No, you're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
Printable View
No, you're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
Every time Mets and I post in the same thread, you post something about bickering or whatever, even if there is no argument.....Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The evidence for me is the fact of how many people are taking it. It obviously has some effect...and I'm not saying it turns you into the incredible hulk or superman, but across all sports, olympics, etc...its been widely used to get an extra edge.Quote:
There is no evidence of how steroids help a baseball player. You can't point to Barry Bonds and then claim that as evidence, because if that is the standard of proof, I could point to the hundreds of nobodies that did steroids.
I never said it was. Amphetamines should be treated in the same way as roids IMO. Much of the reason I bleieve Roids, even HGH is taken is to endure the rigors of the season, be able to continually train as these drugs apparently if used in the right manner rejuvenate the mucsles quicker. Amphetamines pretty much the same...it helps them endure the rigors of the season. All of these, while possibly healthy if taken in the correct dose under medical supervison (i say possibly as the medical community is still split on it), are also dangerous if not taken properly. Their usage gives them an unfair advantage over those in the sport that do not use them (as they are illegal) and their success does in fact influence others, including youth, to try them.Quote:
What makes steroids different from other PED's, then, like amphetamines?
I don't beleive i've contracdicted anything. Exposing these athletes that have used, will deter future use as will additional rules and testing. Both can be done concurrently. "Witch hunt" is probably the wrong terminology....i think the Mitchell report was their investigation (a poor one, but hey its MLB)and now the page is turned. However if additional information does surface (such as these player names) and can legally be distributed then they should be.Quote:
Doesn't that last sentence contradict the rest of the paragraph? If society seeing the success that athletes have had while using the stuff increases the use of the drugs among non-professionals, wouldn't conducting a witch hunt to expose as many of those players as possible therefore serve to increase non-professional drug use?
I'm NOT against having rules and testing in place to prevent and punish PED use from here on out. That's different, though, from going back in time and trying to find out who did what when, especially considering it is 100% impossible to ever do that, because steroid use in baseball has been going on since at least the early 1970's, and PED experimentation and use has been going on since the 19th century. Instead of focusing on the past, we should be focusing on eliminating the stuff from the game now and in the future.
Many parents think they're kids are "using" drugs and are (1) afraid to confront them, (2) believe their kids can take it in moderation and not hurt themselves, (3) believe their kids are only experimenting and it'll end soon. They may never realize the full extent of their kids problem until its too late. I DO in those circumstances blame the parents as were talking children. Baseball has grown men....and while I do blame the owners, media, selig and everyone for being complicit, in no way should they burden more of or even close to the same blame IMO as the players.Quote:
Considering there were murmurs of steroid use in the press in the mid-1990's, I think they absolutely turned a blind eye to the issue. How naive could they have been to not realize what was going on? They had NO formal rules about it.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crashburn Alley
Just curious because I forget, what's your stance on these players and the Hall of Fame? McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I'd like to see Arod say: "I'm sorry i lied on 60 minutes about it, I'm sorry if I've hurt or disappointed anyone, BUT everyone was doing them, they wern't banned when I did them *, and If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't change a thing. End of story".Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
He could go the Bonds route and deny everything. Look where that got Barry :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Me too. I really would just like one player to come out and just say straight up "Yes. I did them. Many players did. Everybody knew about it. The media turned a blind eye to it for the longest time. Yes, it was a mistake, a black mark on the history of the game, but it's nothing out of the ordinary. It's far from the worst thing ever committed by baseball. Just like all those past transgressions, it's time to accept this era for what it was and move on."Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Clearly not what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingshot
You said it was not out of the ordinary, that it wasn't the worst thing committed by baseball and that we should just accept that era for what it was. If everyone cheating doesn't qualify as one of the worst things in baseball history, I don't know what is.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It wasn't. That doesn't mean it was right, or "less wrong."Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingshot
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:
and that we should just accept that era for what it was.
Keeping players out of the game based on the color of their skin, losing the World Series on purpose...Quote:
If everyone cheating doesn't qualify as one of the worst things in baseball history, I don't know what is.
1. Well, it seemed that you were implying that. I guess you didn't mean it in the way I thought you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
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".
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:
Originally Posted by Slingshot
That's not up to the MLB, nor should it be.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.
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.
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.Quote:
3. That's why I said "one of the worst", not "the worst".
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.
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
This quote, again, though, bears repeating:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crashburn Alley of BTF
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
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?
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.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.
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.
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:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
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:
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?
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:
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.
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:
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
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.
And this is somehow limited to steroids, and not other forms of cheating?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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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).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.
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.
Yes actually. If everyone (or nearly so) is playing on a level playing field then...yes it makes it less wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingshot
[QUOTE]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:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
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:
Just curious because I forget, what's your stance on these players and the Hall of Fame? McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, etc.
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:
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.
Absolutely agree there is hypocricy. That does not make them worse than the players that used the steroids in anyway. Not even close.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?
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;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901195_pf.htmlQuote:
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.
Here's a study by a Tufts physicist which claims;
http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/89/20...nPowerHomeRunsQuote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
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.
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 kenny1234
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:
Originally Posted by dickay
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:
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.
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:
Absolutely agree there is hypocricy. That does not make them worse than the players that used the steroids in anyway. Not even close.
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.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.
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?
IMO its a poor illustration.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.
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:
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"?
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 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.
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:
I can link to numerous studies that believe steroids don't.
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:
"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."
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:
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?
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:
you can get just about the same 'high' from speed as from a couple of no-doz
]I LOVE it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
agreedQuote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
BINGOQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
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.
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
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
http://steroids-and-baseball.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
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.
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
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?
Bonds, I would say yes. McGwire and A-Rod? Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by daves
Yep. Any accusation will kill a player's reputation, no matter it's credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by daves
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
Um, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by daves
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?
Briefly off topic, but congratulations and keep up the good work OFG.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
and you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy