A-Roids?

I am on the side of those that believe that steroids not only help, but have a significant impact. I just don't think that using steroids is some special kind of cheating that is dramatically different from using amphetamines, corking a bat or throwing a spitball. I believe all of those help a player play better. And more than that, two of them had specific penalties attached for roughly 90 years. So my assumption is that those forms of cheating that were important enough for baseball to create specific penalties should not be considered less important than something that baseball couldn't be bothered to specifically outlaw. Steroids are bad, it is good that baseball is now testing and punishing those that use steroids going forward, but I don't think it makes sense to treat those players that did use steroids as if they committed a serious crime against the sport of baseball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

I am on the side of those that believe that steroids not only help, but have a significant impact. I just don't think that using steroids is some special kind of cheating that is dramatically different from using amphetamines, corking a bat or throwing a spitball. I believe all of those help a player play better. And more than that, two of them had specific penalties attached for roughly 90 years. So my assumption is that those forms of cheating that were important enough for baseball to create specific penalties should not be considered less important than something that baseball couldn't be bothered to specifically outlaw. Steroids are bad, it is good that baseball is now testing and punishing those that use steroids going forward, but I don't think it makes sense to treat those players that did use steroids as if they committed a serious crime against the sport of baseball.

---

Thats a fair opinion. I personally do view roid use more significant than corking and spitballs. Amphetimenes i'd probably view somewhere in the middle of those but closer to steroid use.

Roid use IMO is just as significant as gambling on baseball. It is a illegal substance which if not used correctly is very dangerous and now after reading those other articles I too believe one can gain a great advantage in using it. Whereas scuffing the baseball is a misdemeaner, roid use is a felony. Thats the way I look at it anyhow. You're free to draw your own lines on whats acceptable and what isn't. Thats what makes this argument difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

I am on the side of those that believe that steroids not only help, but have a significant impact. I just don't think that using steroids is some special kind of cheating that is dramatically different from using amphetamines, corking a bat or throwing a spitball. I believe all of those help a player play better. And more than that, two of them had specific penalties attached for roughly 90 years. So my assumption is that those forms of cheating that were important enough for baseball to create specific penalties should not be considered less important than something that baseball couldn't be bothered to specifically outlaw. Steroids are bad, it is good that baseball is now testing and punishing those that use steroids going forward, but I don't think it makes sense to treat those players that did use steroids as if they committed a serious crime against the sport of baseball.

---

Corking a bat has actually been shown to decrease the distance a ball travels and as i said before you can get just about the same 'high' from speed as from a couple of no-doz.....and good luck if you have to take a piss. Maybe that's why manny was in The Wall for so long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

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.

---

First of all, just to be clear, this was just one poster on a thread at BTF, not "the think factory." Further, it is just used to illustrate the point that just because baseball players use steroids does not mean that they enhance baseball performance.

Quote:

---

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.

---

How does showing the youth baseball players who have made millions and millions of dollars playing baseball while taking steroids show that it's not "beneficial to use"?

Quote:

---

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

---

I think effectively covering up and ignoring the issue makes them as complicit as the players. A person that covers up a murder but did not commit the murder is, in my opinion, just as bad as the murderer.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Seeing "statistical proof" in a couple of players is...well...NOT proof, because that's ignoring the hordes of players that show no increase in their performance.

You've linked to numerous studies that believe steroids have an effect. I can link to numerous studies that believe steroids don't. I can link to numerous studies that believe they have an effect but can't determine what it is. I can link to numerous studies that contradict each other. None of the studies agree with each other, which is why the only rational conclusion is "We don't know what effect steroids have on baseball performance."

Personally, I think it's perfectly logical that each individual player receives a different effect from steroids. It depends on how much they use, what they use, how long they've used, their physical makeup, their genetics, and a variety of other factors. Would you disagree that people can be affected differently by steroids? Would you disagree that there could be some players that it harms, some players that it helps, and some players that it does nothing, good or bad, for? Do you believe that steroids automatically make you better at baseball no matter what?

