You have to consider that the addition of the Rockies, for a short time at least, also helped raise the league wide HR/G. Not only the Rockies themselves, but all the tams who visited COL had the effects of Mile High and Coors, until recently.
Printable View
You have to consider that the addition of the Rockies, for a short time at least, also helped raise the league wide HR/G. Not only the Rockies themselves, but all the tams who visited COL had the effects of Mile High and Coors, until recently.
this myth has to stop. The use of illegal drugs is against the "written rules" and has been since like the late 70's if I read correctly. The recent SI with AROD on the cover best explained it.Quote:
there was no written rule
Good point and precedent for those who admit to have used steroids to be disciplined / suspended.Quote:
How about the constant suspensions of players such as Steve Howe, who was allowed back in time and time again.
agree 100%Quote:
Do we discount the pitching records from the deadball era? Then why would anyone discount the batting records from the steroid era?(Yes, face it. It was just another Era in baseball, also since both pitchers and batters were participants in taking PED's, that would seem to even it out)
absolutely its a stain on the game. Just as when blacks weren't allowed, just as the blacksox scandal, or pete rose, or the missing of the WS due to a strike, etc. While they all may bring different levels of disdain to each of us individual, it most certainly is a "stain to the game" and something many wish never happened.Quote:
the fact that guys taking PED's being a stain on the game, just disgusts me.
Exactly the point. As for drugs, and this drives me crazy. amphetemines were always illegal. Steroids were always illegal. This is from a federal point of view. HGH is newer and extremely popular in the NFL, but only banned in about 7 states so far. Sad thing is it is Oregon, Hawaii, etc.; states that dont support pro teams.Quote:
well I hope one day you open your eyes a bit more to see that baseball has never been a pure game, it has it's dark alleys and back room deals
There are only 2 institutions that ban HGH. The NCAA and IOC. Sad really if you think about it.
Most people dont really understand what Human Growth Hormon is. HGH is a naturally produced hormone that we all have. When extracted and purified, it can be turned into a way more potent way to supposedly boost muscle mass, endurance, and dating Sheryl Crowe. HGH leaves steroids in the dust. Sad thing is that this slowly being proven more trustworthy everyday as bio gets better. Thus MLBPA will fight like mad to defend it.
Conclusion: a guy claiming to only use HGH (like it isnt bad and is natural) is actually more of a cheat than steroids. HGH is the current decade to steroids in the 90s.
Best future for BB: up until about 5 years ago, HGH could not be detected in urine, only blood. That is why the MLBPA was so willing to concede urine tests because they knew blood would never be accepted. HA ****ing ha. They can now read HGH down to almost where it came from based on urine.
Sad that this important in sports
Yeah, I agree. I've not tried to argue it's not a stain, because it is a stain that will linger for some time. I've tried to argue that it's no worse of a stain than the many that have been on the game for...., well forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Some would disagree with that and say this is much worse of a stain, and I would agree with those folks IF there were evidence steroids really did turn regular ballplayers into super ballplayers. To date I haven't seen that evidence.
And considering that many, if not most, pitchers have been using too, I really fail to comprehend why we place all the emphasis on hitters that hit the long ball. We throw Bonds and A-Rod to the wolves, while we never seem to question whether the newest members of pitchers in the 3,000 K club got there "legitimately" or not. It reeks of double standards and "unfavoritism" (for lack of a better word) all over the place in the way the media and upper echelon of baseball has handled it.
[QUOTESome would disagree with that and say this is much worse of a stain, and I would agree with those folks IF there were evidence steroids really did turn regular ballplayers into super ballplayers. To date I haven't seen that evidence][/QUOTE]
I like the IF because it is so right. There is no empirical evidence that steroids have ever boosted, prolonged, or increased eye hand coordination.
When looked at as a superstar like Clemens or Bonds, it seems an excuse to give them boost when in fact they were superstars to begin with.
Read the list. The other 99% who used were bench or AAAers trying to make the bench with no better/no worse results for having stuck any needle in their butts.
The only evidence I have ever seen from overdosing were Bond's melon and McGwire. Apparently there were way more things being injected..
I do stand by my earlier post on HGH though. Hormones do not lead to small balls, big head, rippling muscles, etc. However, they are being proven to increase stamina, just like amphetemines. So goes the circle.
The unwritten rules, I was referring to just the exclusion of anyone of color in MLB. Wasn't referring to drug use. But in baseball, at least in my memory of the 80's, being convicted of possession or just basically being caught under the influence a lot. Were the only instances which warranted any type of suspension. I imagine teams more or less tried to care of things in house back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I think for me, it's baseball. The stain to the game....It doesn't make me dislike baseball anymore or any less. I was more or less saying that, baseball is full of these stains. It's just seems to be something that shouldn't be of amazement anymore. Missing the World Series due to the strike was worse (because this was mostly due to greed on both parties. Baseball players in my opinion make far too much money, but owners created it). I put this just below the Black Sox Scandal (to me throwing games is worse than anything) in terms of being a "stain" to the game.
The thing for me is, the players who used any type of PED's were doing so for either personal gain (such as statistics) or to try and help their team win (which I think is less of a reason, but a combination of the two probably would be more accurate). I think it's the commish and owners who have let this happen and seem to be skating on being responsible for allowing this to happen.
I do wish it didn't happen, but I wonder what would of been the effect after the strike. Did McGwire/Sosa really bring baseball back, or was it just time? Even though I believe it's been an era in baseball, just like I wish the deadball era hadn't been so harsh (the insanity of the pitching) i'll view the steroid era as the same (the insanity of Brady Anderson hitting 50). As far as HOF, only cream of the crop should be able to go. McGwire, Clemens, Bonds,A-Rod. All the one year boppers or good but not great pitchers (Pettitte). But that is just my opinion, and I don't a Hall of Fame vote.......yet. lol
I do hope that the MLBPA loses a bit of luster for it's members now. I mean if it wasn't for them getting their players to take tests anonymously that they would hold onto for some reason, until a federal order would not allow their destruction and would turn them into non-anonymous tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshopper
What seems like will happen is a bunch of Sheryl Crow daters who are always one step ahead of tests and using technology to get that edge. It's sad, but that is the world we live in I suppose.
Which brings baseball back to square 1. It is hard to find any great player in baseball who didnt use an "edge". Who knows what guys in the 40s, 50s, and 60s did. That stuff is starting to come out now as older players give it up in a sense of fair play and mortality. No, it wasnt drugs, but a whole lot of crap that MLB has since banned is starting to be revealed. I used to think that corked bats were from the 80s. I used to think that scruffing balls was from the 70s. Turns out, they put cork in the bat as soon as technology allowed (1930s) and they could actually carry foreign material tucked in the back of their Jerseys. I am talking pieces of sandpaper, rasps, etc back to the 30s also.Quote:
What seems like will happen is a bunch of Sheryl Crow daters who are always one step ahead of tests and using technology to get that edge. It's sad, but that is the world we live in I suppose.
I have learned this. They will always try to get an edge. They will always lie about it. Congress should back the **** off. Selig should be fired. The MLBPA should be disbanded and re-created without Soros running it.
Sorry, wrote Soros and should have been Boras.
There most certainly is evidence out there, or at least doctors who have studied this at length which agree roids makes a difference. I posted links in a recent thread which i'm not sure if you read. If not let, respond here and i'll try to find and re-link them in this one. What is claimed is that steroids most certainly improve bad speed which allows a hitter to sit longer on a pitch. In addition, with the greater bat speed there is more force at impact. As for the pitchers, i've read that it "may" increase pitch speed but if so its only a few MPH and the risk of injury is severe.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
The problem is, which i'm sure you'll point to, is that for every one who believes it makes a difference there are those who believe it doesn't and/or points to historical data over the past 100 years or so to show that there hasn't been any huge bump in HR's.
All i've said is that each person has to take whatever evidence for both sides they deem credible and make your own opinion. To me it seems naive to simply take one side and run with it. I believe steroids most certainly can improve performance but its not incredible in every player, and it greatly depends on the program they are on and what they are trying to obtain.
Actually, no, not always. Prior to passage of the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990, steroids were simply prescription drugs. Selling them (or possession with intent to sell) was illegal, but possession or use wasn't. Anyone who could get a prescription from a physician could buy them openly.Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshopper
Thats exactly how I feel about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
They were informed that steroids were illegal. The memo was sent to the TEAMS. There's been no confirmation that players actually ever saw it, and Fay Vincent admitted that the memo had no power over the players. All it did was say that steroids are illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
What about the literally hundreds of players that used and sucked? Steroids don't make you great.Quote:
Originally Posted by acetoolguy
It depends on what you're talking about. Andro, for example, wasn't illegal until 2004 or so. Steroids, amphetamines, etc. were not against MLB rules until 2004. MLB had no penalties for it and no power to enforce it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I don't think that believing an "artificially enhancing the length of one's peak" is alright while "artificially creating a peak" isn't is valid. It's logically inconsistent. There's also the fact that amphetamines do things like increase reaction time which may "artificially enhance the peak." Also, with steroids, you still have to work hard to get their effects. They don't just magically give you muscles. There's a reason steroid users are workout fanatics. Amphetamines are like coffee in that you take them and get their effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
One stadium would not boost leaguewide home run totals like that. Plus, the effect is seen in both leagues. It is true that most of the new parks were more offense-friendly, which did play a role in the increased offense levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
Having a rule that you can't be punished for is like having no rule at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Except Steve Howe didn't admit to using drugs 10 years ago. He was caught using them at the time he was suspended and his use negatively affected his play on the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
No. Absolutely not. HGH is NOT a performance-enhancer.Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshopper
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomi...er-should-you/
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomi...h-in-baseball/
http://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/04/...rowth-hormone/
http://www.slate.com/id/2162473/nav/tap1/
It's simple. Offensive records fell. Pitching records didn't fall - mostly because a lot of the pitching records were set in the early 20th century and will NEVER be reached simply by virtue of the game environment being different now. People don't recognize that, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
It's also that illegal drug use of that sort can be detrimental to your game, so teams suspend you so that you don't hurt their bottom line. They didn't care about steroids because the "conventional wisdom" was/is that it helps you, and therefore is beneficial to the bottom line (winning).Quote:
Originally Posted by reflections
Baseballs first "written" drug policy was issued by commissioner Bowie Kuhn in 1971!!! It stated that baseball personnel must "comply with federal and state drug laws." Thats all encompassing, and since roid use without a prescription is a violation of the federal and state drug laws, baseball has every right to discipline should they choose to. This has been on the books for 38 years, and the policy has been enhanced quite a bit since then. Again, the myth that baseball players "didn't know roids were illegal" or baseball didn't have any rules prohibiting them needs to stop. Fay Vincents memo was the first to explicitily mention steroids, but that point is moot as roids are not permissible under the federal law. Stop.Quote:
They were informed that steroids were illegal. The memo was sent to the TEAMS. There's been no confirmation that players actually ever saw it, and Fay Vincent admitted that the memo had no power over the players. All it did was say that steroids are illegal.
Effects are different as people use them to get different things and some who "sucked" may have not even been in the league had it not been for juicing. When one speculates it opens up the door for anything.Quote:
What about the literally hundreds of players that used and sucked? Steroids don't make you great.
False, false, and more false. See above.Quote:
It depends on what you're talking about. Andro, for example, wasn't illegal until 2004 or so. Steroids, amphetamines, etc. were not against MLB rules until 2004. MLB had no penalties for it and no power to enforce it.
You're entitled to your opinion. Nobody said "artificially enhancing the length of ones peak" was valid. I only said why many I talk to have more disdain for roids over amphetimines and its a valid opinion.Quote:
I don't think that believing an "artificially enhancing the length of one's peak" is alright while "artificially creating a peak" isn't is valid. It's logically inconsistent. There's also the fact that amphetamines do things like increase reaction time which may "artificially enhance the peak." Also, with steroids, you still have to work hard to get their effects. They don't just magically give you muscles. There's a reason steroid users are workout fanatics. Amphetamines are like coffee in that you take them and get their effect.
Exactly. Hence our discussion the other day about a deterrent if those found using years ago or on this list of 104 were disciplined. Again, of course it would be a deterrent even though it wouldn't be right. MLB could always punish for a violation of their rules.Quote:
Having a rule that you can't be punished for is like having no rule at all.
I've read contrary opinions, but most do state that HGH ALONE does little. Its mainly used as I've said a few times, to "maintain" the effects that using steroids gave during the "off roid cycle" and for many its speculatively used during the season as its undetectable by current tests. So roid up in the offseason when chance of a test is minimal, HGH it during the season as it helps maintain that elevated performance without chance of being caught.Quote:
No. Absolutely not. HGH is NOT a performance-enhancer.
While I agree with the premise, theres also the fact that HR's by season has blown up since the 80's. Heck when I was a kid, Cecil Fielders 50 HR season was unfathomable....now it seems to be topped regularly for a multitude of reasons. I believe that has a large reason to do with the hitters being persecuted moreso than the pitchers.Quote:
It's simple. Offensive records fell. Pitching records didn't fall - mostly because a lot of the pitching records were set in the early 20th century and will NEVER be reached simply by virtue of the game environment being different now. People don't recognize that, though.
exactly......that and the fact that in many cases they couldn't prove it because they couldn't test. Most who got fined/suspended in the past was after being arrested under the influence of drugs or alcohol.Quote:
It's also that illegal drug use of that sort can be detrimental to your game, so teams suspend you so that you don't hurt their bottom line. They didn't care about steroids because the "conventional wisdom" was/is that it helps you, and therefore is beneficial to the bottom line (winning).
Nobody is saying that players didn't know they were illegal, under the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Prior to 1990, steroids were not illegal. A prescription was required to have them, but possessing and using steroids was not illegal. Distributing steroids without a license was.
After 1990, certain steroids were illegal. This is different than the MLB banning them. An enforceable drug policy in the MLB must be collectively bargained. This was not the case until 2004. MLB had NO penalties for steroid use until then.
Fay Vincent, HIMSELF, admitted that his memo had no power. You can continue to disagree with him about his own memo, but that seems like a pretty foolish thing to do.
Which is exactly why speculating who did what and got what benefits is a fool's endeavor.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
False, false, and more false. See Fay Vincent's comments regarding his own memo.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Quote:
"I’m sure that what the General Managers are saying is correct that nobody paid too much attention to it because it was aimed at people who probably weren’t big steroid users anyway. I mean the clubhouse man, and the coaches would hardly be taking steroids. But that’s all we could do. We couldn’t do anything with the union because the union wouldn’t even give us a hearing on strengthening the cocaine drug problem laws. I mean, I’m glad I did it (sent the memo), I wished we’d done more."
The memo was not aimed at the players AND had no power over the players.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.
What makes you think that testing in the offseason has a "minimal chance"? See here and here.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Quote:
Every player will have:
— A pre-season test in connection with spring training physicals.
— An unannounced test during the season on a randomly selected date.
— There will be additional, year-round random testing.
— No matter how many times a player is tested, he remains subject to an additional random test.
— Testing will occur during the off-season.