The Barry Bonds Award

[bluejaysfan4ever]

How about it? It will replace the Hank Aaron Award once Bonds passes Hank in HR total.

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

[Elvis]

Won't happen. It will and should always be the Hank Aaron award.

They can give a Barry Bonds award for the biggest head or the biggest jerk in baseball each year. I can see it now. Kenny Rogers and Mr. Met would be the first winners.

[baseball junkie]

Under no circumstances should the award be re-named. And I say that not just because of his on-the-field play, which was amazing. America in the early 1970s was still firmly in the grip of racism and bigotry.

Aaron at times got hundreds of letters and phone calls a week, threatening his life and the lives of his family. But he silently persevered through all the adversity to become the All-Time Home Run Champ. Has anyone bothered to consider what might have happened if Aaron had gone to the press with the letters and phone calls?

Race riots?
NAACP boycot of MLB?
The end of integrated baseball?

All those things could have happened if Aaron hadn't silently carried that huge burden on his shoulders everytime he came to the plae.

[DownUnderDodger]

Barry still has to pass Hank's record before anyone can even consider something like this......there is no guarantee of that!!

[Ytown Tribe fan]

It should really be named after the greatest hitter there ever was:

http://andrewfalconer.com/neifi/neifi_legend.gif

[Mattingly]

It should really be named after the greatest hitter there ever was:

http://andrewfalconer.com/neifi/neifi_legend.gif
Neifi Perez (http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/perezne01.shtml)?

Yeah, those 61 jacks over the first 10 years is truly awe-inspiring.

http://www.wildcardsports.com/images/Zambrano.jpg

[Captain Cold Nose]

Aaron holds both the home run and RBI records. That's just the surface. He also retired with the second highest career hits total. Home runs are only one (a big one, but still only one) aspect of why the award is named after Aaron.

[jpenrod]

How about it? It will replace the Hank Aaron Award once Bonds passes Hank in HR total.

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

As CCN said, until Bonds passes Aaron in HR (755), RBI (2297), Avg (.305), Hits (3775), Runs (2174), and Total Bases (6856) trhis is something that will not even be considered.

In case you are wondering where Barry stands on thos stats:

HR ~ 722 (33 behind)
RBI ~ 1897 (400 behind)
AVG ~ .299 (6 points behind)
Hits ~ 2796 (979 behind)
Runs ~ 2124 (50 behind)
TB ~ 5692 (1164 behind)

He MAY pass Aaron on HR and Runs, but I do not see him catching the others so there is really no reason to rename the award for the BEST HITTER after Barry Bonds.

[Erik Bedard]

When I opened this thread, I expected it to be a discussion of "Who's the biggest jerk in baseball whose name does not start with "B" and end with "Arry Bonds". Now I'm disappointed.

Aaron DEALT WITH racism and bigotry. Bonds has SUPPLIED it. You'll tend to not want to name your awards after total jerks, unless the award is about "Who's the biggest jerk?"

[Brownie31]

When I opened this thread, I expected it to be a discussion of "Who's the biggest jerk in baseball whose name does not start with "B" and end with "Arry Bonds". Now I'm disappointed.

Aaron DEALT WITH racism and bigotry. Bonds has SUPPLIED it. You'll tend to not want to name your awards after total jerks, unless the award is about "Who's the biggest jerk?"

If MLB starts a B*rry B*nds award, maybe they should
also start a Chick Gandil award and an Arnold Rothstein
award!

Brownie31

[TheKingofKings]

How about it? It will replace the Hank Aaron Award once Bonds passes Hank in HR total.

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

No the Bonds award is for the player who cheats the most in his decade , get it straight dude .

[Erik Bedard]

No the Bonds award is for the player who cheats the most in his decade , get it straight dude .

:laugh :laugh :laugh

I thought that was the Palmeiro awards? Or was that for the biggest liar?

[KCGHOST]

The Bonds Award should be reserved for the player who makes the best use of pharmaceuticals.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

MLB should be ashamed they don't have a Babe Ruth award. Having said that, the second best thing imo, is having a Hank Aaron award. Having said that, the absolute worst thing would be having a Barry Bonds award. Makes no sense unless its awarded to the player with the largest hat size in the league.

[Erik Bedard]

Makes no sense unless its awarded to the player with the largest hat size in the league.

That would be the Kevin Mench award.

[hogwashed]

Yeah why take away the award from Aaron and give it to Barry. I'm sure Aaron wasn't cheating by doing copious quantities of amphetamines.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Hello again TDM :waving

[Captain Cold Nose]

Yeah why take away the award from Aaron and give it to Barry. I'm sure Aaron wasn't cheating by doing copious quantities of amphetamines.
Ok, so they're even in that regard. But it'll take more than the HR record, as jpenrod pointed out so nicely, for Bonds to be worthy of having the award named after him.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

That would be the Kevin Mench award.

Yeah, lets just be glad they don't have a Travis Hafner award. If you don't get that, don't worry, you're better off ;)

[Skin & Bones]

They probably should rename the MVP award after him, given the amount he has. I've said the samething for Clemens when it comes to the cyyoung award. All and All, these " awards " named after legends is IMO, overrated.

[soberdennis]

MLB should be ashamed they don't have a Babe Ruth award. Having said that, the second best thing imo, is having a Hank Aaron award. Having said that, the absolute worst thing would be having a Barry Bonds award. Makes no sense unless its awarded to the player with the largest hat size in the league.
I always thoughjt that the Ruth Award and the WS MVP were the same. Thanks for setting me straight on that.
I agree that if they name a serious award after Bonds, it should be the MVP award.

[yankeefan61*]

I think the awards should be named for the feat and not the player. For example, the outstanding pitching award. This may sound lame but It could work. Also, They should not name it after Barry. Hank Aaron was an amazing player and he didn't cheat

[Skin & Bones]

I think the awards should be named for the feat and not the player. For example, the outstanding pitching award. This may sound lame but It could work. Also, They should not name it after Barry. Hank Aaron was an amazing player and he didn't cheat

He didn't cheat, but he used amphetamines.

[Erik Bedard]

I think the awards should be named for the feat and not the player. For example, the outstanding pitching award. This may sound lame but It could work. Also, They should not name it after Barry. Hank Aaron was an amazing player and he didn't cheat
Greenies??

[BoofBonser26]

Yeah, lets just be glad they don't have a Travis Hafner award. If you don't get that, don't worry, you're better off ;)
Watcha mean? Seriously? Pronk is my guess...

[TheKingofKings]

:laugh :laugh :laugh

I thought that was the Palmeiro awards? Or was that for the biggest liar?

Ding !!! Ding !!! Ding !!! We have a winner here (Barry and Palmeiro are nominated this year for their induction in the HOShame)

[jpenrod]

Greenies??

http://www.projectradiantlight.com/yabbfiles/Smilies/rant.gif

OK Erik, you are not the first to mention it in this thread, but you do seem to have a little more experience here than others so I will ask this to you. What is your basis for saying Aaron used greenies?

It seems that anytime someone mentions that Aaron did not cheat someone blindly throws out greenies as if there is some strong evidence he took them. I realize they were rampant when he was playing but we do not live in Salem and we are not talking about witches.

From I Had A hammer: The Hank Aaron Story by Hank Aaron with Lonnie Wheeler

Actually the 1968 season wasn't the best time to present my case. It was the first time since my rookie year that I didn't drive in or scored 100 runs. I was so frustrated that at one point I tried using a pep pill-a greenie-that one of my teamates gave me. When that thing took hold, I thought I was having a heart attack. It was a stupid thing to do, and besides that, I shouldn't have been so concerned about my hittin in the first place. Nobody was hitting in 1968. That was the year of the pitcher - Drysdale's streak of scoreless innings and Bob Gibson's 1.12 earned run average.

I am not saying that I believe everything a player says, but when you read his book you get the impression that he is strongly against the use of greenies or anything like that. So I can say with confidence he took the once, beyond that from his writing Idoubt he ever did it again.

I have been asked before if I believe that he never did them agian and my answer is simply, yes that is what I believe. Why would he even mention doing a greenie one time and then then deny ever doing them again? what would he have to gain? why not just say he never did them? Unless there is something else that would indicate that he was a constant user (which I have not seen) I wonder why people keep throwing those accusations out there?

http://www.novajeepers.com/images/smiles/icon_rant.gif

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I always thoughjt that the Ruth Award and the WS MVP were the same. Thanks for setting me straight on that.


Wouldn't think of doing such a thing.

Well, they haven't given one out since 2002, when Eckstein "won" it. Doesn't exactly get mentioned. Its referred to as exactly that; the WS MVP. It hardly represents what a Babe Ruth Award should signify imo.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Watcha mean? Seriously? Pronk is my guess...

Yeah. Half man, half donkey. Nough said.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Greenies??

So... if taking greenies is cheating... what should the award be named?

[Ytown Tribe fan]

The annual Pronkies are awarded to the best player in each league who is not selected for the All Star team.

But Pronk likely will be selected, eventually.

Rogers Hornsby never was, but he was about through when the first modern ASG was played in 1933.

It would take a bit of research to find the very best player ever who never made an ASG appearance, starting in 1933.

[Blackout]

MLB should be ashamed they don't have a Babe Ruth


then what did Jeter win in 2000?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hutch_gehrig_ruth_clemente.shtml

[jpenrod]

then what did Jeter win in 2000?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hutch_gehrig_ruth_clemente.shtml

The Babe Ruth Award was the WS MVP award. That title was discontinued after 2002. end result, MLB currently has no Babe Ruth Award.

[Skin & Bones]

http://www.projectradiantlight.com/yabbfiles/Smilies/rant.gif

OK Erik, you are not the first to mention it in this thread, but you do seem to have a little more experience here than others so I will ask this to you. What is your basis for saying Aaron used greenies?

It seems that anytime someone mentions that Aaron did not cheat someone blindly throws out greenies as if there is some strong evidence he took them. I realize they were rampant when he was playing but we do not live in Salem and we are not talking about witches.

From I Had A hammer: The Hank Aaron Story by Hank Aaron with Lonnie Wheeler



I am not saying that I believe everything a player says, but when you read his book you get the impression that he is strongly against the use of greenies or anything like that. So I can say with confidence he took the once, beyond that from his writing Idoubt he ever did it again.

I have been asked before if I believe that he never did them agian and my answer is simply, yes that is what I believe. Why would he even mention doing a greenie one time and then then deny ever doing them again? what would he have to gain? why not just say he never did them? Unless there is something else that would indicate that he was a constant user (which I have not seen) I wonder why people keep throwing those accusations out there?

http://www.novajeepers.com/images/smiles/icon_rant.gif


Ok, then change it to " greenie ". But we do have proof he used a drug, and the reason for it is because he was slumping. So he was clearly looking to enhance his performance.

[jpenrod]

Ok, then change it to " greenie ". But we do have proof he used a drug, and the reason for it is because he was slumping. So he was clearly looking to enhance his performance.

Yes he used it one time, hated the expeirence said it was a stupid thing to do, but that is a far cry what most people try to lead you to believe. Your post earlier was a simple one

He didn't cheat but he did use amphetamines

the message a post like that sends is that Aaron's records and performance throughout his career is questionable because he did not do it naturally. I just think that is a questionable accusation to throw out there when you have absolutely 100% no proof he ever even got a single hit while using amphetamines. I personally think it is not a fair, wise, informed statement.

[Erik Bedard]

I put two question marks after it, because I wasn't sure that you could completely, without a doubt say "Hank Aaron didn't cheat". I was just pointing out that greenie use was huge in Aaron's day, just like steroid use is today. I wasn't trying to state that he had, without a doubt, used them, which is why I added the question marks.

[tommybaseball]

I think that Bonds should have an award but it should not in any way replace the Hank Aaron award, nor should Barry Bonds name be mentioned in any sentence that includes Hank Aaron's name. I watched Hank Aaron play. I rooted for Hank Aaron to break Babe Ruth's record and I rank Babe Ruth as one of, if not the greatest player of All-Time. Hank Aaron's plight made me socially concious. Baseball was secondary to what this man had to endure.
If an award is ever to be named for Barry Bonds, it should be given out at some event like the ESPY's. This is what it should look like:

[Skin & Bones]

Yes he used it one time, hated the expeirence said it was a stupid thing to do, but that is a far cry what most people try to lead you to believe. Your post earlier was a simple one



the message a post like that sends is that Aaron's records and performance throughout his career is questionable because he did not do it naturally. I just think that is a questionable accusation to throw out there when you have absolutely 100% no proof he ever even got a single hit while using amphetamines. I personally think it is not a fair, wise, informed statement.

the message a post like that sends is that Aaron's records and performance throughout his career is questionable because he did not do it naturally. I just think that is a questionable accusation to throw out there when you have absolutely 100% no proof he ever even got a single hit while using amphetamines. I personally think it is not a fair, wise, informed statement

Well, you took it the wrong way. In no way shape or form was I insinuating that Aaron's records are tainted. But he did indeed use drugs because he wanted to enhance his performance, him supposedly not benefitting from them doesn't change his intentions.

[DownUnderDodger]

Reading this thread perhaps it is best not to have any award named after any player, given that whomever the player mentioned is he is accused of using, cheating, or whatever. They must all be users and cheats in baseball??? :confused:

[Chris from NY]

It is a great honour for the award to be named after Aaron, and under no circumstances should it change. Bonds, or anyone for that matter, should have that honour placed upon them just because they were able to rub up against the benchmark Aaron set.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

then what did Jeter win in 2000?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hutch_gehrig_ruth_clemente.shtml

He won something that doesn't exist anymore, and even when it did exist, nobody referred to it as "The Babe Ruth Award" the way they do with "The Cy Young" award. Seemed like a lame token. He's deserving of something better imo.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ok, then change it to " greenie ". But we do have proof he used a drug, and the reason for it is because he was slumping. So he was clearly looking to enhance his performance.

Pretty much the entire league has been taking greenies over the past however many years. Buckets of them. Coffee pots full of them. Greenies aren't a problem imo. Its something to get them through the grind of a long season. If they're 65%, it helps them feel 100% temporarily. The record book wasn't destroyed by greenies.

You bring up intentions. So no matter what level of gaining an edge, you see it all the same because of intentions? What happened to impact? Our world revolves around impact to determine what level something was at. Ty Cobb was pretty sly when he'd kick the bag a couple times while talking to a fielder or just messin with the dirt, but his intention was to move the bag closer to the next base. Even 3 or 4 inches could mean being safe or out. He was trying to gain an edge, but on the scale of historical impact, it hardly registers. Yet you'd compare that act with steroids because of intent?

[ESPNFan]

Pretty much the entire league has been taking greenies over the past however many years. Buckets of them. Coffee pots full of them. Greenies aren't a problem imo. Its something to get them through the grind of a long season. If they're 65%, it helps them feel 100% temporarily. The record book wasn't destroyed by greenies.

You bring up intentions. So no matter what level of gaining an edge, you see it all the same because of intentions? What happened to impact? Our world revolves around impact to determine what level something was at. Ty Cobb was pretty sly when he'd kick the bag a couple times while talking to a fielder or just messin with the dirt, but his intention was to move the bag closer to the next base. Even 3 or 4 inches could mean being safe or out. He was trying to gain an edge, but on the scale of historical impact, it hardly registers. Yet you'd compare that act with steroids because of intent?


Buster Olney had said when the Jason Grimsley case blew up that the amphetamines ban allowed the players to see that "greenies" were simply providing a placebo effect and had moved on to other legal substances to get a bit of energy before a game. But the thing everyone seems to consistantly overlook is that the initial use of amphetamines was the product of a long season wearing players down, not a desire to cheat because not only were there were no rules, baseball or otherwise, agisnt them but they were an accepted medisinal aid for a varitey of ailments. Over time they became part of the fabric of the game and it took a policy agisnt them for the players to realise the truth about how little they help and how much they can potentially hurt a player.

