Replies

Excepting the fact that currently they are an Illegal (in most cases) substance, why? Science is science.

Science may indeed be science. But a professional sports league or federation has the right to sculpt the rules under which its game will be played. (I happen to agree about the pitcher's mounds; the ballpark issue is in a sense not relevant. I understand that more of the new parks were built to favour hitters, but if you look back to the pre-cookie cutter parks, there were as many of them that favoured the hitters as favoured pitching. But the pitcher's mound and the strike zone are something else entirely, since a good pitcher will prevail even in a bandbox park - or, in a park favouring the hitter opposite his pitching, as think for one of righthander Allie Reynolds having success in Yankee Stadium, or lefthander Warren Spahn in Braves Field and County Stadium.) Especially since it is a health issue in hand with being an issue of competition perception.

Now, let's say baseball does in due course ban the roids. (The NFL and the NBA have.) But a player does come down as you posit with a testosterone deficiency. Did the deficiency occur by nature's course, or did it occur as an explicit result of steroid abuse after the steroid ban took effect? If the former, he could very well obtain medical treatment with no prospective loss of playing time or playing employment; if the latter, depending upon the disciplinary procedures put into place to enforce the ban, he could very well find himself out of the game. And that would not be improper, inasmuch as baseball does have the right to make its rules and enforce them and if baseball should choose to ban a player for steroid abuse, that would be well enough within baseball's rights.

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Thank you Registered!

(I happen to agree about the pitcher's mounds; the ballpark issue is in a sense not relevant. I understand that more of the new parks were built to favour hitters, but if you look back to the pre-cookie cutter parks, there were as many of them that favoured the hitters as favoured pitching.

I am not positing so much about parks that favor hitters/or pitchers, but the really bizzarre ones, like the Hill and flagpole in centerfield....For instance (Cinci?? I forget,) Or oddly shaped corners and outfield fences...And even that crappy Ivy in wrigley, that eats balls. That is NOT baseball, that's cartoonish crap.

If the former, he could very well obtain medical treatment with no prospective loss of playing time or playing employment;

that's my point. If so, then HE would be on Testosterone injections, Giving him a solo advantage...Also as I pointed out yesterday, Abuse, of anything, but especially this thing, is a bad thing. We agree, I am talking aobut careful, sensible,(in the maner for which it was invented) use. Personally I have no problem If Bond, or Soso, or McGwire put on all that muscle, using. If on Steroids, he was putting on 54 Lbs in 4 years, that is not indicative of abuse. Just use. No big deal.

But,(legality aside...) Baseball rusbhing into a ban would be total hypocrisy, considering the flagrant things that are allowed by MLB right now. How many years did maddux and Glavine (who will reside in Cooperstown as a result) get 6 additional inches off the outside of the plate? , Or How about Roger Clemens, announcing he's going to plunk Bonds on the Elbow, Doing it in a game, and not Meriting an Ejection or a Suspension(SB 5 Starts IMHO, because it was more than intentional), I do agree with Footballs ban, because the need for size lends itself to abuse., but I think Baseballs current situation is adequate, and would like to see MLB enforcing the rules it already has (except the ridiculous retaliation rule, which lends stregnth to scummy little Headhunters like Clemens...) before it goes looking for new worlds to conquer.