Originally posted by NismoXse02:
The whole idea of saying that the Black Sox got banned even though gambling wasn't illegal yet when they did it implies that you're arguing that Bonds and Co. should get banned too if it's proven that they took the juice. If you're not saying that, then I don't know what we're arguing anymore because that was my original stance. You can't put an asterisk, can't ban them, can't do anything because steroids weren't banned during that period.
I wasn't arguing that using steroids is or isn't cheating. I've read enough of your posts to know that you think using steroids is cheating.
But, you are missing my point -
I'm not implying that Bonds should be banned. I'm not saying that any specific punishment should be imposed on Bonds.
I just wasn't making my argument as clear as I thought.
Here was what I posted originally as the start of my argument:
...it doesn't matter if it was specficially stated that it was illegal because of the Best Interests of Baseball clause.
My argument is
The Commissioner of baseball can impose a punishment onto players for committing acts which the rules of baseball did not explicitly prohibit at the time they committed those actsYour argument, which you implyed to start and which you have refined, claryified and repeated in your last post is that the Commissioner can not do anything to those players because steroids were not illegal.
I've never suggested what the punishment should be, and to say that I've been implying a punishment means you haven't been understanding my argument
To prove my argument I cite an example in baseball history where that happened. The infraction and punishment are irrelevant to the point of my argument, except in that the infraction was not explicitly prohibited at the time and the Commissioner still gave them some sort of punishment.
I used the specific example of the 1919 White Sox because of this statement:
So is doing cocaine and other drugs, but there are plenty of athletes in the HOF in all sorts of sports that have been found guilty of doing it. Gambling was already banned in baseball long before Pete Rose even picked up a bat.
You implied that players who use drugs are not punished. Read back a couple of posts, and you'll see that is not true. They are punished, although not suspended for life from baseball (with the exception of Steve Howe, whom Selig un-suspended the year after replacing Vincent - a reason why i don't think Bonds will be banned from baseball for this)
You further imply that Pete Rose could only have been punished because what he did was already illegal.
My point in using the Black Sox was to show that they were punished for something which was not illegal at the time they did it (gambling on baseball games and conspiring to fix games for money). How they were punished is irrelevant to my argument.
That they were punished at all proves my argument.
Previous Topic
Index
