PDA

View Full Version : ESPN piece (Bashing Bonds, praising Jr.)



fisch11
02-23-2007, 03:40 PM
Don't forget Griffey ... the best of his generation
By Jeff Pearlman
Special to Page 2

Though the ritual is now as much a part of spring training as freshly cut grass and Bengay in the rookie's jock, I continue to find it equal parts perplexing and annoying.





AP Photo/Eric Risberg
Think Barry's teammates really enjoy hanging out with him?Barry Bonds reports to Scottsdale with the Giants, throws darts at the media, treats the team's equipment managers and publicists like dirt -- then goes all cute and cuddly on us.


Remember last year, when Bonds dressed up as Paula Abdul (only with larger breasts -- which is alarming, considering that his are real)? Or how about a few years earlier, when he jumped through hoops to declare his love for Jeff Kent, aka The Man Bonds Wants To Swallow a Grenade.


This year, the scene involved new San Francisco ace Barry Zito, who on Wednesday posed for pictures alongside Bonds as both men laughed and smiled and wore T-shirts reading "DON'T ASK ME ASK BARRY!"


Oh, boy.


It is, of course, a ploy; an attempt by His Big Headedness to temporarily con us into thinking that, gosh darnit, Barry Bonds really is one heckuva guy. And remarkably, it works. Teammates laugh at his jokes, fans clamor for autographs and ooh and aah at his gothic BP home runs, reporters -- desperate for a story after one too many "Pedro Feliz looks to be in great shape" features -- feed us the inevitable drivel (and trust me, you will see this):


By Joe Schmoe
Baseball Suckup


After years of alienation, Barry Bonds seems to be having more fun than ever. Now nearing the end of his career, he appreciates the game like never before, and has attacked spring training with a renewed vigor.


"You can just see the difference," says Biff Sniff, a Giants teammate. "Barry is relaxed and at ease. He's just one of the guys."


Approximately 2,215 miles away, in Sarasota, Fla., there is a man who deserves better. Who deserves your attention and affection.


Once, when Reds slugger Ken Griffey Jr. was a 20-something wunderkind patrolling center field for the Seattle Mariners, reporters and fans flocked from across the map to watch him in spring training. Griffey was "The Kid" -- a seemingly happy-go-lucky, backward-hat-wearing puppy dog who could hit, field and run with the gusto of a Willie Mays and the pop of a Mickey Mantle. He was the future of the game, and along with Bonds, one of its two best players.


He also happened to be a major pain in the ass.


Back then, Griffey had an attitude. He would offer snide answers to relatively intelligent questions. He would complain about a lack of respect, and -- if the mood struck -- insult anyone within striking distance. People would tiptoe past his locker, eager to avoid any sort of exchange. It was what one would expect from a pampered brat at the height of his profession, and it grated the masses.


In other words, he was Barry Bonds.





AP Photo/Al Behrman
Junior, pitching to his son Tevin, looks pretty comfortable this spring.The thing is, Griffey changed. As Bonds allegedly loaded up on the drugs and piled up the statistics, Griffey began to decline. One injury followed another -- a sprain here, a break there -- and his once-daunting speed vanished. What followed was a drop-off in Griffey's outfield defense; it was still very good, just no longer Gary-Pettis-meets-God. The bat seemed to slow down a bit, too. What can you say? Getting old bites.


With his decline, however, came something beautiful. Ken Griffey Jr. seemed to truly start appreciating the game. He took on a leadership role in the Cincinnati clubhouse, mentoring Adam Dunn as if he were a younger brother. He cracked jokes left and right; bounded out of the dugout with renewed vigor; exchanged smiles with Sean Casey. It was almost as if, with mortality, Griffey discovered fun. For the first time, he was seeing baseball through the eyes of the Scott Fletchers and Kiko Garcias and Shawn Abners and Dan Pasquas of the world; the mediocre denizens who make up 90 percent of the big leagues and struggle each day to survive. Griffey no longer took his abilities for granted. Instead, he cherished what he once was and appreciated what he had left.


Following the 1998 season, during which Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa launched the Home Run Chase that Really Wasn't, Griffey and Bonds -- near-lifelong acquaintances -- met up in Florida. Bonds confided in Griffey that he was about to start taking some "hard-core stuff" to keep up with the big boys.


Griffey nodded, but knew all along it wasn't for him.


At the time, the decision was mostly about the reality at hand: Griffey already ranked near the top of the profession. Why be greedy?


