|
|
Post by crusaderguy08 on Jan 12, 2010 0:56:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by indyvalpo on Jan 13, 2010 19:39:01 GMT -5
Voice of reason?
I would call it a typical response from sports biggest hypocrit. Expect proper behavior and high standards from everyone except yourself or your inner circle. In case you did not know LaRussa is Knight's best bud, therefore this is ok. This from a man who expected top effort then quit on his team in mid-season. This from a man who hated the media and now is one of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusaderguy08 on Jan 14, 2010 1:56:10 GMT -5
I'm sorry you feel that way about the man. I like Bobby Knight and I happen to agree with him on the McGwire situation. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion in my opinion. McGwire took steroids when they weren't against the rules of baseball but now he's being crucified for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by indyvalpo on Jan 14, 2010 6:38:02 GMT -5
I'm sorry you like Bob Knight but such is life. McGwire is not being crucified anymore than anyone else has been. His major problems stem from his foolish performance in front of Congress and previous denials and a perceived less than honest "apology".
|
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Jan 14, 2010 12:53:42 GMT -5
I'm sorry you feel that way about the man. I like Bobby Knight and I happen to agree with him on the McGwire situation. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion in my opinion. McGwire took steroids when they weren't against the rules of baseball but now he's being crucified for it. Perhaps they weren't against the rules of baseball, but baseball shouldn't have to ban substances that are currently banned by the government as a controlled substance! He is being crucified for cheating, breaking the law and hiding it and rightly so. |
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Jan 14, 2010 12:56:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Jan 15, 2010 11:55:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by crusaderguy08 on Jan 15, 2010 21:02:04 GMT -5
I'm sorry you feel that way about the man. I like Bobby Knight and I happen to agree with him on the McGwire situation. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion in my opinion. McGwire took steroids when they weren't against the rules of baseball but now he's being crucified for it. Perhaps they weren't against the rules of baseball, but baseball shouldn't have to ban substances that are currently banned by the government as a controlled substance! He is being crucified for cheating, breaking the law and hiding it and rightly so. Do we know what he used? Has he said which substances? If not, how do you know they were (are) illegal or were not prescribed in some way? In my opinion, there are many people who have done far worse things and have not been portrayed as such a villain. As I have said several times, I do not agree with what he did, but I'm not sure he has really been treated fairly by the media either. I am not one to judge and I find it interesting that others are so quick to do so, especially with a baseball player who hasn't done anything to inflict any harm whatsoever on any of us. He was paid to hit home runs and provide entertainment to paying fans and did a hell of a job doing just those things, both before and after he began using the steroids. The comments from Jack Clark sound like sour grapes to me. He wasn't that great of a player (although he was better than average) and was not paid like the current ones are, so he feels the need to vent frustration towards McGwire (who was a great player and was paid extremely well). |
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Jan 16, 2010 13:31:07 GMT -5
There are lots of thoughts running through my head these day son this subject, and not all of them are rational. I think "crucified" is an overblown adjective, but I also think that crucifying fallen heroes has become a popular spectator sport these days. I was feeling fairly content with McGwire's published statement and the initial takes I was reading on his interview with Bob Costas (which I didn't get to see, though I know that mlb.com has it on their website so if I want to, I can watch it). When I read the transcript at Big League Stew, I began to understand where all the detractors are coming from, the ones who are lambasting him over his "apology", that is. Here are my coherent thoughts: 1. It is plausible that he began taking them for the exact reason he stated and nothing more -- to recover from injuries. It is plausible that taking steroids doesn't help you see the ball better. It is beyond question that it doesn't improve your swing technique. BUT -- it is just as plausible that he got some sort of results bump in terms of his slugging pct. from it, and it is just as plausible that he became aware of that and just chooses now to ignore that aspect of it. In short, I think he's in denial a bit about that. For that matter, even taking him at face value, he's still admitting a wrong doing if they were obtained without a doctor's valid prescription -- recuperation through unethical means is still a sin in this context. Maybe he *should* have had to end his career in the early 90's. That said, any one of us would probably seriously contemplate the very same shortcut if we were in his shoes, and I think he's admitting that he did wrong in this regard. 2. I think his reasons for refusing to discuss it before Congress are quite reasonable and completely understandable, and I really wish that part of the backlash would just simply die right now. I think he did the right thing in 2005. 3. Moreover, for anyone paying attention (a child of 7 could have read between the lines), he effectively admitted then what he has legally admitted now. He made then a statement something like this: "Steroids are bad for you. I know this from personal experience." The whole world should have known from that point that he had been a user at one point in time at least. Most of the world has believed it anyway, via the "eye test" or out of pure cynicism, or simply because anyone who "refuses to talk about the past" must be guilty by definition. Those are faulty reasons, but their conclusion was right. Also to call him a liar then is incorrect; he did not lie to Congress, he simply refused to spill the beans, which was his right. I believe him when he says he did it not only to protect himself but also his family. 4. If you want somebody to crucify over this, try LaRussa. He didn't know until Mark called him the other day?  Yeah, right. Like Kid Gleason in 1919, he conveniently remained in the dark because he wanted to. Not that it matters, but I guarantee you that Tony couldn't care less what anyone thinks about that. He doesn't care what the media thinks about him. He doesn't care what the fans think about him, and all this has been true for at least a decade, it didn't start with this. He only cares what his bosses think of him and what his players think of him. He's one of the best managers in MLB today, I take it for granted that he's a bona-fide pet lover whose foundation is genuine and powerful in its advocacy on behalf of humane treatment of animals, but I suspect he's an SOB off the field unless you get on his good side. He's not above playing mind games with his own players or with players on his fiercest rival. His flareup with Jim Edmonds 2 years ago was a classic example of that. Putting it succinctly, Tony was aware of Mark's testimony in 2005, and if a child of 7 could read between the lines, you bet your sweet bippy Tony could and did. His protests to the contrary are a lot of bullcrap, in my not-so-humble opinion. As a Cardinal fan, do I care about that? No. I care that he's a great manager, and that's it. But I'm not an apologist for either him or McGwire, and while some of the crap being sent their way these days is not entirely accurate, on balance I think it's been fair. If this continues to be a distraction throughout the Cardinals' 2010 season, *then* I'll care about that. |
|
|
|
Post by 78crusader on Jan 16, 2010 16:33:27 GMT -5
McGwire's position is inconsistent in a couple of important respects.
He said he took steroids over a 10-year period, starting in the late '80s.
He said he took them to recover from injuries.
He said they did not contribute to his ability to hit, either for higher average or home runs.
Well, consider that when McGwire started taking steroids in the late '80s, he was NOT missing time due to injuries. He was playing in 150 or so games each year. Thus, his stated reason for taking steroids -- to recover more quickly from injuries -- was not the case when he began taking them.
His announced position -- that steroids did not contribute to his performance -- is ludicrous. Even if you discard common sense and accept his statement that he hit 70 HRS due to weight training, more time in the batting cage, etc., the fact remains his steroid use DID allow him to recover more quickly from injuries. This alone gave him an advantage not accessible to those not taking steroids.
Finally, though, one has to confront the issue of whether taking steroids helped contribute to McGwire's HR total. His statement that it did not is ridiculous. You don't go from a career high of 49 HRs (his rookie year in the late 80s) to 70 in 1998. That is an increase of about 43%. You just do not see that except in the steroid era (before 1998, Sosa's best year was 40 HRs...then all of a sudden he hits 66? Come on.
McGwire's stats are bogus, his "apology" was lame, he continues to refuse to accept responsibility for what he did, and he should never be elected into the HOF.
Paul
PS It is untrue to say MLB did not have a rule against steroid us. In 1991, then-commissioner Fay Vincent issued a memo, which was directed to each MLB team, stating that the use of controlled substances, including steroids, was against MLB rules. This was probably unnecessary since taking steroids without a medical presciption was already prohibited by federal law.
PPS And even if MLB didn't have this memo, everyone KNEW taking this stuff was immoral and against the rules. Otherwise why would they have skulked around, trying to hide their use of this stuff? McGwire is a cheater and his stats are bogus.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by rlh on Jan 16, 2010 17:58:05 GMT -5
Just to remind you,.....McGwire did have two bottles of Andro in his locker during an interview back in the day. It was discussed at the time and no one thought anything of it because it was not a banned substance. I believe at the time he said something to the effect that it helped him recover from injuries as he says now. Andro was not a banned substance at the time as I recall, as it is now. The stated reasons why he started are all understandable and plausible...however why he continued and what else he took take more explanation, especially if Jose Canseco is right about injecting him with other 'stuff'....
|
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Jan 17, 2010 0:53:49 GMT -5
Just to remind you,.....McGwire did have two bottles of Andro in his locker during an interview back in the day. It was discussed at the time and no one thought anything of it because it was not a banned substance. Yep. The more cynical critics are suggesting that was misdirection on his part. I personally doubt he's that calculating, but it's somewhat plausible. |
|
