about all their world series victories trough the ninties when a good chunk of their players were "cheating"
I know that a good chunk were not but that does not change the fact that they played with an edge.
2007-12-14 01:08:06 · 10 answers · asked by Tribe of benjamin 5 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Clemons pettitte and knoblock,were not the only ones,who played for the yanks during there ninties dominance
2007-12-14 01:14:34 · update #1
sorry frizzer i disagree,with your logic,and your analogy,not all people took that shortcut,not all plowed through that intersection legal or not an edge is an edge,and the people that used knew they were gaining an edge,while others were playing with honor and dignity.because something isnt illigal at the time does not make it fair,HGH is the perfect example.
2007-12-14 01:23:56 · update #2
I never said anything about the playing feild being level or not,i'm going by the info that i have now,the info that is presented now says that a good portion of those championship teams GAINED AN ADVANTAGE,plain and simple,and all i'm asking is can they and their fans still brag? I dont think so.
2007-12-14 02:11:50 · update #3
Dennis y,i respect your answer,but i still think your wrong having 1 or 2 players cheating and then having 10 or12is a big difference especially when these players are key to your success
2007-12-14 02:37:16 · update #4
I dont think they can brag,anymore than bonds can about his homerun record,gaining an advantage is just that,taking advantage,and using an excuse that somthing isnt banned is a lame answer.so when someone developes a new steriod it's ok to take it until it's dicovered that it enhances performance?a cheat KNOWS he's CHEATING,banned substance or not.
2007-12-14 01:54:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
2 players is not a chunk of their players & I don't care what anybody else believes but I can't believe that after all these investigations & going ons in baseball that only 86 players names were mentioned in the Mitchell report. More than half of the players I have never heard of. Where were all the big name players besides Clemens, Bonds & Tejada. There are a lot more players on steroids that the report didn't list but I guess we will never know. So how many players who are list or not on list but was accused of being on steroids be denied into HOF.
2007-12-14 13:25:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
In the 1990's a good chunk of players on all teams were using drugs because they were not banned by baseball at that time. The MLB/Players union agreement involving drugs was not implemented until 2002. Therefore, no one that was using drugs in the 1990's was cheating. If you drove your car through an intersection in the 1990's and there was no stop sign, but there is one at that intersection now, did you break the law? You can only hold someone accountable for the rules that were in place at that time.
2007-12-14 09:17:56 · answer #3 · answered by Frizzer 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
all this crap about asterisks and records not counting is preposterous. Lets not be retards and think that the Mitchell report was anything more then an extremely small sampling of what has run rampant in all of sport. If anyone truly believes that no one on (insert fave team here) was or is cheating then you need a drug test yourself. Everything Jose Canseco said 4 years ago is coming true and his numbers are probably accurate also. Like him or not he told you the truth , granted he gained financially by flipping, it was/is still the truth. Who shocked you of the big names on the list? Clemens and Pettite were obvious just by using your eyes and common sense. There are several others whom are not in the Mitchell report that it is quite obvious they are on HGH at the very least. So, to answer the question, yes they can brag because they had players on their teams using performance enhancing drugs and beat all the other teams who also had players using performance enhancing drugs.
2007-12-14 10:27:12 · answer #4 · answered by Dennis Y 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I agree with Frizzer.
Also, I don't think the Yankees were any more involved than anyone else. The Mitchell report had someone within the Yankee organization who was willing to talk freely. If the Royals did, I'm sure there would have been more there as well.
I just want to point out that I'm still reading it right now but I have found so far that some teams were more helpful than others.
2007-12-14 10:06:27 · answer #5 · answered by Mosh 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
What makes you think the teams that the Yankees beat to win those titles weren't also stacked with roiders. I'm not trying to say two wrongs make a right, but I dispute the argument that the playing field wasn't level.
2007-12-14 10:07:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
They bought good players besides those players. Those players shouldn't have their records tarnished because others wanted to cheat. UNLESS, they knew that the players were cheating.
2007-12-14 09:14:02 · answer #7 · answered by LC 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
good point floyd every team had players that took steroid
2007-12-14 10:26:14 · answer #8 · answered by E G 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Blah
:-)
2007-12-14 09:12:23 · answer #9 · answered by bostonsportsfan 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
clemens, pettite, and knoblauch were the only ones
2007-12-14 09:11:27 · answer #10 · answered by Ed 3 · 2⤊ 5⤋