Quote:
Originally Posted by JMT  [quote author=T_rr_ Ja_in_o link=board=6;threadid=35850;start=0#msg406698 date=1168484983]
[quote author=Barbarino link=board=6;threadid=35850;start=0#msg406613 date=1168467303]
As for Big Mac, he got what I think he deserved. |
So why did Big Mac get what he deserved??
He has never tested positive for steriods. Yet the NFL sends San Diego Chargers Shawn Merriman to the Pro Bowl the same year he tested positive for steriods..
That's really fucked up imo...
[/quote]
the fans are the voters, and since when are fans known for being smart?
a key difference is that the foundation of baseball is stats, and stats are based in the individual. football is much more about wins and losses and overall team performance. but i do feel they should make a rule that if you violate the performance enhancing drug policy you are ineligible for the pro-bowl.
i think Mac got what he deserved. it might not have been against the rules of the time, but he lied under oath about it and still hasnt admitted it. admitting it will be the first step in some type of reconciliation.
[/quote]Even though the fans may have voted Merriman in the NFL ulitimetly has control as to who gets on the ballot and who gets selected.
They could have easily disquallified him for testing positive but yet they did nothing.
I thought that Big Mac admitted to taking Andro when it was not a banded substance.
Anyways whether he did it or not is not my gripe.
My gripe lays within pro sports itself allowing one player (who did test postive for steriods and was punished for it via suspension)to be recoginzed for his seasons achievements (the same year of his violation) and someone else who is accused of taking something be not recognized (whether Big Mac did or did not take a banned substance)..
Seems inconsistant to me even though both sports are different...
The NFL should have stepped in and did something..