Yet with what we know now, that day should go down as a landmark. It was the day when Barry Bonds decided to cheat and break all the records, and Ken Griffey Jr. decided to be honest and fade. It was the day when Barry Bonds decided he was bigger than the game, and Ken Griffey Jr. decided the game was bigger than him. It was the day Barry Bonds committed himself to greed. It was the day Ken Griffey Jr. committed himself to happiness.


That's the rub -- isn't it? Most anyone who knows Bonds will tell you his life is one miserable sinkhole. He is an awkward, off-putting man with the social skills of a knee brace. His marriage is, at best, scarred by years of infidelity. His relationship with the two children from his first marriage is strained. His closest friends are all on his payroll, and his post-baseball future looks to be an endless line of autograph shows.


Yes, he will pass Hank Aaron's all-time home run record at some point this season. But when he does, what will the mirror tell him? That he is a cheater. A liar. A man who did wrong in breaking the mark of the classiest of legends.


As for the soon-to-be 38-year-old Griffey, the injury bugs continue to bite. This past December he broke his hand wrestling with his three children. And, with the certainty of a Hall & Oates reunion tour, other breakdowns await.


With 569 career home runs, Griffey sits comfortably in 10th place, a mere 26 away from leapfrogging Sosa into fifth. But whether he does so hardly matters. Griffey is a baseball legend -- perhaps not the best player of his generation, but undeniably the best clean one. He can sleep at night and never worry about federal agents or a grand jury or a tarnished legacy.


Of course, don't ask me.


Ask Barry.

Hoosier Red
02-23-2007, 06:22 PM
I liked the article because it says something nice, but I think the authors out right hatred of Bonds is causing him to overlook somethings from Griffey.

Griffey is still pretty prickly with the media, he still is overly sensitive. In many ways he's still spoiled.

But we should enjoy him for all the reasons the author mentions; He is doing it the right way and above all he respects the game.

jojo
02-23-2007, 07:11 PM
I liked the article because it says something nice, but I think the authors out right hatred of Bonds is causing him to overlook somethings from Griffey.

This is the kind of piece any monkey with a typewriter could've written...


He is doing it the right way

He is allegedly doing it the right way.


and above all he respects the game.

I'm having trouble seeing the evidence of this....

Topcat
02-24-2007, 06:12 AM
Wow that ESPN sure is a creative bunch thinking of this angle. That is why they are the sharpest minds in all of sports I guess;)

Jaycint
02-24-2007, 12:43 PM
He is allegedly doing it the right way.




You know something the rest of us don't?

:dunno:

jojo
02-24-2007, 04:29 PM
You know something the rest of us don't?

:dunno:

apparently......we shouldn't be acting like we know anything one way or the other when we don't possibly have a clue.

smith288
02-24-2007, 05:26 PM
I suppose you suspect Griffey because his wasteband isnt size 31 anymore? Thats from age, not drugs.

There is no indication or hint of a sliver of proof that Griffey ever took anything to improve his game.

Bonds has all the physical and mental makings of a person hopped up on body enhancements. Griffey never has. Its disappointing you have to hint that you cant accept Griffey as clean on the face.

jojo
02-24-2007, 06:05 PM
I suppose you suspect Griffey because his wasteband isnt size 31 anymore? Thats from age, not drugs.

Where did I accuse him of anything? I simply said people have no way of knowing so they should quit assuming they do....more importantly, they should quit making statements suggesting they do.... I'm actually making a much more honest argument: we have no reason to assert an affirmative one way or the other so therefore it is inappropriate to do so.


There is no indication or hint of a sliver of proof that Griffey ever took anything to improve his game.

God this has been argued ad nauseam lately but there are a lot of performance enhancing substances that wouldn't be expected to cause dramatic changes in the body. Consider this too....Ryan Franklin is a confirmed steroid user...he's hardly muscle bound.


Bonds has all the physical and mental makings of a person hopped up on body enhancements. Griffey never has. Its disappointing you have to hint that you cant accept Griffey as clean on the face.

Once again, people have no clue one way or the other so, please people, just quit pretending that you do.

Handofdeath
02-24-2007, 07:06 PM
IF Jr. took any kind of enhancement, that might explain the constant leg injuries. Very good point about Ryan Franklin. Steroids will not make you muscle bound in and of itself. Player A and Player B could be taking the same enhancements but look different because of the way they train. Lifting heavier weights, different diet, and etc. I have a feeling if the names come out who tested positive before, there would be some real surprises. Having said all of that, I don't think Jr. ever has. He was, at his peak, the best player I have ever seen. If not for injuries, Barry Bonds or not, people would be talking about him as perhaps one of the top 5 players in history. Despite the injuries he's 10th in career homers and 25th in RBI's. Amazing. But an unluckier player I have not seen. No amount of money would make me stand next to him during a thunderstorm. He still has fantastic numbers despite the injuries. Amazing when you think about it. Kind of sad, as well.

beb30
02-24-2007, 09:23 PM
Don't debate with ignorance, they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience.....:rolleyes:

jojo
02-24-2007, 09:37 PM
Don't debate with ignorance, they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience.....:rolleyes:

Arguing with a state or condition would truly be an ignorant endeaver......

:nono:

beb30
02-24-2007, 09:40 PM
Arguing with a state or condition would truly be an ignorant endeaver......

:nono:

Endeavor you mean? ;)

harangatang
02-24-2007, 10:05 PM
I'm sure Junior has taken something to bring hiim back from his injuries quicker. All players with injuries do it but the question becomes is all modern medicine like steroids? We all know that 99% of the players over 35 today wouldn't be playing if this were 1930.

jojo
02-24-2007, 10:23 PM
Endeavor you mean? ;)


no.....endeavor.

beb30
02-25-2007, 11:05 AM
:confused: wow.

Razor Shines
02-25-2007, 12:50 PM
With a high profile player like JR. I think that somebody would be talking if he does use some kind of steriod. To me the lack of any evidence that he does use steriods amounts to evidence that he doesn't. I'm going to go with "innocent until atleast accused".

I think some people just don't like Ken Griffey Jr., probably because they think his salary has held the Reds back the last 6 seasons, and look for any reason to tear him down. Probably the same people that wish he'd get hurt and retire.

jojo
02-25-2007, 03:05 PM
With a high profile player like JR. I think that somebody would be talking if he does use some kind of steriod. To me the lack of any evidence that he does use steriods amounts to evidence that he doesn't. I'm going to go with "innocent until atleast accused".

I think some people just don't like Ken Griffey Jr., probably because they think his salary has held the Reds back the last 6 seasons, and look for any reason to tear him down. Probably the same people that wish he'd get hurt and retire.

I'm a fan of Griffey...dating back to when I used to sit behind him in centerfield at the old launching pad in SeattleHe's a first ballot hall of famer.

That being said, he's no longer a centerfielder, shouldn't be hitting third and lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything other than a lack of evidence. We should quit acting like we know one way or the other.

Razor Shines
02-25-2007, 04:53 PM
I'm a fan of Griffey...dating back to when I used to sit behind him in centerfield at the old launching pad in SeattleHe's a first ballot hall of famer.

That being said, he's no longer a centerfielder, shouldn't be hitting third and lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything other than a lack of evidence. We should quit acting like we know one way or the other.

I'm sorry I've just got to believe that if he were using somebody would have come forward by now. So I'm going to assume he's clean until I have evidence otherwise. What does him not being a centerfielder and hitting third have to do with this? And again why not be proud?

jojo
02-25-2007, 05:41 PM
What does him not being a centerfielder and hitting third have to do with this?

I like him but have no illusions.

I'm a huge baseball fan. I think sports in general can provide a wonderful metaphor for life so it brings great joy to see a player overcome adversity. No sport better exemplifies this for me than baseball. At it's finest, baseball is poetry on the field that can inspire actions off of the field. That being said, proud is a pretty strong emotion to have for something that's really so far removed from personal actions and relationships. I'm not sure why some one's sense of self would be affected by what a major league baseball player did. It just always surprises me when people say things like that..... I guess I just assume people aren't really intending to convey the literal meaning of proud.... I understand happy, ecstatic, giddy, euphoric even....but proud? I don't get that one....

Jaycint
02-25-2007, 07:35 PM
apparently......we shouldn't be acting like we know anything one way or the other when we don't possibly have a clue.

I absolutely couldn't disagree with you more about Griffey. In some grand cosmic sense you are right, we don't ABSOLUTELY know. I know which way I'd be laying my money if there were a line in Vegas though.

jojo
02-25-2007, 07:48 PM
I absolutely couldn't disagree with you more about Griffey. In some grand cosmic sense you are right, we don't ABSOLUTELY know. I know which way I'd be laying my money if there were a line in Vegas though.

