you
>> to maintain training regimes that allow you to get better,
>> develop more explosive muscle power, recover more quickly from
>> injury etc but they don't give you skills you can't acquire
>> thorugh pertinent skill development.
This is false. Many players, including McGwire, have shown us skill
that can only be attained through the repetition that steroids
allow. Those who hit 50 homeruns a season are clearly more skilled
at hitting homeruns than those who hit 15.
>> Rather, they allow you to make better use of the skills you have
>> by relieving you of some of the constraints of your physiology.
>> The claimant here is blurring the line between predisposing
>> factors and decisive factors in performance.
Ah, but it is not so simple. And, at the end of the day it doesn't
really matter because empirical data show us that those who do
steroids perform at a higher level than those who do not. It
doesn't really matter what, exactly, the steroids do to the body.
>> Should a bricklayer who takes a steroid so he can lay more bricks
>> be sacked for cheating at bricklaying? Not in my opinion.
> Should a bricklayer who chooses NOT to take a proven, dangerous,
> illegal drug and therefore, can't quite keep up with the "juiced"
> bricklayer be sacked because he did NOT cheat???
Should or shouldn't is quite irrelevant. The bricklayer who lays
the most bricks will make the most money, whether he is "juiced" or
not. If a clean bricklayer doesn't like it, he should change
occupations, or write off the unknown damage that steriods may do to
the human body, as occupational hazards.
We wonder if there was such an outcry when vitamins, with their
alleged affects on the human body, were first marketed
synthetically.
Lew Pitcher
"I am gay and I am so fucking proud of it!"
Check out: http://lewpitcher.ca/
One and only Lew Pitcher? lpit...@teksavvey.com
Have a Great Fucking Day!!!!
jr92
Drug testing is mandatory in most places of employment in America.
There seems to be this silly notion here that drugs are detrimental to
the health and well-being of the employee, putting at risk the
substancial investment the company has in the employee, not to mention
the safety risk the drug induced worker puts his fellow workers in.
I wonder if "roid-rage" qualifies as being a mind altering effect????
Even trying to compare caffine to steroids is simply laughable.
Go ahead, make my day.
> Using such a substance under medical direction to recover from injury
> would probably be encouraged.
>
jr92
Why, yes, I believe it is.
As well my argument that no one should have his job in jepordy
because he chooses to be safe, while the guy that knocks him out of
the job chooses to be reckless.
As well as the fact that these steroids are illegal to use in the
first place.
As well as the fact the the players using them are cheating.
I argue that MLB players are not ENTITLED to cheat.
Sorry, but there still are a few of us in the world that do not
believe in the "anything goes" mentality.
Guess that makes us old-fashioned.
> You speak of "less fortunate players" referring to those who didn't
> "juice up". Surely this was their *choice* rather than their
> *fortune*?
>
Their "choice". is to play by the rules, be legal, and be safe.
I wonder how the families of Kyle Alzado or Ken Caminiti feel about
the choices that they made???????
> Surely you can't be arguing that people aren't entitled to gamble with
> their health to make extra money? The whole of elite sport is a
> process of gambling with your health to make extra money.
>
MLB players are not 'entitled' to anything.
They are REQUIRED to play by the rules.
Fran
In that case you will be opposing professional sport which is the
systematic organisation of people wishing to gamble with thewir health
to make extra money. Most of the practices have very little to to do
with maintaining functional good health. They almost all lead to
injuries which eventually, force the sportsman from from the field and
which in later life leave them less fit than someone of similar
physiology with a more balanced program of good diet and fitness.
> As well my argument that no one should have his job in jepordy
> because he chooses to be safe, while the guy that knocks him out of
> the job chooses to be reckless.
>
As above ...
> As well as the fact that these steroids are illegal to use in the
> first place.
>
No they aren't. They are perfectly legal. Most sports have decided to
discourage usage, which is a different matter. Almost all of the
substances have therapeutic application. (I'm excluding masking agents
here obviously)
> As well as the fact the the players using them are cheating.
>
That's nothing to do with whether PEDs are a bad thing.
> I argue that MLB players are not ENTITLED to cheat.
>
I argue that I don't care if they do. It's the entertainment that is
key. Providing the cheating doesn't lower the entertainment value of
the sport, I'm not bothered.
> Sorry, but there still are a few of us in the world that do not
> believe in the "anything goes" mentality.
>
Why apologise? You are entitled to have whatever aesthetic preferences
you wish. Just don't try pretending they are based on something
rational. I happen to like lots of things others don't like as much
but I don't try reasoning them into agreeing with me.
My favourite shot in cricket is the straight drive, ideally played off
the back foot. I like it a lot better than the cut or the hook, though
a well placed late cut is also very nice. Why is that?
I don't know. I just like it like that.
You may like believing that players are all performing without PEDs.
That's a matter for you and you needn't defend it as rational.
I suspect it's some sort of "bodies-as-temples" fetish, but I'd be
guessing.
> Guess that makes us old-fashioned.
>
> > You speak of "less fortunate players" referring to those who didn't
> > "juice up". Surely this was their *choice* rather than their
> > *fortune*?
>
> Their "choice". is to play by the rules, be legal, and be safe.
>
So they are safer and happier? How "fortunate"! Really, if it isn't
woerth it, then they have made the right choice. It's not as if they
are not going to make a reasonable living.
> I wonder how the families of Kyle Alzado or Ken Caminiti feel about
> the choices that they made???????
>
Who?
> > Surely you can't be arguing that people aren't entitled to gamble with
> > their health to make extra money? The whole of elite sport is a
> > process of gambling with your health to make extra money.
>
> MLB players are not 'entitled' to anything.
>
In which case, what are you objecting to?
> They are REQUIRED to play by the rules.
But I'm not required to care if they do or not
Fran
Fran
Yet steroidal drugs are administered for many injuries.
> Even trying to compare caffine to steroids is simply laughable.
>
Not really ... caffeine is on the banned list for many sports. At
Seoul 1988 one of Australia's competitors (a fencer IIRC) was DQ'd on
this basis
Fran
jr92
You really don/t have a clue, do you?
There is a big difference in competing, and CHEATING.
BTW, it's been proven time and time again, that there is a whole lot
less gamble being "clean" as opposed to "juicing up" , health-wise.
But you really don't care about that.
You already pretty much admitted the only thing you care about is
being "entertained'.
Sportsmanship, honesty, decentcy, or any other thing else be damned.
> > As well my argument that no one should have his job in jepordy
> > because he chooses to be safe, while the guy that knocks him out of
> > the job chooses to be reckless.
>
> As above ...
>
> > As well as the fact that these steroids are illegal to use in the
> > first place.
>
> No they aren't. They are perfectly legal. Most sports have decided to
> discourage usage, which is a different matter. Almost all of the
> substances have therapeutic application. (I'm excluding masking agents
> here obviously)
>
Where are they legal????
Lot of people here in the states are currently doing time for their
part in steroid usage.
> > As well as the fact the the players using them are cheating.
>
> That's nothing to do with whether PEDs are a bad thing.
>
> > I argue that MLB players are not ENTITLED to cheat.
>
> I argue that I don't care if they do. It's the entertainment that is
> key. Providing the cheating doesn't lower the entertainment value of
> the sport, I'm not bothered.
>
In another life, I bet you frequented the Roman Coliseum a lot. The
Christains being fed to the lions didn't have much of a chance, but,
damned, I'll bet to the likes of you it was entertaining.
> > Sorry, but there still are a few of us in the world that do not
> > believe in the "anything goes" mentality.
>
> Why apologise? You are entitled to have whatever aesthetic preferences
> you wish. Just don't try pretending they are based on something
> rational. I happen to like lots of things others don't like as much
> but I don't try reasoning them into agreeing with me.
>
I guess playing fair is not considered being " rational" in your
world?????
Probably not, if entertainment is the main reason you watch
competetion.
Why don't you forget watching humans compete, and just watch a good
old fashion video game???
Or Rockem' Sockem' Robots in action?????
> My favourite shot in cricket is the straight drive, ideally played off
> the back foot. I like it a lot better than the cut or the hook, though
> a well placed late cut is also very nice. Why is that?
>
> I don't know. I just like it like that.
>
> You may like believing that players are all performing without PEDs.
> That's a matter for you and you needn't defend it as rational.
>
If I have to defend playing fairly as being "rational" then I guess
the world is in a helluva shape..
I only pray the likes of you are in the minority.
With the morals you display, please tell me that you are NOT a school
teacher.
> I suspect it's some sort of "bodies-as-temples" fetish, but I'd be
> guessing.
>
> > Guess that makes us old-fashioned.
>
> > > You speak of "less fortunate players" referring to those who didn't
> > > "juice up". Surely this was their *choice* rather than their
> > > *fortune*?
>
> > Their "choice". is to play by the rules, be legal, and be safe.
>
> So they are safer and happier? How "fortunate"! Really, if it isn't
> woerth it, then they have made the right choice. It's not as if they
> are not going to make a reasonable living.
>
> > I wonder how the families of Kyle Alzado or Ken Caminiti feel about
> > the choices that they made???????
>
> Who?
Just google.
And become educated.
Steroid Deaths
Home
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steroids Kill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ex-Steroid Users Tell Their Stories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Special Plea To Parents And Coaches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steroid Deaths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I'm sick, and I'm scared. Ninety percent of the athletes I
know are on the stuff. We're not born to be 300 pounds
or jump 30 feet. But all the time I was taking steroids,
I knew they were making me play better. I became very
violent on the field and off. I did things only crazy
people do. Now look at me. My hair's gone, I wobble
when I walk and have to hold on to someone for support,
and I have trouble remembering things. My last wish?
That no one else ever dies this way.”
– Lyle Alzado (1949-1992), NFL Football Player
Of course, Lyle 'entertained' the likes of you for a long time.
When he was used up, the likes of your merely found someone else to
entertain you.
Your a real sicko.
>
> > > Surely you can't be arguing that people aren't entitled to gamble with
> > > their health to make extra money? The whole of elite sport is a
> > > process of gambling with your health to make extra money.
>
> > MLB players are not 'entitled' to anything.
>
> In which case, what are you objecting to?
>
> > They are REQUIRED to play by the rules.
>
> But I'm not required to care if they do or not
>
Sorryo
> Pointless sport, no relevance to Cricket. That's like posting the
> darts news in a chess ng
Baseball is almost as entertaining as watching paint dry.