When did the "steroid era" end in MLB?

ReggieCleveland

We have the conversation every year when the ballot comes out for the HOF about the players who sort of started it and either still aren't in or have fallen off the ballot. But I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on when the ballot will come out and the conversation won't be there?

When did the steroid era end? Who were the first players to enter into MLB with the new testing that seems to have put everyone's minds at ease?

We certainly don't speculate about current players. I haven't seen anyone anywhere cast dispersions on today's big sluggers -- Judge, Stanton, Trout, Machado, Harper, etc., which is good.

So who will be the first HOF inductees to be free of the steroid conversation?

Arthur

craig44

The ped era has never ended. The chemists will always be at least one step ahead of the testers.

I don't know about the others, but there are hushed whispers surrounding trout. There are some who knew him in high school that are adamant that he was juicing back then. There are still some old bodybuilding forums that discuss this.

Anecdotally, have you seen the size of his head/neck?

ahopkins

@craig44 said:
Anecdotally, have you seen the size of his head/neck?

I see it, too. And I believe it, too. MLB will never let its golden boy be the next Bonds. I don't care anymore. I like to watch baseball.

Desert_Ice_Sports

Unfortunately, honesty and integrity have become meaningless in today's America... So, the guys who made a mockery of the sport on the early 2000s are being forgiven by many, and today's players are constantly looking for ways to cheat and get away with it... Such a sad era we live in.

softparade

@Desert_Ice_Sports said:
Unfortunately, honesty and integrity have become meaningless in today's America... So, the guys who made a mockery of the sport on the early 2000s are being forgiven by many, and today's players are constantly looking for ways to cheat and get away with it... Such a sad era we live in

Wherever and whenever money is at stake there will shenanigans. Humans.

mtb703

I think the better question is when did it start. Amphetamines were used for a long long time. Wonder when androgen use started, and how many in the HOF used.

1951WheatiesPremium

Steroids were publicly available (to wealthy people) starting at least in the 1940s.

PEDs have been around for ever and they’re still around now.

They will be for the foreseeable future.

magicpapa

craig44

@ahopkins said:

@craig44 said:
Anecdotally, have you seen the size of his head/neck?

I see it, too. And I believe it, too. MLB will never let its golden boy be the next Bonds. I don't care anymore. I like to watch baseball.

I have almost got to that point myself. It has bothered me for 15 years now and my feelings toward it have started to weaken. I still wish it never happened, but players have been looking for an edge since the beginning and they always will

FINESTKIND

It's in the minor leagues. It's in the major leagues. It's never going to end. It's like they say, if drugs were a snake and you cut the head off. It will just grow another one.

garnettstyle

There are cheaters in every hall of fame.

Estil

The real question is when did it begin?

Griffins

Tom House told me he was using steroids in the early 70's when he was with the Braves. He thought he was one of the first users, but not the first.

ahopkins

"If you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough."
-Eddie Guerrero

PatsGuy5000

@Griffins said:
Tom House told me he was using steroids in the early 70's when he was with the Braves. He thought he was one of the first users, but not the first.

Interesting, I would have guessed much later. How prevalent was the use?

ReggieCleveland

To speculate on my own question, I'm going to guess somewhere in the mid- to late-'90s is where we'll see the rookie cards of HOF inductees that won't have the steroids conversation. The first player that comes to mind is Beltre and his '97 Bowman Chrome. Then I was thinking Miguel Cabrera in 2000 and Joey Votto in 2002.

Is this about right?

Arthur

countdouglas

I believe that Beltre has some that suspect him of using early in his career. There may be no proof, and just whispers and innuendo, but I do believe steroids will be in the discussion when the time comes to vote for him.

As such, I would still vote for him.

ReggieCleveland

Okay, I hadn't heard but that's fair.

Is Cabrera suspect? I've never heard boo about him either.

Arthur

countdouglas

I have not heard anything mentioned about Cabrera.

This article referring to Beltre was not even close to the first time I had heard whispers about him. I'm not saying that there is substance to the rumors, just that they are indeed out there about Beltre.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2017/08/03/adrian-beltre-3000-hits-ped-suspicions/534284001/

Dpeck100

They are all suspect.

This is like when you were a teenager and someone got caught smoking pot and every mom said it couldn't be my son.

Not everyone was but most.