Quote:

---

First of all, just to be clear, this was just one poster on a thread at BTF, not "the think factory." Further, it is just used to illustrate the point that just because baseball players use steroids does not mean that they enhance baseball performance.

---

IMO its a poor illustration.

Quote:

---

How does showing the youth baseball players who have made millions and millions of dollars playing baseball while taking steroids show that it's not "beneficial to use"?

---

It's already widely accepted that many did, ie...the "steroid era". Exposing those who took it only separates fact from fiction and at least shows that there is a price to pay in the court of public opinion.

Quote:

---

I think effectively covering up and ignoring the issue makes them as complicit as the players. A person that covers up a murder but did not commit the murder is, in my opinion, just as bad as the murderer.

---

Thats a stretch. The media/union/owners didn't "cover it up" for the most part, I believe they knew it was taking place but did not know the full extent of it and frankly didn't want to. If you suspect your neighbor is cheating on his wife, are you just as complicit because you don't tell his wife? No, the husband carries most of the blame. Thats not a great analogy either, but considering the one you gave its on par.

Quote:

---

I can link to numerous studies that believe steroids don't.

---

Please do. While I agree roids can't help you hit a baseball these studies here by some who have looked at doping for 20 years make alot of sense. Roids can increase bat speed, rehab time, confidence, etc. according to these studies. Show me yours now.

Quote:

---

"None of the studies agree with each other, which is why the only rational conclusion is "We don't know what effect steroids have on baseball performance."

---

Hmm...why have you seem to made up your mind that man is responsible for global warming. If i'm not mistaken, thats the side of that particular argument you've taken, and there are many that disagree. I'm not saying that your opinion in that is wrong, only that there will always be differing opinion on anything. You have to take the info in from both sides and formulate your own opinion.

Quote:

---

Would you disagree that people can be affected differently by steroids? Would you disagree that there could be some players that it harms, some players that it helps, and some players that it does nothing, good or bad, for? Do you believe that steroids automatically make you better at baseball no matter what?

---

I beleive people take roids for different things. People who take roids under the guidance of professionals and who target certain attributes will see improvements in those attributes. People who take roids without guidance do risk a negative outcome. So yes, if people take roids to improve bat speed, and with the use of professionals develop a plan to target certain mucsles, they will see an improvement in bat speed.

Quote:

---

you can get just about the same 'high' from speed as from a couple of no-doz

---

Is this truth or myth? I don't know much about amphetamines, except for that they are illegal without a script. Some claim a few coffees are the same. Well, than they should drink more coffee. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

And nobody likes my headline :(

---

]I LOVE it :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989

Let's let A-Rod defend himself...

---

agreed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KowboyKoop

He already did. He said to go talk to the union.

Sounds like an admission of guilt to me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

for p.r. reasons he has to say, talk to the union....he is smart to not say anything to the press. that is the only thing he should say.

---

BINGO

I guess with the Super Bowl ending SI needed another story to help sales. BTW, has there been any strong proof of OFFICIAL guilt against McGwire, Bonds, Arod and so forth? Or is it the mere gossip of it that kills a players reputation. What exactly was Arod found guilty of? Why wasn't he suspended? It just seems fishy to me that's all. No trial or jury, just guilty and forever tainted because of hearsay.

Thanks for ruining baseball Jose! :mad:

Again people throw arounf the word "steroids" like it just a pill some guys takes if he leg is sore .. the extent and what they are doing can be so vast and confusing.

Take for instance an advanced 'roid cycle. which would include, over a 20 week cycle .. 9600mg of testerone, 1400mg of dianabol, 5500mg of Deca Durabolin, 2100mg of Winstrol, 1900mg of Nolvadex, 31mg of liqidex and 4 weeks of Clomind thereapy, which is about 2500-3500mg of a weak synthetic oestrogen.


