PDA

View Full Version : Bob Ryan asks a very good question about steriods


Fenway
05-11-2007, 09:24 AM
I mean, what exactly is the end game here? If Major League Baseball finds itself with a list of X players who have been proven -- I said proven -- to have used performance-enhancing substances at some time during the past, say, 15 years, what happens then?

Line them up and shoot them?


http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/05/10/no_juice_to_this_probe/

PaulDrake
05-11-2007, 09:52 AM
I wish I hadn't bothered to read it. All it did was make me angry, and it's too early in the day for me to be that way. There is no comparison, do I make that clear, no comparison between greenies and the powerful designer drugs of today. In any case, science is not my strong suit, but even I know that over time amphetamines will cause your performance in just about everything to crash. Bud and co allowed an unforgivable mess to occur.

Fenway
05-11-2007, 09:55 AM
I wish I hadn't bothered to read it. All it did was make me angry, and it's too early in the day for me to be that way. There is no comparison, do I make that clear, no comparison between greenies and the powerful designer drugs of today. In any case, science is not my strong suit, but even I know that over time amphetamines will cause your performance in just about everything to crash. Bud and co allowed an unforgivable mess to occur.

I think his point was that baseball allowed greenies to florish in the 60's and 70's. Didn't Bowie Kuhn bother to read Ball Four?

It is a mess that was allowed to happen because 10 years ago baseball NEEDED McGwire and Sosa after the strike.

daveeym
05-11-2007, 09:59 AM
I wish I hadn't bothered to read it. All it did was make me angry, and it's too early in the day for me to be that way. There is no comparison, do I make that clear, no comparison between greenies and the powerful designer drugs of today. In any case, science is not my strong suit, but even I know that over time amphetamines will cause your performance in just about everything to crash. Bud and co allowed an unforgivable mess to occur.
Good, I'm not even going to bother to read it then. I'm sick of the steroids apologists. There may be questions about what MLB does to records or this or that, but trying to say steroids should be ok or viewed on the level of greeenies or coffee, or laser eye surgery is just getting ridiculous.

daveeym
05-11-2007, 10:03 AM
I think his point was that baseball allowed greenies to florish in the 60's and 70's. Didn't Bowie Kuhn bother to read Ball Four?

It is a mess that was allowed to happen because 10 years ago baseball NEEDED McGwire and Sosa after the strike.
I'm not buying that either. Neither of those jokers could have been expected to have the seasons they did, on the juice or not, let alone both of them. The homer and steroid era was already well entrenched.

Don't get me wrong, MLB is as much at fault as anyone, but this saving baseball crap is just ESPN hyped crap.

itsnotrequired
05-11-2007, 10:06 AM
It is a mess that was allowed to happen because 10 years ago baseball NEEDED McGwire and Sosa after the strike.

What did they need them for? Attendance reached an all-time high in the NL and third highest ever in the AL just two years after the strike and two years BEFORE the famous 1998 HR race. Baseball recovered VERY quickly from the strike.

The idea that Sosa and McGwire "saved" baseball after the '94 strike is one of the biggest myths in baseball.

PatK
05-11-2007, 10:10 AM
Good, I'm not even going to bother to read it then. I'm sick of the steroids apologists. There may be questions about what MLB does to records or this or that, but trying to say steroids should be ok or viewed on the level of greeenies or coffee, or laser eye surgery is just getting ridiculous.

Amphetamines are performance enhancing drugs. I can see the author's point- why go after cheaters from one era when you let another era slide?

Luke
05-11-2007, 10:25 AM
Amphetamines are performance enhancing drugs. I can see the author's point- why go after cheaters from one era when you let another era slide?

That's a very good question.

The simplest answer to that question is because the latter form of cheating had a bigger impact on the game than greenies. Greenies and super-charged coffee may have kept guys amped up, but it's effect on hitting the ball was in essence negligible compared to steroids and HGH.

Ultimately, I don't think that MLB's willful ignorance of amphetamine use is enough reason to say that we can't do the right thing now with steroids.

