Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thebeat
I don't particular care about the report, as the previous poster said, I take it will a grain of salt, there were some obvious people listed.
By my feeling is that, regardless of whether or not some of these players took HGH, I don't really feel it gave them a dominate edge over others.
I don't think big bats like; Bonds and others who have been pointed out, have hit more home runs because of it. Farther? Maybe. But even so what are the chances that but maybe a couple of shots were homers instead of warning track catches?
I'm not a bonds supporter, but he couldn't have done what he's done without a talent to play the game.
|
He couldn't have done it without talent but there is NO FUCKING WAY he would have had the midcareer resurgence he had either, forget the records. Its quite obvious that was due to the roids, no coincidence it started at the same time as BALCO. At such a high level of competition even the slightest bump of hormone levels can make a big difference. Bonds went from an above-average athlete to this huge pitchers' nightmare in body armor slamming home runs every other at bat that he wasn't intentionally walked. That just doesn't randomly happen past age 30.
Yes, steroids are part of sports as long as there is a direct correlation between hormone levels and success. Personally, I want to see steroids made legal. Then cheating is impossible and the sports get a lot more exciting too. Like the NYT pointed out, its probably no coincidence that baseball attendance rose in correlation with # of home runs. What's the difference if you have more testosterone because your body makes it or because you do? It's hardly unfair to anyone when there's a level playing field. Better living through chemistry, welcome to the new world of sports.
(Okay, maybe I'm not 100% serious)