I'm not inclined to continue this discussion because, as I said, it's pretty far in the future. In 1987, I imagine no one thought pot would be legal virtually everywhere.

I imagine that is correct. But steroids and pot are not the same, so I don't see a reason to believe that legal pot will one day lead to legal steroids.

They're not. But that's really not important. Our society is becoming more "If it's not hurting anyone else, why not?" Me injecting gallons of 'roids into my testicles isn't hurting anyone else. Our thought process is evolving.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/19/2017 5:02:00 PM (view original):
They're not. But that's really not important. Our society is becoming more "If it's not hurting anyone else, why not?" Me injecting gallons of 'roids into my testicles isn't hurting anyone else. Our thought process is evolving.

Oh, I agree with that general sentiment. I just don't think anabolic steroids will be part of it.

Posted by aginor on 1/19/2017 2:22:00 PM (view original):
It will be interesting to see how the voters react to A-Rod when he becomes eligible. Caught 2 times!!! While we all know Clemons & Bonds did use, there isn't any definitive proof. All we have are allegations, heresay etc... So really they are 'alleged' PED users... Still the voters have shunned them for the most part. So how do voters react to A-Rod: Completely say No; Ignore the fact he was caught and vote for him; wait until it's his 10th year of eligibility and vote him in???

Mike you're likely correct, in 30 years...

Why do people always take this stance with Bonds? He admitted to using steroids...that's definitive proof. Just because he said "b-b-but I didn't know what I was using!!!", doesn't change the fact that he used. And it's a weak defense at that.

Yea I forgot about that lame one... It's a defense of 'stupidity' and that one doesn't fly. To me that is a denial, no different than saying to Clemons saying that Petite 'misremembered'........

Posted by aginor on 1/20/2017 12:26:00 PM (view original):
Yea I forgot about that lame one... It's a defense of 'stupidity' and that one doesn't fly. To me that is a denial, no different than saying to Clemons saying that Petite 'misremembered'........

Clemens. Pettitte.

The hate on Clemens really annoys me. Everyone said "If I was innocent, I'd take it to court!!! None of these guys are taking it to court because they know they'll be exposed!!!!"

So Clemens takes it to court and wins. And everyone says "Yeah, I don't care. I know he used PEDs."

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2017 12:43:00 PM (view original):
The hate on Clemens really annoys me. Everyone said "If I was innocent, I'd take it to court!!! None of these guys are taking it to court because they know they'll be exposed!!!!"

So Clemens takes it to court and wins. And everyone says "Yeah, I don't care. I know he used PEDs."

Don't be retarded. Clemens was found not guilty of perjury. He didn't win a case he brought, he avoided punishment when the US attorney prosecuted him.

Since we know he was charged with perjury, what was he lying about in court to bring it on?

Posted by bad_luck on 1/20/2017 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2017 12:43:00 PM (view original):
The hate on Clemens really annoys me. Everyone said "If I was innocent, I'd take it to court!!! None of these guys are taking it to court because they know they'll be exposed!!!!"

So Clemens takes it to court and wins. And everyone says "Yeah, I don't care. I know he used PEDs."

Don't be retarded. Clemens was found not guilty of perjury. He didn't win a case he brought, he avoided punishment when the US attorney prosecuted him.

It's no better/worse than Bonds getting his obstruction conviction overturned.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2017 12:55:00 PM (view original):
Since we know he was charged with perjury, what was he lying about in court to bring it on?

Failing to convict someone of perjury is not the same as that person proving they didn't use PEDs.

It's proving that they could not prove he did. Should be good enough.

OJ was found not guilty. Does that mean he was innocent?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):
It's proving that they could not prove he did. Should be good enough.

???

Remember when I said, "don't be retarded." You didn't take my advice.

The fact that a court couldn't convict him of perjury does not prove that he didn't take PEDs. It just means that the government couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied under oath. That's a really high bar to clear. I doubt any MLB player would be convicted of perjury for PED use. It's that same as Bonds' obstruction conviction being overturned.

You wouldn't argue that Bonds took anyone to court and won, would you?