[Skin & Bones]

Pretty much the entire league has been taking greenies over the past however many years. Buckets of them. Coffee pots full of them. Greenies aren't a problem imo. Its something to get them through the grind of a long season. If they're 65%, it helps them feel 100% temporarily. The record book wasn't destroyed by greenies.

You bring up intentions. So no matter what level of gaining an edge, you see it all the same because of intentions? What happened to impact? Our world revolves around impact to determine what level something was at. Ty Cobb was pretty sly when he'd kick the bag a couple times while talking to a fielder or just messin with the dirt, but his intention was to move the bag closer to the next base. Even 3 or 4 inches could mean being safe or out. He was trying to gain an edge, but on the scale of historical impact, it hardly registers. Yet you'd compare that act with steroids because of intent?

Pretty much the entire league has been taking greenies over the past however many years. Buckets of them. Coffee pots full of them. Greenies aren't a problem imo. Its something to get them through the grind of a long season. If they're 65%, it helps them feel 100% temporarily. The record book wasn't destroyed by greenies.


Oh, there have been records shattered. They've just been used so long that it's impact is less noticeable than the other drug that supposedly became rampant recently. There was a study done by Baseball Prospectus that came to the conclusion that power spikes were actually a bit more frequent in the " amphetamines " ERA than the " Steroid Era ". Maybe you should check that out.

Oh, and I'm sorry, but I'm going to take the opinions of Professional Ballplayers over yours. Like the one who comes on this board ( Read some of his thread, interesting stuff). He seems to believe they do a hell of a lot more than " help you get through the grind of a season ". And considering the fact he deals with this stuff pretty much on a daily basis, I'll go with his opinion over yours.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=494256&postcount=11

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=494444&postcount=28

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=494926&postcount=62

You bring up intentions. So no matter what level of gaining an edge, you see it all the same because of intentions? What happened to impact? Our world revolves around impact to determine what level something was at. Ty Cobb was pretty sly when he'd kick the bag a couple times while talking to a fielder or just messin with the dirt, but his intention was to move the bag closer to the next base. Even 3 or 4 inches could mean being safe or out. He was trying to gain an edge, but on the scale of historical impact, it hardly registers. Yet you'd compare that act with steroids because of intent?[/

No, but if he corked his bat, injected himself with testesrone, Or used greenies, I could damn well compare it to steroids.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Buster Olney had said when the Jason Grimsley case blew up that the amphetamines ban allowed the players to see that "greenies" were simply providing a placebo effect and had moved on to other legal substances to get a bit of energy before a game. But the thing everyone seems to consistantly overlook is that the initial use of amphetamines was the product of a long season wearing players down, not a desire to cheat because not only were there were no rules, baseball or otherwise, agisnt them but they were an accepted medisinal aid for a varitey of ailments. Over time they became part of the fabric of the game and it took a policy agisnt them for the players to realise the truth about how little they help and how much they can potentially hurt a player.

Spot on. Any comparison to steroids is a blatant attempt to excuse the roid users imo.

Haven't seen you post in awhile ESPN. Good to see ya back.

[hogwashed]

who's comparing steroids to greenies tho??????

Greenies do better your performance to a high degree. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. you perform better. I don't know how else to put it. I don't know anyone who compares greenies to roids. both do different things.

[Skin & Bones]

Spot on. Any comparison to steroids is a blatant attempt to excuse the roid users imo.

Haven't seen you post in awhile ESPN. Good to see ya back.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

who's comparing steroids to greenies tho??????

Greenies do better your performance to a high degree. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. you perform better. I don't know how else to put it. I don't know anyone who compares greenies to roids. both do different things.

You could make that statement and I would agree that when someone is feeling tired and sore, greenies can help him feel much better. So in that sense, they would enhance your performance from what it would otherwise be.

