Are Steroids A Major Threat to MLB?

[deadball-era-rules]

I'm hoping this survey gives a good show and discussion regarding everyone's attitude toward steroids in the game today. With no real punishments, regardless of what Selig says, steroids are a very real part of the game even today. What I'm interested in finding out is how you all feel about steroids in the game. Are they a major detriment or something to acknowledge and ignore (Which is the current trend being set by the commissioner). If we do decide they are a major threat, what do we do about it?

[Solrac]

Easy. Level the playing field.
Legalize steroids.
No more money wasted on drug testing and silly reports.
It will be a leveled playing field if anyone could legally use steroids.
It's part of the game now.

[deadball-era-rules]

I think that statement overlooks a lot of important factors.

1) What message does that send adolescent athletes? If kids start thinking they can use steroids to get to the top there will be rampant cases of teens using steroids and destroying their organs, stunting their growth, getting the idea that they can make it to the top without working really hard.

2) By 'silly reports' I assume you mean the Mitchell Report. That was a great piece of work. I give Sen. Mitchell a big pat on the back for his investigation. It was a disgrace that Bud Selig granted amnesty to every cheater listed in that report. It was Selig who turned what could have been a the beginning of a ground-breaking new chapter in baseball into nothing more than a 'silly report.'

3) It would also level the playing field if you completely eliminated steroids from MLB. I'm sure someone would argue that you can't cmpletely get rid of steroids. I do think that if the right setup is enforced then instances of cheating will be so rare it's all but completely wiped out. Even if baseball adopted a two strike policy where players could be banned for a shorter time the first time they're caught isn't going to be effective enough. Players will know that they can cheat until they're caught once and then they'll stop using, which helps nothing. Players know that if they can find a way to put up big numbers they'll make more money, so who cares if they get a suspension if they nab the big contract? A first offense lifetime ban is the only solution. Jose Guillen was caught with steroids after last season, but he didn't care, why? Because the Royals, even knowing that he had tested positive, signed Guillen to the highest contract of his career on the sam eday he was convicted. Of course the Royals signed him because they knew nothing would happen to Guillen, and it didn't. Selig absolved Guillen of his crime and there was Guillen in the outfield on Opening Day for the Royals. It's disgusting if you ask me.

4) It wouldn't level the playing field to allow steroids, because not every player would want to use them. It's effects on the body wouldn't be worth it to some players so you'd still have unbalanced competition unless you forced every player to take them, which would be illegal and immoral.

5) It's not like the major leagues don't have money to spend on drug testing. Where money is being wasted is on uncontrolled salary spending.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I think that statement overlooks a lot of important factors.

1) What message does that send adolescent athletes? If kids start thinking they can use steroids to get to the top there will be rampant cases of teens using steroids and destroying their organs, stunting their growth, getting the idea that they can make it to the top without working really hard.

2) By 'silly reports' I assume you mean the Mitchell Report. That was a great piece of work. I give Sen. Mitchell a big pat on the back for his investigation. It was a disgrace that Bud Selig granted amnesty to every cheater listed in that report. It was Selig who turned what could have been a the beginning of a ground-breaking new chapter in baseball into nothing more than a 'silly report.'

3) It would also level the playing field if you completely eliminated steroids from MLB. I'm sure someone would argue that you can't cmpletely get rid of steroids. I do think that if the right setup is enforced then instances of cheating will be so rare it's all but completely wiped out. Even if baseball adopted a two strike policy where players could be banned for a shorter time the first time they're caught isn't going to be effective enough. Players will know that they can cheat until they're caught once and then they'll stop using, which helps nothing. Players know that if they can find a way to put up big numbers they'll make more money, so who cares if they get a suspension if they nab the big contract? A first offense lifetime ban is the only solution. Jose Guillen was caught with steroids after last season, but he didn't care, why? Because the Royals, even knowing that he had tested positive, signed Guillen to the highest contract of his career on the sam eday he was convicted. Of course the Royals signed him because they knew nothing would happen to Guillen, and it didn't. Selig absolved Guillen of his crime and there was Guillen in the outfield on Opening Day for the Royals. It's disgusting if you ask me.

4) It wouldn't level the playing field to allow steroids, because not every player would want to use them. It's effects on the body wouldn't be worth it to some players so you'd still have unbalanced competition unless you forced every player to take them, which would be illegal and immoral.

5) It's not like the major leagues don't have money to spend on drug testing. Where money is being wasted is on uncontrolled salary spending.

