Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: oldirtybastard who wrote (111396)	2/16/2008 9:50:12 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

ODB, >How can you justify what Clemens did even if it was for the reasons you state, when a primary effect of the same behavior provides the exact benefit that someone who wants to improve performance is seeking?< To begin with, I specifically said I didn't justify it. What I said is that "in general terms" attempting to overcome injury or soreness etc...in a more timely fashion is different than trying to reach a new peak of performance. Most people have no "conceptual" problem with looking for new drugs and therapies to aid recovery from injury. What they would have a problem with is if the guy took something that made his fastball 5 MPH faster than it was when he was in his 20s (similar to homerun hitters upping their production) Take a look at Andy Pettite's stats. There is nothing in his record that suggests he became a better pitcher after he took HGH. The evidences suggests exactly what he said; that he took it because he was hurt and wanted to help the team. It's not that I don't see it as a problem. It just makes me yawn when I evaluate their careers because I'd bet my life against a dollar that eventually players will be using LEGAL medication/therapies that work better than HGH. However, everything that can make your fastball 5 MPH faster or enable you to hit 70 homeruns will still be barred.