Bonds asterisk

[jesusarenque]

The guys on ESPN (who are generally idiots anyway) are debating whether Bonds's records should have an asterisk. I think this is pretty ridiculous. The argument basically is that players in previous generations didn't use steroids, so they didn't have the advantage Bonds does.

But why use this argument now? They also didn't have weight training, personal nutritionists, or video to break down opponents. These things help more than steroids. Let's put an asterisk for those things. While we are at it, Ruth and Walter Johnson and all the old-timers get asterisks too because they didn't have to play against blacks or hispanics.

Let's just put an asterisk next to every name in the record book.

[jakethebake]

The pitchers didn't have steriods either so they offset. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Popinjay]

Using steroids in baseball is cheating right?

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Using steroids in baseball is cheating right?

[/ QUOTE ]

not according to people who don't think rationally

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

Personally, I say there shouldnt' be an asterisk - his name should not be in the record books or on any Major League lineup card at all ever again*. This is on the same scale as Pete Rose in my opinion.

* if it is proven that he has used steroids

[jesusarenque]

There wasn't any penalty for using steroids until last year. Using a spitball is cheating too, but pitchers used to do it all the time. Rollie Fingers is in the Hall of Fame because of it. Does he (and all old-time pitchers) get an asterisk?

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

Proven offenses deserve penalty. In my opinion, a ban from baseball is appropriate in an offense of this magnitude, should it be proven that Bonds is using or has used steroids.

[NoChance]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I say there shouldnt' be an asterisk - his name should not be in the record books or on any Major League lineup card at all ever again*. This is on the same scale as Pete Rose in my opinion.

* if it is proven that he has used steroids

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to go this route, then you may as well erase the entire history of MLB and start over. It has been estimated by some that 40-50% of the players have used steroids. That means NONE of the statistics can be valid because who knows if maybe half the pitchers you faced we using??? Or maybe half the batters some of the pitchers were facing were using??? Or maybe some people made some incredible defensive plays because they were using and took base hits against some people more often.

May as well erase history.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

Key word: estimates

There is no proof in estimates. Conjecture does not proof make. Frankly, if it does end up to be proven that it's this rampant, I will never watch Major League Baseball again and that's not just coming from some semi-fan. I love baseball.

[jesusarenque]

Exactly. Baseball players in all eras have had some sort of advantage over players of different eras. Right now it happens to be steroids. Fifty years from now it will be something else.

[jakethebake]

Let's not forget about the use of corked bats.

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Baseball players in all eras have had some sort of advantage over players of different eras. Right now it happens to be steroids. Fifty years from now it will be something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your opinion could a player cheating on the field be so egregious that you would consider his achievements marred? It seems as if you’re willing to forgive anything using your logic.

I personally would rather see the players use their natural talents and abilities. Call me crazy.

[jesusarenque]

Should players be barred from lifting weights and taking nutritional supplements? That would be more natural.

[NoChance]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Baseball players in all eras have had some sort of advantage over players of different eras. Right now it happens to be steroids. Fifty years from now it will be something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep and that is the dilemma MLB faces. It is not an easy decision to make because as you say, people have always looked for advantages. The corked bat is a good example. Cheating is cheating.

Also, whether you believe him or not, should unknowingly taking a steroid be punishable also? (Keep in mind I am not saying Bonds isn't lying. I just mean to ask the question in general and it may apply to many.)

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally would rather see the players use their natural talents and abilities. Call me crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where do you draw the line? Weight-lifting enhances ability. Protein powder? Creatine? Vitamin pills? Androstendione? I'm not trying to argue for steroids. I'm seriously trying to figure this one out.

[J.R.]

There wasn't any penalty for using steroids until last year.

this is wrong

[jesusarenque]

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that corking a bat doesn't help much, if at all. The exact same thing can be accomplished by hollowing out the top of the bat, and that is entirely legal. I also don't believe steroids give players as much of an advantage as many people seem to think. Steroids can make players bigger and stronger, but also more susceptible to injuries. Look at Giambi and Caminiti. They had a few big years before breaking down. Is this really helping them?

[Topflight]

I think steroids should be legal. Anyone can use them if they want. I'd really like to see a bunch of superhuman athletes competing with each other, sports might get more interesting.

