756

[Max Dirks]

Barry Bonds just hit homerun number 756. What are your thoughts/opinions on this historic event?

Despite all of this talk of *, it's still very exhilarating to see history broken during my lifetime!

[streak101]

dude! he did!? I gotta call my dad!

Anyways, congrats to the slugger, but didn't he use cork or something once during his career? Kind of cheating ain't it? I might be mistaking him for another person though.

[Atzar]

Uh, no. He's the one who everybody thinks used steroids.

Personally, I don't know. He may have, he may have not. The evidence supports the fact that he cheated, but people have been put in unlucky situations before. If he really broke the record with his own skill and power, then I wish him all the best for holding one of the most famous records in sports; if he cheated like so many believe, then this is one record that I'll just ignore.

Either way, I'm sick of the hatred. Support him or ignore him. Don't fuck it up for yourself and everybody else by hating him; he obviously doesn't care. Personally, I think he cheated, but I can't help but say "Congratulations" on what he's done. Steroids give you power, not skill. Somewhere behind the drugs, there's one of the greatest players of this era. But beyond that, I'm glad it's over.

Maybe the sportswriters will find something else to bitch about now.

[Thoracis]

I couldn't be more happy for Barry Bonds and think the cloud of doubt that's followed him around for the last 7-8 years does nothing to depreciate what he did last night.

First off, whether or not he took steroids is irrelevant. From the late 70's until just recently steroids and other performance enhancing drugs were a part of the game (they're still part of the game, just now they are banned). There was no rule against it, so he was not cheating. If he did use them then yes, he had an unfair advantage over those who didn't use them, but that was simply because other players chose not to use them. There are those who will claim that using drugs like the Clear and the Cream, which Bonds is alleged to have used starting in the 2000 season, do increase things such as hand-eye coordination and bat speed but that's BS and I think everyone knows it.

In 1998 Barry Bonds was widely regarded as one of the top 6-8 players who had ever played the game. A decade ago they were saying this. The man is a talent and a phenom and should be regarded as one of the best athletes of our generation.

Unfortunately too much of the speculation comes from the type of person he is off the field. He is arrogant, cocky, shrewd, and sometimes downright rude. Who cares? There are as many, if not more, allegations and "documented" proof of Lance Armstrong taking performance enhancing drugs as Barry Bonds. Lance is an American hero though. Nobody (outside of France) tears him down the way they do Bonds because of the person he is outside of his sport. Yet if you look at it objectively they're both alleged to have done the exact same thing.

Babe Ruth didn't play against Satchel Paige (or any African Americans for that matter), Hank Aaron played during the emergence of expansion and smaller stadiums against pitchers who were a far cry from what they are today, and Barry Bonds played during the steroids era.... Who cares? Baseball is still baseball.

And a last note... Even if Barry did use, so did a lot of other people and still nobody did what he has done. Further, this year, when I think it is more then safe to say that Barry hasn't used, since he probably has to piss in a cup once a week, Barry stats in the National League have him 1st in OBP (on base %), 1st in walks, 1st in OPS (on base + slugging %), top 10 in slugging % (8th), and top 10 in home runs (9th). Oh yea... he also just turned 43.

Don't be so quick to judge.

[Atzar]

The fact that he's in the top 10 in home runs this year alone goes a long way to prove that he's one of the best hitters of all-time. Nobody pitches to him. Ever. How the hell do you hit home runs when pitchers avoid you like the plague?

Kudos also to the guy who gave up his home run. By challenging him, he showed a lot more guts than most other managers and pitchers in the league.

[Kially Gaith]

I'm completely lost. I don't follow sport...Why can't you all talk about something I understand? XD!

Congrats to him though, it's obviously something special, so, my hat is off to the man.

[Call me J]

I agree with Thoracis. I've never been a huge Barry Bonds fan, and from all accounts he isn't the world's greatest human being, but at the same time he earned this record. I see chemical enhancement not as an affront to the purity of the game, but as a sign that humanity has been able, through science, to push our own bodies beyond what our limits were before. Numerous medical breakthroughs, LASIK, Tommy John Surgery, etc. have made it possible for athletes to perform feats that would have been impossible years ago. Are all of these people cheaters? Criticizing Bonds for having advantages that Aaron did not have is no different than calling contemporary art or literature inferior to older work because of the advantages provided to us by computers.

[Ther]

It was a pretty joyless moment (sportscaster Jim Rome called it a death march), seeing a fraud like Barry Bonds* break the most-hallowed record in all of sports, and I have zero respect for him or for his version of 756*. I'm not going to say I'm glad to see history broken like this because A-Rod will probably do the same 6-7 years from now, and, so far, hasn't been accused of taking steroids and doing things the wrong way.

True, Bonds hasn't failed a steroid test yet, but anyone who has the most basic understanding of chemistry and pharmacology knows that it's easy to take masking drugs that aren't tested for and it's easy to cycle OFF of steroids and cycle ON amphetamines and HGH. Also, I'd like for all the Bonds apologists/myopians to explain how someone's head grows a quarter-inch and feet grow 3 shoe sizes in their 30s - I'm a gym rat and I've never seen the exercise where you work your foot muscles.

That said, I'm not for taking the record away from Bonds, because, as Thoracis said, most of those HRs that Bonds hit were in an era where steroids were not banned in baseball. However, at the same time, I recognize that the mid-80s to the early 2000s will be the "Steroid Era" in baseball, and any records set and broken during this era are, in context, not as impressive as those in eras before.

[Thoracis]

I'm kinda surprised to hear that from the man who hails from Cali....

In looking at the stats from this year a little more, I see that Barry has 74 hits. 22 of them are HR's. He gets a HR, still, steroid free, in almost 1 out of 3 hits. And oh yeah... He's also been walked 114 times already.

Even if A-Rod does break it 8 or 9 or 10 years from now it's still hard to take anything away from Bonds. If we wanted to go into the "what if..." game we could talk about Griffey Jr. was out with injury for basically 4 years and where he'd be had that not happened. He did get hurt though, so we'll never know, it doesn't take anything away from anyone. Hell, people wouldn't have the expectations they have of A-Rod even had Griffey not gone down.

All of these things are what if's. Bonds got it done, nobody else did.

[Karuka]

For the girl whose only understanding of baseball comes from Abbot and Costello's "Who's on First" routine...what is "*"?

[Ther]

I'm kinda surprised to hear that from the man who hails from Cali....


Well, I read Game of Shadows and Juiced.


There are those who will claim that using drugs like the Clear and the Cream, which Bonds is alleged to have used starting in the 2000 season, do increase things such as hand-eye coordination and bat speed but that's BS and I think everyone knows it.

How do you explain a meteoric rise in offensive production at age 37 and onward, then?


Unfortunately too much of the speculation comes from the type of person he is off the field. He is arrogant, cocky, shrewd, and sometimes downright rude. Who cares? There are as many, if not more, allegations and "documented" proof of Lance Armstrong taking performance enhancing drugs as Barry Bonds. Lance is an American hero though. Nobody (outside of France) tears him down the way they do Bonds because of the person he is outside of his sport. Yet if you look at it objectively they're both alleged to have done the exact same thing.

The difference is that Lance doesn't have a well-researched, unbiased book written by two American journalists documenting his steroid use, there are no records by steroid designers showing that he did in fact use steroids, and there's no grand jury investigating him. While that doesn't mean he's clean, there are differences between him and Bonds that can't be ignored.


Babe Ruth didn't play against Satchel Paige (or any African Americans for that matter), Hank Aaron played during the emergence of expansion and smaller stadiums against pitchers who were a far cry from what they are today, and Barry Bonds played during the steroids era.... Who cares? Baseball is still baseball.

Uh, no. Stadiums today are much smaller than they've ever been.


And a last note... Even if Barry did use, so did a lot of other people and still nobody did what he has done. Further, this year, when I think it is more then safe to say that Barry hasn't used, since he probably has to piss in a cup once a week, Barry stats in the National League have him 1st in OBP (on base %), 1st in walks, 1st in OPS (on base + slugging %), top 10 in slugging % (8th), and top 10 in home runs (9th). Oh yea... he also just turned 43.

Uh, no. Game of Shadows points out the means Bonds used to cycle off during the season, and the masking agents he used to prevent detection in testing.


For the girl whose only understanding of baseball comes from Abbot and Costello's "Who's on First" routine...what is "*"?

It's the asterisk that's placed next to records to show how they are, when taken in context, not as impressive as previous marks. Roger Maris, when he broke the single-season home run record in the 60s, was given an asterisk because he played more games a season than the previous record owner, Babe Ruth.

[Atzar]

Karuka, Barry Bonds is widely believed to have cheated by using steroids, giving him more home runs than he might normally have hit over the course of this career. Should he be proven guilty of cheating (they have evidence, but no proof as of yet) then his record will always be accompanied by an asterisk *, showing that he cheated to get there.

EDIT:

Santh, Barry plays in one of the bigger parks in the league. If I remember correctly, he hit over 150 of his homeruns there. I don't think park size is an issue; if it is, it probably leans in his favor.

Also, I don't believe that the evidence provided in books is substantive enough to provide proof. It's too easy to lie.

[Thoracis]

I wouldn't say Game of Shadows was unbiased. Juiced was written by Jose Canseco. You seem to be giving a lot of credibility to American journalists. In my opinion they joined the witch-hunt at just the right time and decided to make it their cash cow.

We don't disagree on the stadium point. I was stating that towards the end of Aaron's career he was starting to play in newer, smaller stadiums then Ruth.

Like everyone has been saying on television all day, Bonds gets to Willie Mays HR numbers without anything. Bonds saying he never "knowingly" took steroids is basically an admission. What I'm saying is it's not that big a deal because his numbers are still good. He's still a great player. I would bet anything that just as many of his HR's came from smaller stadiums and better equipment as they did off of steroids.

There are a million arguments for every case. Ruth and Aaron took pitches off of a mound that was 6-8 inches higher. They had bigger strike zones that didn't force pitchers to throw waist high fastballs right up the middle. They also didn't face behemoth pitchers who are like 6'5" or taller or crazy pitches like cutters or a circle change.

The game changes. The players who adapt to it shine. Barry Bonds was able to do that.

[Elijah_Morendale]

Personally, my apathy is kicked in.

Yeah, it's a great accomplishment and all, but I just don't give a rat's bunghole about baseball.

[Ther]

Santh, Barry plays in one of the bigger parks in the league. If I remember correctly, he hit over 150 of his homeruns there. I don't think park size is an issue; if it is, it probably leans in his favor.

Well, the argument is not Bonds vs. other players of the "Steroid Era" (and even if you want to make that comparison, A-Rod at 32 is 180 HRs ahead of Barry's pace), the argument is Bonds vs. Aaron. In Aaron's era, the ballparks were much larger and the pitching mound was higher, both which favor lower totals of HRs.


Also, I don't believe that the evidence provided in books is substantive enough to provide proof. It's too easy to lie.


I wouldn't say Game of Shadows was unbiased. Juiced was written by Jose Canseco. You seem to be giving a lot of credibility to American journalists. In my opinion they joined the witch-hunt at just the right time and decided to make it their cash cow.

Okay, then what about Greg Anderson sitting in jail, Barry Bonds dropping his lawsuit against the two authors of Game of Shadows, the BALCO charts, the increase in hat size and shoe size as an adult, the unprecedented increase (which no one else in MLB history had, by the way) in offensive production after age 37, Tim Montgomery and Jason Giambi (who's admitted to taking steroids) testifying that they received steroids under the tongue and were told to refer to it as Flaxseed Oil in the same way that Barry Bonds has, and so on? There's much more (you could just cut/paste the entire book here, which really just consists of the material the grand jury has), but I don't want to pile on.

I'm not saying Bonds isn't a great player - just that with the steroid use and other factors (smaller ballparks, lower mounds, watered-down pitching due to the expansion, and so on and so on) his HR total is not as impressive as Aaron's and will be widely considered illegitimate because of the mountains of evidence which alledge steroid abuse.

[INDK]

While I'm relatively certain Barry Bonds used steroids, I think it would be a complete travesty to put an asterisk next to his name. He got the record, and while some of his decisions may have not been the most moral, that has no bearing on the fact that he did hit the most home runs. The thing is, there are a lot of reasons why people would be complaining about whoever it was who broke the HR record because of factors such as nostalgia and collective guilt over how Hank Aaron was treated when he broke the record. I think to an extent, these things fuel the anti-Bonds sentiment.

Steroids complicate the matter. They have an unduly negative image in the United States because the more prominent early examples of their use were by Olympic athletes on the other side of the iron curtain. The fact is, doctors already use steroids medically, and if prescribed properly, can lead to faster healing times not just for athletes but the population as a whole. The thing is, steroids are just another sign of technological advancements. Like I said before, saying Bonds' record is tainted because of steriods is like saying Hemmingway's books are tainted because he had a typewriter.

[Ther]

Like I said before, saying a record is tainted because of steriods is like saying Hemmingway's books are tainted because he had a typewriter.

Uh, you do realize that we ("we" being literary scholars) assess the quality of writing in immensely different ways than the average joe assesses the breaking of a sports record, right?

Also, this is essentially setting up an argument based on morality - if you think that steroids should be legalized in baseball and that performance enhancers should have a role in the game, then you'll be for Barry, while if you're a purist like me who enjoys what the body can do without modification you'll be against him.

[INDK]

Uh, you do realize that we ("we" being literary scholars) assess the quality of writing in immensely different ways than the breaking of a sports record, right?

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just argumentative here? You'd be hard pressed to deny that using a typewriter makes production of literature considerably easier than not having one (and computers make it easier still). Steroids, similarly, make workouts more productive and increase muscle mass.

Like Thoracis has pointed out, not everyone on steroids has broken Hank Aaron's record. Similarly, not everyone with a typewriter is Hemmingway. Thus, by saying that Bonds is a product of steroids is no different than saying Hemingway is a product of the typewriter. To me, the logic of suggesting that steroids are responsible for Bonds is the same as saying that anyone with a typewriter could produce the Sun Also Rises.


if you're a purist like me who enjoys what the body can do without modification you'll be against him.

If Tommy John had the career strikeouts record would you be opposed to it because he had Tommy John surgery?

[Ther]

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just argumentative here? You'd be hard pressed to deny that using a typewriter makes production of literature considerably easier than not having one (and computers make it easier still). Steroids, similarly, make workouts more productive and increase muscle mass

I'm being neither - what you're comparing is so fallacious and out-of-context that it's difficult to even wrap my mind around it.

Does having a typewriter make it easier to produce "literature" (whatever you mean by that term)? It makes it easier to produce ink on a page, certainly, but no, there's nothing instrinsic about a typewriter that enhances the ability of its user to manipulate language. Shakespeare didn't have a typewriter when he wrote Hamlet, and I don't know very many scholars that would rank anything Hemingway wrote above that play.


Like Thoracis has pointed out, not everyone on steroids has broken Hank Aaron's record.

But that's not the argument - I haven't once said that Barry Bonds on steroids wasn't a better player than, let's say, Jose Canseco or Ken Caminiti on steroids, which is the kind of comparison you're making. You're saying he's the best player who's taken steroids - my argument is that Hank Aaron is a better player because his stats closely mirror the juiced Bonds and he DIDN'T take steroids.


Thus, by saying that Bonds is a product of steroids is no different than saying Hemingway is a product of the typewriter.

See above.


If Tommy John had the career strikeouts record would you be opposed to it because he had Tommy John surgery?

If he had the surgery to solely improve his performance, and it did, then yes, I would be opposed to it.

[INDK]

Well then, seeing as you seem to be deliberately missing the Hemingway analogy, I'll rephrase it with a different example.

Lets say a graduate student today is working on a dissertation. He has access to things like the internet and depending on his field, a wide array of software for things ranging from mathematical computations to text analysis. If the student uses these technologies, is his dissertation "tainted" when compared to that of his advisor who wrote a dissertation in the "punch-card" era?

And seeing as Tommy John used surgery to repair severed muscles in his arm, his career would have been over without it. I suggest if that is your criteria, you limit your list of legitimate record holders to those who have completely avoided the medical establishment.

[Ther]

Well then, seeing as you seem to be deliberately missing the Hemingway analogy, I'll rephrase it with a different example.

I'm not missing it - in fact, I addressed it directly above and you don't seem to care to reply to the point I made. Why's that?


Lets say a graduate student today is working on a dissertation. He has access to things like the internet and depending on his field, a wide array of software for things ranging from mathematical computations to text analysis. If the student uses these technologies, is his dissertation "tainted" when compared to that of his advisor who wrote a dissertation in the "punch-card" era?

Of course it isn't, but I wouldn't know which dissertation better contributed to the field based on those factors alone - it could very well be the older one.


And seeing as Tommy John used surgery to repair severed muscles in his arm, his career would have been over without it. I suggest if that is your criteria, you limit your list of legitimate record holders to those who have completely avoided the medical establishment.

But you're obsfucating an important difference - Tommy John, by undergoing his surgery, didn't become a better player than he was pre-surgery. Had he had a surgery designed to make him a better player than he was pre-surgery and pre-injury, I'd have a problem with it, sure. Barry Bonds, by taking steroids, became a much more potent player than he would've been otherwise. Your argument is essentially a red herring.

[INDK]

If the criteria, something that makes someone better than they would have been before is the criteria we are using, then wouldn't all athletes that use personal trainers be considered "cheaters?" Personal training makes athletes better than they were before personal training, and from what I know of Babe Ruth, he certainly didn't use it.

Also, I think you are still missing the analogy I was trying to draw with the typewriter example. By having a typewriter, Hemmingway could get his thoughts on paper faster. It is impossible to say what kind of an author Hemmingway would have been with parchment and quill, but the fact that he chose a typewriter suggests that he found the technology a helpful one. Assuming a typewriter merely makes getting ideas on paper quicker, it would have been helpful to Hemingway, especially considering he may have never gotten to his later novels otherwise, including the Pulitzer prize winning Old Man and the Sea.

Like the case of the graduate student in the "Windows XP" era vs the "punch card" era, technologies progressed and people took advantage of them. Bonds is no different from a graduate student who goes onto Jstor.

[Ther]

If the criteria, something that makes someone better than they would have been before is the criteria we are using, then wouldn't all athletes that use personal trainers be considered "cheaters?" Personal training makes athletes better than they were before personal training, and from what I know of Babe Ruth, he certainly didn't use it.


The more apt comparison I would make is between a player who has a physical trainer (like Henry Aaron did), and a player who has a physical trainer and also uses steroids (like Barry Bonds does). Which one will have the better physical edge?


Also, I think you are still missing the analogy I was trying to draw with the typewriter example. By having a typewriter, Hemmingway could get his thoughts on paper faster. It is impossible to say what kind of an author Hemmingway would have been with parchment and quill, but the fact that he chose a typewriter suggests that he found the technology a helpful one. Assuming a typewriter merely makes getting ideas on paper quicker, it would have been helpful to Hemingway, especially considering he may have never gotten to his later novels otherwise, including the Pulitzer prize winning Old Man and the Sea.

How do you know that an author is able to organize their thoughts more quickly with a typewriter than they are with a pen and paper? There's no direct correlation there, nothing intrinsic about a typewriter to suggest that an author can produce better literature using one than not. In writing My Life, for example, Bill Clinton used a pen and paper because it was much more efficient for him than any other method - he was better able to organize his thoughts and manipulate language longhand than by word processing.

If your thoughts suck, and you put them on paper faster, they still suck.


Like the case of the graduate student in the "Windows XP" era vs the "punch card" era, technologies progressed and people took advantage of them. Bonds is no different from a graduate student who goes onto Jstor.

But, again that's an argument based on subjectivity and morality (which is all this entire thread is, really), and it's an argument looking at process rather than result, which pretty much means no one is going to be taken off point. Like I said before, if you think steroids have a place in sports, then you won't care that Barry used them - if you think they don't have a place in sports, then you'll think that Barry's record is tainted.

[INDK]

How do you know that an author is able to organize their thoughts more quickly with a typewriter than they are with a pen and paper? There's no dirrect correlation there, nothing intrinsic about a typewriter to suggest that.

I'm operating on the assumption that those who use a typewriter find it easier to use, thereby enhancing their productivity. I don't think that is a particularly outlandish assumption.


But that's an argument based on subjectivity (which is all this entire thread is, really), and it's an argument looking at process rather than result.

Well, you're a Ph.D student at Cornell, right? Since it was founded in 1865, I hope you hold yourself to the same standards as Bonds and not only eschew the internet, but the lightbulb as well. Otherwise, you're basically arguing that the human progress that you use is unaceptable for athletes. I've heard of holding people in the public eye to higher standards, but this seems a bit excessive. I don't disagree that people have differing opinions on technology and different morals, but I do hope that people judge others by standards they apply to themselves.

Also, I find it odd you think I am focusing on process instead of result, since I am the one arguing that using new technologies is legitimate and that the results (such as 756 HR) should be honored.


The more apt comparison I would make is between a player who has a physical trainer (like Henry Aaron did), and a player who has a physical trainer and also uses steroids (like Barry Bonds does). Which one will have the physical edge?

Not really. In both cases, the athletes made best use of the facilities avaliable to them at their time.

[Ther]

I'm operating on the assumption that those who use a typewriter find it easier to use, thereby enhancing their productivity. I don't think that is a particularly outlandish assumption.

It's not outlandish, its just reductionist. Different writers use different methods of production based on their individual preference, but there's nothing about a typewriter that makes someone a better writer of literature than those who use a pen and paper.


Well, you're a Ph.D student at Cornell, right? Since it was founded in 1865, I hope you hold yourself to the same standards as Bonds and not only eschew the internet, but the lightbulb as well. Otherwise, you're basically arguing that the human progress that you use is unaceptable for athletes. I've heard of holding people in the public eye to higher standards, but this seems a bit excessive.

Why's that? I'm not comparing the importance of my scholarly work, out-of-context, to any of my peers from the late-19th Century. Would I do this with context in mind? Sure, just like I'd compare Bonds' HR record and Aaron's HR record in the context of the Steroid Era.


Also, I find it odd you think I am focusing on process instead of result, since I am the one arguing that using new technologies is legitimate and that the results (such as 756 HR) should be honored.

Well, in fairness you're actually arguing both, you're just using examples that ignore the importance of results in relation to the process used in obtaining them (such as the typewriter analogy).

[INDK]

It's not outlandish, its just reductionist. Different writers use different methods of production based on their individual preference, but there's nothing about a typewriter that makes someone a better writer of literature than those who use a pen and paper.

But the option wasn't avaliable to Shakespeare. Who knows how much of a better writer he could have been with more options. Perhaps he would not have been any better, but you can't tell with any certainty.


Why's that? I'm not comparing the importance of my scholarly work, out-of-context, to any of my peers from the late-19th Century. Would I do with context in mind? Sure, just like I'd compare Bonds' HR record and Aaron's HR record in the context of the Steroid Era.

You would like a Ph.D, I assume? Perhaps after that you would like to parlay your Ph.D. into a career? I believe that Cornell has been awarding them to those who complete disserations and its graduates have gone on to successful careers. By accepting a doctorate, you are getting the same reward as those who proceeded you, despite your use of technological enhancements. If you want to put an asterisk next to your doctorate, I would consider it fair for you to expect Barry Bonds to do the same.

And with regards to process vs results, I am not ignoring the importance of results. If you would like to argue very effective enhancements are bad and marginally effective enhancements are acceptable (which at best, you have implied), then it would become a case that I am ignoring results. If so, I would be happy to limit my examples to very effective enhancements, such as Jstor or the lightbulb.

[Ther]

But the option wasn't avaliable to Shakespeare. Who knows how much of a better writer he could have been with more options. Perhaps he would not have been any better, but you can't tell with any certainty.

Of course you can't, which is exactly what I'm trying to say. There's no way you can make a valid comparison in who's the better writer because there's no specific statistic or form to base that comparison off of, like there is with 755 vs. 756*, or with the surge in Barry Bonds's numbers once he began taking steroids in early 1999. Also, one can't ignore the fact that there are degrees of contextualization and subjectivity, rather than some sort of binary opposition - it's much easier to compare who has better HR numbers in the context of the Steroid Era than it is to argue that Hemingway is a better writer than Fitzgerald because the latter wrote by hand instead of type.


You would like a Ph.D, I assume? Perhaps after that you would like to parlay your Ph.D. into a career? I believe that Cornell has been awarding them to those who complete disserations and its graduates have gone on to successful careers. By accepting a doctorate, you are getting the same reward as those who proceeded you, despite your use of technological enhancements. If you want to put an asterisk next to your doctorate, I would consider it fair for you to expect Barry Bonds to do the same.

Actually, I will have an "asterisk" on my dissertation that differentiates it between the work I've done and the work done by others in the past, and indicates it was work done in a different context - it's called a date.


And with regards to process vs results, I am not ignoring the importance of results. If you would like to argue very effective enhancements are bad and marginally effective enhancements are acceptable (which at best, you have implied), then it would become a case that I am ignoring results. If so, I would be happy to limit my examples to very effective enhancements, such as Jstor or the lightbulb.

I've made no such implication, so please stop putting words in my mouth. What I've said is only that the use of STEROIDS is bad.

[INDK]

Of course you can't, which is exactly what I'm trying to say. There's no way you can make a valid comparison in who's the better writer because there's no specific statistic or form to base that comparison off of, like there is with 755 vs. 756*, or with the surge in Barry Bonds's numbers once he began taking steroids in early 1999. Also, one can't ignore the fact that there are degrees of contextualization and subjectivity, rather than some sort of binary opposition - it's much easier to compare who has better HR numbers in the context of the Steroid Era than it is to argue that Hemingway is a better writer than Fitzgerald because the latter wrote by hand instead of type.

If you wanted to argue over who was a better home run hitter, it would be one thing, and you could argue that Aaron was the better hitter of the two relative to their era. That is markedly different than putting an asterisk over the home run record. Home runs are a measurable quantity, and it requires only counting to note that Bonds had more than Aaron. Barring a clerical error that puts the actual incidence of a home run into doubt, there is no need for an asterisk. As long as the question is who has the most home runs, no asterisk is required. Any other question becomes a subjective matter, but to let such subjectivity get into the question of who has the most home runs is to try and cloud empiricism with opinion.


Actually, I will have an "asterisk" on my dissertation that differentiates it between the work I've done and the work done by others in the past, and indicates it was work done in a different context - it's called a date.

There is a date on when Bonds hit his home run as well. Why the need for an asterisk then?


I've made no such implication, so please stop putting words in my mouth. What I've said is only that the use of STEROIDS is bad.

Notice how I started my sentence with "if" thereby implying I was guessing at your motives. That could hardly be considered "putting words in your mouth."

However, you have yet to come up with a persuasive reason as to why steroids are bad other than one that is purely arbitrary. You seem to have no problem with other performance enhancers such as better training methods, why are you so dead set against steroids?

[Ther]

If you wanted to argue over who was a better home run hitter, it would be one thing, and you could argue that Aaron was the better hitter of the two relative to their era. That is markedly different than putting an asterisk over the home run record. Home runs are a measurable quantity, and it requires only counting to note that Bonds had more than Aaron. Barring a clerical error that puts the actual incidence of a home run into doubt, there is no need for an asterisk. As long as the question is who has the most home runs, no asterisk is required. Any other question becomes a subjective matter, but to let such subjectivity get into the question of who has the most home runs is to try and cloud empiricism with opinion.

Oh, I'm not arguing as much for an asterisk in the official record books of Major League Baseball, just that Bonds' accomplishment isn't worthy of any celebration and that the number he's "achieved" is illegitimate. The reason I can't argue for an asterisk in the record books is because, as Thoracis said, steroids weren't even illegal for most of those HRs, and Bonds has never failed an MLB drug test.


There is a date on when Bonds hit his home run as well. Why the need for an asterisk then?

See above.


However, you have yet to come up with a persuasive reason as to why steroids are bad other than one that is purely arbitrary. You seem to have no problem with other performance enhancers such as better training methods, why are you so dead set against steroids?

Uh, that's exactly what I've been saying for the last 10 posts! Are you even reading what I'm saying? I've already answered this question - steroids are bad because they give athletes an unfair advantage and because of the side effects they have on the body.

[INDK]

Oh, I'm not arguing as much for an asterisk in the official record books of Major League Baseball, just that Bonds' accomplishment isn't worthy of any celebration and that the number he's "achieved" is illegitimate. The reason I can't argue for an asterisk in the record books is because, as Thoracis said, steroids weren't even illegal for most of those HRs, and Bonds has never failed an MLB drug test.

Well then thats just your opinion and there is no way to argue it.


steroids are bad because they give athletes an unfair advantage and because of the side effects they have on the body.

Yes, but you haven't demonstrated how steroids are "unfair" when other technological advances that improve performance are "fair". If they have a negative effect on the body (which only comes from steroid abuse, which is tantamount to arguing that consuming alcohol is the same as alcoholism, or that taking codeine after an injury is the same as doing heroin) my respect for Barry Bonds grows. It is rare to see someone with so much dedication to their job that they are willing to sacrifice themselves for it.

[Ther]

Well then thats just your opinion and there is no way to argue it.

Yeah, that's what we've been arguing the entire time! ;)


Yes, but you haven't demonstrated how steroids are "unfair" when other technological advances that improve performance are "fair". If they have a negative effect on the body (which only comes from steroid abuse, which is tantamount to arguing that consuming alcohol is the same as alcoholism, or that taking codeine after an injury is the same as doing heroin) my respect for Barry Bonds grows. It is rare to see someone with so much dedication to their job that they are willing to sacrifice themselves for it.

Steroids are "unfair" because those administered to people like Barry Bonds are not made (in such amounts) naturally by the body and some are not even made naturally by human beings period ("beefroids," for instance). When you eat protein, for example, it improves your body's ability to work naturally, but there's a limit you'll eventually reach - steroids allow you to move unnaturally past that limit. Because of their ethical and physiological implications, some players refuse to take them, and thus have an unfair advantage.

[Thoracis]

Steroids are "unfair" because those administered to people like Barry Bonds are not made (in such amounts) naturally by the body and some are not even made naturally by human beings period ("beefroids," for instance). When you eat protein, for example, it improves your body's ability to work naturally, but there's a limit you'll eventually reach - steroids allow you to move unnaturally past that limit. Because of their ethical and physiological implications, some players refuse to take them, and thus have an unfair advantage.


You can walk into any GNC, CVS, or even a Walgreens and buy thousands of different supplements, over the counter, that increase performance beyond those of naturally occuring bodily functions. Does that mean athletes should be denied every one of those things?

The question is not a moral one. I'm as much a sports purist as anyone. My perspective, especially on this issue, is that every generation has had its advantages over the one before it. The fact still remains that at the time Barry Bonds used steroids they weren't banned by baseball. If they had been it would probably be different for me.

[Ther]

The question is not a moral one. I'm as much a sports purist as anyone. My perspective, especially on this issue, is that every generation has had its advantages over the one before it. The fact still remains that at the time Barry Bonds used steroids they weren't banned by baseball. If they had been it would probably be different for me.

Actually, this is a common misconception that Bonds myopians use to defend their champion (and that the general media reports incorrectly). There's evidence of a steroids ban in baseball (albeit not a highly-publicized one) as early as 1991 - Faye Vincent sent out a memo to all MLB teams reminding them of this rule and asking that they be vigilent about non-prescribed steroids use in their clubhouses. Whether a team would have done something if they knew is debatable, since there were no league-wide mandatory penalities in effect until 2002, but the fact remains that steroids were BANNED by MLB at that time.

So yes, by all accounts Barry Bonds did take steroids during a time when they were banned by baseball - I don't blame anyone for thinking otherwise, since this issue has been completely misdefined by the general media (baseball writers tend to have it right more often).