Top 11 tainted sports achievements

Mudcat · 07-26-07, 06:09 PM

The big thought I have relates to the steroids-related achievements. While I see those as being tainted, I do not see them as being as egregious as the general public seems to.

I don't think any of those steroid users started the steroid eras for their sports. They just reacted to what was already happening. I'm not sure I would have done any different if I was Marion Jones or Lance Armstrong or Barry Bonds (who seems destined for this list.)

I certainly dislike Barry Bonds and would be happy if he somehow never broke that record - but that's more because he's a bitch than because he happens to be the best of the steroid users of his era (as was Armstrong as was Jones.)

But the stuff like Strahan's sack record, I hate. Totally tainted IMO.

Willie Bee · 07-26-07, 06:17 PM

I agree with you for the most part, Mudcat, at least your general reasoning. One thing I disagree with is that I'm not really sure 'the general public' is as upset about the steroids as we're led to believe. It's very difficult to tell how much of the controversy is John Q Public and how much is really fueled by the media. When it's the only thing being talked about at times on the air, it's somewhat tainted to me for the media to tell me what's tainted or not.

If there was a lotion you could rub into your palms that guaranteed one of us could pick seven out of 10 winners on the board each night, and the side effects were your cojones might shrink and you'd get pimples on your back, how many would turn it down? Lord knows I'd be mighty tempted if not a downright sinner.

Dark Horse · 07-26-07, 08:45 PM

Argentina was legit in 1986. The only ones having a problem with Argentina are the English, who always think they have a real shot at the World Cup, but have only won it once, on their own soil in 1966. England was totally outplayed by Argentina, but somehow managed to blame their defeat on Maradona's hand of God goal. England was never in the match, and only got a consolation goal after Argentina took its foot off the pedal.

1978 is another story. The whirlwind that was Argentina that year was doping related. Plus they bought their qualification out of the first round when they needed a 6-0 victory over Peru.

I loved her at the time, but I think Flojo belongs on the list.

hawk 5 · 07-26-07, 09:05 PM

Cool link mudcat but disagree on Petty. Even if he did cheat better he still has almost twice the victory total as Person at # 2. He beats him by 95 victory's. It's one hell of an achievment.

remmy358 · 07-26-07, 09:14 PM

lance is innocent

Bill Dozer · 07-26-07, 11:56 PM

The Houston Rockets' back-to-back championships.

Ganchrow · 07-27-07, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Mudcat

I don't normally copy internet articles here but I found this interesting. Here is the list compiled by Foxsports. I see no indication if they supposed to be starting with the worst or counting down to the worst or what.

Lance Armstrong's Tour de France winning streak

Michael Strahan's NFL sack record

Marite Koch, 400-meter world record

Si-Hun Park, 1988 light-middleweight Olympic champ

Marion Jones, three gold medals, 2000 Olympics

Richard Petty's 200 victories

Nykesha Sales, UConn career scoring record

USSR basketball gold medal, 1972 Olympics

Gordie Howe's sixth decade of hockey

Yelena Berezhnaya and Anton Sikharulidze, 2002 gold medal

Argentina's 1986 World Cup victory

I think the case could be made that every MLB record set prior to the full integration of baseball in 1948 is at least somewhat tainted.

bigboydan · 07-27-07, 12:24 AM

How can you say that about Cal Ripken Jr's record Ganchrow? I like to see you state a case for that one.

Ganchrow · 07-27-07, 12:47 AM

Commentary: If Bonds’ Record-Breaking Deserves an Asterisk, Don’t All Baseball Records Pre-1947?

Date: Thursday, May 18, 2006
By: Gregory Kane, BlackAmericaWeb.com

By the time you read this, San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds may have either tied or broken Babe Ruth’s home run record.

Or he may not.

But at 713 home runs, Bonds will definitely tie, and then break, the record sometime this season. The debate raging now is whether there should be an asterisk next to his name because of his alleged steroid use. The controversy even has some nasty racial overtones, since several news reports have indicated that Bonds is getting as much hate mail calling him the “N” word as Hank Aaron got when he first broke Ruth’s record in 1974.

The asterisk debate isn’t in and of itself racial. For years, Roger Maris, who broke Ruth’s single-season home run record in 1961, had an asterisk next to his name to indicate that he hit his 61 homers in 162 games, whereas Ruth hit his 60 in 154. Both Maris and Ruth were white.

But I’ve maintained for years that there is a racial tinge to all this asterisk business. If Bonds’ record should have an asterisk because of his alleged steroid use, and Maris’ had one because of the number of games, shouldn’t ALL major league baseball records before 1947 have an asterisk?

