09 Mar 2006 11:21:52
Ronald Matthews
Call for Bonds suspension

We call for the immediate and indefiniate suspension and
investigation of Baby Bonds. Unless Bonds can show cause why he
should be reinstated, that suspension should be made permanent, and
should include the HoF.

All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.
McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB and his
records removed as well.

The homerun record should be returned to rm.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


09 Mar 2006 06:12:14
David the Nationals Fan
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Ronald Matthews wrote:
> We call for the immediate and indefiniate suspension and
> investigation of Baby Bonds. Unless Bonds can show cause why he
> should be reinstated, that suspension should be made permanent, and
> should include the HoF.

This is, of course, a wet dream. MLB has specific rules and procedures
for suspending a player for a violation of the steroids policy. And,
like it or not, it is predicated on a positive test. Bonds has not
had a positive test, and if MLB tried to do this, Bond would be able to
go to court and win. (And that would, by the way, be cause for him to
be reinstated.)


> All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.
> McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB and his
> records removed as well.

Why? Is what McGuire did a violation of the rules of baseball at the
time that he did it? Ex post facto rules don't work.


>
> The homerun record should be returned to rm.

Hmmm. I seem to remember a third player also beating RM's numbers...
and he hasn't tested postive for Steroids either. Oh, that's right,
its a presumption of guilt, and you must prove that you are innocent in
your looney tunes world....



09 Mar 2006 06:53:51
Chris Cathcart
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Ronald Matthews, a troll, wrote:

> We call for the immediate and indefiniate suspension and
> investigation of Baby Bonds. Unless Bonds can show cause why he
> should be reinstated, that suspension should be made permanent, and
> should include the HoF.
>
> All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.
> McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB and his
> records removed as well.
>
> The homerun record should be returned to rm.

If Pete Rose -- ahem, Pete Rose's stats -- were highly beloved amongst
stat fans, especially around here, you'd be calling/trolling for the
same draconian punishments for Rose.

Let's take the hypothetical further. If stat fans were in a small
minority around here, you'd be championing/trolling the stat fan cause.
You'd do it the only way a troll would do it -- you'd be a
pseudo-stat-fan troll, championing the numbers in themselves, outside
their relation to the game.

And you'd just fucking love Barry Bonds numbers. Hell, you'd be
championing/defending steroids somehow or other, because they enhance
the numbers.



09 Mar 2006 07:55:29
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Should the ERA's of pitchers who gave up those homeruns be adjusted
also?



09 Mar 2006 16:11:45
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

David the Nationals Fan <davidthenatfan@yahoo.com > trolled:

> Ronald Matthews wrote:
> > We call for the immediate and indefiniate suspension and
> > investigation of Baby Bonds. Unless Bonds can show cause why he
> > should be reinstated, that suspension should be made permanent, and
> > should include the HoF.

> This is, of course, a wet dream. MLB has specific rules and
> procedures for suspending a player for a violation of the steroids
> policy. And, like it or not, it is predicated on a positive test.
> Bonds has not had a positive test, and if MLB tried to do this,
> Bond would be able to go to court and win. (And that would, by
> the way, be cause for him to be reinstated.)

Aside from your specific rules, Bud Selig has the authority to
suspend any player for behaviour that is not in the best interests
of the game. If Baby Bonds went to court, then all the steroid
stuff, not to mention his perjury before Grand Jury, would go on
public record.

> > All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.
> > McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB and
> > his records removed as well.

> Why? Is what McGuire did a violation of the rules of baseball at
> the time that he did it? Ex post facto rules don't work.

The name is McGwire. Selig has both the authority and the
responsibility to act in the best interests of baseball. He can
change the record book and Bonds, McGwire and Sosa have no say about
it.

> > The homerun record should be returned to rm.

> Hmmm. I seem to remember a third player also beating RM's
> numbers... and he hasn't tested postive for Steroids either. Oh,
> that's right, its a presumption of guilt, and you must prove that
> you are innocent in your looney tunes world....

Sosa is as big a steroid fuck as Bonds. Everybody knows this and
the only people who will deny it are the people who first denied
McGwire was a steroid fuck and then denied that Bonds was a steroid
fuck. In other words, stat fans, who are in love with the stats but
are blinded as to what is, to the sport fan, absolutely appalling
behaviour.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


09 Mar 2006 16:34:15
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Chris Cathcart <cathcacr@gmail.com > trolled:

> If Pete Rose -- ahem, Pete Rose's stats -- were highly beloved
> amongst stat fans, especially around here, you'd be
> calling/trolling for the same draconian punishments for Rose.

Not at all. While Pete Rose owns one of the two most important
records a hitter can hold, he is not known for holding that record
nearly as much as he is remembered for his attitude. But attitude
can't be quantified and, as such, is not important to the stat fan.
That's one of the reasons that stat fans have no respect for Rose.

> Let's take the hypothetical further. If stat fans were in a small
> minority around here, you'd be championing/trolling the stat fan
> cause. You'd do it the only way a troll would do it -- you'd be a
> pseudo-stat-fan troll, championing the numbers in themselves,
> outside their relation to the game.

Sure. And when we got tired of being contrary, which we would, we
would simply move on, like all "trolls" do. Right?

> And you'd just fucking love Barry Bonds numbers. Hell, you'd be
> championing/defending steroids somehow or other, because they
> enhance the numbers.

Not at all. We have been disgusted with Bonds ever since he
declared himself to be better than Willie Mays and we loved Willie
Mays.

Why are so many stat fans Jewish? Do you have any ideas? Or is
your imagination limited to calling people "trolls?"

cordially, as always,

rm


09 Mar 2006 17:34:05
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

bob_koca@hotmail.com trolled:

> Should the ERA's of pitchers who gave up those homeruns be
> adjusted also?

No, but the saber people will likely do it anyway, since that seems
to be the anal thing to do. That's why you thought of it, right?
Because it is the anal thing to do?

Does that keep you awake at night? Maybe we should chuck Fatboy's
CY Awards. He is probably a steroid fuck as well.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


09 Mar 2006 12:52:29
David M. Nieporent
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Ronald Matthews wrote:

> We call for the immediate and indefiniate suspension and
> investigation of Baby Bonds. Unless Bonds can show cause why he
> should be reinstated, that suspension should be made permanent, and
> should include the HoF.

I'm always amused when nobodies "call" for things, as if anybody cares.

> All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.

So your new intellectual hero is Stalin, for airbrushing history?

> McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB

I agree. He should never be allowed to play first base again.

> and his
> records removed as well.

> The homerun record should be returned to rm.

Who's Maynard?

--
David Marc Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth


09 Mar 2006 12:57:44
David M. Nieporent
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Ronald Matthews wrote:
> David the Nationals Fan <davidthenatfan@yahoo.com> trolled:
>>Ronald Matthews wrote:

>>>We call for the immediate and indefiniate suspension and
>>>investigation of Baby Bonds. Unless Bonds can show cause why he
>>>should be reinstated, that suspension should be made permanent, and
>>>should include the HoF.

>>This is, of course, a wet dream. MLB has specific rules and
>>procedures for suspending a player for a violation of the steroids
>>policy. And, like it or not, it is predicated on a positive test.
>>Bonds has not had a positive test, and if MLB tried to do this,
>>Bond would be able to go to court and win. (And that would, by
>>the way, be cause for him to be reinstated.)

> Aside from your specific rules, Bud Selig has the authority to
> suspend any player for behaviour that is not in the best interests
> of the game.

Actually, he has no such power with regard to players. The owners
negotiated that away in the 1970s. The commissioner retains that power
solely for gambling-related offenses.

> If Baby Bonds went to court,

Which he wouldn't, because under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, all
grievances go to binding arbitration.

And there's already precedent from the 1980s, when arbitrators overturned
punishments that the commissioner tried to give out, ultra vires. He can't
ignore the agreement negotiated between the players and owners; it's a
legally binding contract.

> then all the steroid
> stuff, not to mention his perjury before Grand Jury, would go on
> public record.


>>>All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.
>>>McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB and
>>>his records removed as well.

>>Why? Is what McGuire did a violation of the rules of baseball at
>>the time that he did it? Ex post facto rules don't work.

> The name is McGwire. Selig has both the authority and the
> responsibility to act in the best interests of baseball. He can
> change the record book and Bonds, McGwire and Sosa have no say about
> it.

He doesn't have any power over "the record book." He's the head of an
unincorporated association that runs a league of 30 other corporations or
partnerships. Not dictator of the world. Anybody can publish any record
book they want saying anything they want.


>>>The homerun record should be returned to rm.

>>Hmmm. I seem to remember a third player also beating RM's
>>numbers... and he hasn't tested postive for Steroids either. Oh,
>>that's right, its a presumption of guilt, and you must prove that
>>you are innocent in your looney tunes world....

> Sosa is as big a steroid fuck as Bonds. Everybody knows this and
> the only people who will deny it are the people who first denied
> McGwire was a steroid fuck and then denied that Bonds was a steroid
> fuck. In other words, stat fans, who are in love with the stats but
> are blinded as to what is, to the sport fan, absolutely appalling
> behaviour.

Sports fans don't care about steroids. Only fascists do. That's why you
liked Pete Rose and that haircut, right? You're a fascist-lover.

--
David Marc Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth


09 Mar 2006 18:03:01
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

David M. Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu > trolled:
> Ronald Matthews wrote:

> > We call for the immediate and indefiniate suspension and
> > investigation of Baby Bonds. Unless Bonds can show cause why he
> > should be reinstated, that suspension should be made permanent, and
> > should include the HoF.

> I'm always amused when nobodies "call" for things, as if anybody cares.

And just who cares about what amuses you?

> > All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.

> So your new intellectual hero is Stalin, for airbrushing history?

Must be a really slow day, eh?

> > McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB

> I agree. He should never be allowed to play first base again.

> > and his records removed as well.

> > The homerun record should be returned to rm.

> Who's Maynard?

More importantly, at least to your client: whose account is being
billed for this time spent trolling? Or are we being optimistic
about the size of your client "list?"

Tomorrow morning you are going to look in the mirror, while shaving,
(at the same time, _every_ morning and in the same place, _every_
morning) and you are going to realize, yet again, that you made a
big mistake. But mom's happy.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


09 Mar 2006 10:46:08
Raymond DiPerna
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


David M. Nieporent wrote:
> Ronald Matthews wrote:
> > David the Nationals Fan <davidthenatfan@yahoo.com> trolled:
> >>Ronald Matthews wrote:
>
> >>>All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.
> >>>McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB and
> >>>his records removed as well.
>
> >>Why? Is what McGuire did a violation of the rules of baseball at
> >>the time that he did it? Ex post facto rules don't work.
>
> > The name is McGwire. Selig has both the authority and the
> > responsibility to act in the best interests of baseball. He can
> > change the record book and Bonds, McGwire and Sosa have no say about
> > it.
>
> He doesn't have any power over "the record book." He's the head of an
> unincorporated association that runs a league of 30 other corporations or
> partnerships. Not dictator of the world. Anybody can publish any record
> book they want saying anything they want.

The funny thing is that it would make a mockery of the game if MLB
_did_ refuse to "recognize" certain records. Can you imagine how
ridiculous it would be for them to stop the game and hold a ceremony
once Pujols hit his 62nd home run, with Bud Selig exalting him as the
new "officially recognized" MLB record holder?

The idea of "changing the record books" is absurd on so many different
levels.

--Ray



09 Mar 2006 11:02:06
Raymond DiPerna
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


David the Nationals Fan wrote:
> Ronald Matthews wrote:

> > All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.
> > McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB and his
> > records removed as well.
>
> Why? Is what McGuire did a violation of the rules of baseball at the
> time that he did it? Ex post facto rules don't work.

> > The homerun record should be returned to rm.
>
> Hmmm. I seem to remember a third player also beating RM's numbers...
> and he hasn't tested postive for Steroids either. Oh, that's right,
> its a presumption of guilt, and you must prove that you are innocent in
> your looney tunes world....

I wonder why he's so concerned about stats all of a sudden. He should
get his head out of a statbook and watch the game.

--Ray



09 Mar 2006 19:20:51
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

David M. Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu > trolled:
> Ronald Matthews wrote:

> > Aside from your specific rules, Bud Selig has the authority to
> > suspend any player for behaviour that is not in the best interests
> > of the game.

> Actually, he has no such power with regard to players. The owners
> negotiated that away in the 1970s. The commissioner retains that power
> solely for gambling-related offenses.

You are completely wrong.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/demystifying-the-mlb-constitution-part-1/

Section 3 outlines how the Commissioner responsibilities in regards
to conduct by Major League Clubs, owners, officers, employees or
players that is deemed by the Commissioner to not be in the best
interests of Baseball. It then goes on to outline the punitive
actions that the Commissioner can make. Call this, the Kenny Rogers
provision. The punitive damages can be as little as, a reprimand. It
can be, however, for more stringent. Here are some examples:

* Suspension or removal of any owner, officer, or employee of a
* Major League Club;
*****
* Temporary or permanent ineligibility of a player;
*****
* A fine, not to exceed $2,000,000 in the case of a Major League
* Club, not to exceed $500,000 in the case of an owner, officer
* or employee, and not to exceed $5,000 in the case of a player.

> > If Baby Bonds went to court,

> Which he wouldn't, because under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, all
> grievances go to binding arbitration.

So sorry. But only disputes between player and _club_ go to binding
arbitration. In fact (A)(1)(b) states:

(b) Notwithstanding the definition of set forth in subparagraph (a)
above, shall not mean a complaint which involves action taken with
respect to a Player or Players by the Commissioner involving the
preservation of the integrity of, or the maintenance of public
confidence in, the game of baseball.

Within 30 days of the date of the action taken, such complaint shall
be presented to the Commissioner who promptly shall conduct a
hearing in accordance with the Rules of Procedure attached hereto as
Appendix A. The Commissioner shall render a written decision as soon
as practicable following the conclusion of such hearing. The
Commissioner's decision shall constitute 31 full, final and complete
disposition of such complaint, and shall have the same effect as a
Grievance decision of the Arbitration Panel. In the event a matter
filed as a Grievance in accordance with the procedure hereinafter
provided in Section B gives rise to issues involving the integrity
of, or public confidence in, the game of baseball, the Commissioner
may, at any stage of its processing, order that the matter be
withdrawn from such procedure and thereafter be processed in
accordance with the procedure provided above in this subparagraph
(b). The order of the Commissioner withdrawing such matter shall
constitute a final determination of the procedure to be followed for
the exclusive and complete disposition of such matter, and such
order shall have the same effect as a Grievance decision of the
Arbitration Panel.

> And there's already precedent from the 1980s, when arbitrators
> overturned punishments that the commissioner tried to give out,
> ultra vires. He can't ignore the agreement negotiated between the
> players and owners; it's a legally binding contract.

You don't have a clue, do you?

Once a player is deemed "permantly ineligible" pursuant to the
bylaws and procedures cited above, he is no longer subject to any
MLB grievance process and his only recourse is to the courts.

You really don't think that the lawyers who drew this thing up would
shut themselves out of the money completely, do you? But then, what
does a real estate lawyer know? In fact, what _does_ a real estate
lawyer know?

> > then all the steroid stuff, not to mention his perjury before
> > Grand Jury, would go on public record.

> He doesn't have any power over "the record book." He's the head
> of an unincorporated association that runs a league of 30 other
> corporations or partnerships. Not dictator of the world. Anybody
> can publish any record book they want saying anything they want.

Sure anyone can publish any record book they want. But they can't
put the word "Official" anywhere on the cover without the
Commissioner's approval. Not even GW, would-be World Emperor, has
that kind of power.

> Sports fans don't care about steroids. Only fascists do. That's
> why you liked Pete Rose and that haircut, right? You're a
> fascist-lover.

Oh, so that is why the Bonds story is so big on all the networks and
cable channels? The USA is full of fascists?

I thought I was a racist? But I am really a fascist? Does fascist
include racist? Should I shave what's left of my hair?

Hey, and how come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are
Jewish?

cordially, as always,

rm

--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


09 Mar 2006 19:34:37
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com > trolled:

> The funny thing is that it would make a mockery of the game if MLB
> _did_ refuse to "recognize" certain records. Can you imagine how
> ridiculous it would be for them to stop the game and hold a ceremony
> once Pujols hit his 62nd home run, with Bud Selig exalting him as the
> new "officially recognized" MLB record holder?

Well that's what happens in the Olympics when they throw out the
Gold Medallists who used drugs or broke the rules. Ben Johnson was
no longer the fastest man alive, and Carl Lewis became the fastest
man alive when Johnson was exposed as a steroid user. And of course
Jim Thorpe lost several medals, and the Olympic records were
changed, because he played semi-pro somewhere before the Olympics.

> The idea of "changing the record books" is absurd on so many
> different levels.

Not sure why you say that. Sabermatricians have been changing the
record books with their research for years. I would think that a
pseudo stat fan like yourself would be aware of this.

cordially, as always,

rm


09 Mar 2006 19:36:56
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com > trolled:

> I wonder why he's so concerned about stats all of a sudden. He should
> get his head out of a statbook and watch the game.

rm has always loved stats. And he has the Bill James collection to
prove it. But the difference between rm and stat fans is that stats
are not the _only_ reason rm follows sport. However, stats are the
_only_ reason that stat fans, and pseudo stat fans like yourself,
follow baseball.

BTW: do you have any idea why a disproportionately large number of
stat fans are Jewish?

cordially, as always,

rm


09 Mar 2006 18:54:38
Chris Cathcart
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Ronald Matthews, a troll, wrote:

> > Sports fans don't care about steroids. Only fascists do. That's
> > why you liked Pete Rose and that haircut, right? You're a
> > fascist-lover.
>
> Oh, so that is why the Bonds story is so big on all the networks and
> cable channels? The USA is full of fascists?
>
> I thought I was a racist? But I am really a fascist? Does fascist
> include racist? Should I shave what's left of my hair?
>
> Hey, and how come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are
> Jewish?

"There are just *so* many questions about "Maynard" that a mere FAQ
isn't
enough. Such topics can include Maynard's real name (Ronald Matthews)
and his political ideology (strong nazi leanings)."
-- Dan Szymborski, rec.sport.baseball, 1/25/00

Heck, that might make for a nice .sig file.



09 Mar 2006 23:46:20
Dan Szymborski
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

In article <ne%Pf.34488$Qh1.141105@news20.bellglobal.com >,
rm@biteme.org says...
> David M. Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> trolled:
> > Ronald Matthews wrote:
>
> > > Aside from your specific rules, Bud Selig has the authority to
> > > suspend any player for behaviour that is not in the best interests
> > > of the game.
>
> > Actually, he has no such power with regard to players. The owners
> > negotiated that away in the 1970s. The commissioner retains that power
> > solely for gambling-related offenses.
>
> You are completely wrong.
>
> http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/demystifying-the-mlb-constitution-part-1/
>
> Section 3 outlines how the Commissioner responsibilities in regards
> to conduct by Major League Clubs, owners, officers, employees or
> players that is deemed by the Commissioner to not be in the best
> interests of Baseball. It then goes on to outline the punitive
> actions that the Commissioner can make. Call this, the Kenny Rogers
> provision. The punitive damages can be as little as, a reprimand. It
> can be, however, for more stringent. Here are some examples:
>
> * Suspension or removal of any owner, officer, or employee of a
> * Major League Club;
> *****
> * Temporary or permanent ineligibility of a player;
> *****
> * A fine, not to exceed $2,000,000 in the case of a Major League
> * Club, not to exceed $500,000 in the case of an owner, officer
> * or employee, and not to exceed $5,000 in the case of a player.

This only applies to the situations where the Commissioner is
allowed to apply that best interests clause. Since he can't
here, it's a moot point. It's not Maury Brown's fault that
Canadian prisons don't do a good job teaching their inmates
reading comprehension, Ronald L. Matthews, felon, of London,
Ontario.

--
Dan Szymborski
dan@baseballprimerREMOVE.com

"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not
a whole-hearted supporter of what is good."


09 Mar 2006 23:47:32
Dan Szymborski
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

In article <1141929968.761237.146760
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, rdiperna@nyc.rr.com says...
>
> David M. Nieporent wrote:
> > Ronald Matthews wrote:
> > > David the Nationals Fan <davidthenatfan@yahoo.com> trolled:
> > >>Ronald Matthews wrote:
> >
> > >>>All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.
> > >>>McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB and
> > >>>his records removed as well.
> >
> > >>Why? Is what McGuire did a violation of the rules of baseball at
> > >>the time that he did it? Ex post facto rules don't work.
> >
> > > The name is McGwire. Selig has both the authority and the
> > > responsibility to act in the best interests of baseball. He can
> > > change the record book and Bonds, McGwire and Sosa have no say about
> > > it.
> >
> > He doesn't have any power over "the record book." He's the head of an
> > unincorporated association that runs a league of 30 other corporations or
> > partnerships. Not dictator of the world. Anybody can publish any record
> > book they want saying anything they want.
>
> The funny thing is that it would make a mockery of the game if MLB
> _did_ refuse to "recognize" certain records. Can you imagine how
> ridiculous it would be for them to stop the game and hold a ceremony
> once Pujols hit his 62nd home run, with Bud Selig exalting him as the
> new "officially recognized" MLB record holder?
>
> The idea of "changing the record books" is absurd on so many different
> levels.

It totally works! Bud Selig can use his best interests of
baseball clause to force Sean Forman and Sean Lahman to make the
required changes! And then, if Bud's really charitable, get DMN
that pony he's been angling for the last decade.

--
Dan Szymborski
dan@baseballprimerREMOVE.com

"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not
a whole-hearted supporter of what is good."


10 Mar 2006 00:28:51
Lance Freezeland
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 23:47:32 -0500, Dan Szymborski
<dan@baseballprimer.com > gave us:
>In article <1141929968.761237.146760
>@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, rdiperna@nyc.rr.com says...

>> The idea of "changing the record books" is absurd on so many different
>> levels.

>It totally works! Bud Selig can use his best interests of
>baseball clause to force Sean Forman and Sean Lahman to make the
>required changes! And then, if Bud's really charitable, get DMN
>that pony he's been angling for the last decade.

He already has Calvin Pickering bridled and a custom made saddle.
What more does he want?

--
Lance

"Was that one of the more gratifying dumps you’ve had?"
Suzy Shuster of ABC catches up with Nebraska Coach Bill
Callahan after he was doused with Gatorade for beating Colorado

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


10 Mar 2006 07:53:35
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Dan Szymborski <dan@baseballprimer.com > trolled:
> rm@biteme.org says...
> > David M. Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> trolled:
> > > Ronald Matthews wrote:

> > > > Aside from your specific rules, Bud Selig has the authority to
> > > > suspend any player for behaviour that is not in the best interests
> > > > of the game.

> > > Actually, he has no such power with regard to players. The owners
> > > negotiated that away in the 1970s. The commissioner retains that power
> > > solely for gambling-related offenses.
> >
> > You are completely wrong.
> >
> > http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/demystifying-the-mlb-constitution-part-1/
> >
> > Section 3 outlines how the Commissioner responsibilities in regards
> > to conduct by Major League Clubs, owners, officers, employees or
> > players that is deemed by the Commissioner to not be in the best
> > interests of Baseball. It then goes on to outline the punitive
> > actions that the Commissioner can make. Call this, the Kenny Rogers
> > provision. The punitive damages can be as little as, a reprimand. It
> > can be, however, for more stringent. Here are some examples:
> >
> > * Suspension or removal of any owner, officer, or employee of a
> > * Major League Club;
> > *****
> > * Temporary or permanent ineligibility of a player;
> > *****
> > * A fine, not to exceed $2,000,000 in the case of a Major League
> > * Club, not to exceed $500,000 in the case of an owner, officer
> > * or employee, and not to exceed $5,000 in the case of a player.

> This only applies to the situations where the Commissioner is
> allowed to apply that best interests clause.

Where does it say that? Certainly not in anything I cited. And you
didn't cite anything.

> Since he can't here, it's a moot point.

Where does it say that he can't apply the best interests clause?

> It's not Maury Brown's fault that Canadian prisons don't do a good
> job teaching their inmates reading comprehension, Ronald L.
> Matthews, felon, of London, Ontario.

Gee, that's wonderful. Now do you want to cite some information
that we can read or are you just talking out of your ass?

cordially, as always,

rm


10 Mar 2006 07:55:06
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Dan Szymborski <dan@baseballprimer.com > trolled:

> It totally works! Bud Selig can use his best interests of
> baseball clause to force Sean Forman and Sean Lahman to make the
> required changes! And then, if Bud's really charitable, get DMN
> that pony he's been angling for the last decade.

So Sean and Sean are keepers of the Official records?

Who knew?

cordially, even to trolls,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


10 Mar 2006 13:11:26
Ron Johnson
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Dan Szymborski wrote:
> In article <1141929968.761237.146760
> @j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, rdiperna@nyc.rr.com says...
> >
> >
> > The idea of "changing the record books" is absurd on so many different
> > levels.
>
> It totally works! Bud Selig can use his best interests of
> baseball clause to force Sean Forman and Sean Lahman to make the
> required changes!

And that's an interesting point. Last time I checked MLB's position
is that Ty Cobb finished up with 4,191 hits.

But more and more people get their information from BB-ref and
that has the correct total. As does retrosheet.

Sean also lists Lajoie as having the highest batting
average in the AL in 1910 and I *know* the AL's position is that
Cobb won the 1910 batting crown.

> And then, if Bud's really charitable, get DMN
> that pony he's been angling for the last decade.

Only after Derek gets his. Fair's fair.



