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.
Registered User
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.
o
I think the food example might be a little overboard, though.
Registered User
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.
o
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...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/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: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....
Registered User
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. IMO
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.
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.....
Registered User
Well we can be sure that his numbers are no longer being effected by this....and they don't seem to have tapered off.
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....
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)
"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.
o
Exactly. We do not know, and it'd be practically impossible TO find out.
I apply this only to those caught after MLB instituted a policy about it.
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?
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?
And the MLB does now, as well. However, they can't change the past.
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.
o
Other cheats like Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Mickey Mantle?
Oh, right, it's only cheating if it's steroids...and only if you're an all-time great player.
o
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.
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.
o
Buster Olney bringing some logic:
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.
╝+┼╣,►ΘΩδ
Is the Michael Schmidt Buster Olney mentions THE Mike Schmidt, or just another guy with the same name?
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.72
(Thanks to BINGLE for my banner!)
Matt Wieters says:"My morning routine goes: wake up, bang 10 hot women, eat Lucky Charms, destroy a few countries, and then read YeahThisIsMyBlog.blogspot.com."
Mogul No No's and Perfect Games:
2008 Royals-Gil Meche No hitter in 10 innings 1-0 final score
2038 Padres-Matthew Graham Perfect Game 1-0 victory!
o
Click the link and find out...but, no, it's a writer named Michael Schmidt. It's not Mike Schmidt the baseball player.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote