Greenies = Steroids = Pine Tar

[Pghfan987]

A great deal has been argued that people who set records by using steroids should be banned from the record books while players who used greenies do not deserve to be banned. The argument has mostly been that the effect of steroids is way stronger than greenies.

First of all, I would like to mention that the effect of steroids is just a bit overrated. Sure, Bonds and McGwire got huge, but how much of that can we attribute to spending 30 hours a day in the weight room, and how much to the juice?

But that is besides the point. The fact that steroids have a greater effect that greenies do is really irrelevant to me. You could say that cheating is cheating, but then you would have to declare probably half of major league ballplayers cheaters. As much as we would like to think of Roger Maris as "pure" and Barry Bonds is "dirty", the truth is, since baseball was invented, players have done whatever they could to get an edge, whether it be roids, greenies, spitballs, sandpaper ...

I think about some players who may have put pine tar on the barrel of the bat (George Brett, for instance.) I GUARANTEE you that Brett hit another home run at some point in his career with too much tar on his bat besides his famous homer against the Yankees. Should we watch all the tapes and discredit all of the homers that he hit with those technically illegal bats?

I am not saying that steroids are good or not a problem. I hope they are eradicated from baseball (the drugs, not the users). But to single out Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire is unfair. MLB did not have a concrete steroids policy during the 1990s, and who knows how many players took something (my bet is more than half of the home run sluggers, although I can't prove it.)

And what about pitchers using roids? Let's say Bonds struck out 200 times to juiced up pitchers. Assuming he normally hits a home run every 10 at bats, should he be credited with 20 extra homers? Of course not. The fact is, we will never be able to put all of the stats across baseball history on a level playing field- comparing the steroids era to the dead ball era is of course difficult. But that does not mean that you can just eliminate Bonds from the record books because he tooks steroids, or because he is a racist, or because he is a jerk. Those may be reasons not to like him, but not to illegitimize (is that a word?) his career.

You can argue over which accomplishment is more impressive, Maris' 61 or Bonds' 73, but I can't see the validity of erasing Bonds from the record books.

[ESPNFan]

I think about some players who may have put pine tar on the barrel of the bat (George Brett, for instance.) I GUARANTEE you that Brett hit another home run at some point in his career with too much tar on his bat besides his famous homer against the Yankees. Should we watch all the tapes and discredit all of the homers that he hit with those technically illegal bats?


What type of enhancement does pine tar on a bat give a player? Seriously that rule, to my knowladge, is on the books because its an antiquated rule that was instituted to keep the balls clean. Bretts homerun was reinstated and the Royals won that game under protest. The Commisioner rewrote that rule to make it clear that the only recourse for the umpire was removal of the bat.

Bad example.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sure, Bonds and McGwire got huge, but how much of that can we attribute to spending 30 hours a day in the weight room, and how much to the juice?


No offense, but I stopped reading right here. You do realize that they're able to spend so much time in the weight room BECAUSE of steroids.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

What type of enhancement does pine tar on a bat give a player? Seriously that rule, to my knowladge, is on the books because its an antiquated rule that was instituted to keep the balls clean. Bretts homerun was reinstated and the Royals won that game under protest. The Commisioner rewrote that rule to make it clear that the only recourse for the umpire was removal of the bat.

Bad example.

The theory is, that if you have pine tar on the barrel of a wood bat, that the ball will not slide at all when it hits. That instead of sliding for a split second, the ball hits the pine tar, and bounces directly off, producing a harder hit ball. Physics would tell us that this is bogus, because the actual time the ball spends on the bat, isn't enough for any "sliding" to occur.

Not sure why he brings up George Brett. The pine tar wasn't up high enough on the bat for it to matter. Where the pine tar was, if he hits the ball right there, it's gonna break. Don't see the point. It's a stupid rule. I think it came about because players used to rub tobacco juice on their bats for whatever reason. Maybe they thought it would give them an egde or maybe they just were just bored chewers. Who knows.

Pgh, there's no excuse for anyone to use steroids, but you really can't compare hitters and pitchers. Pitchers want to remain flexible and strong. The main advantage steroids give them is stamina and recovery time. Hitters can lift for days and become strong, which equates to better timing and reflexes at the plate. On top of this, the game is already stacked so steeply against pitchers, you just can't compare the two. The edge hitters get over pitchers is ten fold. Having said that, steroid use is steroid use, I'll agree there.

[Pghfan987]

I suppose I could use corked bats as an example. How many did Sosa hit with a corked bat? We'll never know.

I have always thought that pine tar gives a slight advantage. I don't know the physics behind it, but that's is what I always thought- am I wrong in that assumption?

Again, assuming there is a SLIGHT advantage in a bat with pine tar, then my argument is that arguing over the DEGREE of advantage is not really a good argument. If it pleases you, however, you can replace the pine tar example with a corked bat example. Or, you can go back and look at video of a suspect spitballer after it was made illegal and discredit all of those strikeouts. Certainly some practical problems arise.

Mark

[Pghfan987]

No offense, but I stopped reading right here. You do realize that they're able to spend so much time in the weight room BECAUSE of steroids.

Putting "no offense" in front of an insult to my intelligence is really not necessary- just go ahead and say it, I can handle it.

Yes, of course I realize that steroids help you to lift more, I was just saying that roids effects, in my opinion, are just slightly overrated.

[Pghfan987]

Anyway, the main point of my post, and perhaps it was missed or poorly stated, is that if you ban the juicers from the record books, you need to ban everyone who cheated at some point in their career on a basis of principle. Let's say that greenies caused Maris (hypothetically) to hit 10 more homers, and roids caused Bonds to hit 50 more homers. Can you really say that Bonds should be banned and Maris not simply because steroids effects were greater? (Again, this is a hypothetical, as it is not known whether Maris used them. There are some, however, that we know for sure used them).

So many rules have been stretched during baseball history, we would not even recognize a baseball record book if we saw a 100% "clean" version.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Putting "no offense" in front of an insult to my intelligence is really not necessary- just go ahead and say it, I can handle it.

Yes, of course I realize that steroids help you to lift more, I was just saying that roids effects, in my opinion, are just slightly overrated.

I wasn't trying to insult you, just pointing something out.

You could bring up corked bats, but they do nothing for a HR hitter. Honestly , you'd have a better case with the pine tar on that one ;)

[hiddengem]

So many rules have been stretched during baseball history, we would not even recognize a baseball record book if we saw a 100% "clean" version.

Absolutely. The game has NEVER been clean. Its just now you people know whats going on and before you had no clue and the players had you snowed. Just go back to being fans of the game enjoying us do what we do, like you did 20yrs ago when players were juicing up, taking greenies and whatever else they could.

[Elvis]

Jaywalking = Shoplifting = IRS Cheating = Violent Assault = Mass murder.

If cheating is cheating, crime is crime, right?

[Pghfan987]

That analogy is of course a bit outlandish. Jaywalking causes virtually no harm, while murder of course causes a loss of life. In baseball, steroids are merely a higher degree of PEDs than greenies. Mass murder is not, however, a higher degree of jaywalking.

But let's not take this legal analogy any further and stick to the topic at hand. Nice attempt at being funny, though- it really was quite admirable.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

That analogy is of course a bit outlandish. Jaywalking causes virtually no harm, while murder of course causes a loss of life. In baseball, steroids are merely a higher degree of PEDs than greenies. Mass murder is not, however, a higher degree of jaywalking.

But let's not take this legal analogy any further and stick to the topic at hand. Nice attempt at being funny, though- it really was quite admirable.


You just nailed it right there Pgh. Jaywalking causes virtually no harm. Much like Sanchez's use caused nothing but a ripple in the pond. Impact matters. Bonds going after 755 makes it matter more, and sad to say, his explosive personality along with the years of denial make it matter more as well. Different levels of cheating create different results, which then all have various impacts. These impacts are why we either care or we don't. Most would agree that in the big picture, greenies have nowhere near the benefit of steroids, especially when taken to the degree Bonds allegedly took them to.

[Pghfan987]

Ok, I understand your point, but I still believe that if you abolish Bonds' juiced up homers, then, for the sake of fairness, you MUST also abolish any strikeout caused by an illegal pitch, any homer caused by a corked bat, any stolen base caused by a runner taking some sort of pill. And to do this would be absolutely impossible.

You can say that Bonds' homers aren't as impressive as Ruth's- I can understand that point of view. But if you ban Bonds from the record books, I really feel like you are opening up a Pandora's Box to the point where so much dirt will be uncovered it will cause the fans to look away in disgust as to how much "cheating" has occurred throughout baseball history.

And as to the unfair prejudice towards Bonds, who here was complaining during '98 when McGwire and Sosa were going at it. Raise your hand. Oh? You didn't know they were on the juice?? You just didn't want to know, because you were having so much fun. But now a jerk is setting the records, and it seems like a great time to attack him.

Players have always been stretching the rules.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ok, I understand your point, but I still believe that if you abolish Bonds' juiced up homers, then, for the sake of fairness, you MUST also abolish any strikeout caused by an illegal pitch, any homer caused by a corked bat, any stolen base caused by a runner taking some sort of pill. And to do this would be absolutely impossible.

You can say that Bonds' homers aren't as impressive as Ruth's- I can understand that point of view. But if you ban Bonds from the record books, I really feel like you are opening up a Pandora's Box to the point where so much dirt will be uncovered it will cause the fans to look away in disgust as to how much "cheating" has occurred throughout baseball history.

And as to the unfair prejudice towards Bonds, who here was complaining during '98 when McGwire and Sosa were going at it. Raise your hand. Oh? You didn't know they were on the juice?? You just didn't want to know, because you were having so much fun. But now a jerk is setting the records, and it seems like a great time to attack him.

Players have always been stretching the rules.

Good points.

It would open up a pandora's box, which is why MLB has to be squirtin in their shorts right now. Don't you think they'd rather Bonds just go away so they wouldn't have to worry about all this? I do. It doesn't seem like they want to look at their mistakes of the past, and acknowlege how they let this thing spin WAY out of control.

They're probably content to just go from here and pretend all this never happened, hoping we all do as well. But if and when Bonds gets the record, there will be no forgetting, not even for the most casual of casual baseball fans. The black ink mark will spread from Bonds to MLB and down through this entire era, even more than it already has.

I can only speak for myself, but I wasn't fooled all by Sosa's fake smile, Mac conveniently leaving Adro right in front of 20 reporters, or their increased size being a result of vitamins and hard work. Many probably were and went right along for the homerun carpet ride.

