Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by BigRon:
Originally posted by TheNaitch:
Originally posted by Negrodamus:
Originally posted by BigRon:
I Don't Care. It wasn't against the rules so, I don't care.

Baseball didn't make steroids against the rules until like 03.
I know I will take a lot of heat for this stance But. I don't care if McGwire or Bonds or Sosa or anyone else took Steriods prior to them being a banned substance by MLB. If the Owners and Upper Management were dumb enough to not ban a substance that was against the law when they knew about it in the 70's, the players ...can't be held responsible for using.
Taking steroids doesn't make you a consistent hitter. The strength to hit the ball over the fence as many times as they did, yes. But the talent to be able to hit a 95+ mile an hour pitch as often as they did is not thanks to steroids.
Wouldn't 'roids give you a faster swing? Therefore giving you a bit more time to decipher a pitch? How else would you explain the crazy rise and drop-off in BA during Mark, Sammy and Bonds' "peak" years?
i don't know much about sammy and mark. but bonds wasn't some huge rise. he was always right around .300. it was only the 2 years where he had some huge rise. but if that is criteria, joe mauer must be juicing his BA raised 40 points.
i decided to look it up. 1st mcgwire can't really be judged because he used most of his career. and sosa didn't have a huge rise in BA. his stats fit a natural curve.
i think bonds is more an example of what roids can do for an already great player.