Oblong
05-11-2007, 11:58 AM
I don't understand the animosity towards the column. Ryan's not excusing anything, he's only dealing with reality. I also do not understand why the steroids/PE issue only focuses on the power aspect. Check the list of those players caught in the past few years. Mostly pitchers.

All you can do is just have tight rules and punishments going forward and let the history sort itself out. Any attempt to rationalize or adjust records is extremely futile. Everyone singles out Bonds but neglects to mention that it could very well be that the pitcher he hit the homers off of was also using them. Do they cancel each other out?

What exactly is the point of this exercise by Mitchell?

Oblong
05-11-2007, 11:59 AM
That's a very good question.

The simplest answer to that question is because the latter form of cheating had a bigger impact on the game than greenies. Greenies and super-charged coffee may have kept guys amped up, but it's effect on hitting the ball was in essence negligible compared to steroids and HGH.

Ultimately, I don't think that MLB's willful ignorance of amphetamine use is enough reason to say that we can't do the right thing now with steroids.

What about the effect of pitching a ball?

PatK
05-11-2007, 12:40 PM
Greenies and super-charged coffee may have kept guys amped up, but it's effect on hitting the ball was in essence negligible compared to steroids and HGH.


So a quicker reaction time isn't going to help you be a better hitter?

Studies on athletes prove your assertion that they do not enhance performance to be incorrect.

D. TODD
05-11-2007, 12:41 PM
I wish I hadn't bothered to read it. All it did was make me angry, and it's too early in the day for me to be that way. There is no comparison, do I make that clear, no comparison between greenies and the powerful designer drugs of today. In any case, science is not my strong suit, but even I know that over time amphetamines will cause your performance in just about everything to crash. Bud and co allowed an unforgivable mess to occur.
Every doctor I've ever heard calls the use of greenies (amphetamines) the perfect example of a performance enhancing drug. It may not be as productive as steroids, but it is and was used solely to chemically enhance a players performance!

WhiteSoxJunkie
05-11-2007, 12:55 PM
If steroids and amphetamines are considered performance enhancing, then I think food should be too. I mean players do play better after they've eaten then when they haven't. :D:

PatK
05-11-2007, 01:10 PM
If steroids and amphetamines are considered performance enhancing, then I think food should be too. I mean players do play better after they've eaten then when they haven't. :D:

Then that would make Elvis the greatest athelte that ever lived- he did all three to excess.

Lip Man 1
05-11-2007, 01:28 PM
From Jim Kaat's interview with WSI:

ML: What’s your take on the whole steroid issue in baseball?

JK: “I think everyone associated with baseball knew it was going on since the late 80's starting with Jose Canseco. But because baseball wanted a lot of home runs and high scoring games, no one did anything about it. And at that point remember there were no rules against it.”

ML: Playing ‘devil’s advocate’ here. What do you say to people who make the case that steroids really aren’t any different then Gaylord Perry, Mike Scott or Whitey Ford doctoring baseballs? or the White Sox freezing baseballs in the mid 60's? Or Norm Cash admitting to Sports Illustrated in a story, that he won the 1962 American League batting title using corked bats? and then through a series of pictures showing how he fixed his bats.

JK: “I agree with that opinion but only to a point. I think those things you mentioned are considered ‘gamesmanship.’ I remember when I was a young pitcher going up against Frank Lary and coming back to the dugout saying ‘I think the ground crew really messed up. There’s a big hole in the mound and they forgot to fill it in.’ The guys started laughing at me. Lary would dig himself a hole in front of the pitching rubber and use that as his wind up point. He’d be throwing from 59 feet instead of 60! This was before every game was televised and he’d get away with it.”

“I also remember a game when I was pitching when umpire Jim Honochick came in from second base and said, ‘Lefty, I see what you’re doing.’ He caught me putting pine tar on my hand. Every pitcher did that, especially when the weather was cold, so we could get a grip on the baseball. We’d put that stuff on our socks.”