So what these guys are taking, or if they have any effect is extremly sketchy as many may not even be doing in right. But we have seen that in the case of a player like Bonds, under supervision, it can lead to incredibly quick muscle mass gain -- Bonds reportedly gained about 20-25 Lbs of muscle in 3 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

IMO its a poor illustration.

---

Than ignore the "illustration." And just focus on this point - Just because baseball players use steroids does not mean that we can tell what effect, if any, it has on their baseball performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Thats a stretch. The media/union/owners didn't "cover it up" for the most part, I believe they knew it was taking place but did not know the full extent of it and frankly didn't want to. If you suspect your neighbor is cheating on his wife, are you just as complicit because you don't tell his wife? No, the husband carries most of the blame. Thats not a great analogy either, but considering the one you gave its on par.

---

I don't think that analogy is close. Your neighbor's potential cheating isn't your business. Steroid use is completely part of the business of the union, owners, and baseball media. They knew it was happening. They didn't care, and did nothing about it. They are just as implicit as the players are. If they had rules about it and punishment guidelines in place and the players went ahead and did it anyway, that's a different story, but that is not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Please do. While I agree roids can't help you hit a baseball these studies here by some who have looked at doping for 20 years make alot of sense. Roids can increase bat speed, rehab time, confidence, etc. according to these studies. Show me yours now.

---

http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomi...er-should-you/

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=1003 - interview with a former MLB trainer, conducted in 2001, Let's see some excerpts:

GH: How widespread is the use of steroids among ballplayers?
Trainer: Only from what I've seen, I'd say very widespread; maybe a third of the players.

GH: How much benefit is there, really, to using steroids?
Trainer: That would vary wildly from individual to individual. There is definitely a physical effect that allows for greater and more rapid muscle gain. But you can get enough muscles to hit the ball 400 feet without steroids. It's more of a question of what you do with the muscles. For some guys, though, it's the difference between making a few million bucks and staying in Double-A.

GH: Do the clubs know about the extent of steroid use in baseball?
Trainer: Of course they know. A lot of clubs are really good about it, and work with their medical staffs to watch out for it and educate their players in the minors.

But, at any rate, simply proving that steroids have an effect on baseball performance is NOT enough to show that it is worse than other forms of cheating. Those other types of cheating ALSO have an effect. You must SHOW the effect of steroids AND the effect of the other types of cheating in order to show that steroids are worse. And it's basically impossible to conclusively show exactly what effect steroids have, considering the ridiculous amount of factors that go into it, most of which I've already mentioned. It varies based on type of steroid, length of use, body type, genetics, combinations of steroids, amount of steroids, etc. etc. etc. and sorting out the ridiculous amount of factors would be impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Hmm...why have you seem to made up your mind that man is responsible for global warming. If i'm not mistaken, thats the side of that particular argument you've taken, and there are many that disagree. I'm not saying that your opinion in that is wrong, only that there will always be differing opinion on anything. You have to take the info in from both sides and formulate your own opinion.

---

I don't believe I've ever gotten involved in a global warming debate on this forum. I'm not going to formulate an opinion on what, if any, effect steroids have, simply because the evidence is utterly insufficient. We do not know. I also submit that even if we do know that steroids have an effect baseball performance, we do not and cannot know what that effect is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I beleive people take roids for different things. People who take roids under the guidance of professionals and who target certain attributes will see improvements in those attributes. People who take roids without guidance do risk a negative outcome. So yes, if people take roids to improve bat speed, and with the use of professionals develop a plan to target certain mucsles, they will see an improvement in bat speed.

---

But isn't it entirely possible that even though they take the steroids with an eye towards improving bat speed, that they may not see an increase in their bat speed? Or, if they do, they see a decrease of skill in another area, balancing out when it comes to overall performance?

People take weight loss supplements in order to lose weight. Not all people that do so actually do lose weight. Just because you take something for a specific reason does not mean that you WILL get that result. People are affected by drugs in different ways.

Why can't it be possible that some players see an improvement, some don't, and some are hurt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daves

I guess with the Super Bowl ending SI needed another story to help sales. BTW, has there been any strong proof of OFFICIAL guilt against McGwire, Bonds, Arod and so forth?

---

Bonds, I would say yes. McGwire and A-Rod? Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daves

Or is it the mere gossip of it that kills a players reputation.

---

Yep. Any accusation will kill a player's reputation, no matter it's credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daves

What exactly was Arod found guilty of? Why wasn't he suspended? It just seems fishy to me that's all. No trial or jury, just guilty and forever tainted because of hearsay.

---

A-Rod was "found guilty" of reportedly being on a list of 104 positive steroid tests in the 2003 "anonymous" steroid survey. That is all we know about A-Rod at this point in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daves

Thanks for ruining baseball Jose!

---

Um, what?

To all those that believe they can show what effect steroids have, show me. Show me that taking steroids automatically makes a player better at baseball and in what ways. Show me that they don't have different effects on different people.

Also, dickay, on the front office/media/etc. knowing of the problem...how naive do you have to be to really think that they didn't know the extent of it? Or, more accurately, how naive do you think the baseball powers that be were? PED use was first really exposed in the early 1970's. Yes, in the form of amphetamines, but it was known well before the late 90's that amphetamine use had been absolutely rampant in baseball. How naive must the owners and Commissioner and media have been in order to not think that steroids were just as rampant?

I'd also suggest that everybody read this. Here's a player that did steroids and claims they did NOT help his performance, and contributed to his injury problems. It also shows that steroid use isn't some new phenomenon and has been in the game and known within the game for decades.

HGM

Your continued efforts at bringing facts into such a discussion is admirable, but certainly someone with your intelligence understands the complete waste of time in such efforts, yes???

I mean, it's almost exactly like folks a few hundred years ago trying to convince the masses that the earth was indeed round, and the earth did, indeed, rotate around the sun and not the other way around.

No matter how many facts, studies, heralded op-eds, etc., you're not going to convince someone that the earth is round who has convinced themselves the earth is flat.

It just will not work. Facts be damned.

Fact: Food is a performance enhancer.

It really is. Try seeing how athletes perform without food if you don't believe it. Then try convincing the same folks you're arguing with on this subject that food is a performance enhancer. They'll call you insane, completely gone off the deep end. Folks are going to believe what they want to believe.

Like Babe Ruth. He used an illegal drug for years. And years. And bragged about it. Yet Ruth is worshipped. A-Rod didn't even break a baseball rule. Compare the two. Illegal drug specifically mentioned in the Constitution of the United States(at the time) vs. illegal drug not even mentioned in the list of banned substances in MLB (at the time).

Yet A-Rod is Satan and Ruth is Angelic. Don't you see what you're up against?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Jan 1st-348.0
Feb 1st-341.5

---

Briefly off topic, but congratulations and keep up the good work OFG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

HGM

Your continued efforts at bringing facts into such a discussion is admirable, but certainly someone with your intelligence understands the complete waste of time in such efforts, yes???

I mean, it's almost exactly like folks a few hundred years ago trying to convince the masses that the earth was indeed round, and the earth did, indeed, rotate around the sun and not the other way around.

No matter how many facts, studies, heralded op-eds, etc., you're not going to convince someone that the earth is round who has convinced themselves the earth is flat.

It just will not work. Facts be damned.

Fact: Food is a performance enhancer.

It really is. Try seeing how athletes perform without food if you don't believe it. Then try convincing the same folks you're arguing with on this subject that food is a performance enhancer. They'll call you insane, completely gone off the deep end. Folks are going to believe what they want to believe.

Like Babe Ruth. He used an illegal drug for years. And years. And bragged about it. Yet Ruth is worshipped. A-Rod didn't even break a baseball rule. Compare the two. Illegal drug specifically mentioned in the Constitution of the United States(at the time) vs. illegal drug not even mentioned in the list of banned substances in MLB (at the time).

Yet A-Rod is Satan and Ruth is Angelic. Don't you see what you're up against?

---

and you are right.