Pujols and Hamilton...

[chancellor]

You began that paragraph with a question that you answered in the end. Once he signed that huge deal, there was no point in ever risking his HoF chances. I posted it here on these boards on the thread that covered his deal with the Angels. I opined that he has been on steroids throughout his career and I would expect him to quit them immediately, now that his image is still immaculate. The precipitous decline in stats I suspect is a combination of a PEDless skillset and that perhaps he's a couple years older than he claims.

All speculation on my part, of course, and I'd be happy to be wrong, because Pujols seems like a genuinely good dude, but I just call it like I see it.

Understand where you're coming from, but I doubt it's right. Lance Armstrong could have done the same - if he'd left cycling in, oh, about 2007 or 8, he could have disappeared for a while, never been caught, and likely would have remained a hero in cycling. If Pujols was using PEDs for any period, there's no doubt in my mind he'd keep using, as he'd not want to show decline. Moreover, for a person of his means, he'd have to be stupid to be caught, and Albert isn't stupid.

[Hornsby]

Dude. Sometimes...

"Do you think Bonds was on steroids?" and "Do you think Bonds' steroid use played a big part in his success?" are two different questions. But I answered them both. Yes, and no more than anyone else.

I get from your tone that you think you are going to catch me in some flaw in my reasoning, some contradiction. There isn't one. I can be both a fan of Bonds and his Giants and accept that he was a steroid user. I can also accept that probably every player we all admire used as well. My love for the game and it's heroes is not tied up in some trumped up morality play over PEDs. I can see the world for what it is AND what it should be and I am careful not to confuse the two.

No, I just want you to answer the question clearly and concisely, and to this point all you've done is obfuscate. It's a very simple question: do you believe that Bonds was on Steroids for his entire career? That's essentially what you're accusing Pujols of. If so, fine, that leads to the other question that naturally follows...how do you explain the power spike at the age of 35 onwards? Simple, requires nothing more than your opinion...

Frankly, I don't care if there's a flaw in your reasoning, I simply want to know your line of thinking for throwing an entire generation under the bus with no evidence at all. And using Bonds as an example is a simple way to draw that out...

[The Dane]

No, I just want you to answer the question clearly and concisely, and to this point all you've done is obfuscate. It's a very simple question: do you believe that Bonds was on Steroids for his entire career? That's essentially what you're accusing Pujols of. If so, fine, that leads to the other question that naturally follows...how do you explain the power spike at the age of 35 onwards? Simple, requires nothing more than your opinion...

Frankly, I don't care if there's a flaw in your reasoning, I simply want to know your line of thinking for throwing an entire generation under the bus with no evidence at all. And using Bonds as an example is a simple way to draw that out...

(breath deep, Dane)

Yes, I believe Bonds was on steroids, probably not for his whole career, but he surely did them after the McGwire/Sosa HR chase. Pujols came later, so I think he probably started using earlier in his career, but I would guess he stopped upon signing with the Angels. These are guesses, of course, but that's all we have because we don't know anything... and that is the problem. If they want to tell me exactly who did what, I'll, with glee, stop accusing everyone. Until, they threw themselves under the bus.

[Hornsby]

Thank you, that's all that I was asking for the whole time. a simple, concise answer...something that I think you would expect of your students.

So the next question is also simple...do you think that the PED's were responsible for the quantum leap in power? I think that we can all safely agree that he was a 1st ballot HOFer well before the power spike, and now, he may never get in.

[The Dane]

Thank you, that's all that I was asking for the whole time. a simple, concise answer...something that I think you would expect of your students.

Actually, no. While simple, concise answers are very handy when dealing with the many stupid people that my students will encounter throughout their lives, I try to teach my kids to read for author's intent, and be able to determine what the author's position is, even when it is not laid out in simplistic, monosyllabic words. But then, they're mostly sophomores, so it's pretty advanced stuff.

So the next question is also simple...do you think that the PED's were responsible for the quantum leap in power? I think that we can all safely agree that he was a 1st ballot HOFer well before the power spike, and now, he may never get in.

They were greatly responsible, yes, but I think it's impossible to determine how much. He had a great bat before and he was consciously trying to hit more homeruns at that time, so I think his power numbers would have jumped anyway, but not nearly as much as they did.

And sadly, yes, he may never get in.

[Hornsby]

Actually, no. While simple, concise answers are very handy when dealing with the many stupid people that my students will encounter throughout their lives, I try to teach my kids to read for author's intent, and be able to determine what the author's position is, even when it is not laid out in simplistic, monosyllabic words. But then, they're mostly sophomores, so it's pretty advanced stuff.






They were greatly responsible, yes, but I think it's impossible to determine how much. He had a great bat before and he was consciously trying to hit more homeruns at that time, so I think his power numbers would have jumped anyway, but not nearly as much as they did.

And sadly, yes, he may never get in.

Wow, I think that's a shot at me, but there are so many complex thoughts and multisyllabic words in there, it's difficult for my simple mind to decipher.

As for reading for the authors intent, you failed in reading mine. Which means that I failed as a communicator in trying to elicit the answer I needed/wanted.

And while I don't like Bonds as a person (viewing from the outside the soap opera his life became, and how he handled it), I'd certainly be fine with him in the Hall, with Asterisk attached.

[Mithrandir]

Actually, no. While simple, concise answers are very handy when dealing with the many stupid people that my students will encounter throughout their lives, I try to teach my kids to read for author's intent, and be able to determine what the author's position is, even when it is not laid out in simplistic, monosyllabic words. But then, they're mostly sophomores, so it's pretty advanced stuff.




They were greatly responsible, yes, but I think it's impossible to determine how much. He had a great bat before and he was consciously trying to hit more homeruns at that time, so I think his power numbers would have jumped anyway, but not nearly as much as they did.

And sadly, yes, he may never get in.

Fuck Bonds. He acted like an asshole. The world has way too many assholes. He's just another one that pisses off the good people. Fuck him.

[cavebird]

Wow, I think that's a shot at me, but there are so many complex thoughts and multisyllabic words in there, it's difficult for my simple mind to decipher.

As for reading for the authors intent, you failed in reading mine. Which means that I failed as a communicator in trying to elicit the answer I needed/wanted.

And while I don't like Bonds as a person (viewing from the outside the soap opera his life became, and how he handled it), I'd certainly be fine with him in the Hall, with Asterisk attached.

1. He was saying that you were failing to read his, as he was blatantly obvious that he thought Bonds had used.

2. Your intent was blatantly obvious, too. The back and forth reads like a painful cross-examination where the lawyer keeps asking a yes or no question, insisting on a yes or no answer and never getting one. The judge would have shut the whole thing down a while back. Sometimes people just don't want to answer the question you ask or answer in the manner you want. Previously, on RJ, that could lead to an argument and then somebody getting vetoed and removed from office.

[Hornsby]

I understand what he was saying perfectly well...and I knew from his 1st post that he believed that Bonds was in the PED club. I prefer a shorter, clearer line of reasoning, apparently Tim prefers to expound on an answer. Neither are right or wrong in this setting, simply different ways to arrive at the same destination.

Well, apparently I need to be clearer in my questioning then, as all I wanted from the very first post was an answer to this question: You claim that everyone used, so that included Bonds. To what degree do you think that helped his career, particularly the power numbers?

I eventually got my answer, even though the judge in your theoretical courtroom may not have like the line of questioning, and it was never about a yes or no answer. So no argument, no vetos, and no removal from office. This is a kinder, gentler, and perhaps, more boring RJ these days...maybe we're all mellowing, or maybe people have gotten thicker skin over the years on the old interwebs.

[The Dane]

And while I don't like Bonds as a person (viewing from the outside the soap opera his life became, and how he handled it), I'd certainly be fine with him in the Hall, with Asterisk attached.

I got no problem with an asterisk... but there will be A LOT of asterisks. Put them all in and let history sort it out.

[Hornsby]

I got no problem with an asterisk... but there will be A LOT of asterisks. Put them all in and let history sort it out.

I've pretty much come full circle on the issue, what finally pushed me over the edge was listening to (I think) CJ Nitkowski on XM radio. he had surgery, and his Doctor told him that he'd recover much quicker if he could use HGH in his treatment program like he did with all of his other patients. It just seemed so totally silly at that point...a guy denied the best possible care that he could get because of a testing program that wouldn't allow any medical exemptions? Screw it...at this point say scrap the whole thing until you can get it right. And you'll never get it right...so let 'em all in the HOF as well.

[The Dane]

Screw it...at this point say scrap the whole thing until you can get it right. And you'll never get it right...so let 'em all in the HOF as well.

Exactly. They all (players and MLB) messed this all up so bad that we will never know. In my opinion, the coverup is a more diabolical betrayal than the PED usage to begin with. I can understand why a player would use and I can forgive him very easily, but lying to my face, covering up tons of illegal activities, that I can't truck with. Also, if you keep the players out, you are just punishing them and they are not the only responsible.

[Gregg]

Pujols went for 28 in our AL only 5x5 ultra. How the mighty have fallen.

[Mithrandir]

Hamilton is heating up.

[cavebird]

I understand what he was saying perfectly well...and I knew from his 1st post that he believed that Bonds was in the PED club. I prefer a shorter, clearer line of reasoning, apparently Tim prefers to expound on an answer. Neither are right or wrong in this setting, simply different ways to arrive at the same destination.

Well, apparently I need to be clearer in my questioning then, as all I wanted from the very first post was an answer to this question: You claim that everyone used, so that included Bonds. To what degree do you think that helped his career, particularly the power numbers?

I eventually got my answer, even though the judge in your theoretical courtroom may not have like the line of questioning, and it was never about a yes or no answer. So no argument, no vetos, and no removal from office. This is a kinder, gentler, and perhaps, more boring RJ these days...maybe we're all mellowing, or maybe people have gotten thicker skin over the years on the old interwebs.

We just lost one idiot, lol.

As for the other, I was criticizing both---you both knew what the other wanted and played the dance anyway. But hell, I could be the lawyer in the hypothetical; when you are questioning, you want what you want. I still remember this exchange in court from back when I was in private practice (I left practice to work for a court in Feb. 2001):

Other Lawyer: Objection! He didn't like the answer his only client gave him and is trying to get him to say the opposite by asking more or less the same question.

Me: [uh, uh, busted, my client's a fucking moron, he thinks he's smarter than everyone, and I told him to tell the truth on that one, it actually helps him, but no, this dumb ass thinks he's smarter than all of us when the furniture in here is smarter than him] I'll rephrase, your honor.

Needless to say, my client didn't win that day. When I got back to my office, my boss who happened to be in the courtroom at the time was like: you did to keep him out of jail. (it was a civil case, only could get locked up for contempt; he deserved it).