Manny tests positiveFollow

Manny, how does it feel to loose 7+ million because you tested positive for a banned substance?

I'd imagine it feels like it was absolutely, without question, worth it considering the previous $100 million he's already earned with the help of performance enhancing drugs.

This is really such a sad dog and pony show at this point. All professional athletes cheat, all of them use anything they possibly can to increase their performance. Some of them are occasionally caught.

Color me completely unsurprised and apathetic.

Yes, let's deny our denial.

If all professional athletes did not use performance enhancing drugs, the line drawn to distinct non-users to users would disappear. So instead of amazing athletes being amazing because of drugs, they would be amazing due to skill and talent. The show would go on exactly as it does now.

As for Manny, who gives a flying rats ***? I had to sit in the office and listen to a bunch of whiny ******* gasp like a bunch of fucking women gawking at the latest & greatest on gossip lane. It really made me kinda sad for them. The overkill notion of "How could this happen?!" brought me to about my vomit point.

@ Smash: Why would it be any different if all used them, or all didn't? Either way, you would see a similar scenario. The better would still be better, but only by natural talent. I'm curious from a logical point of view.

Edited, May 7th 2009 6:22pm by Ryneguy

Agree with sentence one. Doesn't sentence two take athletes beyond the limits of the human body?

Makes me wonder how many of the 04 Sox were also juicing.

:(

Is that why Nefi Perez was caught 3 times and banned the third time? Because baseball was cherry picking?

Disagree. Rodriguez's name shouldn't have come out in the first place. That list wasn't ever supposed to be released to the public. You can argue about whether that should have been a stipulation in the first place or not, but I don't think that the other players on that list should be outed just because someone leaked Rodriguez's name.

Also, there have been plenty of non-stars suspended for PED. Of course, nobody remembers their names because they're not friggin' stars. Jay Gibbons, Neifi Pérez, Guillermo Mota, Mike Cameron, Jose Guillen and others have all been suspended for PED use. They're not stars anywhere near the level of Ramirez, Rodriguez, Clemens, Bonds, etc., so their suspensions become mere footnotes.

Smash: Why would it be any different if all used them, or all didn't? Either way, you would see a similar scenario. The better would still be better, but only by natural talent. I'm curious from a logical point of view.

Because preventing the use of performance enhancing drugs is impossible and allowing it is easy.

On another note, if the league did permit enhancing drugs rather than discipline players that use them, would that be a signal to ok adolescent use of enhancement drugs?

No, idolizing people for their abilities at meaningless games is a signal to ok adolescent use of enhancement drugs.

I've fenced in serious competition when I had the flu, and was taking Sudafed. I've fenced in serious competition after having 8 shots of espresso. Both of these things would qualify as doping today. I knew people who took diuretics before competition, I can't say I wouldn't have tried it if I thought it would be the difference between going to the Olympics or not.

The incentive to dope is the STATUS and the MONEY, not what successful athletes are allowed to do. Legal, illegal, harmful, benign, it doesn't matter. So long as athletes are afforded status kids will be willing to do anything to get that status.

All I care about is that the Cubs remain above .500 for the rest of the season.

Why? Because I don't see them developing a drug that suppresses the ability to choke in the playoffs.

As the Mets are my NL team of choice, you can fuCk off now.

At least you make the playoffs before choking. Losing the wildcard bid on the last game of the season and the last game ever at Shea was a defining moment for the Mets.

Edited, May 7th 2009 10:47pm by Debalic

There'll always be some player who hasn't tested positive that everyone will latch onto as the potential savior of the stats. It wasn't so long ago that I remember people saying "man, I hate A-Rod, but I hope he breaks Bonds' record so it'll be clean again." And really, how come the players in the late 60's and 70's are apparently above this speculation and suspicion? Steroid use was rampant in the NFL; do people truly believe that they weren't widespread in MLB until Canseco? Sh*t, how do you know Hank Aaron didn't use steroids?

People try to make out the long-standing records as sacrosanct, but players have always, always done whatever they could to get an edge. Fans and players alike look back with fondness on the days where the catcher would put extra oil on his glove so the ball would have a little extra on it when he threw it back to the pitcher. Spitballs, nail files, amphetamines, and worse are found throughout the history of the game. The numbers put up in the so-called "Steroid Era" are every bit as valid as the numbers in previous eras.

Edited, May 7th 2009 11:27pm by boywithoutaspoon