I have no problem with the wildcard in that it makes it more interesting this time of year. But I agree, the DH is an abomination.
Another thing that should go is interleague play. It messes up a whole lot of stats.
Also, if it were up to me, I'd do a complete realignment of the teams based on region. It'll promote rivalries and will cut down on a lot of travel. For starters, The Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Phillies, and Blue Jays would be in the same division, or something along those lines. Sure, it would mean that much of the country would not experience the greatness of the Yankees during the regular season.... but screw 'em, they are all second class baseball citizens anyways, right?
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.” ....H. L. Mencken
Okay, my intention isn't to stir the pot up a bit more, but I do have a question.
Why do we hold in such revere folks in the music/entertainment business who either have spent a lifetime taking drugs or who have died as a result of drug usage (Elvis and Jimi Hendrix immediately come to mind here)and criticize our athletes who may or may not have taken steroids? Don't we believe that Hendrix may have "enhanced" his performance?
I'm interested in what people think.
The world is made of stories not atoms and every guitar has a story.
It might be mildly entertaining to watch a sports team perform while hammered up on Jack Daniels, or fried on the drug of choice, but a better performance?
Not likely!
That's why it's silly to place a snowboarder, for example, smoking pot in the same category as steroid users.
It's hardly a 'performance enhancing' drug!
I know, not exactly the question asked.
As to that, we revere them so in spite of their excesses, rather than because of them (and their often tragic consequences).
"It might be mildly entertaining to watch a sports team perform while hammered up on Jack Daniels, or fried on the drug of choice, but a better performance?
Not likely!"
"That's why it's silly to place a snowboarder, for example, smoking pot in the same category as steroid users.
It's hardly a 'performance enhancing' drug!
"I know, not exactly the question asked."
Maybe not but a good answer, haha!
I don't believe mood altering drugs ever enhanced any musicians's performances. Also they are not competing with anyone even if the drugs theytook did enhance their performances. That's my problem, sports are contests and if a person finds a new drug which helps them to build muscle faster and better than the next guy should they be allowed to be the new home run king if it was even partially because of the drug and not natural abilty? Kids look up to these cheating clowns, what kind of an example is this? Why do they clamp down for example in football and wrestling so hard and not in baseball? Are they afriad if the homerun derby stops or slows down the audience will drop off and they will lose money? hmmm.... Could pro ball be all about money rather than sportsmanship? Never! Perish the though!
Yep, pro sports are about money. (That's why they call them professionals.) Make no mistake, pro sports is all about money not sportsmanship. I agree. I don't know many of us who work for free or who tell our employers to pay us less. So why shouldn't professionals be concerned about making money? Why shouldn't owners want to fill seats?
As an aside, though, as expensive as it is to go to a ball game, it's still cheaper to see the Cardinals in St. Louis than it was to see the Police or the Stones.
So my question remains, why do we as a culture idolize professional musicians who openly take and advocate drugs (as for not enhancing performance, I wonder how many hit songs have been written while the writer/performer was stoned) and revile professional athletes who may or may not take steroids. It just seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it? I guess we expect more from athletes, why is that?
Bob, I'm also going to guess that kids look up to musicians just about as much as they look up to athletes. I did. It also appears that many of us looked up to Elvis. He was a drug addict. What kind of an example is that?
The world is made of stories not atoms and every guitar has a story.
Yes, you're right and I knew you'd bring it up about kids looking up to rock stars, but still rock n roll was never about sportsmanship like sports used to be, and the fact remains that athletes are competing with each other and musicians aren't.
Don't you think there should be some kind of ethics in sports or is it win-at-all-costs?
Once again, idealizing the past. Professional sports have never been about sportsmanship. Yes, some athletes do display sportsmanship and I wish all did, but Ty Cobb sharpened his spikes, Cy Young threw a spit ball as his most effective pitch, Black athletes were kept out of professional sports, and the Black Sox threw the Series. Athletes in past weren't more ethical and the grass wasn't greener in the 50s and 60s.
There should be ethics in all of our lives and people who take steroids to enhance their performance are unethical. This doesn't mean that they aren't talented.
As far as competing, professional athletes compete for money. The more you win, the more money you make. I would venture to guess that in the music business the same competition to "win" exists. It's just that in the music business the competition takes the form of CDs sold and "tour income" instead of a batting average or an ERA.
I've never said that taking steroids is a good thing or a desired behavior, all I've ever claimed is that Barry Bonds is a great baseball player and athlete regardless of whether or not he took or is taking steroids. I've also claimed that gaining an advantage, whether through drugs (or other stimulants) or other illegal/unethical means has always been a part of professional sports and maybe sports in general. People weren't "better" in past, they simply had fewer media covering them, writing about them, and judging their lives.
The world is made of stories not atoms and every guitar has a story.
Good points Dr Bob, but as the other Bob says, musicians are not competing against each other in the way athlete's do.
When you take drugs in this arena you are a cheat. Smoke a spliff at home, and LE might not like it, but it's a very different ballgame.
Yes, it's been going on since forever, but in this case Bonds has broken a record because of the advantage steroids have given him.
Steroids do not improve hand/eye coordination, proprioception, or the other abilities to hit a baseball at 90mph.
No, "The Clear" has helped him stay artificially stronger for longer. To recover from injury quicker. Basically, to play more games than a 40 something who 20 years ago would be on a strong downward curve should be able to do.
That is why he has broken the record.
His head and feet have grown significantly over the last 5 years, classic signs of HGH. Let's hope his genetic background is disease free as HGH will accelerate tumour growth quicker than he can hit home runs.
There is no doubt he is one of the greatest ball players of all time, but as a pro sports athlete, and under a governing body that has specific rules about performance and participation, he remains a liar and a cheat.
