Yngwie Einstein wrote:All these guys that juiced got paid. In most cases, they were able to command higher salaries because of their distorted production.
But working out, creating a hulking frame for yourself against players that look like sticks, that's fairplay, I'm assuming. Probably because you have to work for giant muscles. But roiders have to work at it too, so where's the demarcation?
Yngwie Einstein wrote:You and I all paid for this through higher ticket and concession prices.
That's a bit indirect, though, since ticket prices don't necessarily reflect the amount paid in overhead. A stadium/team owner can charge whatever he likes, regardless how the team is paid.
Yngwie Einstein wrote:They fattened their wallets on TV contracts and stadium deals paid for by taxpayer money.
Why are we paying for stadiums?
Yngwie Einstein wrote:People like Vockins celebrate that and our resident socialist is cool with that. Now that is some loopy logic.
The loopiness is not giving up this idea of athletes being examples for the rest of us. We're presumably all adults here, and can see how idiotic that idea is.
Because, what is the opposite side to this? Taking roids hurts an honest game, damages the sanctity of an already-dirty game?
Yngwie Einstein wrote:No, the Hall should be reserved for something more special than that. Otherwise if you only reward production, Aramis Ramirez suddenly looks like a top talent. Houlihan's analogy is well put.
Where's the morals clause in being included in the hall of fame? "Ruth, not only having an era of 2.28 and
batting .342, was also a sweetheart to kids, and donated to the local orphanage."
Also, the existence of the hall of fame is about awesome as the existence of the rock and roll hall of fame. This argument comes down to, "that band sucks because they never won a grammy."