10 Mar 2006 13:53:27
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

I'll start with some comments of my own:

I gave this some thought last night. I don't think baseball (nor any
of the national sports) are savable unless we can get a legal answer to
the following question:

Do we, as the nation's sports fans, have a right to know that the games
we watch and pay to see are done under the rules of game, adjudicated
fairly, and its athletes acting in concert with the laws of the land?

I have been skimming the SI article -- got it today. Get it if and
when you can. It's absolutely devastating. If this is "The Truth",
then it is evident to a 10 year-old that Bonds was not only using but
is guilty of a massive amount of perjury and obstruction of justice, as
well as various threat crimes and domestic violences against former
mistress Kimberly Bell.

It also outlines a network of people who are, at the least, accessories
to these crimes, if not committing them themselves.

I plan to go over this book with as fine-toothed a comb as anything I
have ever read. If it is half as bad as what I have already read, I am
sending a copy with a litany of possible criminal charges to the
Attorney General of California, and I may also seek to find the address
of the prosecutor prosecuting Bonds.

I do, however, think that the only way that baseball could be saved is
to prosecute the entire game, Selig on down -- and then basically, with
current American law so that the present athletes and leagues can be
actionable, determine that the Italian standard of the use of steroids
and doping constituting fraud must be the only conclusion which can be
drawn.

Otherwise, I'm not only done with baseball, but with American sport.

Ronald Matthews wrote:

> We call for the immediate and indefiniate suspension and
> investigation of Baby Bonds. Unless Bonds can show cause why he
> should be reinstated, that suspension should be made permanent, and
> should include the HoF.

Who's we, rm? Don't get me wrong -- I'm more than happy to join this
call. I'm all for any supposed "witch hunt" that gets this man out of
the game, out of the Hall, and into a jail cell.

I don't feel Bud Selig has sufficient power to deal with this -- and,
sadly, I believe he may be an accessory to a lot of this.

> All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.
> McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB and his
> records removed as well.

It gets back to what I've been saying: NO ONE in the Hall from this
era. At least not until it is determined if any clean players exist
who deserve the honor and how their achievements will be put up against
those of the predecessors.

> The homerun record should be returned to rm.

I think you mean Roger Maris -- not yourself.

Mike



10 Mar 2006 13:55:35
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


David the Nationals Fan wrote:
> Ronald Matthews wrote:
> > We call for the immediate and indefiniate suspension and
> > investigation of Baby Bonds. Unless Bonds can show cause why he
> > should be reinstated, that suspension should be made permanent, and
> > should include the HoF.
>
> This is, of course, a wet dream. MLB has specific rules and procedures
> for suspending a player for a violation of the steroids policy. And,
> like it or not, it is predicated on a positive test. Bonds has not
> had a positive test, and if MLB tried to do this, Bond would be able to
> go to court and win. (And that would, by the way, be cause for him to
> be reinstated.)

No it's not. The IAAF suspended a couple of runners on the basis of
incontrovertible evidence of steroid use without a positive steroid
test.

There is some discussion that baseball could use this standard to do
the same to Bonds.

> > All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.
> > McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB and his
> > records removed as well.
>
> Why? Is what McGuire did a violation of the rules of baseball at the
> time that he did it? Ex post facto rules don't work.

No, but in violation of American law.

Seriously, is there no expectation of us that the games being played
are fair and done under American law?

> > The homerun record should be returned to rm.
>
> Hmmm. I seem to remember a third player also beating RM's numbers...
> and he hasn't tested postive for Steroids either. Oh, that's right,
> its a presumption of guilt, and you must prove that you are innocent in
> your looney tunes world....

Sosa will be investigated next; you can be sure of that.

Mike



10 Mar 2006 14:00:38
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Ronald Matthews wrote:

> Aside from your specific rules, Bud Selig has the authority to
> suspend any player for behaviour that is not in the best interests
> of the game. If Baby Bonds went to court, then all the steroid
> stuff, not to mention his perjury before Grand Jury, would go on
> public record.

What's to say that this book would not do the same?

Of course, the real problem with your argument is that the Commissioner
may not only be impotent of any real power to act in the best interests
of baseball in any capacity, he might also be complicit to crimes Bonds
and others have committed, up to a possible accessory charge.

> > Why? Is what McGuire did a violation of the rules of baseball at
> > the time that he did it? Ex post facto rules don't work.
>
> The name is McGwire. Selig has both the authority and the
> responsibility to act in the best interests of baseball. He can
> change the record book and Bonds, McGwire and Sosa have no say about
> it.

Again, I'm not sure he has a "best interests of the game" clause (or
else, at least IMODO, he should terminate all games until roids can be
cleaned out), but, on top of that, he'd probably have to wipe out every
statistic of the last 10 years.

And the next 3 or 4.

> > > The homerun record should be returned to rm.
>
> > Hmmm. I seem to remember a third player also beating RM's
> > numbers... and he hasn't tested postive for Steroids either. Oh,
> > that's right, its a presumption of guilt, and you must prove that
> > you are innocent in your looney tunes world....
>
> Sosa is as big a steroid fuck as Bonds. Everybody knows this and
> the only people who will deny it are the people who first denied
> McGwire was a steroid fuck and then denied that Bonds was a steroid
> fuck. In other words, stat fans, who are in love with the stats but
> are blinded as to what is, to the sport fan, absolutely appalling
> behaviour.

I have to agree with this, but the book establishes that McGwire was
obvious -- and then the spotlight would go to Sosa.

Mike (He's certainly not BALCO, but that just means what other
providers would be out there...)



10 Mar 2006 17:40:50
Alice Faber
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

In article <1142027607.156590.223120@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com >,
starcade@yahoo.com wrote:

> I'll start with some comments of my own:
>
> I gave this some thought last night. I don't think baseball (nor any
> of the national sports) are savable unless we can get a legal answer to
> the following question:
>
> Do we, as the nation's sports fans, have a right to know that the games
> we watch and pay to see are done under the rules of game, adjudicated
> fairly, and its athletes acting in concert with the laws of the land?

Rules, check.

Adjudicated fairly: in all four major sports, we've got a long way to go
for fair adjudication. While the vast majority of questionable (and
questioned!) calls are arguably correct, far too many are not, and many
fans perceive it to be the case that the officials are biased, and that
the league, or, worse, the television broadcasters want a specific team
to win.

Law-abiding, sure, but with several caveats. First, US law provides for
"innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law)". Courts have
standards for the presentation of evidence. Publishers (and sports
leagues) don't necessarily, or, at any rate, they have *different*
standards. Second, lets not be selective. If we're going to ban athletes
based on innuendo and hearsay concerning the use of certain illegal
substances, let's be equally draconian toward athletes who have been
accused of domestic violence or who are in arrears on child support
payments. Third (sort-of related), given the possible absence of
courtroom-quality evidence, we're left with distinguishing one set of
training methods from another. How do you distinguish, in a principled
way, HGH from protein shakes and mega-doses of vitamins, from
visualization exercises and self-hypnosis, from recovery stints in a
hyperbaric chamber, from prophylactic use of inhalers to maintain open
airways? And, even if there *is* a principled distinction there, let's
consider that professional athletes are simply entertainers. Given that,
is there a principled distinction between an athlete's HGH (or other
questionable substance) and an actress' cosmetic surgery?

While protecting kids from harming themselves in some way is a laudable
goal, saying that professional athletes shouldn't use these particular
illegal substances because they're role models is disingenuous, given
that unsportsmanlike behavior on the field of play and anti-social
behavior off the field of play provide equally bad models for kids to
follow, but are nonetheless tolerated, if grudgingly. And if the issue
is that they're jeopardizing long-term health in hopes of short-term
success, well, I'd venture to say that that's inherent in the
life-style, and that most discussion of this has cause and effect
reversed; athletes who aspire to major league careers are sacrificing a
lot more for their career goals than most of the rest of us are willing
to do. Considering training methods of unknown long-range risk is part
and parcel of that.

--
AF


10 Mar 2006 22:55:04
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Alice Faber <afaber@panix.com > trolled:
> starcade@yahoo.com wrote:

> > Do we, as the nation's sports fans, have a right to know that
> > the games we watch and pay to see are done under the rules of
> > game, adjudicated fairly, and its athletes acting in concert
> > with the laws of the land?

> Law-abiding, sure, but with several caveats. First, US law provides for
> "innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law)". Courts have

Rubbish. We expect the athletes to act, prima facie, in concert
with the laws of the land.

> standards for the presentation of evidence. Publishers (and sports
> leagues) don't necessarily, or, at any rate, they have *different*
> standards. Second, lets not be selective. If we're going to ban
> athletes based on innuendo and hearsay concerning the use of
> certain illegal substances, let's be equally draconian toward
> athletes who have been accused of domestic violence or who are in
> arrears on child support payments. Third (sort-of related), given

Using certain illegal substances is cheating. Bud Selig has a duty
to conduct an investigation to see if Bonds consistently cheated.
And if he, and others, consistently cheated, then Selig has a duty
to kick them out. Selig's duty lies in the fact that he is the
protector of the game's integrity.

Wife-beating, no matter how much the bitch deserves it, is not
cheating at baseball.

> the possible absence of courtroom-quality evidence, we're left
> with distinguishing one set of training methods from another. How
> do you distinguish, in a principled way, HGH from protein shakes
> and mega-doses of vitamins, from visualization exercises and
> self-hypnosis, from recovery stints in a hyperbaric chamber, from
> prophylactic use of inhalers to maintain open airways? And, even
> if there *is* a principled distinction there, let's consider that
> professional athletes are simply entertainers. Given that, is
> there a principled distinction between an athlete's HGH (or other
> questionable substance) and an actress' cosmetic surgery?

Those are questions that Selig has to address when he conducts an
investigation. In any case, cosmetic surgery does not give you an
advantage in a sporting event. Cosmetic surgery does not help you
put runs on the board. Steroids do. The issue is not one of doing
illegal substances. The issue is cheating. By doing illegal
substances, Bonds cheated.

> While protecting kids from harming themselves in some way is a laudable
> goal, saying that professional athletes shouldn't use these particular
> illegal substances because they're role models is disingenuous, given
> that unsportsmanlike behavior on the field of play and anti-social
> behavior off the field of play provide equally bad models for kids to
> follow, but are nonetheless tolerated, if grudgingly. And if the issue
> is that they're jeopardizing long-term health in hopes of short-term
> success, well, I'd venture to say that that's inherent in the
> life-style, and that most discussion of this has cause and effect
> reversed; athletes who aspire to major league careers are sacrificing a
> lot more for their career goals than most of the rest of us are willing
> to do. Considering training methods of unknown long-range risk is part
> and parcel of that.

This is all nice and warm and fuzzy. But the issue, which you
ignore, is the fact that Bonds cheated. The games were not decided
honestly because Bonds enhanced his performance in an illegal and
socially unacceptable manner.

And by cheating, Bonds brought the integrity of the game into
question.

cordially, as always,

rm


10 Mar 2006 18:42:36
David M. Nieporent
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

In article <1142027607.156590.223120@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com >,
starcade@yahoo.com wrote:

>I'll start with some comments of my own:
>
>I gave this some thought last night. I don't think baseball (nor any
>of the national sports) are savable unless we can get a legal answer to
>the following question:
>
>Do we, as the nation's sports fans, have a right to know that the games
>we watch and pay to see are done under the rules of game, adjudicated
>fairly, and its athletes acting in concert with the laws of the land?

No. HTH.


10 Mar 2006 18:45:47
David M. Nieporent
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

In article <1142027735.098575.82400@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
>David the Nationals Fan wrote:
>> Ronald Matthews wrote:

>> > We call for the immediate and indefiniate suspension and
>> > investigation of Baby Bonds. Unless Bonds can show cause why he
>> > should be reinstated, that suspension should be made permanent, and
>> > should include the HoF.

>> This is, of course, a wet dream. MLB has specific rules and procedures
>> for suspending a player for a violation of the steroids policy. And,
>> like it or not, it is predicated on a positive test. Bonds has not
>> had a positive test, and if MLB tried to do this, Bond would be able to
>> go to court and win. (And that would, by the way, be cause for him to
>> be reinstated.)

>No it's not. The IAAF suspended a couple of runners on the basis of
>incontrovertible evidence of steroid use without a positive steroid test.

Barry Bonds does not have a contract with the IAAF.

>There is some discussion that baseball could use this standard to do
>the same to Bonds.

The first amendment gives people the right to discuss whatever they want.
It doesn't give them the right to abrogate a signed contract.


>> > All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.
>> > McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB and his
>> > records removed as well.

>> Why? Is what McGuire did a violation of the rules of baseball at the
>> time that he did it? Ex post facto rules don't work.

>No, but in violation of American law.
>Seriously, is there no expectation of us that the games being played
>are fair and done under American law?

No. Hell, not all the games are even played in the U.S.


11 Mar 2006 01:29:11
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

David M. Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu > trolled:
> In article <1142027607.156590.223120@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> starcade@yahoo.com wrote:

> >I'll start with some comments of my own:
> >
> >I gave this some thought last night. I don't think baseball (nor any
> >of the national sports) are savable unless we can get a legal answer to
> >the following question:
> >
> >Do we, as the nation's sports fans, have a right to know that the games
> >we watch and pay to see are done under the rules of game, adjudicated
> >fairly, and its athletes acting in concert with the laws of the land?

> No. HTH.

Maybe not a legal right. But a moral right? Certainly.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


11 Mar 2006 01:34:59
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

David M. Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu > trolled:
> starcade@yahoo.com wrote:

> >No it's not. The IAAF suspended a couple of runners on the basis of
> >incontrovertible evidence of steroid use without a positive steroid test.

> Barry Bonds does not have a contract with the IAAF.

It's not a matter of contract. Baby Bonds has a contract with the
Giants, not MLB. But MLB has the right to suspend him indefinitely
for conduct that is detrimental to baseball. And they can do that
without a blood test. All they have to do is produce reasonable
evidence.

> >There is some discussion that baseball could use this standard to
> >do the same to Bonds.

> The first amendment gives people the right to discuss whatever
> they want. It doesn't give them the right to abrogate a signed
> contract.

Actually, by acting in disregard for the best interests of the game,
Baby Bonds has broken his contract. Selig has the right to suspend
him indefinitely.

> >No, but in violation of American law. Seriously, is there no
> >expectation of us that the games being played are fair and done
> >under American law?

> No. Hell, not all the games are even played in the U.S.

There certainly is an expectation that the game is played fairly.
It most certainly is not in the best interests of the game to allow
cheating and MLB recognizes this. That is why the Commissioner has
the authority to expell any player who does not compete fairly.

cordially, as always,

rm


11 Mar 2006 14:38:16
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


David M. Nieporent wrote:

> >No it's not. The IAAF suspended a couple of runners on the basis of
> >incontrovertible evidence of steroid use without a positive steroid test.
>
> Barry Bonds does not have a contract with the IAAF.

Provides precedent that a sanctioning body can go over and above just
testing. Or would you think that Ontario Smith could have a case
against the NFL too? He didn't test positive either for his one-year
suspension.

> >There is some discussion that baseball could use this standard to do
> >the same to Bonds.
>
> The first amendment gives people the right to discuss whatever they want.
> It doesn't give them the right to abrogate a signed contract.

I'm going to have to find something that my friend sent me -- it's from
the Fay Vincent era that actually discusses this, stating that there
was a policy in place from HIS era.

> >> > All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.
> >> > McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB and his
> >> > records removed as well.
>
> >> Why? Is what McGuire did a violation of the rules of baseball at the
> >> time that he did it? Ex post facto rules don't work.
>
> >No, but in violation of American law.
> >Seriously, is there no expectation of us that the games being played
> >are fair and done under American law?
>
> No. Hell, not all the games are even played in the U.S.

You do realize that that would make baseball no more legit than
"American Idol" or "Survivor"...

Mike



11 Mar 2006 14:40:03
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Ronald Matthews wrote:
> David M. Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> trolled:
> > starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > >No it's not. The IAAF suspended a couple of runners on the basis of
> > >incontrovertible evidence of steroid use without a positive steroid test.
>
> > Barry Bonds does not have a contract with the IAAF.
>
> It's not a matter of contract. Baby Bonds has a contract with the
> Giants, not MLB. But MLB has the right to suspend him indefinitely
> for conduct that is detrimental to baseball. And they can do that
> without a blood test. All they have to do is produce reasonable
> evidence.

The players' apologists would say otherwise, as might the courts. The
real question might be Selig's complicity in all this, above and beyond
simply incompetence.

> > >There is some discussion that baseball could use this standard to
> > >do the same to Bonds.
>
> > The first amendment gives people the right to discuss whatever
> > they want. It doesn't give them the right to abrogate a signed
> > contract.
>
> Actually, by acting in disregard for the best interests of the game,
> Baby Bonds has broken his contract. Selig has the right to suspend
> him indefinitely.

The question is whether Selig has the "best interests of the game"
clause at his disposal... Does any commissioner of baseball?

> > >No, but in violation of American law. Seriously, is there no
> > >expectation of us that the games being played are fair and done
> > >under American law?
>
> > No. Hell, not all the games are even played in the U.S.
>
> There certainly is an expectation that the game is played fairly.
> It most certainly is not in the best interests of the game to allow
> cheating and MLB recognizes this. That is why the Commissioner has
> the authority to expell any player who does not compete fairly.

We'll see...

Mike



11 Mar 2006 14:53:05
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Alice Faber wrote:
> In article <1142027607.156590.223120@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I'll start with some comments of my own:
> >
> > I gave this some thought last night. I don't think baseball (nor any
> > of the national sports) are savable unless we can get a legal answer to
> > the following question:
> >
> > Do we, as the nation's sports fans, have a right to know that the games
> > we watch and pay to see are done under the rules of game, adjudicated
> > fairly, and its athletes acting in concert with the laws of the land?
>
> Rules, check.
>
> Adjudicated fairly: in all four major sports, we've got a long way to go
> for fair adjudication. While the vast majority of questionable (and
> questioned!) calls are arguably correct, far too many are not, and many
> fans perceive it to be the case that the officials are biased, and that
> the league, or, worse, the television broadcasters want a specific team
> to win.

The question is whether we even have the right to expect that this is
not the case. I do believe that some of the leagues are quite rigged,
and that the officials are, at best, incompetent (or worst, on the
take) in the others.

> Law-abiding, sure, but with several caveats. First, US law provides for
> "innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law)". Courts have
> standards for the presentation of evidence. Publishers (and sports
> leagues) don't necessarily, or, at any rate, they have *different*
> standards. Second, lets not be selective. If we're going to ban athletes
> based on innuendo and hearsay concerning the use of certain illegal
> substances, let's be equally draconian toward athletes who have been
> accused of domestic violence or who are in arrears on child support
> payments. Third (sort-of related), given the possible absence of
> courtroom-quality evidence, we're left with distinguishing one set of
> training methods from another. How do you distinguish, in a principled
> way, HGH from protein shakes and mega-doses of vitamins, from
> visualization exercises and self-hypnosis, from recovery stints in a
> hyperbaric chamber, from prophylactic use of inhalers to maintain open
> airways? And, even if there *is* a principled distinction there, let's
> consider that professional athletes are simply entertainers. Given that,
> is there a principled distinction between an athlete's HGH (or other
> questionable substance) and an actress' cosmetic surgery?

You think I would have a problem with a purge of the NBA, based on
reading books like "Out of Bounds"? You might be talking to the wrong
person here. What could start as a "clean up steroids" situation could
blossom into something much larger, as you state.

> While protecting kids from harming themselves in some way is a laudable
> goal, saying that professional athletes shouldn't use these particular
> illegal substances because they're role models is disingenuous, given
> that unsportsmanlike behavior on the field of play and anti-social
> behavior off the field of play provide equally bad models for kids to
> follow, but are nonetheless tolerated, if grudgingly. And if the issue
> is that they're jeopardizing long-term health in hopes of short-term
> success, well, I'd venture to say that that's inherent in the
> life-style, and that most discussion of this has cause and effect
> reversed; athletes who aspire to major league careers are sacrificing a
> lot more for their career goals than most of the rest of us are willing
> to do. Considering training methods of unknown long-range risk is part
> and parcel of that.

It's not just harming themselves either -- I'm left to wonder how many
small-town high-school football players get put in the hospital by
roided-up prospective major players in games across the country.

The message, vis-a-vis steroids, is clear: If you want to be
successful in sports -- REALLY successful -- you're out of your mind
not to even look at steroids.

This MUST change.

Mike



11 Mar 2006 14:57:52
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Ronald Matthews wrote:
> Alice Faber <afaber@panix.com> trolled:
> > starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Do we, as the nation's sports fans, have a right to know that
> > > the games we watch and pay to see are done under the rules of
> > > game, adjudicated fairly, and its athletes acting in concert
> > > with the laws of the land?
>
> > Law-abiding, sure, but with several caveats. First, US law provides for
> > "innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law)". Courts have
>
> Rubbish. We expect the athletes to act, prima facie, in concert
> with the laws of the land.

I'd like that as a legal opinion, rather than just what we think as
common sense. I'd like to see the Italian standards (Steroids = Fraud)
put into practice with current American law, so we can go after all of
baseball.

> > standards for the presentation of evidence. Publishers (and sports
> > leagues) don't necessarily, or, at any rate, they have *different*
> > standards. Second, lets not be selective. If we're going to ban
> > athletes based on innuendo and hearsay concerning the use of
> > certain illegal substances, let's be equally draconian toward
> > athletes who have been accused of domestic violence or who are in
> > arrears on child support payments. Third (sort-of related), given
>
> Using certain illegal substances is cheating. Bud Selig has a duty
> to conduct an investigation to see if Bonds consistently cheated.

So does the federal government. What I am really concerned with is if
Selig is trying to cover his own complicity with throwing Bonds under
the bus.

> And if he, and others, consistently cheated, then Selig has a duty
> to kick them out. Selig's duty lies in the fact that he is the
> protector of the game's integrity.

Which he has abrogated for so long that one has to wonder if he legally
has any more power as Commissioner than to determine when he wakes in
the morning.

(Everything else going to Don Fehr and Gene Orza and the like.)

> Wife-beating, no matter how much the bitch deserves it, is not
> cheating at baseball.

Irrelevant. See my response to Alice's post. The NBA, if it ever
wants to survive as a top-tier sport, needs to get out of the ghetto
and get with the 21st century, including how its millionaires treat
women.

> > the possible absence of courtroom-quality evidence, we're left
> > with distinguishing one set of training methods from another. How
> > do you distinguish, in a principled way, HGH from protein shakes
> > and mega-doses of vitamins, from visualization exercises and
> > self-hypnosis, from recovery stints in a hyperbaric chamber, from
> > prophylactic use of inhalers to maintain open airways? And, even
> > if there *is* a principled distinction there, let's consider that
> > professional athletes are simply entertainers. Given that, is
> > there a principled distinction between an athlete's HGH (or other
> > questionable substance) and an actress' cosmetic surgery?
>
> Those are questions that Selig has to address when he conducts an
> investigation. In any case, cosmetic surgery does not give you an
> advantage in a sporting event. Cosmetic surgery does not help you
> put runs on the board. Steroids do. The issue is not one of doing
> illegal substances. The issue is cheating. By doing illegal
> substances, Bonds cheated.

And by doing that, he also inflated his salary and the salaries of
others in baseball as well.

One can EASILY see a class-action lawsuit by season-ticket holders of
clearly non-competitive teams, stating steroid-inflated stats mean
steroid-inflated salaries and that the teams cannot compete as a
result.

> This is all nice and warm and fuzzy. But the issue, which you
> ignore, is the fact that Bonds cheated. The games were not decided
> honestly because Bonds enhanced his performance in an illegal and
> socially unacceptable manner.

But it's not JUST Bonds. My working hypothesis is that Bud Selig may
actually be charge-able as an accessory to any crimes committed
vis-a-vis steroids in baseball by Bonds and COUNTLESS others.

Mike



11 Mar 2006 18:02:43
David M. Nieporent
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

In article <1142116696.639781.221110@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com >,
starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
>David M. Nieporent wrote:

>> >No it's not. The IAAF suspended a couple of runners on the basis of
>> >incontrovertible evidence of steroid use without a positive steroid test.

>> Barry Bonds does not have a contract with the IAAF.

>Provides precedent that a sanctioning body can go over and above just
>testing. Or would you think that Ontario Smith could have a case
>against the NFL too? He didn't test positive either for his one-year
>suspension.

There is no "sanctioning body." There's just MLB.

I have no idea what the NFL's collective bargaining agreement allows the
NFL commissioner to do to NFL players. We're talking about MLB.


>> >There is some discussion that baseball could use this standard to do
>> >the same to Bonds.

>> The first amendment gives people the right to discuss whatever they want.
>> It doesn't give them the right to abrogate a signed contract.

>I'm going to have to find something that my friend sent me -- it's from
>the Fay Vincent era that actually discusses this, stating that there
>was a policy in place from HIS era.

I like anchovies on my non sequiturs.

>> >> > All of Bonds records should be removed from the record books.
>> >> > McGwire likewise should be suspended indefinitely from MLB and his
>> >> > records removed as well.

>> >> Why? Is what McGuire did a violation of the rules of baseball at the
>> >> time that he did it? Ex post facto rules don't work.

>> >No, but in violation of American law.
>> >Seriously, is there no expectation of us that the games being played
>> >are fair and done under American law?

>> No. Hell, not all the games are even played in the U.S.

>You do realize that that would make baseball no more legit than
>"American Idol" or "Survivor"...

I have no idea what that means.


11 Mar 2006 23:29:09
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

starcade@yahoo.com trolled:

> The question is whether Selig has the "best interests of the game"
> clause at his disposal... Does any commissioner of baseball?

