Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
I'm slow and dumb, but I still don't understand how something is cheating if the action committed was not against the rules at the time the action was done.
It's not cheating to throw a spitball in 1905. It is cheating to throw it in 1995, because the rules changed. Being in violation of the rules seems to be a prerequisite to cheating.
What am I missing here?
|
Do people really object to the cheating, or is the performance enhancing? Nobody is bitching about Gaylord being in the Hall, or Whitey Ford who scuffed baseballs constantly, and so on and so on. And greenies, even if not prohibited by baseball rules, were prescription drugs and surely these guys did not have prescriptions, so taking them was illegal.