Mark McGwire admits to long-term steroid use!

[JRutledge]

Again, you can play the semantics game. How about this, name one player before there was testing that was suspended for steroid use? Just one will do.

Let us take it a step further. Bonds was linked to the Balco situation and he was never suspended and allowed to break Hank Aaron's record well after many players were linked to this company. If there was this ban, why was Bonds not suspended by MLB for using of steroid. He admitted to not knowingly taking a substance that he thought was steroids, but was found out to be some kind of steroid. If it was banned, then why was he allowed to continue to play? And if steroids were banned, what does that have to do with this discussion now? The Hall of Fame does not have a policy to keep players out that were known steroids users. There is no such policy, but you claim there was this clear ban.

Peace

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, you can play the semantics game. How about this, name one player before there was testing that was suspended for steroid use? Just one will do.

Peace

Me playing semantics? That's rich.

I have no idea if there was one. Suspension has nothing to do with the FACT that PEDS were banned.

Now, answer me this, yes or no....was steroid use by MLB players, without a prescription, illegal under law and prohibited by MLB from 1991 forward?

Hint:

According to the Mitchell Report, Congress, MLB and Mark McGwire, the answer is "yes."

Your answer is? Remember just yes or no. No "playing semantics."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Ump153

Me playing semantics? That's rich.

I have no idea if there was one. Suspension has nothing to do with the FACT that PEDS were banned.

Now, answer me this, yes or no....was steroid use by MLB players, without a prescription, illegal under law and prohibited by MLB from 1991 forward?

Hint:

According to the Mitchell Report, Congress, MLB and Mark McGwire, the answer is "yes."

Your answer is? Remember just yes or no. No "playing semantics."

But there should be. You keep talking about a ban, but what does that have to do with this discussion. Big Mac was never suspended as neither was Sosa, Bonds or even Alex Rodriquez (and he admitted to using and is a current player).

Pacman Jones was accused of getting in trouble with the law; he was suspended for a year. Michael Vick was not even convicted yet and he was suspended indefinitely by the NFL and the commissioner. But many players were accused of using a drug and in some cases proven and nothing has happen to them in Major League Baseball. There are well over 100 players in the Mitchell Report and not a single player has been suspended for what they were accused of in that report. Man, those are some really mean laws on the books.

Peace

[Ump153]

I answered your question, but you continue to refuse to answer mine.

Maybe you just forgot?

Remember, one word answer.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Ump153

I answered your question, but you continue to refuse to answer mine.

Maybe you just forgot?

Remember, one word answer.

You have not asked me a reasonable question. And no you have not answered my question. You are just playing the semantics game and saying something is banned, but showing absolutely no relevance to this discussion. The point I made awhile back is that there was no action taken by MLB for what any player took at any time. The Mitchell Report involved current players and those players have still to this day (since there was a ban and all) have not been suspended (for anything, but there was a ban remember). And guys like David Justice were also in the Mitchell Report as well, but only was in the report based on what someone said he had a conversation with someone about steroids. Nothing said that Justice was seen using or failed a drug test of any kind during his playing career. But let us not let facts get in the way of this discussion. I am still trying to figure out how you ban something, but you punish no one in the process and no one has been punished based on the report you keep referencing.

Peace

[Ump153]

Okay, Mr, Rutledge, I get the hint. You won't answer my question. So, I'll have to make do with what you've already said to demonstrate your level of understanding.

Who could forget:

"The last time I checked Steroids were legal when Mac was playing."
(MLB banned steriods in 1991 providing unspecified punishment. Testing and punishment were added by Selig in 1997)

"And it must be noted that we have no idea if and when he used them illegally "
(McGwire has admitted he used them illegally and prrovided a timeline.)

"People that have asthma and other muscle conditions can take and do take steroids. But hey, they are illegal right?"
(As we all know, these are corticosteroids and were not banned.)

"Here is the thing, we do not know what McGuire used or did not use."
(McGwire claims he illegally used banned steriods.)

[JRutledge]

[QUOTE=Ump153;650891]Okay, Mr, Rutledge, I get the hint. You won't answer my question. So, I'll have to make do with what you've already said to demonstrate your level of understanding.

Originally Posted by Ump153

Who could forget:

"The last time I checked Steroids were legal when Mac was playing."
(MLB banned steriods in 1991 providing unspecified punishment. Testing and punishment were added by Selig in 1997)

And you still have not explained to me how something is illegal was not tested for. And you still have not explained to me what punishment was a result of getting caught for such substances. And you still have not explained to me who during this time frame was suspended or banned from MLB at this time. You can say there something is illegal in MLB, but there is no punishment for taking them in any way. So I stand by the fact that these substances were legal because even the people in the Mitchell Report that are current players still have not been punished for either taking them or admitting to taking them. And I am not the only one that has said that. Many media people have said the very same thing and they cover the sport. This is not a new or novel idea I am talking about. A memo alone does not make something illegal. You have to have a policy to verify something illegal is being done and punish those that violate the laws.

Mac did not get punished or violate any drug policy in his entire career. And he certainly did not get punished in 1998 when he said he took them during his record setting year.

Originally Posted by Ump153

"And it must be noted that we have no idea if and when he used them illegally "
(McGwire has admitted he used them illegally and prrovided a timeline.)

Illegally meaning the law. In other words, he was not prosecuted for having them in possession (which is illegal without a prescription). He was not ever criminally charged for using (which is illegal without prescription). No doctor was charged for giving them to him. He never stated in the interview where he got steroids from or how he got them (he had to get them from somewhere). He only admitted to taking them, he did not say he got them illegally. You can still get steroids legally under the right circumstances. You can even get HGH legally under the right circumstances. HGH is used for anti-aging purposes, but if you play professional and amateur sports, you will not be able to play while taking them and they are found in your system with a drug test.

Originally Posted by Ump153

"People that have asthma and other muscle conditions can take and do take steroids. But hey, they are illegal right?"
(As we all know, these are corticosteroids and were not banned.)

Are you saying that only anabolic steroids the only illegal substances in MLB? I do recall that Manny Ramirez was suspended this past year for a substance that was not a steroid. If I recall it was a substance for a pregnant woman to use but somehow helpful for a man to use as a PED. Which again goes back to my original position on this, MLB did not have a comprehensive drug testing policy. Saying you cannot use something and never test for it with urine or blood test is not comprehensive. And you forgot to quote my comments about the NFL and how they put a player on the drug program that tested positive for a ban substance that he used for an inhaler for his Asthma medication. Again, the NFL had to back off because he had a prescription to this substance. MLB had no such policy and allowed players to take things like Andro (which was banned in the NFL too in 1998) but MLB turned the other way.

Being from Chicago I remember Jim Miller who was a QB in the early 2000s was suspended for taking an over the counter medication and it was found in a drug test. He was suspended and put on the drug program in the NFL. This was not a steroid, but something found in common over the counter legal drug that anyone can buy he was suspended for. And when he tried to say he did not know this was banned, he was not given a pass by anyone. MLB had no such policy and allowed their players to take anything. Oh, I forgot, they banned steroids but they did not test for them. Riiiiggghhhtttt!!!!

Originally Posted by Ump153

"Here is the thing, we do not know what McGuire used or did not use."
(McGwire claims he illegally used banned steriods.)

What was the substance that Big Mac took? Do you know? Did he say in his interviews on MLB Network and ESPN the last couple of days? I will be waiting for the substance (very specific) name as we do not know what he took and in what doses. He never said how he got them or who gave them to him (which still could have been from a doctor for all we know).

I realize reading and understanding are hard for some people, but you have not answered any of these questions.

Peace

[grunewar]

Jose Canseco: Mark McGwire lying about steroid use - MLB News - FOX Sports on MSN

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I realize reading and understanding are hard for some people ...

