Texsox Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 30, 2009 -> 02:11 AM) Steal a sign, increase your chances of contact, hit a home run. Take a PED, improve your eyesight (increase your chances of contact), hit a home run. Both are cheating, both have the same result. In your one example they have the same result. But over a season, I do not believe they carry the same advantage. Knowing a fast ball is coming, does not tell you location, speed, etc. Adding the distance that steroids gives, resulting in your average distance per hit increases, takes what were warning track fly balls and puts them over the fence. And that advantage is every time you swing, not just when you can sit on a pitch. Plus the other team can change signs, try to prevent you from taking that advantage. They have no recourse with steroids. The umps and other team can't detect the cheating. I don't understand those that claim cheating is cheating and want to treat all cheating the same. I believe some forms of cheating are worse than others. Which is why the penalties vary from getting tossed from a game, to being banned for life. You may steal a sign or throw a few spit balls, but the umps can catch you. Take steroids and you are cheating 24/7 plus the resulting benefits are much greater. Spit balls and sign stealing have gone on forever, steroids for a decade or so. Look at the record books, steroids is far more advantageous than sign stealing. Every home run record is now held by a steroid user. If all forms of cheating helped the same, that would be an amazing coincidence, don't you think? I'll accept that sign stealing is a part of the game, without much hesitation, but to place it equal to steroids either overvalues sign stealing or undervalues steroids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) I'd cream my pants if we signed Bonds. I'm all for it, and have been for a while now. You do realize how old he is, don't you? Why would you want this guy on our team at his age? I just can't understand it. I mean I want Dick Allen back on the team. But the Dick Allen of 30 years ago. Edited December 1, 2009 by greg775 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 02:11 AM) You do realize how old he is, don't you? Why would you want this guy on our team at his age? I just can't understand it. I mean I want Dick Allen back on the team. But the Dick Allen of 30 years ago. I take it you weren't a fan of the Vizquel signing.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I am neutral on the Omar signing cause most people say he'll just be a sub. Omar is old, though, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyuen Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Nov 30, 2009 -> 11:42 AM) I'd cream my pants if we signed Bonds. I'm all for it, and have been for a while now. Now that his agent says Bonds career is over, we can thankfully forget about this stupid idea to have him play for the Sox. There were way too many people on this board who thought this was a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 QUOTE (docsox24 @ Dec 10, 2009 -> 04:54 PM) Now that his agent says Bonds career is over, we can thankfully forget about this stupid idea to have him play for the Sox. There were way too many people on this board who thought this was a good idea. Thankfully. Either that or Barry was looking for some Allen Iverson type attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.