Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Below Me on May 22, 2006, 05:39:12 PM

Title: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: Below Me on May 22, 2006, 05:39:12 PM
Both are/were on a bunch of performance enhancing drugs.

One breaks a milestone.
One breaks a leg.

Why all the fuss about the broken leg and little about the milestone?
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: Mr. Intenseone on May 22, 2006, 06:10:10 PM
Both are/were on a bunch of performance enhancing drugs.

One breaks a milestone.
One breaks a leg.

Why all the fuss about the broken leg and little about the milestone?

The only thing they have in common is they both take the same amount of gear!
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: BM OUT on May 23, 2006, 09:12:04 AM
Don't you understand?The media thinks taking steroids is far worse then heroin,cocaine and anything else.These idiots applaud Garry Shefield taking a cortisone shot or Brett Favre getting hooked on vicodin or Lawrence Taylor smoking crack and putting Apple juice in his urine sample,just as long as you don't take steroids.Darryl Strawberry smokes crack and punches his wife and the media applaud his courage when he comes back.Barry Bonds committed the mortal sin for which there is no repentance,he took steroids to help him play better.Had he been a crack head the media would have elevated him to God like status.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: Palpatine Q on May 23, 2006, 09:40:37 AM
Both are/were on a bunch of performance enhancing drugs.

One breaks a milestone.
One breaks a leg.

Why all the fuss about the broken leg and little about the milestone?

 That's what is wrong with society today. In today's Newsday there's a picture on the back page of two girls with posters that say "Barbaro your'e our hero"  and "we beleive in miracles"  We are talking about a fvcking HORSE that broke it's leg running,which is what horses do.. It didn't run into a burning building to rescue someone.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: jaejonna on May 23, 2006, 09:45:27 AM
Don't you understand?The media thinks taking steroids is far worse then heroin,cocaine and anything else.These idiots applaud Garry Shefield taking a cortisone shot or Brett Favre getting hooked on vicodin or Lawrence Taylor smoking crack and putting Apple juice in his urine sample,just as long as you don't take steroids.Darryl Strawberry smokes crack and punches his wife and the media applaud his courage when he comes back.Barry Bonds committed the mortal sin for which there is no repentance,he took steroids to help him play better.Had he been a crack head the media would have elevated him to God like status.

Drug addiction is a diasease now,
So is eat too much food,
so is being nervous,
so is being gay,
so is being on the internet...

Taking Steroids is a crime!!
But body dismorphia is a disease...
But TAKING STEROIDS IS A CRIME!!

oh and GOOD POST !!
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: Hedgehog on May 23, 2006, 09:54:26 AM
Don't you understand?The media thinks taking steroids is far worse then heroin,cocaine and anything else.These idiots applaud Garry Shefield taking a cortisone shot or Brett Favre getting hooked on vicodin or Lawrence Taylor smoking crack and putting Apple juice in his urine sample,just as long as you don't take steroids.Darryl Strawberry smokes crack and punches his wife and the media applaud his courage when he comes back.Barry Bonds committed the mortal sin for which there is no repentance,he took steroids to help him play better.Had he been a crack head the media would have elevated him to God like status.

Strawberry didn't use crack to become a better player.

Bonds used his substance to become a better baseball player.

Both broke the law. But Bonds is the one who cheated.

Cheating is always gonna be looked down upon by the public.

Even if the "cheating" is more or less accepted within the culture of baseball players, the public will not accept it.

YIP
Zack
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: BM OUT on May 23, 2006, 10:15:45 AM
Cheating is defined as breaking the rules to get a competative advantage.Bonds broke ZERO rules in baseball.Taylor and Strawberry broker the rules of their games.Bonds used drugs to play better,thats seen as wrong,but a guy using drugs to destroy his life,career and family,thats ok.Great thinking.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: jaejonna on May 23, 2006, 10:26:23 AM
Strawberry didn't use crack to become a better player.

Bonds used his substance to become a better baseball player.

Both broke the law. But Bonds is the one who cheated.

Cheating is always gonna be looked down upon by the public.

Even if the "cheating" is more or less accepted within the culture of baseball players, the public will not accept it.

