A-Roids?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slingshot

You said it was not out of the ordinary

---

It wasn't. That doesn't mean it was right, or "less wrong."

Quote:

---

and that we should just accept that era for what it was.

---

We should, because there's nothing else we CAN do. Baseball has always had bad things in it. We learn from it, and move on.

Quote:

---

If everyone cheating doesn't qualify as one of the worst things in baseball history, I don't know what is.

---

Keeping players out of the game based on the color of their skin, losing the World Series on purpose...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

It wasn't. That doesn't mean it was right, or "less wrong."


We should, because there's nothing else we CAN do. Baseball has always had bad things in it. We learn from it, and move on.


Keeping players out of the game based on the color of their skin, losing the World Series on purpose...

---

1. Well, it seemed that you were implying that. I guess you didn't mean it in the way I thought you did.
2. I think it's wise to bring back players (at least current players) that did steroids when it was illegal, for punishment of some sort. Just letting A-Rod go now would be wrong imo.
3. That's why I said "one of the worst", not "the worst".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slingshot

1. Well, it seemed that you were implying that. I guess you didn't mean it in the way I thought you did.

---

It just means that it was part of the game. It wasn't something that a few outlaws were doing. It was, for worse, ingrained in the culture of the game. As I said, it was a black mark on the history of the game, and we should do what we can to clean up the game, but it's time to focus on the present and future, not the past.

Quote:

---

2. I think it's wise to bring back players (at least current players) that did steroids when it was illegal, for punishment of some sort. Just letting A-Rod go now would be wrong imo.

---

That's not up to the MLB, nor should it be.

I have SERIOUS issues with punishing a player for failing a test that was intended to be anonymous and specifically did NOT allow punishment, though.

Quote:

---

3. That's why I said "one of the worst", not "the worst".

---

I wouldn't disagree, but it's not close to the worst. There's been many terrible things committed in and by baseball. This is one of them, but, like with all the others, we should learn from it and move on instead of dwell on it.

I'm sorry, this isn't even close to the worst thing that has happened in baseball. The steroid era is created by a whole bunch of people pushing the envelope to try and make themselves as good as they could. Were they breaking the rules of MLB - sort of. MLB didn't really have a lot of rules, and didn't obviously care if they were broken. Players taking steroids is no worse than players taking amphetamines, it is no worse than players throwing a spitball, and it is definitely not even comparable to the two issues brought up by HGM - the Black Sox and the color barrier.

Rodriguez should face no punishment, or ridicule of any sort unless the names of the other 100 players that tested positive are also released. My guess is that almost every team in the league had someone test positive - and many of those names are going to be superstar, popular players that would cause a lot of people to be upset. Obviously I am just speculating but I think that it is tremendously hypocritical to ***** about A-Rod being on a list that included roughly 1 in 5 major league players.

Well said.

I certainly don't buy the argument that steroids are a worse form of cheating than the countless other forms of cheating which nobody bats an eye about. They claim steroids are bad because they give an unfair edge to the player, but that unfair edge is "less bad" if it comes from non-steroid ways? The only possible way to remotely substantiate that claim is to show that the edge gained by steroids IS bigger than the edge gained by other methods of cheating, and whether people want to face the fact or not, there is absolutely no way to show WHAT edge steroids give, NOR any way to show what edge other forms of cheating give, both of which are required to show that steroids are worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Well said.

I certainly don't buy the argument that steroids are a worse form of cheating than the countless other forms of cheating which nobody bats an eye about. They claim steroids are bad because they give an unfair edge to the player, but that unfair edge is "less bad" if it comes from non-steroid ways? The only possible way to remotely substantiate that claim is to show that the edge gained by steroids IS bigger than the edge gained by other methods of cheating, and whether people want to face the fact or not, there is absolutely no way to show WHAT edge steroids give, NOR any way to show what edge other forms of cheating give, both of which are required to show that steroids are worse.

---

If it gives them no edge, then why do they take them? Because they want their testicles to shrivel up? Or maybe the Acne they get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

If it gives them no edge, then why do they take them? Because they want their testicles to shrivel up? Or maybe the Acne they get.