“The difference is that putting pine tar on my hands didn’t harm my body. Guys have died from using this stuff, I remember some of the Pittsburgh Steelers saying they took steroids and they died at a young age. The other thing is that I don’t think the stuff that we did really threw the records out of whack like today.

As far as the players like Mark McGuire or Barry Bonds, I think if they’d just tell the fans, ‘I used them, they weren’t illegal at the time but looking back what I did wasn’t good’ they’d be forgiven.”

Lip

TDog
05-11-2007, 01:46 PM
I think his point was that baseball allowed greenies to florish in the 60's and 70's. Didn't Bowie Kuhn bother to read Ball Four?

It is a mess that was allowed to happen because 10 years ago baseball NEEDED McGwire and Sosa after the strike.

I'm not sure if Bowie Kuhn read Ball Four or had someone on his staff read it and highlight passages for him to read, but according to Jim Bouton's second book, the commissioner called him into his office and asked him about the accusations made about amphetamines and other bad acts the book documented. Kuhn was aware of the allegations and essentially denied them.

There were a lot of years that baseball didn't cared about steroids either.

thegooch
05-11-2007, 02:03 PM
I also love how "reporters" like Bob Ryan are just now asking questions about steriods, steriod users, punishments, etc...

Where were the media members when the rampant use was going on? I'll tell you where: gushing over the accomplishments of these sluggers in print and on TV.

Fenway
05-11-2007, 02:11 PM
I also love how "reporters" like Bob Ryan are just now asking questions about steriods, steriod users, punishments, etc...

Where were the media members when the rampant use was going on? I'll tell you where: gushing over the accomplishments of these sluggers in print and on TV.

Ryan admits he was sucked in by Sosa and McGwire

Honestly most of us were

thegooch
05-11-2007, 02:22 PM
Ryan admits he was sucked in by Sosa and McGwire

Honestly most of us were

I don't know. I was questioning what they were doing at the time. A reporter shouldn't be "sucked into" anything. It was his job(along with every other reporter at the time) to get the truth. And, unlike fans, they had the power do something about it. I get the feeling that they didn't want to do that because the stories were writing themselves. Bob Ryan and tons of other sportwriters took the easy way out by not investigating. I mean, McGwire had a bottle of andro IN his locker and the media didn't dig any deeper. Sosa joked at the time that his power came from his "Flinstone Vitamins". What other leads did these people need?

PatK
05-11-2007, 02:23 PM
I don't get the point you're trying to make with that interview.

So cheating is bad only if it can potentially physically harm the person doing the cheating?

Lip Man 1
05-11-2007, 02:27 PM
Pat:

I think Jim is saying and I agree with him, that there's is a difference between 'cheating' and 'gamesmenship'. Logically and morally there may not be a difference but in the history of baseball there apparently is.

Lip

PaulDrake
05-11-2007, 02:30 PM
I still can't believe that some compare greenies to designer steroids. I also can't believe the lack of awareness of the long term effects of amphetamines. Yes, in the short run you can pull that all nighter that will help you get an A. It might help you snag that line drive you would have missed, or connect solidly with a pitch you would have popped up. In the long run any "upper" is going to drag you way down. It my youth we called them speed freaks, I guess today they are meth heads. In any case, it's not a pretty sight. Long term serious use of amphetamines does not enhance your performance in anything. How in the hell can anyone look at the before an afters for Sosa, McGwire and especially Bonds and say that someone like Hank Aaron gave himself a similar edge? If you don't believe me, if I lack the necessary credibility, then read again that part of Lip's interview with Jim Kaat. That should put it all in perspective. I hope.

