O/T - Why is Barry Larkin exempt from Roid talk?

[whatupyos]

Re: O/T - Why is Barry Larkin exempt from Roid talk?

Ok I think some of you guys are getting out of hand with making Pujols out to be a "Baheemath"

Getting a little ridiculous!!

Ask Rob Steimetz from AuthenticGamers he has a picture on his website standing right next to Pujols and by the looks of it Rob is pretty close in size to Pujols and Rob doesn't come across as a "Baheemath"

And because some pitcher doesn't see Pujols working out doesn't mean much.

For the roids to work you have to work out. It is part of the regimin.

You don't just take roids and grow mass muscle watching tv. Doesn't work that way.

As far as Larkin, again I don't see a red flag go up just because a player had one above average season. Again if he had a monster season yes I would be concerned, but above average no way.

I know how roids work. I've worked in 5 different gyms in my life. I know you just don't take them and magically grow. But it does help in the sense that a little bit of working out and you'll get big quick. Which was the point I believe the pitcher was trying to make. I've busted my butt my whole life trying to add muscle and I can't do it that well. I guess its a matter of believe who you want to believe. The pitcher is real credible. I'll trust him, who played with him and saw him in the clubhouse, over a photo with Rob. Pictures can be deceiving. Look at Brady Anderson. Not a huge guy, but he needed band aid's for all his cuts.

Aaron

[cardinalbaseballfan]

Re: O/T - Why is Barry Larkin exempt from Roid talk?

I normally enjoy lurking, but I couldn't believe given the topic and named players that this hasn't been brought up--here's a link to the SI cover story about Pujols from last week's issue. Regardless of your view, it's a well worth the read.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1153053/index.htm

Back to lurking...

[cjclong]

Re: O/T - Why is Barry Larkin exempt from Roid talk?

Do we really want to throw all the players from the 1990's up till now under the bus because we know know a certain number of them used steroids and other PED's. We know a certain number of people in the population murder people or abuse children. So we could all speculate that this player or that player is a secret murderer. Their are two ways you can go, innocent until proven guilty or the system some other countries use that you must prove you are innocent. I guess we can have a post every week about a different player and speculate based on rumor or gossip whether they use PED.'s

[whatupyos]

Re: O/T - Why is Barry Larkin exempt from Roid talk?

Do we really want to throw all the players from the 1990's up till now under the bus because we know know a certain number of them used steroids and other PED's. We know a certain number of people in the population murder people or abuse children. So we could all speculate that this player or that player is a secret murderer. Their are two ways you can go, innocent until proven guilty or the system some other countries use that you must prove you are innocent. I guess we can have a post every week about a different player and speculate based on rumor or gossip whether they use PED.'s

Fair enough. You've got a valid point. I just wanted to do a rebuttal against Pujouls being clean when I have my doubts. That's my bad for even posting on here.

Aaron

[David]

Re: O/T - Why is Barry Larkin exempt from Roid talk?

The player's union, at behest of the players' they represented, prevented any and all testing and penalties for PEDs. They suppressed any and all information related to player use. This has proven to be a double edge sword for the union and their players. This lack of testing and evidence helps protect the users, but it also makes it impossible for non-users to prove they didn't use. I hate the 'under the bus' cliche, but the union's system threw the non-users under the bus to protect the users-- and the non-users themselves voted for this system.

Do I think this mess is unfair to the players? No I do not, because this is the system the players, including the non-users, insisted upon having. If you suppress information, don't bitch and moan ten years later because you can't prove your case because the information was supressed.

[David]

Re: O/T - Why is Barry Larkin exempt from Roid talk?

Say someone destroys (or suppresses) information, but afterwords realizes he needs that same information to prove his case. Far from being unfair, many would call the end result sweet justice. Or karma. Or ironic.

Why should I feel sorry for players who can't prove their innocence because there was no drug testing, when they voted against drug testing. Sometimes karma has a way of coming back and biting you in the ass.

[cjclong]

Re: O/T - Why is Barry Larkin exempt from Roid talk?

You say "they" voted against drug testing. Who is "they." Do you know which players were for it and which against it? If you do say so. Do you say its "karma" for a player who was for drug testing to be lumped in with those against. Sports opinion isn't a court of law and if it makes you happy and feel good to lump all players together and accuse players who have not used steroids with using them go right ahead.

[David]

Re: O/T - Why is Barry Larkin exempt from Roid talk?

I give players who pressed the union for testing and penalties due credit. Rick Helling is one who in union meetings for stood up against PEDs yearly and from early on. I do not lump Helling, for one, with players who voted down testing and drug penalties. Sadly, Helling's ideas were dismissed by the union executives and not supported by the vast majority of players. Duly note that union agreements can only be passed by majority vote of the players. Donald Fehr can't pass them on his own.

So, no, I don't think all the players voted for agreements that prevented drug penalties, bans and testing. But I know a majority did. And I know a player like Helling was rare minority in speaking against PEDs to his union.