They both not only do different things, but the magnitude of those different things is MUCH different as well.

[hogwashed]

Even when your not feeling tired and sore. Though I agree that when tired and sore they help even more. you literally feel like you never worked out so hard, as if the past few hours of whatever sport you played never happened. They can also improve fast twitch muscle responses. you keep bringing up steroids, again I don't know much about them. But I do know a hell of alot about greenies, and they sure as hell work.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Greenies do not do a single thing to your muscle fibers, and if you're feeling 100% (which no serious ballplayer ever feels), they aren't much help outside of the psychological effect.

[hogwashed]

whatever dude. believe what you want.

[Skin & Bones]

whatever dude. believe what you want.

Some people do believe what they want. Despite the facts saying otherwise.

Here's some more evidence about amphetamines enhancing performance.

To many anti-doping experts, as well as players, there is no question that amphetamines enhance performance. A landmark 1960 study at Harvard University found that among swimmers, throwers and runners given amphetamines, 75% of the athletes showed improvement in their performances.


"Yes, they actually work," Wadler said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/260756p-223278c.html

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Is this one still alive, greenies and steroids. Yes greenies can give you a temporary boost but steroids build can add bulk and muscle, add body weight, increase strength.

Take your pick, what would be more dangerous in the batters box, Barry on greenies or Barry on steroids. Come on guys, the guy turned into the Hindenberg.
I doubt most are saying greenies were OK to use but lets come back to the real world. If one were foolish enough, had no concern about the potential hazards of both, what would most choose the quick short term boost from greenies or steroids, increased strength that stay with one.

Greenies sure can increase alertness but can also cause insomnia, dizziness, nervousness, hallucinations and lack of coordination.

[Skin & Bones]

Is this one still alive, greenies and steroids. Yes greenies can give you a temporary boost but steroids build can add bulk and muscle, add body weight, increase strength.

Take your pick, what would be more dangerous in the batters box, Barry on greenies or Barry on steroids. Come on guys, the guy turned into the Hindenberg.
I doubt most are saying greenies were OK to use but lets come back to the real world. If one were foolish enough, had no concern about the potential hazards of both, what would most choose the quick short term boost from greenies or steroids, increased strength that stay with one.

Greenies sure can increase alertness but can also cause insomnia, dizziness, nervousness, hallucinations and lack of coordination.

The thing is, according to people who've used and benefitted from greenies, they don't just provide a " extra boost ". Them supposedly helping less than the juice, is irrelavant. They have been proven to enhance performance. And yes, they have negative side-effects, so do steroids.

[Elvis]

They have been proven to enhance performance. And yes, they have negative side-effects, so do steroids.

You can say the same thing about Red Bull.

[ESPNFan]

Spot on. Any comparison to steroids is a blatant attempt to excuse the roid users imo.

Haven't seen you post in awhile ESPN. Good to see ya back.

Good to be back, been incredibly busy at work and finally got some free time again. Thanks:waving

[ESPNFan]

Some people do believe what they want. Despite the facts saying otherwise.

Here's some more evidence about amphetamines enhancing performance.

To many anti-doping experts, as well as players, there is no question that amphetamines enhance performance. A landmark 1960 study at Harvard University found that among swimmers, throwers and runners given amphetamines, 75% of the athletes showed improvement in their performances.


"Yes, they actually work," Wadler said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/260756p-223278c.html

Thats great but most of the sports in the study had significant endurance/ cardiovascular elements to them...
A landmark 1960 study at Harvard University found that among swimmers, throwers and runners given amphetamines, 75% of the athletes showed improvement in their performances
Not to mention this test took place 40 years ago and that that both a leading PED scientist and the man who alerted the public to speed use in baseball believe that they don't give a baseball player a significant boost over thier basebline natural peak ability.

"There is no doubt in my mind that amphetamines are performance enhancers," he said.

But Yesalis suggested the research has raised as many questions as it has answered.

"I can clearly tell you how anabolic steroids improve performance in baseball, but I can't make a strong case for amphetamines being performance enhancing," he said. "It's more of an enabler."

