So I googled the author, Adam Tod Brown, and yeah... Not surprised at all.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>Honest question to those who insist they make that much a difference: where's your proof?
Until you present it? Shut yer yap. >>
Again, from one side of your mouth you insist steroids don't make a difference, and then on the other side of your mouth you blast Bud for hurting the game because he did nothing to combat the steroid epidemic.
The sad thing is that the ONLY reason you have this stance is because Arod was cheating, which eliminates him being viewed as an all-time great, which in turn eliminates your self-esteem because you have hatched on so tightly to Arod for some reason.
I could see someone taking a nonchalant stance about steroids in saying they don't bother them when MLB players use them. That is perfectly fine thinking.
However,when biased or ignorant people start claiming that steroids don't do anything to help hitters, and simply overlook the logic and physics, then I guess that is when they have checked into fantasy land. I'm not going to argue that point anymore, because steroids help muscles, muscles propel the body, the body propels the bat...and the faster the bat can be propelled, the quicker the bat gets through the zone, the more consistent hard contact occurs, and the farther the ball goes. That is simple fact. Greenies do nothing to that degree.
Then looking at the improvements of guys like Bonds, etc.. after they took roids, while one cannot put an EXACT percentage of help they received, it is obvious they certainly received more than the negligible help you are claiming.
The above facts are true, but that doesn't matter anymore, because your entire ridiculousness is exposed when out of one side of your mouth you claim that steroids are insignificant, but on the other side of your mouth you hammer Bud for causing the steroid epidemic. You are simply purse biased nonsense, and it is quite comical, lol!
As for you talking about Stown's Houston guys on PED's. I certainly know he does not like that they did that, including his all time favorite, Lance Armstrong. He still cheers for them and still supports them, but he also recognizes what they did and doesn't blatantly deny it or start making up fairy tales to try and exonerate them. As a result, he keeps the best of both worlds; he can still enjoy the accomplishments of those athletes, but with a realistic demeanor on how they accomplished it all. As a result, he doesn't look like a fool like you do with the whole Arod stance.
<< <i> I'm not going to argue that point anymore, because steroids help muscles, muscles propel the body, the body propels the bat...and the faster the bat can be propelled, the quicker the bat gets through the zone, the more consistent hard contact occurs, and the farther the ball goes. That is simple fact. Greenies do nothing to that degree. >>
With the exception of one fool, we all accept this to be true. But doesn't this support exactly what the author of the article says: amphetamines is a bigger problem than steroids. In addition to having having far more and far more dangerous side effects, they also have such a smaller therapeutic effect
<< <i> I'm not going to argue that point anymore, because steroids help muscles, muscles propel the body, the body propels the bat...and the faster the bat can be propelled, the quicker the bat gets through the zone, the more consistent hard contact occurs, and the farther the ball goes. That is simple fact. Greenies do nothing to that degree. >>
With the exception of one fool, we all accept this to be true. But doesn't this support exactly what the author of the article says: amphetamines is a bigger problem than steroids. In addition to having having far more and far more dangerous side effects, they also have such a smaller therapeutic effect >>
Depends on what you mean by "bigger problem"
In terms of integrity of the achievements, then not at all. Amphetamines don't have anywhere near the effect on building muscle strengths as steroids do. As a result, they don't enhance the performance anywhere near what steroids do. In fact, a case can be made that amphetamines can be detrimental to performance.
Since amphetamines are taken so often and do have side effects, then sure, they may be a bigger health risk problem than steroids, and thus be the bigger problem.
I think the more interesting question in all of this, is where does one draw the line in performance enhancing drugs?
If one did a scale of performance enhances, it may look something like this, starting from the beginning to the end:
Coffee....Ibuprofen...amphetamines..............................HGH.........the best steroid......bionics.
The dots in between can be filled with other things too. The space of the dots is debatable. But coffee is a performance enhancer too, isn't it? Obviously not as good as anabolic steroids.
Ibuprofen helps recovery and numbs pain, which allows players to play at a higher level too.
Coffee and ibuprofen have negative side effects if taken too much also.
How about Tommy John surgery? If taking a stronger tendon from the hamstring area is used, then isn't that an advantage? What if a horse tendon were able to be used? What if a procedure is developed where more of the hamstring area could be transferred to the shoulder, and a guy can throw 110MPH as a result?
Bionics? Sounds silly, but progress is made all the time there. 600 foot home runs from Steve Austin?
Perkdog may have this whole thing right. One may just have to throw their arms up in the air and just say, hey, its just the era, the sky is the limit. Time to stop worrying about it so much. That isn't unreasonable. However, it would be unreasonable to then follow with the statement, "all-time great," because players in the era's just directly preceding this era didn't have such advantages. The guys from this era may just be limited to recognition as greatest of their era, as opposed to "all-time great."
PS. In regard to the author with pitchers taking steroids being equalizers to the batters taking them, then one has to also remember that a ball coming in faster, will travel farther when hit. Steroids won't increase a pitchers control! If a steroid pitcher on roids increases his fastball 5MPH, then he actually may be prone to giving him more home runs, with faster pitches not spotted properly....which will benefit the hitter of course. We all see pitchers who throw their hardest and lose their ability to spot the ball, and then bad things happen. Pitching is not the same as hitting.
<< <i> I'm not going to argue that point anymore, because steroids help muscles, muscles propel the body, the body propels the bat...and the faster the bat can be propelled, the quicker the bat gets through the zone, the more consistent hard contact occurs, and the farther the ball goes. That is simple fact. Greenies do nothing to that degree. >>
With the exception of one fool, we all accept this to be true. But doesn't this support exactly what the author of the article says: amphetamines is a bigger problem than steroids. In addition to having having far more and far more dangerous side effects, they also have such a smaller therapeutic effect >>
I believe that has more to do with amphetamines being easily available and have a tendency to become addictive. He has a point but it's not related to the subject of performance enhancers.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i> I think the more interesting question in all of this, is where does one draw the line in performance enhancing drugs? >>
Performance enhancement should always be encouraged. Caffeine, cortisone, shoulder surgery, eye surgery, ice baths, heating and icing muscles, batting practice, coaching, videos, exercise, a good meal, steroids, antibiotics. We all agree that all that stuff can enhance performance. And with the exception of steroids, I think everyone agrees sports are better because of them
For all drug regulation I've always thought the place to draw the line was very clear. When the cost of prohibition exceeds the cost of legalization, it should be banned. It's why American law decided alcohol should be legal and crystal meth should be banned. It's why Major League Baseball has decided steroids should also be banned, but cortisone shots and many pain killers should be legalized (when that means the difference between being unable to walk and playing at full capacity, the legal means are are far more of a performance enhancement than steroids).
There are people a lot smarter than I am who argue that this sort of prohibition is far too costly and we should instead have a different drug policy that allows use of these substances. I generally lean toward that view, but it is hard to ignore that the government and the vast majority of Americans have their reasons for believing so strongly in both drug prohibition and heavy punishment for any illegal drug user
<< <i> And with the exception of steroids, I think everyone agrees sports are better because of them >>
I think Bud Selig, the wealthy owners who became even wealthier, and the countless players who have made tens of millions of dollars using them would all disagree.
<< <i> And with the exception of steroids, I think everyone agrees sports are better because of them >>
I think Bud Selig, the wealthy owners who became even wealthier, and the countless players who have made tens of millions of dollars using them would all disagree. >>
What is wrong with you? Is your obsession with Bud Selig so strong that you really think he is even more evil for failing to ban performance enhancing batting practice along with performance enhancing drugs?
Comments
<< <i>Honest question to those who insist they make that much a difference: where's your proof?
Until you present it? Shut yer yap. >>
Again, from one side of your mouth you insist steroids don't make a difference, and then on the other side of your mouth you blast Bud for hurting the game because he did nothing to combat the steroid epidemic.
The sad thing is that the ONLY reason you have this stance is because Arod was cheating, which eliminates him being viewed as an all-time great, which in turn eliminates your self-esteem because you have hatched on so tightly to Arod for some reason.
I could see someone taking a nonchalant stance about steroids in saying they don't bother them when MLB players use them. That is perfectly fine thinking.
However,when biased or ignorant people start claiming that steroids don't do anything to help hitters, and simply overlook the logic and physics, then I guess that is when they have checked into fantasy land. I'm not going to argue that point anymore, because steroids help muscles, muscles propel the body, the body propels the bat...and the faster the bat can be propelled, the quicker the bat gets through the zone, the more consistent hard contact occurs, and the farther the ball goes. That is simple fact. Greenies do nothing to that degree.
Then looking at the improvements of guys like Bonds, etc.. after they took roids, while one cannot put an EXACT percentage of help they received, it is obvious they certainly received more than the negligible help you are claiming.
The above facts are true, but that doesn't matter anymore, because your entire ridiculousness is exposed when out of one side of your mouth you claim that steroids are insignificant, but on the other side of your mouth you hammer Bud for causing the steroid epidemic. You are simply purse biased nonsense, and it is quite comical, lol!
As for you talking about Stown's Houston guys on PED's. I certainly know he does not like that they did that, including his all time favorite, Lance Armstrong. He still cheers for them and still supports them, but he also recognizes what they did and doesn't blatantly deny it or start making up fairy tales to try and exonerate them. As a result, he keeps the best of both worlds; he can still enjoy the accomplishments of those athletes, but with a realistic demeanor on how they accomplished it all. As a result, he doesn't look like a fool like you do with the whole Arod stance.
<< <i> I'm not going to argue that point anymore, because steroids help muscles, muscles propel the body, the body propels the bat...and the faster the bat can be propelled, the quicker the bat gets through the zone, the more consistent hard contact occurs, and the farther the ball goes. That is simple fact. Greenies do nothing to that degree.
>>
With the exception of one fool, we all accept this to be true. But doesn't this support exactly what the author of the article says: amphetamines is a bigger problem than steroids. In addition to having having far more and far more dangerous side effects, they also have such a smaller therapeutic effect
<< <i>
<< <i> I'm not going to argue that point anymore, because steroids help muscles, muscles propel the body, the body propels the bat...and the faster the bat can be propelled, the quicker the bat gets through the zone, the more consistent hard contact occurs, and the farther the ball goes. That is simple fact. Greenies do nothing to that degree.
>>
With the exception of one fool, we all accept this to be true. But doesn't this support exactly what the author of the article says: amphetamines is a bigger problem than steroids. In addition to having having far more and far more dangerous side effects, they also have such a smaller therapeutic effect >>
Depends on what you mean by "bigger problem"
In terms of integrity of the achievements, then not at all. Amphetamines don't have anywhere near the effect on building muscle strengths as steroids do. As a result, they don't enhance the performance anywhere near what steroids do. In fact, a case can be made that amphetamines can be detrimental to performance.
Since amphetamines are taken so often and do have side effects, then sure, they may be a bigger health risk problem than steroids, and thus be the bigger problem.
I think the more interesting question in all of this, is where does one draw the line in performance enhancing drugs?
If one did a scale of performance enhances, it may look something like this, starting from the beginning to the end:
Coffee....Ibuprofen...amphetamines..............................HGH.........the best steroid......bionics.
The dots in between can be filled with other things too. The space of the dots is debatable. But coffee is a performance enhancer too, isn't it? Obviously not as good as anabolic steroids.
Ibuprofen helps recovery and numbs pain, which allows players to play at a higher level too.
Coffee and ibuprofen have negative side effects if taken too much also.
How about Tommy John surgery? If taking a stronger tendon from the hamstring area is used, then isn't that an advantage? What if a horse tendon were able to be used? What if a procedure is developed where more of the hamstring area could be transferred to the shoulder, and a guy can throw 110MPH as a result?
Bionics? Sounds silly, but progress is made all the time there. 600 foot home runs from Steve Austin?
Perkdog may have this whole thing right. One may just have to throw their arms up in the air and just say, hey, its just the era, the sky is the limit. Time to stop worrying about it so much. That isn't unreasonable. However, it would be unreasonable to then follow with the statement, "all-time great," because players in the era's just directly preceding this era didn't have such advantages. The guys from this era may just be limited to recognition as greatest of their era, as opposed to "all-time great."
<< <i>
<< <i> I'm not going to argue that point anymore, because steroids help muscles, muscles propel the body, the body propels the bat...and the faster the bat can be propelled, the quicker the bat gets through the zone, the more consistent hard contact occurs, and the farther the ball goes. That is simple fact. Greenies do nothing to that degree.
>>
With the exception of one fool, we all accept this to be true. But doesn't this support exactly what the author of the article says: amphetamines is a bigger problem than steroids. In addition to having having far more and far more dangerous side effects, they also have such a smaller therapeutic effect >>
I believe that has more to do with amphetamines being easily available and have a tendency to become addictive. He has a point but it's not related to the subject of performance enhancers.
<< <i>
I think the more interesting question in all of this, is where does one draw the line in performance enhancing drugs? >>
Performance enhancement should always be encouraged. Caffeine, cortisone, shoulder surgery, eye surgery, ice baths, heating and icing muscles, batting practice, coaching, videos, exercise, a good meal, steroids, antibiotics. We all agree that all that stuff can enhance performance. And with the exception of steroids, I think everyone agrees sports are better because of them
For all drug regulation I've always thought the place to draw the line was very clear. When the cost of prohibition exceeds the cost of legalization, it should be banned. It's why American law decided alcohol should be legal and crystal meth should be banned. It's why Major League Baseball has decided steroids should also be banned, but cortisone shots and many pain killers should be legalized (when that means the difference between being unable to walk and playing at full capacity, the legal means are are far more of a performance enhancement than steroids).
There are people a lot smarter than I am who argue that this sort of prohibition is far too costly and we should instead have a different drug policy that allows use of these substances. I generally lean toward that view, but it is hard to ignore that the government and the vast majority of Americans have their reasons for believing so strongly in both drug prohibition and heavy punishment for any illegal drug user
<< <i> And with the exception of steroids, I think everyone agrees sports are better because of them
>>
I think Bud Selig, the wealthy owners who became even wealthier, and the countless players who have made tens of millions of dollars using them would all disagree.
<< <i>
<< <i> And with the exception of steroids, I think everyone agrees sports are better because of them
>>
I think Bud Selig, the wealthy owners who became even wealthier, and the countless players who have made tens of millions of dollars using them would all disagree. >>
What is wrong with you? Is your obsession with Bud Selig so strong that you really think he is even more evil for failing to ban performance enhancing batting practice along with performance enhancing drugs?