<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>They rigged it and NY still didn't win anything, so what?</div>Exactly
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (WELCOMEtotheJUNGLE @ Apr 23 2007, 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Exactly</div>That's not really the point, if they had rigged the draft in NY's favour then it changed a lot of teams futures. The Knicks not winning anything doesn't really matter. It's like an athlete using drugs and not winning a big medal, you wouldn't say it was alright that they cheated just because they didn't win.
Yes you would. Nobody cares about half the baseball players that use roids because they suck anyway. barroid has a shot at the record, that's the only reason we care so much about that ***hole.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ Apr 23 2007, 10:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes you would. Nobody cares about half the baseball players that use roids because they suck anyway. barroid has a shot at the record, that's the only reason we care so much about that ***hole.</div>When I said athlete I meant athletics. The baseball thing is more clouded because of what is and isn't banned, although I would still want anyone braking the rules to be banned right away.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ Apr 23 2007, 05:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes you would. Nobody cares about half the baseball players that use roids because they suck anyway. barroid has a shot at the record, that's the only reason we care so much about that ***hole.</div>There was no 100% proof that he has. So since he has yet to be found 100% gilty everyone should give it a rest.Show me 100% proov then I might think diff.I still would probably injoy watching him even if there was 100% proov that he used steroids.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Serge @ Apr 25 2007, 01:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There was no 100% proof that he has. So since he has yet to be found 100% gilty everyone should give it a rest.Show me 100% proov then I might think diff.I still would probably injoy watching him even if there was 100% proov that he used steroids.</div>Just because they haven't found them doesn't mean he didn't use them. Many people have come out against him and his trainer was linked with BALCO. Not to mention one year he's hitting like 30 a year, then suddenly his body is twice as big(specially his head) and he's jacking up 74?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ Apr 25 2007, 04:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Just because they haven't found them doesn't mean he didn't use them. Many people have come out against him and his trainer was linked with BALCO. Not to mention one year he's hitting like 30 a year, then suddenly his body is twice as big(specially his head) and he's jacking up 74?</div>He only got 74 one time as far as what I remember. And he could have used him, but unless I can see that he did 100% what happened to inocent until proven guilty?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Serge @ Apr 25 2007, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>He only got 74 one time as far as what I remember. And he could have used him, but unless I can see that he did 100% what happened to inocent until proven guilty?</div>Well Big Mac and Sosa are on roids and they had less than Bonds sooo...Bonds' totals1986- 113 games, 161987- 150 games, 251988- 144 games, 241989- 159 games, 191990- 151 games, 331991- 153 games, 251992- 140 games, 341993- 159 games, 461994- 112 games, 371995- 144 games, 331996- 158 games, 421997- 159 games, 401998- 156 games, 371999- 102 games, 342000- 143 games, 492001- 153 games, 732002- 143 games, 462003- 130 games, 452004- 147 games, 452005- 14 games, 52006- 130 games, 262007- 17 games, 7He had 6 seasons where he played at least as many games as he played in 2001. In every single one of those seasons he got over 30 ABs more than 2001. More at bats and more games= more home runs right? Apparantly not.I went through and checked the home runs per at bat ratio:1986- .03871987- .04531988- .04461989- .03271990- .06351991- .04901992- .07201993- .08531994- .09461995- .06521996- .08121997- .07511998- .06701999- .09572000- .10212001- .15342002- .11412003- .11542004- .12062005- .11902006- .07082007- .1346You can see it stays under .07 till 1992, and only in 1995 did it dip back under. And starting in 1999, the number got quite high, .095 and didn't dip back under until 2006, which was a season after injuries. I suppose you can draw your own conclusionsAnd lol at serge and I both thinking he had 74. MLB.com says he had 73.
Well I just don't like saying someone did something unless I can see 100% proof that's just how I am.But Yeah I don't follow baseball much did not like it REALLY until like 3 years ago.So I can't say much about Barry of before he got all big.
