Five Reasons 'Roids Were Never the Real Problem in Baseball
Estil
Posts: 7,058 ✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I guess you could just as easily call this "Top Five Reasons You Can't Blame..." sort of article. I go on this website every morning while drinking my coffee and he writes some pretty good articles. And I must say, he really puts this whole 'roids thing in perspective:
Major League Baseball finally wraps up the regular season less than one week from today, and that means it's time to talk about one thing. Playoffs? No, that's boring. I'm talking about steroids, of course.
In 2013 alone, the league hit 13 players with steroid suspensions for a combined total of 811 games (of which A-Rod accounted for a record-shattering 211). In the eyes of most fans, steroids are an epidemic that will forever taint the records and accomplishments of many of baseball's biggest stars from the past two decades. Should that really be the case, though? Nope. Here are five reasons why:
#5. There Are Admitted Cheaters in the Hall of Fame Already
When it came time to vote for the 2013 Baseball Hall of Fame class, not a single player was elected, because that'll show 'em! It was the first year of eligibility for steroid villains like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, you see. Whether it was the intent or not, the snubs sent an obvious message. The Baseball Hall of Fame voters unanimously reject cheaters.
Except that's not true at all. There are admitted cheaters in the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame right now. Take the hilariously-named case of Gaylord Perry, for example.
He pitched for 22 seasons, during which he racked up an impressive 314 wins and won the Cy Young award twice, becoming the first player to take home the coveted "Pitcher of the Year" award in both the American and National leagues.
He was also a shameless cheater. Gaylord Perry's specialty was the spitball, a pitch that's been illegal in baseball since 1921, in part because it's nearly impossible to hit. He was so bold in his use of the pitch, he actually wrote an autobiography called Me and the Spitter in 1974, a full nine years before he retired.
Despite this admission, he made it 21 years in the league before finally being ejected from a game for throwing the illegal pitch on Aug. 23, 1982. Earlier that year, he'd become the first pitcher since 1963 to reach 300 wins. In 1983, his final year in the league, he was one of three pitchers to break Walter Johnson's all-time strikeout record in that season alone (Nolan Ryan and Steve Carlton were the others).
In short, Gaylord Perry ascended to the highest ranks of MLB pitching royalty, and he did it all while openly cheating. For his crimes against sportsmanship and fairness, he was elected to the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame in 1991.
If baseball historians really have a problem with cheating, they certainly have a selective way of showing it. That's why, if you ask me, I say ...
#4. Everyone Deserves an Asterisk
A lot of people just flat out hate Barry Bonds. Not only did he insult our intelligence by lying about using steroids while his head otherwise inexplicably doubled in size, he used those steroids to break Hank Aaron's long-standing career home run record. Because of the allegations leveled against him, you rarely hear that achievement discussed without someone mentioning the need to add an asterisk next to his name in the record books. Somehow, baseball fans of the future must always be reminded that, even though Barry Bonds is technically the best home run hitter of all-time, he's not really the best home run hitter of all-time.
Fine, but if that's true, then who is the best home run hitter of all-time? Is it really Hank Aaron? He played approximately the same number of seasons as Babe Ruth. Yes, the Babe played 22 seasons to the Hammer's 21, but most of Hank Aaron's seasons were eight games longer and far less impacted by hot dog-eating injuries, so it balances out.
Seeing as how he outhit the Bambino 755 to 714 in the same relative amount of time makes it a pretty cut and dry win for Hank Aaron, right?
Not so fast. Babe Ruth played the first six seasons of his career under the cloud of baseball's dreaded Dead-Ball era, a period of time in which the competitive advantage was slanted so heavily in the favor pitchers it killed a guy. On top of that, Babe Ruth played those six seasons primarily as a pitcher, so he appeared in way fewer games than an everyday player like Hank Aaron would. [My note: I can't believe one very overlooked fact is that Aaron got 3,965 more at bats than Ruth did as well]
I can hear the objections now: "Steroids were a personal choice Barry Bonds made, the Dead-Ball era was beyond Hank Aaron's control. It was just a part of the game at one point." That's true, but still, an advantage is an advantage. If you adjust Hank Aaron's stats during his first six seasons to reflect Dead Ball era playing conditions, his advantage over Babe Ruth would likely shrink dramatically.
Except it wouldn't, because Babe Ruth had the biggest competitive advantage of all, he didn't have to play against black people.
Take that as a racist joke all you want, but it's a valid goddamn point. The league Babe Ruth played in at the time excluded an entire segment of the population from competing. That means the talent pool in those days wasn't any more pure than it was during the steroid era.
I'm not saying steroids should be completely disregarded when it comes to the legacy of Barry Bonds. I'm just saying everyone has their asterisks, even if not all of them are self-imposed.
Also, there's something you should keep in mind before assuming hitters during the steroid era gained any advantage other than lighter and easier to carry testicles ...
#3. Pitcher Is the Position With the Most Performance-Enhancing-Drug Suspensions
Home runs sell tickets, so it's no surprise that sluggers like Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire became the most high-profile targets when steroid accusations began swirling. The problem is, steroids and home runs don't have a ton in common.
For starters, hitting a home run requires skills that steroids don't improve, like hand eye coordination. Your gigantic forearms are useless if you can't make the bat and ball meet on a consistent basis.
It's also important to note that of the 43 players suspended for using performance-enhancing drugs since 2005, 15 of them were pitchers. The next closest position was outfielder with 13, but that blanket term actually covers three positions on the field (left, right, and center fielder), so even then it's not really as close as it seems.
It makes perfect sense, too. Steroids, even more than helping muscles get huge, help muscles heal. Throwing a baseball is one of the most physically destructive acts in sports. Doing it over the course of several innings will destroy your arm. That's why pitchers don't play every day. They're supposed to be f-up for a few days afterward. Steroids help that not be the case, and you don't have to know how to swing a bat to feel the benefits.
That raises an obvious question. Are steroids really a competitive advantage if they're being used by everyone? When the pitcher on the mound is as roided up as the hitter at the plate, don't the two sort of cancel each other out? Roger Clemens was the only huge name pitcher to get swept up in the steroid talk, and he's not even on that list of players who were suspended. If we somehow magically received a definitive list of every player to ever use steroids while playing in the majors, there's no guarantee that the final number wouldn't skew heavily toward hitters, but it certainly isn't trending that way right now.
Still, an unfair advantage is an unfair advantage, and the "real" players from the days when baseball was "honest" had to set and break their records without the benefit of steroids. Is that fair? Of course not, but it's also not accurate, because ...
#2. Steroids Weren't Even Banned in Baseball Until 1991
Steroids have been around for a long time. They first made their way to the United States as a performance-enhancer in the 1950s. The NFL's San Diego Chargers are widely acknowledged as one of the first major sports teams to benefit from using steroids way back in 1963. That means steroids have been a part of professional sports in some way for at least 50 years.
With that in mind, who honestly believes steroids didn't start impacting baseball until the 90's? To believe that requires the kind of gullibility usually only seen in victims of Nigerian email scams. Even the fact that baseball finally outlawed steroids in 1991 is a sham, because they didn't start testing players for them until 2005. What's the point of banning them if you don't check to see if anyone is complying?
Even more telling is the fact that the resulting uproar from the player's union following commissioner Fay Vincent's attempt to ban steroids from the game in 1991 was so intense he eventually resigned over it. So why are we still clinging to this idea that baseball was ever steroid-free? Not taking steroids and not getting caught taking steroids are definitely not the same thing, Lance Armstrong. The fact that the MLB player's union was only able to fight off drug testing until 2005 doesn't make that year the starting line for steroids in baseball.
At least one player, former Atlanta Braves pitcher Tom House (the guy who caught Hank Aaron's record-breaking home run ball, coincidentally enough) says he used "steroids they wouldn't give to horses" during his playing days from 1971 to 1978.
He even claimed that "six or seven" pitchers on every team experimented with steroids at the time.
Look, the Olympics didn't even ban steroids until 1975. If you think baseball just magically stayed clear of steroids until Barry Bonds showed up, you're exactly as naive as Major League Baseball hopes you are. After all, the more you fixate on steroids and home run hitters, the less time you have to figure out that baseball is hiding the fact that ...
#1. Amphetamines Were the Real Scandal
Baseball had a way bigger performance-enhancing drug problem than steroids on its hands for a long time. Since as far back as the days when Willie Mays (the 4th most prolific home run hitter of all time, for the record) allegedly kept a liquid version called "Red Juice" on hand in his locker at all times, baseball players have relied on amphetamines to provide the boost that becomes necessary so many times during a grueling schedule that sees major league teams play 162 mostly boring-as-I'll get out games in just over 180 days.
Respected legends like Mike Schmidt, Pete Rose, and even Hank Aaron himself have admitted to using amphetamines at some point during their career. Commissioner Bud Selig, the man credited with finally ridding the game of amphetamines, said they'd been a problem in the league for for seven or eight decades. There was a tell-all book written by a major league player detailing the various ways players were benefiting from the use of amphetamines way back in 1970.
They even have a cutesy nickname for the most commonly abused form of amphetamines in sports, pills called "greenies."
Despite amphetamines being an acknowledged problem in baseball for longer than most of our parents have been alive, the league didn't start testing for them until 2006, a year after testing for steroids began. So which drug had more of an impact on the game? Let's look at some statistics.
For all intents and purposes, the first year of widespread testing for steroids was 2005. If the accepted logic that steroids equal more home runs is true, production in that area should have dropped off dramatically in 2006, right? Well, it didn't. In 2005, teams across both leagues hit an average of 167 home runs and scored 744 runs. While that was indeed a steep decline from the previous year's numbers, it didn't stay that way. In 2006, those totals increased to an average of 179 home runs and 787 runs scored, which is about where they were the year testing for steroids began. A full year removed from that monumental moment in baseball history, things seemed to actually get better for home run hitters. Just a reminder, the majority of performance-enhancing drug suspensions have been pitchers. Draw your own conclusions.
Meanwhile, the league finally got around to mandatory testing for amphetamines in 2006. Can you guess what happened next?
Instead of focusing on home runs, as so much of the PED debate does, let's look at the meat and potatoes stuff, hits and strikeouts. From 2004 to 2005, production in both areas dropped. Again, 2005 was the first year of actual steroid testing. The next year, things basically recovered for both sides at about the same rate. It was as if banning steroids had no real effect at all. After amphetamines, though? Things haven't just tilted in favor of pitchers, it's been a veritable golden age of expert pitching.
Total hits in 2006, the first year of mandatory amphetamine testing, were at 45,073. They've dropped every single year since amphetamines were banned. Again, they went down and back up again after steroids. The drop since amphetamines were banned, though, has been noticeable and drastic. In 2012, the total was just 42,063.
As for strikeouts, in 2006, there were 31,655. Just as hits have continuously gone down, strikeouts have gone up almost every single year since 2006. There were 36,426 in 2012.
If that doesn't do anything for you, consider the fact that of the 23 perfect games (meaning no one on the opposing team even reaches first base) thrown by pitchers in major league history, 17 of them happened between 1880 and 2004. That's 124 years. Perfect games used to come around with the frequency of visible comets in the night sky.
Now, ask me how many perfect games there have been since 2006. Six! And when I say "since 2006" what I actually mean is "since 2009." There were two in 2010 alone, which seemed mighty impressive until there were three in 2012. At that pace, after 124 years there will have been 186 perfect games thrown. What in the h-e-double hockey sticks is happening?
The explanation is pretty simple and obvious. Hitting a major league pitch is something the majority of Americans can't do at their most awake and alert. Position players take the field every single day, which is naturally going to tire out any athlete (especially if you routinely spend the night before games getting hammered). For decades, players have been able to fight that fatigue with amphetamines. Sure, they won't help you hit the ball harder, but if those pills are the difference between mentally alert or tired as hell, their benefit at the plate is undeniable. Hitters aren't less productive because they can't take steroids anymore, they're less productive because they can barely stay awake.
Pitchers, on the other hand, generally get lots of rest between appearances, making the energy boost from amphetamines less helpful or necessary. For the everyday player though, losing that amphetamine boost has been a disaster. Oh, and in case you're wondering, there were 5,386 home runs in 2006. In 2012, just 4,934.
Coincidentally, since amphetamines were banned, the rate of diagnosis for ADHD in baseball has skyrocketed to twice the national average, resulting in hundreds of players each year receiving exemptions to take drugs like Adderall, which, of course, are basically amphetamines. Imagine that.
So what does all this mean? Well, if amphetamines really do have the impact on hitting that the statistics seem to indicate, and if the steroid era really didn't start until sometime in the '90s, doesn't every record set when hitters had the benefit of using amphetamines but pitchers didn't have the benefit of using steroids deserve the same asterisk we're so eager to affix to the steroid-era records? If amphetamines have really been around for seven or eight decades like Bud Selig says, that covers everything from Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak to Pete Rose's all time hits record and everything in between.
Steroids didn't make baseball a dirty game. It's just a lot easier to write off the past two decades of professional baseball history as tainted when the alternative is admitting that baseball has always been a dirty game.
Original Article
Major League Baseball finally wraps up the regular season less than one week from today, and that means it's time to talk about one thing. Playoffs? No, that's boring. I'm talking about steroids, of course.
In 2013 alone, the league hit 13 players with steroid suspensions for a combined total of 811 games (of which A-Rod accounted for a record-shattering 211). In the eyes of most fans, steroids are an epidemic that will forever taint the records and accomplishments of many of baseball's biggest stars from the past two decades. Should that really be the case, though? Nope. Here are five reasons why:
#5. There Are Admitted Cheaters in the Hall of Fame Already
When it came time to vote for the 2013 Baseball Hall of Fame class, not a single player was elected, because that'll show 'em! It was the first year of eligibility for steroid villains like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, you see. Whether it was the intent or not, the snubs sent an obvious message. The Baseball Hall of Fame voters unanimously reject cheaters.
Except that's not true at all. There are admitted cheaters in the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame right now. Take the hilariously-named case of Gaylord Perry, for example.
He pitched for 22 seasons, during which he racked up an impressive 314 wins and won the Cy Young award twice, becoming the first player to take home the coveted "Pitcher of the Year" award in both the American and National leagues.
He was also a shameless cheater. Gaylord Perry's specialty was the spitball, a pitch that's been illegal in baseball since 1921, in part because it's nearly impossible to hit. He was so bold in his use of the pitch, he actually wrote an autobiography called Me and the Spitter in 1974, a full nine years before he retired.
Despite this admission, he made it 21 years in the league before finally being ejected from a game for throwing the illegal pitch on Aug. 23, 1982. Earlier that year, he'd become the first pitcher since 1963 to reach 300 wins. In 1983, his final year in the league, he was one of three pitchers to break Walter Johnson's all-time strikeout record in that season alone (Nolan Ryan and Steve Carlton were the others).
In short, Gaylord Perry ascended to the highest ranks of MLB pitching royalty, and he did it all while openly cheating. For his crimes against sportsmanship and fairness, he was elected to the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame in 1991.
If baseball historians really have a problem with cheating, they certainly have a selective way of showing it. That's why, if you ask me, I say ...
#4. Everyone Deserves an Asterisk
A lot of people just flat out hate Barry Bonds. Not only did he insult our intelligence by lying about using steroids while his head otherwise inexplicably doubled in size, he used those steroids to break Hank Aaron's long-standing career home run record. Because of the allegations leveled against him, you rarely hear that achievement discussed without someone mentioning the need to add an asterisk next to his name in the record books. Somehow, baseball fans of the future must always be reminded that, even though Barry Bonds is technically the best home run hitter of all-time, he's not really the best home run hitter of all-time.
Fine, but if that's true, then who is the best home run hitter of all-time? Is it really Hank Aaron? He played approximately the same number of seasons as Babe Ruth. Yes, the Babe played 22 seasons to the Hammer's 21, but most of Hank Aaron's seasons were eight games longer and far less impacted by hot dog-eating injuries, so it balances out.
Seeing as how he outhit the Bambino 755 to 714 in the same relative amount of time makes it a pretty cut and dry win for Hank Aaron, right?
Not so fast. Babe Ruth played the first six seasons of his career under the cloud of baseball's dreaded Dead-Ball era, a period of time in which the competitive advantage was slanted so heavily in the favor pitchers it killed a guy. On top of that, Babe Ruth played those six seasons primarily as a pitcher, so he appeared in way fewer games than an everyday player like Hank Aaron would. [My note: I can't believe one very overlooked fact is that Aaron got 3,965 more at bats than Ruth did as well]
I can hear the objections now: "Steroids were a personal choice Barry Bonds made, the Dead-Ball era was beyond Hank Aaron's control. It was just a part of the game at one point." That's true, but still, an advantage is an advantage. If you adjust Hank Aaron's stats during his first six seasons to reflect Dead Ball era playing conditions, his advantage over Babe Ruth would likely shrink dramatically.
Except it wouldn't, because Babe Ruth had the biggest competitive advantage of all, he didn't have to play against black people.
Take that as a racist joke all you want, but it's a valid goddamn point. The league Babe Ruth played in at the time excluded an entire segment of the population from competing. That means the talent pool in those days wasn't any more pure than it was during the steroid era.
I'm not saying steroids should be completely disregarded when it comes to the legacy of Barry Bonds. I'm just saying everyone has their asterisks, even if not all of them are self-imposed.
Also, there's something you should keep in mind before assuming hitters during the steroid era gained any advantage other than lighter and easier to carry testicles ...
#3. Pitcher Is the Position With the Most Performance-Enhancing-Drug Suspensions
Home runs sell tickets, so it's no surprise that sluggers like Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire became the most high-profile targets when steroid accusations began swirling. The problem is, steroids and home runs don't have a ton in common.
For starters, hitting a home run requires skills that steroids don't improve, like hand eye coordination. Your gigantic forearms are useless if you can't make the bat and ball meet on a consistent basis.
It's also important to note that of the 43 players suspended for using performance-enhancing drugs since 2005, 15 of them were pitchers. The next closest position was outfielder with 13, but that blanket term actually covers three positions on the field (left, right, and center fielder), so even then it's not really as close as it seems.
It makes perfect sense, too. Steroids, even more than helping muscles get huge, help muscles heal. Throwing a baseball is one of the most physically destructive acts in sports. Doing it over the course of several innings will destroy your arm. That's why pitchers don't play every day. They're supposed to be f-up for a few days afterward. Steroids help that not be the case, and you don't have to know how to swing a bat to feel the benefits.
That raises an obvious question. Are steroids really a competitive advantage if they're being used by everyone? When the pitcher on the mound is as roided up as the hitter at the plate, don't the two sort of cancel each other out? Roger Clemens was the only huge name pitcher to get swept up in the steroid talk, and he's not even on that list of players who were suspended. If we somehow magically received a definitive list of every player to ever use steroids while playing in the majors, there's no guarantee that the final number wouldn't skew heavily toward hitters, but it certainly isn't trending that way right now.
Still, an unfair advantage is an unfair advantage, and the "real" players from the days when baseball was "honest" had to set and break their records without the benefit of steroids. Is that fair? Of course not, but it's also not accurate, because ...
#2. Steroids Weren't Even Banned in Baseball Until 1991
Steroids have been around for a long time. They first made their way to the United States as a performance-enhancer in the 1950s. The NFL's San Diego Chargers are widely acknowledged as one of the first major sports teams to benefit from using steroids way back in 1963. That means steroids have been a part of professional sports in some way for at least 50 years.
With that in mind, who honestly believes steroids didn't start impacting baseball until the 90's? To believe that requires the kind of gullibility usually only seen in victims of Nigerian email scams. Even the fact that baseball finally outlawed steroids in 1991 is a sham, because they didn't start testing players for them until 2005. What's the point of banning them if you don't check to see if anyone is complying?
Even more telling is the fact that the resulting uproar from the player's union following commissioner Fay Vincent's attempt to ban steroids from the game in 1991 was so intense he eventually resigned over it. So why are we still clinging to this idea that baseball was ever steroid-free? Not taking steroids and not getting caught taking steroids are definitely not the same thing, Lance Armstrong. The fact that the MLB player's union was only able to fight off drug testing until 2005 doesn't make that year the starting line for steroids in baseball.
At least one player, former Atlanta Braves pitcher Tom House (the guy who caught Hank Aaron's record-breaking home run ball, coincidentally enough) says he used "steroids they wouldn't give to horses" during his playing days from 1971 to 1978.
He even claimed that "six or seven" pitchers on every team experimented with steroids at the time.
Look, the Olympics didn't even ban steroids until 1975. If you think baseball just magically stayed clear of steroids until Barry Bonds showed up, you're exactly as naive as Major League Baseball hopes you are. After all, the more you fixate on steroids and home run hitters, the less time you have to figure out that baseball is hiding the fact that ...
#1. Amphetamines Were the Real Scandal
Baseball had a way bigger performance-enhancing drug problem than steroids on its hands for a long time. Since as far back as the days when Willie Mays (the 4th most prolific home run hitter of all time, for the record) allegedly kept a liquid version called "Red Juice" on hand in his locker at all times, baseball players have relied on amphetamines to provide the boost that becomes necessary so many times during a grueling schedule that sees major league teams play 162 mostly boring-as-I'll get out games in just over 180 days.
Respected legends like Mike Schmidt, Pete Rose, and even Hank Aaron himself have admitted to using amphetamines at some point during their career. Commissioner Bud Selig, the man credited with finally ridding the game of amphetamines, said they'd been a problem in the league for for seven or eight decades. There was a tell-all book written by a major league player detailing the various ways players were benefiting from the use of amphetamines way back in 1970.
They even have a cutesy nickname for the most commonly abused form of amphetamines in sports, pills called "greenies."
Despite amphetamines being an acknowledged problem in baseball for longer than most of our parents have been alive, the league didn't start testing for them until 2006, a year after testing for steroids began. So which drug had more of an impact on the game? Let's look at some statistics.
For all intents and purposes, the first year of widespread testing for steroids was 2005. If the accepted logic that steroids equal more home runs is true, production in that area should have dropped off dramatically in 2006, right? Well, it didn't. In 2005, teams across both leagues hit an average of 167 home runs and scored 744 runs. While that was indeed a steep decline from the previous year's numbers, it didn't stay that way. In 2006, those totals increased to an average of 179 home runs and 787 runs scored, which is about where they were the year testing for steroids began. A full year removed from that monumental moment in baseball history, things seemed to actually get better for home run hitters. Just a reminder, the majority of performance-enhancing drug suspensions have been pitchers. Draw your own conclusions.
Meanwhile, the league finally got around to mandatory testing for amphetamines in 2006. Can you guess what happened next?
Instead of focusing on home runs, as so much of the PED debate does, let's look at the meat and potatoes stuff, hits and strikeouts. From 2004 to 2005, production in both areas dropped. Again, 2005 was the first year of actual steroid testing. The next year, things basically recovered for both sides at about the same rate. It was as if banning steroids had no real effect at all. After amphetamines, though? Things haven't just tilted in favor of pitchers, it's been a veritable golden age of expert pitching.
Total hits in 2006, the first year of mandatory amphetamine testing, were at 45,073. They've dropped every single year since amphetamines were banned. Again, they went down and back up again after steroids. The drop since amphetamines were banned, though, has been noticeable and drastic. In 2012, the total was just 42,063.
As for strikeouts, in 2006, there were 31,655. Just as hits have continuously gone down, strikeouts have gone up almost every single year since 2006. There were 36,426 in 2012.
If that doesn't do anything for you, consider the fact that of the 23 perfect games (meaning no one on the opposing team even reaches first base) thrown by pitchers in major league history, 17 of them happened between 1880 and 2004. That's 124 years. Perfect games used to come around with the frequency of visible comets in the night sky.
Now, ask me how many perfect games there have been since 2006. Six! And when I say "since 2006" what I actually mean is "since 2009." There were two in 2010 alone, which seemed mighty impressive until there were three in 2012. At that pace, after 124 years there will have been 186 perfect games thrown. What in the h-e-double hockey sticks is happening?
The explanation is pretty simple and obvious. Hitting a major league pitch is something the majority of Americans can't do at their most awake and alert. Position players take the field every single day, which is naturally going to tire out any athlete (especially if you routinely spend the night before games getting hammered). For decades, players have been able to fight that fatigue with amphetamines. Sure, they won't help you hit the ball harder, but if those pills are the difference between mentally alert or tired as hell, their benefit at the plate is undeniable. Hitters aren't less productive because they can't take steroids anymore, they're less productive because they can barely stay awake.
Pitchers, on the other hand, generally get lots of rest between appearances, making the energy boost from amphetamines less helpful or necessary. For the everyday player though, losing that amphetamine boost has been a disaster. Oh, and in case you're wondering, there were 5,386 home runs in 2006. In 2012, just 4,934.
Coincidentally, since amphetamines were banned, the rate of diagnosis for ADHD in baseball has skyrocketed to twice the national average, resulting in hundreds of players each year receiving exemptions to take drugs like Adderall, which, of course, are basically amphetamines. Imagine that.
So what does all this mean? Well, if amphetamines really do have the impact on hitting that the statistics seem to indicate, and if the steroid era really didn't start until sometime in the '90s, doesn't every record set when hitters had the benefit of using amphetamines but pitchers didn't have the benefit of using steroids deserve the same asterisk we're so eager to affix to the steroid-era records? If amphetamines have really been around for seven or eight decades like Bud Selig says, that covers everything from Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak to Pete Rose's all time hits record and everything in between.
Steroids didn't make baseball a dirty game. It's just a lot easier to write off the past two decades of professional baseball history as tainted when the alternative is admitting that baseball has always been a dirty game.
Original Article
WISHLIST
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
0
Comments
15 of 43 suspended players were pitchers. That's 35%. On a major league roster, however, pitchers make up at 44% of the players (11 of 25 spots). Thus, we would expect that 44% of the players suspended are pitchers. As shown, that's not the case. In other words, they are (caught) using roids at a lower rate than their fellow players.
Let's go over this POS article;
"#5. There Are Admitted Cheaters in the Hall of Fame Already"
He is able to name ONE, and the one he names admitted to throwing the spitter. MLB chose to ignore him and the other pitchers like Whitey Ford who "doctored" baseballs. Oh oh now we know of two.
"#4. Everyone Deserves an Asterisk"
This COMPLETE IDIOT says "Seeing as how he outhit the Bambino 755 to 714 in the same relative amount of time makes it a pretty cut and dry win for Hank Aaron, right?"
then he goes on to say that isn't true, really? Wow this guy is a genius.
He has no point here, these are records set during different times but they were all LEGALLY set.
Most unfortunate that blacks were banned from baseball. I don't think the players had any control over that or if the ball was "dead" or "juiced".
"#3. Pitcher Is the Position With the Most Performance-Enhancing-Drug Suspensions"
This guy can't even add or subtract 43-15=28. 28 happens to be a larger number than 15. I am really seeing the problem here.
"#2. Steroids Weren't Even Banned in Baseball Until 1991"
Wrong again Pea Brain; (but close)
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 created criminal penalties for those who “distribute or possess anabolic steroids with the intent to distribute for any use in humans other than the treatment of disease based on the order of a physician.” That's when they became an ILLEGAL drug, like cocaine, illegal drugs were illegal, get it. MLB doesn't have to have a policy against breaking the law. But I am sure drug use WAS covered in the collective bargaining agreement.
"#1. Amphetamines Were the Real Scandal"
Finally this stooge ALMOST makes a point, while "greenies" were illegal, they didn't always have a positive effect on the users performance. I found the exact same article he did where he cites among others Hank Aaron for amphetamine use. Aaron's statement (that the dork conveniently left out) was; " I was so frustrated that at one point I tried using a pep pill a greenie that one of my teamates gave me. When that thing took hold, I thought I was having a heart attack." Doesn't look like that was a performance enhancer.
In "Ball Four" Author Jim Bouton (an actual MLB player who knew what he was talking about) stated that "greenies" could help you if you were tired, but if you took too much you could get over confident and throw the ball right over the plate and get killed. Again, not an enhancement of your performance. Anyone who has done amphetamines knows that too much makes you nervous and jumpy, not relaxed and confident.
He finishes with saying steroids didn't make baseball a dirty game. I don't know, injecting illegal drugs into your body with a hypodermic needle causing you to have your testicles shrink, your head to grow and your body to be covered in boils sounds pretty dirty to me.
What a load of hor$e $hit. Most poorly written piece of garbage I have ever seen.
As the human torch would say "FLAME ON"
As soon as they looked into it the following things 100% happened.
Some players got away with it
Players got caught and still play have their numbers recorded forever
Congress wasted recources on this when they had ZERO bussiness getting involved wasting taxpayers money
MLB and the records became a complete mess
The players from the 50' and 60's were paid so poorly even some of the star players had to work at regular jobs during the off season to make ends meet.
For the most part they played "for the love of the game" and with the reserve clause had no rights.
Players and owners now are making huge dollars and many seem to care about nothing other than cashing in.
I still love baseball, but am beginning to like hockey more and more. Constant action, no stopping play just for a commercial and the players seem to be "good guys".
It's getting so that you can't even watch a baseball game without subscribing to a premium channel, I have discontinued my satellite TV system and refuse to pay extra for what I used to get for free.
I follow sports on the internet and if they find a way to charge me for that, FU#K THEM, I'm done.
Money, money, money. I for one am sick of the greed!
Have a nice day!
First, get rid of the idiotic OLD baseball writers who think they are god's gift to baseball's supposed 'hallowed halls'. Toss 'em out. All of them. Start over with a committee of voters who are instructed to vote on one thing and one thing only: the numbers the players put up on the field.
Then, when a player like Bonds, or Clemens, or whomever gets inducted, and they have steroid use in their past, YOU PUT THAT ON THEIR PLAQUE. Period. Suggesting that we keep certain players out of a baseball MUSEUM is the most idiotic and short-sighted ploy ever. I don't care that you personally dislike any of these steroid guys, they are a part of baseball history. End of story. How the hell are you supposed to take your kid to the hall of fame and there be an entire generation of baseball players missing? The idea of having a conversation with your kid where the topic revolves around PEDs that are mentioned on plaques would be much, much more moving.
There have been cheaters in baseball for as long as there's been baseball. Trying to pick and choose which ones you want to allow and which ones you want to deny is an exercise in futility.
Sigh. Cracked should stick with potty humor and failed rip-off of MAD Magazine.
<< <i>So greenies are the same as HGH? Wonder if they say the same about meth and pot. Both are illegal drugs and smoked; therefore should be treated the same.
>>
In many states the possession of either is a felony so yes they are treated the same. Just because a couple states have legalized pot doesn't mean a good number of states still don't see it as dangerous as Meth or any other controlled substance.
<< <i>Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. >>
The ignorance! IT BURNS!!!
" Penalties for Possession and Dealing under Indiana Law
Possession of Marijuana (IC 35-48-4-11)
30 grams or less (Class A Misdemeanor)
30 grams or less and prior conviction (Class D Felony)"
Second link for stownie!
"It is a crime to possess any amount of marijuana in Florida and, depending on the amount, you can be charged with either a misdemeanor or a felony.
Possession of less than 20 grams is a First Degree Misdemeanor, and
Possession of more than 20 grams is a Third Degree Felony >>
"
So to answer your question, yes, stown, simple possession of pot can result in a felony, thereby blowing up your entire initial point trying to make fun of the link between amphetamines and steroids. Try again next time.
<< <i>An easy internet search even stown could do shows:
" Penalties for Possession and Dealing under Indiana Law
Possession of Marijuana (IC 35-48-4-11)
30 grams or less (Class A Misdemeanor)
30 grams or less and prior conviction (Class D Felony)"
Second link for stownie!
"It is a crime to possess any amount of marijuana in Florida and, depending on the amount, you can be charged with either a misdemeanor or a felony.
Possession of less than 20 grams is a First Degree Misdemeanor, and
Possession of more than 20 grams is a Third Degree Felony >>
"
So to answer your question, yes, stown, simple possession of pot can result in a felony, thereby blowing up your entire initial point trying to make fun of the link between amphetamines and steroids. Try again next time. >>
Regardless of the penalties for pot vs. meth etc. "greenies" are/were not a performance enhancing drug. They could just as easily been a performance decreasing drug.
The fact that they are ILLEGAL is quite valid though, so in my opinion should be looked at more like alcohol. By the way it is ILLEGAL to consume as much alcohol as some players did and still do.
Actually, forget I asked. I can actually feel my IQ go down just going back and forth with you. Go yap elsewhere, boy.
<< <i>I forgot that you’re incapable of comprehending the basic differences between possession versus intent to distribute. Speaking of, does any of your googling sink in and stick around or does it just go in one hole and spewed straight out the other? >>
What part of what I linked and BOLDED did you fail to comprehend stown? Good gravy you argue just to argue. But because you are so dense I will copy it again!
<< <i>Penalties for Possession and Dealing under Indiana Law
Possession of Marijuana (IC 35-48-4-11)
30 grams or less (Class A Misdemeanor)
30 grams or less and prior conviction (Class D Felony)
more than 30 grams (Class D Felony)
The above penalties also apply to knowingly or intentionally cultivating or growing marijuana, and to failure to destroy marijuana plants knowing that they are growing on the premises. >>
Try again! You lose! Good day, sir!
But thanks for proving my point. People with common sense can differentiate the two. Others, like yourself, not so much.
Back on topic: steroid users, if their numbers warrant it, should be allowed in the hall. On their plaques, it should detail their steroid use, failed drug tests, etc. It's a MUSEUM after all, and trying to pick and choose who you keep out is denying future generations a true and accurate picture of baseball history. Period. End of debate.
Sorry, that's totally on me.
<< <i> I go on this website every morning while drinking my coffee and he writes some pretty good articles. And I must say, he really puts this whole 'roids thing in perspective >>
If this is what you consider good literature, may I suggest you read a good book instead? Maybe 50 Shades of Grey will suit you and have more facts.
Alabama-
Possession of any amount of marijuana over one kilogram (or a second offense of under one kilogram) is a Class C felony, punishable by one to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000. (Ala. Code §§ 13A-12-213, 13A-5-6, 13A-5-11.)