You all know the significance of the year 1947. That’s when Jackie Robinson signed with the Brooklyn Dodgers and broke the 20th-century color line in major league baseball. Before 1947, Robinson played in the Negro Leagues. And more than one observer has pointed out that, in 1947, Robinson was far from the best player in the Negro Leagues.

One of the best was legendary pitcher Satchel Paige. Lesser known than Paige was Leon Day, whom some observers say was better than Paige (Day and Paige pitched against each other five times. Day won four of those games.). Both men pitched in the early 1940s. Day was in his prime; Paige was slightly past his.

Here’s a question I’ve been posing for years. I still haven’t received a good answer.

Suppose there was no color line in baseball in 1941 and Paige and Day, two of the greatest pitchers who ever lived, were pitching in the American League. Would New York Yankees slugger Joe DiMaggio have been able to hit in 56 straight games if he’d had to face either Paige or Day -- or both -- during that stretch?

We may never know. What we do know is that DiMaggio didn’t face the best pitchers of his time. He faced the best WHITE pitchers of his time. Through no fault of his own, the record of this truly great baseball player is tainted. It should have an asterisk. The color line in baseball wasn’t just unfair to great black players like Paige and Day and Cool Papa Bell and Josh Gibson; it was unfair to great white players.

Speaking of Gibson, according to a San Francisco Chronicle story by Ron Kroichick, Bonds said in 2003 that it’s Gibson, not himself, who really holds the home run record for a single season. Bonds hit 73 in 2001.

Gibson hit 84 in 1936. His lifetime total is 962.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Kroichick tried to diss Gibson’s achievement in his story. Gibson’s homers, Kroichick wrote, came in some exhibition games and against semi-pro teams (As if a “major league” that excluded an entire race was not somehow “semi-pro” itself.).

Kroichick wasn’t even impressed that Gibson hit .400 in games he played against white “major leaguers.” Those games, Kroichick wrote “were skewed ... because the Negro Leagues players wanted to prove their ability and the major leaguers mostly sought to avoid injury.”

Sure. And Joe Louis didn’t knock out a string of top-notch white contenders in the early 1930s. Those guys just used their faces to beat up Joe’s fists.

Kroichick’s disclaimer about Gibson’s records can easily be turned on its head. If it’s permissible to question Gibson’s home run records -- career and single season -- based on the quality of his competition, why ISN’T it fair to question DiMaggio’s?

And Ruth’s? And Ty Cobbs’? And -- well, put in the name of any white “major leaguer” who played before 1947, and you’ll get an idea of where I’m going with this. Gibson, Paige, Day and Bell may not have faced the best competition. But neither did DiMaggio, Ruth, Cobb and all those white guys.

If we’re going to start this business of plunking asterisks down next to records, let's be sure to plunk them in all the right places.

LINK

Mudcat · 07-27-07, 09:36 AM

Yep, that's a good point about pre-integration baseball.

I can't help but chuckle about Gordie Howe being on the list. He is something of a Canadian icon with (as far as I can remember) a spotless reputation (other than being rather free and easy with his elbows in the corners). It seemed so far below his dignity when he laced 'em up at the age of '69 so he could say he played professionally in 6 decades.

So cheesy.

The Roy Jones Jr. thing was truly horrible and very worthy of a top spot on this list.

Willie Bee · 07-27-07, 09:56 AM

Here’s a question I’ve been posing for years. I still haven’t received a good answer.

Suppose there was no color line in baseball in 1941 and Paige and Day, two of the greatest pitchers who ever lived, were pitching in the American League. Would New York Yankees slugger Joe DiMaggio have been able to hit in 56 straight games if he’d had to face either Paige or Day -- or both -- during that stretch?

We may never know.

What, is this moron suggesting that we may know at some point?!

Complete bullsh¡t supposition. I'd love to have a way-back machine and return in time so that there was no segregation in baseball. But suggesting that we should take away from the accomplishments of individuals in any arena is preposterous.

Would Satchel Paige have been as revered if he faced Gehrig, DiMaggio, Foxx, Greenberg and Williams on a regular basis? Would Josh Gibson have been known as the Black Babe Ruth or would he just have been another catcher with some power if he had faced Lefty Grove, Dizzy Dean, Lefty Gomez and Bob Feller regularly? I'm sure the writer would surmise that Paige and Gibson would have been just as good while DiMaggio and Feller would have seen drops in their careers. But then, we may never know

Mudcat · 07-27-07, 10:15 AM

Well sure. And then the other question is: how would the Babe, Foxx, Gibson, Paige, Feller and Cy Young have done on steroids?