According to the following website, commenting on Baseball's
Constitution, section 3 and section 4 give Selig precisely that:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/demystifying-the-mlb-constitution-part-1/

"Section 3 (of the Constitution) outlines how the Commissioner's
responsibilities in regards to conduct by Major League Clubs,
owners, officers, employees or players that is deemed by the
Commissioner to not be in the best interests of Baseball. It then
goes on to outline the punitive actions that the Commissioner can
make. Call this, the "Kenny Rogers" provision. The punitive damages
can be as little as, a reprimandd. It can be, however, for more
stringent. Here are some examples:

* Suspension or removal of any owner, officer, or employee of a
* Major League Club;
* Temporary or permanent ineligibility of a player;
* A fine, not to exceed $2,000,000 in the case of a Major League
* Club, not to exceed $500,000 in the case of an owner, officer
* or employee, and not to exceed $5,000 in the case of a player.

"As far as the integrity of the game, as it relates to the steroid
issue that has been a looming factor, the section on the
Commissioner continues in Section 4 by saying, that nothing in
Section 4 shall limit the Commissioner's authority to act on any
matters that involves the integrity of, or public confidence in, the
national game of Baseball."

The issue wrt to Bonds isn't that he did steroids. The issues wrt
to Bonds is that he has consistently cheated and consistently lied
about it to the fans and everybody else. And while consistently
cheating, he broke the law. And that doesn't even include the
potential perjury charge.

If people like Bonds are allowed to lie and cheat their way to
baseball's most cherished records, then the integrity of the game
has been damaged beyond repair.

> > There certainly is an expectation that the game is played fairly.
> > It most certainly is not in the best interests of the game to allow
> > cheating and MLB recognizes this. That is why the Commissioner has
> > the authority to expell any player who does not compete fairly.

> We'll see...

Certainly we'll see. Selig won't do anything, even though he has
the authority to expel Bonds. Selig won't do anything because not
doing anything is the only thing that Selig does.

cordially, as always,

rm


11 Mar 2006 17:11:04
Chris Cathcart
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
> It's not just harming themselves either -- I'm left to wonder how many
> small-town high-school football players get put in the hospital by
> roided-up prospective major players in games across the country.
>
> The message, vis-a-vis steroids, is clear: If you want to be
> successful in sports -- REALLY successful -- you're out of your mind
> not to even look at steroids.
>
> This MUST change.

Oh, and the children the children something's gotta be done to protect
the children.

The children is the refuge of the scoundrel.

Here's a hint for anyone wanting to talk reasonable about steroids or
damn well anything else involving adults: leave the goddam children out
of it. I'm not moved the slightest bit by whether THE CHILDREN THE
CHILDREN WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN find it fit to do steroids
because their "heroes" do it, and the parents of steroid-users going up
in front of Congress blaming everyone else for their children's actions
need to be loudly shouted down. It's just all part of the kind of
hysteria that accompanies a witchhunt mentality. Get a fucking grip,
people.



12 Mar 2006 11:16:30
Ivan Weiss
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

starcade@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1142117585.718717.22500@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The question is whether we even have the right to expect that this is
> not the case. I do believe that some of the leagues are quite rigged,
> and that the officials are, at best, incompetent (or worst, on the
> take) in the others.

You expect. You believe. What is this, your little faith-based jihad?

> This MUST change.

Or not. Now go away.
--
ivan




14 Mar 2006 17:15:55
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Ivan Weiss wrote:
> starcade@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1142117585.718717.22500@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > The question is whether we even have the right to expect that this is
> > not the case. I do believe that some of the leagues are quite rigged,
> > and that the officials are, at best, incompetent (or worst, on the
> > take) in the others.
>
> You expect. You believe. What is this, your little faith-based jihad?

First off, you sound like a fucking steroid apologist.

Second off, you are comfortable with corporate sports rigged to the
hilt, the athletes on illegal substances?

If so, go fuck yourself, Ivan...

Mike



14 Mar 2006 17:18:19
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Chris Cathcart wrote:

> Oh, and the children the children something's gotta be done to protect
> the children.

Another steroid apologist, I see. You can go fuck yourself with Ivan
and the others.

YOU DAMN RIGHT IT'S ABOUT THE CHILDREN!

AND INTEGRITY!!

(There -- that obvious enough for you??)

> Here's a hint for anyone wanting to talk reasonable about steroids or
> damn well anything else involving adults: leave the goddam children out
> of it. I'm not moved the slightest bit by whether THE CHILDREN THE
> CHILDREN WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN find it fit to do steroids
> because their "heroes" do it, and the parents of steroid-users going up
> in front of Congress blaming everyone else for their children's actions
> need to be loudly shouted down. It's just all part of the kind of
> hysteria that accompanies a witchhunt mentality. Get a fucking grip,
> people.

I'm all for a witch hunt against steroid, incompetent/crooked league
officials, and all that. I mean, if you can't see that the kids do
this not only because of emulation but because of their own competitive
advantage, then, by God, I can't help you, for you are truly blinded by
blowing Barry's dick for the last seven years.

Mike



14 Mar 2006 17:19:55
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Ronald Matthews wrote:
> starcade@yahoo.com trolled:
>
> > The question is whether Selig has the "best interests of the game"
> > clause at his disposal... Does any commissioner of baseball?
>
> According to the following website, commenting on Baseball's
> Constitution, section 3 and section 4 give Selig precisely that:

No no no... You must think that baseball's constitution applies much
like many idiots feel the US Constitution has any power in this country
anymore...

What I assert is one of the reasons that Selig has gone down this path
is that he has no power -- no power to change the game for the better
because of his misconduct as one of a group of owners slapped down time
and again in court.

Mike



14 Mar 2006 17:21:57
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


David M. Nieporent wrote:
> In article <1142116696.639781.221110@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> starcade@yahoo.com wrote:

> >Provides precedent that a sanctioning body can go over and above just
> >testing. Or would you think that Ontario Smith could have a case
> >against the NFL too? He didn't test positive either for his one-year
> >suspension.
>
> There is no "sanctioning body." There's just MLB.

No sanctioning body? MLB is not a sanctioning body???

Are you truly this clueless, or do you have a steroid business to
uphold?

> >I'm going to have to find something that my friend sent me -- it's from
> >the Fay Vincent era that actually discusses this, stating that there
> >was a policy in place from HIS era.
>
> I like anchovies on my non sequiturs.

Found and discussed in another thread. Look for Fay Vincent's name in
all caps.

> >> No. Hell, not all the games are even played in the U.S.
>
> >You do realize that that would make baseball no more legit than
> >"American Idol" or "Survivor"...
>
> I have no idea what that means.

What I'm saying is that that would make baseball RIGGED, to start
with...

Mike



14 Mar 2006 17:56:12
Ivan Weiss
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

<starcade@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1142385355.225118.202600@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ivan Weiss wrote:
>> starcade@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1142117585.718717.22500@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > The question is whether we even have the right to expect that this is
>> > not the case. I do believe that some of the leagues are quite rigged,
>> > and that the officials are, at best, incompetent (or worst, on the
>> > take) in the others.
>>
>> You expect. You believe. What is this, your little faith-based jihad?
>
> First off, you sound like a fucking steroid apologist.
>
> Second off, you are comfortable with corporate sports rigged to the
> hilt, the athletes on illegal substances?
>
> If so, go fuck yourself, Ivan...
--
Well, since you might be in doubt, please allow me to explain my position. I
don't care if people do steroids. That's their lookout.

I'll decide for myself if sports are rigged to the hilt, thank you. What
athletes, or any other people, put in their bodies is not my business, and
certainly not yours.

Sorry if that's too much for your little sanctimonious, moralistic,
hypocritical, self-appointed enforcer ass. But whereas your rectum is
blocked by your head anyway, somehow I don't think it's much of a problem.
--
ivan




15 Mar 2006 11:46:25
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

starcade@yahoo.com trolled:
> Ronald Matthews wrote:
> > starcade@yahoo.com trolled:

> > > The question is whether Selig has the "best interests of the
> > > game" clause at his disposal... Does any commissioner of
> > > baseball?
> >
> > According to the following website, commenting on Baseball's
> > Constitution, section 3 and section 4 give Selig precisely that:

> No no no... You must think that baseball's constitution applies
> much like many idiots feel the US Constitution has any power in
> this country anymore...

Well, we are Canadian and our Constitution is pretty solid, if
yours isn't.

> What I assert is one of the reasons that Selig has gone down this
> path is that he has no power -- no power to change the game for
> the better because of his misconduct as one of a group of owners
> slapped down time and again in court.

Details? Can you cite us the court cases that render Baseball's
constitution meaningless?

cordially, as always,

rm


15 Mar 2006 15:59:22
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Ronald Matthews wrote:

> > What I assert is one of the reasons that Selig has gone down this
> > path is that he has no power -- no power to change the game for
> > the better because of his misconduct as one of a group of owners
> > slapped down time and again in court.
>
> Details? Can you cite us the court cases that render Baseball's
> constitution meaningless?

A string of cases which include the case where the courts ruled the
owners colluded to hold salaries down, and the case which effectively
ended the 1994 strike in favor of the players.

I figure, if Selig gets too recalcitrant, they're one lawsuit from
taking over baseball.

Mike (The players' union, that is.)



15 Mar 2006 16:02:12
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Ivan Weiss wrote:

> Well, since you might be in doubt, please allow me to explain my position. I
> don't care if people do steroids. That's their lookout.

So you don't care if the salaries, through the stats, are artificially
increased to the detriment of the game, nor that kids are going to do
the roids themselves...

Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.

> I'll decide for myself if sports are rigged to the hilt, thank you. What
> athletes, or any other people, put in their bodies is not my business, and
> certainly not yours.

It is ALL OF OUR BUSINESS, moron -- especially when it's against the
law and corrupts what is seen as our national game.

Mike



15 Mar 2006 20:33:34
David M. Nieporent
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

In article <1142467332.285580.149150@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
>Ivan Weiss wrote:

>> Well, since you might be in doubt, please allow me to explain my position.
>> I don't care if people do steroids. That's their lookout.

>So you don't care if the salaries, through the stats, are artificially
>increased

What's artificial about that?

> to the detriment of the game,

How are increased salaries to the detriment of the game?

> nor that kids are going to do
>the roids themselves...

Why should we? If they're harmful, it's natural selection.

>Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

>> I'll decide for myself if sports are rigged to the hilt, thank you. What
>> athletes, or any other people, put in their bodies is not my business, and
>> certainly not yours.

>It is ALL OF OUR BUSINESS, moron -- especially when it's against the
>law and corrupts what is seen as our national game.

It's a moronic law.


16 Mar 2006 02:06:39
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

David M. Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu > trolled:
> starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Ivan Weiss wrote:

> >> Well, since you might be in doubt, please allow me to explain my position.
> >> I don't care if people do steroids. That's their lookout.

> >So you don't care if the salaries, through the stats, are artificially
> >increased

> What's artificial about that?

The players making the most money will be the players doing the most
steroids, instead of the players who would otherwise be the "best"
because of ability.

> > to the detriment of the game,

> How are increased salaries to the detriment of the game?

The increased salaries make it more expensive to go to the games and
make it more expensive to watch the games on TV.

> > nor that kids are going to do the roids themselves...

> Why should we? If they're harmful, it's natural selection.

Let's not have any laws at all. It's natural selection.

> >Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.

> You say that like it's a bad thing.

You wouldn't touch steroids, you gutless fuck. And yet you would
have others, perhaps not so bright, do it for your entertainment?

You're a class act, Nieporent.

cordially, as always,

rm
--
How come so many stat fans, and pseudo stat fans, are Jewish?


15 Mar 2006 23:37:41
Ivan Weiss
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


<starcade@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1142467332.285580.149150@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ivan Weiss wrote:
>
>> Well, since you might be in doubt, please allow me to explain my
>> position. I
>> don't care if people do steroids. That's their lookout.
>
> So you don't care if the salaries, through the stats, are artificially
> increased to the detriment of the game, nor that kids are going to do
> the roids themselves...
--
No. What do I give a rip how much somebody makes? It's between him and his
employer. Who says steroids have anything to do with it? You? Based on what?
--
> Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.
--
You're welcome. Steroids are just another thing. If it wasn't steroids it
would be something else.
--
>> I'll decide for myself if sports are rigged to the hilt, thank you. What
>> athletes, or any other people, put in their bodies is not my business,
>> and
>> certainly not yours.
>
> It is ALL OF OUR BUSINESS, moron -- especially when it's against the
> law and corrupts what is seen as our national game.
--
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. It's irrelevant to me.
--
ivan




16 Mar 2006 08:38:27
Josh Rosenbluth
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


David M. Nieporent wrote:
> In article <1142467332.285580.149150@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Ivan Weiss wrote:
>
> >> Well, since you might be in doubt, please allow me to explain my position.
> >> I don't care if people do steroids. That's their lookout.
>
> >So you don't care if the salaries, through the stats, are artificially
> >increased
>
> What's artificial about that?
>
> > to the detriment of the game,
>
> How are increased salaries to the detriment of the game?
>
> > nor that kids are going to do the roids themselves...
>
> Why should we? If they're harmful, it's natural selection.
>
> >Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.

It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
(assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
that individual) others into using them.

Josh Rosenbluth



16 Mar 2006 09:55:15
Ivan Weiss
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com > wrote in message
news:1142527107.833396.50890@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
> (assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
> that individual) others into using them.
--
You can't demonstrate that your "ifs" are true in all cases, or, in fact, in
any cases. And salaries are between the player and his employer, and are not
my business nor yours.
--
ivan




16 Mar 2006 10:02:35
Raymond DiPerna
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> David M. Nieporent wrote:
> > In article <1142467332.285580.149150@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >Ivan Weiss wrote:
> >
> > >> Well, since you might be in doubt, please allow me to explain my position.
> > >> I don't care if people do steroids. That's their lookout.
> >
> > >So you don't care if the salaries, through the stats, are artificially
> > >increased
> >
> > What's artificial about that?
> >
> > > to the detriment of the game,
> >
> > How are increased salaries to the detriment of the game?
> >
> > > nor that kids are going to do the roids themselves...
> >
> > Why should we? If they're harmful, it's natural selection.
> >
> > >Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.
> >
> > You say that like it's a bad thing.
>
> It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
> (assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
> that individual) others into using them.

I don't think that would be "coercing."

--Ray



16 Mar 2006 10:14:06
Josh Rosenbluth
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Ivan Weiss wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
> news:1142527107.833396.50890@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
> > (assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
> > that individual) others into using them.
> --
> You can't demonstrate that your "ifs" are true in all cases, or, in fact, in
> any cases.

Whether or not the "ifs" are true is an empirically answerable
question.

> And salaries are between the player and his employer, and are not
> my business nor yours.

That statement - which I happen to agree with - has no relevance to my
argument.

Josh Rosenbluth



16 Mar 2006 10:22:53
Josh Rosenbluth
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > David M. Nieporent wrote:
> > > In article <1142467332.285580.149150@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >Ivan Weiss wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Well, since you might be in doubt, please allow me to explain my position.
> > > >> I don't care if people do steroids. That's their lookout.
> > >
> > > >So you don't care if the salaries, through the stats, are artificially
> > > >increased
> > >
> > > What's artificial about that?
> > >
> > > > to the detriment of the game,
> > >
> > > How are increased salaries to the detriment of the game?
> > >
> > > > nor that kids are going to do the roids themselves...
> > >
> > > Why should we? If they're harmful, it's natural selection.
> > >
> > > >Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.
> > >
> > > You say that like it's a bad thing.
> >
> > It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
> > (assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
> > that individual) others into using them.
>
> I don't think that would be "coercing."

Bob Roman offered up the possibility of losing your roster spot if you
don't keep with the competition by taking steroids. Is having to take
steroids to keep you job coercive?

I argue keeping your job is an extreme case of salary-differential
coercion.

Josh Rosenbluth



16 Mar 2006 10:54:06
Raymond DiPerna
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> > Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > > David M. Nieporent wrote:
> > > > In article <1142467332.285580.149150@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > starcade@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > > >Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.
> > > >
> > > > You say that like it's a bad thing.
> > >
> > > It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
> > > (assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
> > > that individual) others into using them.
> >
> > I don't think that would be "coercing."
>
> Bob Roman offered up the possibility of losing your roster spot if you
> don't keep with the competition by taking steroids. Is having to take
> steroids to keep you job coercive?

No. And that's even providing that all of your assumptions are
correct. But really, they're huge leaps: (1) you presume that the
vast majority of players ("the competition") are using, (2) you presume
that steroids have a massive effect on performance, (3) you presume
that every player faced with this "coercion" _thinks_ that steroids
would have a massive effect on his performance, and (4) you presume
that a player who doesn't take steroids wouldn't be good enough to keep
his job (or perhaps you're talking only about fringe players, in which
case you assume they would be good enough to stick in the majors if
only they took steroids).

> I argue keeping your job is an extreme case of salary-differential
> coercion.

"Salary-differential coercion?"

To me, "coercion" implies something stronger than what you've
presented, even if it were true. We're all faced with various
pressures, and we all encounter various people in our line of work who
cut corners, or "cheat" in some way, or are less than ethical. (In
school, other students cheat.) That doesn't mean we're coerced to
behave in the same way.

--Ray



16 Mar 2006 11:12:13
Ivan Weiss
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com > wrote in message
news:1142532846.823623.195610@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ivan Weiss wrote:
>> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
>> news:1142527107.833396.50890@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
>> > (assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
>> > that individual) others into using them.
>> --
>> You can't demonstrate that your "ifs" are true in all cases, or, in fact,
>> in
>> any cases.
>
> Whether or not the "ifs" are true is an empirically answerable
> question.
--
That's only your opinion, no matter how fervently you might believe that it
is true.
--
ivan




16 Mar 2006 15:18:48
David M. Nieporent
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> Ivan Weiss wrote:
>>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message

>>>It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
>>>(assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
>>>that individual) others into using them.

>>You can't demonstrate that your "ifs" are true in all cases, or, in fact,
>>in any cases.

> Whether or not the "ifs" are true is an empirically answerable
> question.

Only to the extent that "harmful" is an objectively definable word, and it
isn't. We can show (*) that there are certain costs to steroid use, to be
sure, but that's not the same thing.


(*) Well, we can show that the use of certain substances in certain amounts
have certain costs, which isn't quite the same thing as showing that the use
of whichever specific substances the players are using _at the doses they're
using them_ has those costs.

--
David Marc Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth


16 Mar 2006 15:20:51
David M. Nieporent
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> Raymond DiPerna wrote:
>>Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>David M. Nieporent wrote:
>>>> starcade@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>>>Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.

>>>>You say that like it's a bad thing.

>>>It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
>>>(assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
>>>that individual) others into using them.

>>I don't think that would be "coercing."

> Bob Roman offered up the possibility of losing your roster spot if you
> don't keep with the competition by taking steroids. Is having to take
> steroids to keep you job coercive?

No. It's an incentive, not coercion.

--
David Marc Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth


16 Mar 2006 12:25:07
Josh Rosenbluth
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> > > Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > > > David M. Nieporent wrote:
> > > > > In article <1142467332.285580.149150@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > >Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.
> > > > >
> > > > > You say that like it's a bad thing.
> > > >
> > > > It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
> > > > (assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
> > > > that individual) others into using them.
> > >
> > > I don't think that would be "coercing."
> >
> > Bob Roman offered up the possibility of losing your roster spot if you
> > don't keep with the competition by taking steroids. Is having to take
> > steroids to keep you job coercive?
>
> No. And that's even providing that all of your assumptions are
> correct. But really, they're huge leaps: (1) you presume that the
> vast majority of players ("the competition") are using, (2) you presume
> that steroids have a massive effect on performance, (3) you presume
> that every player faced with this "coercion" _thinks_ that steroids
> would have a massive effect on his performance, and (4) you presume
> that a player who doesn't take steroids wouldn't be good enough to keep
> his job (or perhaps you're talking only about fringe players, in which
> case you assume they would be good enough to stick in the majors if
> only they took steroids).

My argument doesn't require 1) the "vast majority" of players to take
steroids, 2) a "massive" improvement in performance, 3) "every" player
to think that steroids will have a "massive" effect on his performance,
or 4) a player who doesn't use steroids to be no longer good enough to
keep his job.

My argument only requires that "enough" players give in - who would
otherwise not take steroids - because steroids improve performance by
an amount which causes a player who takes them to make more money than
if he didn't take them.

I'm not sure what the threshold for "enough" should be, but I am
certain it isn't "every" player. Even if 20% of the players give in,
we have a coercion problem - and it likely doesn't require losing your
job outright to convince 20% of the players they need to take steroids.

> > I argue keeping your job is an extreme case of salary-differential
> > coercion.
>
> "Salary-differential coercion?"
>
> To me, "coercion" implies something stronger than what you've
> presented, even if it were true. We're all faced with various
> pressures, and we all encounter various people in our line of work who
> cut corners, or "cheat" in some way, or are less than ethical. (In
> school, other students cheat.) That doesn't mean we're coerced to
> behave in the same way.

I disagree. If we have to do something we find objectionable in order
to be paid more - one extreme example of which is being paid at all -
that's coercive.

Josh Rosenbluth



16 Mar 2006 12:28:57
Josh Rosenbluth
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


David M. Nieporent wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> >>Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>David M. Nieporent wrote:
> >>>> starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.
>
> >>>>You say that like it's a bad thing.
>
> >>>It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
> >>>(assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
> >>>that individual) others into using them.
>
> >>I don't think that would be "coercing."
>
> > Bob Roman offered up the possibility of losing your roster spot if you
> > don't keep with the competition by taking steroids. Is having to take
> > steroids to keep you job coercive?
>
> No. It's an incentive, not coercion.

That doesn't fly if steroids are harmful.

Josh Rosenbluth



16 Mar 2006 12:49:48
Josh Rosenbluth
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


David M. Nieporent wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > Ivan Weiss wrote:
> >>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
> >>>(assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
> >>>that individual) others into using them.
>
> >>You can't demonstrate that your "ifs" are true in all cases, or, in fact,
> >>in any cases.
>
> > Whether or not the "ifs" are true is an empirically answerable question.
>
> Only to the extent that "harmful" is an objectively definable word, and it
> isn't. We can show (*) that there are certain costs to steroid use, to be
> sure, but that's not the same thing.
>
> (*) Well, we can show that the use of certain substances in certain amounts
> have certain costs, which isn't quite the same thing as showing that the use
> of whichever specific substances the players are using _at the doses they're
> using them_ has those costs.

It is an empirically answerable question as to what the costs are of
using specific substances in specific doses. When a player finds a
cost unacceptable, but changes his mind as a result of the decision of
another player who found the cost acceptable, the former player is
coerced by the actions of the latter player.

Josh Rosenbluth



16 Mar 2006 16:28:27
David M. Nieporent
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> David M. Nieporent wrote:
>>Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>Raymond DiPerna wrote:
>>>>Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>David M. Nieporent wrote:
>>>>>>starcade@yahoo.com wrote:

>>>>>>>Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.

>>>>>>You say that like it's a bad thing.

>>>>>It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
>>>>>(assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
>>>>>that individual) others into using them.

>>>>I don't think that would be "coercing."

>>>Bob Roman offered up the possibility of losing your roster spot if you
>>>don't keep with the competition by taking steroids. Is having to take
>>>steroids to keep you job coercive?

>>No. It's an incentive, not coercion.

> That doesn't fly if steroids are harmful.

Sure it does. Playing professional football is "harmful," if by "harmful"
you mean that there are health risks. NFL teams pay players to do it. Are
they "coercing" the players by doing so? No; they're incentivizing them.

--
David Marc Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth


16 Mar 2006 14:00:25
Josh Rosenbluth
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


David M. Nieporent wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > David M. Nieporent wrote:
> >>Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> >>>>Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>>>>David M. Nieporent wrote:
> >>>>>>starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.
>
> >>>>>>You say that like it's a bad thing.
>
> >>>>>It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
> >>>>>(assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
> >>>>>that individual) others into using them.
>
> >>>>I don't think that would be "coercing."
>
> >>>Bob Roman offered up the possibility of losing your roster spot if you
> >>>don't keep with the competition by taking steroids. Is having to take
> >>>steroids to keep you job coercive?
>
> >>No. It's an incentive, not coercion.
>
> > That doesn't fly if steroids are harmful.
>
> Sure it does. Playing professional football is "harmful," if by "harmful"
> you mean that there are health risks. NFL teams pay players to do it. Are
> they "coercing" the players by doing so? No; they're incentivizing them.

Certainly, you call it an incentive (a good thing) or coercion (a bad
thing). Afterall, what is good or bad is subjective. But in either
case, the actions of one person (or in your example, an entity) impact
the decision of another person. Thus, the action of the former cannot
be summarily justified as an act of liberty.

Yet if I understand your argument (also made by DiPerna and Weiss), a
player taking steroids is only exercising his liberty, and thus we must
summarily accept his actions. But his actions impact others, and we
must instead trade-off one man's liberty against what many of us
perceive to be coercion of another man.

You are of course free to argue that McGwire impacted others in a good
(incentivized) rather than a bad (coerced) manner. But your argument
that he was only exercising his liberty is beyond plausible.

Josh Rosenbluth



16 Mar 2006 22:10:24
James Kahn
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

In <4419C8A3.10104@alumni.princeton.edu > "David M. Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> writes:

>Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

>> Bob Roman offered up the possibility of losing your roster spot if you
>> don't keep with the competition by taking steroids. Is having to take
>> steroids to keep you job coercive?

>No. It's an incentive, not coercion.

Athletes do stuff that's bad for them all the time. Many have serious
physical problems after their careers are over. Boxers are the obvious
example, but it's true in most sports. Gymnasts and skaters have hip
problems, football players are sometimes seriously damaged.