YIP
Zack


The rules in Baseball at the time were non existent and the usage was encouraged.
The only ones who think its cheating are the idealist in baseball who think in terms of storybooks and fairytales.....
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: pumpster on May 23, 2006, 10:54:22 AM
Quote
Cheating is defined as breaking the rules to get a competative advantage.Bonds broke ZERO rules in baseball.
You're completely taken with the fine technical print; in the real world & court of public opinion, it's glaringly obvious he trampled the rules. Especially egregious given baseball's tradition vs. doing same in other sports.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: Palpatine Q on May 23, 2006, 11:07:40 AM
You're completely taken with the fine technical print; in the real world & court of public opinion, it's glaringly obvious he trampled the rules. Especially egregious given baseball's tradition vs. doing same in other sports.
I am so sick and tired of hearing about baseballs tradition,history,integrity blahblahblah.......If barry bonds played in the same era as Babe Ruth he'd have 1200 homers. Bigger stronger faster just like every other sport on the face of the earth
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: BM OUT on May 23, 2006, 11:47:05 AM
The court of public opinion.Last poll I saw,had it about 80-20 percent in favor of Bonds and him being crucified for nothing.The only people outraged are the idots in the media who arent even big enough to play put-put golf.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: pumpster on May 23, 2006, 01:21:24 PM
Again you're confused-the public largely has no problem with Bonds' use of drugs, but has a major problem with him as a person and with his moral character.  In the court of public opinion re: Bonds himself, he's broken every possible rule short of kiddie porn. Now you get it! :D
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: 240 is Back on May 23, 2006, 01:23:20 PM
You ever seen a crackhead run?  They're like lightning. LTaylor definintely had an edge by bassing up before games. 

Unless you believe his words that he smoked crack 6 days a week for many years, but never on game day...
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: onlyme on May 23, 2006, 01:23:56 PM
That's what is wrong with society today. In today's Newsday there's a picture on the back page of two girls with posters that say "Barbaro your'e our hero"  and "we beleive in miracles"  We are talking about a fvcking HORSE that broke it's leg running,which is what horses do.. It didn't run into a burning building to rescue someone.

Well he was going to a burning building but he broke his leg trying.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: pumpster on May 23, 2006, 01:31:39 PM
Quote
That's what is wrong with society today. In today's Newsday there's a picture on the back page of two girls with posters that say "Barbaro your'e our hero"  and "we beleive in miracles"  We are talking about a fvcking HORSE
All that matters is whether he inspires, not why. It's easy to understand why, in the case IMO.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: bmacsys on May 23, 2006, 01:45:11 PM
Don't you understand?The media thinks taking steroids is far worse then heroin,cocaine and anything else.These idiots applaud Garry Shefield taking a cortisone shot or Brett Favre getting hooked on vicodin or Lawrence Taylor smoking crack and putting Apple juice in his urine sample,just as long as you don't take steroids.Darryl Strawberry smokes crack and punches his wife and the media applaud his courage when he comes back.Barry Bonds committed the mortal sin for which there is no repentance,he took steroids to help him play better.Had he been a crack head the media would have elevated him to God like status.

Dude, you don't get it. People dislike Bonds because he is a LIAR and a PRICK. He has no redeeming qualities. His own teamates can't stand him. Many are on record as saying such. It isn't the steroids, Its his inability to tell the truth about anything.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: bmacsys on May 23, 2006, 01:47:10 PM
The court of public opinion.Last poll I saw,had it about 80-20 percent in favor of Bonds and him being crucified for nothing.The only people outraged are the idots in the media who arent even big enough to play put-put golf.

You haven't watched too many Giant road games or read any real polls that have been taken by SI etc..
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: bmacsys on May 23, 2006, 01:59:58 PM
You're completely taken with the fine technical print; in the real world & court of public opinion, it's glaringly obvious he trampled the rules. Especially egregious given baseball's tradition vs. doing same in other sports.