---

I don't know if it gives them an edge or not. There's no way to know. If you're going to make the claim that it is worse than other methods of cheating, though, you better be able to show how it's worse, and doing so requires you to show what sort of edge steroids gives and compare it to the edge given by the other methods of cheating. That is, of course, not possible.

This quote, again, though, bears repeating:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crashburn Alley of BTF

Willingness to use a substance does not validate that it's performance-enhancing. This is like saying that since so many people willingly smoke cigarettes in 2009, there's no way it could be dangerous to one's health.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I don't know if it gives them an edge or not. There's no way to know. If you're going to make the claim that it is worse than other methods of cheating, though, you better be able to show how it's worse, and doing so requires you to show what sort of edge steroids gives and compare it to the edge given by the other methods of cheating. That is, of course, not possible.

This quote, again, though, bears repeating:

---

I dont think you are being very opened minded here. Smoking Cigarettes and Steroid use is like talking apples and oranges. I can see what you are saying about the cheating equivalent here, (though I disagree) but you cannot sit there and say that steroids are not performance enhancing.

It makes no sense for an athlete to take a drug that does nothing for you. Especially if it does nothing yet you have all those dangerous side effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I dont think you are being very opened minded here. Smoking Cigarettes and Steroid use is like talking apples and oranges. I can see what you are saying about the cheating equivalent here, (though I disagree) but you cannot sit there and say that steroids are not performance enhancing.

---

But I can sit here and say that we have no idea what, if any, effect steroids have on baseball performance. That's just a fact. We don't know.

As for disagreeing with steroids being equivalent to other cheating, do you disagree that in order to substantiate the claim that they are different, you should be able to show how they are different?

Quote:

---

It makes no sense for an athlete to take a drug that does nothing for you. Especially if it does nothing yet you have all those dangerous side effects.

---

It makes no sense for a person to take a drug that does nothing for you, especially if it does nothing yet you have all those dangerous side effects...but people still do. People don't make sense all the time.

The purpose of that quote is just to say that "People do it, so it must do something for them" does not show that it does anything. You need more than that to show what effect steroids have, if any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

But I can sit here and say that we have no idea what, if any, effect steroids have on baseball performance. That's just a fact. We don't know.

---

As far as stats go, look to no other than Barry Bonds. Who in baseball outside of the steroid era put up better numbers when typically players are past their prime at 35 years of age and their numbers dwindle?

Quote:

---

As for disagreeing with steroids being equivalent to other cheating, do you disagree that in order to substantiate the claim that they are different, you should be able to show how they are different?

---

I think its a serious problem with stats which are precious to the game. But also another thing probably not mentioned is how it costs honest players their jobs. Read this story on Sal Fasano it gives some pretty good insight on how it effects players that dont use the needle.

Quote:

---

It makes no sense for a person to take a drug that does nothing for you, especially if it does nothing yet you have all those dangerous side effects...but people still do. People don't make sense all the time.

---

Possibly, but if you are referring to all drugs, people do it for many reasons. Whether it be to get a cheap high, staying awake on a long shift, etc. The majority of people that do drugs do have a reason for it.

Quote:

---

The purpose of that quote is just to say that "People do it, so it must do something for them" does not show that it does anything. You need more than that to show what effect steroids have, if any.

---

Well I guess in the end your always right and everyone else is wrong I suppose. I dunno, it seems like in the forums you never seem to accept the other side of the coin. I dont think I have ever seen you change your opinion about something on here so I think im wasting my time on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Well I guess in the end your always right and everyone else is wrong I suppose. I dunno, it seems like in the forums you never seem to accept the other side of the coin. I dont think I have ever seen you change your opinion about something on here so I think im wasting my time on this.

---

Come on man, you're an intelligent guy and smarter than that, or at least I hope you are. He's not going to change his opinion, because you need to have a little more depth to your argument. I don't see any new evidence here that would come CLOSE to having him change his opinion. You can only debate with information that you are certain of and/or have some evidence to back up. You're saying that steroids have an effect on baseball performance, but what effect? It may very well be true, but HoustonGM is only saying that WE DON'T KNOW what (if any) effect that actually is. For every Barry Bonds that you cite as being a perfect example, what about Neifi Perez (suspended TWICE)? J.C. Romero? Alex Sanchez? Juan freakin' Rincon? Don't pick one example and ignore the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

As far as stats go, look to no other than Barry Bonds. Who in baseball outside of the steroid era put up better numbers when typically players are past their prime at 35 years of age and their numbers dwindle?

---

Hank Aaron set a career high in home runs at age 37. Honus Wagner's best season came at age 34. Ted Williams hit .388 at age 38, and his 233 OPS+ was the second highest of his career behind his 235 when he was 22.

You cannot draw any conclusions from statistics about steroids. You can point to Barry Bonds. I can point to Ryan Franklin, Alex Sanchez, Shane Monahan, Chris Donnells, etc.

Quote:

---

I think its a serious problem with stats which are precious to the game. But also another thing probably not mentioned is how it costs honest players their jobs. Read this story on Sal Fasano it gives some pretty good insight on how it effects players that dont use the needle.

---

And this is somehow limited to steroids, and not other forms of cheating?

Quote:

---

Possibly, but if you are referring to all drugs, people do it for many reasons. Whether it be to get a cheap high, staying awake on a long shift, etc. The majority of people that do drugs do have a reason for it.

---

People use steroids to become stronger. That does not mean that they will become better baseball players. I point you to the Canseco brothers - Jose and Ozzie. Both were loaded up on steroids, and yet one had relatively great success, and the other was, to put it mildly, a crappy player. Why? Because Jose's natural talent was greater than that of Ozzie's. No amount of steroids could've made Ozzie a better player than Jose. Baseball isn't like some other sports where strength can be the sole determinate of success. It involves natural talents that quite frankly can't be improved upon through artificial means.

Quote:

---

Well I guess in the end your always right and everyone else is wrong I suppose. I dunno, it seems like in the forums you never seem to accept the other side of the coin. I dont think I have ever seen you change your opinion about something on here so I think im wasting my time on this.

---

You're claiming that steroids have an effect. You have to prove that. I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying WE DON'T KNOW, and I'm sorry, but anybody who thinks that they can conclusively say that we know what effects steroids have is being intellectually dishonest.

Quote:

---

Come on man, you're an intelligent guy and smarter than that, or at least I hope you are. He's not going to change his opinion, because you need to have a little more depth to your argument. I don't see any new evidence here that would come CLOSE to having him change his opinion. You can only debate with information that you are certain of and/or have some evidence to back up. You're saying that steroids have an effect on baseball performance, but what effect? It may very well be true, but HoustonGM is only saying that WE DON'T KNOW what (if any) effect that actually is. For every Barry Bonds that you cite as being a perfect example, what about Neifi Perez (suspended TWICE)? J.C. Romero? Alex Sanchez? Juan freakin' Rincon? Don't pick one example and ignore the rest.

---

Exactly. My "opinion" on this is simply that we do not know what, if any, effect steroids have on a player's baseball performance, and, ragecage is right, I'm not going to change that "opinion" until...well...we know the effect (and I don't think we'll know that for a very long time, and likely never).

If you want me to go further, I'll say that I think steroids effect each player differently. There are probably some players that gain a boost with steroids. There are probably some players that gain nothing. There are probably some players that are harmed by steroid use. I'd guess that you can find players of all shapes and sizes that are affected in a variety of ways by steroid use. I don't think it's as black and white as you want to make it out to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slingshot

So the fact that a lot of players used them makes it less wrong? If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it too? (old one, I know)

---

Yes actually. If everyone (or nearly so) is playing on a level playing field then...yes it makes it less wrong.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

You probably didn't see this since you haven't read the whole thread, but this is a quote I posted earlier from Baseball Think Factory:

Willingness to use a substance does not validate that it's performance-enhancing. This is like saying that since so many people willingly smoke cigarettes in 2009, there's no way it could be dangerous to one's health.

---

That quote from the think factory does nothing but support my concern that steroid use by professional athletes is dangerous as our youth sees it and copies. Just as youth smoke cigarettes because its "cool" and makes them feel older, roids are used by youth because they see professionals using it and having success. Roids and cigarettes are two entirely separte things. People willingly smoke cigarettes because of peer pressure and addiction. We know there is additives that make them even more addicting. The think factory really looks rediculous trying to draw a comparison.