Alaska-
Possession of four ounces of marijuana or more (or 25 or more cannabis plants) is a class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $50,000.
Arizona-
Possession of less than two pounds of marijuana for personal use is a Class 6 felony, punishable by a sentence of four months to two years.
Arkansas-
Between 14 grams and four ounces is a class D felony, punishable by a sentence of up to six years and a fine of $10,000
California-
Possession of more than 28.5 grams is punishable with a fine of up to $500, up to six months in jail, or both. (Ca. Health & Safety Code § 11357(c)
Colorado-
As of 2012, Amendment 64 made it legal under state law for adults (people 21 years old or older) to possess and cultivate certian amounts of marijuana for personal use.
Connecticut-
In July of 2011, the Connecticut legislature passed a bill decriminalizing possession and personal use of less than one half ounce of marijuana
Delaware-
A person who possesses 3,000 grams of marijuana or more (or 1,500 grams or more, when there are two or more aggravating factors), for any reason, is guilty of a class B felony, punishable with between two and 25 years in prison. (Del. Health & Safety Code § 4752(c),(d),&(e).) 6 pounds, however, is not simple possession. Simple possession would be a misdemeanor.
Florida-
Purchasing or possessing more than 20 grams of marijuana is a third degree felony, punishable with up to five years in prison. (Fl. Stat. Ann. § 893.13(2)(a).)
Georgia-
Unlike most states, Georgia does not differentiate, for sentencing purposes, between possession for personal use and manufacture or sale (or possession for manufacture, distribution, or sale). When a violation involves less than ten pounds, the offender is guilty of a felony that is punishable with between one to ten years in prison. (Ga. Code Ann. § 16-13-30.)
Hawaii-
Between one and two pounds. A violation is a class B felony, punishable with up to ten years in prison, a fine of up to $25,000, or both. (Hi. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 712-1249.5(a).) Again, hardly 'simple' possession. Most simple possessions would be a misdemeanor.
Idaho-
More than three ounces. A violation is a felony, punishable with up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. (Id. Code Ann. § 37-2732(e).)
Without going further I've found many states, stown, which totally refutes your initial claim of
<< <i>In many states, simple possession of marijuana is a felony? >>
Yes, simple possession, in many states, IS a felony. You really should take your own advice about not opening your mouth and removing all doubt about what a fool you are.
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIMPLE POSSESSION AND INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE.
Take a look at the 8 states you listed that carry the possibility of a felony. See those weights? Okay, keep that in mind. States decide charges based upon the amount you have. Typically, as in 90%+, .25 grams or less is considered for personal use (possession) and a misdemeanor, if anything. More and they'll assume you're dealing drugs (intent to distribute).
Georgia is 10 pounds, Bama a kilo (whoa!), Alaska is a QP, and so on. That's not possession, that's drug trafficing.
Is any of this sinking in?
Oh, forget it but at least I tried.
<< <i>When did it become illegal to drink as much alcohol as you wanted? >>
When you are driving.
Stown,
Axtell is still upset because he didn't know the difference between a fielders choice and a hit...maybe that is why simple points go right over his head.
Joe has a clean record and gets busted for 1 gram of weed. In any state, worst case, he gets charged with a misdemeanor.
Joe has a clean record and gets busted for 1 gram of meth. In any state, best case, he gets charged with a felony.
Here's where common sense kicks in and says, "Oh yeah, that's two different things."
Are you still paying attention? Because this is where we come full circle...
However, you're saying they are the same thing and should be treated as such, just like greenies and HGH. I used an extreme example, something clear as night and day, yet you *still* see the same thing.
You either get it or you don't. If it's the latter, I'm sorry that happened to you.
<< <i>Are you really that dense? I'll honestly try my best to educate you. Perhaps an all caps statement will help.
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIMPLE POSSESSION AND INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE. >>
Obviously. I stated as much here. You cannot possibly that itching for a fight to completely ignore what I typed out. Sheesh! All this to try to weasel out of your initial erroneous post that was factually WRONG.
You lose, pal.
<< <i>
<< <i>So greenies are the same as HGH? Wonder if they say the same about meth and pot. Both are illegal drugs and smoked; therefore should be treated the same.
>>
In many states the possession of either is a felony so yes they are treated the same. Just because a couple states have legalized pot doesn't mean a good number of states still don't see it as dangerous as Meth or any other controlled substance. >>
NO, they are not treated the same. Stown pointed that out above. Same means Same, or do you not understand same like you don't understand what a fact is, or understand the difference between fielders choice and a hit?
Also, I don't think anyone of credibility views weed and meth as the same level of dangerousness.
So in your attempt to say greenies are the same HGH, you have failed once again to make a valid point.
Greeniers are not as effective as HGH.
Weed is not as dangerous as meth.
Weed is NOT treated the same as Meth. "Same" means same, not "some times", or "in this place or that", or in "this amount or that," It means EVERYTHING about it is equal. Clearly everything about meth and weed is not equal.
Also, clearly greenies and hgh are not the same.
<< <i>
<< <i> I go on this website every morning while drinking my coffee and he writes some pretty good articles. And I must say, he really puts this whole 'roids thing in perspective >>
If this is what you consider good literature, may I suggest you read a good book instead? Maybe 50 Shades of Grey will suit you and have more facts. >>
And may I suggest to both you and JoeBanzai that the proper way to discuss/debate something is to do so without resorting to ad hominem attacks (and in your case sarcasm)? If you two are really confident that your positions are right you should be able to do that without any problem.
And when did I ever claim this was "literature"?
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
The sky is brown!
The sky is green, maybe!!
As I've been saying the entire time, the sky is purple!
I double dog dare you to play the Tinkerbell card.
<< <i>
"#3. Pitcher Is the Position With the Most Performance-Enhancing-Drug Suspensions"
This guy can't even add or subtract 43-15=28. 28 happens to be a larger number than 15. I am really seeing the problem here. >>
28 is the combined total of the other 8 (or 9 if you count the DH) positions. He didn't say pitchers more than all other positions combined. In fact, he acknowledges the next closest is 13 outfielders, and there's three different flavors of those.
Sounds like his math skills are just fine to me.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
<< <i>
<< <i>
"#3. Pitcher Is the Position With the Most Performance-Enhancing-Drug Suspensions"
This guy can't even add or subtract 43-15=28. 28 happens to be a larger number than 15. I am really seeing the problem here. >>
28 is the combined total of the other 8 (or 9 if you count the DH) positions. He didn't say pitchers more than all other positions combined. In fact, he acknowledges the next closest is 13 outfielders, and there's three different flavors of those.
Sounds like his math skills are just fine to me.
Trying to 'debate' with these guys who have an axe to grind non stop is beyond frustrating. They refuse to listen to anything other than the echo chamber they are obviously so enamored of living within.
<< <i>
<< <i>
"#3. Pitcher Is the Position With the Most Performance-Enhancing-Drug Suspensions"
This guy can't even add or subtract 43-15=28. 28 happens to be a larger number than 15. I am really seeing the problem here. >>
28 is the combined total of the other 8 (or 9 if you count the DH) positions. He didn't say pitchers more than all other positions combined. In fact, he acknowledges the next closest is 13 outfielders, and there's three different flavors of those.
Sounds like his math skills are just fine to me.
I am sorry if I offended you with my sarcastic post. Usually I try to be more polite. This particular story/article was in my opinion so ridiculously stupid, I did go off on it.
One of my biggest reasons it irritated me was the above mentioned #3. Taking a comparison between hitting and pitching (which doesn't matter in the first place, who cares what position cheats the most) to break it down to "9 if you count the DH positions" is BEYOND meaningless, why not take it farther and do left handed vs right handed? The writer is obviously inventing another "point" to add to his "story"
Really, this "article" seems to have been written by a person with a third grade knowledge of the issue. I am amazed the author (and I am using the title loosely) didn't try to say that we still weren't sure that steroids actually helped players performance.
My feelings are if you want to post on these (or any) boards, you might get challenged, I certainly have MANY times and not always so nicely.
I also never criticized the OP, only the writer of the article. Who by the way is a MORON.
Sorry there I go again, better sign off.
<< <i>
<< <i>When did it become illegal to drink as much alcohol as you wanted? >>
When you are driving.
Stown,
There is also "public intoxication" in fact Mickey Mantle was actually arrested (never booked though) for that exact thing.
<< <i> By the way it is ILLEGAL to consume as much alcohol as some players did and still do. >>
You should have qualified this, and said 'in public' or 'driving while intoxicated', as this statement is wildly ambiguous and, if someone were in on private party, is totally inaccurate.
<< <i>
<< <i>
"#3. Pitcher Is the Position With the Most Performance-Enhancing-Drug Suspensions"
This guy can't even add or subtract 43-15=28. 28 happens to be a larger number than 15. I am really seeing the problem here. >>
28 is the combined total of the other 8 (or 9 if you count the DH) positions. He didn't say pitchers more than all other positions combined. In fact, he acknowledges the next closest is 13 outfielders, and there's three different flavors of those.
Sounds like his math skills are just fine to me.
I already showed (correctly) the flaw in his math.
<< <i>
<< <i> By the way it is ILLEGAL to consume as much alcohol as some players did and still do. >>
You should have qualified this, and said 'in public' or 'driving while intoxicated', as this statement is wildly ambiguous and, if someone were in on private party, is totally inaccurate. >>
Oh gee sorry, I figured MOST people had heard of DWI's and public drunkenness........oh yes I'll help you some more; it's not legal to be drunk at work, or at least it will get you fired, suspended or forced into treatment.
I am really surprised you did not know that some players have been suspended from games for violating the substance abuse policy with alcohol, not just steroids and "street" drugs.
PS: You can get charged for a public intoxication while on private property, which typically includes disturbing the peace. Laws vary state by state and a good defense lawyer may be able to get them dropped but it does, in fact, happen. Yet again, it goes back to speaking in absolutes and groupthink. There are shades of grey, even when one is mentally incapable to distinguish them.
Back to the point,
1) Are greenies equal to HGH?
2) Is weed equal to meth?
3) Do steroids help a hitter?
4)Is Bud responsible for the steroid epidemic?
<< <i>
PS: You can get charged for a public intoxication while on private property, which typically includes disturbing the peace. Laws vary state by state and a good defense lawyer may be able to get them dropped but it does, in fact, happen. Yet again, it goes back to speaking in absolutes and groupthink. There are shades of grey, even when one is mentally incapable to distinguish them. >>
You want to talk shades of grey but have to attach 'disturbing the peace' with the drinking on private property? Jesus christ man you are ridiculous.
If someone wants to drink themselves into oblivion ON PRIVATE property without also disturbing the peace, there is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING illegal about that. You get on the road, you raise a ruckus, you're never going to be arrested.
Good gravy and you dare to call ME argumentative?
<< <i>Wow, this writer must have a closet full of Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire RCs. >>
<< <i>So greenies are the same as HGH? Wonder if they say the same about meth and pot. Both are illegal drugs and smoked; therefore should be treated the same. >>
Amphetamines and methamphetamine are Schedule II. Weed and growth hormone are both Schedule III. They should be treated differently and they are
<< <i>So in your attempt to say greenies are the same HGH, you have failed once again to make a valid point.
Greeniers are not as effective as HGH >>
According to the US government amphetamines have a higher potential for abuse, and a higher potential to lead to severe psychological or physical dependence than HGH
What exactly do you mean by "effective?"
Amphetamines have a very limited therapeutic effect, but a lot of people don't enjoy the effects they do cause very much. Much more than those who enjoy the effectiveness of HGH
<< <i>
<< <i>So in your attempt to say greenies are the same HGH, you have failed once again to make a valid point.
Greeniers are not as effective as HGH >>
According to the US government amphetamines have a higher potential for abuse, and a higher potential to lead to severe psychological or physical dependence than HGH
What exactly do you mean by "effective?"
Amphetamines have a very limited therapeutic effect, but a lot of people don't enjoy the effects they do cause very much. Much more than those who enjoy the effectiveness of HGH >>
Of course amphetamines have a higher potential for abuse,they are easier to get and don't require injections, something many drug users draw the line at.
What is so hard about understanding that not all drugs have the same effect on the human body? Amphetamines may help you overcome drowsiness, but doing too many will most likely cause a decrease in performance, steroids and HGH make you stronger and heal faster, can't see where they are going to have a detrimental effect on your performance.
Same question was asked/answered earlier about meth vs pot, not the same level of drug no matter what the penalties are.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
"#3. Pitcher Is the Position With the Most Performance-Enhancing-Drug Suspensions"
This guy can't even add or subtract 43-15=28. 28 happens to be a larger number than 15. I am really seeing the problem here. >>
28 is the combined total of the other 8 (or 9 if you count the DH) positions. He didn't say pitchers more than all other positions combined. In fact, he acknowledges the next closest is 13 outfielders, and there's three different flavors of those.
Sounds like his math skills are just fine to me.
I am sorry if I offended you with my sarcastic post. Usually I try to be more polite. This particular story/article was in my opinion so ridiculously stupid, I did go off on it.
One of my biggest reasons it irritated me was the above mentioned #3. Taking a comparison between hitting and pitching (which doesn't matter in the first place, who cares what position cheats the most) to break it down to "9 if you count the DH positions" is BEYOND meaningless, why not take it farther and do left handed vs right handed? The writer is obviously inventing another "point" to add to his "story"
Really, this "article" seems to have been written by a person with a third grade knowledge of the issue. I am amazed the author (and I am using the title loosely) didn't try to say that we still weren't sure that steroids actually helped players performance.
My feelings are if you want to post on these (or any) boards, you might get challenged, I certainly have MANY times and not always so nicely.
I also never criticized the OP, only the writer of the article. Who by the way is a MORON.