Yes, in Baseball stats are a sacred thing. In other sports they aren't quite as much. In Hockey, Football and Basketball there are constantly rule changes that have a great impact on scoring in those sports. Basketball- zone defense, hand checking, 3 point arc being added in 1979, it being moved in to 22' from 23'9". Football- moving the goalposts, offensive lineman having to have closed hands, defensive backs not being able to touch the wide receiver after 5 yards. Hockey seems to be always tweaking things to bring more scoring- outlawing the nuetral zone trap or whatever it was called, making the goalie pads smaller, the shootout to eliminate ties. Baseball is more static. Lowering the mound in 1969 and adding the DH in 1973 are about the only rule changes. How the umps determine the strike zone has been changed by MLB over the years. The DH has definately skewed offensive numbers over the years in the American League. Guys who can still swing a bat but otherwise can't do anything else seem to play forever. Like Harold Baines, Eddie Murray, Dave Winfield, Chili Davis, Paul Moliter, Jose Canseco.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: BM OUT on May 24, 2006, 07:47:20 AM
Bonds might be the worst guy in the world,BUT that doesnt make him a cheater.He has NEVER cheated and followed every rule that the MLB put in front of him,and played better then EVERYONE over the last thirty years.Just because your a jerk,doesnt make you a cheater.I will say this,you can say Bonds is a liar because he wont admit steroid use[with our wicked government ,Id think you would understand why]but at least hes not a two faced idiot like Curt Schilling who talks a lot of smack about steroids but when he sits in the congressional hearings he pisses in his pants and acts like a gutless coward.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: pumpster on May 24, 2006, 07:50:35 AM
Quote
Bonds might be the worst guy in the world,BUT that doesnt make him a cheater.He has NEVER cheated and followed every rule that the MLB put in front of him,and played better then EVERYONE over the last thirty years
You're delusional; WTF are you babbling out he's never cheated? Do you work for him? The only thing is that he's technically innocent. No one actually believes he's innocent other than a few nuts like you.

Then throw in the repulsive persona and you've entered OJ territory, who BTW is also technically innocent. Both are pariahs.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: BM OUT on May 24, 2006, 08:31:36 AM
You misunderstand.I believe Bonds did take steroids,however THAT IS NOT CHEATING!!!!!!!!I'm not delusional at all.I think he took advantage of the piss poor rules MLB set down and used whatever he thought would help him play better.I find that admirable.I believe all athletes need to take advantage of whatever they can to perform at the highest levels and if there is no rule prohibiting it then its all good.In fact,right now there is no reliable test for growth hormone  and they don't test for insulin.As far as I'm concerned all pro athletes should use both,to not only enhance their performance but to help them heal up and extend their careers.Unlike some on here,I'm pro steroid use and find it laughable that there are still anti-steroid guys posting on a bodybuilding website.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: pumpster on May 24, 2006, 08:39:07 AM
So just because he wasn't caught he wasn't cheating.. ::) Technically OJ's a great guy.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: body88 on May 24, 2006, 08:49:34 AM
You misunderstand.I believe Bonds did take steroids,however THAT IS NOT CHEATING!!!!!!!!I'm not delusional at all.I think he took advantage of the piss poor rules MLB set down and used whatever he thought would help him play better.I find that admirable.I believe all athletes need to take advantage of whatever they can to perform at the highest levels and if there is no rule prohibiting it then its all good.In fact,right now there is no reliable test for growth hormone  and they don't test for insulin.As far as I'm concerned all pro athletes should use both,to not only enhance their performance but to help them heal up and extend their careers.Unlike some on here,I'm pro steroid use and find it laughable that there are still anti-steroid guys posting on a bodybuilding website.

YEs because you need steriods to BB :) I wonder how good youre  work ethic is clean. I bet youre the type of juice monkey that cant take a shit without smashing 2 grams of test into youre ass

HARDCORE
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: BM OUT on May 24, 2006, 09:09:44 AM
Ever been to a natural powerlifting or natural bodybuilding show,THEY SUCK!!!!!!!!!Ive been training for twenty five years and  competing for 17,so one thing I don't need,is your advise when it comes to training or work ethic.As far as Bonds not getting caught?I don't understand that.I'm saying he took steroids and I'm saying steroids IS NOT CHEATING!!!!!!!!!It has nothing to do with getting caught.I'm saying using steroids when there is no policy against them makes there user LEGIT.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: pumpster on May 24, 2006, 09:16:36 AM
Your logic's completely warped and worse, you don't even realize it because you separate out on related fact from the next when they actually fit together.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: HowieW on May 24, 2006, 09:19:55 AM
Both are/were on a bunch of performance enhancing drugs.