Oblong
05-11-2007, 02:30 PM
But isn't this Mitchell thing nothing more than a dog and pony show for baseball in an attempt to show the world that they're "doing something" when in fact they aren't really donig anything. There's nothing to be done. You can't go back and change anything, even records. All you can do is affect teh future and baseball has tough standards now. Admitting this isn't accepting or condoning steroids, it's accepting the fact that history actually happened. Everybody knows players took them or PE drugs. Does it make it right. That's irrelevant. It happened. In the words of Al Pacino in scarface this is just something to give people someone to point a finger at so they can "that's the bad guy". That's all.

seventyseven
05-11-2007, 02:33 PM
It is a mess that was allowed to happen because 10 years ago baseball NEEDED McGwire and Sosa after the strike.

This has got to be one of the most overused and unsupported statements uttered in sports. So so crap. :mad:

Oblong
05-11-2007, 02:34 PM
Pat:

I think Jim is saying and I agree with him, that there's is a difference between 'cheating' and 'gamesmenship'. Logically and morally there may not be a difference but in the history of baseball there apparently is.

Lip

Yes. And to further illustrate a culture difference, logically and morally there may not be anything wrong with stealing signs but many in the baseball subculture consider that a form of cheating, like a casino considers counting cards cheating. They can't arrest you for it but they can bar you.

Luke
05-11-2007, 02:34 PM
So a quicker reaction time isn't going to help you be a better hitter?

Studies on athletes prove your assertion that they do not enhance performance to be incorrect.

Of course they improve performance. I'm sorry if I inferred that they didn't. I just think their ability to improve performance (specifically power) is dwarfed by that of HGH, and while use of HGH has probably been less widespread, it's much more visable and profound.

My point was, regardless of the fact that people abused them, and we turned a blind eye, doesn't mean MLB should make the same mistake with steroids/HGH. Just becasue MLB failed to take action before, doesn't mean they should now.

What about the effect of pitching a ball?

I don't know. I'm always suprised to see pitchers using it because velocity is so dependant on mechanics and factors other than muscle. Strong legs are a big part of pitching, but strong legs are not unattainable with routine work. Physiologically, we're still not sure why some skinny short guys have stronger arms than big strong guys.

Fenway
05-11-2007, 02:39 PM
Strong legs are a big part of pitching, but strong legs are not unattainable with routine work. Physiologically, we're still not sure why some skinny short guys have stronger arms than big strong guys.

One pitcher really comes to mind with me

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/98/dylan/pics/clemens.fenway.jpg

Luke
05-11-2007, 02:45 PM
One pitcher really comes to mind with me

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/98/dylan/pics/clemens.fenway.jpg

He is exactly what I was thinking. Clemens has super strong legs, and obviously a good arm. I can't figure out what benefit he derived from his "B-12" shots.

If you read between the lines "I've passed every drug test they've ever given me" it's not hard to see where he was going. (this was before they tested for HGH)

D. TODD
05-11-2007, 03:02 PM
He is exactly what I was thinking. Clemens has super strong legs, and obviously a good arm. I can't figure out what benefit he derived from his "B-12" shots.

If you read between the lines "I've passed every drug test they've ever given me" it's not hard to see where he was going. (this was before they tested for HGH) Most people in the game that I've heard talk about roids believe that pitchers benefit much more them hitters. They not only get the added strength, but the recovery time for a tired arm or soreness is minimal, allowing pitchers to throw harder and snap off nastier stuff for longer periods.

D. TODD
05-11-2007, 03:11 PM
Of course they improve performance. I'm sorry if I inferred that they didn't. I just think their ability to improve performance (specifically power) is dwarfed by that of HGH, and while use of HGH has probably been less widespread, it's much more visable and profound.

My point was, regardless of the fact that people abused them, and we turned a blind eye, doesn't mean MLB should make the same mistake with steroids/HGH. Just becasue MLB failed to take action before, doesn't mean they should now.



