Bostonist: 'Roidgate Rages On

Michelle

Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:54:36 -0500

Steroids do give an unfair advantage to players. A player that uses steroids can can develop the muscles that he desires in a much, much shorter time and without the discipline it takes to do it naturally. That is why so many people who follow baseball reguarly can pretty much point fingers at people like Barry Bonds because of how rapidly the changes in his physique were made.

Harvey Riolant

Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:04:22 -0500

You know, in my more insane drunken paranoid rants, I'm convinced this whole steroid scandal is just a ploy by the Yankees to distract attention away from the fact the that the BOSTON RED SOX ARE THE 2004 BASEBALL WORLD CHAMPIONS.

ed

Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:49:40 -0500

i'm so conflicted. i love schilling with all my heart for bringing the the baseball world championship to boston, but the guy is a total publicity hound and i completely disagree with his politics. in this case, however, i can't really blame him for being the Company Man. i mean, baseball pays his $13 MILLION salary, and he has to work there every day. i can understand why he wouldn't want to throw MLB under the bus. it's been very, very good to him.

Tony Iovino

Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:43:54 -0500

The real problem with steroids isn't that they give an unfair advantage to a player. So does good nutrition, available weight training, good coaching, etc. The problem is that the long-term side effects are so damaging, that many players won't make the trade-off between performance and years off their lives. But what happens when advancements in the medication reduce or eliminate the side effects? What happens when steroids, or a similar substance, is as safe as Vitamin C? What will sports look like then?