One breaks a milestone.
One breaks a leg.

Why all the fuss about the broken leg and little about the milestone?

Who the hell is "Barbaro"? never heard of him
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: pumpster on May 24, 2006, 09:21:24 AM
A circus clown with 19" arms.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: HowieW on May 24, 2006, 09:23:07 AM
Cheating is defined as breaking the rules to get a competative advantage.Bonds broke ZERO rules in baseball.Taylor and Strawberry broker the rules of their games.Bonds used drugs to play better,thats seen as wrong,but a guy using drugs to destroy his life,career and family,thats ok.Great thinking.

In the mid 90's the comm. of baseball did send out a statement to all major league clubs banning various drugs, which included steroids. This was revealed on Bob Costa's HBO show.
Thus anything during the last 10 years should have been drug free or they did in fact break the rules of major league baseball based on official written policy at the higest level.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: HowieW on May 24, 2006, 09:23:55 AM
A circus clown with 19" arms.

an actual clown or some athlete-azzclown?
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: body88 on May 24, 2006, 09:43:18 AM
Ever been to a natural powerlifting or natural bodybuilding show,THEY SUCK!!!!!!!!!Ive been training for twenty five years and  competing for 17,so one thing I don't need,is your advise when it comes to training or work ethic.As far as Bonds not getting caught?I don't understand that.I'm saying he took steroids and I'm saying steroids IS NOT CHEATING!!!!!!!!!It has nothing to do with getting caught.I'm saying using steroids when there is no policy against them makes there user LEGIT.

Ok fair enough. What I gues it boils down to is Bonds is just an asshole to everyone. I know that should not make a difference but if he wasent such a cock sucker he would not get bashed as much as he does. Human nature I guess. So many guys take juice in the bigs youre right it is hypocritical to call one single guy a cheat. I think bonds gets called out on it much more due to his attitude and way with the fans and media.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: BM OUT on May 24, 2006, 09:44:23 AM
Why because I think steroids are a legit training tool?Why because I think our federal government waaaay overstepped their grounds when classifying steroids as a controlled substance when NOT ONE of the experts they brought foreward during the hearings would agree that there wasn't one single solitary reason for steroids being made a controlled substance?Steroids are LEGAL in many countries.Its here that the media has brainwashed our idiot congressmen into believing that steroids are the great satan.Sorry,bro.Steroids are a legit way to help one attain their goals,despite what our wicked evil government,who says nothing about congressmen Patrick Kennedy driving around stoned,says.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: pumpster on May 24, 2006, 10:44:13 AM
Again you're seriously lacking in common sense. He did in fact cheat-just because you personally think it's ok to do whatever you can get away with doesn't erase his cheating. In effect you've excused his cheating because you think that if someone can get away with it, it erases any problem.

Quote
Bonds did take steroids,however THAT IS NOT CHEATING!!!!!!!!I'm not delusional at all.I think he took advantage of the piss poor rules MLB set down and used whatever he thought would help him play better.I find that admirable.I believe all athletes need to take advantage of whatever they can to perform at the highest levels and if there is no rule prohibiting it then its all good.
You're confirming that you believe that as long as someone can get away with it the justification's made to cheat. Not.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: BM OUT on May 24, 2006, 11:45:51 AM
Please,once again,site the rule in the baseball rulebook that said steroids were not allowed  and that MLB will be testing for them.By your way of thinking,bodybuilders using artificial color are cheating because its not a natural tan.The rule has to be in place,collectively bargained with the players union,for it to be a rule.No rule in major league baseball can be passed without a collective bargaining agreement.Since there was no agreement,there was no rule against steroid use  and therefore,Bonds wasn't cheating.If he were in the NFL and tried to beat the test THEN he would be cheating.Let me ask you this.In my sport of powerlifting,there are tested meets and non tested meets.In the non tested meets everyone understands that people will be using stuff.Is that cheating?In my opinion,its only cheating if you go on and compete in a tested meet.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: Hedgehog on May 24, 2006, 12:05:17 PM
Please,once again,site the rule in the baseball rulebook that said steroids were not allowed  and that MLB will be testing for them.By your way of thinking,bodybuilders using artificial color are cheating because its not a natural tan.The rule has to be in place,collectively bargained with the players union,for it to be a rule.No rule in major league baseball can be passed without a collective bargaining agreement.Since there was no agreement,there was no rule against steroid use  and therefore,Bonds wasn't cheating.If he were in the NFL and tried to beat the test THEN he would be cheating.Let me ask you this.In my sport of powerlifting,there are tested meets and non tested meets.In the non tested meets everyone understands that people will be using stuff.Is that cheating?In my opinion,its only cheating if you go on and compete in a tested meet.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051117&content_id=1269574&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

