Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 3 pages
So when Ben Johnson had his 1988 Olympic 100m gold medal taken away because he roided, that was "penalizing him for training harder" than the other competitors.(*)
It sounds like you want certain records stricken from the books; but which ones?
And we should totally penalize professional athletes for training harder in order to get stronger and faster and perform at greater levels in their chosen sports...
So you're basically just talking out of your ass.
and the Olympics are exactly like professional baseball, and secretly injecting women with testosterone in order to game political gotchas during the Cold War is virtually a carbon copy of grown men choosing of their own volition to use training supplements in pursuit of professional goals.
Just referencing a social situation. Funny how high school kids somehow get amps so easily from their doctors - usually at the urging of their parents - to get better test scores and get into better colleges. Adderall abuse by upper class kids draws little legal sanction - unlike the punishments for street drugs.
-Ruth furthermore tried injecting himself with testosterone (either from sheep or goats depending on what you read) to gain a performance edge, apparently giving it up only because it made him sick.
I guess if you want to use these threads as your very own musings board, who am I to stop you.
Minorities are more represented in athletics than in most professions, and we (media and fans) tend to come down on them harder than these cheating college applicants.
Minorities are more represented in athletics than in most professions, and we (media and fans) tend to come down on them harder than these cheating college applicants. Does this exhibit a proper and fair legal system?
Explain the differences then.
1. Steroids and supplements from the 1970s were far more dangerous and volatile than "PEDs" from 30 years later.
3. An adult willingly taking a supplement as part of their professional training routine is incomparable to an amateur athlete dosed secretly by her coaching staff.
And you know this how exactly? Please provide peer-reviewed study results.
That's it folks - we're done here. We got down to the last resort of all arguments. "I can bloviate all day - you need a study, a note from the Pope, and a basilisk fang."
Why a basilisk fang? Those are useless. Basilisk eyes are where it's at. You want the eyes.
I'm sorry that this is difficult for you to understand or accept.
D-SM, what I'm trying to do is enlighten some people here of what constitutes evidence. I think I've read twenty times in the last two weeks about "Oh yeah, how about the medical tragedies that were supposed to happen and never did?"
Do you understand how stupid that is? Do you understand what genuine evidence is, and how it is distinguished from from impression, or opinion, or gut feeling? Do you understand how the information that goes on a pharmaceutical product package insert is decided?
Sam is making a claim that what the East Germans did is somehow distinct from what major league players do. All I'm asking him for is some evidence of that. Not opinion, Not gut-feeling. Not general impression. Because we all know that those things are BS-heavy. I'm not interested in BS. I want some genuine information to discuss.
I'm sorry that this is difficult for you to understand or accept.
"Can you hurt yourself with [these drugs]?" says Dr. Charles Yesalis, an emeritus professor at Penn Sate and expert on performance-enhancing drugs in sports. "Yes. But you can hurt yourself with aspirin, with any drug. There is no such thing as a perfectly safe drug.
"We've been using [steroids] safely in medicine for 80 years. In the global sense, they've never been demonstrated to be a major killer like cocaine, heroin, alcohol, tobacco. For something that's been used for so long by so many people, where are all the body bags?"
"To the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be an epidemiological study of the long-term effects of steroids," Yesalis says. "I proposed to do a study on this in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I submitted that proposal three times. It was rejected three times. I gave up."
This is an incredible reach even for you, Bob.
Maybe when college applications becomes a spectator sport, we'll pay more attention. Besides, if we did crack down on that, you'd probably consider it anti-Asian.
Can you hurt yourself with [these drugs]?" says Dr. Charles Yesalis, an emeritus professor at Penn Sate and expert on performance-enhancing drugs in sports. "Yes. But you can hurt yourself with aspirin, with any drug. There is no such thing as a perfectly safe drug.
The only problem is, the substance of your argument is a popcorn fart. A noble and enlightening popcorn fart in your mind, I'm sure, but weightless and smelly none the less.
I'm sure Yesalis is eminently respected by his peers, since they are declining to fund his work.
You know very well who Yesalis is and what his reputation is
and that the unwillingness to fund such a study has nothing to do with his well-documented expertise
I'm 6'6" with 37" sleeves, so I do have a large reach, thank you very much.
As mentioned earlier, I was commenting on social norms and values, which are out of whack. And the snark about college admissions vs. sports attendance proves my point.
There is no such evidence. Moreover, the improvement in drugs, medicine, and technology we've seen as sports history has progressed would lead us to the prima facie conclusion that PEDs are more effective now, even with lower doses and less "East German" methods of induction and usage. Sports medicine is far more effective, and athletes far better trained, than in the 70s -- why would athlete PEDs have not followed the same pattern?
I think if we looked the other way, that would be sending a message that they're not expected to rise up to the same standards we set for ourselves.
But a different moral question: What would you do if you were a young Dominican boy that lived on Hispaniola, the poorest place in the Western Hemisphere. If you take bovine steroids or their equivalent (which is not illegal to do there), you may be able to sign a contract and send $100 per month home to your family so that they can survive. What would you do?
So basically a different set of rules for some, depending on their life's circumstance?
Don't you think that, to make a serious "PEDs cause homers" argument, you ought to have better cases than these?
records are rarely set in ballparks that work against the record
The whole case against Sosa seems to rely on one AB in his entire career where he was caught with a corked bat.
Well, not really. Some guy says he saw his name on a list. We don't know the guy's name. We just have to take the reporter's word for it. Because he would never make sh1t up in order to advance his career.
osa's entire case rests on "we, the limited brained writers who vote on this ####, have assumed he did, and regardless of the utter, and complete lack of evidence still hang onto this ridiculous conclusion, which we amplify our argument with his "poor showing" in the Congressional hearings."
On a completely separate topic, I started getting serious about RTF about the time Kevin got banned. So, while I've heard the legend, I've never actually read a long thread with lots of Kevin in it. Wow. He certainly does live up to his reputation. - Brock Hanke
Mickey Henry Mays - First, I love the handle. Second, ESPNY (Every Sports Personality in New York) did me a huge favor after the 2001 season. They pieced together a clip of all of Bonds' homers that year, so you could get a real idea of what was happening. First, context. In a very publicly announced move in the 2000 off-season, the Lords instructed the umpires to enforce the strike zone exactly as written. Essentially, this meant adding 4-8 inches (depending on the particular umpire) to the TOP of the strike zone. It had been enforced low before, in an attempt to hold down homers. Well, as you know, Barry Bonds was tremendous at judging the strike zone; Ted Williams good at it. So, when the Lords opened up a bunch of top-zone territory where Barry had never swung before, because that had been a ball, Barry found out that he had a sweet spot high and inside. A sweet spot compared to 1990s Barry. Ooog. We all should have been able to see this coming. Looking at the clip will show you that. Homer after homer, hit on a pitch high and inside, often following broadcaster comments about the way to pitch Barry was to go high and inside. The term "McCovey Cove" essentially means, "right down the RF line." For some reason, that term really wasn't in popular use before 2001.... So, while the effect of the ballpark overall may have lessened lefties, the strike zone change gave Barry a new toy to play with - a toy that sportswriters hadn't caught on to even at the end of the season.
who knew he was a Boy Scout?
Just faxed in my hall of fame ballot.
So something isn't right. If you accuse Barry of PEDs, his splits should be normal. And they are NOT normal.
I'm still waiting for somebody to prove why the use of steroids in the game necessarily led to an offensive explosion, particularly since we know that pitchers were using as well.
That way you don't think "AHA STEROIDS" when you see the jump from 34 HR in 1999 to 73 in 2001.
2) I don't know what Bob Tufts' point is, even after reading all of his posts twice. I think that, at best, he may have a few good points on a few subjects loosely related to the HOF debate. It's one thing to try to hijack a thread; it's another thing to kind of try to hijack it by arguing against thin air.
So, when the Lords opened up a bunch of top-zone territory where Barry had never swung before, because that had been a ball, Barry found out that he had a sweet spot high and inside.
It looks like the jump occurred in 1999, which fit the narrative described in GoS that Bonds was jealous of McGwire and Sosa and got in on it too.
So what you're saying is that Bonds magically ignorant, after 20 years in organized baseball, that he could hit the high hard one a lot better than he thought, and this "self-unawareness" prevented him from being the greatest player in history.
And once you can bring yourself to concede that, yes, Barry Bonds fell to temptation, the rest of his career is exceedingly easy to understand.
But The Clear was key for him, I think. It worked for Marion Jones and all those other T & F stars.
However I don't think this view is inconsistent with the belief that PEDs made him a better baseball player.
He does obviously belong in the Hall of Fame. However I don't think this view is inconsistent with the belief that PEDs made him a better baseball player.
it seems to me than any gains had with PEDS could also be had with excessive training
We have reams of data on players that have tested positive for as much, and last time I checked, Jordan Schafer wasn't jacking 70 a year.
I liked #187, but you can't judge Bonds but his walk totals, because a huge percent of his unintentional walks those years were pretty darn intentional
I'm really skeptical about the idea of Bonds expanding his strike zone to hit more homers. First of all Barry was the smartest hitter since Ted Williams. He knew what pitches he could take out of the ballpark, he would not have let them pass. Second, he set a record (which he'd later break) with 177 walks that year, and the increase over 2000 was mostly due to regular walks - he took 60 more overall, and 13 intentional.
If he's swinging more aggressively though, I would still expect his walk rate to decrease, or at least stay constant (semi-intentional walks offsetting regular walks). Seeing an increase in walks does not support the theory.
He adjusted his swing to go for the long ball.
It was really surreal watching him hit during his late peak, and I'm amazed that anyone interested enough in baseball to watch the games and care about steroids didn't appreciate what they were watching. He would go entire PAs without seeing a pitch to hit, and then when he saw one he would frequently just hammer it, often for a home run. And you're left just shaking your head.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (3 members)
Page rendered in 2.8397 seconds, 77 querie(s) executed