This might also lead to the development of even more powerful types of steroids or something new. I would love it if guys got to be the size of horses and smashed baseballs for miles.

haha, that would be awesome. Way better than tiny guys struggling to hit the ball past first base.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at Giambi and Caminiti. They had a few big years before breaking down. Is this really helping them?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the fact that Giambi has $80M+ left due to him thanks largely to a couple good years at a very opportune time tells me yes it has helped him tremendously.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
has been estimated by some that 40-50% of the players have used steroids.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure about your figures, but I have seen this estimate amongst nonpitchers, but not the overall population of baseball. The reports I have seen indicate @ 10% were caught during he initial steroid "screening" test of baseball players in 2003 which triggered baseball's current policy of testing of steroids. Of course not all steroids were tested for and there are means by which one could beat the screening test, but 40-50% of all players seems exceptionally high to me.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I also don't believe steroids give players as much of an advantage as many people seem to think. Steroids can make players bigger and stronger, but also more susceptible to injuries. Look at Giambi and Caminiti. They had a few big years before breaking down. Is this really helping them?

[/ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree. I know strength helps sone. But they also don't help with concentration or the mental aspects of the game. If anything 'roid rage would have the opposite effect. And they sure don't help a better put the bat on the ball, or feel the strike zone.

[Topflight]

I'd also like to have the corked bat come back along with spitballs.

Why are we so conservative. I don't even see how that is cheating.

[jesusarenque]

No it isn't. MLB imposed no penalty before the new CBA.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

strength = bat speed
bat speed = more time
more time = more (and better) hits

Add to that increased speed and throwing strength and you've got quite an advantage. Yes, you must have some sort of natural talent to put these advantages to work, but they certainly are advantages.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at Giambi and Caminiti. They had a few big years before breaking down. Is this really helping them?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the fact that Giambi has $80M+ left due to him thanks largely to a couple good years at a very opportune time tells me yes it has helped him tremendously.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are talking about records/asterisks. How much money a guy makes is irrelevant.

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
Weight-lifting enhances ability. Protein powder? Creatine? Vitamin pills? Androstendione?

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't see anything wrong w/ weight-lifting. That is all natural. I am too ignorant on medications and physiology to comment on the effects of the other substances so I won’t try and fake it.

[J.R.]

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that corking a bat doesn't help much, if at all.

With respect to power, yes. But with repect to contact/hitting for average, there is a very good argument I haven't yet seen debunked that having a bat with the same surface area, yet of a lower weight, allows a hitter to sit on a pitch (wait before starting to swing) and yet still be able to get around on it and make contact, therby allowing the hitter to not be as fooled by an offspead pitch or to chase a pitch out of the zone as well as enabling a hitter to more successfully make contact with a pitch that has "late movement".

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't see anything wrong w/ weight-lifting. That is all natural. I am too ignorant on medications and physiology to comment on the effects of the other substances so I won’t try and fake it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see anything natural about it. You weren't boprn with that strength. It didn't come from doing anything natural. You set out lifting for the specific purpose of increasing your strength. It's just another artificial way to increase ability.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
strength = bat speed
bat speed = more time
more time = more (and better) hits

[/ QUOTE ]
I said it's an advantage. I just think the advantage is overhyped.

[BradleyT]

Steve Zaban(sp?) on the radio this morning said they should put a little syringe instead of an asterisk lol.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't see anything wrong w/ weight-lifting. That is all natural. I am too ignorant on medications and physiology to comment on the effects of the other substances so I won’t try and fake it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see anything natural about it. You weren't boprn with that strength. It didn't come from doing anything natural. You set out lifting for the specific purpose of increasing your strength. It's just another artificial way to increase ability.

[/ QUOTE ]
Weight lifting is indeed natural. If you don't like the image of a man on a bench in a gym, imagine him throwing hay bales or something. The process is completely natural to build up strength through repeated use of your muscles.

[Topflight]

I don't see why it's an advantage if everyone can do it. Why are people improving golf clubs to hit balls farther, but baseball bats have to stay heavy wooden clubs. And why can't athletes get the most physical power by any means possible. If they want to sacrifice their health for money why should we stop them.

I'm serious, I'm not very sporty so I don't understand.

[J.R.]

MLB imposed no penalty before the new CBA.

No automatic penalty and no testing for steroids under piror cbas. But the simple fact of the matter is its illegal to possess steroids without a prescription, in much the same manner as if one were to posses oxycotin without a prescription, or to possess cocaine at all. The prior CBAs all have language permitting MLB to punish players for possessing, using, etc illegal drugs- ala Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden, etc. Baseball just didn't test for steroids at that time, but had an MLB player been arrested with steroids prior to the current CBA, baseball could have punished that player.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Weight lifting is indeed natural. If you don't like the image of a man on a bench in a gym, imagine him throwing hay bales or something. The process is completely natural to build up strength through repeated use of your muscles.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're missing my point. Would a baseball player just naturally go say, "I'm going to lift heavy things becaue it's fun."? No. Not unless he is doing it for the specific purpose of building strength. Anything done for the specific purpose of building strength is artificial. The guy lifting hay bales is doing so because he needs to put the hay somewhere, not to gain strength. If he is then it's unnatural. I'm not saying weight lifting should be banned, and steroids not. These are two extremes. I'm trying to figure out where in the middle the line is drawn.

[jesusarenque]

http://www.wood-tang.com/2003/06/the-physics-of-corking-a-bat/

[J.R.]

The article only debunks the "more home runs from corking" myth, I didn't see anything about the "increased ability to make contact" line of thought/theory.

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm serious, I'm not very sporty so I don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

One important piece is that it sacrifices the integrity of the record books. Comparing one player to a player thirty years ago, or thirty years from now would be meaningless. Baseball is a team sport but it individual stats are also very important. If you're American, remember the hype and publicity that was surrounding McGwuire and Bonds when they were was chasing the HR records? Now pretend everyone openingly did steroids. The public would shrug and say "so what" to stats since they are pretty obsolete.

[J.R.]

If they want to sacrifice their health for money why should we stop them.

perhaps we shouldn't or have little incentive to, but the sport itself has a vested interest in self-preservation and the health of its participants, as well as marketing/public perception/potential legal consequences (think anti-trust exemption most notably).

[jesusarenque]

The point is that you cork a bat to make it lighter. There are a million legal ways to make a bat lighter. For some reason corking is illegal, even though it doesn't help any more than the legal methods. A guy who corks has no advantage, powerwise or contactwise, over a guy who simply chokes up or hollows out the top of the bat.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Weight lifting is indeed natural. If you don't like the image of a man on a bench in a gym, imagine him throwing hay bales or something. The process is completely natural to build up strength through repeated use of your muscles.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're missing my point. Would a baseball player just naturally go say, "I'm going to lift heavy things becaue it's fun."? No. Not unless he is doing it for the specific purpose of building strength. Anything done for the specific purpose of building strength is artificial. The guy lifting hay bales is doing so because he needs to put the hay somewhere, not to gain strength. If he is then it's unnatural. I'm not saying weight lifting should be banned, and steroids not. These are two extremes. I'm trying to figure out where in the middle the line is drawn.

[/ QUOTE ]
The line is drawn when you're doing things to your body that weren't possible 1000 years ago.

[B00T]

It was embaressing to baseball to have players like this...

I remember the first time I caught a glimpse of Giambi this season. I swear on my bankroll I didnt recognize him. I thought it was Karim Garcia and realize he was a Met, and just sat shocked at how much Giambi deflated this year.

He seriously looked like a different person. How could you not see he was on steriods. The friggin idiot at the beginning of the season said "I stopped eating In + Out burgers this year"...

He definitely had that tumor in his head longer than the doctors found it. Who in the hell would believe that. He looked like he was on his death bed.

Just let everyone take steroids and play for 3 years and they have the rest of their lives and careers ruined due to physical problems. Nobody would ever make the hall of fame and if you ever hit 200 homers you would have a long career. Baseball players are about as good as racehorses. Three years on hormones and whatever else, and then they become a vegetable.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm serious, I'm not very sporty so I don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

One important piece is that it sacrifices the integrity of the record books. Comparing one player to a player thirty years ago, or thirty years from now would be meaningless. Baseball is a team sport but it individual stats are also very important. If you're American, remember the hype and publicity that was surrounding McGwuire and Bonds when they were was chasing the HR records? Now pretend everyone openingly did steroids. The public would shrug and say "so what" to stats since they are pretty obsolete.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing records from different eras was difficult long before steroids. Babe Ruth never played against a black player in a MLB game. That is a bigger advantage than steroids.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
The line is drawn when you're doing things to your body that weren't possible 1000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now I kinda like that answer. So you just take technology out of the equation entirely. But what about exercise? Knowledge of physiology? How's that different from knowledge of biochemistry?

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The line is drawn when you're doing things to your body that weren't possible 1000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now I kinda like that answer. So you just take technology out of the equation entirely. But what about exercise? Knowledge of physiology? How's that different from knowledge of biochemistry?

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't need a needle.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't need a needle.

[/ QUOTE ]
No but there are a lot of exercises you do need specialized equipment for. Do we ban them? The obvious answer is no. Again, I'm not saying steroids should be legal, but under your theory neither are vitamin pills.