[Blackout]

i dont see how pine tar helps

[redlegsfan21]

I think you guys missed the fact that Pine Tar also helps pitchers to put a bigger breaking action and spin on balls pitched.

[Pine Tar]

Good points.

MLB has to be squirtin in their shorts right now.

Gross!

I can honestly say that I do not help people hit home runs.

Just to play a devils advocate on this issue, not everything that is against the rules is in fact "cheating". What I mean by that is that some things that are against the rules probably do not privide any advantage to a player. Specifically, pine tar and corking probably do not help a player perform. Steroids do help though.

As for Bonds, even though he did cheat, you still can't remove his records or even suspend him just because some media outlet received leaked grand jury testimony. I mean, Sheffield, Giambi, Santiago, and others all admitted to it in the grand jury, would these people be suspended as well? How about those who tested positive for steroids inn 2003? Remember that in 2003 something like 5-7% of players tested positive, but those tests have been sealed under a court order. That is because the tests were private in 2003. If the results were leaked to the press would Bud want to suspend all those players as well?

[Pghfan987]

One last point (ha, yeah, right!)

What about all of the people who would not vote Bonds in the HOF (talking about the actual voters, not average Joes like you and me.) I have heard no outcry to ban Bonds from baseball right now. Pete Rose was, of course, banned immediately.

It just seems to me that if Bonds' offense was so severe that he does not deserve to get into the Hall of Fame, that what he did was cheating in the worst degree, then he should be banned. Now, you could say that he should not be banned but his home runs after '98 should not count. Well then, he should make the HOF anyway based on his first ten years in the big leagues, shouldn't he?

And of course the fact that Bonds is a "jerk" should have absolutely nothing to do with his HOF credentials, as Ty Cobb was not exactly a paragon of altruism.

The way I see it, Bonds can still perform, and more importantly, sell tickets, so there has been no outcry to ban him. After he has retired from the Giants and baseball in general, he will serve no economic purpose for MLB, and then the hypocrites can punish him by not voting him into the Hall.

I just can't see how MLB can let him play this year, yet not let him into Cooperstown in seven years.

Mark

[2Chance]

As I remember, pine tar...(the sticky stuff, not our esteemed colleague)...had a rule against too much on the bats as someone said because the balls would get dirty.

The real reason, of course, was that the sticky stuff costs money, and heaven forbid players should waste the team owners' hard earned money. Especially if a batter gets jammed and a ball need replaced! A double whammy! They'll probably LOSE money at each game! (sheesh....):rolleyes:

So this rule was not against cheating nearly as much as, say, wiping out the chalk outline around the batter's box. Let's go after those guys next!! :grouchy

[johnny]

Good points.

It would open up a pandora's box, which is why MLB has to be squirtin in their shorts right now. Don't you think they'd rather Bonds just go away so they wouldn't have to worry about all this? I do. It doesn't seem like they want to look at their mistakes of the past, and acknowlege how they let this thing spin WAY out of control.

They're probably content to just go from here and pretend all this never happened, hoping we all do as well. But if and when Bonds gets the record, there will be no forgetting, not even for the most casual of casual baseball fans. The black ink mark will spread from Bonds to MLB and down through this entire era, even more than it already has.

I can only speak for myself, but I wasn't fooled all by Sosa's fake smile, Mac conveniently leaving Adro right in front of 20 reporters, or their increased size being a result of vitamins and hard work. Many probably were and went right along for the homerun carpet ride.

Isn't it better to get it all out front and center? It will come out over time anyway and its much much better to show a good faith effort to deal with the issue. Otherwise, almost all of the accomplishments of the 'steroids era' risk being written off or severly discounted. That is not fair to the non roid players nor to their fans who pay the freight and want value for their time/money expended. Otherwise, lets just make it anything goes ala the WWF.

Yeah yeah yeah I know that there are advocates of just 'forget about it' as the fans are stupid and as soon as Barry and others start jacking in some monster home runs everything will be okay. While I recall HL Menken's famous adage that 'no one ever lost money underestimating the taste of the american public' has a ring of truth I find myself spending less and less time with baseball ever since the strike.

Barry's pursuit of Hank's record under this cloud leaves another real bad taste in my mouth.

[Astro]

No offense, but I stopped reading right here. You do realize that they're able to spend so much time in the weight room BECAUSE of steroids.
I'm pretty sure using steroids has nothing to do with how long someone can work out... If I remember correctly steroids cause the muscles detirorate (spelling?) quicker, then after they are finished working out they become stronger after rest...

If anything steroids would make you work out less, but become stronger than those who work out a long time (pretty sure LaRussa said this of Canseco when he was using)

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'm pretty sure using steroids has nothing to do with how long someone can work out... If I remember correctly steroids cause the muscles detirorate (spelling?) quicker, then after they are finished working out they become stronger after rest...

If anything steroids would make you work out less, but become stronger than those who work out a long time (pretty sure LaRussa said this of Canseco when he was using)

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me

Yes, you are wrong. Not only can you workout longer, but you can workout harder.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Yes, you are wrong. Not only can you workout longer, but you can workout harder.
If I'm not mistaken, the reason Ken Caminiti was using steroids was to enhance his workout regimen while he was coming back from injury.

[CrimeInTheCards]

Great thread - Finally someone with some sense. The simple fact is the HOF is infested with cheaters, this is a fact nobody can deny. Greenies, steroids, corkedbats, too much pinetar, spitballs, ritalin, etc, all ways to cheat, no doubt about it.

[Blackout]

Great thread - Finally someone with some sense. The simple fact is the HOF is infested with cheaters, this is a fact nobody can deny. Greenies, steroids, corkedbats, too much pinetar, spitballs, ritalin, etc, all ways to cheat, no doubt about it.

ritalin? that doesnt help you play baseball, i can speak from experience

[CrimeInTheCards]

ritalin? that doesnt help you play baseball, i can speak from experience

Sure it does. It helps players focus better.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Isn't ritalin for ADD or somethin?

[2Chance]

Would you remind repeating the question?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Would you remind repeating the question?

Funny. :crazy

[Astro]

Yes, you are wrong. Not only can you workout longer, but you can workout harder.
Let me rephrase, can someone with credibility tell me if I'm wrong... ie: someone with proof not just "NO YOUR WRONG IM RIGHT"

Thanks

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Great thread - Finally someone with some sense. The simple fact is the HOF is infested with cheaters, this is a fact nobody can deny. Greenies, steroids, corkedbats, too much pinetar, spitballs, ritalin, etc, all ways to cheat, no doubt about it.

CITC,

If everything against the rules is cheating, then where does it stop? If a pitcher wears a batting glove or he wears white sleeves is it on the same level as steroids? Most pitchers lick their fingers, and they're supposed to wipe it off on their pants. Having pitched for many years, it's pretty easy to get away with not actually wiping the licked finger(s) off. Not hard to fool the ump. Is that cheating?

What about a hitter who stands outside the batters box. Umps don't enforce that, but technically it's against the rules. Pitchers don't stand with their entire foot against the rubber like the rule states, so is that the same level as steroids? The pine tar rule is a joke, it helps with nothing. Just like there is a rule against how much tape you can have on the bat. How about middle infielders who deke runners? Could be considered cheating.

Pine tar doesn't help with anything but grip. Corked bats don't help with power. The edge with a corked bat is more psychological than anything. Just knowing you have an edge, is an edge.

Most here probably agree with you that greenies are cheating. It's just on a different level than steroids in every way. The benefits don't come close to approaching what steroids can do mentally and physically for a player.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Let me rephrase, can someone with credibility tell me if I'm wrong... ie: someone with proof not just "NO YOUR WRONG IM RIGHT"

Thanks

Yeah, I have no credibility? Aren't you the one questioning whether steroids can allow your muscles to recover faster? Anyway.

[Astro]

Yeah, I have no credibility? Aren't you the one questioning whether steroids can allow your muscles to recover faster? Anyway.
My god, how old are you, honestly... I said I want proof that I am wrong, give me a link to a medical site or something... not just "I'm right, your wrong"

Read people's posts before you get all defensive

[Sultan_1895-1948]

My god, how old are you, honestly... I said I want proof that I am wrong, give me a link to a medical site or something... not just "I'm right, your wrong"

Read people's posts before you get all defensive

And before you take a shot at someone's credibility, you should consider who you're typing to. This shouldn't be about us, but about the subject matter.

Others could spend the time to provide you links maybe, or you could try doing the search yourself.

It's really pretty common knowledge. The effect of anabolic steroids is to increase the body's ability to use protein to make muscle. Anabolic steroids help send the amino acids back to the muscles. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins needed by the muscles to grow. Muscle tissue repairs quicker, and you can workout longer and harder, plain and simple. There's no such thing as a necessary "light" day in the gym when you're on roids.

[johncap]

And before you take a shot at someone's credibility, you should consider who you're typing to. This shouldn't be about us, but about the subject matter.

Others could spend the time to provide you links maybe, or you could try doing the search yourself.

It's really pretty common knowledge. The effect of anabolic steroids is to increase the body's ability to use protein to make muscle. Anabolic steroids help send the amino acids back to the muscles. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins needed by the muscles to grow. Muscle tissue repairs quicker, and you can workout longer and harder, plain and simple. There's no such thing as a necessary "light" day in the gym when you're on roids.
It is pretty common knowledge that one of the big side effects that produces an advantage for users is the ability to recover more quickly and thus work out more often and longer. Those who try to say some of Bonds' bulk came from working harder are kidding themselves. He was able to work more and harder BECAUSE of the juice.

[CrimeInTheCards]

CITC,

If everything against the rules is cheating, then where does it stop? If a pitcher wears a batting glove or he wears white sleeves is it on the same level as steroids? Most pitchers lick their fingers, and they're supposed to wipe it off on their pants. Having pitched for many years, it's pretty easy to get away with not actually wiping the licked finger(s) off. Not hard to fool the ump. Is that cheating?

What about a hitter who stands outside the batters box. Umps don't enforce that, but technically it's against the rules. Pitchers don't stand with their entire foot against the rubber like the rule states, so is that the same level as steroids? The pine tar rule is a joke, it helps with nothing. Just like there is a rule against how much tape you can have on the bat. How about middle infielders who deke runners? Could be considered cheating.

Pine tar doesn't help with anything but grip. Corked bats don't help with power. The edge with a corked bat is more psychological than anything. Just knowing you have an edge, is an edge.

Most here probably agree with you that greenies are cheating. It's just on a different level than steroids in every way. The benefits don't come close to approaching what steroids can do mentally and physically for a player.

I dont agree with singling one form of cheating out, it's not fair at all. I cant speculate on how much steroids helps, because I've never taken the drug. However I do know people who have, and all They've told me was it helped them recover from injuries and workouts faster. Besides that, I dont know much about the drug and it's benefits. I do however know amphetamines helps a lot, I've taken it and performed better because of it at soccer, hockey, and baseball. They make you faster, more alert, and more durable. They do have negative sideffects, but are worth taking if you want to enhance your performance. Corked bats, spitballs, etc, all help someway, if not they wouldnt be used by players and pitchers. Norm cash said he corked in 1961, and won the batting title that year. Perry's entire career was aided by the spitball. Ritalin is also used too. It helps players and pitchers focus better. There's lots of ways to cheat, it's always happened, and it always will.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I dont agree with singling one form of cheating out, it's not fair at all. I cant speculate on how much steroids helps, because I've never taken the drug. However I do know people who have, and all They've told me was it helped them recover from injuries and workouts faster. Besides that, I dont know much about the drug and it's benefits.


We really don't need to single steroids out. Steroids single themselves out by being what they are. They are head and shoulders above and beyond any other level of cheating, and imo are right up there with gambling in terms of being bad for the game.

You do acknowledge that steroids help you recover from injuries and workouts, so you understand that if someone is dedicated enough to working out, he can become much stronger than he would be otherwise. In regards to steroids and how they might help on the ballfield, the benefits run the gammet from psychological to physical. It's not so much about gaining pure strength, but possessing stamina with that strength, and at the same time increasing muscle reflexes and quickness. In essence, as a hitter, your margin of error is higher than it should be. Especially in the case of someone who should be declining rather than putting up numbers they never had before, even in their prime.


I do however know amphetamines helps a lot, I've taken it and performed better because of it at soccer, hockey, and baseball. They make you faster, more alert, and more durable. They do have negative sideffects, but are worth taking if you want to enhance your performance. Corked bats, spitballs, etc, all help someway, if not they wouldnt be used by players and pitchers. Norm cash said he corked in 1961, and won the batting title that year. Perry's entire career was aided by the spitball. Ritalin is also used too. It helps players and pitchers focus better. There's lots of ways to cheat, it's always happened, and it always will.

No doubt amphetamines made you feel faster, but were you actually faster, or did you just feel faster because of the increased energy?

Regarding corked bats; you might gain a little bat speed which increases your margin for error slightly, but any benefit of that is lost when you don't have as much barrel mass. They might be ok for a slappy hitter like Alex Cora, or a struggling Sosa who maybe was feeling fatigued, but they probably didn't really understand what it does.

The idea is the hole itself, and the weight that is taken away from the bat. Doesn't matter that you fill it with, it doesn't impact how hard the ball will come off. Cork is typically chosen because it's so light. After all, what would be the point of drilling a hole, and filling it with a substance as heavy or heavier than actual wood. In terms of simple physics you have let's say... d=ms; so distance equals mass times swing speed (velocity). While you increase s, you're decreasing m. It's said that on a 400 foot hit, about 3 feet will be taken off the drive if it's hit with a corked bat.

Norm Cash's edge was most likely psychological, as well as his slightly increased margin for error at the plate. Power wise though, it didn't help him. Science tells us as much.

[CrimeInTheCards]

We really don't need to single steroids out. Steroids single themselves out by being what they are. They are head and shoulders above and beyond any other level of cheating, and imo are right up there with gambling in terms of being bad for the game.

You do acknowledge that steroids help you recover from injuries and workouts, so you understand that if someone is dedicated enough to working out, he can become much stronger than he would be otherwise. In regards to steroids and how they might help on the ballfield, the benefits run the gammet from psychological to physical. It's not so much about gaining pure strength, but possessing stamina with that strength, and at the same time increasing muscle reflexes and quickness. In essence, as a hitter, your margin of error is higher than it should be. Especially in the case of someone who should be declining rather than putting up numbers they never had before, even in their prime.

No doubt amphetamines made you feel faster, but were you actually faster, or did you just feel faster because of the increased energy?

Regarding corked bats; you might gain a little bat speed which increases your margin for error slightly, but any benefit of that is lost when you don't have as much barrel mass. They might be ok for a slappy hitter like Alex Cora, or a struggling Sosa who maybe was feeling fatigued, but they probably didn't really understand what it does.

The idea is the hole itself, and the weight that is taken away from the bat. Doesn't matter that you fill it with, it doesn't impact how hard the ball will come off. Cork is typically chosen because it's so light. After all, what would be the point of drilling a hole, and filling it with a substance as heavy or heavier than actual wood. In terms of simple physics you have let's say... d=ms; so distance equals mass times swing speed (velocity). While you increase s, you're decreasing m. It's said that on a 400 foot hit, about 3 feet will be taken off the drive if it's hit with a corked bat.

Norm Cash's edge was most likely psychological, as well as his slightly increased margin for error at the plate. Power wise though, it didn't help him. Science tells us as much.


Sultran, I'm sorry but I must disagree. I dont think any form of cheating should be singled out, doesnt matter which helps more or not. The intent is what matters the most. A player choosing to use a corkedbat has the same intention as a player who uses steroids, and that intention is to get an edge over his opponents, pure and simple. As for amphetamines, I guess I'll never get you to agree with me, but amphetamines do help, and a lot, many players have suspected that with the loss of greenies baseball numbers will drop. Many have speculated that it's impact on baseball has been larger than steroids, and as an athlete myself who's used greenies, without them you wont be nearly as productive as you were on them. You'll see nextyear.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sultran, I'm sorry but I must disagree. I dont think any form of cheating should be singled out, doesnt matter which helps more or not. The intent is what matters the most. A player choosing to use a corkedbat has the same intention as a player who uses steroids, and that intention is to get an edge over his opponents, pure and simple. As for amphetamines, I guess I'll never get you to agree with me, but amphetamines do help, and a lot, many players have suspected that with the loss of greenies baseball numbers will drop. Many have speculated that it's impact on baseball has been larger than steroids, and as an athlete myself who's used greenies, without them you wont be nearly as productive as you were on them. You'll see nextyear.

Ever since this Bonds stuff came out, there's been a lot of this. Comparing a minor level of cheating with steroids, claiming steroids don't help, others were doing it too, etc. I'm wondering if you're a Bonds fan, and if your stance changed at all because of the recent news?

Maybe not, but I still think you're selling steroids way short. I agree that greenies could probably help many get through the mental and physical grind of a season. I believe though, that they are mostly taken to bring someone up to their normal level of play. Not to take them way past it like steroids. Your point is cheating is cheating, and I can respect that.

Here's a question; could you almost say that the Yankees are cheating compared to the Devil Rays? The Yankees exude a winning attitude, and an atmosphere condusive to more focus and increased adrenanline. At the same time it adds pressure, but most actually perform well under pressure, it's how they got to the show. The Devil Rays hardly have any fans coming to the ballpark, and it doesn't exactly get you pumped up to take the field. The extra boost isn't there. Don't you think the Yanks gain an edge in that sense?

[CrimeInTheCards]

Ever since this Bonds stuff came out, there's been a lot of this. Comparing a minor level of cheating with steroids, claiming steroids don't help, others were doing it too, etc. I'm wondering if you're a Bonds fan, and if your stance changed at all because of the recent news?

Maybe not, but I still think you're selling steroids way short. I agree that greenies could probably help many get through the mental and physical grind of a season. I believe though, that they are mostly taken to bring someone up to their normal level of play. Not to take them way past it like steroids. Your point is cheating is cheating, and I can respect that.

Here's a question; could you almost say that the Yankees are cheating compared to the Devil Rays? The Yankees exude a winning attitude, and an atmosphere condusive to more focus and increased adrenanline. At the same time it adds pressure, but most actually perform well under pressure, it's how they got to the show. The Devil Rays hardly have any fans coming to the ballpark, and it doesn't exactly get you pumped up to take the field. The extra boost isn't there. Don't you think the Yanks gain an edge in that sense?

Sultan, I've always known about baseball players cheating, it's common knowledge. Nobody seemed to care however till the whole steroid thing, now all of a sudden baseball is a ' pure sport '. I'm not a bonds fan, To be honest I never realized how great of a player he was till few years ago, which goes to show you how underrated he's always been. About steroids, I dont know what they do really, never used them before, never will, I've only known a few people who have used the drug for recovery. That's all I know about it. Greenies however I know a lot about because I take them, and know athletes who take them, and they help a lot, pure and simple. It's no pyschiological feeling, they do help you perform better in athletics. Anyway, this arguement isnt going anywhere, so I think we both just have to agree to disagree.

[west coast orange and black]

i believe that not all cheating is the same. there are degrees as to how the player's abilities and, ultimately, his achievements are affected.

however, one of the main sticking points in the greenies = steroids (greenies v steroids) argument is that it can be easily concluded that those who used greenies when steroids were not readily available would have used steroids if available. after all, players have always sought an edge. players have always sought comfort against the grind of a season.

so, removing the laundry list of attributes and affectations of the two groups, which clearly falls in favor of steroids: grenies (could) = steroids, depending on a few circumstances. mainly, used when steroids were not around.

[Metal Ed]

No offense, but I stopped reading right here. You do realize that they're able to spend so much time in the weight room BECAUSE of steroids.


Agreed. It's impossible to believe that these guys can work out like bodybuilders AND recover while also dealing with the daily grind of playing ball. I suspect that the recovery aspect of steroids is a huge part of their appeal.

[Blackout]

Sure it does. It helps players focus better.

if a player doesn't have ADD, ritalin is a placebo effect. plus it calms you down more, making it harder to play.

again, I have experience with ritalin.

[ESPNFan]

Sure it does. It helps players focus better.

Again your almost criminally misinformed. Ritalin is taken because its a stimulant. Its basicly a slightly weakened amphetamine that allows children or with new diagnosis Adults ith ADHD to regulate their stimuli through their central nervous systems. I have to do more research on it but Ritalin is widely abused as a stimulant and for its appitite surpressant qualities. There has also been some recent concern about small children using it because of ritalin linked deaths where children have shown damage to their hearts.

Basicly Ritalin is one of the easiest perscription quality stimulants to obtain.

[Let Shoeless In]

CITC,

If everything against the rules is cheating, then where does it stop? If a pitcher wears a batting glove or he wears white sleeves is it on the same level as steroids? Most pitchers lick their fingers, and they're supposed to wipe it off on their pants. Having pitched for many years, it's pretty easy to get away with not actually wiping the licked finger(s) off. Not hard to fool the ump. Is that cheating?

