View Single Post
  #75  
Old 06-21-2024, 10:55 PM
G1911 G1911 is offline
Gr.eg McCl.@y
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 7,424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
So do we vilify Bonds more because he happened to play in a generation which had better drugs available?
I think he is villified more because he 1) violated the record books, 2) is an egotistical ass, 3) it's a popular virtue signal opinion pushed by the media that's easy and requires no nuance or thought, which is almost always the kind of simple idea that gains traction and 4) if you vilify past generations of players too, then you lose the frame of comparison that makes what the roids generation did a sin; meaning the anger isn't justifiable and can't be. The bad guys can't be everyone, a tractionable narrative requires an easily identified group that is bad and one that is good.

While better drugs were available in 2001 than in 1971, steroids were a thing well before then. Baseball players of that time were not taking the best designer drugs of that time. They were popping energy pills to stay going, not working with advanced laboratories to push the bounds of sport.

Last edited by G1911; 06-21-2024 at 10:56 PM. Reason: Corrected a single character typo
Reply With Quote