I don't know. I'm always suprised to see pitchers using it because velocity is so dependant on mechanics and factors other than muscle. Strong legs are a big part of pitching, but strong legs are not unattainable with routine work. Physiologically, we're still not sure why some skinny short guys have stronger arms than big strong guys.So the only difference is the effectiveness of the illegal drug (by law but not the rules of baseball) that was condoned for use by players, at least for a time, in baseball and the long term effects of the user is potentially more grave. This is why I have no intrest in who used in the past. Rose topped Cobb in an era that utilized a drug to boost performance, and Bonds will pass Aaron when a improved drug was used to boost performance. OK we know that, now they are both illegal and the game should focus on vigorously enforcing these rules for this era. I have no intrest in digging out the stars that used, when everyone in the game knew they were being utilized throughout the majors & minors.

PatK
05-11-2007, 03:13 PM
I still can't believe that some compare greenies to designer steroids. I also can't believe the lack of awareness of the long term effects of amphetamines. Yes, in the short run you can pull that all nighter that will help you get an A. It might help you snag that line drive you would have missed, or connect solidly with a pitch you would have popped up. In the long run any "upper" is going to drag you way down. It my youth we called them speed freaks, I guess today they are meth heads. In any case, it's not a pretty sight. Long term serious use of amphetamines does not enhance your performance in anything. How in the hell can anyone look at the before an afters for Sosa, McGwire and especially Bonds and say that someone like Hank Aaron gave himself a similar edge? If you don't believe me, if I lack the necessary credibility, then read again that part of Lip's interview with Jim Kaat. That should put it all in perspective. I hope.

First off, there's a difference between use and abuse. And long time abuse of steroids is no less "pretty" than that of meth (Lyle Alzado for instance)

Last season, Jim Leyritz was on Opie and Anthony on XM and basically said at one point that there were players who wouldn't have had careers without amphetamines. He also said he was using them when he hit his Game 4 homer in the World Series.

I don't know, maybe it's because I see no difference in using one performance enhancing drug over the other. Cheating is cheating.

D. TODD
05-11-2007, 03:30 PM
First off, there's a difference between use and abuse. And long time abuse of steroids is no less "pretty" than that of meth (Lyle Alzado for instance)

Last season, Jim Leyritz was on Opie and Anthony on XM and basically said at one point that there were players who wouldn't have had careers without amphetamines. He also said he was using them when he hit his Game 4 homer in the World Series.

I don't know, maybe it's because I see no difference in using one performance enhancing drug over the other. Cheating is cheating. Mike Schmidt also said that he often depended on amphetamines especially in the dog days of summer. In the middle of a long road trip facing Nolan Ryan he said he would be helpless without his greenies. He also said he thinks that if better performance enhancers were available and not policed by MLB they would have been used just as readily ad greenies were regardless of possible future health ramifications.

daveeym
05-11-2007, 03:54 PM
First off, there's a difference between use and abuse. And long time abuse of steroids is no less "pretty" than that of meth (Lyle Alzado for instance)

Last season, Jim Leyritz was on Opie and Anthony on XM and basically said at one point that there were players who wouldn't have had careers without amphetamines. He also said he was using them when he hit his Game 4 homer in the World Series.

I don't know, maybe it's because I see no difference in using one performance enhancing drug over the other. Cheating is cheating.Ouch, I'd want you off my jury. Speeding ticket? Give him the chair!!!:cool: Or murder? 125 bucks and a class on morals.:tongue:

Luke
05-11-2007, 03:59 PM
I don't know, maybe it's because I see no difference in using one performance enhancing drug over the other. Cheating is cheating.

That makes a very interesting point; Was the use of greenies so widespread that you were in the minority, and therefore at a major disadvantage by not using them?

I believe that steroids/HGH, was not as widespread, but was used by a significant minority to make a very big splash. I think this is why in theory, so many of us are less tolerant of HGH.

In the end you're right though. Cheating is cheating.

PatK
05-11-2007, 04:06 PM
Ouch, I'd want you off my jury. Speeding ticket? Give him the chair!!!:cool: Or murder? 125 bucks and a class on morals.:tongue:

Doesn't baseball treat all performance enhancing drugs with the same punishment? Do you get suspended less for greenies than for roids?