YIP
Zack
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: philnq8 on May 24, 2006, 12:30:33 PM
The logic is kinda skewed:

MLB rules did not ban until apprx 11/17/2005 the use of steroids so therefore using prior to that was not cheating.

BUT

Steroids are illegal to buy and use without a prescription. You can be prosecueted for illegally obtaining and using them.  

So in a purely legal since ANY athlete who is using steroids is a criminal and by proxy cheating.

Personally, I am not opposed to steroid use but the facts remain.
                                    
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: BM OUT on May 25, 2006, 04:02:09 AM
Totally disagree.Breaking the law is NOT cheating.If it were half the guys in the NBA and NFL would be defined as cheaters.You are 100% correct in that before 2005 steroids were not illegal in MLB ,again,the only way rules get passed in the Majors is by collective bargaining.Bonds did not cheat!!!!!Those who keep repeating this stupidity don't have a clue of what they are talking about!!!!
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: pumpster on May 25, 2006, 04:48:59 AM
Quote
Breaking the law is NOT cheating
What exactly IS cheating if breaking the law's also ok? You have some bizarre rationales but don't realize it. Apparently almost anything's acceptable, which should be your first hint that you're on the wrong track.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: bmacsys on May 25, 2006, 04:56:44 AM
Totally disagree.Breaking the law is NOT cheating.

Now that is a bizarre way of thinking. ???
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: bmacsys on May 25, 2006, 04:57:40 AM
Totally disagree.Breaking the law is NOT cheating.If it were half the guys in the NBA and NFL would be defined as cheaters.You are 100% correct in that before 2005 steroids were not illegal in MLB ,again,the only way rules get passed in the Majors is by collective bargaining.Bonds did not cheat!!!!!Those who keep repeating this stupidity don't have a clue of what they are talking about!!!!

Ok, if he wasn't cheating why does he deny using the AAS? DUH?
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: bmacsys on May 25, 2006, 05:00:54 AM
If it were half the guys in the NBA and NFL would be defined as cheaters.

