The 2 names I am suprised to see:
Chuck Knoblauch
Andy Pettitte
You know I still feel Mark McGwire was treated too rough. He took Andro which was legal at the time. The next year he stopped taking it when they banned it and still had a good year!
Registered User
The 2 names I am suprised to see:
Chuck Knoblauch
Andy Pettitte
You know I still feel Mark McGwire was treated too rough. He took Andro which was legal at the time. The next year he stopped taking it when they banned it and still had a good year!
Astros Fan
Originally Posted by RickD
Yeah, I think players that took it when it was legal should be taken a little more lightly. Because if there's no rule for it, then why be penalized for it? Is it cheating? It's considered cheating now, but then, they didn't consider it that way.
Die hard baseball fan since 1994
Die hard Astros fanatic since 1996
And getting worse every season.
Oh no, not him again
Maybe his *** is still sore from all those injections!!!
o
You're right. We don't know how much steroids help a player hit home runs....which is precisely why we shouldn't just assume someone does based on a home run total.
He did hit 49 in his rookie year. Andro or not, the man was powerful.The year McGwire broke the record and hit 70, would he have hit 70 without Andro? or 60? or 40? No one knows.
It probably does help SOMETHING. I'm more inclined to believe that it helps players recover from injury better and stay on the field longer more than it helps them hit home runs, because that's one of the big things that steroids do. I'm sure it does help them become better players, but we don't know how or to what degree, so speculating and going after players based on the number of home runs they hit is wrong.I am more inclined to think it helps something or the use of it would have died out instead of proliferating.
There's steroids testing in place now. If these popular young players you're thinking of were taking steroids, they'd be caught. Yes, they could be taking HGH, which doesn't help you hit more home runs, but the reason the report is mostly older players is because steroid use HAS declined BECAUSE testing is now in place.The players I am thinking about that would "shock us" are players that are in their prime or entering their prime, are very productive (pitcher or hitter) and wildly popular. I am not so sure that this isn't being covered up if evidence was found for the good of the game. The Mitchell report makes it seem that the steroid era was a bunch of old players that are now retired or close to retiring and thus we can wrap it up and move on. Then again I am a paranoid conspiracy theorist
Registered User
Exactly. It was not illegal at the time so why penalize someone for trying to get a legal edge. Now if someone took Andro after it was banned then fine you can crack down on him, ban him, penalize him or whatever.
o
o
There are multiple reasons for power surges - they've happened multiple times throughout history. The ball changes, the ballparks are smaller, improvements in weight training, expansion...An increase in power may be related to steroids, but it is not necessarily related to steroids. If you have any evidence to back up this claim, please, provide it, but I think you'll have trouble finding any.
Furthermore, even if steroids did play more than a minor role in the leaguewide increase in offense, this is NOT a reason to automatically suspect power hitters of steroid use. The increase was leaguewide.
They could be, but hitting home runs is no reason to suspect them of it (especially in regards to HGH). If you do that, you're assuming that you can only hit a lot of home runs if you take steroids...in which case, you're suspecting a crapload of players.They could be taking HGH or another designer steroid that is undetectable by todays analytic methods just as the cream and the clear were in their day.
Registered User
This is exactly why Selig is a big fool. This is what I was afraid would happen.http://chicagosports.chicagotribune....home-headlines
This could get ugly quickly.
Dynastarian
Sometimes I wonder if losing the anti-trust exemption wouldn't be a *good* thing....
--Pet
o
Honestly, I think Congress needs to get its head out of baseball.
Hey, HGM, isn't that, no, it couldn't be, Brendan Donnelley, on the steroid report? How'd that name get in there?HGH!
In other news, I agree with you. This is all just baseball trying to save itself for turning a blind eye to the issue for so long.
o
Registered User
Since they have already gone this far they might as well finish it. Maybe they'll do more than name players, like maybe coachs like Larussa.
Why? Its proven that they can't control or govern themselves. Maybe its time for someone to say, if you don't clean yourselves up we'll do it for you. And it might be a wake up call for all major league sports that if you don't get it right, we'll get involved and won't spare someone because they are a insider in that peticular sport.I think Congress needs to get its head out of baseball.
I also hate to have government involved in anything, but the evidence is their that baseball can't govern themselves
o
That's pretty much why.
I think baseball now gets it that it has to fix this problem, and will, with or without Congressional oversight.
This is incorrect it was actually illegal (Steroids Act of 1990) when the players' are supposed to have been using it.However,the MLB only "outlawed" it post the Steroids Act & even then started testing post that date....basically a lot of players/trainers' found a "loophole" in the rules & exploited it for their own gains.
One has to consider the whole picture not just the MLB & its rules.Steroids are an illicit drug which cannot be used without a certified doctor's prescription for a real ailment.IN the case of players',they knowingly were using it outside the context of medicair & thus were breaking FEDERAL law,simple as that steroids is considered "federally" in the same context as heroine & cocaine.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote