I don't see how the report exonerates Bonds in any way.
Well, it more or less dilutes the fact bonds took steroids b/c now it's well known that a lot of other guys, including pitchers, were doing it as well. Certainly it doesn't exonerate him from the legal charges against him, but if it comes down to a hall of fame vote, it's now unfair to put in clemens but not bonds.
The Mitchell Report calls for no punishment because that's not part of its scope; Mitchell would be overreaching if he'd made such a call. The only two solutions for currently undetectable substances is to take blood tests and put them into storage until such a time when a detection test is available, or to do regular threshold tests to notice when an athlete's blood levels go off normal, and the union won't go for either.
Agreed on all. But was there really a point to pay all that money for publishing what everyone (especially selig) already knows? And how can you say the "steroid era" is behind us, when it's obvious that players are already using "undetectable substances" and the union will not agree to harsher testing?
I think that the problem with drugs in sports is partly America's cultural struggle with the War on Drugs, and partly cultural baggage from the Cold War, back when the East German athletes were loaded on steroids. We need to come to terms with what's OK to use and what isn't, and what levels are tolerable, and we can't do that when we treat possibly useful drugs like they're the devil.
I disagree on most of this. While some doctors do prescribe "steroids" for injuries, I think it's generally unfair to allow athletes to use ped's in any sport, because of their obvious danger. I'm not a big fan of america's war on drugs, but in this case i think it's important to keep athletes away from steroids. The advantage they create is obvious, so it's really unfair to let the athletes choose whether to use them. Anyhow, have a happy new year. And the good news is that the game will survive in spite of morons like selig and fehr.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-28 08:54 pm (UTC)Well, it more or less dilutes the fact bonds took steroids b/c now it's well known that a lot of other guys, including pitchers, were doing it as well. Certainly it doesn't exonerate him from the legal charges against him, but if it comes down to a hall of fame vote, it's now unfair to put in clemens but not bonds.
The Mitchell Report calls for no punishment because that's not part of its scope; Mitchell would be overreaching if he'd made such a call. The only two solutions for currently undetectable substances is to take blood tests and put them into storage until such a time when a detection test is available, or to do regular threshold tests to notice when an athlete's blood levels go off normal, and the union won't go for either.
Agreed on all. But was there really a point to pay all that money for publishing what everyone (especially selig) already knows? And how can you say the "steroid era" is behind us, when it's obvious that players are already using "undetectable substances" and the union will not agree to harsher testing?
I think that the problem with drugs in sports is partly America's cultural struggle with the War on Drugs, and partly cultural baggage from the Cold War, back when the East German athletes were loaded on steroids. We need to come to terms with what's OK to use and what isn't, and what levels are tolerable, and we can't do that when we treat possibly useful drugs like they're the devil.
I disagree on most of this. While some doctors do prescribe "steroids" for injuries, I think it's generally unfair to allow athletes to use ped's in any sport, because of their obvious danger. I'm not a big fan of america's war on drugs, but in this case i think it's important to keep athletes away from steroids. The advantage they create is obvious, so it's really unfair to let the athletes choose whether to use them. Anyhow, have a happy new year. And the good news is that the game will survive in spite of morons like selig and fehr.