What about a hitter who stands outside the batters box. Umps don't enforce that, but technically it's against the rules. Pitchers don't stand with their entire foot against the rubber like the rule states, so is that the same level as steroids? The pine tar rule is a joke, it helps with nothing. Just like there is a rule against how much tape you can have on the bat. How about middle infielders who deke runners? Could be considered cheating.

Pine tar doesn't help with anything but grip. Corked bats don't help with power. The edge with a corked bat is more psychological than anything. Just knowing you have an edge, is an edge.

Most here probably agree with you that greenies are cheating. It's just on a different level than steroids in every way. The benefits don't come close to approaching what steroids can do mentally and physically for a player.
Thank you for echoing my thoughts. I think it is really hard to figure this one out. If you suspend Bonds, then who else must you suspend? Giambi will be the first on that list. Right? What would the be suspended for? The clause 'What is good for baseball' clause? I guess that would work. But, who else would have gotten away with it? What do you do with the stats & records that have been set by these player? Bonds is going to path Ruth. Makes me sick thinking that Bonds got there with the help of these performace enhancers. While all cheating is wrong I dont think that all forms of cheaters can be grouped into the same category. Just like a murderer is not given the same sentence as a thief in the court of law. Each punishment must fit the crime. While spitballers and those carrying emory boards to scuff the baseballs, the umpire has control of that in a game and can kick a player out for those cheats. Steroids is changing you every day all the time, affecting everything you are doing in a game, there is no reprocutions for that in the context of the game. Ethical? Sterioid users are guilty. Legally? Steroid users are guilty. But, where do you go from here? Bonds, McGwire, Gimabi etc. were not breaking baseball's rules. Ethical and federal laws? Yes!

I guess I have just talked myself into this; if the player is found guilty of breaking a law, which these players did by possesing these drugs, then they can be banned by baseball if so deemed by major league baseballs execs. But what do you do with the stats and records?

[west coast orange and black]

putting aside the stats and records for the time being, let shoeless in, the "what is good for baseball' clause can not be applied to the present circumstances of bonds because the clause is superceded by the 2003-06 player agreement, which clearly specifies how a player may be defined as guilty of using a banned substance, and what the punishment would be.

players can not be "found guilty" of "breaking a law" by baseball.
major league baseball executives have no power over the matter.
the player agreement, for better and for worse - in this case, much worse - controls the issue.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

putting aside the stats and records for the time being, let shoeless in, the "what is good for baseball' clause can not be applied to the present circumstances of bonds because the clause is superceded by the 2003-06 player agreement, which clearly specifies how a player may be defined as guilty of using a banned substance, and what the punishment would be.

players can not be "found guilty" of "breaking a law" by baseball.
major league baseball executives have no power over the matter.
the player agreement, for better and for worse - in this case, much worse - controls the issue.

Legally I agree with you WC, but what about what's in the best interest of the game 50 years from now? When those kids look back on this era and read about it, Bonds will no doubt be the front man because of his assault on the record. Could Bud minimize the historical damage by doing something to Bonds right now?

[StanTheMan]

If Bonds did nothing wrong, why did he not inject himself right in the arse in the on deck circle? In the clubhouse? Why not rub some of the cream on himself in the dugout? Chug a gallon of the "clear" after the game while being interviewed?

Perhaps because he was breaking the law........ Hmmmm.

As for the "other cheaters are in the HOF, so let Barry in too" argument. I find it absolutely incredible.

If someone gets away with murder... do we stop prosecuting future murderers?

"Yes your honor, I cut off that lady's head and buried her in my garden. But one time, 50 yeras ago, a guy name Johnny did something similar and got away with it!!"

The Judge says "Well, then, case dismissed!!!"

[west coast orange and black]

sultan: ...but what about what's in the best interest of the game 50 years from now? ... Could Bud minimize the historical damage by doing something to Bonds right now?

50 years from now there will be a work agreement in place that more than likely will cover all of what is covered today, and then some. whatever happens not to be covered could, theoretically, be directed upon by the then-commissioner, bud III.

bud the present can not do anything to bonds.
the contract is signed. a positive test result from a properly administered screening must be present. even then, the work agreement takes precedent.

bud's hands are tied.

[Ubiquitous]

If Bonds did nothing wrong, why did he not inject himself right in the arse in the on deck circle? In the clubhouse? Why not rub some of the cream on himself in the dugout? Chug a gallon of the "clear" after the game while being interviewed?

Perhaps because he was breaking the law........ Hmmmm.

As for the "other cheaters are in the HOF, so let Barry in too" argument. I find it absolutely incredible.

If someone gets away with murder... do we stop prosecuting future murderers?

"Yes your honor, I cut off that lady's head and buried her in my garden. But one time, 50 yeras ago, a guy name Johnny did something similar and got away with it!!"

The Judge says "Well, then, case dismissed!!!"

According to bonds he was using this stuff in the clubhouse in full view of everybody.

[west coast orange and black]

stm: If Bonds did nothing wrong, why did he not inject himself right in the arse in the on deck circle? ... If someone gets away with murder... do we stop prosecuting future murderers?

if bonds did inject in the manner that you posed, say, at pac bell, he broke *the law*, as in the california penal code and the ca health and safety code. it would be up to the proper authorities to take action against him.
mlb is not that proper authority.

i have not come across anyone here condoning illegal activity, stm.

[west coast orange and black]

Ubiquitous: According to bonds he was using this stuff in the clubhouse in full view of everybody.

right. and according to reporters and trainers and players bonds rubbed ointments in plain view.

[StanTheMan]

[QUOTE=west coast orange and black
i have not come across anyone here condoning illegal activity, stm.[/QUOTE]


IMO, saying "he is a HOF'er for sure"
or
"he did not break any baseball rules"
or
"I need more evidence"
or
"he was a HOF'er before he took anything"

is absolutely condoning his behavior.... and his behavior is illegal, with the facts as I currently understand them.

Anything other than NOT voting him in the HOF with the facts we currently have is condining illegal activity, IMO.

[johncap]

IMO, saying "he is a HOF'er for sure"
or
"he did not break any baseball rules"
or
"I need more evidence"
or
"he was a HOF'er before he took anything"

is absolutely condoning his behavior.... and his behavior is illegal, with the facts as I currently understand them.

Anything other than NOT voting him in the HOF with the facts we currently have is condining illegal activity, IMO.
He's not a HOF'r if the voters decide he's not. There is nothing ordained- it's an election. He wouldn't be the first to have pissed off enough writers.

[west coast orange and black]

stm: "he is a HOF'er for sure"
if it is a person's opinion that the voters will vote bonds in, how is bonds gaining entrance tantamount to that person condoning illegal activity?

"he did not break any baseball rules"
does not equal "he did not break the rules of society". one can quite easily agree to both at once.

"I need more evidence"
maybe not everyone is as insightful as others.

"he was a HOF'er before he took anything"
suppose bonds used on 1 jan 1999. before that date he did not have hof credentials is what you believe? right on, man.

Anything other than NOT voting him in the HOF with the facts we currently have is condining illegal activity, IMO.
coolio. it's yer opinion.
what say you to the voters who knowingly voted for players who used illegal drugs, or those who used drugs illegally?

[jaquish]

im curious to know ur opinion on this steroid haters. What if in 10 years they create safe products that get players bigger and stronger, with the same effects as the really good steroids. And it is made legal. Do we still look at Bonds in a bad lite, or as a guy ahead of his time? Or do we still hold it against players who use any means to break records set by players from a far away era that we hold on too high a pedistool?

In my humble opinion, i have more respect for guys who juice and work at their hitting more than guys in the past who drank, got fat, and did nothing to acheive their goals. They only used their god given talent, and maybe som eworked at improving themselves as players, but not to the degree players do today.

Only with the advancement of sport supplement science in the next 50 years can we truly judge the records and players of today.

[jaquish]

i hope bonds wipes all records off the charts so he can laugh at them all. Because no one will be able to do anything without legal recourse. Get 800 Barry, and laugh at them as they cry about it. For one thing, remember people, he feeds off everyone who hates him. He gets better as mor epeople hate him.

[johncap]

i hope bonds wipes all records off the charts so he can laugh at them all. Because no one will be able to do anything without legal recourse. Get 800 Barry, and laugh at them as they cry about it. For one thing, remember people, he feeds off everyone who hates him. He gets better as mor epeople hate him.
You're not a baseball fan. I can't print here what my opinon of your obnoxious comments is. It's also clearly between the lines exactly where you're coming from. Go wipe.

[jaquish]

You're not a baseball fan. I can't print here what my opinon of your obnoxious comments is. It's also clearly between the lines exactly where you're coming from. Go wipe.

once again; na-na-na-na-na-na! I am a baseball fan, sorry i don't have huge erections over players from the past. Todays players are by far better so if anything, we should look at past players as inferior. Like i said, intelligent people will wait some time before flying off the handle about records and baseball integrity. This "integrity" talk makes me sick. NOTHING has integrity. It's all made up and for some reason people have this romantic view of the past.

[Captain Cold Nose]

once again; na-na-na-na-na-na! I am a baseball fan, sorry i don't have huge erections over players from the past. Todays players are by far better so if anything, we should look at past players as inferior. Like i said, intelligent people will wait some time before flying off the handle about records and baseball integrity. This "integrity" talk makes me sick. NOTHING has integrity. It's all made up and for some reason people have this romantic view of the past.
While your point is understood, the taunting nature of your posts is uncalled for and absolutely frowned upon on this site. We don't do that here.

[Boston Boxer]

I wasn't trying to insult you, just pointing something out.

You could bring up corked bats, but they do nothing for a HR hitter. Honestly , you'd have a better case with the pine tar on that one ;)

you are wrong...cork makes the bat lighter and creates more bat speed inturn hitting the ball at a greater speed

[Boston Boxer]

Ok, I understand your point, but I still believe that if you abolish Bonds' juiced up homers, then, for the sake of fairness, you MUST also abolish any strikeout caused by an illegal pitch, any homer caused by a corked bat, any stolen base caused by a runner taking some sort of pill. And to do this would be absolutely impossible.

You can say that Bonds' homers aren't as impressive as Ruth's- I can understand that point of view. But if you ban Bonds from the record books, I really feel like you are opening up a Pandora's Box to the point where so much dirt will be uncovered it will cause the fans to look away in disgust as to how much "cheating" has occurred throughout baseball history.

And as to the unfair prejudice towards Bonds, who here was complaining during '98 when McGwire and Sosa were going at it. Raise your hand. Oh? You didn't know they were on the juice?? You just didn't want to know, because you were having so much fun. But now a jerk is setting the records, and it seems like a great time to attack him.

Players have always been stretching the rules.

your posts in this thread have been right on, and this one is no exception...my thinking is the same as yours...thank you

[johncap]

once again; na-na-na-na-na-na! I am a baseball fan, sorry i don't have huge erections over players from the past. Todays players are by far better so if anything, we should look at past players as inferior. Like i said, intelligent people will wait some time before flying off the handle about records and baseball integrity. This "integrity" talk makes me sick. NOTHING has integrity. It's all made up and for some reason people have this romantic view of the past.
Once again proving you're not a baseball fan. If you think players of today are better than yesterday, then you just don't have a clue. You think because someone puts up 70 homers or hits .385 against today's dreck that that makes them better players or hitters than a Yaz hitting .301 or Schmidt topping out at 48 homers against much tougher pitching? Please don't make those kinds of unenlightened blanket statements. They make you look as foolish as your previous comments did.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

you are wrong...cork makes the bat lighter and creates more bat speed inturn hitting the ball at a greater speed

You'd think so.

"The collision with a well-hit ball takes about 1/2,000 of a second, and that's not enough time for [any foreign substance] in the bat to contribute," said Adair. "Basically the added material does nothing. It's a superstition that doesn't do anything, in fact. It adds the worst kind of weight. A heavy bat, where some of that weight is superballs, doesn't do any good. The collision takes place too fast for the balls to do any good, so that's a negative."

"While cork typically is four times springier than wood, it cannot store the energy that comes from the pitched ball. A hollowed bat filled with a foreign substance is no longer as stiff, lowering the efficiency of energy being transferred into the bat. Because a ball comes off a bat faster than cork can store energy, the speed and distance of a batted ball actually are reduced."

http://www.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20030605&content_id=356737&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A quicker bat may help a struggling hitter catch up with pitches, but it actually reduces his ability to smack long drives. The primary equation that determines a batted ball's distance is p = mv, where "p" is momentum, "m" is mass, and "v" is velocity. Though a corked bat will travel at a greater velocity, the tail-off in weight lessens the mass. As a result, sluggers like Sosa will actually see the length of their moon shots decrease. In his book The Physics of Baseball, Yale physicist Robert K. Adair estimated that a corked bat will shave about a yard off a 400-foot tater."

http://www.slate.com/id/2083972
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SI: So, does corking a bat work?

Nye: It makes the bat lighter in the business end, and there's a pseudoscientific notion that it makes the bat springier, but this turns out not to be the case.

SI: Why not?

Nye: The ball's only in contact with the bat for one one-thousandth of a second, and there's just not time to transfer the energy from the cork to the ball.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/QandA/2003/0616/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Swinging the same bat faster can help a batter hit the ball harder, but swinging a lighter bat faster doesn't necessarily improve performance. One of the basic laws of physics that affects a ball's flight, force, is a product of mass times acceleration. If a batter increases the rate of acceleration of a swing at the expense of reducing the mass of the bat, the net result can be the same as if he didn't do anything to change the bat. For example, take a basic scenario in which a batter swings a 35-ounce bat at 90 miles per hour:

Force = Mass x Acceleration
Force = 35 ounces x 90 mph/s
Force = 3150

Now suppose the batter corked the bat, reduced its weight by an ounce, and can now swing it faster.

Force = 34 ounces x 92 mph/s
Force = 3128

http://www.wood-tang.com/2003/06/the-physics-of-corking-a-bat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ubiquitous]

Once again proving you're not a baseball fan. If you think players of today are better than yesterday, then you just don't have a clue. You think because someone puts up 70 homers or hits .385 against today's dreck that that makes them better players or hitters than a Yaz hitting .301 or Schmidt topping out at 48 homers against much tougher pitching? Please don't make those kinds of unenlightened blanket statements. They make you look as foolish as your previous comments did.

I guess I'm not a baseball fan either, nor apparently do I have a clue . . . .was it Col. Mustard in the kitchen with the wrench?

Anyone got a match?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I guess I'm not a baseball fan either, nor apparently do I have a clue . . . .was it Col. Mustard in the kitchen with the wrench?

Anyone got a match?

I think it's about the differences in the game and the evolution in technology/knowledge that has allowed todays players to appear better. When you get right down to their actual raw baseball ability, there's no difference whatsoever, and players of the past actually had better all around skills because that's the style the game required, and they did it with inferior equipment, knowledge, training, and luxuries.

Today's game discourages the perfection of all around abilities, instead focusing on home runs and station to station baseball. Can't really blame todays players for lack of defensive skills, or hustle, or solid fundamentals; because that's not where the money is; it's not setup for that style to thrive. It's really about what you prefer. I'd prefer to watch Japan play 162 games instead of the HR derby that gets pushed on us every year.

[Horror]

Absolutely. The game has NEVER been clean. Its just now you people know whats going on and before you had no clue and the players had you snowed. Just go back to being fans of the game enjoying us do what we do, like you did 20yrs ago when players were juicing up, taking greenies and whatever else they could.

I agree with this.

Throughout time baseball players have been looking for an edge, something to improve their on field performance. Perry and others used a spit ball. Greg Nettles got caught with super balls in his bat in 1974. Many have used corked bats. There's also many who have used amphetamines.

IMO, steroids Is just another way to " cheat ", just like a spitball, corkedbat, or amphetamines.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I agree with this.

Throughout time baseball players have been looking for an edge, something to improve their on field performance. Perry and others used a spit ball. Greg Nettles got caught with super balls in his bat in 1974. Many have used corked bats. There's also many who have used amphetamines.

IMO, steroids Is just another way to " cheat ", just like a spitball, corkedbat, or amphetamines.

Most know the game has never been totally clean at every level of cheating. The reason there's an uproar about this cheating is because of it's impact on the game from a historical perspective. There's an uproar because it should have been tested for long ago and it wasn't, and this past couple decades is one big cloud of dust; we wonder what happened. The game isn't the same, and records have been shattered. That's why there's an uproar. Cork, amphetamines, and spitballs, are no secret, they just have never impacted the game like steroids.

[Horror]

Most know the game has never been totally clean at every level of cheating. The reason there's an uproar about this cheating is because of it's impact on the game from a historical perspective. There's an uproar because it should have been tested for long ago and it wasn't, and this past couple decades is one big cloud of dust; we wonder what happened. The game isn't the same, and records have been shattered. That's why there's an uproar. Cork, amphetamines, and spitballs, are no secret, they just have never impacted the game like steroids.

I see your point sort of, but that still doesnt change the fact that baseball players and pitchers have cheated for years. Those same guy's who used amphetamines, corked their bats, threw spitballs, etc, I'm sure would of used steroids to " enhance " their performance if it was available to them backthen.

BTW, wasn't the deadball era caused by multiple pitchers cheating ?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I see your point sort of, but that still doesnt change the fact that baseball players and pitchers have cheated for years. Those same guy's who used amphetamines, corked their bats, threw spitballs, etc, I'm sure would of used steroids to " enhance " their performance if it was available to them backthen.

You're assumption is that they would have used steroids had they been available? This is flawed. What are the health risks and commitment needed to cork a bat? Same with all the others; they are one time things, used by a single player whenever they choose. A greenie for a pick-me up, or corking for a time they're feeling fatigued. The use of steroids, especially to the degree in which Bonds allegedly used, is a major decision and commitment. To blindly assume they all "would have" done steroids also, is to put them all on the same level of risks, impact, commitment, etc. Too much of a reach.


BTW, wasn't the deadball era caused by multiple pitchers cheating ?

Well, the true deadball was before 1911. In 1911 they introduced the cork center to the ball, making it more lively, but the impact was only felt for a couple of seasons. Pitchers soon countered this with perfecting the emery ball and the shine ball. The baseball become softened up and deadened during the course of the game from being doused in tobacco juice and dirt. It became mush, corked center or not. This was not against the rules at the time, it was just how the game was played.

The true changes came in 1920 when a new ball was put into play more often, and pitchers (except for Burleigh Grimes and some others) weren't allowed to throw trick pitches. So you have hitters seeing the ball better, and the ball remains as lively in the 9th inning as it was in the 1st inning. More and more hitters began copying Babe's uppercut swing and they switched to thicker barreled and thinner handled bats like him, new enclosed ballparks were being built or altered, fielders mitts changed throughout the '20's because balls were being hit harder. It's no wonder the attendance increased.

[Horror]

You're assumption is that they would have used steroids had they been available? This is flawed. What are the health risks and commitment needed to cork a bat? Same with all the others; they are one time things, used by a single player whenever they choose. A greenie for a pick-me up, or corking for a time they're feeling fatigued. The use of steroids, especially to the degree in which Bonds allegedly used, is a major decision and commitment. To blindly assume they all "would have" done steroids also, is to put them all on the same level of risks, impact, commitment, etc. Too much of a reach.



Well, the true deadball was before 1911. In 1911 they introduced the cork center to the ball, making it more lively, but the impact was only felt for a couple of seasons. Pitchers soon countered this with perfecting the emery ball and the shine ball. The baseball become softened up and deadened during the course of the game from being doused in tobacco juice and dirt. It became mush, corked center or not. This was not against the rules at the time, it was just how the game was played.

The true changes came in 1920 when a new ball was put into play more often, and pitchers (except for Burleigh Grimes and some others) weren't allowed to throw trick pitches. So you have hitters seeing the ball better, and the ball remains as lively in the 9th inning as it was in the 1st inning. More and more hitters began copying Babe's uppercut swing and they switched to thicker barreled and thinner handled bats like him, new enclosed ballparks were being built or altered, fielders mitts changed throughout the '20's because balls were being hit harder. It's no wonder the attendance increased.

Amphetamines actually cause serious health problems. Like steroids it's negative sideffects pose greater risk and danger than any possible benefit it would provide you. Mike schmidt used greenies in his career, and even said so himself that if he " knew " about anabolic steroid use in baseball, he would of been tempted to take the drug.

The only reason I could see an amphetamines user not experimenting with steroids is lazyness. Steroids are a process, proper workouts, better eating, it's actually hardwork, but in the longrun benefits an athlete a lot. Tom house had this problem himself, he misused multiple types of steroids during his career, and it resulted in multiple injuries for him. Amphetamines you just take, nothingelse, no workout, nothing, they " enhance " your performance that day you take them.


Also, I believe that when When doctoring a ball was banned, they didn't use a new ball every couple of minutes. Defacing the ball had negatives other than fooling a hitter. Infact, more specifically with regard to the spitter, my understanding is that is was in fact largely a health issue. The country was pushing through the influenza pandemic and noone wanted people's fluids on the ball out of fear.

[GnomeansGno]

Steroids = Vastly overrated as a " performance enhancing drug ".

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Amphetamines actually cause serious health problems. Like steroids it's negative sideffects pose greater risk and danger than any possible benefit it would provide you. Mike schmidt used greenies in his career, and even said so himself that if he " knew " about anabolic steroid use in baseball, he would of been tempted to take the drug.

The only reason I could see an amphetamines user not experimenting with steroids is lazyness. Steroids are a process, proper workouts, better eating, it's actually hardwork, but in the longrun benefits an athlete a lot. Tom house had this problem himself, he misused multiple types of steroids during his career, and it resulted in multiple injuries for him. Amphetamines you just take, nothingelse, no workout, nothing, they " enhance " your performance that day you take them.


One guy does not make your blanket statement true, or even logical. Steroids are on another planet from greenies. Would most take that leap; who knows. Should we just assume everyone in history "would have" done them?


(1)Also, I believe that when When doctoring a ball was banned, they didn't use a new ball every couple of minutes.(1) Defacing the ball had negatives other than fooling a hitter. Infact, more specifically with regard to the spitter, (2)my understanding is that is was in fact largely a health issue. The country was pushing through the influenza pandemic and noone wanted people's fluids on the ball out of fear.(2)

1. Not every couple of minutes, but it was up to the umps discretion. The idea was to keep the ball as visible as possible for the hitters. The ball was still being discolored here and there, but nothing like how the soggy, mushy, darkened glob of before ended up.

2. If people who that scared of the fluids, they wouldn't have grandfathered two pitchers per team to continue throwing trick pitches would they?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Steroids = Vastly overrated as a " performance enhancing drug ".

There's a long list of MVP winners and HR leaders that would probably disagree.

So psychologically and physically, what better PED is out there? Or do you think the idea of a PED is a myth?

[GnomeansGno]

There's a long list of MVP winners and HR leaders that would probably disagree.

So psychologically and physically, what better PED is out there? Or do you think the idea of a PED is a myth?

Yeah, and there's also a long list of amphetamines users in the HOF, and one who owns the alltime homerun record. There's also multiple players ( including HOF players like schmidt) that have said the impact greenies have had on baseball DWARF'S the impact steroids have had on baseball.

Should I assume that they help that much ?

I find it funny that you refuse to believe ( judging by your arguements with others on this very thread) amphetamines, corkedbats, spitballs, ritalin, etc, " help " a lot, but deem steroids as the ultimate performance enhancing drug that can turn bobby bonilla into mickey mantle with one injection.

You use the " look how many suspected steroid users have won mvp's " arguement, yeah well look at all the things greenies users have accomplished, and corked bat users. Spitball man gaylord perry got to 300 wins because of that type of cheating, so don't give me this" lower form " of cheating crap.

Also we'd be assuming that no players from the past juiced up ( schmidt was clearly lying when he said no player during his time used steroids), I guess he must of forgotten tom house's confession to abusing horse steroids and greenies at the same time.

Or what about that book on mantle, where a friend of his states mantle suspected steroids was possible for a " odd " growth spurt he had as a teen ?

Something to think about....

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I find it funny that you refuse to believe ( judging by your arguements with others on this very thread) amphetamines, corkedbats, spitballs, ritalin, etc, " help " a lot, but deem steroids as the ultimate performance enhancing drug that can turn bobby bonilla into mickey mantle with one injection.


I've never said those things don't help at all, just that they're not on the same level as steroids, especially when taken to the degree that Bonds allegedly did.



Or what about that book on mantle, where a friend of his states mantle suspected steroids was possible for a " odd " growth spurt he had as a teen ?

Something to think about....

I have never heard of this. Do you have a passage from the book, or some more details? That's interesting.

[Pghfan987]

and his behavior is illegal, with the facts as I currently understand them.

Anything other than NOT voting him in the HOF with the facts we currently have is condining illegal activity, IMO.

It's funny you should mention this, because, in a related story, Cal Ripken's seat in Cooperstown is being revoked after it was learned that he had not one, but TWO unpaid parking tickets. Those HOF voters sure are strict.

www.espn.com/mlb/cooperstown/justkidding


;)

Mark

[GnomeansGno]

I've never said those things don't help at all, just that they're not on the same level as steroids, especially when taken to the degree that Bonds allegedly did.




I have never heard of this. Do you have a passage from the book, or some more details? That's interesting.

So stacking multiple types of steroids at the sametime ( which is what the book states, including cattle steroids, LOL) is the " best way " to gain an edge ?

Interesting, because house did that and was a failed experiment.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/03/SPGSTCJ0SK1.DTL

Anyway, I'm not saying steroids don't help, but IMO, it's overrated, i basically see it as a drug that helps you recover from injuries faster, and prolongs workouts.

As for mantle, I got that information from a book called The Last Hero: The Life of Mickey Mantle by David Falkner. This is the sameguy who wrote a book on robinson, and morgan, and I believe someoneelse ( forgot at the moment).

Here's an excerpt from the book - The suddeness with which he grew may or may not have been significant. Growth spurts are obviously common at that age. What was not so common, however, was how quickly he bulked up. Nick Ferguson recalled the time & the dramatic change in his friend's physical appearance.
'Mutt used to drive Mickey back & forth from Oklahoma City, to the Children's Hospital,' he said. 'They'd leave him there for awhile & then take him back. Mick was like 130 when this started, and then he lost weight to where he may have been 100 pounds, I don't know, but then all that changed. I don't know what they were giving him. He thought maybe it was steroids, but I have no idea what it was, but he claimed that's what pumped him up to 160 pounds, he looked totaly different. I also think that that's maybe what caused him trouble in his later years. His muscles didn't develop naturally maybe, and it caused a lot of pulls and everything. It was just kinda unusual the way he grew like that in one year.'

[Sultan_1895-1948]

So stacking multiple types of steroids at the sametime ( which is what the book states, including cattle steroids, LOL) is the " best way " to gain an edge ?

Interesting, because house did that and was a failed experiment.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/03/SPGSTCJ0SK1.DTL

Anyway, I'm not saying steroids don't help, but IMO, it's overrated, i basically see it as a drug that helps you recover from injuries faster, and prolongs workouts.



House obviously wasn't getting the best advice or the best mixture of steroids possible. Heck, you go out on your own and experiment, all sorts of things are bound to go wrong, and you're bound to not benefit as much. I agree they help you recover from injuries faster, and they also allow the muscles to heal quicker. A normal person works out and tears the muscle fibers. Naturally, we get sore and the muscles need time to repair themselves. On steroids, you can lift like a madman day after day, hour after hour, increasing strength. Strength which aids on a baseball field, that's a fact.

Which leads me to the Mantle question. Do you think someone can just pump steroids into a young man and he all of a sudden gains 30 or 40 pounds without doing the necessary weight training? What was Mantle doing for workouts at the time?

[GnomeansGno]

House obviously wasn't getting the best advice or the best mixture of steroids possible. Heck, you go out on your own and experiment, all sorts of things are bound to go wrong, and you're bound to not benefit as much. I agree they help you recover from injuries faster, and they also allow the muscles to heal quicker. A normal person works out and tears the muscle fibers. Naturally, we get sore and the muscles need time to repair themselves. On steroids, you can lift like a madman day after day, hour after hour, increasing strength. Strength which aids on a baseball field, that's a fact.

Which leads me to the Mantle question. Do you think someone can just pump steroids into a young man and he all of a sudden gains 30 or 40 pounds without doing the necessary weight training? What was Mantle doing for workouts at the time?

It seems that we both sort of agree on what steroids does for an athlete, and I agree with your point about house. But the way the book " game of shadows " states bonds was using steroids ( cattle?) it sounds like he was doing just what tom house was doing.

As for mantle, I was never accusing him of taking steroids, just pointing out that steroids were around backthen, and some athletes knew about them. I agree that steroids wont help someone build muscle without a proper workout regimen, but doesn't it make ligaments grow abnormally regardless ?

[ESPNFan]

Steroids = Vastly overrated as a " performance enhancing drug ".

Statements like this make me want to start a "Facts About PEDs THREAD"

The enitire East german Olympic team says Hi.

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/43/7/1262#R4

Thats an article from Clinical chemistry that details the Use and effects of Anabolic use by the East Germans during their state sponcered doping program.

[sandlot]

The article on East Germany's use of steoids -- and many other drugs, usually in combination -- raises many points and questions. Thanks for posting it. That steroids had an effect on performance was obvious (check the graphs), but it was primarily in sports where strength (weightlifting, hammer throw, shotput, even skiing) and speed (track, swimming) were/are crucial. It's also clear from reading this that the steroids and related cocktails were used overwhelmingly on young athletes, not mature ones, and especially females. Even more obvious from the report is that injurious side-effects were noticed from very early on, and we're talking 30+ years ago. Also interesting is the research that went into covering up the steroid use. Still, the deleterious side-effects became so evident, so quickly, that it became a public issue. The report details this. The implications for baseball are unclear, at least to me, because of the different skill sets involved, the relative ages of the athletes involved and the gender issue. This report won't settle that question. Again, the bulk of the data seem drawn largely from female subjects, who apparently showed the most remarkable results (as well as the most debilitating side-effects). To me, this report can be read on one hand as strengthening the anti-steroid faction, while on the other hand bolstering the case of those who argue that jury is still out the effects of steroids on performance in baseball. I think the medical data in the report also buttress the case that if Bonds had taken all that he's bben claimed to have taken, he probably wouldn't be able to walk and would resemble a Jane Goodall research subect.

[ESPNFan]

The article on East Germany's use of steoids -- and many other drugs, usually in combination -- raises many points and questions. Thanks for posting it. That steroids had an effect on performance was obvious (check the graphs), but it was primarily in sports where strength (weightlifting, hammer throw, shotput, even skiing) and speed (track, swimming) were/are crucial. It's also clear from reading this that the steroids and related cocktails were used overwhelmingly on young athletes, not mature ones, and especially females. Even more obvious from the report is that injurious side-effects were noticed from very early on, and we're talking 30+ years ago. Also interesting is the research that went into covering up the steroid use. Still, the deleterious side-effects became so evident, so quickly, that it became a public issue. The report details this. The implications for baseball are unclear, at least to me, because of the different skill sets involved, the relative ages of the athletes involved and the gender issue. This report won't settle that question. Again, the bulk of the data seem drawn largely from female subjects, who apparently showed the most remarkable results (as well as the most debilitating side-effects). To me, this report can be read on one hand as strengthening the anti-steroid faction, while on the other hand bolstering the case of those who argue that jury is still out the effects of steroids on performance in baseball. I think the medical data in the report also buttress the case that if Bonds had taken all that he's bben claimed to have taken, he probably wouldn't be able to walk and would resemble a Jane Goodall research subect.

Sandlot, I can't tell you how good it is to see someone has finally decied to put the time into reading this. For that I thank you first off. Sometimes I feel like when I post it I'm talking to a wall. I'll try to answer your questions bit by bit as best I can.
First yes the Events of the Olympics are basicly either strenght or speed related. But much like these events what they have in common with baseball is the emphasis on a practiced, repeated motion. Baseball players need much less pure brute strength than say a hammer thrower but the tourque in a hamer throw and the tourque generated in a baseball swing use many of the same muscle groups. Both athletes repeat a motion refining it and getting to to a level that is absolutely instictive. You add 5 or ten more lbs of muscle, particularly to the quick twich muscle fibers in the arms trunk and legs and that could be all that a batter needs to do is quciken his swing and subsequently reaction time, to see some inprovement in power definetly and possibly average.
Second yes the Athletes in the East Germans programs were started very young but remeber these athletes and the governments weren't just looking for some incrimental improvement in one area of their game like most baseball players. They were trying to create the best Swimmer, polevaulter, etc.. in the world, a Gold medalist. As you can see most every athlete imporved which is what most would asume would happen with ball players. So while The MLB players didnt start these substances while they were adolesants most were plenty skilled enough to benifit from them.

Third reguarding the sideeffects. Actually the fact that most of these athletes began their doping during their youth probably contributed much more to the eventual side effects that they would encounter. There is evidence that Anabolics can close the growth plates of adolecents, etc..
And like you point out this was 30 years ago and some of the anabolics of today have much lower hepatoxicity levels than those the East Germans were using. Also important is the levels of sexlinked androgens in these compounds. These are where most of the really dibilitating sexual mutations come from and the East Germans were still using Testosterone which has none of the androgenic properties removed. Also there is such a better understanding of how and what to do to minimize side effects now. And newer less toxic less androgenic substances come out every day. In Will Carrol's book an Scientist who claimed to be instrumental to creating THG was quoted as saying there is alreayd a "perfect anabolic" available and that THG is already 3 generations old.

I think finally you need to realise that these substances are sought after by the athletes and they would only do so if they thought they would help them. LOL as far as the Bonds example goes, You could say he has changed in his appearence and again he had enlisted a laboratory to assist him. As the years go on we will, unfortunately I'm afraid, learn much more about the consequences of some of the ballplayers actions.

Again Sandlot thanks so much for giving it a read.

[Pine Tar]

While your point is understood, the taunting nature of your posts is uncalled for and absolutely frowned upon on this site. We don't do that here.
I for one am tired of all the baseball purests crying about Bonds as well. If this were McGwire, there would not be nearly the outcry.

As for jaquishsucks "taunting" Johncap, be careful Captain. You seem to be using your moderater status to take sides here. The taunting that occured was in response to a post where Johncap wrote some much nastier things about jaquish. So is it OK to attack a person but not to taunt them? Or is it only OK to do either if you agree with their perspective? Just trying to get the rules straight. I hate hypocrisy

[jaquish]

Once again proving you're not a baseball fan. If you think players of today are better than yesterday, then you just don't have a clue. You think because someone puts up 70 homers or hits .385 against today's dreck that that makes them better players or hitters than a Yaz hitting .301 or Schmidt topping out at 48 homers against much tougher pitching? Please don't make those kinds of unenlightened blanket statements. They make you look as foolish as your previous comments did.

players today are better trained, in better shape, work much harder(weight rooms, video tapes). they are betetr becuz they have taken ideas from the past and expanded on them. Only a few from the past stand up today. But if we have a time machine, get the 1920's all stars vs. today, it wouldnt be a contest. They couldnt hit 100mph in the 9th inning. I still love the players of the past, dont get me wrong, but its ridiculous. They arent anywhere near todays players. Sports supplements and science mixed with baseball IQ (Bonds) make for athletes no one ever dreamed of. one day, everyone will be doing something similiar to steroids, but safe. i just like to sit back and enjoy it. Watch a genuis at work in barry bonds.the only thing that made me mad about his book was how he treated people. Screw the steroids.

and look for a book to be published in the next two years on an unknown by the name of Buck Freeman. Yes, im college edumacated and know a large amount about baseball. And buck freeman, as much as i love the topic, couldnt play today. Unless he wanted to lift weights and work at his game 5 hours a day.

[Metal Ed]

One guy does not make your blanket statement true, or even logical. Steroids are on another planet from greenies. Would most take that leap; who knows. Should we just assume everyone in history "would have" done them?



Actually, according to our government, amphetamines are a more dangerous substance than anabolic steroids. Amphetamines are a Schedule 3 substance, the same category as cocaine and heroin. Steroids are the next tier down, Schedule 2. Personally, I wouldn't want to take either of them. But it is not hard to imagine that the same folks who would take one would probably take the other.

However, I agree with your original point that steroids distort the game much more than greenies, and that steroids have a much greater effect as performance enhancers. From a performance enhancing perspective, I completely agree with you that steroids are a different world entirely than greenies. From a moral/ethical perspective, though, I think that you are wrong. Both are illegal, both are breaking the law; in fact, legally, amphetamines are actually the more serious drug. There are also more long term studies proving the harmful effects of amphetamines, than there are for steroids.

[Pine Tar]

Actually, according to our government, amphetamines are a more dangerous substance than anabolic steroids. Amphetamines are a Schedule 3 substance, the same category as cocaine and heroin. Steroids are the next tier down, Schedule 2. Personally, I wouldn't want to take either of them. But it is not hard to imagine that the same folks who would take one would probably take the other.

However, I agree with your original point that steroids distort the game much more than greenies, and that steroids have a much greater effect as performance enhancers. From a performance enhancing perspective, I completely agree with you that steroids are a different world entirely than greenies. From a moral/ethical perspective, though, I think that you are wrong. Both are illegal, both are breaking the law; in fact, legally, amphetamines are actually the more serious drug. There are also more long term studies proving the harmful effects of amphetamines, than there are for steroids.

If I'm not mistaken, Schedule 2 means it is more controlled by the government than schedule 3.

[GnomeansGno]

If I'm not mistaken, Schedule 2 means it is more controlled by the government than schedule 3.

Both drugs pose greater risk and danger from adverse effects than any possible benefit it might provide you.

http://www.mdadvice.com/library/ped/pedillsymp598.html

[johncap]

I for one am tired of all the baseball purests crying about Bonds as well. If this were McGwire, there would not be nearly the outcry.

As for jaquishsucks "taunting" Johncap, be careful Captain. You seem to be using your moderater status to take sides here. The taunting that occured was in response to a post where Johncap wrote some much nastier things about jaquish. So is it OK to attack a person but not to taunt them? Or is it only OK to do either if you agree with their perspective? Just trying to get the rules straight. I hate hypocrisy
First of all, the reference to this person taunting me is inacurate. He was taunting someone else and was chastised for that.

As for your comments about my "nasty" remarks, they stand as stated. The comments he made were offensive, unenlightened and tasteless.

We're not baseball purists, at least not in this regard. The arguments calling for action on this issue are because of COMMON SENSE, not purity. All this BS back and forth trying to equate using cork, or spitballs or greenies to what this subject really is about is a travesty and a microcosm of what is wroing with society in general today. Actions are justified when compared to someone else's sins and no one is held accountable for what they do. Each case is judged on its own merit. As far as I'm concerned, GUILTY, time to sentence!

[johncap]

players today are better trained, in better shape, work much harder(weight rooms, video tapes). they are betetr becuz they have taken ideas from the past and expanded on them. Only a few from the past stand up today. But if we have a time machine, get the 1920's all stars vs. today, it wouldnt be a contest. They couldnt hit 100mph in the 9th inning. I still love the players of the past, dont get me wrong, but its ridiculous. They arent anywhere near todays players. Sports supplements and science mixed with baseball IQ (Bonds) make for athletes no one ever dreamed of. one day, everyone will be doing something similiar to steroids, but safe. i just like to sit back and enjoy it. Watch a genuis at work in barry bonds.the only thing that made me mad about his book was how he treated people. Screw the steroids.

and look for a book to be published in the next two years on an unknown by the name of Buck Freeman. Yes, im college edumacated and know a large amount about baseball. And buck freeman, as much as i love the topic, couldnt play today. Unless he wanted to lift weights and work at his game 5 hours a day.
Players today are bigger and stronger, whether chemically enhanced or not, but they are not BETTER players. There is more to being a good player than being a better physical specimen including knowledge of the game, fundamentals, desire, focus, incentive.

The fact of the matter is that simply by virtue of numbers, there are players in the majors today who would be in AA ball 40 years ago. At the top rung, how many of today's players could carry Willie Mays' jock? Not many. No, today's players are not better than yesterday's. All things are relative.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I for one am tired of all the baseball purests crying about Bonds as well. If this were McGwire, there would not be nearly the outcry.

As for jaquishsucks "taunting" Johncap, be careful Captain. You seem to be using your moderater status to take sides here. The taunting that occured was in response to a post where Johncap wrote some much nastier things about jaquish. So is it OK to attack a person but not to taunt them? Or is it only OK to do either if you agree with their perspective? Just trying to get the rules straight. I hate hypocrisy
I must have just missed that, Pine Tar. But it was more for the na-na-na than anything else. And he avoided that in his next post, with a very solid point I can agree with. Maybe you read what he said differently than I did, but I did not feel Johncap went over the line, outside of that go wipe comment.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

while on the other hand bolstering the case of those who argue that jury is still out the effects of steroids on performance in baseball. I think the medical data in the report also buttress the case that if Bonds had taken all that he's bben claimed to have taken, he probably wouldn't be able to walk and would resemble a Jane Goodall research subect.

I think it's reasonable to believe or at least think that a 230 pound Barry could do more damage to the opposition than a 195-200 pound Barry. Can that be said with certainty I would say no, but a possibility.

Also, in regard to your closing sentence at this time we do not know for sure to what extent Barry used steroids, the reports might possibly contain some errors. Are we now going to debate how much he used, thats not the issue, it's did he or did he not.

In the end the only thing we are now aware of is that he did use some steroids, perhaps before the ban. Possibly he may challenge and prove those charges to be false, we shall see.

The bar keeps getting raised with Barry. We kept hearing how there was no proof that he ever used steroids. He was training 6 hours plus in the gym, that one is funny. Is that what turned him into the Hindenberg. Now when it appears that he did we keep hearing "so what" what about the corked bats, spit balls othe rule bending and breaking. Now you seem to challenge the reports because you believe if he did what they say he did he practically be disabled. I say lets wait and see, this may not be the end of the story.

It's a sad story, whether one likes or dislikes Barry a sad ending. One of the greatest ball players even with no steroids went down a path that will cause many to put some of his numbers in doubt, unsure where to rank him.

Thats the story, when and if he passes Ruth, maybe Aaron the sports channels and national news will not talk about the rule breaking of the past. You can be sure the word steroids will be a part of the story, linked to him even after he leaves the game.

[GnomeansGno]

Players today are bigger and stronger, whether chemically enhanced or not, but they are not BETTER players. There is more to being a good player than being a better physical specimen including knowledge of the game, fundamentals, desire, focus, incentive.

The fact of the matter is that simply by virtue of numbers, there are players in the majors today who would be in AA ball 40 years ago. At the top rung, how many of today's players could carry Willie Mays' jock? Not many. No, today's players are not better than yesterday's. All things are relative.


Actually you could make a case that today's players are superior to players of the past, but then you could also say that if players of the past had today's nutritional benefits and whatnot, they probably could of accomplished more things.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I think it's reasonable to believe or at least think that a 230 pound Barry could do more damage to the opposition than a 195-200 pound Barry. Can that be said with certainty I would say no, but a possibility.

Also, in regard to your closing sentence at this time we do not know for sure to what extent Barry used steroids, the reports might possibly contain some errors. Are we now going to debate how much he used, thats not the issue, it's did he or did he not.

In the end the only thing we are now aware of is that he did use some steroids, perhaps before the ban. Possibly he may challenge and prove those charges to be false, we shall see.

The bar keeps getting raised with Barry. We kept hearing how there was no proof that he ever used steroids. He was training 6 hours plus in the gym, that one is funny. Is that what turned him into the Hindenberg. Now when it appears that he did we keep hearing "so what" what about the corked bats, spit balls othe rule bending and breaking. Now you seem to challenge the reports because you believe if he did what they say he did he practically be disabled. I say lets wait and see, this may not be the end of the story.

It's a sad story, whether one likes or dislikes Barry a sad ending. One of the greatest ball players even with no steroids went down a path that will cause many to put some of his numbers in doubt, unsure where to rank him.

Thats the story, when and if he passes Ruth, maybe Aaron the sports channels and national news will not talk about the rule breaking of the past. You can be sure the word steroids will be a part of the story, linked to him even after he leaves the game.

Good post Joe.

The people who have always believed Bonds used, always met the wrath of "you have no proof, you have no proof." So now we have what appears to be the most concrete proof possible, short of an admittal or a secret video tape, and now we hear about corked bats, or how steroids don't help, or the legality isssue, or others were doing them, or even bringing up greenies. The word greenies was never brought up until all this came out. It was a non issue before. But it was something to grasp at, in an attempt to apologize for Bonds' alleged steroid use. At some point, the focus needs to stay on Bonds and how baseball shat the bed on this issue for the past 20 years.

[johncap]

Actually you could make a case that today's players are superior to players of the past,

I doubt you could, because unless you take isolated cases, when you lump in all the dreck and do an overall comparison of all MLB players of any given bygone era to today, today loses. Just look at all the guys who hang around with ERAs over 6. When you compare the best to the best, I take the classics such as Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, Carlton, Drysdale, Gibson, Koufax, over todays stars. They were just more complete, better schooled more disciplined and more consistent, in general. Of course I didn't go back to the 20, 30s or 40s. That's another whole set of comparisons that can be argued ad infinitum. I just don't by any statement that includes, "today's players are better than yesterday's"!

[GnomeansGno]

I doubt you could, because unless you take isolated cases, when you lump in all the dreck and do an overall comparison of all MLB players of any given bygone era to today, today loses. Just look at all the guys who hang around with ERAs over 6. When you compare the best to the best, I take the classics such as Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, Carlton, Drysdale, Gibson, Koufax, over todays stars. They were just more complete, better schooled more disciplined and more consistent, in general. Of course I didn't go back to the 20, 30s or 40s. That's another whole set of comparisons that can be argued ad infinitum. I just don't by any statement that includes, "today's players are better than yesterday's"!

You could easily make a case that today's league is stronger than the pre 1947 league, after that it would be tougher, more opinions than anythingelse.

Personally I think the strongest the league ever was the 1980's.

[Metal Ed]

If I'm not mistaken, Schedule 2 means it is more controlled by the government than schedule 3.

You know what, you are 100% right; I completely reversed the order of the two. Steroids are Schedule 3, which are less tightly regulated than schedule 2. Schedule 2 includes amphetamines. Sorry for the confusion.

According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_II_drugs

Schedule II drugs
Findings required:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
These drugs are only available by prescription, and distribution is carefully controlled and monitored by the DEA.

Drugs on this schedule include:

Cocaine (used as a topical anaesthetic);
Methylphenidate (Ritalin);
Most pure opioid agonists: Pethidine (INN) or meperidine (USAN), fentanyl, Hydromorphone, opium, oxycodone (the main ingredient in percocet and OxyContin), or morphine;
Short-acting barbiturates, such as secobarbital;
Amphetamines, except for injectable methamphetamine. Amphetamines were originally placed in Schedule III, but were moved to Schedule II in 1971. Injectable methamphetamine has always been in Schedule II;

Schedule III drugs
Findings required:

(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
These drugs are available only by prescription, though control of wholesale distribution is somewhat less stringent than Schedule II drugs.

Drugs on this schedule include:

Anabolic steroids;
Intermediate-acting barbiturates, such as talbutal;
Ketamine, a drug that was originally developed as a milder substitute for PCP (primarily to be used as a human anesthetic) but has since become popular as a veterinary anesthetic;
Paregoric;
Xyrem, a preparation of GHB used to treat narcolepsy. Xyrem is in Schedule III but with a restricted distribution system;
Marinol, a synthetic cannabinoid used to treat nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy, as well as appetite loss caused by AIDS;
Hydrocodone / Codeine, when compounded with an NSAID(e.g. Vicoprofen, when compounded with Ibuprofen) or with Acetaminophen (e.g. Vicodin / Tylenol 3);
Rohypnol (Flunitrazepam). Flunitrazepam was placed in Schedule IV in 1984 and moved to Schedule III in 1995, but the DEA is considering moving it into Schedule I because of widespread non-medical use, and the fact that flunitrazepam is not approved by the FDA. It is best known as a date rape drug but is also fairly widely used in recreational ways. Flunitrazepam is already classified as a Schedule I drug in several states.



Amphetamines are nasty stuff, according to wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamines

Short-term physiological effects include decreased appetite, increased stamina and physical energy, increased sexual drive/response, involuntary bodily movements, increased perspiration, hyperactivity, jitteriness, nausea, itchy, blotchy or greasy skin, increased heart rate, irregular heart rate, and headaches. Fatigue can often follow the dose's period of effectiveness. Overdose can be treated with chlorpromazine. [1]

Long-term abuse or overdose effects can include tremor, restlessness, changed sleep patterns, poor skin condition, hyperreflexia, tachypnea, gastrointestinal narrowing, and weakened immune system. Fatigue and depression can follow the excitement stage. Erectile dysfunction, heart problems, stroke, and liver, kidney and lung damage can result from prolonged use. When snorted, amphetamine can lead to a deterioration of the lining of the nostrils. Short-term psychological effects can include alertness, euphoria, increased concentration, rapid talking, increased confidence, increased social responsiveness, nystagmus (eye wiggles), hallucinations, and loss of REM sleep the night after use. Long-term psychological effects can include insomnia, mental states resembling schizophrenia, aggressiveness (not associated with schizophrenia), addiction or dependence with accompanying withdrawal symptoms, irritability, confusion, and panic. Chronic and/or extensively-continuous use can lead to amphetamine psychosis, which causes delusions and paranoia, but this is uncommon when taken as prescribed. Amphetamine is highly-psychologically addictive, and, with chronic use, tolerance develops very quickly. Withdrawal is, although not physiologically threatening, an unpleasant experience (including paranoia, depression, difficult breathing, dysphoria, gastric fluctuations and/or pain, and lethargia). This commonly leads chronic users to re-dose amphetamine frequently, explaining tolerance and increasing the possibility of addiction.

[edit]
Addiction
Because of the widespread ability in prescription amphetamine today, mainly in the ADD/ADHD medicines Adderall and Dexedrine, there is an increased risk of abuse and addiction among persons of all ages. Tolerance is developed rapidly in amphetamine use, therefore increasing amount of the drug that is needed to satisfy the addiction. Many abusers will repeat the amphetamine cycle by taking more of the drug during the withdrawal. This leads to a very dangerous cycle and may involve the use of other drugs to get over the withdrawal process.

Anyone is able to develope tolerance to amphetamines. Children and other ADD and ADHD sufferers have been known to feel different when not taking the medication, a feeling significantly different enough from being medicated that drives the users to keep taking the drug when it is not needed, however, addiction to ADD/ADHD medication is rare if it is not abused or wrongly prescribed.

[Metal Ed]

You could easily make a case that today's league is stronger than the pre 1947 league, after that it would be tougher, more opinions than anythingelse.

Personally I think the strongest the league ever was the 1980's.


I agree with you.

[Metal Ed]

It's a sad story, whether one likes or dislikes Barry a sad ending. One of the greatest ball players even with no steroids went down a path that will cause many to put some of his numbers in doubt, unsure where to rank him.




I agree, Shoeless. Imagine what his legacy could have been, had he not taken steroids. Think of it: underappreciated in his own time, as McGwire and Sosa got all the praise. Then their drug use would come to light, bringing them down; and Bonds, had he been clean, would have been re-evaluated in retrospect. He would have emerged as a hero, judged the superior ballplayer, underappreciated because he didn't have the power numbers of the steroid users. Now, few will remember how great he was before the drugs transformed him into something else. It's a sad story, but this was his choice. Say what you want to about "everyone does it" and "you have to do it to stay competitive"; that may be true for the journeyman who has been in and out of the minor leagues his whole career, but it certainly wasn't true for Barry Bonds.