A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]Yes, I meant to and should have. Better yet, I should have just stayed out of it. I did like 791's article though. Although I have had my differences of opinion with him, I have always respected him.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
    Listen to you!  Good man, you, who acknowledges what he should have done. But then I already knew that about you. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]We can just sign Bedard with no compensation at about the same salary i think. His arm is ok. His knee should heal well enough. No doubt that he has had a series of injuries though. We would have to trade players to get Guthrie. With an AL East rival. For their best pitcher. They will lose him soon though so he is a potential trade target. it's just not likely and who wants to trade their best pitcher going into the season? The Sox need starting pitching. Both guys for the immediate rotation and for depth. The thing I like about Bedard is that he is LH and he can still pitch. His problem is that he has had injuries but we would be looking at him as depth more than as a regular guy and we can afford to pay him as depth probably.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    It's not likely for a team to trade their best pitcher if his presence makes a difference. The O's are losing with or without him. They fielded a veteran presence in their infield in 2011, so obviously they felt they had an outside shot to contend.

    After this year, I think they'll take a step back and move a desired commodity like Guthrie for some M.L. ready prospects, swinging the best deal they can.
    If that means with Boston (possibly including other teams), so be it.

    Their other choice is to sign and overpay for a FA starter.
    They could definitely take this route as well.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    1) He has zero playoff or crunch time experience. 2) He's 1-4 with a 5.88 ERA in Fenway in 9 games and 49 IP. He has a 1.796 WHIP in Boston and a .957 OPS against. 3) He's 4-9 with a 5.15 ERA vs NYY (1.336), 7-12  4.14 vs TB (1.413). 4) He lets up a lot of dingers (over 23 for 5 straight years. (1.2 per 9 IP is the same as Wake's career total.)

    Nice research. If he becomes available, this might be why the price to attain him won't be sky-high.


    Some pluses: 1) He's better from pitch 50 to over 100 than 0-50. 2) He's OK in high leverage situations (.771), but better in medium (.754) and low (.741). 3) Career away ERA of 4.01 4) Pretty even 1st half vs 2nd half (4.15 vs 4.25) 5) Has 4 straight seasons with 30 or more starts! 6) Has 3 straight seasons with 200+ IP (4 straight with 191 +)

    His durability is the main lure. That and his stuff, which I think will reap better results playing for a team that contends.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Posts: 19589
    First: 9/27/2005
    Last: 10/8/2011
    Yes, I meant to and should have.

    Better yet, I should have just stayed out of it.

    I did like 791's article though



    I didn't care for it, Moon. 791 used a very questionable analogy  (Steroid use appearance to that of homosexuality) and responded like a novice. He was transparent and shut down immediately. Then he blamed the sudden reaction on the writer, who showed an air of credibility when refusing to budge from Bonds to others who don't deserve the finger-pointing.

    791 is acting like a hack to attract readers/responses. That's the best way to apply for a job with the Enquirer.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Posted by moonslav59 [/QUOTE] 1) He has zero playoff or crunch time experience. 2) He's 1-4 with a 5.88 ERA in Fenway in 9 games and 49 IP. He has a 1.796 WHIP in Boston and a .957 OPS against. 3) He's 4-9 with a 5.15 ERA vs NYY (1.336), 7-12  4.14 vs TB (1.413). 4) He lets up a lot of dingers (over 23 for 5 straight years. (1.2 per 9 IP is the same as Wake's career total.) Nice research. If he becomes available, this might be why the price to attain him won't be sky-high. Some pluses: 1) He's better from pitch 50 to over 100 than 0-50. 2) He's OK in high leverage situations (.771), but better in medium (.754) and low (.741). 3) Career away ERA of 4.01 4) Pretty even 1st half vs 2nd half (4.15 vs 4.25) 5) Has 4 straight seasons with 30 or more starts! 6) Has 3 straight seasons with 200+ IP (4 straight with 191 +) His durability is the main lure. That and his stuff, which I think will reap better results playing for a team that contends.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I know you've done a lot of research on the "Fenway effect". How do you see Guthrie adjusting to it? His sample size is rather small for being in the AL East for so long. (Just 8 starts)

    On 791's article, I too thought he got a little pushy on reaction of the reporter, but I thought the homosexual anaolgy was a good one. People often jump to conclusions based on stereotypes. I thought he made a good point.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]moonslav59 Posts: 19589 First: 9/27/2005 Last: 10/8/2011 6ca1d4ce1f944561017c844176cf2177 Yes, I meant to and should have. Better yet, I should have just stayed out of it. I did like 791's article though I didn't care for it, Moon . 791 used a very questionable analogy  (Steroid use appearance to that of homosexuality) and responded like a novice. He was transparent and shut down immediately. Then he blamed the sudden reaction on the writer, who showed an air of credibility when refusing to budge from Bonds to others who don't deserve the finger-pointing. 791 is acting like a hack to attract readers/responses. That's the best way to apply for a job with the Enquirer.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I'm sorry but I can't let that stand without comment. 791 is not a hack nor is he acting like a hack in the article. I don't agree with his position but he is not a hack.

    Pedro Gomez was basically stating what a lot of reporters will do. If they think a guy is probably on peds they may not vote for them in MVP votes, HOF votes...etc. Which was EXACTLY my original point which sent ex-pitch into the stratosphere for 10 pages of posts. Pedro Gomez was the main reporter in the Bonds investigation wasn't he? HE KNOWS THE DATA. He has researched the issues. He is informed. He has every right to not vote for someone if he thinks they are probably on PEDS. It's too bad that some guys are mischaracterized as under suspicion when they are innocent but it's also too bad a lot of guys are getting free passes when the subject cannot even be intelligently discussed without the "He's Innocent" chorus from the Pollyanna's on this forum.

    Pedro Gomez is a reporter and he does his research and presents a story fairly. If he wants to vote whatever way he wants to and not discuss the details that is his choice when some blogger is interviewing him. He has valid reasons for his suspicions. It's not flipping a coin.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    791 just took the same position that Harness and expitch took for tons of posts last week, that guys are to be assumed innocent unless there is proof, and now harness calls him a hack. I'm in the twilight zone here. None of it makes sense. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]791 just took the same position that Harness and expitch took for tons of posts last week, that guys are to be assumed innocent unless there is proof, and now harness calls him a hack. I'm in the twilight zone here. None of it makes sense. 
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    That's not how I read it. 791 wanted the writer to jump from Bonds to others and was rejected. Gomez said he wouldn't vote for any steroid users (791 disagreed).
    Gomez mentioned "proof for several of them".

    791 is the one who went into circumstantial evidence (as no real evidence)
    after Gomez said he'd trust his eyes beyond proof (when it came to voting), meaning seeing a player absolutely balloon, as Bonds or Aroid did).

    That's when 791 brought up the gay analogy.
    Gomez wouldn't compromise himself, and shut 791 down fast.
    791 is better off writing about statistical jargon.

    My position is far from that of 791. I would never want a proven user in the HOF. No way. Not Bonds or Aroid or Clemens. They are/were all up in front of congress so that the evidence against them becomes undeniable.

    If there is no actual proof, then players should not be blackened by the press.
    They should get a fair shake.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : I'm sorry but I can't let that stand without comment. 791 is not a hack nor is he acting like a hack in the article. I don't agree with his position but he is not a hack. Pedro Gomez was basically stating what a lot of reporters will do. If they think a guy is probably on peds they may not vote for them in MVP votes, HOF votes...etc. Which was EXACTLY my original point which sent ex-pitch into the stratosphere for 10 pages of posts. Pedro Gomez was the main reporter in the Bonds investigation wasn't he? HE KNOWS THE DATA. He has researched the issues. He is informed. He has every right to not vote for someone if he thinks they are probably on PEDS. It's too bad that some guys are mischaracterized as under suspicion when they are innocent but it's also too bad a lot of guys are getting free passes when the subject cannot even be intelligently discussed without the "He's Innocent" chorus from the Pollyanna's on this forum. Pedro Gomez is a reporter and he does his researchand presents a story fairly. If he wants to vote whatever way he wants to and not discuss the details that is his choice when some blogger is interviewing him. He has valid reasons for his suspicions. It's not flipping a coin.
    Posted by Boomerangsdotcom[/QUOTE]

    How much research is necessary with Bonds? The whole country knows that.
    I said 791 acted like a hack. I said this because of his rant against Gomez for shutting him down. Gomez would not go where 791 was pushing. And the gay analogy was not wise because he should have known Gomez wouldn't touch that controversial topic.

