Illegal drugs and the game

This has been waying heavily on my mind since the Mitchell Report and the latest ARod thingy. At first I was saddened, but after reading a lot of history on the game I am not feeling too bad about it anymore.

Since the game became Apple Pie, all players did everything possible to gain an edge. Cobb sharpened his spikes and slid to destroy 2nd basemen knees. Super illegal in todays game. Pitchers in all eras up till the 90s spit on the ball, sandpapered, etc... Bats were corked, weighted, etc... I am positive that given the chance, many of the best would have pumped Human Growth, steroids, and others drugs to gain the edge.

In fact, players were pumping amphetemines since the 1950s. These were always illegal. To think that Brett and Rose and Reggie never pumped something into their bodies or did something illegal to gain an edge is becoming more unlikely every day. I believe I read somewhere that the Mick was getting so called Cortisone cocktails almost daily at the end, and it wasnt just cortisone. His knee was so bad he would have been out of baseball at 32 as a purest.

So now I ponder. The big ruination should have been McGwire vs. Sosa. We all knew it at the time yet it brought baseball back to prominence after another stupid strike. How could we not know they were both the juice was loose. For crips sake, when Mark M. had to retire because his upper body weight caused his foot arches to collapse. Yes, that is why he retired. We knew then and no one said anything.

So to todays game. I totally hear and understand what Roy Oswalt was saying how he was cheated blah blah blah. My problem is that did HGH or steroids really make a difference? ARod really got nothing out of it. His aberration steroid numbers were in Arlington where all HR numbers go up. Clemens still would have easily broken 300 cause I have never seen a guy work out and preserve his body like him. Barry Bonds would have broken 600 HRs easily without them, etc.

If you think about it, the actual amount of guys being considered for the HOF involved in the skank is actually quite small. The guys who really pumped were the nobodys and got nothing from them so have almost no effect on BB.

If you actually look at the numbers, it can almost be proven that HGH, steroids, amphetemines, and beer have actually had not alot of impact on the game. The only real cases were Barry Bonds and 73 where he pumped everything know to God and made his head big, Sosa from 30 to 60, and McGwire who apperently had been juicing since high school. These guys were the extreme. David Wells and intoxication on the mound should actually be a modern day HOF shoe in cause thats what they did old school.

In the long run, people like Barry Bonds are gonna pay the price. Worth millions and he cant even beat his wife because his bobble head keeps tipping him over.

I'd quibble with some things, but I think I agree with your overall point...I think.

Houston, this is a tuff one isnt it? Where do we draw the line? How can you put an asterisk next to a name that did nothing illegal according to the Union. Until 2 years ago, the only illegal activity for baseball was gambling and thus Pete Rose.

The records just can't be changed or anything, you're right.

And it's actually 5 years ago, by the way, minor correction. 2004.

Illegal drugs have been part of baseball forever. Players have been using the best available drugs in efforts to enhance their performance forever. It's nothing new. People just wish to live in a fantasy world where baseball players were pure celestial beacons of morality up until 1998 when the evil steroid users Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds corrupted the entirety of the sport. There's no room for the facts that players have been using drugs forever, and steroids since they were made available.

That is why I hate to hear about ARod. Now I suspect Jeter, Maddux, Pudge, Chipper, etc... Who knows? Who the hell knows if Oswalt is even telling the truth? Just 10% of baseball has ruined it all if you look at it this way. I suspect 20-30%, but just me.

But if Selig would be a man and promise a new baseball from here on, I have no problem with any of the guys getting into the HOF. Selig makes 18M a year and is probably the worst commish ever. Different era, different baseball.

I don't think anything has been ruined, precisely because there was never anything to "ruin" in the first place...because none of this is anything new.

Ok I get the fact everyone cheated, but what gets me is the brutally inflated numbers during the steroid era as compared to other eras. I know only a few players stand out, like Bonds, McGwire, heck even Gagne with his save streak, but still we knew what these players were before they got on the juice, and what they did after it was suspected they were on the juice. Their numbers were inflated dramatically because of it.