Your comment is assinine, especially considering that if I was going to give you 125 bucks and a class of morals for punishment for murder, I'd think you'd definately want me on your jury.

daveeym
05-11-2007, 04:49 PM
Doesn't baseball treat all performance enhancing drugs with the same punishment? Do you get suspended less for greenies than for roids?

Your comment is assinine, especially considering that if I was going to give you 125 bucks and a class of morals for punishment for murder, I'd think you'd definately want me on your jury.Not if I'm the prosecutor bub. The only thing assinine are those that are too stupid to come up with anything better than cheating is cheating.

PatK
05-11-2007, 05:22 PM
Not if I'm the prosecutor bub. The only thing assinine are those that are too stupid to come up with anything better than cheating is cheating.

We can trade insults or debate. I prefer the former.

And as far as your "too stupid", which was directed at me, I'm not the one comparing speeding tickets and murder to amphetamine and steroid use.

Both are banned substances, but you feel that steroids is a worse form of cheating. Why?

FarWestChicago
05-11-2007, 06:12 PM
I still can't believe that some compare greenies to designer steroids. I also can't believe the lack of awareness of the long term effects of amphetamines. Yes, in the short run you can pull that all nighter that will help you get an A. It might help you snag that line drive you would have missed, or connect solidly with a pitch you would have popped up. In the long run any "upper" is going to drag you way down. It my youth we called them speed freaks, I guess today they are meth heads. In any case, it's not a pretty sight. Long term serious use of amphetamines does not enhance your performance in anything. How in the hell can anyone look at the before an afters for Sosa, McGwire and especially Bonds and say that someone like Hank Aaron gave himself a similar edge? If you don't believe me, if I lack the necessary credibility, then read again that part of Lip's interview with Jim Kaat. That should put it all in perspective. I hope.You hit the nail on the head. I suspect many who believe speed works like 'roids are just totally ignorant of what speed does. We're older and know a bit more. You don't even need the long run. Get jacked up and you're tweaky. You may think you're hot ****, but you're not. Anybody who compares speed to 'roids has never done amphetamines. :D:

Blueprint1
05-11-2007, 06:17 PM
What did they need them for? Attendance reached an all-time high in the NL and third highest ever in the AL just two years after the strike and two years BEFORE the famous 1998 HR race. Baseball recovered VERY quickly from the strike.

The idea that Sosa and McGwire "saved" baseball after the '94 strike is one of the biggest myths in baseball.

Like I have said before the Yankees winning the world series in 1996 did alot more than McGwire and Sosa.

eastchicagosoxfan
05-11-2007, 07:02 PM
Every so often, baseball changes drastically. Underhand pitching to overhand, the use of gloves, the banning of doctoring the ball, ending the influence of gamblers in the game, lowering the mound, and the DH are a few examples. In each case, the stats and records achieved in those eras remain legitimate. Unfortunately, the records of the steriod era will also stand, including whatever Bonds does. That said, steriods and their ilk attack the integrity of the game, and their use in the future should be dealt with mercilessly. One strike and you're out...forever. No appeals. If a player isn't sure about something he's offered to take, his answer should always be no. Because a mistake will mean the end of his career.

IndianWhiteSox
05-11-2007, 07:21 PM
Like I have said before the Yankees winning the world series in 1996 did alot more than McGwire and Sosa.

Didn't Ripken's streak as well help the game?
:?:

MarySwiss
05-11-2007, 07:37 PM
What exactly is the point of this exercise by Mitchell?

And that hits the nail on the head, Oblong. He HAD to know the players' union would refuse to turn over the records. Pardon my cynicism, but this smacks of being just another gesture by MLB to try to convince people they actually want to do something.

PatK
05-11-2007, 07:54 PM
You hit the nail on the head. I suspect many who believe speed work like 'roids are just totally ignorant of what speed does. We're older and know a bit more. You don't even need the long run. Get jacked up and you're tweaky. You may think you're hot ****, but you're not. Anybody who compares speed to 'roids has never done amphetamines. :D:

I'm not comparing steroids to amphetamines other than that they are both banned performance enhancing drugs. They enhance performance in different ways.

And as a former NCCAA athlete (hockey), I'm aware of amphetamines and have done them. I haven't done steroids, but have had friends,teammates, and aquaintances that have, and I came very close to doing them myself. What turned me off was being on the end of a roid rage of someone that I knew (who was also trying to convince me to do them).

People seem to think that you just inject yourself and you get huge and get power. This is utter nonsense. Inject them and don't work out or diet properly, and you're turning into a big fat waterball. And you don't inject them and get and near instantaneous effect.

By your post, I take it that you have done ampetamines, and if you have, you know good and well that they aren't some glorified cup of coffee. Your reaction time is quicker, you're more aggressive, you are able to concentrate more, you've got better endurance, and you're able to shake off some pain.

All I'm saying is that if you're going to go back and erase records because of one performance enhancing drug, you should do it for all of them. To not would be hypocritical. The "everbody was doing them" or that their used was accepted aren't valid excuses for doing something illegal.

I'm willing to say that if the home run records weren't broken in the way they were, steroids wouldn't even be an issue.

Daver
05-11-2007, 07:55 PM
I would just like to point out, of all the players that got caught in the minors, where testing has always been allowed, roughly sixty percent of them have been pitchers.

FarWestChicago
05-12-2007, 07:37 AM
By your post, I take it that you have done ampetamines, and if you have, you know good and well that they aren't some glorified cup of coffee. Your reaction time is quicker, you're more aggressive, you are able to concentrate more, you've got better endurance, and you're able to shake off some pain.It's a very short term effect, and you need to know what you're doing. A little too much and you're so tweaky you're a spazz. Yes, if you know your body and how to dose yourself with amphetamines, it can enhance performance. Of course, most humans can't do that. The lure of the effect usually leads to doing way too much. Getting positive results out of 'roids doesn't require near as much intelligence or control.

eastchicagosoxfan
05-12-2007, 08:10 AM
I would just like to point out, of all the players that got caught in the minors, where testing has always been allowed, roughly sixty percent of them have been pitchers.

That's an interesting point. The public is fixated on the hitters, because the results are easy to see. From Brady Anderson, through Sosa, MAC, Palmeiro, and Bonds, there are plenty of high profile targets. How many pitchers juiced, and what effects did it have on their games? I suspect there are quite a few torn roator cuffs, or torn labrums, which are the result of guys bulking up, but unbeknowst to them, a critical part of the body can't handle the strain.

Fenway
05-12-2007, 10:09 AM
Anybody remember this cover on SI?

http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/Headline_Archives/BDD_SS_MM_SI98.jpg

bigfoot
05-12-2007, 03:18 PM
Mac & Sammy didn't "save baseball", though the hype surrounding their Mystical Magical Tour of the Long Ball did boost the TV ratings.

If, "Chicks Dig the Long Ball",
Then, TV sponsors dig the ratings even more!

Anyone think that MLB held their collective noses as the ad revenues and new TV contracts went sky-high?

PaleHoseGeorge
05-13-2007, 11:38 AM
I think it is very sad that this thread has proven once again what many other similar threads here at WSI have proven before. There is a very sincere minority of people who honestly believe taking drugs has no consequences of any significance,
Denying the "rush to the bottom" role they have on ballplayers who DON'T use them,
Denying the destructive consequences of their misuse, if not outright dependency or even addiction to their use,
Denying the dereliction of responsibility their use signals to teenagers (and even younger players) who aspire to reach the major leagues, too.Though sincere, these people haven't a clue what they are REALLY talking about. Comparing the use of amphetamines and anabolic steroids with eating food or breathing air is just the most obvious manifestation of their complete confusion on the subject.

Of course the thoughts of these addled brains serves no useful purpose in any thoughtful discussion of the subject and can be dismissed out of hand in any rational discourse on the matter.

Another very sad thread filled with very confused people. Stay away from my kids, you *******s.
:o: