American Football and Baseball: A Pet Peeve

**thesteve** · 12-20-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steggz

The Champions League is international, because they have clubs from all over Europe. MLB is not international in the same sense. Like I said, international =/= teams by ethnicity for this situation.

The United States is also about the same size as Europe in terms of land area. In the case of AC Milan and the Champions League, it's setup to have teams from all over Europe. IMO, this actually hurts your analogy of AC Milan being the World Champions because of international play...they only played European teams...they didn't play in a worldwide tournament. I would say that the Champions League is international in the same sense that the MLB is national...it follows logical geographical boundaries.

Dr. Worm · 12-20-2007, 04:43 PM

I think you are looking at this a little bit skewed. What, in your mind, would it take for a team (of any sort) to be rightfully called world champions?

steggz · 12-20-2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesteve

The United States is also about the same size as Europe in terms of land area. In the case of AC Milan and the Champions League, it's setup to have teams from all over Europe. IMO, this actually hurts your analogy of AC Milan being the World Champions because of international play...they only played European teams...they didn't play in a worldwide tournament. I would say that the Champions League is international in the same sense that the MLB is national...it follows logical geographical boundaries.

But AC aren't the world champs cause of the Champions League. They're world champs cause they won the World Club Cup, defeating Boca Juniors from Argentina in the final. Other teams involved were from Mexico, Japan, Iran, Tunisia and New Zealand. Each won their confederation's club championship.

As for the geographical thing, couldn't be any wronger (yes I know what I typed) It starts with 32 teams, with half of them from England, Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal and France, the 6 biggest leagues. Not every country has a side in it. And these clubs are not national sides. England is a national side. Manchester United these days is lucky to start with 4 Englishmen on the field. They have players from France, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Argentina, Portugal, Brazil, China, Netherlands, Poland and possibly other countries. I would even say that the English Premier League is more 'international' than the MLB.

steggz · 12-20-2007, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by +SEAL+

I believe that baseball was scrubbed from the Olympics this time around, wasn't it? Because of the Americans...

Just read this on Fox Sports Australia....
"baseball was dumped from the London 2012 Olympic program due to poor doping procedures in its professional leagues"

In other words, yes it was cause of the Americans.....

**thesteve** · 12-20-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steggz

But AC aren't the world champs cause of the Champions League. They're world champs cause they won the World Club Cup, defeating Boca Juniors from Argentina in the final. Other teams involved were from Mexico, Japan, Iran, Tunisia and New Zealand. Each won their confederation's club championship.

Ah...I thought you were trying to say that they were world champs because they were Champions League champions. I don't follow soccer so I don't really know the ins and outs of all of the leagues.

Quote:

As for the geographical thing, couldn't be any wronger (yes I know what I typed) It starts with 32 teams, with half of them from England, Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal and France, the 6 biggest leagues. Not every country has a side in it. And these clubs are not national sides. England is a national side. Manchester United these days is lucky to start with 4 Englishmen on the field. They have players from France, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Argentina, Portugal, Brazil, China, Netherlands, Poland and possibly other countries. I would even say that the English Premier League is more 'international' than the MLB.

I was referring specifically to the Champions League, which is, as far as I can tell, a Europe-only league, not the Club World Cup Tournament (which differs from the World Cup...so apparently there can be multiple World Champions in soccer...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by steggz

Just read this on Fox Sports Australia....
"baseball was dumped from the London 2012 Olympic program due to poor doping procedures in its professional leagues"

In other words, yes it was cause of the Americans.....

eh...the sport was dropped almost two years ago...before this steroids issue was so big. Sorry...don't blame it on MLB drug policies...especially when we don't send our professionals.

***Art*** · 12-20-2007, 05:08 PM

They have been talking about dropping baseball for a really long time, about 10 years. The fact that they finally did it means nothing.

steggz · 12-20-2007, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thesteve

Ah...I thought you were trying to say that they were world champs because they were Champions League champions. I don't follow soccer so I don't really know the ins and outs of all of the leagues.I was referring specifically to the Champions League, which is, as far as I can tell, a Europe-only league, not the Club World Cup Tournament (which differs from the World Cup...so apparently there can be multiple World Champions in soccer...)

That's cause there is a CLUB world champion, and then there is The champion COUNTRY, which would be equal, more or less, with the Winner of the World Baseball Classic. And it's called football, mainly cause you play it with your feet.

Quote:

eh...the sport was dropped almost two years ago...before this steroids issue was so big. Sorry...don't blame it on MLB drug policies...especially when we don't send our professionals.

It doesn't say that the decision was made recently.... I'll make a more contextual quote for you to prove it

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fox Sports Australia

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,...-23218,00.html
THE new anti-doping manager of the International Baseball Federation (IBAF), Australian Nicki Vance, says her brief is to help the sport regain enough credibility to be re-admitted into the 2016 Olympic Games.

After baseball was dumped from the London 2012 Olympic program due to poor doping procedures in its professional leagues, the sport's credibility was further eroded by the release of the Mitchell report in the US last week.

**thesteve** · 12-20-2007, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steggz

That's cause there is a CLUB world champion, and then there is The champion COUNTRY, which would be equal, more or less, with the Winner of the World Baseball Classic. And it's called football, mainly cause you play it with your feet.

