[sumo] [off topic] Mitchell steroid report;
Joshua's blatant misinformation
joshua.maciel at gmail.com
Thu Dec 13 19:21:51 EST 2007
So much discussion that the first NY Times article on it was from 1998?
So much discussion that the Washington Post doesn't have anything close
I realize it's been discussed, but it's been discussed *in hindsight*, which
is an entirely different cup of tea.
Nobody is denying that steroids existed prior to that, the catch is that *the
fans didn't care* for the most part. There was not much outrage, not much of
a problem until home run records started getting shattered, and people
started whining that it must be steroids.
The steroid era is a creation of the aughts, and didn't exist in the public
consciousness until people needed to find something to blame for the
changing offense in the Majors.
That was my point.
I do owe an apology to Mr. Kahn, however. His original post on the subject
specifically said that it wasn't the topic it is today. I conveniently (or
accidentally, or subconsciously) ignored that.
I still don't think that he's very informed on what steroids actually do for
a baseball player, or athletes in general, as far as performance is
concerned, but that's a different cup of tea.
On Dec 14, 2007 8:23 AM, Charles Beauchamp <beauking1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> um...wow...Brady Anderson's 1996 homerun barrage was
> definitely the subject of a lot of discussion
> regarding steroid use as it was ongoing. I remember
> it quite clearly. I am really not sure what prism you
> are viewing things from but whatever it is, you are
> simply ignorant and should just drop it. You clearly
> are not qualified to talk about baseball events in the
> present anymore then you are regarding baseball in the
> --- Joshua Maciel <joshua.maciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Let's re-read what I said: "*To be quite clear,
> > there was NOT discussion of
> > steroid abuse in 1996 when Brady Anderson hit 50
> > home runs.*"
> > I would hope that you would engage your reading
> > comprehension enough to at
> > least parse that properly. Does discussion equate to
> > use?
> > You've entirely lost any semblance of respectability
> > or civility in this
> > discussion, and now resort to sniping at me after
> > claiming that you would
> > ignore my points.
> > Do you really find this proper behavior for someone
> > your age?
> > On Dec 14, 2007 5:34 AM, Scott M. Kahn
> > < smk1 at columbia.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > <bickering fit for an infant>
> > >
> > > Sukubidubidu
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sumo mailing list
> > > Sumo at webtrek.com
> > > http://www.webtrek.com/mailman/listinfo/sumo
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sumo mailing list
> > Sumo at webtrek.com
> > http://www.webtrek.com/mailman/listinfo/sumo
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> Sumo mailing list
> Sumo at webtrek.com
More information about the Sumo