Even the best of the best prior to all this didnt put up the type of power numbers these guys did. Its a shame. But in the end, I really dont care much...all it is is a neverending argument.

Exactly. But I am an ESPN-head and to hear Goodell who is actually effective in the NFL took a paycut while Selig took a huge raise makes my skin crawl. Isnt Selig already super rich anyway?

The only way for baseball to make a statement is to say "from this day forward these offenses ban you from baseball". It took the White Sox throwing a whole series to do this earlier. Todays controversy is getting close. We need a new commish big time.

Oh and yeah, anything until they set a rule is perfectly legal and should not exclude HOF. Just like Wall Street and children, the average athlete will steal from the cookie jar till Mom says no.

For every Bonds and McGwire that seemingly put up bigger numbers when they were allegedly juicing, there's 10 guys that show no effect. There's way too much noise in the data to conclude whether or not any players were helped by steroids, and by how much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Even the best of the best prior to all this didnt put up the type of power numbers these guys did. Its a shame. But in the end, I really dont care much...all it is is a neverending argument.

---

This particular point can be ended with one simple realization - steroids didn't cause the high leaguewide HR numbers that we see now. Since the dawn of baseball, HR numbers have been on the rise.

HR/G numbers:

1990: 0.79
1991: 0.80
1992: 0.72
1993: 0.89
1994: 1.03
1995: 1.01
1996: 1.09
1997: 1.02
1998: 1.04

See how HR's skyrocketed from 1992 to 1993 and then again in 1994? If you think steroids caused the rise, than you have to think everybody around the league just decided to get on the **** at the same time, and you also have to think that the Tom House's and Dale Murphy's that claim steroids have been in baseball for some time prior to the 90's are liars. You'd have to believe that while in the 1970's entire football teams were juiced to the moon, nobody in baseball did the stuff. I don't know about you, but I find all that hard to believe. Steroids have been being used in baseball since they became available. They did not cause the increase in offense of the 1990's. The more plausible explanation is the ball.

It's not "a shame". It's BASEBALL. Even the best of the best of the early 1900's didn't put up the type of power numbers that the guys of the 1920's did. Is it "a shame" that the players from before 1920 couldn't hit 20 home runs in a season, and after that it became common? Is it "a shame" that today's pitchers can't complete every single game they start, while the pitchers from the 19th century and early 20th century could? Baseball changes. That's why records shouldn't be "hallowed" and are relatively meaningless. Everything in baseball needs to be taken in context.

Yup, yesterdays baseball were a wound ball of hide strips covered with leather that was hand stitched. This is what makes Babe Ruth, who I will say without any qualms, the best hitter ever. Try hitting a 75 mph (high velocity in the times of the softer ball) almost 450 feet (Almost like a heavy tennis ball). He did this over 600 times in the heat of battle. Besides him, their is no comparison of eras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshopper

Houston, this is a tuff one isnt it? Where do we draw the line? How can you put an asterisk next to a name that did nothing illegal according to the Union. Until 2 years ago, the only illegal activity for baseball was gambling and thus Pete Rose.

---

Well actually in 1991 anabolic steroid were classifieds a controlled substance by the government. AT that time Commissioner Vincent sent a memo to all teams and players saying that, as such, Steroids were against the rules. Gramted, there was no testing or official punishments for it.

So not 2 not 5 but 18 years ago Players were informed that Steroids were against the rules to take.

We can question the effects of 'roids i guess, but of the 4 players at the top of the game for the era, Bonds, A-Rod, Clemens, Maddux, 3 used. I find that compelling eveidence also.
In another post I said its left a stain on the game that cannot be removed, each of us will judge the players based on our values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acetoolguy

We can question the effects of 'roids i guess, but of the 4 players at the top of the game for the era, Bonds, A-Rod, Clemens, Maddux, 3 used. I find that compelling eveidence also.
In another post I said its left a stain on the game that cannot be removed, each of us will judge the players based on our values.

---

Those the only 4 at the top of their game?? No Randy Johnson? No Trevor Hoffman, who only saved more games than any other player? No Craig Biggio, who got over 3,000 hits?? No Tom Glavine who won 300 games??

And if you want to look at players at the top of their game, let's talk about Nolan Ryan, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Tom Seiver, Frank Robinson, Willie McCovey, etc. etc. How many of them used amphetamines? How much of their numbers are a result of not feeling "worn down" over a 162 game season??

Seems like selective memory to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshopper

Houston, this is a tuff one isnt it? Where do we draw the line? How can you put an asterisk next to a name that did nothing illegal according to the Union. Until 2 years ago, the only illegal activity for baseball was gambling and thus Pete Rose.

---

actually, from what I've read there have been rules prohibiting "illegal drug use" since the late 70's. Those would encompass steroids. I don't know why people keep saying it wasn't illegal?

And lastly, the effects of steroid use is wildly debateable. There are quite a few doctors who have studied them for years which I've quotes some sources in a recent thread that believe they can greatly improve a hitters performance if used correctly. There are also those that believe the end effect is marginal.

I have always agreed amphetimines are also illegal and should be treated similarly. The reason fans don't jump on its usage IMO are;

1. Less is known about it in general, the media doesn't hype it as much and many just don't realize its being used and/or what for.

2. Many I talk to feel that while amphetimines may allow a player to play at his true "peak" for much longer during a season, steroid use creates an "artificially enhanced peak" which would not be obtainable without it. Those people believe this enhanced peak is not true and jeopardizes the historical numbers provided throughout history. Rather or not you believe that is one thing.......but it is a valid opinion and highlights the differences between the true drugs fairly.

Quote:

---

And if you want to look at players at the top of their game, let's talk about Nolan Ryan, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Tom Seiver, Frank Robinson, Willie McCovey, etc. etc. How many of them used amphetamines? How much of their numbers are a result of not feeling "worn down" over a 162 game season??

---

This is exactly what #2 I posted discusses. I believe many aren't as upset over amphetamine usage because they have been used for so long and it allows a player to play to their full potential. Roid use allows them to exceed their potential (possibly). Thats a valid reason for people to be upset over roid use moreso than amphetamine use if they subscribe to the effects of roid use being beneficial.

I think this is why I prefer the older era's of baseball.
For people/fans/sportswriters to really create this perception that Baseball is some pure bastion of all things, is a joke. They need to stop watching "Field of Dreams" and realize that throughout the history of baseball, there has been cheating. What's the saying "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying".
Baseball is not pure.
Anyone remember the Pittsburgh drug trials in the 80's.
How about the constant suspensions of players such as Steve Howe, who was allowed back in time and time again.
For anyone to say "this stains baseball", must forget that for the first half of the 20th century. Baseball wasn't home to all of the best baseball players, and there was no written rule. It was just the commishes unwritten rule.
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)

Sorry for some soapbox. After watching Pride and Perservance last night, the fact that guys taking PED's being a stain on the game, just disgusts me. Just like the Hall of Fame voters and their reasoning of not voting in players. I know it's what the press does, and what people like to talk about. Especially now with forums and desperation of magazines and newspapers to break the "big story".
In my eyes baseball hasn't changed. The players have, for better or worse. I still love watching baseball, but I don't follow the current game as closely as I did in the 80's and early 90's (although the MLB network is changing that a bit). And to my own eyes, if anyone really feels as though Baseball has been stained or tarnished.....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. But it's still baseball. 9 guys (ok 10. damn you DH). You pitch the ball. You hit the ball. You catch the ball. You throw the ball. (unless your Steve Sax or Chuck Knoblauch).

Ok. Proceed with the argument that baseball has been ruined.

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.

Quote:

---

there was no written rule

---

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:

---

How about the constant suspensions of players such as Steve Howe, who was allowed back in time and time again.

---

Good point and precedent for those who admit to have used steroids to be disciplined / suspended.

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)

---

agree 100%

Quote:

---

the fact that guys taking PED's being a stain on the game, just disgusts me.

---

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:

---

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

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

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.



Good point and precedent for those who admit to have used steroids to be disciplined / suspended.



agree 100%



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.

---

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.
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshopper

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.

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

---

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.
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.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshopper

Steroids were always illegal. This is from a federal point of view.

---

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 dickay

2. Many I talk to feel that while amphetimines may allow a player to play at his true "peak" for much longer during a season, steroid use creates an "artificially enhanced peak" which would not be obtainable without it. Those people believe this enhanced peak is not true and jeopardizes the historical numbers provided throughout history. Rather or not you believe that is one thing.......but it is a valid opinion and highlights the differences between the true drugs fairly.



This is exactly what #2 I posted discusses. I believe many aren't as upset over amphetamine usage because they have been used for so long and it allows a player to play to their full potential. Roid use allows them to exceed their potential (possibly). Thats a valid reason for people to be upset over roid use moreso than amphetamine use if they subscribe to the effects of roid use being beneficial.

---

Thats exactly how I feel about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

Well actually in 1991 anabolic steroid were classifieds a controlled substance by the government. AT that time Commissioner Vincent sent a memo to all teams and players saying that, as such, Steroids were against the rules. Gramted, there was no testing or official punishments for it.

So not 2 not 5 but 18 years ago Players were informed that Steroids were against the rules to take.

---

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 acetoolguy

We can question the effects of 'roids i guess, but of the 4 players at the top of the game for the era, Bonds, A-Rod, Clemens, Maddux, 3 used. I find that compelling eveidence also.

---

What about the literally hundreds of players that used and sucked? Steroids don't make you great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

actually, from what I've read there have been rules prohibiting "illegal drug use" since the late 70's. Those would encompass steroids. I don't know why people keep saying it wasn't illegal?

---

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

2. Many I talk to feel that while amphetimines may allow a player to play at his true "peak" for much longer during a season, steroid use creates an "artificially enhanced peak" which would not be obtainable without it. Those people believe this enhanced peak is not true and jeopardizes the historical numbers provided throughout history. Rather or not you believe that is one thing.......but it is a valid opinion and highlights the differences between the true drugs fairly.

This is exactly what #2 I posted discusses. I believe many aren't as upset over amphetamine usage because they have been used for so long and it allows a player to play to their full potential. Roid use allows them to exceed their potential (possibly). Thats a valid reason for people to be upset over roid use moreso than amphetamine use if they subscribe to the effects of roid use being beneficial.

---

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 RedsoxRockies

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.

---

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 dickay

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.

---

Having a rule that you can't be punished for is like having no rule at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

ood point and precedent for those who admit to have used steroids to be disciplined / suspended.

---

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 grasshopper

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.

---

No. Absolutely not. HGH is NOT a performance-enhancer.

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/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

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.

---

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 reflections

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

What about the literally hundreds of players that used and sucked? Steroids don't make you great.

---

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:

---

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.

---

False, false, and more false. See above.

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.

---

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:

---

Having a rule that you can't be punished for is like having no rule at all.

---

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:

---

No. Absolutely not. HGH is NOT a performance-enhancer.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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 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).

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

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.

---

Nobody is saying that players didn't know they were illegal, under the law.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

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.

---

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 above.

---

False, false, and more false. See Fay Vincent's comments regarding his own memo.

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."

---

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.

---

The memo was not aimed at the players AND had no power over the players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

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.

---

What makes you think that testing in the offseason has a "minimal chance"? See here and here.

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.

---

You know theres one thing I dont understand, and thats HGM's stance on this issue. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

You know theres one thing I dont understand, and thats HGM's stance on this issue. :p

---

What's not to understand?

Quote:

---

Nobody is saying that players didn't know they were illegal, under the law.

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.

---

why do you refuse to admit to being wrong, and twist it to another argument? Fay Vincent "reminded the clubs that players were forbidden from taking any illegal substance." What made this memo noteworthy was that he explicitly mentioned steroids although it was redundant because they are an "illegal substance". Yes, he admitted that the memo had no power only to the point that if a team "suspected" a player to be using steroids there is/way little they could do because TESTING wasn't legal under the CBA. So in summary, since 1971 steroids have been against the baseball rules as they were illegal under federal law without a prescription. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

What makes you think that testing in the offseason has a "minimal chance"? See here and here.

---

You can believe what you want, but the policy has less frequent testing in the offseason and players are allowed a certain amount of "absentees". I think since the initial testing program thats been toughened up a bit, but in the offseason players shun the calls and simply state they were on vacation or unavailable. Do you really think the MLBPA allowed the program to impact the players while they are on a month long get-away in Tahiti?

Here is ESPN grades for drug testing programs;

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?id=3408547

Quote:

---

The offseason program could be stronger, as only 10 percent of players will be tested under the new policy. Baseball still does not test players' blood, but if a viable test for HGH becomes available, it will be considered in an annual review period. How willing the union will be to allow blood testing and how hard MLB will be willing to push for it remains to be seen.

As with the NFL, baseball's two biggest issues are transparency and follow-through. Baseball says it collects information about where players are at all times in the offseason and promises that, under the new policy, a player can be tested anytime, anywhere in the world with no notice. On paper, the policy is strong, but whether the league will enforce it aggressively remains to be seen. Part of its new policy states that baseball will provide a full accounting of its testing annually. And as with the NFL, for a time, baseball also appeared to be testing only at stadiums and with players receiving some warning.

---

Baseball has the toughest policy but again the offseason program is weak with only 5-10% being tested. While I haven't been able to find a link I seen some time ago addressing players who are "unavailable", below is one in which victor conte discusses loopholes in the program including 30 types of steroids which aren't tested for and the fact that theres no penalty for being "unavailable" during the offseason. I've seen elsewhere that players can claim that they are unavailable like 3 times or something before its determened to be a positive...though don't quote me on that as i'm not positive of the number.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/13/bal...der/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

why do you refuse to admit to being wrong, and twist it to another argument? Fay Vincent "reminded the clubs that players were forbidden from taking any illegal substance." What made this memo noteworthy was that he explicitly mentioned steroids although it was redundant because they are an "illegal substance". Yes, he admitted that the memo had no power only to the point that if a team "suspected" a player to be using steroids there is/way little they could do because TESTING wasn't legal under the CBA.

---

I'm not wrong, nor am I twisting it into another argument. Fay Vincent's memo pertained to non-MLBPA members. The MLB had no steroid policy for players under the CBA until 2004. They were "banned" because they were illegal, but MLB had no "jurisdiction" over their use. It was a purely legal matter. Fay Vincent admits this. They had no power over union members. I'm not sure why YOU can't admit that, when the man that wrote the memo himself does so.

You can go on and on about how they were illegal to use, but the fact of the matter is that the MLB had no ability to enforce it, and if something can't be enforced, is it really a "ban"? "We can't do anything to you if you do this, but years later, we'll punish you for it." That's okay to you?

Quote:

---

So in summary, since 1971 steroids have been against the baseball rules as they were illegal under federal law without a prescription. :rolleyes:

---

Incorrect. Possession and use of steroids, prescription or otherwise, was not illegal until the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990.

Cmon now, even the Mitchell report concurred that steroids have been illegal in baseball since 1971!

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3153509

Quote:

---

The Mitchell report took issue with assertions that steroids were not banned before the 2002 collective bargaining agreement.

They had been covered, it said, since management's 1971 drug policy prohibited using any prescription medication without a valid prescription, and were expressly included in Vincent's 1991 drug policy.

---

As for your quote here;

Quote:

---

Incorrect. Possession and use of steroids, prescription or otherwise, was not illegal until the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990.

---

Again wrong. Steroids did require a prescription;

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nat...ds-in-bas.html

Quote:

---

Under US statutes the acquisition of a prescribed medicine not ascertained by a physician has been illegal for some time. However the US Congress made anabolic steroids a scheduled controlled substance by revision of the Controlled Substances Acts of 1988/1990. Although always illegal, these substances now come under stricter regulation and control. Not just any physician could prescribe them. A physician needed to register with the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency (the FDA) and his state narcotics board. An FDA number is needed to write and dispense these drugs. The manufacture and prescribing of anabolic steroids are monitored by the FDA, and severe penalties given for doctors violating the law.

---

http://www.elitefitness.com/bodybuil...00/008554.html

Quote:

---

Anabolic steroids were required to be prescribed and dispensed by licensed physicians but were not scheduled as controlled substances. It is often overlooked, however, that black market drug trafficking of anabolic steroids already was illegal before anabolics became classified as controlled substances. Under 1988 legislation amending the Food and Drug Act, criminal penalties were specifically set forth for traffickers in anabolic steroids for non-medical reasons. This Anti-Drug Abuse Act would have enabled effective enforcement against those illegally dispensing steroids and black market dealers, including application of federal forfeiture laws, without classifying steroids as controlled substances. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, Sec 2401, 102 Stat. 4181 (1988), repealed in November, 1990, effective Feb., 1991, by the Anabolic Steroids Control Act.

---

http://www.ussc.gov/USSCsteroidsreport-0306.pdf

Quote:

---

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act added a new subsection to the federal Food, Drug, andCosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 333(e). While the law did not criminalize merely possessing steroids,it did outlaw possession accompanied with intent to distribute.

---

Quote:

---

The March hearing resulted in legislation, H.R. 4658, The Anabolic Steroid Control Actof 1990, introduced by Rep. Hughes on April 26, 1990. 45 This bill proposed amending theControlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), to add anabolic steroids as a Schedule III substance, making possession illegal

---

Dealing steroids was illegal. Possessing them for personal use was not until 1990. Until they were classified as a controlled substance, you could not be arrested for using steroids, only dealing them.

But it's beside the main point. Whether or not they were illegal under U.S. law is irrelevant to whether the MLB banned them. You can go on and on about how they were banned for players to use, but the fact of the matter is that the MLB had no ability to enforce it, and if something can't be enforced, is it really a ban? "We can't do anything to you if you do this, but don't do it!"

Hm, watching Bill Maher on the Larry King show and he said something that made me laugh and that is really a good point. They were talking about A-Rod and steroids and everything, and Bill's reaction was basically "Who cares" because he thinks people care too much about sports, but even he, a non-baseball fan that doesn't watch it except for the playoffs, was baffled by the people that want the records stripped from the books and he brought up era adjustments. But, anyway, back to the point...he said that all the people that are so outraged about players using steroids or HGH need to look at their own dinner plate, as the meat we eat is juiced up to the max, and it's true. The animals that are bred for food are injected with all sorts of antibiotics, steroids, and growth hormone. So his basic point was "America is on steroids." It was just something I found mildly funny and an interesting point at the same time.

That is true about the meat. I find it fascinating how they raise cattle. I haul material into a ton of dairies and you learn a great deal just by watching what they do there. They treat milk cows much different than they do cattles raised for slaughter.

Quote:

---

but the fact of the matter is that the MLB had no ability to enforce it, and if something can't be enforced, is it really a ban?

---

thats beside the point. my point was that people saying "players were not breaking the rules as there was no rule" is wrong. There was rules in place, whether or not they could be enforced is debatable and moot.....there was rules in place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

thats beside the point. my point was that people saying "players were not breaking the rules as there was no rule" is wrong. There was rules in place, whether or not they could be enforced is debatable and moot.....there was rules in place.

---

So, what you quoted is not beside the point. A rule that can't be enforced might as well not be a rule.