Baseball, Steroids HGH: What's YOUR opinion?

sevenoneeighty

Subject: Baseball, Steroids & HGH: What's YOUR opinion?

I have to admit having mixed feelings about the whoel baseball steroids/ Human Growth Hormone (HGH), issue.

this week Senator Mitchell released the 'Mitchell Report" and it named names of suspected "performance enhanced" athletes in Pro Baseball. I was intertersted in the names just to see whom might be involved and quite a few hall-of-famers were named. But I am having a hard time actually CARING so much or having a sense of fake outrage because:

1. Out culture not only encourages but rewards cheaters in sports, business and even politics.

2. Even though many suspected what was happening (Major League Baseball) MLB did VERY LITTLE over the years to prevent or stop the use of performance enhancing substances in the league by way of overall testing, because the big hits were putting butts in the seats, adding revenue and putting money in owners pockets ( see number 1)

2a. The media looked the other way for the same reason (see number 1 under revenue)

3. Although many say the statistics are what count in baseball, it is the only sport in which you can play on a field that has different dimensions and parameters from park to park ( wall distances and heights vary). And depending on which side of the leagues you play on, different rules apply anyway (designated hitter, etc.). ( along those lines, some players don't play offense and defense and some do - doesn't that effect play as well??)

4. I do appreciate the sport but I'm not a true baseball fan because the season is TOO LONG and there are too many games that don't matter (like basketball). Plus, it is a sloooow game with low scoring (like the Knicks)

I am curious to see how the media reacts now.
Barry Bonds was the whipping boy for so many in the media, but now with the likes of Roger Clemens and Andy Petite (who is NOT a hero for admitting he used HGH " to heal from an injury" yesterday - he just got caught and is now coming clean -much like Marion Jones did) how will they react?

Will Roger Clemens, 7 time Cy Young Award Winner, get the same treatment as Barry Bonds? Will he get the "Asterisk" treatment ( a la Mark Ecko) that so many were pushing on Bonds Home Run achievements....? Will there be people in the stands now with insulting banners and boos?

In all cases, nothing has been proven yet. I am just going to sit back and wait to see what happens. This thing could prove to be a big mess for baseball as far as record sand statistics go. in the end, I don't think the fans will even care. I see the writing on the wall and I believe performance enhancement drugs and supplements are here to stay.

What are the implications for the Olympics? Tour De France? World Cup? Tennis?

end of rant.

carnivore

Watch this soon before NBC makes youtube take it down!

sweet tea

Subject: Re: Baseball, Steroids & HGH: What's YOUR opinion?

SevenOneEighty wrote:
Plus, it is a sloooow game with low scoring

not exactly your intended topic, i know, but can someone explain this to me? not the slow part -- although frankly, most every major sport except basketball and tennis seems slow to me, so i'm not so sure what the big deal is (i do know about extra innings, but still) -- but the "i want a game with high scores" part.

i know lots of people say this is part of why americans don't like soccer, but doesn't football really have low scores even compared to baseball? i mean, before you add the absurd multiplying so that one "goal" = 7+?

why is a high score inherently more interesting to so many? do they just like to count?

about me: i grew up in a serious basketball culture, but teams i grew up with were known for a comparatively defense-centered, low-scoring version of the game. styles that rely more on offense do seem graceless and dull to me, i admit, even if the score totals are higher. so i'm predisposed to disassociate final scores from interest, i guess.

lilbangladesh

You could have a high scoring game that's dull as toast to watch, or you could have a game where the score isn't so high, but because every point is contested, it is full of tension and drama.

It could be (just a theory) that men and women have different reasons for watching sports. Men tend to focus on scores, I think. "What's the score?" is what they tend to say, rather than "What's happening on the field?" Women, when they watch sports, tend to get swept up in the drama. (I know I do.) So I prefer games where the teams are closely matched and you don't know for sure who is going to win. As soon as it looks to be a blowout, I turn the television set off because the rest of the game is going to be boring (for me) to watch. Since more men than women watch sports, the preference (at least in this culture) is for higher-scoring games. Now, these two qualities aren't exclusive to each other, but I do find games where all the teams do is rack up points rather boring.

What I said applies to American culture only. Different cultures have different values and thus find different things exciting. Soccer matches are boring to watch, UNLESS you happen to watch them in a room full of excited Brazilians. THEN it's fun.

sevenoneeighty

Subject: Re: Baseball, Steroids & HGH: What's YOUR opinion?

sweet tea wrote: [quote=SevenOneEighty]
Plus, it is a sloooow game with low scoring

not exactly your intended topic, i know, but can someone explain this to me? not the slow part -- although frankly, most every major sport except basketball and tennis seems slow to me, so i'm not so sure what the big deal is (i do know about extra innings, but still) -- but the "i want a game with high scores" part.

i know lots of people say this is part of why americans don't like soccer, but doesn't football really have low scores even compared to baseball? i mean, before you add the absurd multiplying so that one "goal" = 7+?

why is a high score inherently more interesting to so many? do they just like to count
about me: i grew up in a serious basketball culture, but teams i grew up with were known for a comparatively defense-centered, low-scoring version of the game. styles that rely more on offense do seem graceless and dull to me, i admit, even if the score totals are higher. so i'm predisposed to disassociate final scores from interest, i guess.

The score ultimately decides who wins or loses the game in most sports.
the difference in the score can be an indicator of the superiority of one opponent over another. If you wind 1-0, there is sometimes doubt....it could have been just luck that one team won over another. It could also be evenly matched teams that cause a close score and I do enjoy world cup football and the athleticism and skills of the players - its a hard sport indeed.

But Euro football lovers like scoring too, so don't trip.
(GOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAALLLL!!!)

Now 34-0 in American football tells me a little more than 1-0 in European football about a teams dominance over another. But that is just me.

Baseball lingers on because of the pauses and play stoppage for everything from spitting, scratching and adjusting to switching batters. And Cricket - forget it, the UK colonies can have it as far as I am concerned. I have yet to find a fan that can fully explain the rules to me before I fall asleep. I like watching the guys at the Park, but I realize I have no interest in it other than the V-neck sweaters. But it's popular for others.

Understanding that each sport is different and uses different skills sets, Americans (men) are ultimately interested in end results and action (see the most popular movies and video games).

But, yea, men and Americans do like to count, taunt and get excited over stuff blowing up. That is why the home run derby at the MLB all-star game is so popular and the 3-point contest at the NBA all-star game.

Before and Afterwards, there are fireworks.