Number one- that is a pretty broad assumption. Number two- I know the NFL has a longtime policy banning steroids. I am not sure about the NBA, though I know Billy Hunter was at the Senate steroid hearings. Number three- because cheating is rampant it therefore it isn't cheating anymore? Wow.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: BM OUT on May 25, 2006, 05:22:35 AM
Is beating your wife or girlfriend cheating?Thats breaking the law.Is driving drunk cheating?Thats breaking the law.Taking steroids WHEN THERE IS NO RULE SAYING YOU CANT,is not cheating.You might think its terrible,its breaking the law,its taking a shortcut whatever,ITS NOT CHEATING if there is no rule,as defined by MLB ,collectively bargained.You keep saying my logic is skewed but NOT ONCE have you even tried to back up your case.I keep telling you Bonds broke no rules of MLB ,you say "your logic is backwards".Please,explain what rule Bonds broke that makes him a cheater.Please,give me the rule that was collectively bargained,then explain how Bonds broke that rule to make him a cheater.Please don't give me your moral stance,because I could care less what you think of steroid use.Just tell me the rule Bonds broke.Heres my bet.You cant give me one rule he broke[in fact he has been drug tested at least three times and passed EVERY time]all you can repeatedly say is "Your logic is skewed".You are just like the media.You don't deal in facts,you deal in opinions.Bonds has followed every rule baseball has put foreward.If you want to get mad at steroid use,get mad at the union or the owners for not implementing a policy to make sure the players didn't use them.By the way.Ephedrine was banned a few years ago,should everyone who took that before the ban be called a cheater?Pro-hormones were just recently banned.Should anyone who took those prior to the ban be labled a cheater?If they ban creatine[which will surely come]is everyone who uses it now a cheater?Steroid use is only cheating if there is a rule against it.Breaking the law,does not equal cheating.Breaking the law is just that,breaking the law and law should deal with it,not the media or MLB.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: pumpster on May 25, 2006, 05:33:36 AM
Quote
Is beating your wife or girlfriend cheating?Thats breaking the law.Is driving drunk cheating?Thats breaking the law.Taking steroids WHEN THERE IS NO RULE SAYING YOU CANT,is not cheating.You might think its terrible,its breaking the law,its taking a shortcut whatever,ITS NOT CHEATING if there is no rule,as defined by MLB
You've learned absolutely nothing from this; carry on.  :P
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: BM OUT on May 25, 2006, 05:37:41 AM
TO the guy that says "if it isnt cheating why doesnt he admit it?Duh"?.What an idiotic question.Hey,moron,our stupid,foolish government wouldnt give the players immunity.Should Bonds admit breaking the law and a possible jail sentance to satisfy the government or the media or you?Once again,there is a difference between breaking the law and cheating.Carron Butler,an NBA player spent 14 months in jail for selling crack.That makes him a criminal,not a cheater,while on a basketball court.Duh!!!
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: Hedgehog on May 25, 2006, 05:45:36 AM
Hey,moron,our stupid,foolish government wouldnt give the players immunity

That's why we have a democracy.

Vote Libertarian, Socialist Party or something.

Republicans and Democrats are hardcore when it comes to steroids nowadays.

Democrats used to be slightly more liberal with some drugs, but they're just as tough on steroids as the Republicans these days.

Libertarians are probably the only ones that wants to allow personal use of steroids. Socialist Party may be more tolerant than the two big parties though.

YIP
Zack
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: LuciusFox on May 25, 2006, 05:55:07 AM
That's why we have a democracy.

Vote Libertarian, Socialist Party or something.

Republicans and Democrats are hardcore when it comes to steroids nowadays.

Democrats used to be slightly more liberal with some drugs, but they're just as tough on steroids as the Republicans these days.

Libertarians are probably the only ones that wants to allow personal use of steroids. Socialist Party may be more tolerant than the two big parties though.

YIP
Zack

  Great post. Steroids in a State of the Union address ::)
Title: Hey PUMPSTER
Post by: BM OUT on May 25, 2006, 06:02:18 AM
As predicted,you cant give a single fact.Your really not very good at debating.Simply saying"your wrong" doesnt win the day.I knew you could NEVER deal in facts,just simplistic nonsense.Nice try though,perhaps you should just start your own site and only give your opinions and not take any others,that way your "your wrong" argument might hold water.Here,that type of argument just makes you sound foolish.Carry on.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: pumpster on May 25, 2006, 06:11:52 AM
Quote
saying"your wrong" doesnt win the day

Without even realizing it, you unintentionally discredit your lame-ass position further with the sorry grammar-did you finish high school? It's not "your" wrong, it's "you're", you blockhead. It means that you've gone through your entire, long life without being able to discern that difference.

Don't expect to be taken seriously with simplistic views, your inability to process or consider ideas that are clearly foreign to your pea-sized brain, and your continued bastardization of the language.

You are officially clueless in your logic and continued inability to absorb new information you don't agree with already. ;)
Title: really?
Post by: BM OUT on May 25, 2006, 06:33:44 AM
Exactly what information did you bring to the table?Certainly not one fact.I guess your attempt at being cleaver with the OJ remarks means you enlightened us with your brilliance.Your a typical lemming being led around by the nose by the media.They say Bonds is a cheater,you say Bonds is a cheater.Never would you actually do some research to back up your opinion or actually state one single solitary fact.Have fun in your pathetic little world and keep letting the media dictate every opinion you have,that way you never actually have to think at all.By the way,there is a HUGE difference between book smart and having common sense.You are book smart but don't have the sense God gave a Billy Goat.
Title: Re: really?
Post by: jaejonna on May 25, 2006, 06:36:58 AM
Exactly what information did you bring to the table?Certainly not one fact.I guess your attempt at being cleaver with the OJ remarks means you enlightened us with your brilliance.Your a typical lemming being led around by the nose by the media.They say Bonds is a cheater,you say Bonds is a cheater.Never would you actually do some research to back up your opinion or actually state one single solitary fact.Have fun in your pathetic little world and keep letting the media dictate every opinion you have,that way you never actually have to think at all.By the way,there is a HUGE difference between book smart and having common sense.You are book smart but don't have the sense God gave a Billy Goat.

