1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mickey Mantle: Cheater

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Uncle.Ruckus, May 3, 2013.

  1. Uncle.Ruckus

    Uncle.Ruckus Guest

    No word on if he was a pants pisser or pants shitter.

  2. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I'll be curious how much play this story gets.
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Deadspin's never-ending pro-PEDs campaign notwithstanding, corked bats and PEDs are absolutely not the same.

    Corked bats don't force your fellow athletes into a Hobson's choice between their long-term health or their career.

    That's the problem with PEDs.
  4. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    You're right, corked bats are worse.
  5. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    Meh. Cheating's cheating. The long term health consequences (much of which is speculative and unproven anyways) doesn't make the two much different to me if the guy voluntarily chose to take that risk.

    Besides, if stories like this help dispel the notion that baseball's bygone eras were somehow inherently more pure and clean, fine by me. Players from Mantle's era were looking for any angle to cheat too--whether it be gobbling amphetamines, corking bats, using files and/or spit on balls, whatever--if it gave an advantage, they'd give it a try. And they'd have been gobbling steroids if available too.
  6. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    so when Gibson and Pedro temporarily lost their pinpoint control to brush back and intimidate batters that's within the rules of the game?
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    It's not about their own health. It's about the risk that they force their colleagues into: Take PEDs and risk your health. Or else.
  8. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    They're no "forcing" anybody.
  9. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    Huh? I have no idea how this question is relevant to my prior post.
  10. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Yes, they are. They are forcing them to make a choice they shouldn't have to make.
  11. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Yes, exactly. That's why it's a large degree different than corking. There are complications that don't enter into the corking decision. Deadspin, in its pro-PEDs crusade, which is really just another anti-MSM crusade, conveniently just breezes past that.
  12. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    You just altered the wording and, thus, the meaning. Dick's wording suggested that players were being forced to take PEDs, which is bullshit.

    You're suggesting that they are being forced to "make a choice", hence acknowledging that they have the free will option of saying no. Big difference there. Being forced to "make a choice" doesn't exactly cause me great concern.

    And so what if they "shouldn't have to make" it? We all have to make tough choices every day that "we shouldn't have to make." We all see people who get ahead by cheating and/or law-breaking, and could do the same if we wanted to run the risk. We shouldn't have to make that choice. Players shouldn't have to choose whether to cork bats to keep up either. Not sure why that factor makes one brand of cheating worse than the other.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page