I do think, though, that athletes should obey the rules, even if the basis
for the rules is shaky. Unless the rule is obviously unfair and inequitable.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn


16 Mar 2006 14:30:08
Raymond DiPerna
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


James Kahn wrote:
> In <4419C8A3.10104@alumni.princeton.edu> "David M. Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> writes:
>
> >Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>
> >> Bob Roman offered up the possibility of losing your roster spot if you
> >> don't keep with the competition by taking steroids. Is having to take
> >> steroids to keep you job coercive?
>
> >No. It's an incentive, not coercion.
>
> Athletes do stuff that's bad for them all the time. Many have serious
> physical problems after their careers are over. Boxers are the obvious
> example, but it's true in most sports. Gymnasts and skaters have hip
> problems, football players are sometimes seriously damaged.
>
> I do think, though, that athletes should obey the rules, even if the basis
> for the rules is shaky. Unless the rule is obviously unfair and inequitable.

But nobody is suggesting that athletes shouldn't obey the rules (not
that there were any rules against steroids until recently, but, to
address the substance of your point, I wouldn't advocate that players
use steroids even if there were still no rules against it).

We're discussing whether the use by some "coerces" others to use.

--Ray



16 Mar 2006 16:36:06
stephenj
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> David M. Nieporent wrote:
>
>>Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>
>>>David M. Nieporent wrote:
>>>
>>>>Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Raymond DiPerna wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>David M. Nieporent wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>starcade@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>Thanks, YOU ARE A STEROID APOLOGIST. Thanks for playing.
>>
>>>>>>>>You say that like it's a bad thing.
>>
>>>>>>>It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some, coerces
>>>>>>>(assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a higher salary for
>>>>>>>that individual) others into using them.
>>
>>>>>>I don't think that would be "coercing."
>>
>>>>>Bob Roman offered up the possibility of losing your roster spot if you
>>>>>don't keep with the competition by taking steroids. Is having to take
>>>>>steroids to keep you job coercive?
>>
>>>>No. It's an incentive, not coercion.
>>
>>>That doesn't fly if steroids are harmful.
>>
>>Sure it does. Playing professional football is "harmful," if by "harmful"
>>you mean that there are health risks. NFL teams pay players to do it. Are
>>they "coercing" the players by doing so? No; they're incentivizing them.
>
>
> Certainly, you call it an incentive (a good thing) or coercion (a bad
> thing). Afterall, what is good or bad is subjective. But in either
> case, the actions of one person (or in your example, an entity) impact
> the decision of another person. Thus, the action of the former cannot
> be summarily justified as an act of liberty.
>
> Yet if I understand your argument (also made by DiPerna and Weiss), a
> player taking steroids is only exercising his liberty, and thus we must
> summarily accept his actions. But his actions impact others, and we
> must instead trade-off one man's liberty against what many of us
> perceive to be coercion of another man.

yes, imagine if a competitive advantage could be gained in baseball by
cutting off one's balls. doubtless, there would be some wackos who would
cut off their balls to be better players. should sane players be forced
to emulate the wackos or else suffer competitive disadvantage?

no.



--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."

- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official


16 Mar 2006 14:59:07
Ivan Weiss
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com > wrote in message
news:1142546425.087299.59330@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Certainly, you call it an incentive (a good thing) or coercion (a bad
> thing). Afterall, what is good or bad is subjective. But in either
> case, the actions of one person (or in your example, an entity) impact
> the decision of another person. Thus, the action of the former cannot
> be summarily justified as an act of liberty.
>
> Yet if I understand your argument (also made by DiPerna and Weiss), a
> player taking steroids is only exercising his liberty, and thus we must
> summarily accept his actions. But his actions impact others, and we
> must instead trade-off one man's liberty against what many of us
> perceive to be coercion of another man.
>
> You are of course free to argue that McGwire impacted others in a good
> (incentivized) rather than a bad (coerced) manner. But your argument
> that he was only exercising his liberty is beyond plausible.
--
"Perception" that there is coercion does not establish that there is
coercion, any more than perceiving that "impact" is a verb makes "impact" a
verb. You can call it what you want, but that does not make it so.
--
ivan




16 Mar 2006 23:38:01
Gerry Myerson
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

In article <J6qdnX9MGIcncITZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@centurytel.net >,
"Ivan Weiss" <ivan.weiss@centurytel.net > wrote:

> "Perception" that there is coercion does not establish that there is
> coercion, any more than perceiving that "impact" is a verb makes "impact" a
> verb. You can call it what you want, but that does not make it so.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impact

Usage Note: The use of impact as a verb meaning ³to have an effect²
often has a big impact on readers. Eighty-four percent of the Usage
Panel disapproves of the construction to impact on, as in the phrase
social pathologies, common to the inner city, that impact heavily on
such a community; fully 95 percent disapproves of the use of impact as a
transitive verb in the sentence Companies have used disposable
techniques that have a potential for impacting our health. ·It is
unclear why this usage provokes such a strong response, but it cannot be
because of novelty. Impact has been used as a verb since 1601, when it
meant ³to fix or pack in,² and its modern, figurative use dates from
1935. It may be that its frequent appearance in the jargon-riddled
remarks of politicians, military officials, and financial analysts
continues to make people suspicious. Nevertheless, the verbal use of
impact has become so common in the working language of corporations and
institutions that many speakers have begun to regard it as standard. It
seems likely, then, that the verb will eventually become as
unobjectionable as contact is now, since it will no longer betray any
particular pretentiousness on the part of those who use it.

--
Gerry Myerson (gerry@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i - > u for email)
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
Want to have instant messaging, and chat rooms, and discussion
groups for your local users or business, you need dbabble!
-- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dbabble.htm ----


17 Mar 2006 00:53:11
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Ivan Weiss <ivan.weiss@centurytel.net > trolled:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message

> > It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some,
> > coerces (assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a
> > higher salary for that individual) others into using them.

> You can't demonstrate that your "ifs" are true in all cases, or,
> in fact, in any cases. And salaries are between the player and his
> employer, and are not my business nor yours.

Getting senile in your dotage? If players hit more home runs, they
will get more money. Some players are willing to cheat in order to
hit more home runs and make more money. This means that other
players are also going to have to cheat if they want to make the big
dollar.

This is elementary stuff. High school kids are going to start
bulking up with steroids because they want to attract the scouts and
the best way to do that is to develop their bodies. And so the high
school kids who aren't willing to cheat by doing steroids are going
to be at a disadvantage. They will either have to do steroids or be
known as a second-rate player, not worth drafting.

And so on.

cordially, as always,

rm



17 Mar 2006 00:55:18
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com > trolled:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

> > It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by some,
> > coerces (assuming steroid use by an individual, results in a
> > higher salary for that individual) others into using them.

> I don't think that would be "coercing."

You can say effective coercement.

If steroids are not stomped on hard, right now, everybody will be
doing them because they won't make the majors without them.

cordially, as always,

rm



17 Mar 2006 00:59:19
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@att.com > trolled:
> Ivan Weiss wrote:
> > "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message

> > > It's a bad thing if steroids are harmful and their use by
> > > some, coerces (assuming steroid use by an individual, results
> > > in a higher salary for that individual) others into using
> > > them.

> > You can't demonstrate that your "ifs" are true in all cases, or,
> > in fact, in any cases.

> Whether or not the "ifs" are true is an empirically answerable
> question.

> > And salaries are between the player and his employer, and are not
> > my business nor yours.

> That statement - which I happen to agree with - has no relevance to my
> argument.

We are in agreement with Mr. Rosenbluth, we are pleased to say.
There is hope for him, yet. Now if we can just figure out if he is
the lawyer or if it is that other guy...

cordially, as always,

rm


17 Mar 2006 01:07:52
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Raymond DiPerna <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com > trolled:

> No. And that's even providing that all of your assumptions are
> correct. But really, they're huge leaps: (1) you presume that
> the vast majority of players ("the competition") are using, (2)
> you presume

No. The presumption is that a large percentage of the game's top
earners are juicing.

> that steroids have a massive effect on performance, (3) you presume

Just look at Bonds numbers. Look at how steroids transformed
Giambi. Look at McGwire's 70 hrs.

Of course the steroids have a massive effect on performance.

> that every player faced with this "coercion" _thinks_ that
> steroids would have a massive effect on his performance, and (4)

Every player faced with the smaller paycheck knows that there is a
good chance he can get the bigger paycheck if he juices.

This is elementary stuff.

> you presume that a player who doesn't take steroids wouldn't be
> good enough to keep his job (or perhaps you're talking only about
> fringe players, in which case you assume they would be good enough
> to stick in the majors if only they took steroids).

The players who do not take steroids will average significantly less
money in salary than those who do take steroids. And if this is not
the case, then the players will stop doing steroids without being
told to do so, because the steroids won't be working.

Players do the steroids to make more money. That's why they take
the steroids.

> > I argue keeping your job is an extreme case of salary-differential
> > coercion.

> "Salary-differential coercion?"

> To me, "coercion" implies something stronger than what you've
> presented, even if it were true. We're all faced with various
> pressures, and we all encounter various people in our line of work who
> cut corners, or "cheat" in some way, or are less than ethical. (In
> school, other students cheat.) That doesn't mean we're coerced to
> behave in the same way.

Coercion may not be the best word, but that is not really the issue,
is it? The most well-paid players are the top salaried players
because they take steroids.

cordially, as always,

rm


16 Mar 2006 17:32:36
Ivan Weiss
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

"Gerry Myerson" <gerry@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email > wrote in message
news:gerry-B30A92.10375717032006@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au...
> In article <J6qdnX9MGIcncITZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@centurytel.net>,
> "Ivan Weiss" <ivan.weiss@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>> "Perception" that there is coercion does not establish that there is
>> coercion, any more than perceiving that "impact" is a verb makes "impact"
>> a
>> verb. You can call it what you want, but that does not make it so.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impact
>
> Usage Note: The use of impact as a verb meaning ³to have an effect²
> often has a big impact on readers. Eighty-four percent of the Usage
> Panel disapproves of the construction to impact on, as in the phrase
> social pathologies, common to the inner city, that impact heavily on
> such a community; fully 95 percent disapproves of the use of impact as a
> transitive verb in the sentence Companies have used disposable
> techniques that have a potential for impacting our health. ·It is
> unclear why this usage provokes such a strong response, but it cannot be
> because of novelty. Impact has been used as a verb since 1601, when it
> meant ³to fix or pack in,² and its modern, figurative use dates from
> 1935. It may be that its frequent appearance in the jargon-riddled
> remarks of politicians, military officials, and financial analysts
> continues to make people suspicious. Nevertheless, the verbal use of
> impact has become so common in the working language of corporations and
> institutions that many speakers have begun to regard it as standard. It
> seems likely, then, that the verb will eventually become as
> unobjectionable as contact is now, since it will no longer betray any
> particular pretentiousness on the part of those who use it.
--
I edit for a living. This "verb" dies at my hands. My clients pay me well to
kill it, and they stand and cheer when I do.

So if my efforts in the word wars are rear-guard actions, at least they keep
me in champagne and oysters and rare roast beef.
--
ivan




17 Mar 2006 05:42:21
James Kahn
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

In <1142548208.233474.18820@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com > "Raymond DiPerna" <rdiperna@nyc.rr.com> writes:


>James Kahn wrote:
>> In <4419C8A3.10104@alumni.princeton.edu> "David M. Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> writes:
>>
>> >Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>
>> >> Bob Roman offered up the possibility of losing your roster spot if you
>> >> don't keep with the competition by taking steroids. Is having to take
>> >> steroids to keep you job coercive?
>>
>> >No. It's an incentive, not coercion.
>>
>> Athletes do stuff that's bad for them all the time. Many have serious
>> physical problems after their careers are over. Boxers are the obvious
>> example, but it's true in most sports. Gymnasts and skaters have hip
>> problems, football players are sometimes seriously damaged.
>>
>> I do think, though, that athletes should obey the rules, even if the basis
>> for the rules is shaky. Unless the rule is obviously unfair and inequitable.

>But nobody is suggesting that athletes shouldn't obey the rules (not
>that there were any rules against steroids until recently, but, to
>address the substance of your point, I wouldn't advocate that players
>use steroids even if there were still no rules against it).

>We're discussing whether the use by some "coerces" others to use.

Having trouble with reading comprehension?
That was the point of my first paragraph, which is that steroids
are no different than other sorts of damaging stuff athletes do to
themselves to improve their performance, except for the rules thing.
I guess I have to spell it out: No one would say athletes are
"coerced" into wearing down their bodies and risking crippling
themselves; why would we apply that term to steroid usage? Get it now?

A few of the comments have suggested that because the rule is
"dumb" or whatever, it shouldn't be enforced.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn


17 Mar 2006 06:31:09
Josh Rosenbluth
Re: Call for Bonds suspension


James Kahn wrote:
>
> That was the point of my first paragraph, which is that steroids
> are no different than other sorts of damaging stuff athletes do to
> themselves to improve their performance, except for the rules thing.
> I guess I have to spell it out: No one would say athletes are
> "coerced" into wearing down their bodies and risking crippling
> themselves; why would we apply that term to steroid usage?

I say "coercion" applies to other sorts of damaging stuff. When an
athlete would choose not to do damaging stuff on his own - but chooses
to do the stuff because other athletes gain a competitive advantage by
doing them - we have coercion.

The reason we don't use the word coercion for most other stuff is the
degree to which they harm may not be as great - and thus the coercion
is of a lesser consequence. Or maybe the other stuff doesn't enhance
performance as much, in which case the degree of coercion is less.

My point isn't that coercion must always be rejected. It depends on
the consequences and the degree - and maybe the consequences and degree
of coercion with steroids is acceptable. My point is that the argument
that steroid use is a matter of personal liberty is garbage. My point
applies equally to all the other damaging stuff.

Josh Rosenbluth



17 Mar 2006 07:04:54
Ivan Weiss
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com > wrote in message
news:1142605869.862196.242300@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> I say "coercion" applies to other sorts of damaging stuff. When an
> athlete would choose not to do damaging stuff on his own - but chooses
> to do the stuff because other athletes gain a competitive advantage by
> doing them - we have coercion.

No. If an athlete chooses to do something that he suspects is harmful, but
suspects also that it might give him a competitive advantage, it is *not*
coercion, because there is volition. It is poor judgment.

> The reason we don't use the word coercion for most other stuff is the
> degree to which they harm may not be as great - and thus the coercion
> is of a lesser consequence. Or maybe the other stuff doesn't enhance
> performance as much, in which case the degree of coercion is less.
>
> My point isn't that coercion must always be rejected. It depends on
> the consequences and the degree - and maybe the consequences and degree
> of coercion with steroids is acceptable. My point is that the argument
> that steroid use is a matter of personal liberty is garbage. My point
> applies equally to all the other damaging stuff.

You have gotten yourself into a rhetorical hole based on an entirely false
premise, to wit, that a decision to use steroids because others use them
somehow constitutes coercion. You cannot possibly demonstrate this, and you
refuse to admit that this premise is flawed. You are digging yourself ever
deeper, ever more frantically. I'm done with you now, and back to baseball,
I hope.
--
ivan




17 Mar 2006 11:03:42
Bob Roman
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

"Ivan Weiss" <ivan.weiss@centurytel.net > wrote...
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote...
>> I say "coercion" applies to other sorts of damaging stuff. When an
>> athlete would choose not to do damaging stuff on his own - but chooses
>> to do the stuff because other athletes gain a competitive advantage by
>> doing them - we have coercion.
>
> No. If an athlete chooses to do something that he suspects is harmful, but
> suspects also that it might give him a competitive advantage, it is *not*
> coercion, because there is volition. It is poor judgment.

I find it ironic that those (i.e., Weiss, Nieporent) who defend the
competitive advantage of steroids as merely an "incentive" are the same
people who have in the past equated the reserve clause with "slavery." The
point they are making now, that those players who don't want to be part of
the system are free to simply walk away from the game, held true pre-free
agency as well. But, in both cases, many of us find it unfair to advocate
that decision as the only solution available.

--
Bob Roman




17 Mar 2006 16:52:10
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Ivan Weiss <ivan.weiss@centurytel.net > trolled:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote in message
> news:1142605869.862196.242300@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I say "coercion" applies to other sorts of damaging stuff. When an
> > athlete would choose not to do damaging stuff on his own - but chooses
> > to do the stuff because other athletes gain a competitive advantage by
> > doing them - we have coercion.

The words you want are "effective coercion." Or even "constructive
coercion."

> No. If an athlete chooses to do something that he suspects is
> harmful, but suspects also that it might give him a competitive
> advantage, it is *not* coercion, because there is volition. It is
> poor judgment.

But if his circumstances demand that he make a certain amount from
playing baseball, then he is effectively coerced. For example, he
may be faced with outrageous support payments to his ex-wife(ves)
and children and steroids may be the only route to the money he
needs.

> You have gotten yourself into a rhetorical hole based on an
> entirely false premise, to wit, that a decision to use steroids
> because others use them somehow constitutes coercion. You cannot
> possibly demonstrate this, and you refuse to admit that this
> premise is flawed. You are digging yourself ever deeper, ever more
> frantically. I'm done with you now, and back to baseball, I hope.

We just demonstrated a situation where circumstances effectively
coerce a player into taking steroids to save his career.

And it wasn't hard to come up with the example. We have to wonder
why you couldn't do it yourself.

cordially, as always,

rm


17 Mar 2006 17:01:13
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Bob Roman <robertjroman@hotmail.com > trolled:

> I find it ironic that those (i.e., Weiss, Nieporent) who defend the
> competitive advantage of steroids as merely an "incentive" are the same
> people who have in the past equated the reserve clause with "slavery." The
> point they are making now, that those players who don't want to be part of
> the system are free to simply walk away from the game, held true pre-free
> agency as well. But, in both cases, many of us find it unfair to advocate
> that decision as the only solution available.

The difference is that Bonds is at the center of the steroids
scandal. These clowns want to protect Bonds's stats. They want to
be able to congratulate themselves for having seen the greatest
player of all time. Instead, they are confronted with the biggest
cheat of all time.

We also find it ironic that the same people who defend cheating with
steroids, and defend Baby Bonds, the biggest steroid cheat, also
hate Pete Rose. They hate Pete Rose because his OBP wasn't high
enough to have 4,000 hits. It's all about the stats.

cordially, as always,

rm


17 Mar 2006 09:28:36
Ivan Weiss
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

"Bob Roman" <robertjroman@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:121lnpmabsdg410@news.supernews.com...
> "Ivan Weiss" <ivan.weiss@centurytel.net> wrote...
>> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> wrote...
>>> I say "coercion" applies to other sorts of damaging stuff. When an
>>> athlete would choose not to do damaging stuff on his own - but chooses
>>> to do the stuff because other athletes gain a competitive advantage by
>>> doing them - we have coercion.
>>
>> No. If an athlete chooses to do something that he suspects is harmful,
>> but suspects also that it might give him a competitive advantage, it is
>> *not* coercion, because there is volition. It is poor judgment.
>
> I find it ironic that those (i.e., Weiss, Nieporent) who defend the
> competitive advantage of steroids as merely an "incentive" are the same
> people who have in the past equated the reserve clause with "slavery."
> The point they are making now, that those players who don't want to be
> part of the system are free to simply walk away from the game, held true
> pre-free agency as well. But, in both cases, many of us find it unfair to
> advocate that decision as the only solution available.
--
Yikes! I'm lumped with Nieporent! Well, he can speak for himself, but in my
case, that's misrepresenting my position. I don't "defend" the competitive
edge of steroids" because it has not been proven clinically in all cases
that there *is* a competitive edge from using steroids.

Besides, I'm not saying the only solution is that people can walk away from
the game if they don't want to juice up. Please don't say that's my
position, because I have never said that.
--
ivan




17 Mar 2006 17:36:37
Old Grump
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Ivan Weiss <ivan.weiss@centurytel.net > trolled:

> Yikes! I'm lumped with Nieporent! Well, he can speak for himself,
> but in my case, that's misrepresenting my position. I don't
> "defend" the competitive edge of steroids" because it has not been
> proven clinically in all cases that there *is* a competitive edge
> from using steroids.

That isn't what was meant. Your laissez faire attitude implies that
you defend the use of steroids to give athletes a competitive edge.

> Besides, I'm not saying the only solution is that people can walk
> away from the game if they don't want to juice up. Please don't
> say that's my position, because I have never said that.

Isn't it obvious to you that those who use steroids should be
expelled from baseball? Isn't it obvious to you that those who do
not wish to destroy their bodies using steroids are in an unfair
situation?


17 Mar 2006 19:27:43
James Kahn
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

In <121lnpmabsdg410@news.supernews.com > "Bob Roman" <robertjroman@hotmail.com> writes:

>I find it ironic that those (i.e., Weiss, Nieporent) who defend the
>competitive advantage of steroids as merely an "incentive" are the same
>people who have in the past equated the reserve clause with "slavery." The
>point they are making now, that those players who don't want to be part of
>the system are free to simply walk away from the game, held true pre-free
>agency as well. But, in both cases, many of us find it unfair to advocate
>that decision as the only solution available.

Not a valid analogy. In the one case there was an enforced monopoly (or
monopsony, I guess). The player who didn't want to work for a particular
team was not allowed to negotiate with a different team. In the other case
it's just competition. A player who doesn't like the terms of his
employment (i.e. is unwilling to take, say, batting practice,
to make himself competitive) is not precluded from trying to join another team.
If all of his competitors are taking batting practice, and consequently have
an edge, he won't get hired, but there's nothing wrong with that.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn


17 Mar 2006 20:20:08
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

James Kahn <kahn@nospam.panix.com > trolled:
> "Bob Roman" <robertjroman@hotmail.com> writes:

> >I find it ironic that those (i.e., Weiss, Nieporent) who defend
> >the competitive advantage of steroids as merely an "incentive"
> >are the same people who have in the past equated the reserve
> >clause with "slavery." The point they are making now, that those
> >players who don't want to be part of the system are free to
> >simply walk away from the game, held true pre-free agency as
> >well. But, in both cases, many of us find it unfair to advocate
> >that decision as the only solution available.

> Not a valid analogy. In the one case there was an enforced
> monopoly (or monopsony, I guess). The player who didn't want to
> work for a particular team was not allowed to negotiate with a
> different team.

But this is immaterial to the analogy being made. The analogy is
that those who are unsatisfied with MLB, be it because of the
lack of free agency, or the abuse of steroids, are free to walk
away. In the first case, trolls like Nieporent say this is "unfair"
but not in the second.

> In the other case it's just competition. A player who doesn't
> like the terms of his employment (i.e. is unwilling to take, say,
> batting practice, to make himself competitive) is not precluded
> from trying to join another team.

Immaterial. If taking steroids becomes a condition of employment
for one team, it will be a condition of employment for all teams,
just as the lack of free agency is a condition of employment for all
teams. Whether the player has the right to join another team is
immaterial to the point being made.

> If all of his competitors are taking batting practice, and
> consequently have an edge, he won't get hired, but there's nothing
> wrong with that.

If all of his competitors are taking batting practice hopped up on
steroids, then there is no point in joining another team.

cordially, as always,

rm


17 Mar 2006 15:52:41
Bob Roman
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

"Ivan Weiss" <ivan.weiss@centurytel.net > wrote...
> Yikes! I'm lumped with Nieporent!

It could be worse. I risk being lumped in with Cordial Boy! <shudder >

--
Bob Roman




17 Mar 2006 20:04:47
Ivan Weiss
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

"Old Grump" <og@whoami.org > wrote in message
news:FsCSf.6983$fy1.297632@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Ivan Weiss <ivan.weiss@centurytel.net> trolled:
>
>> Yikes! I'm lumped with Nieporent! Well, he can speak for himself,
>> but in my case, that's misrepresenting my position. I don't
>> "defend" the competitive edge of steroids" because it has not been
>> proven clinically in all cases that there *is* a competitive edge
>> from using steroids.
>
> That isn't what was meant. Your laissez faire attitude implies that
> you defend the use of steroids to give athletes a competitive edge.
>
>> Besides, I'm not saying the only solution is that people can walk
>> away from the game if they don't want to juice up. Please don't
>> say that's my position, because I have never said that.
>
> Isn't it obvious to you that those who use steroids should be
> expelled from baseball? Isn't it obvious to you that those who do
> not wish to destroy their bodies using steroids are in an unfair
> situation?
--
No and no. Next?
--
ivan




18 Mar 2006 15:29:12
Ronald Matthews
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

Ivan Weiss <ivan.weiss@centurytel.net > trolled:

> > Isn't it obvious to you that those who use steroids should be
> > expelled from baseball? Isn't it obvious to you that those who do
> > not wish to destroy their bodies using steroids are in an unfair
> > situation?

> No and no. Next?

So you feel that those who don't use steroids deserve to make less
money? And those who use steroids deserve to make more money?

That's not a question. That is an accurate statement of your
position. And that makes you an asshole and a steroid fan, and most
certainly not a baseball fan.

Go back to wherever you have been for the last while. You have
nothing but stupidity to offer this newsgroup.

cordially, as always,

Old Man


29 Mar 2006 15:37:07
WJR
Re: Call for Bonds suspension

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:56:12 -0800, Ivan Weiss wrote:

> I'll decide for myself if sports are rigged to the hilt, thank you. What
> athletes, or any other people, put in their bodies is not my business, and
> certainly not yours.

Athletes are performers. I pay money to see them perform. I watch their
commercials that they get paid to be in. You can spend your money anyway
you want. I want to know if those performers are chemically enhanced.
--
Drop the abc and xyz for email
www.officials-unlimited.com/forum