There is nothing grand or cosmic about the concept...it's that most basic, absolute assumption that must be adopted in this case-if you don't know, you shouldn't assume you do.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.....people rarely qualify them as such when proclaiming them on this subject though.... that's the problem...

I don't really understand why so many people are so willing to argue about something (so definitively too) when they are so absolutely unqualified regarding actual facts. With just a few notable exceptions, arguments about whether a guy is clean or not basically have opinions as premises....that's reckless....

Razor Shines
02-25-2007, 08:25 PM
There is nothing grand or cosmic about the concept...it's that most basic, absolute assumption that must be adopted in this case-if you don't know, you shouldn't assume you do.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.....people rarely qualify them as such when proclaiming them on this subject though.... that's the problem...

I don't really understand why so many people are so willing to argue about something (so definitively too) when they are so absolutely unqualified regarding actual facts. With just a few notable exceptions, arguments about whether a guy is clean or not basically have opinions as premises....that's reckless....

Well first, who are the exceptions?

And I suppose that it would also be reckless to assume that Griffey doesn't have a secret twin brother that plays for him on away games (I've seen The Prestige). Can you tell me for certain that he doesn't? I can't assume that Gapper isn't actually Wayne Krivsky.

jojo
02-25-2007, 09:19 PM
Well first, who are the exceptions?

The exceptions are the ones where there is actual proof...


And I suppose that it would also be reckless to assume that Griffey doesn't have a secret twin brother that plays for him on away games (I've seen The Prestige). Can you tell me for certain that he doesn't? I can't assume that Gapper isn't actually Wayne Krivsky.

Actually, you're making an argumentum ad ignorantiam.... lack of disproof isn't proof.... isn't that the whole point?

But I will suggest this....given birth records and other public records, it's reasonable to argue that Griffey doesn't have a twin playing for him. I have no idea if Krivsky ever dresses up as Gapper.....but Gapper is 5'7"....how tall is Krivsky?

It's actually mindboggling that you're suggesting you have even the foggiest clue about what any ballplayer does behind his closed doors......

Reds Nd2
02-25-2007, 10:41 PM
There is nothing grand or cosmic about the concept...it's that most basic, absolute assumption that must be adopted in this case-if you don't know, you shouldn't assume you do.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.....people rarely qualify them as such when proclaiming them on this subject though.... that's the problem...

I don't really understand why so many people are so willing to argue about something (so definitively too) when they are so absolutely unqualified regarding actual facts. With just a few notable exceptions, arguments about whether a guy is clean or not basically have opinions as premises....that's reckless....
:clap:

jimbo
02-25-2007, 10:55 PM
There is nothing grand or cosmic about the concept...it's that most basic, absolute assumption that must be adopted in this case-if you don't know, you shouldn't assume you do.


From everything that is known about Griffey, there is no evidence whatsoever that he is guilty of using illegal substances to enhance his performance, so his innocence is assumed. I think it's called presumption of innocence. Isn't that the way it works in this country?

That's like saying that since we don't know what you actually do behind closed doors, that we shouldn't assume that you're not a murderer.

beb30
02-25-2007, 11:30 PM
I stand by my ignorance comment.....don't argue or debate with people of ignorance. All they'll do is bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Let it go obviously many of us have heard some absurd things coming from jojo. :rolleyes:

Razor Shines
02-26-2007, 03:14 AM
[jojo;1249518]


Actually, you're making an argumentum ad ignorantiam.... lack of disproof isn't proof.... isn't that the whole point?

Are you saying that with every ballplayer you assume there is a 50/50 chance that they are using steriods, in absence of any proof either way? I don't think anyone is on here saying "I know 100% Ken Griffey Jr. does not use steriods", atleast I'm not. But I am saying that most likely he doesn't. And you can't change my mind from "most likely not" without some evidence, and I would think most people would believe "most likely not" until shown otherwise.





It's actually mindboggling that you're suggesting you have even the foggiest clue about what any ballplayer does behind his closed doors.....

I think it's mindboggling that you think something typed on a sports message board could be considered reckless.



But I will suggest this....given birth records and other public records, it's reasonable to argue that Griffey doesn't have a twin playing for him. I have no idea if Krivsky ever dresses up as Gapper.....but Gapper is 5'7"....how tall is Krivsky?
Wow. Good job tearing apart my Griffey twin brother and Gapper arguments, obviously you've put more research into them than I had. I didn't think to check his birth records, although I did say secret twin brother, or to measure Gapper.

jojo
02-26-2007, 07:07 AM
Are you saying that with every ballplayer you assume there is a 50/50 chance that they are using steriods, in absence of any proof either way?

:bang:

I'm saying I have no idea whatsoever so I don't assume anything.


I don't think anyone is on here saying "I know 100% Ken Griffey Jr. does not use steriods", atleast I'm not. But I am saying that most likely he doesn't. And you can't change my mind from "most likely not" without some evidence, and I would think most people would believe "most likely not" until shown otherwise.

Right, and I'm saying I don't have a clue one way or the other and neither do you. I don't have a problem with people assuming Griffey is clean. That's a hugely different thing than asserting with absolute certainty that he is clean and then using him as a standard to contrast with other players. We don't know the truth about any of these guys and we should quit acting like we do.


Wow. Good job tearing apart my Griffey twin brother and Gapper arguments, obviously you've put more research into them than I had. I didn't think to check his birth records, although I did say secret twin brother, or to measure Gapper.

I think the point was fairly obvious.... there is a huge difference between an argument based upon premises that can be checked and a series of neatly melded together logical fallacies masquerading as an argument...

jojo
02-26-2007, 07:19 AM
I stand by my ignorance comment.....don't argue or debate with people of ignorance. All they'll do is bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Let it go obviously many of us have heard some absurd things coming from jojo. :rolleyes:

Right and that has to be one of the most intellectually uncurious and lazy statements I've seen in a long time....not only that but it's intellectually bankrupt as an argument....circular logic, argumentum ad hominem, red herring, argumentum ad numerum.......

Jaycint
02-26-2007, 08:25 AM
From everything that is known about Griffey, there is no evidence whatsoever that he is guilty of using illegal substances to enhance his performance, so his innocence is assumed. I think it's called presumption of innocence. Isn't that the way it works in this country?

That's like saying that since we don't know what you actually do behind closed doors, that we shouldn't assume that you're not a murderer.

:clap:

jojo
02-26-2007, 08:31 AM
That's like saying that since we don't know what you actually do behind closed doors, that we shouldn't assume that you're not a murderer.

Why would you assume one way or the other? But, I would ask this: how many strangers would you randomly invite into you house? My guess, not many-it would be reckless to assume things about their character/behavior without any possible knowledge wouldn't it?

Chip R
02-26-2007, 01:53 PM
This thread reminds me of something

http://www.mwscomp.com/mpfc/argument.jpg

zombie-a-go-go
02-26-2007, 02:42 PM
This thread reminds me of something

http://www.mwscomp.com/mpfc/argument.jpg

:lol:

jimbo
02-26-2007, 05:30 PM
Why would you assume one way or the other? But, I would ask this: how many strangers would you randomly invite into you house? My guess, not many-it would be reckless to assume things about their character/behavior without any possible knowledge wouldn't it?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/jimbodude/trust.jpg

smith288
02-26-2007, 05:48 PM
There is nothing grand or cosmic about the concept...it's that most basic, absolute assumption that must be adopted in this case-if you don't know, you shouldn't assume you do.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.....people rarely qualify them as such when proclaiming them on this subject though.... that's the problem...

I don't really understand why so many people are so willing to argue about something (so definitively too) when they are so absolutely unqualified regarding actual facts. With just a few notable exceptions, arguments about whether a guy is clean or not basically have opinions as premises....that's reckless....
Because you are seemingly and for no real good reason tearing down Griffey because there is no proof he DIDNT do steroids or other enhancements. I guess you get a rise out of raising suspicions about a player generally accepted as clean.

I guess I can only ASSUME you are a pedophile since you offer me no proof you aren't into pedophilia. Thats an ugly accusation isnt it? And in baseball terms, you are doing some ugly accusations out of lack of proof which from my understanding is against the very nature of our republic. That's precisely why you get so much pushback about your argument. Dont play coy, I think you know exactly what you are doing (and don't argue with that because you can't prove it otherwise ;) )

smith288
02-26-2007, 06:00 PM
http://www.mwscomp.com/mpfc/argument.jpg

This really makes my reply seem like "the argument". Thanks. lol

registerthis
02-26-2007, 06:13 PM
Once again, people have no clue one way or the other so, please people, just quit pretending that you do.

That's an unfortunate way to view things.

Your argument seems to be that Junior could have used steroids in spite of the fact that no evidence--direct, hearsay, or otherwise--has ever linked them to him. Which is true, I suppose, if you wish to approach the situation with that mindset. It is also true that Junior could be a crack addict, or a man who beats his wife and children, even though there isn't a modicum of evidence linking him to these activities, either. You're exactly right, we don't know.

The problem with using this way of thinking, however, is that no player could ever be absolved of doping suspicions; no player could ever be considered "clean." For that matter, no record or accomplishment could ever be considered "pure." You may view your position as an honest assessment of the information and evidence at our disposal, but in reality this view casts a cloud of suspicion over the head of every single baseball player, past or present.

You say "it's that most basic, absolute assumption that must be adopted in this case-if you don't know, you shouldn't assume you do." However, yours is not the only supportable position in this matter. By "assuming" that Junior has never taken steroids, one is not eliminating the possibility that he has--only that, knowing what we know (about the lack of evidence pointing in this direction, about Junior himself), it would be unlikely. To many people who view steroid users as a destestable yet statistical minority of the baseball population, this would be acceptable.

Most people behave this way. When walking down the street, one does not view each and every person with suspicion of being an ax murderer. Indeed, ax murderers are such a statistically insignificant portion of our population, assuming that someone could or could not be one with equal probability would be irrational. That does not mean that the person you just passed is not an ax murderer--only that the odds of him being one are so remote as to lead one to assume that he is not.

So, back to Junior: is he a doper? I don't believe he is. He could be, but I find that to be an unlikely scenario. Feel free to disagree and to hold a contrary position, just don't act as if yours is the only position that is logically supportable.

jojo
02-26-2007, 08:55 PM
Because you are seemingly and for no real good reason tearing down Griffey because there is no proof he DIDNT do steroids or other enhancements. I guess you get a rise out of raising suspicions about a player generally accepted as clean.

I haven't tore him down....I just pointed out the obvious.... you, I, nor does anyone really have a clue. We shouldn't pretend we do. I'm really surprised that so many people have such a hard time distinguishing the difference.


I guess I can only ASSUME you are a pedophile since you offer me no proof you aren't into pedophilia.

I think you'd be guilty of reckless endangerment if you took your small children to the mall and offered to pay a random stranger to baby sit them for an hour or two. You don't have to assume they are a pedophile to realize that's a bad idea. You simply have to acknowledge you don't know enough about them to know one way or the other. It's actually a very reasonable stance. Asserting you do know one way or another without any facts is the unreasonable stance.


And in baseball terms, you are doing some ugly accusations out of lack of proof which from my understanding is against the very nature of our republic. That's precisely why you get so much pushback about your argument. Dont play coy, I think you know exactly what you are doing (and don't argue with that because you can't prove it otherwise ;) )

No...in baseball terms, i'm rejecting a logical fallacy.

For the record, Griffey is the greatest player I have ever seen play in person. That's the only thing I can say definitively. I suspect most of the *pushback* is from people who also have no problem suggesting they know the guys who are/were on steroids. I'm a little tired of the reckless supposition... if i have an agenda, it's lets stop stating unsupported assumption and wild speculation as fact.... If that somehow offends you, then good I guess.

jimbo
02-26-2007, 09:20 PM
I'm a little tired of the reckless supposition... if i have an agenda, it's lets stop stating unsupported assumption and wild speculation as fact.... If that somehow offends you, then good I guess.

Again, it has nothing to do with "unsupported assumption," but it does have everything with presumption of innocence, as opposed to presumption of guilt which you seem to support.

And please, enough with throwing out the logical fallacy accusations. Your logic is so full of holes that it makes you look like a complete hypocrite.

jojo
02-26-2007, 09:23 PM
The problem with using this way of thinking, however, is that no player could ever be absolved of doping suspicions; no player could ever be considered "clean

You're halfway there. This means no player is considered to be anything other than he is because people quit wildly speculating one way or the other. There isn't a cloud of suspicion because there isn't a cloud.


but in reality this view casts a cloud of suspicion over the head of every single baseball player, past or present.

No it doesn't. That's not a logical leap. You argue that it's not normal to walk down the street and assume every stranger is an axe murderer yet you also argue that by acknowledging that it's impossible to know with certainty who is clean and who isn't that you have to assume everybody is dirty.


Feel free to disagree and to hold a contrary position, just don't act as if yours is the only position that is logically supportable.