There is an outside chance that we will never know.

Ganchrow · 07-27-07, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Willie Bee

What, is this moron suggesting that we may know at some point?!

Complete bullsh¡t supposition. I'd love to have a way-back machine and return in time so that there was no segregation in baseball. But suggesting that we should take away from the accomplishments of individuals in any arena is preposterous.

...

I'm sure the writer would surmise that Paige and Gibson would have been just as good while DiMaggio and Feller would have seen drops in their careers. But then, we may never know

I don't think that that's his point at all.

He's just saying that because of segregation no record can be taken for granted and hence if any record deserves an asterisk its certainly those set when an entire race of people were excluded from the sport.

And while you might not agree with his argument in this particular instance, Gregory Kane is an accomplished journalist and hardly a "moron".

jjgold · 07-27-07, 10:19 AM

Clemens records
Bonds records
Sosa
Mac
50 or 60 NFL Players who have set records

Why?

Steroids

The Prick · 07-27-07, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by remmy358

lance is innocent

once a dude gets a gonad removed they should let him take whatever he wants to. didn't that throw the balance off on his bike, or make him sit weird?

LargeMouthBass · 07-27-07, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by The Prick

once a dude gets a gonad removed they should let him take whatever he wants to. didn't that throw the balance off on his bike, or make him sit weird?

LOL... I second that. One of my balls sag more than the other and I'm getting paranoid. I can't imagine not having both sets.

Mudcat · 07-27-07, 11:06 AM

That is a generous assessment of the Lance Armstrong situation.

I tend to look at it the other way. I wonder if all that artificial monkeying around in his sack region increased the size of his taint, making his records the most tainted of all.

The Prick · 07-27-07, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Mudcat

That is a generous assessment of the Lance Armstrong situation.

I tend to look at it the other way. I wonder if all that artificial monkeying around in his sack region increased the size of his taint, making his records the most tainted of all.

"taint" used correctly as both a noun and an adjective, well played Mudder. kids, don't try this at home.

Willie Bee · 07-27-07, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Ganchrow

He's just saying that because of segregation no record can be taken for granted and hence if any record deserves an asterisk its certainly those set when an entire race of people were excluded from the sport.

And while you might not agree with his argument in this particular instance, Gregory Kane is an accomplished journalist and hardly a "moron".

First off, Ganch, this isn't an argument, it's an article, a bunch of paragraphs strung together full of one man's suppositions, period. The debate only begins when he gets feedback in opposition, as I have provided.

As I stated, I'd really love for baseball to have never been segregated, for all of society to have been in this Utopian, all are equal state from the very beginning of time. How much better could this country be, would this country be, if women and men of all races had been afforded the opportunity to vote from Day 1?

Sorry, Ganch, but I just don't buy some of Kane's suppositions while waving the race card any more than I buy the downplaying by the San Fran writer discussing Josh Gibson's statistical achievements. I mean, does Kane truly believe that teams such as some of the old Washington Senators and St. Louis Browns were on the same level as the Dry Gulch Nine or whatever some of the 'semi-pro teams' were called that were on the Negro League's schedule?

If he wants to put an asterisk by every darn record, then that is his right, and I'll fight to the death to defend that right. But at the same time, and using the man's own words, "let's be sure to plunk (asterisks down) in all the right places." And that includes Josh Gibson's home run numbers, Bob Gibson's 1968 ERA (higher mound, amphetamine usage in baseball during the 1960s), and a host of other marks. Hell, put an asterisk by every darn stat in every darn record book for any old reason you can come up with.

Me? I'll refrain and just accept them for the numbers that they are.

By the way, what exactly is a 'respected journalist?'

Ganchrow · 07-27-07, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Willie Bee

First off, Ganch, this isn't an argument, it's an article, a bunch of paragraphs strung together full of one man's suppositions, period. The debate only begins when he gets feedback in opposition, as I have provided.

As I stated, I'd really love for baseball to have never been segregated, for all of society to have been in this Utopian, all are equal state from the very beginning of time. How much better could this country be, would this country be, if women and men of all races had been afforded the opportunity to vote from Day 1?

Sorry, Ganch, but I just don't buy some of Kane's suppositions while waving the race card any more than I buy the downplaying by the San Fran writer discussing Josh Gibson's statistical achievements. I mean, does Kane truly believe that teams such as some of the old Washington Senators and St. Louis Browns were on the same level as the Dry Gulch Nine or whatever some of the 'semi-pro teams' were called that were on the Negro League's schedule?

If he wants to put an asterisk by every darn record, then that is his right, and I'll fight to the death to defend that right. But at the same time, and using the man's own words, "let's be sure to plunk (asterisks down) in all the right places." And that includes Josh Gibson's home run numbers, Bob Gibson's 1968 ERA (higher mound, amphetamine usage in baseball during the 1960s), and a host of other marks. Hell, put an asterisk by every darn stat in every darn record book for any old reason you can come up with.

Me? I'll refrain and just accept them for the numbers that they are.

By the way, what exactly is a 'respected journalist?'

I hate to get in to a debate about semantics but that really seems to be where we've wound up. Kane's discourse intended to persuade (and that's indeed one of the definitions given by Webster for "argument"), which to me reads like a reductio ad absurdum, is I think best summarized by its title, "If Bonds’ Record-Breaking Deserves an Asterisk, Don’t All Baseball Records Pre-1947?"

If you believe the premise to be true ("Bonds' record-breaking deserves an asterisk") then, Kane argues, the conclusion ("all baseball records pre-1947 also deserve an asterisk") logically follows. "If p then q", in the language of symbolic logic, which is logically equivalent to "If not q then not p".

Now it appears that you don't believe the premise holds true (at least you've given similar examples where you believe records shouldn't be asterisked), and it's clear that you don't believe the conclusion holds either.

So "If baseball records set pre-1947 don't deserve an asterisk, then neither does Bonds' record". From what you've stated ("I'll refrain and just accept them for the numbers that they are.") that doesn't seem at all inconsistent with your point of view.

Anyway, check out some of Kane's Baltimore Sun columns. I tend not to agree with many of his points (and it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't either), but I think you'd agree that at the very least he's a columnist to be taken seriously.

Willie Bee · 07-27-07, 02:29 PM

Good points, Ganch. I don't believe Bonds' record should include an asterisk. And I also don't believe that much of the animosity against Bonds, either the person or the home run hitter, has that much to do with race. People have said the same thing about McGwire and the stats he posted, and he's not black.

In the end, I feel very little of what happens today, especially in sports, should have much bearing at all on what happened 60 years ago. If the writer doesn't think Bonds' numbers should have an asterisk, there are better ways to get that point across besides opining/arguing that a whole lot of other numbers from back in my father's youth should receive asterisks.

tacomax · 07-27-07, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Willie Bee

If he wants to put an asterisk by every darn record, then that is his right, and I'll fight to the death to defend that right. But at the same time, and using the man's own words, "let's be sure to plunk (asterisks down) in all the right places." And that includes Josh Gibson's home run numbers, Bob Gibson's 1968 ERA (higher mound, amphetamine usage in baseball during the 1960s), and a host of other marks. Hell, put an asterisk by every darn stat in every darn record book for any old reason you can come up with.

If you read what you say and what the journalist says then you're both saying the same thing. He's saying that if Bonds' numbers should have an asterisk for reason X then other numbers should have an asterisk for reason Y. Although he's using using the subject of race to make his point (and since the story is on BlackAmericaWeb.com, it's easy to see why) it could have been a white journalist talking about the higher mound and the use of amphetamines as you quote.

He doesn't want asterisks, you don't want asterisks, I don't want asterisks and I don't think that any real baseball fan wants asterisks.

Willie Bee · 07-27-07, 04:41 PM

Yeah, I realize that now, taco. Must have had either a bad attitude or my funny glasses on when I first read it.

Just bugs me when anyone's defense of something or someone is to simply indict another. Like I mentioned, if you want to defend Bonds, or any other steroids-era slugger, there are better ways than suggesting some other group before them cheated or was cheated. Comes off like a whiny little kid when you get caught with your hands in the cookie jar and your defense is, "But so-&-so was eating cookies, too."

armyoflovers · 07-27-07, 05:00 PM

You forgot the 2007 SA Spurs NBA Champions (thanks to that prick Donaghy)

armyoflovers · 07-27-07, 05:02 PM

And FloJo was cheating too, thats why she killed over all of the sudden in the middle of her life. All the steriods made her heart explode.

armyoflovers · 07-27-07, 05:05 PM

Or Colorado's "5th down" in 1990 that nabbed them a share of the National Championship.

Bill Dozer · 07-27-07, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by armyoflovers

You forgot the 2007 SA Spurs NBA Champions (thanks to that prick Donaghy)

Good one and good thread.