    He could have gotten more out of Gomez had he been smarter...or more experienced.

    You can follow Chip and his crazy antics, food wars, and baseball discussion on Twitter

    This is posted at the end of the article for a reason.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : 1) He has zero playoff or crunch time experience. 2) He's 1-4 with a 5.88 ERA in Fenway in 9 games and 49 IP. He has a 1.796 WHIP in Boston and a .957 OPS against. 3) He's 4-9 with a 5.15 ERA vs NYY (1.336), 7-12  4.14 vs TB (1.413). 4) He lets up a lot of dingers (over 23 for 5 straight years. (1.2 per 9 IP is the same as Wake's career total.) Nice research. If he becomes available, this might be why the price to attain him won't be sky-high. Some pluses: 1) He's better from pitch 50 to over 100 than 0-50. 2) He's OK in high leverage situations (.771), but better in medium (.754) and low (.741). 3) Career away ERA of 4.01 4) Pretty even 1st half vs 2nd half (4.15 vs 4.25) 5) Has 4 straight seasons with 30 or more starts! 6) Has 3 straight seasons with 200+ IP (4 straight with 191 +) His durability is the main lure. That and his stuff, which I think will reap better results playing for a team that contends. Posted by harness[/QUOTE] I know you've done a lot of research on the "Fenway effect". How do you see Guthrie adjusting to it?His sample size is rather small for being in the AL East for so long. (Just 8 starts) On 791's article, I too thought he got a little pushy on reaction of the reporter, but I thought the homosexual anaolgy was a good one. People often jump to conclusions based on stereotypes. I thought he made a good point.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Guthrie, like Fister, is compromised by hitter venues. But I think having a poor fielding team behind him (not as much this year) plays into it. IMO, He's got enough movement and velocity (93-94 MPH) to cut it in Fenway. But that left side of the RedSox infield will have a major affect,as Guthrie depends on his infield (SO/IP ratio is 5.5/9)

    Fister doesn't throw as hard, overall.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : That's not how I read it. 791 wanted the writer to jump from Bonds to others and was rejected. Gomez said he wouldn't vote for any steroid users ( 791 disagreed). Gomez mentioned " proof for several of them". 791 is the one who went into circumstantial evidence (as no real evidence) after Gomez said he'd  trust his eyes beyond proof (when it came to voting), meaning seeing a player absolutely balloon, as Bonds or Aroid did). That's when 791 brought up the gay analogy. Gomez wouldn't compromise himself, and shut 791 down fast. 791 is better off writing about statistical jargon. My position is far from that of 791. I would never want a proven user in the HOF. No way. Not Bonds or Aroid or Clemens. They are/were all up in front of congress so that the evidence against them becomes undeniable. If there is no actual proof, then players should not be blackened by the press. They should get a fair shake.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    H with all due respect I think you are reading this backwards.  IMO Chip is right.  I would argue the same as Chip did in the replies that most did not suspect ARoid.

    Pedro Gomez - "Proof for several of them. Otherwise, I’ll trust my eyes."

    I am not comfortable with that mindset.




     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : How can it? Boom is on hiatus. Ho. Why should it? My quarrel with Boom stemmed directly from HIS first post, in which he said, in his own voice , that Bautista "looks so tainted that...." That's a declarative statement that can be read in the sentence, as constructed , only as the opinion of the writer. I called him on it. He went beserk.  Remember that harness was also a belligerent in that "war." Why not include his name too?  
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    H
    This is a perfect example of an over-sensitive poster.  It is all about him and he won't drop it which is obviously what Moon wants.  instead Moon is criticized for not worrying about Ex-p's feelings.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : H This is a perfect example of an over-sensitive poster.  It is all about him and he won't drop it which is obviously what Moon wants.  instead Moon is criticized for not worrying about Ex-p's feelings.
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]
    Moon didn't think so. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : H with all due respect I think you are reading this backwards.  IMO Chip is right.  I would argue the same as Chip did in the replies that most did not suspect ARoid.
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    My posts commented on the discussion with Bonds. Gomez never spoke about Aroid. I don't side with 791's views regarding how steroid use (proven)
    should not prevent HOF induction. Proven cheats are cheats. The issue is with the proof. If a player is proven guilty of cheating, that's alright with 791 in that he is still HOF worthy.

    I like Sherriff Rojas' satire if that's the case:

    Vote (to keep) the drugs in and the players out.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    meaning seeing a player absolutely balloon, as Bonds or Aroid did.

    Fair enough I think I would side with you on the HOF issue, because I don't think the 60s to 80's poppers skewed the stats anyway near what the steroid culture did. 

    The above quote is key to the issue though.  I am not sure ARoid did "look" like he was a PED user.  Looks are too subjective IMO.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    To TOM: If you compare Aroid in his Seattle days to his NY ones, I think you'll see quite a difference.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : I know you've done a lot of research on the "Fenway effect". How do you see Guthrie adjusting to it? His sample size is rather small for being in the AL East for so long. (Just 8 starts) On 791's article, I too thought he got a little pushy on reaction of the reporter, but I thought the homosexual anaolgy was a good one. People often jump to conclusions based on stereotypes . I thought he made a good point. Posted by moonslav59 [/QUOTE] Guthrie, like Fister, is compromised by hitter venues. But I think having a poor fielding team behind him (not as much this year) plays into it. IMO, He's got enough movement and velocity (93-94 MPH) to cut it in Fenway. But that left side of the RedSox infield will have a major affect,as Guthrie depends on his infield (SO/IP ratio is 5.5/9) Fister doesn't throw as hard, overall.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I think you are right.  If we go with Lava and Salty with no VTek next year, I'm going to be lobbying hard for Iggy at SS and Youk at DH.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III : Guthrie, like Fister, is compromised by hitter venues. But I think having a poor fielding team behind him (not as much this year) plays into it. IMO, He's got enough movement and velocity (93-94 MPH) to cut it in Fenway. But that left side of the RedSox infield will have a major affect,as Guthrie depends on his infield (SO/IP ratio is 5.5/9) Fister doesn't throw as hard, overall. Posted by harness[/QUOTE] I think you are right.  If we go with Lava and Salty with no VTek next year, I'm going to be lobbying hardfor Iggy at SS and Youk at DH.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    If they take that route, I'll be picketing Fenway!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tom-uk. Show tom-uk's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III




    Alex Rodriguez Seattle Mariners 1998 Pinnacle Plus Piece of the Game Baseball Card

    Embarassed pictures are funny I will admit I could find pictures to make either argument. 

    The article below shows I was wrong H, ARod was suspected on appearance alone by at least this reporter.  My apologies.


    "Surprised? Well, we all did make a fuss about him hitting 500 home runs because he was the "clean" guy. And many opined that he couldn't break Barry Bonds' record soon enough, so that a "respectable" slugger would once again sit atop the records. But didn't it seem like it was just a matter of time until the other cleat dropped? I remember seeing him in the clubhouse at Yankee Stadium two years ago and being shocked by his raw physical size. On TV, he never looked that big, at least not next to lumbering baseball mastodons like Jason Giambi, but in person he is almost frighteningly muscular, a Soloflex ad come to life. Certainly, people suspected it; I remember talking to one American League front office executive two years ago who scoffed as Bonds drew all the scrutiny, for didn't everyone in the game figure Rodriguez was up next?

    Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/chris_ballard/02/07/arod.steroids/index.html#ixzz1aH22gAsk
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    Few on this board own up to what you do, Tom. That's why I read UR stuff. It's honest.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]  pictures are funny I will admit I could find pictures to make either argument.  The article below shows I was wrong H, ARod was suspected on appearance alone by at least this reporter.  My apologies. "Surprised? Well, we all did make a fuss about him hitting 500 home runs because he was the "clean" guy. And many opined that he couldn't break Barry Bonds ' record soon enough, so that a "respectable" slugger would once again sit atop the records. But didn't it seem like it was just a matter of time until the other cleat dropped? I remember seeing him in the clubhouse at Yankee Stadium two years ago and being shocked by his raw physical size. On TV, he never looked that big, at least not next to lumbering baseball mastodons like Jason Giambi , but in person he is almost frighteningly muscular, a Soloflex ad come to life. Certainly, people suspected it; I remember talking to one American League front office executive two years ago who scoffed as Bonds drew all the scrutiny, for didn't everyone in the game figure Rodriguez was up next? Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/chris_ballard/02/07/arod.steroids/index.html#ixzz1aH22gAsk
    Posted by tom-uk[/QUOTE]

    Exactly Tom. A lot of people suspected it and for good reason. One could say that a lot of players should be suspected but we don't do that unless it is clear that a given player is under a lot of suspicion for the point of discussion. For example, Bautista and Ortiz, in the context of the MVP vote, whether they should be resigned...etc. Whether they have associations with trainers known for PED involvement...etc.

    It is up to each of us, and each sportswriter, to use their best judgement. In the case of Bonds and some others it was pretty "clear" what was happening, long before it became public. In the case of an all star vote, or mvp vote writers should use their best judgement. If the indicators are extremely compelling, they can discuss both sides of the issue. It is a subject which a lot of people consider controversial, and is basically a no win situation even mentioning it no matter how minimally, but it is an important issue in the sport of baseball and needs to be discussed in order to clean up the sport and sort out the truth as best we can.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    In Response to Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III:
    [QUOTE]To TOM : If you compare Aroid in his Seattle days to his NY ones, I think you'll see quite a difference.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]
    Sports Illustrated didn't see much difference, and he hit over 40 HR 3 times back then also. You just made the same mistake Tom made. Care to own up on that one? 

    This is the kind of hypocricy we've grown used to. Guys who act like the arbitors of reason around here who flat out ignore their own advice, on the same freaking page no less. When do you admit an error Harness? When do you apologize for a mess up?

    Less sanctimony would be well advised.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Boomerangsdotcom. Show Boomerangsdotcom's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    It's tough to spot PED use by looks. If they travel constantly with their cousin or personal aid who is caught with PED supplies going across the border though it's not a good sign. If they are reported to be on the MLB list it's not a good sign. If they have Galea or other known PED doctors or trainers on their speed dial it's not a good sign. If they go from zero to hero it's not a good sign. And statistically, it sure is an indicator if they are from the DR also. It just is. 58% of all PED bannings in professional baseball since 2005. Less than 10% of the total professional baseball population. Pllayers from the DR are roughly 5.8 times as likely to be PED users according to the rough data, assuming everyone is caught at the same rate.

    The facts are what they are. It doesn't prove someone is guilty but it doesn't mean they warrant an mvp vote either. Reporters see these guys in the club house. Their full time job is to talk baseball, research baseball issues ...etc. They get the inside info we are not privy to at all. Of course they are going to form their own opinions.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III

    That's why I don't put much attention towards votes by guys with varying "opinions". I mean, they gave the GG to Jete...for the love of God! They gave the Gg award to a guy who hardly even played the position one year! Many voters left Pedro off the MVP ballots, because they have a warped view of what MVP means. I could care less anymore who they vote for and who wins. It's all a mess.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic Look at 2011: Part III



    Boom, What's incredible for me is the current attitude among many young people concerning steroid use.

    I work with some young guys who are both sports fans and athletic. Their attitude is 'so what'..as if taking steroids, HGH etc. is the way it is, the way it should be and the way it always will be.  It really irks me because it's unfair to an athlete who has natural talent and chooses not to put a foreign substance into their body.
    I played ball under the natural talent category.

    I hate to say it, but it probably will always be a game of cops and robbers...the cops being lab detection people and robbers the illicit drug users.  Like a pathogenic organism which mutates, the robbers will always be seeking ways to avoid detection.
     

Share