I think this says it all about your struggles with fully understanding this issue, and how it is being addressed.

[ozzy6900]

Who really gives a crap anyway? Does it affect you or your paycheck? All this mess does is bring baseball down yet another notch. Baseball banned the Chicago boys but kept a beer toting philanderer like the Babe. They threw out Rose because he put a black eye on the Game yet they turned the other way with "juice". Face it, Baseball just does as it pleases to keep face and all the pi$$ing and moaning from the fans won't do jack crap to fix it. Personally, I could care less who is in the Hall of Flame because it does nothing for me or my life. My input as to who gets into the Hall means nothing so I don't bother to argue. Baseball is like the Government. Don't do this today but tomorrow you can do it all you want - as long as we are not looking.

Get a life, people! You are just umpires and fans of the Game. try to remember your place!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Who really gives a crap anyway? Does it affect you or your paycheck? All this mess does is bring baseball down yet another notch. Baseball banned the Chicago boys but kept a beer toting philanderer like the Babe. They threw out Rose because he put a black eye on the Game yet they turned the other way with "juice". Face it, Baseball just does as it pleases to keep face and all the pi$$ing and moaning from the fans won't do jack crap to fix it. Personally, I could care less who is in the Hall of Flame because it does nothing for me or my life. My input as to who gets into the Hall means nothing so I don't bother to argue. Baseball is like the Government. Don't do this today but tomorrow you can do it all you want - as long as we are not looking.

Get a life, people! You are just umpires and fans of the Game. try to remember your place!

So true, so true. And no matter what anyone says, baseball did not outlaw taking substances and a memo does not change that. And this situation with Big Mac was created by the powers that be. They only have themselves to blame and why they will have to deal with players that were the best of their era under complete and total perception of cheating the game no matter what you think. And you have arrogant media people who want to say someone that they never saw play were better than current players. It is all kind of humorous to me.

Peace

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Ump153

Okay, Mr, Rutledge, I get the hint. You won't answer my question. So, I'll have to make do with what you've already said to demonstrate your level of understanding.

Who could forget:

"The last time I checked Steroids were legal when Mac was playing."
(MLB banned steriods in 1991 providing unspecified punishment. Testing and punishment were added by Selig in 1997)

"And it must be noted that we have no idea if and when he used them illegally "
(McGwire has admitted he used them illegally and prrovided a timeline.)

"People that have asthma and other muscle conditions can take and do take steroids. But hey, they are illegal right?"
(As we all know, these are corticosteroids and were not banned.)

"Here is the thing, we do not know what McGuire used or did not use."
(McGwire claims he illegally used banned steriods.)

Debating JR is like the proverbial "nailing jello to the wall." His logic is fluid with no constraints. He ignores facts. He creates facts. He changes his positions then denies doing so. He will deny saying something that can still be seen in his prior posts. Then he will lock on an argument that is so absurd it can hardly be debated within the confines of broadband. (For example, "if no one has been punished for a certain action, no law or prohibition against that action can exist.")

Fortunately he is unique. If you will note, not one of over a hundred posters at this site agrees with him, which gives us hope for this site.

My advice is to give up. You can present facts, you can demonstrate reality, you can discuss possibilities. You can't make someone think.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Debating JR is like the proverbial "nailing jello to the wall." His logic is fluid with no constraints. He ignores facts. He creates facts. He changes his positions then denies doing so. He will deny saying something that can still be seen in his prior posts. Then he will lock on an argument that is so absurd it can hardly be debated within the confines of broadband. (For example, "if no one has been punished for a certain action, no law or prohibition against that action can exist.")

Fortunately he is unique. If you will note, not one of over a hundred posters at this site agrees with him, which gives us hope for this site.

My advice is to give up. You can present facts, you can demonstrate reality, you can discuss possibilities. You can't make someone think.

+1.

I generally ignore his logic-impaired pap. Every so often I can't help myself. I'm grateful for the ignore feature at those times.