I think it'd be interesting to have a Club World Series taking the championship teams from the other professional baseball leagues. I wonder if any of the other leagues would be interested in doing it...or if even Major League Baseball would consider it given that all of the other countries leagues are regarded as secondary quality leagues.

and it's called soccer, because i'm an American

Quote:

It doesn't say that the decision was made recently.... I'll make a more contextual quote for you to prove it

Having read the article, it seems really weak to say that baseball is being removed from the 2012 Olympics because of doping. If that were the case, wouldn't there be cause to remove it from the 2008 Olympics as well? Also, softball was removed at the same time which leads me to think that it doesn't really have a lot to do with doping at all. Thanks for the link...I wish I could find a second source that gives the same reason for it. As far as I can tell, Art's got it right...baseball's never been a popular Olympic sport (it's only been an official Olympic sport since 1992). If anything, the reason it's the MLB's fault is because we won't put a two week gap in the middle of our season in order to field a team of professionals for the Olympics. That seems to be the most common complaint I've seen thus far in reading up.

I'm certain that at least in the case of softball the sport was dropped at least partially because the US team has consistently dominated the sport.

Iceman-bass14 · 12-20-2007, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steggz

AC Milan is the same. From their usual starting 11 players, half are foreign to Italy, including current World Player of the Year, Kaka (who is a Christian by the way). European football loves foreign players, especially from South America. To play in an international CLUB game, doesn't mean having to give up your players. You have a wrong idea of international games when it comes to clubs. The Champions League is international, because they have clubs from all over Europe. MLB is not international in the same sense. Like I said, international =/= teams by ethnicity for this situation.

Im sorry but im still gonna have to disagree but thats life i guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steggz

Just read this on Fox Sports Australia....
"baseball was dumped from the London 2012 Olympic program due to poor doping procedures in its professional leagues"

In other words, yes it was cause of the Americans.....

Yeah and im sure no players from other countries doped ever.

And im sure runners and the such never dope also....

steggz · 12-21-2007, 03:34 PM

Steve, the program of Olympic sports are put in around 5-7 years before the actual Games. So when it was said baseball got pulled about 2 years, it would be right. Sure it hasn't been terribly popular, but that's not the reason quoted. Possibly a secondary reason.

Iceman, I didn't say that American baseballer are the only ones who have been doping. But when you had an era in a sport where illegal steriods were being used and clubs were pretty much looking the other way, of course it's going to cast a cloud over things. You look at athletics, and I can assure you that the rates of people using 'roids in track and field would be higher, only cause of the extremely better drug testing regimes. MLB really needs to pick up their game.

**thesteve** · 12-21-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steggz

Steve, the program of Olympic sports are put in around 5-7 years before the actual Games. So when it was said baseball got pulled about 2 years, it would be right. Sure it hasn't been terribly popular, but that's not the reason quoted. Possibly a secondary reason.

I still stand by my position that the article is over hyping the influence of steroid and HGH usage in baseball due to the recent Mitchell Report and if it were really the cause of the game being removed, track and field and cycling would also be removed from the Summer Olympics as well as Speed Skating from the Winter Olympics.

Considering that both baseball and softball were removed at the same time and that softball players are not under the same pressures to use performance enhancers as baseball players, it doesn't seem like the claim that baseball was removed because of doping is a very strong one.

Quote:

You look at athletics, and I can assure you that the rates of people using 'roids in track and field would be higher, only cause of the extremely better drug testing regimes. MLB really needs to pick up their game.

People in track and field and cycling are doping. I read a quote from a cyclist once that said doping in cycling is inevitable. The difference between a champion and a doper is that the doper failed his drug test. Also, as Art pointed out earlier, MLB has been making huge strides to purge performance enhancing drugs from the game, at least in the extent that it has control over it.

steggz · 12-21-2007, 04:01 PM

Read what i said again. The rates are HIGHER, because the programs are better. MLB is about 10 years behind. They still won't do blood testing, which rules out them finding HGH.

And the article is looking to improve things after the Mitchell report to try and return to the Olympics. It wasn't the report that knocked it out.

sabertooth181 · 12-21-2007, 04:17 PM

In the end, more people care about the World Series than the WBC, and more people care about the NBA Finals than Olympic basketball. Baseball and basketball are American sports, and for this reason the highest level of competetion will always be on American soil.

As for football there is really no arguement. The NFL is the only legitimate league and all the good players are American.

**thesteve** · 12-21-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steggz

Read what i said again. The rates are HIGHER, because the programs are better. MLB is about 10 years behind. They still won't do blood testing, which rules out them finding HGH.

From what I've read (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...-testing_x.htm) HGH testing is nearly impossible. Even the Olympics, who claims to test for HGH doesn't really test for HGH. The argument exists that because a test exists, MLB should use it, even though the test is pretty useless. As far as other sports go, my point was that whether or not they're getting caught, the competitors are using performance enhancing drugs. A perfect example of this is Marion Jones who, had she not come clean about her steroid usage, would've never been caught.

Quote:

And the article is looking to improve things after the Mitchell report to try and return to the Olympics. It wasn't the report that knocked it out.

...I didn't say it was the report that knocked it out. I said the article is overhyping performance enhancer usage in MLB and that their claim that performance enhancers are the reason that baseball was axed from the 2012 Olympics is a weak one.