Several generations of players agreed. Bouton said he used amphetamines only once because they made him too jumpy.

"They never allow a player to compete above his natural ability," Bouton said. "They enable him to compete at his natural ability."
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2005/04/17/baseball_slow_to_act_on_use_of_speed?pg=6

Also these drugs effect the users perceptions. Not only do you get a feeling of euphoria but there is a dependancy created that, with longterm use actually degrades perfomance over time while the user thinks they are performing better than ever.
Amphetamine side effects:


More common
Anxiety; crying; depersonalization; dry mouth; dysphoria; euphoria; fast, pounding, or irregular heartbeat or pulse; hyperventilation ; irritability; mental depression ; nervousness; paranoia ; quick to react or overreact emotionally; rapidly changing moods; restlessness ; shaking; shortness of breath; trouble sleeping


Less common
Chills; cold flu-like symptoms; cough or hoarseness; difficult or labored breathing; lower back or side pain; painful or difficult urination; tightness in chest; wheezing


Rare
Chest pain; fever, unusually high; skin rash or hives; uncontrolled movements of head, neck, arms, and legs


With long-term use or high doses
Difficulty in breathing; dizziness or feeling faint; increased blood pressure; mood or mental changes; pounding heartbeat ; unusual tiredness or weakness

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202031.html
An argumanet can easily be made that longterm Amphetamine use actually degrades ability and more than counteracts any short term benefits they might give.

Not to mention that more and more people are turning to other stimulants like taurine and guarana to fill their need for a quick lift legally.

These are problems that can happen with your first use, where as some Steroid side effects could take years to materialise.

[Skin & Bones]

Thats great but most of the sports in the study had significant endurance/ cardiovascular elements to them...

Not to mention this test took place 40 years ago and that that both a leading PED scientist and the man who alerted the public to speed use in baseball believe that they don't give a baseball player a significant boost over thier basebline natural peak ability.


http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2005/04/17/baseball_slow_to_act_on_use_of_speed?pg=6

Also these drugs effect the users perceptions. Not only do you get a feeling of euphoria but there is a dependancy created that, with longterm use actually degrades perfomance over time while the user thinks they are performing better than ever.
Amphetamine side effects:



http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202031.html
An argumanet can easily be made that longterm Amphetamine use actually degrades ability and more than counteracts any short term benefits they might give.

Not to mention that more and more people are turning to other stimulants like taurine and guarana to fill their need for a quick lift legally.

These are problems that can happen with your first use, where as some Steroid side effects could take years to materialise.

That's fantastic and all, but does nothing to prove my point wrong. They enhance performance, and have negative side-effects as do steroids. Posting articles telling me that it's negative side-effects outweights it's benefits doesn't tell me something I didn't already know. Anyone can do the same with steroids.

BTW, while I was perusing a thread where a professional ballplayer was debating with someone about this stuff, I came across a few links.

Enjoy.
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=497495&postcount=111

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=497539&postcount=117

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=497582&postcount=122

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=495799&postcount=88

The bottom of the last link I posted asks a question to someone about amphetamines really killing people. Interestingly enough, the question was never anwsered, the names of five people.

[ESPNFan]

That's fantastic and all, but does nothing to prove my point wrong. They enhance performance, and have negative side-effects as do steroids. Posting articles telling me that it's negative side-effects outweights it's benefits doesn't tell me something I didn't already know. Anyone can do the same with steroids.

BTW, while I was perusing a thread where a professional ballplayer was debating with someone about this stuff, I came across a few links.

Enjoy.
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=497495&postcount=111

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=497539&postcount=117

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=497582&postcount=122

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=495799&postcount=88

The bottom of the last link I posted asks a question to someone about amphetamines really killing people. Interestingly enough, the question was never anwsered, the names of five people.

Congratulations on learning the search feature. Keep searching the site and you'll see that I have already stated my opinion on this subject with plenty of evidence to back it up. Now if you want the answer to the last question, try searching for amphetamines related sports deaths for your answer.

Have fun.