am i the only one who thinks the solution is to legalize steroids?
didn't doug stanhope have a bit where he went, "you paid to see a bunch of muscle-bound mongoloids hit a tiny ball over fences, who cares if they use steroids to do it?" or something to that effect...
the Mitchell Report
62dansoderburg wrote:am i the only one who thinks the solution is to legalize steroids?
didn't doug stanhope have a bit where he went, "you paid to see a bunch of muscle-bound mongoloids hit a tiny ball over fences, who cares if they use steroids to do it?" or something to that effect...
I don't think that's the best solution - I'm not sure it's the best thing for the sport. We already have the WWE for our muscle-bound mongoloid entertainment needs.
I don't think it's too much to ask to require that athletes submit to testing on a regular basis. Drug use has already soured a lot of people to events like the Tour de France.
the Mitchell Report
63Foldyourarmsandsaynah wrote:STF wrote:Foldyourarmsandsaynah wrote:Yeah, dude lucked the fuck out signing that 10 million/1 year contract like 4 or 5 days ago. I wonder if this had come out sooner if the Brewers would have dropped that much on a guy who was an injury threat before, but has to be topping the charts now.
What. The Fuck. Were the Brewers THINKING?
Yeah, when I heard the Red Sox had offered him arbitration in order to secure some draft picks if he signed elsewhere my first thought was, "oh god, he's not gonna be able to find a spot for the money he wants and he's gonna accept and then we're gonna have to sit through a whole season with him as a setup guy."
Even before last year I always thought he had the kind of make-up for a steroids disaster. The injuries and fluxuation of his ability to rebound from them freaked me out.
I'm kinda stoked we get a draft pick for him though.
I like how some mid/small market teams can't afford anybody really good so they overpay for someone shitty.
Dr. Geek wrote:I once found a soggy dollar floating in a puddle on the side of the street. I carefully picked it out of the water before it sank to the bottom. It smelled funny after it dried.
the Mitchell Report
64barndog wrote:dansoderburg wrote:am i the only one who thinks the solution is to legalize steroids?
didn't doug stanhope have a bit where he went, "you paid to see a bunch of muscle-bound mongoloids hit a tiny ball over fences, who cares if they use steroids to do it?" or something to that effect...
I don't think that's the best solution - I'm not sure it's the best thing for the sport. We already have the WWE for our muscle-bound mongoloid entertainment needs.
I don't think it's too much to ask to require that athletes submit to testing on a regular basis. Drug use has already soured a lot of people to events like the Tour de France.
I don't see how you could do the Tour de France without using drugs. Or why anyone gives a shit.
Dr. Geek wrote:I once found a soggy dollar floating in a puddle on the side of the street. I carefully picked it out of the water before it sank to the bottom. It smelled funny after it dried.
the Mitchell Report
65STF wrote:I don't see how you could do the Tour de France without using drugs. Or why anyone gives a shit.
I totally agree with you on that first point.
the Mitchell Report
67Hexpane wrote:steroids already are legal, but just like Oxy you need a script
yeah i'm aware of that.
i mean just let players do them without banning...i hate to sound liberetarian but hey if you're willing to fuck yourself up for a competitive edge then why should anyone stop you?
like, really, look at the list... outside of clemens (who coincidentally wasn;t on the juice until his Toronto years if i'm to believe some random douche on the radio) are there many future hall-of-famers on that list? most of those guys had 2 good seasons then burnt out and went to shit shortly there after, as opposed to having 8 or 9 mediocre big league seasons and then retiring. so isn't still a level playing field in a sense?
the Mitchell Report
68dansoderburg wrote:Hexpane wrote:steroids already are legal, but just like Oxy you need a script
yeah i'm aware of that.
i mean just let players do them without banning...i hate to sound liberetarian but hey if you're willing to fuck yourself up for a competitive edge then why should anyone stop you?
It almost seems silly to say this but at some point it becomes an issue of protecting the user from their own ambitions. Some players would roid until their limbs fall off if it were legal. That would set a bad example all over the place.
dansoderburg wrote:like, really, look at the list... outside of clemens (who coincidentally wasn;t on the juice until his Toronto years if i'm to believe some random douche on the radio) are there many future hall-of-famers on that list? most of those guys had 2 good seasons then burnt out and went to shit shortly there after, as opposed to having 8 or 9 mediocre big league seasons and then retiring. so isn't still a level playing field in a sense?
It would be interesting to see some data suggesting that roiding actually improves performance. Like an alleged span of use juxtaposed with an increase in favorable stats. The NYTimes ran an illustration this morning similar to this and there was really no obvious correlation. This may be largely due to the fact that no one knows exactly when anybody was using but as of right now, is there any empirical evidence that steroids improved anyones play?
Both Clemens and Bonds were excellent players before their alleged "use eras". Right?
Last edited by JDanger_Archive on Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
the Mitchell Report
69Dr. O' Nothing wrote:Hexpane wrote:Do we really want our elected officials spending their time and our tax dollars policing pro sports?
Your point is valid, but Mitchell works for your beloved RedSox now, doesn't he? He's not an elected official any longer, to my knowledge.
Mitchell left the Senate in 1995. Olympia Snowe succeeded him in ME. As far as I know, he is still involved with the Red Sox.
the Mitchell Report
70This might be of interest to people who believe steroids should be allowed in professional sports.
It's not the best interview, but Norman Fost is a guy who has had a lot of interesting things to say about this topic over the years. Especially for a guy with his pedigree.
Having gotten through more of the Mitchell Report, one of the things that really annoys me about it is that it's written from the point of view that Mitchell thinks steroids are really bad, and there's no further substantiation in the report for Mitchell's viewpoint than there is for the viewpoint that steroids, if cycled and taken in moderation, can improve your health and well-being with limited risk of side effects. Mitchell just says "well, these guys say this" and points to pro-steroid literature that was relevant 15 years ago, and then says "but these other people say that" and point to quotes from specific selected doctors. And then he runs with the point of view of the latter class without any real acknowledgment as to why.
The deeper I get into this report, the less impressed I become. I mean, the guy wrote 409 pages and never clearly defined the scope of his investigation or his report. Mitchell moans countless times about what a great injustice it is to the non-users that these guys on steroids are getting a competitive advantage, but never tackles the mechanisms through which a competitive advantage is gained (or addresses the counterpoint of someone like Jason Giambi's career, where his peak years were basically the same when he was using and when he wasn't, while his non-steroid twilight years have been basically the same as his early 30s). He glosses over important things like this that blur the line between intentional and non-intentional users. He cherry picks selected testimony and interview notes that follow his theme, and ignores evidence inconsistent with that theme.
Overall, it's just not very good.
It's not the best interview, but Norman Fost is a guy who has had a lot of interesting things to say about this topic over the years. Especially for a guy with his pedigree.
Having gotten through more of the Mitchell Report, one of the things that really annoys me about it is that it's written from the point of view that Mitchell thinks steroids are really bad, and there's no further substantiation in the report for Mitchell's viewpoint than there is for the viewpoint that steroids, if cycled and taken in moderation, can improve your health and well-being with limited risk of side effects. Mitchell just says "well, these guys say this" and points to pro-steroid literature that was relevant 15 years ago, and then says "but these other people say that" and point to quotes from specific selected doctors. And then he runs with the point of view of the latter class without any real acknowledgment as to why.
The deeper I get into this report, the less impressed I become. I mean, the guy wrote 409 pages and never clearly defined the scope of his investigation or his report. Mitchell moans countless times about what a great injustice it is to the non-users that these guys on steroids are getting a competitive advantage, but never tackles the mechanisms through which a competitive advantage is gained (or addresses the counterpoint of someone like Jason Giambi's career, where his peak years were basically the same when he was using and when he wasn't, while his non-steroid twilight years have been basically the same as his early 30s). He glosses over important things like this that blur the line between intentional and non-intentional users. He cherry picks selected testimony and interview notes that follow his theme, and ignores evidence inconsistent with that theme.
Overall, it's just not very good.