Cox vs. Griffin (Jose Bautista on Steroids?)

[J-Roc]

Cox's blog was spot on. Because of the past of baseball, I have every reason to believe these guys have been juicing. And that's really all Damien Cox wrote.

[Randle McMurphy]

Cox's blog was spot on.

It was one of the more ignorant, useless pieces of **** he's ever written. And that's saying a lot.

Because of the past of baseball, I have every reason to believe these guys have been juicing.

Baseball's history of PED use is no justification for writing that speculative nonsense.

[Mike Hunt]

As for the steroids/PEDs argument in this thread -- although I haven't read all the posts in this thread, I've essentially always been on the same side Randle McMurphy is on.

I've made this point about a million times now in the past 5 years: a lot of people are quick to assume or just naturally associate steroids/PEDs with cheating, as if the two are supposed to go hand-in-hand. But if you actually think about it, what exactly makes them cheating?

If they're not actually against the rules (as it wasn't in the MLB until fairly recently), why is it cheating?

It's not in the rulebook that you can't hire a sniper to shoot the batter in the face either, but it's understood that you don't do that. Why is it understood? Because we have laws telling us that it's not the right thing to do. Just like unlawful purchasing/usage of steroids was wrong way before it was written into the Rulebook. They could only be administered through legitimate prescriptions. These guys were not attaining them that way. That is at the base of everything. Who cares that it wasn't in the baseball rulebook? It was in an even more important "rulebook" (laws) than that of baseball. And while some laws are bent for the sake of maintaining the spirit of a sport (ie, you won't take hitting out of football because it could be deemed assault), ignoring a law about illegal drug usage wouldn't have had much to do with preserving the sanctity of the sport.

People can make the "it wasn't in the rulebook" argument for Sudafed and Creatine and I will jump on their bandwagon and wave their signs of protest all they want. They can argue that these substances are equally performance enhancing as steroids and I won't necessarily argue that much (I think there are certainly differences). The only thing I will disagree with is if they say that it wasn't cheating because it wasn't in the rulebook. That is where I think the argument is flawed.

[spykelee]

^^Agreed

I saw a good parallel story on CP24 yesterday... So apparently it isn't illegal to park in a handicapped parking spot if there's no actual sign posted there stating just as much... but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that virtually all of us know that it's wrong to park there, even if it isn't technically against the rules... Why do we know it's wrong? Because we're human beings with morals and values and things of that nature.

I know i know, i said i wouldn't post anymore on this topic, but after seeing that story, i felt it represented a perfect example of the aforementioned argument. It doesn't always have to be against the rules to know it's wrong.

[Illuminati_]

Cox's blog was spot on. Because of the past of baseball, I have every reason to believe these guys have been juicing. And that's really all Damien Cox wrote.

Nope. He basically started a baseless rumour and ran away. You have to be at least somewhat informed on what your talking/writing about. Everybody has some degree of responsibility.

[J-Roc]

Baseball's history of PED use is no justification for writing that speculative nonsense.

Except that it is.

[Randle McMurphy]

Baseball's history of PED use is no justification for writing that speculative nonsense.

Except that it is.

Not if you have any kind of journalistic integrity, it isn't.

If he's going to "ask the question" about a hitter having a career year, he might as well "ask the question" about all of the team's pitchers doing the same. Stereotyping HR hitters are steroid users is one of the more uninformed, ignorant cliches out there.

Not to mention the ridiculous presumptions involved here (that anabolic steroids actually work to this effect, that Bautista only began using the stuff this year).

[J-Roc]

Baseball's history of PED use is no justification for writing that speculative nonsense.

Except that it is.

Not if you have any kind of journalistic integrity, it isn't.

If he's going to "ask the question" about a hitter having a career year, he might as well "ask the question" about all of the team's pitchers doing the same. Stereotyping HR hitters are steroid users is one of the more uninformed, ignorant cliches out there.

Not to mention the ridiculous presumptions involved here (that anabolic steroids actually work to this effect, that Bautista only began using the stuff this year).

1st, it was his blog.

Aside from that, the issue of PED's was very much directly related to HR hitting in the 90's. So yes, when someone suddenly has a power surge, it reminds one of the Brady Anderson days. Oops, wait, better not mention Brady Anderson since he was never caught with anything. Gotta keep my journalistic integrity.

Anabolic steroids? How about HGH?

[Randle McMurphy]

1st, it was his blog.

As if that's any excuse for writing that worthless drivel. I would criticize any blogger who did the same.

Aside from that, the issue of PED's was very much directly related to HR hitting in the 90's.

Not really: http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/08 ... -steroids/

That increase likely had more to do with the MLB juicing their balls than anything else.

So yes, when someone suddenly has a power surge, it reminds one of the Brady Anderson days.

It reminds me of the sport of baseball, where crazy statistical fluctuations and career years happen all the time.

And I've never understood the people that associate Brady Anderson with PEDs. Do they simply believed that he took them for one year (and that one year only) to increase his HR total, and never before or after? Why exactly would he do that? It's not like the rules changed.

Whether Brady Anderson was on PEDs or not in his career, they weren't the reason he hit 50 in 1996.

Anabolic steroids? How about HGH?

If Bautista was using anything, I would expect it to be an undetectable anabolic or SARMs. But it's pointless to speculate unless we're Damien Cox.

BTW, you've sullied the image of Philadelphia Collins, the Mustard Tiger, by including him in your sig.

[MGD24]

But it's pointless to speculate unless we're Damien Cox.

ahahhah

[J-Roc]

1st, it was his blog.

As if that's any excuse for writing that worthless drivel. I would criticize any blogger who did the same.

Aside from that, the issue of PED's was very much directly related to HR hitting in the 90's.

Not really: http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/08 ... -steroids/

That increase likely had more to do with the MLB juicing their balls than anything else.

So yes, when someone suddenly has a power surge, it reminds one of the Brady Anderson days.

It reminds me of the sport of baseball, where crazy statistical fluctuations and career years happen all the time.

And I've never understood the people that associate Brady Anderson with PEDs. Do they simply believed that he took them for one year (and that one year only) to increase his HR total, and never before or after? Why exactly would he do that? It's not like the rules changed.

Whether Brady Anderson was on PEDs or not in his career, they weren't the reason he hit 50 in 1996.

Anabolic steroids? How about HGH?

If Bautista was using anything, I would expect it to be an undetectable anabolic or SARMs. But it's pointless to speculate unless we're Damien Cox.

BTW, you've sullied the image of Philadelphia Collins, the Mustard Tiger, by including him in your sig.

Anyone who believes Brady Anderson wasn't juicing agrees with you.

gnomesayin

[Randle McMurphy]

Anyone who believes Brady Anderson wasn't juicing agrees with you.

Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if Brady Anderson was on PEDs, but that's only because most of baseball was on them in the 90s, and not because he hit 50 HR in a career year.

The people that draw a further association between him and PEDs as a result of that career year need some perspective (like Damien Cox, and apparently, you).

[andrewsmith065]

Really how? can you prove it?

[YogiStewart]

there's no need for a bump.