and the press is going to beat up on a-rod all offseason and into the start of the season....another reason to not watch sportscenter....if he was a royal, maybe they wouldn't talk about it too much.
Printable View
and the press is going to beat up on a-rod all offseason and into the start of the season....another reason to not watch sportscenter....if he was a royal, maybe they wouldn't talk about it too much.
I think the food example might be a little overboard, though ;).
Personally: and I said this before in this thread. In the long run, this will end up being as important as Sosa's corked bat, doesn't really matter, but it probably will change the image some fans have of that player and of the game....
I think this is all a bunch of nonsense, even though I started this thread.
And one more study that claims steroid use has no effect on home run totals, or more accurately, there is no evidence of such, which is what I've claimed (that we just don't know).
http://www.arthurdevany.com/webstuff...yHomeRunMS.pdf
And, some more...Quote:
There is no evidence that steroid use has altered home run hitting and those who argue otherwise are profoundly ignorant of the statistics of homeruns, the physics of baseball, and of the physiological effects of steroids.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=3881
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomi...icle-about-gh/Quote:
The Big Hairy Mess Theory. While performance-altering substances do exist, there is not a fine line between improved nutrition, legal supplements, their quasi-legal variants, and explicitly illegal steroids. Moreover, the benefits of these substances is not universally positive, but will vary substantially based on the particular substances that a player takes, his training habits, and his underlying physiology. In some cases, the impact might trigger a tipping point and be substantially positive, but in many others it will be marginal, and in other cases still, like that of Jeremy Giambi, it might be deleterious. While "steroids" might be responsible for some of the global gain in offensive levels, their impact on the competitive ecology of the game is ambiguous, and not readily distinguishable from the more routine sorts of discrepancies that have been present from the first days of the game, like differences in equipment or coaching.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/op...yt&emc=rss
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=4845
http://lyflines.blogspot.com/2005/04...-baseball.html
HGM there is no study that Steroids do or do not increase skills in whatsoever way simply because to have such a study you would need:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
1) 2 groups of baseball players (say 100 in each group) - one of which did steroids,the other not for X period of time (eg 12-18 months) & then test them on the field of play for Z time (eg 200 games);
2) then you would have to stop the above study & reverse the test (ie the steroid users stopped & the placebo's start using) & then repeat this Y fold (say 20 years).....
as you can see (& it is you who have argued continually about sample sizes) it would be difficult to obtain conclusive results either way WITHOUT MLB support (& ipso facto Government support) as STEROID usage WITHOUT Medical approval is ILLEGAL.
Whatever,your beliefs,the fact simply is that non prescribed Steroid usage is ILLEGAL & also considered cheating in MLB.
Thus under these circumstances the benefits are irrelevant,any player who tested positive is a cheat & thus his acts on the field of play should be questioned.
Personally,the MLB (& the Union) are both being hypocritical - in other sports a "tested" cheat would be banned & his team WOULD lose the wins they obtained when playing.Examples abound from Marion Jones losing her 2000 medals to Juventus in Soccer who were retrograded to a lower division or Cycling teams thrown out of races (eg Astana in 07 in the Tour de France).
Either steroids are "non" harmful & non performance enhancing & can be used like other stimulants or not.... as it stands it is qualified as a BANNED PED & thus A-Rod (& the other 103 players) should have been banned & their teams' equally sanctioned.
As of now only the players' are judged & in would be in the best interest of the sport that Teams' take the "problem" as seriously & this can only happen if they equally suffer.In other sports teams TEST their players in order not to lose money,points & championships....
I don't think HGM was arguing that they are illegal nor that they are a help...but we haven't had a study that has proven it yet, nor will we (likely) ever really be able to prove it...as you said.....I give HGM credit for doing his research.. I still argue that A-Rod doing roids in 03 has nothing to do with the type of player he is today or ever has been. IMOQuote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
I fully understand this,but HGM has argued that steroids may or may not aid performance & for every link he has found there are 2 or 3 that show the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
As I showed you cannot have conclusive proof unless a test study is done & that in itself is almost impossible.
Let us be clear,why are steroids classified as PEDs ? Because the "clinical" tests (& those are the only tests THAT are conclusive) show that steroids aid Performance Enhancement* - from increased strength to quicker recovery from Injuries....did steroids aid A-Rod ? Who knows....but under the CBA signed he KNOWINGLY cheated & unfortunately IT DID affect the player he is today or ever has been.However,it may not affect the way YOU perceive him & that is your right ;)
Why ? Because his usage changed his performance (even if it is a placebo effect),even if it 0.0001% it changed & thus his stats,record etc are not 100% "clean".
As every scientist will tell you for every action there is a reaction thus his actions not only affected HIS stats but those of his team's & those of his opponents & so on -- how many wins did Texas gain from his use ? In 2003 he was voted MVP & hit .298 .396 .600 those numbers (& his talent) LEAD to his NY trade & so on & eventually to his contarct extension .
The essence is though,that BOTH federally & sportively he cheated (& lied) ---- is he a bad person ? Who knows ....but as a sports star he made a choice of cheating & thus (if the SI story is true & the results of the 2003 sample were positive) has to considered in the same light as other cheats.
Again I re-iterate that UNTIL the MLB decides to fine teams' wins/money etc then the incentive to cheat will outway the cost of non cheating.A Rod actions POSSIBLY improved his stats & thus also gained him MILLIONS of dollars.
* see your MD for an explanation or any Pharmaceutical group for clinical results.....
Well we can be sure that his numbers are no longer being effected by this....and they don't seem to have tapered off.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
Aha ! Are you sure ?? For example,he may (or may not) be taking untraceable PEDs eg HGH or EPO+ or the new GH, IGF-1 and Insulin growth factors,Mechano Growth Factor (MGF),Lr3IGF-1 or Tabimorilin (NN703) NONE of which are tested for....Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Again I don't know but as this shows the world of PEDs is ever increasing & as WADA has shown an increase 209% of cases since 2000....& that Sports Related Drug Investment has gone from 100 million in 1987 to 3.2 billion in 2006.
Also note,the MLB does not USE blood testing (only urine) & thus testing players' at the WBC using their HGH test & blood testing.... it may explain why some "older" stars have decided to sit out the tournament (I may be a little paranoid here)
Quote:
"That's part of the deal," said Pound. "When they put this competition together, that there would be international standards and not Major League Baseball, where you can hold up the liquor store five times before you get a meaningful (penalty)."
All I am saying it is difficult to catch a cheat if:
1) you dont test for the PEDs
2) when you do actually,by miracle (or it seems that way),do catch them you do nothing &
3) you leak (the Union) to the players' when tests are going to happen &
4) you ignore the WORLD ANTI DRUG AGENCY policy of testing & fine system
to ME if I was a baseball prodigy or star UNDER the system in place I would be the first to see BALCO (or equivalent) in oder to assertain a A-Rod like contract EVEN if the benefits were 1/2% because those 1 or 2 % could mean 10 or 20 million extra dollars on my contract.
Exactly. We do not know, and it'd be practically impossible TO find out.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
I apply this only to those caught after MLB instituted a policy about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
I agree that the MLB is being hypocritical, but this is not the reason. You do understand why it is impossible for the MLB to do that, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
Except that MLB had no rules governing it and thus cannot institute punishment, especially considering that the test that A-Rod and the other 103 players failed was specifically set up to be anonymous AND explicitly prohibited punishment of the players. It was meant to be blind. How the hell can you punish players for failing a test that was agreed upon to be anonymous and free of punishment?Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
And the MLB does now, as well. However, they can't change the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
Which is exactly what I've been saying. My argument that steroids may or may not improve baseball performance is supported by the fact that there are tons of studies, many of which contradict each other, and that it is practically impossible to do a true study on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
Other cheats like Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Mickey Mantle?Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
Oh, right, it's only cheating if it's steroids...and only if you're an all-time great player.
This is incorrect. The CBA which officially banned steroid use and instituted testing and penalties was put into place AFTER 2003. He reportedly failed a supposedly anonymous test that was meant to assess how pervasive problem was, as part of the process leading up to the policies instituted with the CBA.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
It'd also be nice if we stop speaking in such concrete terms about A-Rod's steroid use. All we know is that he reportedly is on a list of 104 players that failed an anonymous steroid test. We do not know anything beyond that, and convicting him based on that is absolutely ludacris. In order to be intellectually honest, we should reserve judgment until we know more about the issue.
Buster Olney bringing some logic:
Quote:
Baseball officials are mad at Gene Orza, writes Michael Schmidt.
The issue of who was directly responsible for disposing of the 2003 test results remains murky, and not precisely defined for public consumption. But doesn't it stand to reason that that person, whoever it is, should be shoved out of the chain of command?
One of the most remarkable aspects of the whole steroid issue is that while a handful of players -- those named in the Mitchell report, Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, now A-Rod, etc. -- have borne the brunt of the fallout for what was an industry-wide problem, those who held real power in the sport remain in place in the union leadership and in management, essentially untouched.
There has been change in the sport over the past six years, a move into testing. But there has never been any real accountability, other than for a small group of users, which is one of the great failings of the Mitchell report: other than a general statement about general complicity, there was very little in the report about what specific decisions by the sport's leaders helped to foster the rise in steroid use. Barry Bonds probably will never get a job in baseball, and Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire are effectively persona non grata, but the people who made the decisions for the game in the '90s are in power.
Orza and Don Fehr must go, writes John Harper.
Bud Selig must step up and address the A-Rod issue, writes Chris De Luca.
Is the Michael Schmidt Buster Olney mentions THE Mike Schmidt, or just another guy with the same name?
Click the link and find out...but, no, it's a writer named Michael Schmidt. It's not Mike Schmidt the baseball player.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
Really? Ok, imagine a ballplayer's performance a month after not taking food. If you think his performance won't suffer, then I guess we do disagree. If you think his performance will suffer, then food is, by definition, a performance enhancer.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
EDIT: And since someone insists on disregarding the facts ref quotes in sigs, I'll amend my sig and show that two can play the game of making up crap for quotes.
Well, yes, that's obvious, but I think your point would be better served by pointing to examples like weight-lifting, protein drinks, energy drinks, legal weight gain supplements, Lasik, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
I've not the time to go in and respond to alot of the giberish in here...but I'll just be short and sweet on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
You are intelligent enough to know there are different weights given to crime, cheating, etc. Baseball has decided that roid use deserves a more significant penalty than some other forms of cheating. They have their reasoning for that, of which you're free to dispute. I personally agree that it is more significant than alot of other forms of cheating.
Yeah, true. I was taking it to the extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
But it still baffles me. A player's numbers are going to be inflated if he takes a drug to treat an upper respiratory infection, because he will be able to play in a day or two instead of a week or two. Therefore, since he won't miss as much time (thanks to the DRUG), his numbers are inflated. Therefore, by definition that DRUG is also a performance enhancer. Yet where's the outcry???
I've said it before, our society's nutty, kneejerk reaction to the word DRUG is utterly hilarious at times.
Until someone shows even remotely shows that steroid use is worse than other forms of cheating, I just can't bring myself to believe it. I understand that baseball's rules NOW impose tougher penalties for steroid use than other forms of cheating. They didn't, however, when A-Rod allegedly did steroids. The fact of the matter is that A-Rod, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, etc. broke the rules in the exact same manner as the greats of the past. They did something that was illegal, but that baseball had no rules governing. Those players get a pass and get treated as saints, while today's players are reviled as despicable blights on the face of humanity, and it's absurd. Steroids have been around for decades. The earliest confirmed use of steroids by major league players is the 1960's. Steroid use is nothing new, and there are undoubtedly players that we revere as great, classy guys that played the game the right way that did steroids.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I believe Juventus was demoted for game-fixing...not drug use.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
Aside from the point that you directly like to come after me simply because you do not agree with me and as anyone can see that you attack me with explicitives in your previous arguments, I will point out your gross error.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Thomas Jefferson said many quotes, very similiar to the one I have in my sig, and is on many specific websites. Since you will likely argue that each website is or conservative agenda...I'll just go from the website's that are of only quotations:
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
Thomas Jefferson
That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part.
Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson
Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
Thomas Jefferson
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.
Thomas Jefferson
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...jefferson.html
This is the first site that popped up when I googled Jefferson, and I pulled a small amount of his quotes to prove the point....it sure does appear he favored small gov't. and it completely makes sense that he would have said the words in my signature. Go to more sites if you wish, it appears he very likely could have said the same quote that my apparently "conservative" websites would have said.
OFG, you seem to love to come after me with really no true point or necessary purpose. You basically attacked my thread "our economy in a nut shell" with zero points...other then saying I was lying, which you have no point in saying since you have no facts.
I have drifted plenty far with with this and gotten off the point of this thread. However, I will leave you with this quote:
A coward is much more exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit.
Thomas Jefferson
I'll just ask that you two keep that discussion in the thread in which it originally came up in. :)
I just don't see how you can really PROVE that steriod use is directly linked to improving a baseball player's ability to hit a ball, or be a great player. All baseball players do what they can to improve....and besides the point: what does it matter if he did this in 03'? he isn't now, and there were no rules saying he couldn't.
I promise to do so from this point forward :)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
My only point or purpose was to point out your falsehoods. You claimed to pay over a million dollars in taxes to the U.S. Treasury on only two million dollars in total revenue. It's a lie. No American citizen is taxed at that rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
You just listed several quotes from Thomas Jefferson.
NOT ONE OF THE THEM WAS THE QUOTE YOU ATTRIBUTED TO HIM IN YOUR SIG. Gerald Ford made that quote, NOT Thomas Jefferson.
Therefore, it too is a lie.
If you want to make up lies and distortions to make your points, then I'm going to show you that I can too. If you want to have a discussion on the merits of taxation or the role of government, I'd love to have that discussion too. In fact, I think you'd be surprised at how much I probably agree with you (not on taxation though :D). But using falsehoods and distortions to make one's point irritates me to no end, and I will call anyone out on it (not just you, though I suppose I see why you feel like it's just you).
I could come up with several Jefferson quotes I too agree with. Particularly those on the liberty, the tyranny of the majority, and the limits of good government. But I'd rather not make up stuff to make my point, even though I did just that in my sig. George Washington is not the one that said that.
Sorry HGM. Just saw your post above.
No more posts here. My bad.
Of course there's no proof, we have no clue what guys are taking or how much they are taking or where any kind of baseline exists for any comparisons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
And, actually Steroids, as an illegal, substance, were banned in 1991. Commissioner Vincent at the time sent a memo to MLB clubs stating so, Granted there were no tests or specific punishment for it.
So I leave ESPN on usually during the day while working: and who else is tired of hearing about A-ROID?
That memo was essentially meaningless. All it was was a reminder that (some) steroids were against the law. Any official MLB drug policy must be collectively bargained with the union. It had no power. Fay Vincent, in an interview with Maury Brown, said as much:Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
Quote:
BizBall: So, on the contents of the memo, was the subject matter of the document broached to the union at the time, or was this a matter of this is an internal thing sent to the clubs, “Please be aware.”
Vincent: I don’t know the answer to that question. I think it would have been highly unusual to raise it with the union because we knew that there was a contract with them there was no way we could do anything in the middle of the contract. And, I think it was really our attempt to be on record, if this was our universe, if we controlled the whole thing, this is what we would do. And we did it, but we did it only for the people that were not covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
I would think, had a commisioner chose to do so, he could suspend a player for breaking the law. If he had irrefutable proof said hypothetical player had done so.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
He could, probably provided that the player was actually being charged with a crime. But, alas, no commissioner did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
I would agree that there are conduct clauses in contracts and MLB could theoreticallly suspend a player for violation a law which isn't in their rule book. It would be immensely controversial and unprecedented to do so retroactively like this, and for steroid use of which many have been accused of already without suspension. Selig has already said he's turning the page after the Mitchell investigation. MLB is not suspending or disciplining AROD over this in any way IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Does anyone know if they're going to release ALL of the supposed "anonymous" positive results or if the cherry picking of names to be released will continue?
Excellent piece here on how the society/the fans deserve blame for the "steroid era", and how athletes doing whatever they can to win isn't anything new.
Quote:
I dare anyone to try to name an era in sports in the last in which any semblance of purity, now suddenly demanded by the public, actually existed. By all means, please direct us to this golden time where no currently banned performance-enhancing drugs were available, but went unused by the wholesome players of yesteryear. It's certainly not the 80s or 90s or 2000s, when steroid use apparently came most popular. It certainly wasn't the 60s and 70s, when players were distributing now-banned amphetamines and starting to experiment with steroids themselves. The only difference between a slugger in 1938 and a slugger in 2008 is the quality of the goodies he can get his hands on.
Until then, when you see A-Rod's face appear on the screen, with an ESPN Talking Head, delivering a steroids screed from a soapbox of sanctimony and wonder who's it fault, make sure to point at yourself, in the glare of the television. Fans demand athletes when to jump and the athletes simply heard the answer to "How high?"
Who knows. They really should release all the names at this point. While I feel it's absolutely terrible that the promises of the agreement weren't followed through upon (namely, the anonymity of the tests, and the destruction of the samples), it's now just as wrong to sacrifice A-Rod when that list of 104 players undoubtedly includes other All Stars, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Yeah, I totally agree. It should've been truly anonymous, but now that they've unleashed the wolves on ARod, they should go ahead and release them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Every
Last
One
of
them.
The best way to put all this to bed would be for Selig to make a big speech asking Americans to turn the page and move on....explain to the general public how everyone is complicit, and then after Selig is done have Obama come on stage and issue a sweeping pardon for any MLB players who have used illegal PED's AND those who may have perjured themselves during investigations of PED use.
I'd also like a unicorn for Christmas.
Looks like he's admitted to using them from '01 to '03. Sorry if that is old news at this point...just got in.
Not a shocker. As for those saying we can't "prove" that steroids help performance......I think that's a little naive. Steroids aren't a magic pill that turn bums into studs..but steroids help make you stronger when used with other methods. That's just a known fact. Being stronger is an advantage. You can't say that "oh, steroids help you hit 10 more HRs a year" or anything like that...but it's obvious they help to SOME degree..and they are illegal. Even if MLB had no rules against it, they were still illegal. The players shouldn't get all or the majority of the blame..but they should get some.
This info never should've gotten out and hopefully we can all move on..but we all know that won't happen..so we just have to deal with it I guess.
I think fans have always expected those caught cheating in whatever aspect to receive appropriate disciplinary action. Thats the difference. I don't know why you are trying so hard to find sources that defend those who actually took this stuff at the expense of others. Fans want the maximum effort from the athletes and do expect more than they should....but they expect it within the conframe of the pre-set rules and integrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
This I agree with. While I find it hard to believe that this kind of a 'mistake' was made, all of the reports presently agree that this information was supposed to be immediately destroyed.Quote:
Who knows. They really should release all the names at this point. While I feel it's absolutely terrible that the promises of the agreement weren't followed through upon (namely, the anonymity of the tests, and the destruction of the samples), it's now just as wrong to sacrifice A-Rod when that list of 104 players undoubtedly includes other All Stars, etc.
Why shouldn't they get the majority of the blame? While I agree they don't deserve all........i'm pretty sickened by the way some are turning them into victims. They chose to put this into their bodies and risk the outcome should that become known. No gun was held to their head.Quote:
The players shouldn't get all or the majority of the blame..but they should get some.