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.
“Long Shot,” which will be released Feb. 12. But asked if Piazza continues to deny PED use in the book
Where would this class rank among HOF classes?
Veteran scribe Lonnie Wheeler made it sound as if Piazza will continue to deny he ever used PEDs.
Maybe it's just me, but the "continue to deny" phrasing seems to imply guilt on Piazza's part. I don't know if this is intentional, and I can't think of a better way to phrase it off the top of my head. I just feel like, if someone wrote, "Eric Ferguson continues to deny stealing three goats and a pack of Marlboro 100s," Joe Reader would be all, "Why doesn't he just give it up already?"
A bunch of writers were pretty clear that if Piazza admitted use, they wouldn't vote for him. The incentives are entirely set - admitting use has no benefit.
I think MLB needs a full-on Truth Commission about the Steroid Era
and I'd really prefer they even get anonymity while speaking with the Commission, just that it be noted that they spoke fully, openly and honestly
Am I correct that the Hall does not have a provision for revoking induction once a guy's enshrined?
1942 124.6 Hornsby (1)
it's that the silly drug-aided numbers have distorted rational analysis of pre-Steroid Era players.
I assume that Bonds, Clemens, Piazza, Biggio, and Sosa would have been elected.
In conjunction with the MLBPA, Hall of Fame and the BBWAA, it is made known that in exchange for openly, honestly answering in full all questions asked by said Commission, the issue of PED use will henceforth be waived from Character clause considerations for Hall of Fame purposes... This is probably full of problems...
Frankly, with Baseball-Reference, FanGraphs and hell, our own personal computers and Excel the ability to evaluate numbers for different eras is about a thousand times easier than it used to be. We have the data and we have the tools. We can (and do) find the answers.
Even in 1942, he didn't clear 75% by much. And as you all know, this is a second baseman with the 2nd best BA of all time, multiple years of leading the league in any hitting category you can think of (3rd all time on black ink test), etc.
I disagree. Say 56% of MLB players were taking PED's at any one moment, but we don't know which ones. We have no data that gives the dependence of any baseball performance (K's, HR's, SB, etc.) on PED use, other than "it improves it". Nor do we know how much of what drug a given player was taking. There really is not enough data to compare a given player from the Steroid Era to a player from another era in a reliable fashion.
Sure, but the fundamental cross-era tool is OPS+, right? So then the question becomes whether (1) the increased prevalence of roids; and (2) the increased quality of sports medicine caused a fundamental, secular break in the OPS+ time series such that before and after aren't really comparable.
I think you misread the post which was about pre-steroid-era players.
No one actually thought Mike was going to admit steroid use in his book. Even Murray Chass isn't that dumb. It's just a better soundbite for withholding a vote than 'bacne'.
This might sound far fetched, but this is why I think MLB needs a full-on Truth Commission about the Steroid Era. This idea is seriously still embryonic. Sketched out roughly,
once we heard that Pettite took steriods
Which gives some validity to Schilling's remarks that everyone including players who were clean were at fault for not speaking up.
once we heard that Pettite took steriods
When did we hear that?
There was a huge distrust between the union and MLB given the drug wars that had already taken place with cocaine and such in the 80s and the behavior by the commissioner in the process of that. And they were coming off of collusion, which, while a different substantive issue, certainly didn't help matters with respect to the trust issue. Going down this path was always going to be a tricky road that was going to hurt some of the members and subject ALL of them to testing, and despite what the general public and the media who typically don't have to pee in a cup themselves think -- this IS a huge invasion of privacy. And players who rightly or wrongly tested positive were going to be hurt, as was basically the membership as a whole who nobody was going to believe was clean anyway. Except for the pet players like Jeter and Mariano, I guess.
Again, Johnny Bench is the only 1st ballot HoF C.
I'm really lost on this subject. Both Bagwell and Piazza publicly admitted to using androstenedione. That's what made Bagwell muscular; Piazza said he tried it in the early 90s but it didn't do anything for him. So why is there any question whether they used or not? They both admitted to juicing.
Andro was legal and able to be purchased over the counter, and, as a consequence, it was in common use in Major League Baseball throughout the 1990s....
On March 12, 2004, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 was introduced into the United States Senate. It amended the Controlled Substance Act to place both anabolic steroids and prohormones on a list of controlled substances, making possession of the banned substances a federal crime. The law took effect on January 20, 2005. However, androstenedione was legally defined as an anabolic steroid, even though there is scant evidence that androstenedione itself is anabolic in nature.
The "Andro-Project", conducted by medical researchers at East Tennessee State University, showed that the supplement "Andro"(androstenedione/androstenediol) does not increase muscle mass or strength...
A 2006 review paper summarized several studies that examined the effect of androstenedione on strength training. At dosages of 50 mg or 100 mg per day, andro had no effect on muscle strength or size, or on body fat levels. One study used a daily dosage of 300 mg of androstenedione combined with several other supplements, and also found no increase in strength when compared to a control group that did not take the supplements.
I agree in that once we heard that Pettite took steriods, the whole era could be easily classified as unclean.
Pettitte verified McNamee's claim, admitting to using the HGH on two occasions in 2002, as it was meant to help heal an injury, and not to enhance his performance. Pettitte said he felt an obligation to return to the team as quickly as possible. He denied any further usage of HGH during his career; he also denied use of steroids or any other performance-enhancing drug.
some scientific articles have demonstrated that HGH supplementation does not significantly increase muscle strength or aerobic exercise capacity in healthy individuals.
Some say that human growth hormone will build muscle mass through raised insulin-like growth factors levels leading to heightened protein synthesis without any side effects while other researchers argue that there have been no such findings on young healthy adults. The second argument is more supported by research discoveries that HGH affects muscle protein synthesis no differently than a placebo does
The incentives are entirely set - admitting use has no benefit.
The problem was always the union considering this a private pee issue and not a workplace safety issue. They should have led the way in forging a drug policy because it was in their best interests. And if they had taken the lead, instead of seemingly getting dragged there, they likely would have fended off much of the witchhunt that followed. After all, the policy had nothing to do with the problems faced by mssrs. Bonds and Clemens.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 1.8620 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed