Red Sox tainted?

Gaelic Storm · #1 07-31-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gander

What do you guys think?
ESPN was coming down really hard on the Red Sox teams that won the WS in 2004 & 2007. Saying an asterisk should be applied.
Then Mike and Mike came on and said if thats the case there will be lots of asterisks. So where do you draw the line?

Clemens was a huge part in the Yankees 99 & 00 WS wins. Pettite pitched for them in all 4 WS wins. The A's won in 89 with Giambi & Canseco, the big bang brothers. What about the rest of the names not yet come out? Can they be players who played vital roles in team's championship runs?

Should it only be the Red Sox and nobody else? Isnt that kind of unfair and hypocritical?

-A very disgusted baseball fan

So far Papi has received the soft touch compared to Arod. I am willing to wager that what ever he says in his press conference everyone will believe unlike Arod.

It should not be a suprise to anyone. Lou Merloni said the Red Sox had doctors come into spring training and show the team how to use steroids properly.

A World Series winning team in the steroid era had players that used seroids what a shock.

timmgirvan · #2 07-31-2009, 01:49 PM

until they get the players union to ease up on proecting the users...2003 and beyond means nothing!

Gander · #3 07-31-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

until they get the players union to ease up on proecting the users...2003 and beyond means nothing!

And 1990 through 2002 means something?
You think Roger Clemens didnt help the Yankess win twice?

timmgirvan · #4 07-31-2009, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gander

And 1990 through 2002 means something?
You think Roger Clemens didnt help the Yankess win twice?

we can talk 'ad nausem' about this subject, but remember that while attendance soared and personal fortunes were made...the only ones who got boned were the fans who believed in the players and their teams.

dalakhani · #5 07-31-2009, 01:57 PM

Does Pedro Martinez belong in the hall of fame? Roger Clemens?

King Glorious · #6 07-31-2009, 02:00 PM

I put any player that was among the most dominant of their era up for consideration. For me, they both go in as do Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, and Rodriguez.

Antitrust32 · #7 07-31-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I put any player that was among the most dominant of their era up for consideration. For me, they both go in as do Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, and Rodriguez.

no way sosa belongs even if he wasnt on roids

Cannon Shell · #8 07-31-2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

no way sosa belongs even if he wasnt on roids

Seriously?

King Glorious · #9 08-02-2009, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

no way sosa belongs even if he wasnt on roids

I think this is crazy. If you are saying that without the drugs, he wouldn't have had the numbers he had, that's one thing. If you are saying that had he put up those numbers clean, he still wouldn't belong, that's incredible.

Antitrust32 · #10 08-02-2009, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I think this is crazy. If you are saying that without the drugs, he wouldn't have had the numbers he had, that's one thing. If you are saying that had he put up those numbers clean, he still wouldn't belong, that's incredible.

i def worded it wrong. the roids put up those numbers.