Bill from NYC Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 >>>I'm glad he's speaking out to say 'Hey, drugs are bad.' Not many people who do that these days.<<< Are you glad when politicians speak out and tell kids, "Hey, abstain from sex?" Tell the truth, please.
UConn James Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 >>>I'm glad he's speaking out to say 'Hey, drugs are bad.' Not many people who do that these days.<<< Are you glad when politicians speak out and tell kids, "Hey, abstain from sex?" Tell the truth, please. 150400[/snapback] Not sure what this has to do with an argument about steroids/performance-enhancing drugs in sports or even drugs in general. Consensual sex, even among kids of certain age ranges depending on your state, is not illegal. Not trying to evade the question but you might be surprised. Don't need a tangent here. This has been talked about at length in the AO thread. Look there.
Bill from NYC Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 Not sure what this has to do with an argument about steroids/performance-enhancing drugs in sports or even drugs in general. Consensual sex, even among kids of certain age ranges depending on your state, is not illegal. Not trying to evade the question but you might be surprised. Don't need a tangent here. This has been talked about at length in the AO thread. Look there. 150797[/snapback] Nice copout.
UConn James Posted December 7, 2004 Posted December 7, 2004 Nice copout. 150966[/snapback] Actually it's not. I've posted my thoughts to your self-same question in that thread. No need to write it over again. Look it up. I don't have the time right now to link it. Still, what kind of point are you trying to make? What does that have to do with sports players taking illegal drugs and speaking otu against it? Apples and oranges.
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 8, 2004 Posted December 8, 2004 If it were a matter of criminalizing steroids (or criminalizing them more), I'd agree with you. But everything I've heard from McCain on the subject sounds like he wants to criminalize baseball players on steroids. That, as I said, is no more than raising baseball's internal rules and regulations to the level of federal law. And THAT is an act of lunacy. What's next, a constitutional amendment forcing the National League to adopt the designated hitter rule? 149154[/snapback] Take away their anti-trust exemption and your argument holds some water.
UConn James Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Take away their anti-trust exemption and your argument holds some water. 151600[/snapback] As well as their taxpayer-funded stadiums (or is that stadia?). Then again, this wrinkle extends to pretty much all professional sports. Well, one might argue, those aren't funded by the federal gov't.... Specifically no, but for every dollar a city spends funding a stadium for a private business, that's one dollar less that goes to fire departments, police, schools, etc. They then beg to the federal govt that they need funding for these critical areas that, surprise, surprise, don't have enough money, and how can Uncle Sam refuse firefighters in this day and age?
Alaska Darin Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 As well as their taxpayer-funded stadiums (or is that stadia?). Then again, this wrinkle extends to pretty much all professional sports. Well, one might argue, those aren't funded by the federal gov't.... Specifically no, but for every dollar a city spends funding a stadium for a private business, that's one dollar less that goes to fire departments, police, schools, etc. They then beg to the federal govt that they need funding for these critical areas that, surprise, surprise, don't have enough money, and how can Uncle Sam refuse firefighters in this day and age? 153078[/snapback] The Federal Government shouldn't be funding local services, period.
nobody Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Congress and baseball have a historical bind with all that anit-trust law stuff. This is just a continuation of past history.
DC Tom Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 Congress and baseball have a historical bind with all that anit-trust law stuff. This is just a continuation of past history. 153730[/snapback] True...but that doesn't mean it's any less stevestojan.
nobody Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 True...but that doesn't mean it's any less stevestojan. 153745[/snapback] As long as congress stays out of football I don't mind!
DC Tom Posted December 9, 2004 Posted December 9, 2004 As long as congress stays out of football I don't mind! 153753[/snapback] And we think Walt Coleman and Dick Hantak are bad...wait until their calls are subject to Congressional inquiry...
Recommended Posts