Quote:

---

Just curious because I forget, what's your stance on these players and the Hall of Fame? McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, etc.

---

They should all go into the HOF, although the animosity people have which is keeping them out doesn't infuriate me. I could care less. I'd vote them in however and just explain about the "era".

Quote:

---

Well, I just see a contradiction in that if you think showing people the players that succeeded with the stuff is detrimental to society (ie. causes people to use it), than exposing those in the past isn't a good plan of action.

---

Hiding from this issue has been the problem. Youth need to see that its not beneficial to use this, and fully exposing exactly what happened is better than leaving it up to speculation.

Quote:

---

I disagree, but we'll leave it at that. However, do you not see the blatant hypocrisy on the part of the media, owners, and Commissioner? The media, especially?

---

Absolutely agree there is hypocricy. That does not make them worse than the players that used the steroids in anyway. Not even close.

I do think its unfair to say "you can't critique roid users because there's no proof it helps. We've seen statistical proof in the boost during some players careers at times they were found, suspected, or admitted of using. Yes there are some that haven't been league leaders but do we know they'd even be in the league without roids? Also, how much are they taking and what are they trying to accomplish? All those are unknowns.

From everything I've read its (1) very difficult to study the effects of roids on a baseball player, and (2) very little investigation of it has been done. What is suspected is that roids increase bat speed which allows hitters to see the ball longer and also helps recover quicker which helps endure the rigors of the season and heal quicker.

Here's a powerpoint created by someone from Boston College.

http://sabermetrics.hnrc.tufts.edu/F...roids_Talk.pdf

Here's an article from the washington post which claims roids do help hitters and can even help pitchers throw harder but it greatly increases the pitchers chance of injury;

Quote:

---

While drug experts largely agree that steroids can enhance any hitter's power and likely fueled the unprecedented home run surge in the 1990s, the only evidence to suggest that steroids have significantly affected pitching during the same time period is the injuries that have occurred.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901195_pf.html

Here's a study by a Tufts physicist which claims;

Quote:

---

Tobin reports that a 10 percent increase in muscle mass could help batters who are already exceptional sluggers hit 50 percent more home runs. Earlier studies indicate that such an increase in muscle can be achieved through steroid use.

---

http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/89/20...nPowerHomeRuns

Here's an article from NY Times health which has numerous physician quotes all detailing how they believe roids can help a baseball player;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all

Here are some quotes from the NY Time piece;

Quote:

---

''I've never taken the stuff, but talking to guys who have, they get a lot of extra confidence,'' Mets outfielder Cliff Floyd said. ''They think, 'When I hit the ball, it will go farther than when I hit it before.' They have this different attitude, like they're invincible, and they're just going to crush it. I think that's the real edge.''

---

Quote:

---

''Steroids make your hands faster in that they increase muscle in your forearms and pectorals and numerous muscle sets involved in hitting a baseball,'' said Dr. Charles Yesalis, professor of health and human development at Penn State. ''If you need less time to get around on the ball, you have more time to tell if it's a slider, knuckleball or curve. That makes complete sense.''

---

Quote:

---

''It's basic force equals mass times acceleration,'' said Dr. Gary I. Wadler, professor of medicine at New York University, who has spent 20 years studying doping. ''The mass is muscle and the acceleration is the bat speed. There is a collision. The ball is being hit with more force than before and will go farther.''

---

Quote:

---

As the player steps out of the batter's box, he does not necessarily have more speed, but he does possess greater explosiveness, because of stronger fast-twitch muscle fibers. When Caminiti admitted to Sports Illustrated in 2002 that he used steroids, he said: ''I'd be running the bases and think, 'Man, I'm fast!' And I had never been fast.''

Wadler said: ''Remember Ben Johnson coming out of the starting blocks in the 100 meters at the 1988 Olympics? It's just like that.''

---

Quote:

---

Steroids can assist in the healing process. To strengthen tissue and put more time into rehabilitation, the player will be tempted to begin using again, starting the cycle over.
Steroids help as the years pass, staving off the aging process with more and more muscle. Balls carry farther. Careers extend longer. Numbers reach higher. And the questions grow louder.

---