bump for thinking outside the box....
Media= news they want you to hear
think critical or dont think at all!!
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: pumpster on May 25, 2006, 06:38:54 AM
Quote
bump for thinking outside the box....
Media= news they want you to hear
think critical or dont think at all!!
Waco was a coverup...the government was behind 9/11..
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: jesusbod on May 25, 2006, 06:40:09 AM
Both are/were on a bunch of performance enhancing drugs.

One breaks a milestone.
One breaks a leg.

Why all the fuss about the broken leg and little about the milestone?

Because people dont care about a milestone that doesnt mean anything.
Title: Re: BONDS vs. Barbaro
Post by: HowieW on May 25, 2006, 06:05:11 PM
The logic is kinda skewed:

MLB rules did not ban until apprx 11/17/2005 the use of steroids so therefore using prior to that was not cheating.

BUT

Steroids are illegal to buy and use without a prescription. You can be prosecueted for illegally obtaining and using them.  

So in a purely legal since ANY athlete who is using steroids is a criminal and by proxy cheating.

Personally, I am not opposed to steroid use but the facts remain.
                                    

1st pt . yes, MLB did have an OFFICIAL rule against steroids and related drugs as early as the mid 90's.
They didn't start testing however until recently. So, it was against the rules and also the law of the country where most games are played.

2nd pt - I too agree that steroids should be used and monitored for proper use by a Team Doc, no question.
However, our opinions don't carry the wt of the law. For example, we might think that it is safe and fine to drive 85 mph on certain roads, but if the law says 60 mph is the limit we get pulled over and fined.

Pt 3/ An organization has the right to regluate the performance of its players and how the game is played,
NASCAR and dragsters take great pains to ensure some guys car conforms to limits on HP, and performance for safety and consitancy, etc. A guy can't use a corked bat or run guys over out of the baseline, etc.
There needs to be an organized well established standard and conduct for all athletes in all sports if the game or sport is to have any meaning.

pt4/ I agree, Bonds being an A-hole and a major star hurt him greatly. He didn't juice any more or less than plenty of other guys that never even got a slap on the wrist. I suspect that from the Comm. on down they just looked the other way and now are embarressed. Now, the public pressure and perception demands they do something.
Bonds is the ideal guy to take the fall for the whole wacked situation. To be fair if you DQ what Bonds does, you gotta DQ a whole bunch of others with him.
Title: Re: really?
Post by: Hedgehog on May 26, 2006, 10:15:41 PM
Exactly what information did you bring to the table?Certainly not one fact.I guess your attempt at being cleaver with the OJ remarks means you enlightened us with your brilliance.Your a typical lemming being led around by the nose by the media.They say Bonds is a cheater,you say Bonds is a cheater.Never would you actually do some research to back up your opinion or actually state one single solitary fact.Have fun in your pathetic little world and keep letting the media dictate every opinion you have,that way you never actually have to think at all.By the way,there is a HUGE difference between book smart and having common sense.You are book smart but don't have the sense God gave a Billy Goat.

Regardless of where you stand in the Steroid issue, one has to acknowledge that there has long been a ban for steroid use in the MLB.

Just as in the IFBB, incidentally.

It's all about what kind of testing protocol is used. If any.

So whether or not Bonds was cheating cannot be an issue. He was. MLB had rules against the use.

He fcuked up by getting caught, you may say.

But performance enhancing drugs have been against the rules of MLB for quite some time.

You may think it's hypocritical that they didn't enforce their rules earlier.

And you may think that the rule in itself sucks. But the point is, there were rules.

Bonds fcuked up by getting caught.

YIP
Zack