Sorry there I go again, better sign off. >>
Oh you didn't offend me (trust me I've heard a LOT worse for a LOT longer from most of my so-called "loved ones") I was only cautioning that people who flood their viewpoint with ad homeiums are not likely to be taken as seriously. True the author does have a "causal" writing style but my point/intention was to simply put forth a fresh viewpoint on this debate and I personally have a great deal of respect for those who offer a different perspective on a issue besides the cliches we typically hear from the typical "talking head" on each side of the issue. Forget "there are two sides to every story", the saying should be "there are at least two sides to every story". While of course I don't agree with all the author's points, I do think he does raise some interesting ones.
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
"#3. Pitcher Is the Position With the Most Performance-Enhancing-Drug Suspensions"
This guy can't even add or subtract 43-15=28. 28 happens to be a larger number than 15. I am really seeing the problem here. >>
28 is the combined total of the other 8 (or 9 if you count the DH) positions. He didn't say pitchers more than all other positions combined. In fact, he acknowledges the next closest is 13 outfielders, and there's three different flavors of those.
Sounds like his math skills are just fine to me.
I am sorry if I offended you with my sarcastic post. Usually I try to be more polite. This particular story/article was in my opinion so ridiculously stupid, I did go off on it.
One of my biggest reasons it irritated me was the above mentioned #3. Taking a comparison between hitting and pitching (which doesn't matter in the first place, who cares what position cheats the most) to break it down to "9 if you count the DH positions" is BEYOND meaningless, why not take it farther and do left handed vs right handed? The writer is obviously inventing another "point" to add to his "story"
Really, this "article" seems to have been written by a person with a third grade knowledge of the issue. I am amazed the author (and I am using the title loosely) didn't try to say that we still weren't sure that steroids actually helped players performance.
My feelings are if you want to post on these (or any) boards, you might get challenged, I certainly have MANY times and not always so nicely.
I also never criticized the OP, only the writer of the article. Who by the way is a MORON.
Sorry there I go again, better sign off. >>
Oh you didn't offend me (trust me I've heard a LOT worse for a LOT longer from most of my so-called "loved ones") I was only cautioning that people who flood their viewpoint with ad homeiums are not likely to be taken as seriously. True the author does have a "causal" writing style but my point/intention was to simply put forth a fresh viewpoint on this debate and I personally have a great deal of respect for those who offer a different perspective on a issue besides the cliches we typically hear from the typical "talking head" on each side of the issue. Forget "there are two sides to every story", the saying should be "there are at least two sides to every story". While of course I don't agree with all the author's points, I do think he does raise some interesting ones. >>
I am glad you weren't offended. Even though I don't completely agree I "flooded" anything with ad hominems, there certainly were a few in there. Some accurate ones I may add.
I actually enjoy reading others viewpoints and even occasionally (OK rarely) change my viewpoint (a LITTLE), however I did rebut each of his points one by one.
When reading an article such as this, it's pretty hard for me NOT to go off on the writer. There just isn't anything there that is correct or on point. For example the already discussed #3. Looks to me like the guy needed another "point" so he puts that in, it has no merit, steroids help all athletes heal faster. There is no point in separating them into pitchers and position players, much less than breaking steroid use down by position, proves nothing.
On #5 I could have just as easily said "two wrongs don't make a right".
#4 I didn't even address his comment on the only advantage of using steroids is "lighter and easier to carry testicles", honestly that is an actual opinion? I believe it's pretty sarcastic myself, so if he isn't actually being honest with his argument, what good is it? I am sorry, but if he actually believes that, his brain is not functioning properly and that is NOT an ad hominem, that is a fact.
#3 been addressed properly, I trust.
#2 Information in error, correct year 1998. Please get your dates correct. This is VERY important as 1998 is the year of the McGwire/Sosa slugathon.
#1 Again incorrect information, there never was a "scandal" associated with amphetamines, there sure is one going on with steroids and HGH.
So there you go, a rebuttal that should be a little more "proper". A lot less enjoyable to write and (hopefully) to read.
<< <i>Of course amphetamines have a higher potential for abuse,they are easier to get and don't require injections, something many drug users draw the line at. >>
Google search says street value of HGH is only about $5 to $10 per dose. So it should be easy enough to get from illegal drug dealers. As a schedule III, it is also easier to get from a doctor than other drugs that are more dangerous and have more limited medical use. Amphetamines are even cheaper, mostly because the supply-and-demand scale is so much different. If HGH was as popular as other drugs, competition among drug dealers would be far greater
<< <i>What is so hard about understanding that not all drugs have the same effect on the human body? Amphetamines may help you overcome drowsiness, but doing too many will most likely cause a decrease in performance, steroids and HGH make you stronger and heal faster, can't see where they are going to have a detrimental effect on your performance. >>
If this is true, doesn't that support what Adam Tod Brown (the author of the article) was saying? That steroids were never the real problem, because they have a far less detrimental effect than other popularly abused drugs
Back in the day "whites" as they were called were the easy to get "upper" they were cheap and you could get them anywhere, or so it seemed. Don't forget about the injection part of it, many people #1 draw the line at injecting (I did) #2 some people are deathly afraid of needles (I wasn't). Personally I haven't met a doctor who was willing to give me a prescription for drugs I didn't need. I am sure they are out there.
"If this is true, doesn't that support what Adam Tod Brown (the author of the article) was saying? That steroids were never the real problem, because they have a far less detrimental effect than other popularly abused drugs"
NO! You forgot the part where he admits to having shrunken testicles. Long term effects of steroids abuse could possibly cause an early death. If you are supporting your(?) response on the fact that ONE THING, short term physical side effects of steroids aren't detrimental to health, it's simply not enough to make a difference on the subject.
I can't believe I have wasted this much time responding to such a factually incorrect article. Have fun with the debate and goodnight.
<< <i>NO! You forgot the part where he admits to having shrunken testicles. >>
Who admits to that? Rafael Palmerio?
<< <i>Long term effects of steroids abuse could possibly cause an early death. If you are supporting your(?) response on the fact that ONE THING, short term physical side effects of steroids aren't detrimental to health, it's simply not enough to make a difference on the subject. >>
And there are side effects to long term pot smoking, too. Yet we all still agree it is not the same as crystal meth use. Like wise, just because there are side effects to long term steroid use, it is still not the same as all other illegal drugs
Oh, wait, that's obviously not what is happening here. What's happening here is folks WANTING something to be true (i.e. that players of older eras couldn't possibly have taken any substances to help them since those players were 'heroes' meant to be adored and today's players are greedy scumbags). What's happening here is folks taking a bunch of media talking heads who have made a career of railing against PED use for nothing more than ratings.
The fact of the matter is baseball players have been cheating for as long as they've been playing baseball. Amphetamines gave those players who took them a boost and made the season more tolerable. PEDs allow players to recover from workouts quicker. The degree to which either/both help is speculative at best.
So until then, those who mindlessly rail against PED users as somehow unique in their desire to get ahead, I'd suggest you actually study some baseball history, because until you do, you look like ignorant fools.
Until you present it? Shut yer yap.