BTW, I was kidding about the Houston Rockets.

Mudcat · 07-27-07, 08:50 PM

I can tell you my #1 anti-tainted sports achievements. WTF, you may wonder, is that supposed to mean?

It was at the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. Gold medal game in women's hockey between Canada and the U.S.

Tim Donaghy had nothing on the American referee calling the game. I have never seen any official in any sport so open about trying to throw a game. She called horrible phantom penalties on the Canadians throughout the match - often in bunches - while ignoring much more blatant infractions by the Americans.

You really had to see it to understand. I wonder what happened to that ref. Anyone know? If she was not booted out of the profession faster than that French figure skating judge who admitted to making deals with the Russians for marks, I would be stunned.

Anyway, the Canadians, who were significant underdogs to begin with, resisted what must have been an overwhelming temptation to behead the crooked bitch. They played with remarkable composure and killed penalty after penalty - including a number of 5-on-3's - and won the gold medal.

It would have been SO tainted if the Americans had won. It's not just my national pride clouding my assessment; American fans expressed universal embarrassment at the pathetic display.

As it turned out, instant karma ruled and it has my vote as the #1 anti-tainted achievement.

Mudcat · 07-27-07, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Mudcat

I have never seen any official in any sport so open about trying to throw a game.

Well no, I must correct myself. The crooked judging in that Si-Hun Park victory over Roy Jones Jr. in the '88 Olympics was as blatant as it gets.

Dark Horse · 07-27-07, 09:26 PM

Remember your first time? The first time you watch a fixed game, if you're a kid at the time, is quite the introduction. The loss of innocence.

I will never forget this game. Glad it's mentioned on Wikipedia as the fix it obviously was.

1972–73 European Cup Winners' Cup - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Cup_Winners'_Cup_1972-73

The season 1972-73 of the Cup Winners' Cup football club tournament was won by AC Milan after a 1-0 victory against Leeds United at the Kaftanzoglio Stadium, Thessaloniki, in Greece. Milan's victory was blemished by the poor refereeing of Christos Michas, who made several dubious decisions in favour of the Italian side, and who eventually sent off Norman Hunter for Leeds. The crowd at the final was so incensed by the combination of Michas' arguably one-sided refereeing and the Italians' game-killing, defensive tactics, that they threw missiles at the Milan players when they attempted their lap of triumph. Instead, for the first and last time in the history of the trophy, the losing side took a lap of honor around the field, with the Leeds players receiving applause from the local sets of fans.

Michas was subsequently investigated by the Greek FA, on suspicions that he'd accepted a bribe by Milan. He was banned by UEFA from refereeing on international level again. Leeds United attempted to gain a replay but their request was denied by UEFA. [1].

Christos Michas was a Greek football referee who was convicted of match fixing in the 1970s.

The Cup Winners' Cup final between Leeds United and AC Milan was refereed by Michas. Leeds had goals and several penalty appeals disallowed, a player sent off, and eventually lost the game 1-0 (to a goal scored directly from an indirect free kick). Subsequently Michas was convicted of match fixing in a court in Greece relating to events in the final. He was sent to jail, fined by the Greek court, and banned from football for life by UEFA. Leeds, however, were not granted the replay they requested, and AC Milan were allowed to keep the title and trophy by UEFA.

hawk 5 · 07-27-07, 10:36 PM

I still think the Baltimore Colts (Earl Morale) threw the 1969 Super Bowl Against Namath and the Jets just to give the AFC some legitimacy.

armyoflovers · 07-28-07, 03:17 AM

Taint? Who said something about taint? You know what we call the taint where I come from? The dirty inch. All of that ball sweat cascading down, combined with the shithole crustation forming in the ridged area really makes it an undesirable place to place one's tongue. Ugh.

zootiehead · 07-29-07, 05:04 PM

7/29/07 Bruce Bochy leaves Matt Morris in to pitch the 7th inning and give up the lead despite the fact that Morris was finished for the day 2 innings earlier.

Mudcat · 08-27-07, 06:53 PM

I was reminded of this thread by the story of Placido Polanco and his errorless game streak

He had surpassed the major league record by playing his 144th consecutive game without an error at second base.

Then in game 148, he blew a play and got charged an error. But that error call was reversed (and charged to the 1st baseman) by the official scorer - the next day. So the streak continues.

I would challenge anyone to say that reversal would have taken place under any other circumstances. It was obviously all about the record. Just so cheesy.

Of course it's a pretty obscure record and who gives a crap anyway? But now it's obscure and tainted.