How am I supposed to look at a guy like Giancarlo Stanton and think the game is clean now? He might be the most naturally gifted stud human being but there is an equal if not greater chance that just isn't the case.

Griffins

@PatsGuy5000 said:

@Griffins said:
Tom House told me he was using steroids in the early 70's when he was with the Braves. He thought he was one of the first users, but not the first.

Interesting, I would have guessed much later. How prevalent was the use?

He said it was fairly new in baseball and he was one of the first, but it was very prevalent in other sports. At 5'9" he was looking for any edge he could get. He blames it for blowing out his knee, muscles got too big for the tendons and ligaments, and after that he focused on the entire system. I met him at a pitching clinic he ran for high school pitchers a few years ago, which was pretty amazing and made a big difference to my sons performance.
Back to the question, he said he was pretty rare in baseball thru the 70's but then took off. He would absolutely not name any names, he talks about himself using because he said it did way more harm than good, but it was a personal choice and wouldn't talk about anyone else specifically.

craig44

@Estil said:
The real question is when did it begin?

Mantle had a steroid injection in 1961, Ruth's bellyache heard round the world is rumoured to have been a steroid injection and the earliest I can find was Pud Galvin in the 1890's.

This has been going on for a long time.

Guess who Nolan Ryan's pitching coach was with the rangers.
Tom house.

Griffins

yup, and he worked with Tom Brady for years as well. Those two are who I asked him about. Terse no comment.

craig44

Of course this stuff still goes on. Stantons name was brought up, I have heard trouts name mentioned. Athletes will always try to get an advantage. Look at the players over the years who have used illegal bats and doctored balls. There is no difference, it is all for an advantage. It is well documented that Ruth used an illegal bat for an extended time in the early 1920's. Look at all the guys who used doctored balls over the years it is almost considered a joke now, but it was performance enhancing just like steroids.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ReggieCleveland

I think we've gotten off course. The purpose of my question wasn't to pose an existential thought experiment about PEDs in sports. Athletes are always going to try to gain an advantage, be it by the book or not. That has gone on for as long as there has been competition. I'm sure the Roman Colosseum had gladiators breaking the rules.

My questions was: when is the whole fiasco with HOF voting going to end? When are the petulant children at the BBWAA going to stop protesting players?

We can sit here and say so-and-so got a whisper once back in the day but that's light years away from what's going on with Bonds/Clemens/McGwire etc. I don't believe Beltre will be protested. I don't believe Cabrera will either. That's my point.

Perhaps you disagree. That's why I posed the question. But they're obviously not on the same plane that the three I mentioned earlier are on.

Arthur

Dpeck100

I don't follow. You asked when did the steroid era end in baseball. It hasn't.

Perhaps the athletes are taking different steroids and having different results but when there is this much money on the line people are taking things.

Your typical gym rat takes steroids so he can look better, perform better, get more chicks. A pro athlete can get paid millions of dollars so there is some serious upside potential. Anyone viewing the last 11 years since Bonds broke the home run record as a period of cleanliness is looking at it through rose colored glasses. Lance Armstrong has proven that not only can you cheat consistently but you can cheat without actually really thinking you are. Once you feel like the rest of the field is or might be you are no longer cheating but just trying to stay on an even playing field. Anyone who thinks they know with any level of certainty which players didn't use or don't use is dreaming.

Where is the line drawn on TRT? If you have someone with low T that is synthetically boosting their T levels to much higher levels is that cheating as long as they don't go passed 1000? Some would probably say yes and others no so it is doubtful there will ever be a total consensus on the topic. A friend of mine does TRT and he doesn't look like he spends all day in the gym and he says he is much faster, stronger and alert on it than off. He is taking something to improve his performance.

There are loads of articles that document the explosion of use in high school athletes of steroids and growth hormone. When athletes are getting started this young we are supposed to think they are going to stop when the stakes go up?

The voters are going to faced with the impossible when it comes to determining who is in the penalty box. It may turn out that they simply go by the glaringly obvious like McGwire and ignore the rumored.

Didn't Nolan Ryan not lose velocity in his later years in the game? How do we explain that? Lots of what ifs when it comes to the topic.

Mike Ohearn and Simeon Panda insist they are natural while possessing never naturally achieved results. Are they?

