How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

[steelcurtain311]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

Baseball has always had cheating, sure, but not to this degree. Not to the degree to where it helps you break legendary records. It's not fair to someone like Henry Aaron or Roger Maris that guys took a drug that increased their HR totals by 10-20 HR's a season. I seriously doubt a guy like Sammy Sosa even makes the 500 HR club without steroids and corked bats, yet there he is in the ****ing 600 HR club like he was an elite slugger of all time.

Barry still would of put up legendary numbers with or without steroids, but would he be the HR king? No. Would he have hit 70+ HR's in a season? No.

These aren't things you can simply say "Well, it was the era so it's okay." over. That's not right to the men who set the records originally.

[Sportsforever]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

Because it drives me nuts. I love baseball almost as much as football (I played baseball for 12 years), and I hate what it is.

Like I said, imagine you are, oh, Steve Utley or Michael Young(let's assume they're not on roids, but who the heck knows). You should be one of the top power hitters in the league, one of the very few truly elite hitters in the league, period.

But no, half the top hitters are cheating and have an unfair advantage over you, so you make millions of dollars less and get half the credit you deserve as a player because you decided to play with integrity.

Remember, there are still many players who do not cheat. They are getting screwed in their paycheck, their playing time, and their place in baseball history because they choose to do it the right way.

Dude...do you mean Chase Utley? Who the heck is Steve Utley?

[Sportsforever]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

This is probably a poor analogy, but it just struck me as odd so I thought I'd mention it.

The other day driving home from work, I heard an add on the radio for "Just for Men", the hair coloring product. They had this guy from a job website like Monster.com or something like that talking about how you HAVE to get rid of the gray hair when you go in for an interview. He said something to the affect of "You can't have them asking your age in an interview...the numbers show that guys with gray hair get jobs at a lower % blah blah blah." It made me think, why is putting something in your hair to make yourself look younger to get a job morally acceptable, but taking a PED to do better at pro sports is not? In both cases you are doing something to increase your earning potential and possibly taking a job away from someone else who didn't do what you did.

I understand that PED's are illegal and "Just for Men" is not...I'm just curious about the moral standard here as I think most of us wouldn't give using "Just for Men" a second thought.

[wwharton]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

PEDs aren't illegal. Seems like this gets overlooked but there are hundreds, if not thousands of legal PEDs that athletes take all the time. Some are illegal and some are illegal in the MLB. This is the most important reason that trying to punish players (officially or not) for taking things MLB didn't punish for when they were said to be taken is a joke.

And no one knows how much better players got from juicing rather than taking other things that haven't been banned. PEDs don't get banned bc they start working too well, it's only when they become health risks.

[CMH]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

PEDs aren't illegal. Seems like this gets overlooked but there are hundreds, if not thousands of legal PEDs that athletes take all the time. Some are illegal and some are illegal in the MLB. This is the most important reason that trying to punish players (officially or not) for taking things MLB didn't punish for when they were said to be taken is a joke.

And no one knows how much better players got from juicing rather than taking other things that haven't been banned. PEDs don't get banned bc they start working too well, it's only when they become health risks.

It's been a while since we agreed on something. I feel a tear coming.

[wwharton]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

It's been a while since we agreed on something. I feel a tear coming.

Ha ha! We both post alot... it was bound to happen at some point.

[Freelance]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

Dude...do you mean Chase Utley? Who the heck is Steve Utley?

LOL. He's one of my customers!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

I need a vacation.

[Freelance]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

PEDs aren't illegal. Seems like this gets overlooked but there are hundreds, if not thousands of legal PEDs that athletes take all the time. Some are illegal and some are illegal in the MLB. This is the most important reason that trying to punish players (officially or not) for taking things MLB didn't punish for when they were said to be taken is a joke.

And no one knows how much better players got from juicing rather than taking other things that haven't been banned. PEDs don't get banned bc they start working too well, it's only when they become health risks.

Unprescribed anabolic steroids are HIGHLY illegal.

But the point is, the record books are now nothing more than used toilet paper.

It'd be like letting LeBron play on 8-foot goals. Every one of Wilt's and Jordan's records would be demolished.

[fugazi]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

sorry...i finally have to come out and say that i laugh every time i see this tread title. i am such a 13 yr old.

(in beavis and butthead voice) he said "taint" huhhuh.

[wwharton]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

Unprescribed anabolic steroids are HIGHLY illegal.

But the point is, the record books are now nothing more than used toilet paper.

It'd be like letting LeBron play on 8-foot goals. Every one of Wilt's and Jordan's records would be demolished.

But people are saying PEDs not "unprescribed anabloic steroids". And my point still stands. Steroids are illegal because of health issues, not because they may work so well that they'd help players break some MLB records. The truth is ALL PEDs help players break records. That's why they're called "performance enhancing". They're created specifically to help players perform better than just working out naturally.

You've gotta get out of the clouds and see that MLB has no problem with this. They worry about having players die on their watch, and players encouraging kids to take things that can have drastic negative effects on their health. Anything on the banned list is either there for health reasons or bc it can be used to mask taking something on the list that can create health issues. The government cares even less about what effect these things have on any sports records.

If anyone wants to be upset that players are taking illegal drugs like they would if it was weed, coke or anything else then more power to you. But connecting any of these to records makes no sense at all. MLB could care less if players take something that helped them break records (which increases the fanbase, attendance and tv watching). All the lip service about it now is just to deflect the blame so they don't get dragged through the mud with each of these players in this witch hunt.

[Freelance]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

But people are saying PEDs not "unprescribed anabloic steroids". And my point still stands. Steroids are illegal because of health issues, not because they may work so well that they'd help players break some MLB records. The truth is ALL PEDs help players break records. That's why they're called "performance enhancing". They're created specifically to help players perform better than just working out naturally.

You've gotta get out of the clouds and see that MLB has no problem with this. They worry about having players die on their watch, and players encouraging kids to take things that can have drastic negative effects on their health. Anything on the banned list is either there for health reasons or bc it can be used to mask taking something on the list that can create health issues. The government cares even less about what effect these things have on any sports records.

If anyone wants to be upset that players are taking illegal drugs like they would if it was weed, coke or anything else then more power to you. But connecting any of these to records makes no sense at all. MLB could care less if players take something that helped them break records (which increases the fanbase, attendance and tv watching). All the lip service about it now is just to deflect the blame so they don't get dragged through the mud with each of these players in this witch hunt.

OK, so now the world we live in this: "Kids, if you want a shot at playing pro baseball, you'd better start ingesting and injecting yourselves with performance enhancing drugs now. They might be harmful, might even kill you at a young age, but you have very little chance of making it if you don't."

Nice.

[CMH]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

OK, so now the world we live in this: "Kids, if you want a shot at playing pro baseball, you'd better start ingesting and injecting yourselves with performance enhancing drugs now. They might be harmful, might even kill you at a young age, but you have very little chance of making it if you don't."

Nice.

That's not what he said and you know that.

No one here is saying you should take drugs that can have a negative affect on you.

The reality is, anyone wanting to play sports needs to take performance enhancers - the healthy ones. Whether it's creatine or something else, it's going to enhance performance in the gym, which could enhance performance on the field.

The science is out there. Steroids aren't illegal because they are steroids. They are illegal because they cause health issues. That's the point he's making.

The second point is that MLB doesn't care if guys are bigger, faster, stronger. They want them to be because they make the game bigger, faster, stronger. If records are broken, guess what, that's the reality of science. Someday guys will be throwing even harder, hitting farther balls, and playing longer - and they'll be doing it while staying healthy. Science will do that.

MLB isn't going to care about all that. They just want to make sure that the players aren't hurting themselves in the process. Any drug known for causing health risks or death has been placed on the MLB ban list rather quickly. What was the drug that killed a minor league player a few years back? It didn't take long for MLB to ban the substance. They didn't do it because they feared other players would break records. They did it because they feared more players would die.

[wwharton]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

That's not what he said and you know that.

No one here is saying you should take drugs that can have a negative affect on you.

The reality is, anyone wanting to play sports needs to take performance enhancers - the healthy ones. Whether it's creatine or something else, it's going to enhance performance in the gym, which could enhance performance on the field.

The science is out there. Steroids aren't illegal because they are steroids. They are illegal because they cause health issues. That's the point he's making.

The second point is that MLB doesn't care if guys are bigger, faster, stronger. They want them to be because they make the game bigger, faster, stronger. If records are broken, guess what, that's the reality of science. Someday guys will be throwing even harder, hitting farther balls, and playing longer - and they'll be doing it while staying healthy. Science will do that.

MLB isn't going to care about all that. They just want to make sure that the players aren't hurting themselves in the process. Any drug known for causing health risks or death has been placed on the MLB ban list rather quickly. What was the drug that killed a minor league player a few years back? It didn't take long for MLB to ban the substance. They didn't do it because they feared other players would break records. They did it because they feared more players would die.

That sums it up, thanks. I think you're talking about andro, I believe what McGwire was taking. People forget how much heat he took when the kid died and it was banned and all he said over and over was that it was legal when he was taking it and he had stopped since it was banned (no comment on whether he was juicing too or not, just on that incident).

Freelance, the sad reality is that kids ARE being told that in so many words. Kids who want to make it want to know what the professionals do to be the best they can be. They hear how Magic Johnson practiced all hours of the night and in the rain and Hershel Walker ran 10 miles and did a thousand pushups and situps a day. But they also hear that this supplement will help them work out longer with a quicker recovery time, and that supplement will keep them more focused and alert. But these kids don't have professional trainers or the knowledge professionals SHOULD have about how to cycle on and off things, mixing certain things, hydrating, etc. It's terrible to hear about an athlete dying on the field but it's catastrophic to hear a HS athlete died. That's most definitely the reason behind any of these things being banned.

[CMH]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

It wasn't andro.

It started with an E. It was a pitcher, I think, that died in Spring Training.

[Sandman42]

Re: How much taint does the Red Sox 2004 Championship have?

It wasn't andro.

It started with an E. It was a pitcher, I think, that died in Spring Training.

Ephedrine.