Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jimgolf
Clemens has been soundly lambasted by the NY media, while Petitte has been lionized ("I only tried them twice", sort of like the old Clinton defense, "I didn't inhale.")
The media have harped upon Clemens' "banned substances" phrase, since steroid use was not banned by MLB until 2003 and HGH not until 2005.
Michael Kay, the Yankee broadcaster who appears on the local ESPN radio outlet, claimed that taking steroids or HGH was as bad as what Pete Rose did, since both things jeopardized the integrity of the game.
I don't think I need to go into how ridiculous that is, but how bad is what Clemens and Bonds have been vilified for?
I think too many people think steroids and HGH are a magic formula for throwing a fastball or hitting home runs. The only thing they do is allow an athlete to lift weights more frequently. They don't need to take off for recovery like a typical weight lift regimen requires. The player still has to do the work to improve.
The number of players on the list that made you ask "Who?" shows how little effect steroids really have. The player with talent can work to get significantly better, but the scrub or the lazy athlete is still a bush leaguer.
The real impact of this is that all these former or current players have been named by 2 or 3 sources. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no doubt in my mind that this period of baseball history will long be referred to as the "Steroid Era" and that all accomplishments from this era will be viewed with an invisible asterisk, and that all players will be under suspicion for some time to come.
ARod is sure to become ARoid at some near point of time.
|
I can agree with some of this. Getting stronger will allow someone to pitch more and longer. On the other hand, if someone is just a brute they will either whiff a the ball or hit 400ft popups. Bonds is very talented with or without steroids - that is probably why they still pitch around him with bad wheels and all. Bonds is probably the greatest player to ever play the game, but people will forever look at him because of what they saw in interviews.
JR, I feel the way I do about Bonds because I have actually met him and made my opinion based on how he treated me. I can't recall what, but his attitude with the media started because of something that either happened with his father or Willie Mays. I'm not going to have my opinion shaped by some interview when I met the man for myself. Also, I'm from the Charles Barkley school of thought on this one. An athlete is an athlete. I don't have to feel all warm and fuzzy about them, I'm just looking to see how they perform.
Picking one, two, ten or twenty media sources to compare to all the media out to get Bonds isn't accurate. I also don't have the time to scour so many papers, sites etc. The witch hunt has been on for some time and unfortunately one of the fan-favorites got caught with his pants down. When talking about Clemens, if you are from houston, boston or new york your opinion could be biased.
What is a good estimate of home runs Bonds would have had if he saw pitches like ARod or Pujols? 850? 900?