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/a9/8c/2fa98cdde9eb455def3ff6dfa0f14f5f.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.pinterest.com/pin/436919601325463110/&docid=KrXuAphOmOvFEM&tbnid=1HZatI27ZZpn4M:&vet=10ahUKEwjd7bST1LjfAhVGQ6wKHZVzAvIQMwhtKAQwBA..i&w=1018&h=1500&bih=789&biw=1600&q=mike ohearn&ved=0ahUKEwjd7bST1LjfAhVGQ6wKHZVzAvIQMwhtKAQwBA&iact=mrc&uact=8

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=789&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=hOogXN2bAsaGsQWV54mQDw&q=simeon+panda&oq=sime&gs_l=img.1.0.0i67j0l9.79905.81940..83721...2.0..0.127.610.3j3......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......35i39.dGx2UZc70fY#imgrc=dAhMEiN8UN1KuM:

softparade

@craig44 said:
Of course this stuff still goes on. Stantons name was brought up, I have heard trouts name mentioned. Athletes will always try to get an advantage. Look at the players over the years who have used illegal bats and doctored balls. There is no difference, it is all for an advantage. It is well documented that Ruth used an illegal bat for an extended time in the early 1920's. Look at all the guys who used doctored balls over the years it is almost considered a joke now, but it was performance enhancing just like steroids.

Ruth's "illegal" bat had as much effect on his performance as the pine tar did to George Brett's performance. And as far as I can tell, this 4 pc bat in question was used for just 40 days during the 1920 season before it was banned.

ReggieCleveland

@Dpeck100 said:
I don't follow. You asked when did the steroid era end in baseball. It hasn't.

In the context of future HOF voting, I believe it has.

Arthur

Griffins

HOF voting has been selective in regards to steroid users even within the era. Piazza got in, Bonds and Clemons haven't. So it's not whether steroid users are not getting in, it's about which ones do and which don't, and why.

craig44

@softparade said:

@craig44 said:
Of course this stuff still goes on. Stantons name was brought up, I have heard trouts name mentioned. Athletes will always try to get an advantage. Look at the players over the years who have used illegal bats and doctored balls. There is no difference, it is all for an advantage. It is well documented that Ruth used an illegal bat for an extended time in the early 1920's. Look at all the guys who used doctored balls over the years it is almost considered a joke now, but it was performance enhancing just like steroids.

Ruth's "illegal" bat had as much effect on his performance as the pine tar did to George Brett's performance. And as far as I can tell, this 4 pc bat in question was used for just 40 days during the 1920 season before it was banned.

Incorrect. During the six weeks Ruth used the quadrabat, he slashed .448/.576/.869. significantly higher than his career averages. Even if hi lines were less impressive, the intent was still there.

craig44

Ok, I think I understand what you are asking. I think the stigma will die off with the current crop of HOF voters. Both bonds and Clemens are 100% with new voters. It is a mystery why some steroid guys have already gotten in and some havent

softparade

@craig44 said:

@softparade said:

@craig44 said:
Of course this stuff still goes on. Stantons name was brought up, I have heard trouts name mentioned. Athletes will always try to get an advantage. Look at the players over the years who have used illegal bats and doctored balls. There is no difference, it is all for an advantage. It is well documented that Ruth used an illegal bat for an extended time in the early 1920's. Look at all the guys who used doctored balls over the years it is almost considered a joke now, but it was performance enhancing just like steroids.

Ruth's "illegal" bat had as much effect on his performance as the pine tar did to George Brett's performance. And as far as I can tell, this 4 pc bat in question was used for just 40 days during the 1920 season before it was banned.

Incorrect. During the six weeks Ruth used the quadrabat, he slashed .448/.576/.869. significantly higher than his career averages. Even if hi lines were less impressive, the intent was still there.

lol Ruth had similar hot stretches during his career. You can’t just compare one 40 game stretch good or bad with career norms. But whatever makes ya happy

craig44

@softparade said:

@craig44 said:

@softparade said:

@craig44 said:
Of course this stuff still goes on. Stantons name was brought up, I have heard trouts name mentioned. Athletes will always try to get an advantage. Look at the players over the years who have used illegal bats and doctored balls. There is no difference, it is all for an advantage. It is well documented that Ruth used an illegal bat for an extended time in the early 1920's. Look at all the guys who used doctored balls over the years it is almost considered a joke now, but it was performance enhancing just like steroids.

Ruth's "illegal" bat had as much effect on his performance as the pine tar did to George Brett's performance. And as far as I can tell, this 4 pc bat in question was used for just 40 days during the 1920 season before it was banned.

Incorrect. During the six weeks Ruth used the quadrabat, he slashed .448/.576/.869. significantly higher than his career averages. Even if hi lines were less impressive, the intent was still there.

lol Ruth had similar hot stretches during his career. You can’t just compare one 40 game stretch good or bad with career norms. But whatever makes ya happy

Was he or was he not using an illegal bat?

softparade

@craig44 said:

@softparade said:

@craig44 said:

@softparade said:

@craig44 said:
Of course this stuff still goes on. Stantons name was brought up, I have heard trouts name mentioned. Athletes will always try to get an advantage. Look at the players over the years who have used illegal bats and doctored balls. There is no difference, it is all for an advantage. It is well documented that Ruth used an illegal bat for an extended time in the early 1920's. Look at all the guys who used doctored balls over the years it is almost considered a joke now, but it was performance enhancing just like steroids.

Ruth's "illegal" bat had as much effect on his performance as the pine tar did to George Brett's performance. And as far as I can tell, this 4 pc bat in question was used for just 40 days during the 1920 season before it was banned.

Incorrect. During the six weeks Ruth used the quadrabat, he slashed .448/.576/.869. significantly higher than his career averages. Even if hi lines were less impressive, the intent was still there.

lol Ruth had similar hot stretches during his career. You can’t just compare one 40 game stretch good or bad with career norms. But whatever makes ya happy

Was he or was he not using an illegal bat?

@craig44 said:

@softparade said:

@craig44 said:

@softparade said:

@craig44 said:
Of course this stuff still goes on. Stantons name was brought up, I have heard trouts name mentioned. Athletes will always try to get an advantage. Look at the players over the years who have used illegal bats and doctored balls. There is no difference, it is all for an advantage. It is well documented that Ruth used an illegal bat for an extended time in the early 1920's. Look at all the guys who used doctored balls over the years it is almost considered a joke now, but it was performance enhancing just like steroids.

Ruth's "illegal" bat had as much effect on his performance as the pine tar did to George Brett's performance. And as far as I can tell, this 4 pc bat in question was used for just 40 days during the 1920 season before it was banned.

Incorrect. During the six weeks Ruth used the quadrabat, he slashed .448/.576/.869. significantly higher than his career averages. Even if hi lines were less impressive, the intent was still there.

lol Ruth had similar hot stretches during his career. You can’t just compare one 40 game stretch good or bad with career norms. But whatever makes ya happy

Was he or was he not using an illegal bat?

What is your point? I think you should also note that 40 days is not an “extended period in the early 20’s” as you originally referenced this.

craig44

My point is, did he cheat or not? You seem repulsed by the notion that Ruth cheated. And six weeks is a pretty good sample size.

Tell me the difference between what Ruth did and what Albert Belle and Sosa and the multitude of other guys who used corked bats. I will tell you the answer. Nothing.

softparade

@craig44 said:
My point is, did he cheat or not? You seem repulsed by the notion that Ruth cheated. And six weeks is a pretty good sample size.

Tell me the difference between what Ruth did and what Albert Belle and Sosa and the multitude of other guys who used corked bats. I will tell you the answer. Nothing.

I knew you were going there. Ruth the same as Sosa, McGwire, etc lolzzz

God Bless America!

softparade

I did get a speeding ticket last year. Is that the same as vehicular homicide?

craig44

Did I mention McGwire?

You still refuse to answer the question.

softparade

@craig44 said:
Did I mention McGuire?

You still refuse to answer the question.

Its not nearly the same. It’s ridiculous IMO. And 40 days isn’t anything remotely close to a sample size over a long career.

craig44

What is ridiculous? Did Ruth cheat or did he not? Easy question. You just don't want to answer

craig44

@softparade said:
I did get a speeding ticket last year. Is that the same as vehicular homicide?

Yes you did break the law, and yes they are different

softparade

@craig44 said:
What is ridiculous? Did Ruth cheat or did he not? Easy question. You just don't want to answer

Bull CRAP 💩
I don’t have to say anything. Your premise is ridiculous.

craig44

Of course you don't have to say anything, but, your silence is deafening.

The only thing ridiculous here is your utter lack of reasoning skills which are exemplified by your use of euphemism instead of intelligent conversation. You know Ruth cheated. Many many others did as well. It is not just the steroid crew. You just can't admit it. Ruth was looking for an advantage just as they were.

softparade

@craig44 said:
Of course you don't have to say anything, but, your silence is deafening.

The only thing ridiculous here is your utter lack of reasoning skills which are exemplified by your use of euphemism instead of intelligent conversation. You know Ruth cheated. Many many others did as well. It is not just the steroid crew. You just can't admit it. Ruth was looking for an advantage just as they were.

lol personal attack!
Always the hallmark of critical thinkers

Anyway, your idea that the 40 day bat episode by Ruth is one in the same with a league wide attack on the games integrity is one of the funniest things I’ve ever read on a forum.

Congrats

craig44

Keep in mind, that 40 day bat "episode" is just the time he was caught. Ruth was such a high integrity person, I'm sure it was a one time incident and a mistake at that.

Spin it any way you want, Ruth cheated and you know it. But you just can't quite admit it. should we erase the stats he accrued during his cheating stint do you think? Like some think should be done with the steroid guys?

And still he hasn't answered the question....

softparade

Craig can’t handle that someone thinks his argument has very limited merit. Which is the case.

1st he bloviates on how “well documented” this episode is.... it’s not.

2nd he bloviates on how this episode took part in “an extended period of the early 20’s” Which was 40 days hahaha

Rubbish

craig44

@softparade said:

@craig44 said:
Of course you don't have to say anything, but, your silence is deafening.

The only thing ridiculous here is your utter lack of reasoning skills which are exemplified by your use of euphemism instead of intelligent conversation. You know Ruth cheated. Many many others did as well. It is not just the steroid crew. You just can't admit it. Ruth was looking for an advantage just as they were.

lol personal attack!
Always the hallmark of critical thinkers

Anyway, your idea that the 40 day bat episode by Ruth is one in the same with a league wide attack on the games integrity is one of the funniest things I’ve ever read on a forum.

Congrats

This coming from a guy who actually used a poop emoji. Unreal. I think we have uncovered your demographic. Probably somewhere in middle school. Or, possibly one of those middle aged guys who really likes My Little Pony and still lives in the basement.

An actual poop emoji. WOW.

softparade

@craig44 said:

@softparade said:

@craig44 said:
Of course you don't have to say anything, but, your silence is deafening.

The only thing ridiculous here is your utter lack of reasoning skills which are exemplified by your use of euphemism instead of intelligent conversation. You know Ruth cheated. Many many others did as well. It is not just the steroid crew. You just can't admit it. Ruth was looking for an advantage just as they were.

lol personal attack!
Always the hallmark of critical thinkers

Anyway, your idea that the 40 day bat episode by Ruth is one in the same with a league wide attack on the games integrity is one of the funniest things I’ve ever read on a forum.

Congrats

This coming from a guy who actually used a poop emoji. Unreal. I think we have uncovered your demographic. Probably somewhere in middle school. Or, possibly one of those middle aged guys who really likes My Little Pony and still lives in the basement.

An actual poop emoji. WOW.

Hey, the shoe fit. Since when is that a bad move?

craig44

@softparade said:
Craig can’t handle that someone thinks his argument has very limited merit. Which is the case.

1st he bloviates on how “well documented” this episode is.... it’s not.

2nd he bloviates on how this episode took part in “an extended period of the early 20’s” Which was 40 days hahaha

Rubbish

Oh, I certainly don't care what you think of my arguments. You clearly don't have anything cogent to add, I just find it amusing to poke the monkeys sometimes. You don't really have an argument, or anything to add, well except for poop emojis, I guess those are fun for the youngsters.

Still haven't answered the question...

softparade

@craig44 said:

@softparade said:
Craig can’t handle that someone thinks his argument has very limited merit. Which is the case.

1st he bloviates on how “well documented” this episode is.... it’s not.

2nd he bloviates on how this episode took part in “an extended period of the early 20’s” Which was 40 days hahaha

Rubbish

Oh, I certainly don't care what you think of my arguments. You clearly don't have anything cogent to add, I just find it amusing to poke the monkeys sometimes. You don't really have an argument, or anything to add, well except for poop emojis, I guess those are fun for the youngsters.

Still haven't answered the question...

Of course I have an argument. It’s that your opinion on the matter is 💩