But you didn't offer a "logical" alternative. You can assume whatever you want-just don't argue it as fact. That's all I'm saying.

jojo
02-26-2007, 09:34 PM
Again, it has nothing to do with "unsupported assumption," but it does have everything with presumption of innocence, as opposed to presumption of guilt which you seem to support.

And please, enough with throwing out the logical fallacy accusations. Your logic is so full of holes that it makes you look like a complete hypocrite.

If it's a logical fallacy, it's a logical fallacy....

Where exactly is the hypocrisy of my position?

I'm actually in favor of no presumption at all.

I'm very tired of this *presumption of innocence* pabla....you know why?....because it's so unevenly applied and often so callously disregarded with repsect to this issue-by those holding it as the standard.....

Razor Shines
02-27-2007, 12:13 AM
jojo;1250177]


For the record, Griffey is the greatest player I have ever seen play in person. That's the only thing I can say definitively. I suspect most of the *pushback* is from people who also have no problem suggesting they know the guys who are/were on steroids.
Aren't you assuming you know something about people that you don't actually know? I suspect that Ken Griffey Jr. doesn't use steriods.


I'm a little tired of the reckless supposition... if i have an agenda, it's lets stop stating unsupported assumption and wild speculation as fact.... If that somehow offends you, then good I guess.

Would you stop calling it reckless. It's reckless to drive your car without insurance, it's not reckless to assume that a great player is clean when there's no evidence to say otherwise.

jojo
02-27-2007, 07:25 AM
Aren't you assuming you know something about people that you don't actually know? I suspect that Ken Griffey Jr. doesn't use steriods.

Good....you clearly indicate that you don't know for sure.


Would you stop calling it reckless. It's reckless to drive your car without insurance, it's not reckless to assume that a great player is clean when there's no evidence to say otherwise.

The whole debate about performance enhancing drugs and baseball can easily be characterized as reckless supposition....Thats what we're talking about. That's the point. That's the problem.

So, no, I won't.

RedFanAlways1966
02-27-2007, 07:58 AM
I have read the back-n-forth between jojo and others. I am not taking a stand on either side. However, just want to add that this is the problem that MLB (it's leadership and the Player's Union) has created when it allowed this crap to happen. Don't be fooled by Bud and his cronies... they knew something was up. Unfortunately the leaders were not big enough men to take on the almighty Player's Union. And they felt the increased coverage with "Corky" and "I will not talk about the past" Maris-HR-chase-thing was a good thing. Great thinking by some real selfish morons.

And this is what we have. Die-hard MLB fans who are unsure about any player from that era. jojo is not the only one and I do not blame those who think this way. I blame those who let it happen. It will take a long time before this dies out. All b/c of leaders, a union and players who did the wrong thing. And guess what? Most of those leaders are still there... that is sad.

smith288
02-27-2007, 09:12 AM
Good....you clearly indicate that you don't know for sure.



The whole debate about performance enhancing drugs and baseball can easily be characterized as reckless supposition....Thats what we're talking about. That's the point. That's the problem.

So, no, I won't.
I will then continue to believe you are a pedophile because you continue to not reveal proof otherwise. Being a pedophile is pretty wreckless.

registerthis
02-27-2007, 09:33 AM
You're halfway there. This means no player is considered to be anything other than he is because people quit wildly speculating one way or the other. There isn't a cloud of suspicion because there isn't a cloud.

And this is where we disagree. There most certainly is a cloud if you throw up your hands and say "maybe he did, maybe he didn't." That's not a presumption of innonence; and absent that presumption, you have--whether willingly or not--placed a cloud of suspicion over the head of every single ballplayer.


No it doesn't. That's not a logical leap.

By whose definition? Yours? You'll forgive me if I fail to take your personal assumptions of what is logical and what is not at face value.


You argue that it's not normal to walk down the street and assume every stranger is an axe murderer yet you also argue that by acknowledging that it's impossible to know with certainty who is clean and who isn't that you have to assume everybody is dirty.

I've argued no such thing. I HAVE said that there are instances where, absent indisputable facts, it is acceptable to make assumptions. I've not said that you have accused every ballplayer of being a steroid user--in fact, if you read my post, you'll find that I said that your position would, technically, by correct. But this is one of those instances where there is more than one "correct" way to view a situation: yours that we can never know all of the evidence and thus assume nothing, and others that a knowledge of all of the evidence is not necessary in order to form an opinion on the topic.


