Comments on: When 70 becomes meaningless

By: bg

bg — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:24:20 +0000

“he did not cheat, because steroids were not prohibited by MLB when he was using them. He didn’t break any rules. Simple as that.”

I think though he’s taking crap not for that as much as not coming clean in front of Congress and the press. I think we’re pretty tolerant in this country of anything–as long as you don’t lie about it or become evasive when asked. (I think this is also Bonds’ biggest problem.)

By: Corey Vilhauer

Corey Vilhauer — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:42:38 +0000

Right. That’s a whole separate argument that I didn’t even have time to get into. Someone should write a book about this stuff.

What? Someone already did?

Oh.

By: Will

Will — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:57:01 +0000

Good post. You touched upon the most important thing, with respect to the HOF issue, as far as I’m concerned: even if he used steroids (which seems almost certain), he did not cheat, because steroids were not prohibited by MLB when he was using them. He didn’t break any rules. Simple as that.

Why should be be punished for not breaking any rules?

Listen, these guys all made their choices, and I’m not trying to absolve them of responsibility for it. But if 60%+ of the league is doing it, a player is in a real bind: does he do it with all the rest, and remain competitive, or does he forego the juice and suffer the consequences (weaker, slower, slower recovery time, etc.)? And don’t forget that there are MILLIONS of dollars on the line here. Frankly, in light of all the circumstances, taking steroids was probably the reasonable thing to do.

I wish none of them would have started, but once they did, all the rest had their hands forced, in a sense. I don’t hold it against any of them. Except the ones who are lying about it…