[J.R.]

You're being silly. You choke up, you can't cover the outside of the plate as effectively as I can swinging a longer bat of the same relative weight. You hollow out the top of the bat, and 1) the length of the bat is effectively reduced and 2), I can also hollow out the end and cork it, allowing me to hold a lighter bat than a non-corked bat.

Sure its priamrily a myth based "home run" phobia that supports the ban on corking, but there is also concern with respect to technological inovations that soemthing more effective than cork could be introduced to make a bat with a "wooden shell" respond more more like an aluminum bat. But there are non home run advantages to be gained from corking that I haven't seen debunked (other than the bat is less solid so the bat may shatter/produce more bloops than if not corked).

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
It was embaressing to baseball to have players like this...

More embarrassing that Ty Cobb? Or the players who didn't want Jackie Robinson in the league? Or the Black Sox? I don't think so.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was embaressing to baseball to have players like this...

More embarrassing that Ty Cobb? Or the players who didn't want Jackie Robinson in the league? Or the Black Sox? I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because people have done wrong things before does not give you a warrant to continue to do other wrong things.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Everything I have read thus far is the typical its cheating/no its not arguments. Seriously consider this: Where do you draw the line(with performance enhancing drugs/supplements)? Protein powder? Creatine? Vitamin pills? Androstendione? Where do we draw the line? From what I have read, some steroids cane be as safe as all these other supplements. If steroids get banned, why not this stuff? Or if this stuff is legal why not steroids? Also, why should known steroid users have an asterix while those that used these not? This seems like a double standard to me.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm serious, I'm not very sporty so I don't understand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Another idea, should baseball allow its players to use/not test for cocaine and other illegal drugs?

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was embaressing to baseball to have players like this...

More embarrassing that Ty Cobb? Or the players who didn't want Jackie Robinson in the league? Or the Black Sox? I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because people have done wrong things before does not give you a warrant to continue to do other wrong things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. But the poster implied that baseball should NOW be embarrassed by THESE players who have somehow tainted the game more than previous players. They haven't

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

They sure have embarrassed MLB quite badly. It's a good thing all this wasn't happening (the controversy, I'm not commenting on whether or not players were using steroids) right after the 1994 strike. Baseball would have never recovered.

[jesusarenque]

Yes, baseball would have recovered. The year after the strike was one of the best years attendancewise in the history of MLB. MLB was never in trouble.

[B00T]

[ QUOTE ]
I know. But the poster implied that baseball should NOW be embarrassed by THESE players who have somehow tainted the game more than previous players. They haven't

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I am not comparing it to the all time low moments. It is in fact a present problem, and to see a guy look unrecognizable to what he looked like 5 months previously is sad.

The poor guy might die. Do I feel sorry for him? Not really. That was his choice. I hate the Yankees, does that have anything to do with it? I dont know. Is his health problems an effect of steroids? Does anyone? I would imagine it had some sort of role. These substances arent available at Wal-Mart for a reason...

[ThaSaltCracka]

you made a lot of sense until this:"Yes, baseball would have recovered. The year after the strike was one of the best years attendancewise in the history of MLB. MLB was never in trouble." This is flat out wrong. The 1995 season had terrible attendance and ratings. It has taken MLB almost 10 years to recover from the 1994 strike.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, if it does end up to be proven that it's this rampant, I will never watch Major League Baseball again...

[/ QUOTE ]

Liar.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
you made a lot of sense until this:"Yes, baseball would have recovered. The year after the strike was one of the best years attendancewise in the history of MLB. MLB was never in trouble." This is flat out wrong. The 1995 season had terrible attendance and ratings. It has taken MLB almost 10 years to recover from the 1994 strike.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Baseball attendance did drop after the strike. But before the strike, attendance was at an ALL TIME HIGH. After the strike attendance was still higher than it was in the so-called Golden Age of the 50s and 60s.

[ThaSaltCracka]

They had way more teams in 1994 then they did in the 50's and 60's.

[Boris]

That 10% of players tested positive for steroids, after being given a one year advance notice of the exact date the test was going to take place, seems exceptionally high. This 10% figure would seem to support the rumor that half the players were on the juice.

[jesusarenque]

True. And they couldn't even fill those ballparks. The demand is greater now (and in 1994) than it was in the 50s.

[J.R.]

True. But there wasn't much immediate incentive for a player to try to avoid the test, as the testing was "random" and there were no penalties for testing positive (other than the implementation of a 5 strikes and your out testing policy if >5% got caught.) I'm not trying to defend baseball players, just pointing out that I had seen stuff indicating about half of nonpitchers were on steroids, not half of all players, and was wondering if he has seen something I hadn't.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I don't know about that. I do think that baseball has come a long way since 94, not only in attendance, but also in TV ratings, which is good.

[jesusarenque]

Agreed. My only point is that baseball was never in as much trouble after 1994 as the media tried to make it sound.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. My only point is that baseball was never in as much trouble after 1994 as the media tried to make it sound.

[/ QUOTE ]I think the fans in Montreal think otherwise.

[jesusarenque]

Check the numbers. Attendance was great in Montreal the year after the strike. The strike didn't kill baseball in Montreal, MLB (and Bud Selig) did.

[ThaSaltCracka]

No, the strike year killed the franchise formerly known as the Montreal Expos. I assume you know your baseball history, so you must know that Montreal had the best team in baseball in 1994. They had a big lead in the NL east and they looked like the team to beat. The strike ended that, as next year most of their great players jumped ship.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the strike year killed the franchise formerly known as the Montreal Expos. I assume you know your baseball history, so you must know that Montreal had the best team in baseball in 1994. They had a big lead in the NL east and they looked like the team to beat. The strike ended that, as next year most of their great players jumped ship.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they had a great team. Yes, many players left. But the fact is that the year after the strike Montreal fans still flocked to the Big O. The strike didn't kill that franchise. MLB did. The fans stopped coming when MLB stated saying baseball would never survive there and that the team needed to be moved. Those fans gave up on MLB, they did not give up on the Expos or baseball in general.

[jesusarenque]

1994 Expos attendance-1,276,250 (11th out of 14)

1995 Expos attendance-1,309,618 (10th out of 14)

Doesn't look like the strike had too much of an effect to me.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
1994 Expos attendance-1,276,250 (11th out of 14)

1995 Expos attendance-1,309,618 (10th out of 14)

Doesn't look like the strike had too much of an effect to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Except that the 1994 season wasn't nearly a full season and therefore would've been much higher. What are the numbers for 1996 and 1997?

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1994 Expos attendance-1,276,250 (11th out of 14)

1995 Expos attendance-1,309,618 (10th out of 14)

Doesn't look like the strike had too much of an effect to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Except that the 1994 season wasn't nearly a full season and therefore would've been much higher. What are the numbers for 1996 and 1997?

[/ QUOTE ]

The 1995 season was not a full season either. They started late and only played 144 games. I also included attendance relative to the rest of the league.

1996-1,616,709 (11th out of 14)
1,497,609 (13th out of 14)

1995, 1996, 1997 (the post-strike years) all saw more people watch the Expos than in 1994.

[ThaSaltCracka]

yeah, 1994 was for only 114 games.

Montreal was continually in the bottom 5 for attendance in the NL. 1994 could have been different if they had kept on winning. If that team had reached the playoffs, there is literally no telling what could have happened to that franchise.

Case in point, the M's, which use to be the laughing stock of the AL. After 1995(their first year ever in the playoffs) their attendence skyrocketed. Seattle has never been lower than 5th in AL attendence since 1995.

FYI, Montreal never made the playoffs in during their 35 year run.

[jesusarenque]

FYI, Montreal never made the playoffs in during their 35 year run.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, Montreal made the playoffs in 1981. They lost in the NLCS to the Dodgers 3-2.

[ThaSaltCracka]

oh my bad, but yet another strike shortened season. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[jesusarenque]

The strike giveth, the strike taketh away.

[ThaSaltCracka]

what a weird season anyway. How did they come up with the whole first half and the second half?

To be honest with you, I had never noticed that they had made the playoffs before, I even looked once before /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[jesusarenque]

I remembered because I am a Dodger fan. They went on to win the World Series that year.

[andyfox]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

thought you guys might like this (http://espn.go.com/mlb/gallery/19379070.html). His "growth" looks pretty normal when you take every year into account.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
thought you guys might like this (http://espn.go.com/mlb/gallery/19379070.html). His "growth" looks pretty normal when you take every year into account.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you click on 1998, then 2000 it looks like a pretty dramatic change.

[ThaSaltCracka]

its hard to get a good look at his face and overall body in the 2000 photo. But I sort of agree, but it isn't that dramatic.

[Lazymeatball]

look at 98 vs 99. Also interesting, he had the exact same stats for 99 and 00. weird

[jesusarenque]

Why is everyone up in arms about MLB and not the NFL? Just by looking at the players, I'd say it is likely that the NFL has more juicers than MLB. Conde even named Romanowski on ABC tonight.