But you didn't offer a "logical" alternative. You can assume whatever you want-just don't argue it as fact. That's all I'm saying.

My "logical" alternative is to view Junior as innocent of doping charges until such time as the facts say otherwise. And, to you, I would advise you not to argue your opinion as the only logical position on this matter. You stating repeatedly that others' views are illogical does not inherently make them so.

beb30
02-27-2007, 09:41 AM
It seems to me he/she thinks they are too smart for their own good.

jojo
02-27-2007, 10:40 AM
And this is where we disagree. There most certainly is a cloud if you throw up your hands and say "maybe he did, maybe he didn't." That's not a presumption of innonence; and absent that presumption, you have--whether willingly or not--placed a cloud of suspicion over the head of every single ballplayer.

Then the consistent stance is to assume no player has used performance enhancing drugs unless official evidence exists proving that he has used them. Unfortunately, we both know that, in general, this isn't how the issue has been discussed/framed by the national media or fans. I actually don't know a single person who assumes this. In fact HOF voters-many who are self-proclaimed keepers of sanctity and truth-don't even follow that standard.

I'm fed up with the wild speculation.


By whose definition? Yours? You'll forgive me if I fail to take your personal assumptions of what is logical and what is not at face value.

I'm not asking you to. All I'm asking is that people reject logical fallacies when debating the use of performance enhancing drugs in baseball.


I've argued no such thing. I HAVE said that there are instances where, absent indisputable facts, it is acceptable to make assumptions. I've not said that you have accused every ballplayer of being a steroid user--in fact, if you read my post, you'll find that I said that your position would, technically, by correct.

I apologize if I've mischaracterized your argument.


But this is one of those instances where there is more than one "correct" way to view a situation: yours that we can never know all of the evidence and thus assume nothing, and others that a knowledge of all of the evidence is not necessary in order to form an opinion on the topic.

Obviously this is the primary point where we disagree.

While your view is perhaps more noble (at least if presumed innocent is strictly applied in all cases), it's not an equally *correct* view.

Just for a second entertain this... You will always be correct by suggesting you have no idea if a player used performance enhancing drugs because there aren't enough facts to form a reliable conclusion. This implies that you don't entertain EITHER possibility. On the other hand, you'll be wrong a considerable amount of time if you assume something either way absent facts.

Why is that more desirable? It's certainly not more correct. While its no harm no foul if you assume a user is clean, what about they guys who are wrongly assumed to be dirty? I'm not suggesting that you specifically have done that but there have been a whole lot of people using a similar logic that have... And that's the whole rub concerning this issue for me.

Oce and for all, I've never said people couldn't form an opinion. I've said that circular logic should be avoided... (i.e. the accomplishments of player A should be wiped from the record books/held as the benchmark of true performance. Clearly this is true because I suspect he is dirty/clean).

Feel free to have an opinion. Just don't use it as fact. People may think player A is clean or dirty. I have no opinion on the subject.


You stating repeatedly that others' views are illogical does not inherently make them so.

Except of course when their argument is a logical fallacy.

jojo
02-27-2007, 10:40 AM
It seems to me he/she thinks they are too smart for their own good.

That's not even remotely close to what I've suggested.

jojo
02-27-2007, 10:46 AM
I will then continue to believe you are a pedophile because you continue to not reveal proof otherwise. Being a pedophile is pretty wreckless.

And you'd be advancing an argumentum ad ignorantiam....

Being a pedophile is actually reprehensible. Suggesting someone is a pedophile because they disagree with you is reckless and well.....it's pretty reprehensible too...

westofyou
02-27-2007, 10:51 AM
It seems to me he/she thinks they are too smart for their own good.

It seems to me that this post does even less concerning either argument.

Chip R
02-27-2007, 10:59 AM
OK, fellas, I think you've had your share of fun. If you would like to continue arguing whatever you are arguing with each other about, take it private. Otherwise this thread is going to be closed.

registerthis
02-27-2007, 11:22 AM
Except of course when their argument is a logical fallacy.

Saying this ad infinitum does not make it so, JoJo.

I feel I've adequately addressed the other points in your argument, no need to rehash over and over again.

jojo
02-27-2007, 11:24 AM
Saying this ad infinitum does not make it so, JoJo.

I feel I've adequately addressed the other points in your argument, no need to rehash over and over again.

The definition of a logical fallacy isn't subjective. Where has the term been misapplied?

Chip R
02-27-2007, 11:27 AM
Don't say you weren't warned.