On the declining quality of the ORG

[RedEye]

If this were PatriotsZone would it be ok to talk about Aaron Hernandez's murder charge/trial?

Absolutely. He has been charged with a crime, there is actual evidence against him that is in the public domain, etc. I am already on record as saying that it is fine also to discuss, for instance, Ryan Braun -- since there were a lot of reports on his failed test, the mishandled samples, whatever.

These stories are far different than posters trying to invent a far-fetched case against Yadier Molina based on statistical "evidence" and (at the very best) hearsay. It's also far different than making stuff up about Brandon Phillips' paternity and then casting judgement on what he (possible) may have done (or not done). I can't believe folks here don't recognize the difference!

[RedEye]

Actually, the question about the Aaron Hernandez trial got me thinking. If a major Reds player were accused of murder, I think it would be an unprecedented situation that the mods would have to handle -- not because it shouldn't be talked about, but just because it would create so many different new types of threads. So it is hard to know exactly what something like that would do to the board and the standards of posting. For example -- if the whole Pete Rose situation happened today, I would imagine there would be some new issues and rules to deal with around here...

[Dom Heffner]

Absolutely. He has been charged with a crime, there is actual evidence against him that is in the public domain, etc. I am already on record as saying that it is fine also to discuss, for instance, Ryan Braun -- since there were a lot of reports on his failed test, the mishandled samples, whatever.

These stories are far different than posters trying to invent a far-fetched case against Yadier Molina based on statistical "evidence" and (at the very best) hearsay. It's also far different than making stuff up about Brandon Phillips' paternity and then casting judgement on what he (possible) may have done (or not done). I can't believe folks here don't recognize the difference!

I don't think it degrades the quality of a message board to question whether someones improved performance was improved by something called "performance enhancing" drugs.

Given the day and age, we should expect it. Baseball players haven't exactly been honest and forthcoming, hence the speculation.

An improved performance could be evidence of using performance enhancing drugs. It could be lots of other things. To ignore the PEDs angle because I don't have the subpoena power of a blood test is being a bit hoity-toity.

We're not placing anyone under arrest, we're allowed to publicly speculate. Just because there is no note from a doctor doesn't mean we cannot raise questions. Raising questions isn't necesarily accusing- it's just asking. Which apparently for some of you is more than you can handle because you drone on and on and on about it.

With Brandon Phillips, the problem with the speculation is not that those are strange questions to ask- it's that it has nothing to do with baseball. So, for me, you can judge him personally, this isn't the place to do it.

PEDs are part of the game, it isn't our doing, and until the player' s union is more forthcoming, we should question away.

It degrades the qulity of a board when you don't ask questions.

[RedFanAlways1966]

PEDs are part of the game, it isn't our doing, and until the player' s union is more forthcoming, we should question away.

It degrades the quality of a board when you don't ask questions.

Wow... nicely said. And of course saying these things with a bit of class and not being a jerk in questioning a player (as s/b the case for all topics).

[RedEye]

I don't think it degrades the quality of a message board to question whether someones improved performance was improved by something called "performance enhancing" drugs.

Given the day and age, we should expect it. Baseball players haven't exactly been honest and forthcoming, hence the speculation.

An improved performance could be evidence of using performance enhancing drugs. It could be lots of other things. To ignore the PEDs angle because I don't have the subpoena power of a blood test is being a bit hoity-toity.

We're not placing anyone under arrest, we're allowed to publicly speculate. Just because there is no note from a doctor doesn't mean we cannot raise questions. Raising questions isn't necesarily accusing- it's just asking. Which apparently for some of you is more than you can handle because you drone on and on and on about it.

With Brandon Phillips, the problem with the speculation is not that those are strange questions to ask- it's that it has nothing to do with baseball. So, for me, you can judge him personally, this isn't the place to do it.

PEDs are part of the game, it isn't our doing, and until the player' s union is more forthcoming, we should question away.

It degrades the qulity of a board when you don't ask questions.

We are on the same page about BP, so thanks for your thoughts on that.

I agree w/ you that with the PED topic it is often a matter of how the question is asked. I guess where i disagree about how posters write about performance enhancing drugs is where I also have issues with how they broach other types of topics. It has to do with making unwarranted assumptions based on faulty (or often absent) evidence. In the case of PEDs though, when you make a false insinuation, you are actually besmirching someone's reputation -- as opposed to just making hasty conclusions from a criminally small sample size of OPS, for example.

This is stuff I put up with all the time on "other" baseball forums. I guess I just always thought the ORG was better than that.

[Unassisted]

With Brandon Phillips, the problem with the speculation is not that those are strange questions to ask- it's that it has nothing to do with baseball. So, for me, you can judge him personally, this isn't the place to do it.

But the Phillips situation became about baseball when it took him away from the team for games. Without that (or without some change in his on-field performance possibly attributable to that), I agree that it has no connection to baseball. Since it didn't even become a topic here until the leave was announced, it was always about baseball.

[RedEye]

But the Phillips situation became about baseball when it took him away from the team for games. Without that (or without some change in his on-field performance possibly attributable to that), I agree that it has no connection to baseball. Since it didn't even become a topic here until the leave was announced, it was always about baseball.

If you read the BP "paternity" thread, you realize that the drift of the conversation very quickly got away from baseball. There really was nothing to say of substance about how the topic related to the game, and it devolved very quickly into some pretty objectionable speculation and insinuation. This is also the case with most PED discussion -- unless there is an actual story involved with facts reported by the media at large.

[Dom Heffner]

But the Phillips situation became about baseball when it took him away from the team for games. Without that (or without some change in his on-field performance possibly attributable to that), I agree that it has no connection to baseball. Since it didn't even become a topic here until the leave was announced, it was always about baseball.

If it was due to his child, it is more important than baseball.

If he is not married to the birth mother, it's not related to baseball.

I guess I'm of the mind that if the Reds approved the leave, they are the ones hurt most, and they seem to have approved it.

So it's not related to baseball, other than our favorite 2B will miss a few days.

[Dom Heffner]

We are on the same page about BP, so thanks for your thoughts on that.

I agree w/ you that with the PED topic it is often a matter of how the question is asked. I guess where i disagree about how posters write about performance enhancing drugs is where I also have issues with how they broach other types of topics. It has to do with making unwarranted assumptions based on faulty (or often absent) evidence. In the case of PEDs though, when you make a false insinuation, you are actually besmirching someone's reputation -- as opposed to just making hasty conclusions from a criminally small sample size of OPS, for example.

This is stuff I put up with all the time on "other" baseball forums. I guess I just always thought the ORG was better than that.

My comments don't mean that you can just say oh he's Cuban, he's on PEDS (though, really, it's just an opinion)....

But I've been involved in a few where the "witch hunt" thing gets tossed around, which is sort of witch hunty within itself...

By their very nature PEDs are tough to prove- you need a blood test. if you're going to ingest something that is specifically titled "Performance Enhancing Drugs" and hide it from me, not be forthcoming, and then hide behind the rule of law that applies to police officers and not fans of baseball, yeah, I'm going to speculate. All I want.

You can't ask for my applause, my support, my following your every move, my awe at your performance and then say oh, well you don't have my blood, so don't ask questions. They've done this to themsleves.

But I will meet you in that just throwing it around to do it on every single player, or just one from certain countries, or being obnoxious about it is not the way to go.

[kaldaniels]

I like Dom's take on things over the last few posts.

[Dom Heffner]

If it was due to his child, it is more important than baseball.

If he is not married to the birth mother, it's not related to baseball.

I guess I'm of the mind that if the Reds approved the leave, they are the ones hurt most, and they seem to have approved it.

So it's not related to baseball, other than our favorite 2B will miss a few days.

I'm wrong on the bolded statement I've been told....not sure it changes anything....

[RedEye]

But I've been involved in a few where the "witch hunt" thing gets tossed around, which is sort of witch hunty within itself...

Disgree with you there. Witch hunts are cases where people are suspected of being / doing something for which there is no evidence, and in which other people invent / search for proof ("If it floats, it's a witch!") In those cases where the analogy has been used on this forum, it's not like we're speculating about individual poster's motivations for voicing their opinions on a Yadier Molina, for instance. We're just examining their spotty logic that is perfectly obvious in what they write.

By their very nature PEDs are tough to prove- you need a blood test. if you're going to ingest something that is specifically titled "Performance Enhancing Drugs" and hide it from me, not be forthcoming, and then hide behind the rule of law that applies to police officers and not fans of baseball, yeah, I'm going to speculate. All I want.

Who is the "you" of which you speak? It's a hypothetical guilty player who doesn't exist. I really disagree that this warrant applies to every MLB player. Individuals are not responsible for answering to the mistakes that other people in their profession have made. That's just a crazy slippery slope to get on if you ask me.

BTW, none of the drugs are actually called "Performance Enhancing Drugs" clinically that I know of -- but that's a semantic point.

So I guess we're at loggerheads. You can certainly continue to speculate if you want to -- but I'll continue to question your logic at every turn.

[kaldaniels]

Probably putting this question in the wrong spot...

What percent of players using PEDs don't get caught? No one knows the answer, but may we speculate? I am under the assumption they have to test you on just the right day to get busted.

[RedEye]

Probably putting this question in the wrong spot...

What percent of players using PEDs don't get caught? No one knows the answer, but may we speculate? I am under the assumption they have to test you on just the right day to get busted.

Yeah, I think that's in the wrong spot, kal. Good question though. Probably thread worthy if you can find an article or two on the topic.

[Dom Heffner]

Disgree with you there. Witch hunts are cases where people are suspected of being / doing something for which there is no evidence, and in which other people invent / search for proof ("If it floats, it's a witch!") In those cases where the analogy has been used on this forum, it's not like we're speculating about individual poster's motivations for voicing their opinions on a Yadier Molina, for instance. We're just examining their spotty logic that is perfectly obvious in what they write.

Unfortunately for your argument, an enhanced performance could be evidence of taking performance enhancing drugs. That's the reality. So we aren't speaking about something without evidence.

If you and I agree that there are major league baseball players that take PEDs...and I think you would...then those drugs are part of the game....we don't know who is doing it, but we know there are people doing it.

And since performance enhancing drugs raise someone's performance, a raise in performance could be caused by performance enhancing drugs, and it's worth exploring since you and I just agreed that we know baseball players take them.

We aren't taking apart in a witch hunt if we question elevated stats in an environment where some players producing those stats are, as we agreed, using PEDs.

There are no such things as witches, there are such things as baseball players who take drugs to improve their performance. It's a legitimate question to be raised if people wish to raise it.