That shoots that idea out of the discussion and I agree. Players that don't want any long term health problems, they don't want to use while others do, that will never fly.

Why doesn't every other sport use that logic, flawed logic, the heck with it, lets just make steroids legal, never happen.

[brewcrew82]

To tailor one of the answers, I'd like to see blood testing implemented though I don't necessarily agree that the first offense leads to a lifetime ban. I can't think of a sport that issues a lifetime ban for a first offense.
If they really want to clean up the game there needs to be a deterrent, but I feel "forever" is a little extreme.

[Williamsburg2599]

Easy. Level the playing field.
Legalize steroids.
No more money wasted on drug testing and silly reports.
It will be a leveled playing field if anyone could legally use steroids.
It's part of the game now.

A) It would not be level. It be whoever had the best "Doctor" and "Trainer".
B)Yes, let's instead waste money on dangerous drugs. Why do company drug test employees? They should just give everyone in the place drugs.....:hp
C)Gambling was once part of the game, and that has pretty much ended.


Anyways, this thread would be great if it was started two years ago. We've already decided steroids are a threat. While it's been slow, Selig finally has started making big steps.

[rockin500]

leave it as is, but with better testing. And steroids are NOT ruining the game.

[NJMetfan4life]

Stricter rules all the way!! Steroids are as evil as Mo Vaughn is fat!

[Solrac]

I think that statement overlooks a lot of important factors.

1) What message does that send adolescent athletes? If kids start thinking they can use steroids to get to the top there will be rampant cases of teens using steroids and destroying their organs, stunting their growth, getting the idea that they can make it to the top without working really hard.

That's why they have parents.
I know i won't use steroids.
And every grown man should be responsible for their own action and accept the consequences.
Besides "what would the kids think if they saw an old man questioning the umps decision and calls??"

2) By 'silly reports' I assume you mean the Mitchell Report. That was a great piece of work. I give Sen. Mitchell a big pat on the back for his investigation. It was a disgrace that Bud Selig granted amnesty to every cheater listed in that report. It was Selig who turned what could have been a the beginning of a ground-breaking new chapter in baseball into nothing more than a 'silly report.'

The Mitchell report was a bunch of 'he said she said'.

3) It would also level the playing field if you completely eliminated steroids from MLB. I'm sure someone would argue that you can't cmpletely get rid of steroids. I do think that if the right setup is enforced then instances of cheating will be so rare it's all but completely wiped out. Even if baseball adopted a two strike policy where players could be banned for a shorter time the first time they're caught isn't going to be effective enough. Players will know that they can cheat until they're caught once and then they'll stop using, which helps nothing. Players know that if they can find a way to put up big numbers they'll make more money, so who cares if they get a suspension if they nab the big contract? A first offense lifetime ban is the only solution. Jose Guillen was caught with steroids after last season, but he didn't care, why? Because the Royals, even knowing that he had tested positive, signed Guillen to the highest contract of his career on the sam eday he was convicted. Of course the Royals signed him because they knew nothing would happen to Guillen, and it didn't. Selig absolved Guillen of his crime and there was Guillen in the outfield on Opening Day for the Royals. It's disgusting if you ask me.

Then why are there "legal steroids"??
And if i'm not mistaking that if you pass the limit of steroid in your blood or something like that you get suspended.
So just use close enough not to be positive.

4) It wouldn't level the playing field to allow steroids, because not every player would want to use them. It's effects on the body wouldn't be worth it to some players so you'd still have unbalanced competition unless you forced every player to take them, which would be illegal and immoral.

And even if steroid is illegal not every player will stop using them thus no level playing field.

5) It's not like the major leagues don't have money to spend on drug testing. Where money is being wasted is on uncontrolled salary spending.

Money is being wasted on big contracts because we the fans demand HRs.

A) It would not be level. It be whoever had the best "Doctor" and "Trainer".
B)Yes, let's instead waste money on dangerous drugs. Why do company drug test employees? They should just give everyone in the place drugs.....:hp
C)Gambling was once part of the game, and that has pretty much ended.


Anyways, this thread would be great if it was started two years ago. We've already decided steroids are a threat. While it's been slow, Selig finally has started making big steps.

A) Right now it's still who has the best Doctor and Trainer
B) Again they test your steroid level to your blood or something.
Again just using enough not to be caught is what's happening.
C) Or has it??

[deadball-era-rules]

While it's been slow, Selig finally has started making big steps.

What big steps are you referring to? Maybe the 'slap on the wrist' policy that he implemented last season? I'm not only making a joke of the matter, what has Selig truly done in the past two or three years to curb the steroid scandal so much?

The Mitchell report was a bunch of 'he said she said'.
If that's the case Solrac, how come not one single player mentioned in the Mitchell Report bothered suing Mitchell for false accusations or damaging their careers?

And even if steroid is illegal not every player will stop using them thus no level playing field.
I already addresed that. If the policy is strict enough, that is to say, if the punishment is bad enough that risking getting caught isn't worth the benefits of juicing, players will quit using them.

if you pass the limit of steroid in your blood or something like that you get suspended.
Let's see some facts. I know nothing about a blood/alcohol-like test for steroids in baseball. You either test positive or negative. There is no 'well, he's sort of using steroids' ruling- and there shouldn't be either.

I really don't think that steroids are any less common than they wre ten years ago. While I do think that cases of big time users like McGwire and Bonds are fewer, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there are a lot of below the radar players juicing. When Senator Mitchell released his report, there were a huge number of nobody ballplayers on the list. I think steroids are still very much a part of the game, and I don't think that the decreases in some numbers like home run totals are necessarily hard proof that steroids aren't still rampant in the game.

The only reason that steroids aren't as in the spotlight as they were a year or two ago is because Selig sweeps them under the carpet (Jose Guillen for example) and the biggest faces from the initial shock of steroids are just now leaving the game completely (Bonds, Palmeiro, Clemens, McGwire).

[Zito75]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate just for sake of discussion... What harm does steroid use cause anyway? So far we have this:
1) Records are being broken at alarming rates
2) They are unethical/ immoral - not setting good examples for kids
3) Research has shown they may cause cancer/ other gland problems
4) They are being obtained illegally

On the flip side:
1) Attendance is setting records even during the slumping economy
2) TV ratings are strong, and in some cases, are getting better (HR Derby, for example)
3) Owners, for the most part, are signing record deals and are paying for marquee free agents
4) New stadiums are being constructed

I'd like to see some valid explanations on how 'roids are hurting the game- or how they are not... Let's see what you got!

[bob]

It may cost alot, but the only way to really tackle the steroid issue is to have every MLBer tested on a regular basis (monthly seems good enough). One positive and you are banned for x number of games and tested even more rigorously after. Get caught again and your out for good.

[White Knight]

I think that statement overlooks a lot of important factors.

1) What message does that send adolescent athletes? If kids start thinking they can use steroids to get to the top there will be rampant cases of teens using steroids and destroying their organs, stunting their growth, getting the idea that they can make it to the top without working really hard.

Except none of that is true.

[White Knight]

How about we do this: Keep it illegal in baseball (since it's illegal anywhere in the US), but never test anyone?

[sturg1dj]

if you look at home records vs. away records it would seem that amphetamines had more of an effect on the game than steroids.

[digglahhh]

The bad example argument is often selectively and disingenuously used in debates, but I will support it here - in one, simple, material way.

It is one thing to state that people are free to take whatever risks they want in their lives and go to extreme attempts to succeed. However, practically speaking, using will not become a choice but an imperative. If there is no disincentive to use it will become rampant to the point that all those who want to have a legit shot will need to use to compete. That's not a choice anymore. Once you're dropped onto a battlefield pacifism ceases to be an option.

You shouldn't have to decide between taking undue health risks and succeeding in a perfectly legal occupation. It's not a fair ultimatum to pose.

Obviously, many will fail to make it anyway and risk long term damage without ever reaching the goal that is supposed to make it all worth it.

[KCGHOST]

The current system seems to be working. With the penalty now up to 50 games for a first offense (I guess some would call that a slap-on-the-wrist) and the public release of the failed test we have reasonably stern penalties. The testing programs have been improved and are administered much more frequently.

BTW, surely we don't have to explain to everybody that there are steroids, like prednasone, that are medically approved for certain situations and conditions and do not have the "bulk up" capabilites of anabolic steroids.

[Brad Harris]

I suggest the following simple program...

Mandatory testing on bi-weekly basis in addition to four unscheduled tests per year
Offer privacy guarantees for players who voluntarily admit/quit usage
Verify compliance by clubs regarding zero tolerance PED policy
Expand testing to include most advanced/latest PEDs

Offense #1 = 90 days; Offense #2 = 1 year; Offense #3 = Lifetime Ban
No retroactive punishments

[White Knight]

Can some of you on the more anti-PED side please explain what we're gonna do when over-the-counter legal suppliments come out that are equal to (or at least close to) current PED's? Then what? We may be 10, 15, or even 30 years away from that, but that day is coming.

[digglahhh]

Can some of you on the more anti-PED side please explain what we're gonna do when over-the-counter legal suppliments come out that are equal to (or at least close to) current PED's? Then what? We may be 10, 15, or even 30 years away from that, but that day is coming.

My position is predicated almost entirely on not forcing aspiring players to risk their long term health in order to succeed, the legal standing or method of acquiring any substance that fits the bill is irrelevant. Legalization does nothing to address this - supplements being available over the counter only does so obliquely, in the sense that all products approve for over the counter sale are supposed to pass rather stringent safety requirements. If they were safe (and affordable) much of my the meat of my case would be rendered moot. I still wouldn't like it, just for reasons of personal preference and such, but I'd just have to chalk it up to times changing and technology evolving - thus I'd have to at least accept it.

[GiambiJuice]

I liked it better when everyone was juicing. The game was more exciting. But I think it should be outlawed due to the health issues caused by steroids.

[spark240]

Verify compliance by clubs regarding zero tolerance PED policy

I've felt for a long time that clubs (meaning ownership and general management, not on-field teams) should be penalized in some way whenever one of their players is found to be drugging.

[deadball-era-rules]

I've felt for a long time that clubs (meaning ownership and general management, not on-field teams) should be penalized in some way whenever one of their players is found to be drugging.
I think that is a brilliant idea. It would finally force clubowners to stop turning a blind eye and take responsibility for the goings on of their teams. Rather than having all the owners band together to hide the facts they'd quickly band together to root out the cheaters.

[wardawg]

My stand on the steriod issue is this, I could take all the steroids in the world but I still could not hit a minor leaguers fastball, let alone a major leaguers. My point is even if you juice, you still have to have alot of talent. The steroid problem is just one big witch hunt.

[deadball-era-rules]

Well, if we didn't hunt out the witches then we'd never be rid of them, haha.

While I am positive that steroids need to be taken out of the game, I'm really not 100% sure how to go about it. Here's my reasoning, please let me know if you see holes in this logic. First, the fundamental problem with steroids is that they give some players an advantage over others. That's obvious. Baseball thrives on the notion that all players are following the same rules and playing the same game. When steroids are introduced this becomes a big problem. This isn't the kind of cheating that Gaylord Perry practiced either. Steroids affect every aspect of a player's performance, so it's not like they're cheating every so often, it's every moment they're on the field.

Ok, now. How do we get rid of 'roids? I know this is extremely harsh, but I think that the only way to make sure that no one is going to cheat is to have the punishment for steroids be bad enough that players won't consider the benefits they gain from juicing worth it anymore. Put yourself in the players' shoes. If I'm on the verge of reaching the majors and boosting my salary from $100,000 to $2,000,000 steroids are looking like a really good option. These players don't care if they get a 50 or even season-long suspension when they just increased their salary twenty-fold, especially if they're players who know they don't have hall of fame credentials at risk. I think there are a lot more mediocre players using than stars for this reason. An immediate lifetime ban is definitely intense, but I think its the only way to be certain. You want the cheaters out, then that'll do it. Case closed. I don't know. That's just my logic at this point. I'm open to other ideas, but that seems like the best and most thorough option to me. There is the problem of rehabbing players getting caught with HGH, but I think that as long as they notified their team, got permission and had an MLB (Or some other appointed) doctor's referral first it would be fine. Then the real cheaters would have no defense because they couldn't make up some backtracking story about how they gained thirty pounds of muscle during their rehab session. MLB could monitor all the legal users and boot out all the dopers. Of course with those doctor referrals they'd all have to come from one guy I think, or at least a set panel of doctors, so you don't have Dr. Greg anderson just writing out prescriptions for any and all. Any thoughts mi amigos?

[White Knight]

My stand on the steriod issue is this, I could take all the steroids in the world but I still could not hit a minor leaguers fastball, let alone a major leaguers. My point is even if you juice, you still have to have alot of talent. The steroid problem is just one big witch hunt.

I absolutely agree with you 100%. You make more sense here with just 27 posts then some of the long-timers with thousands of posts.

[White Knight]

Well, if we didn't hunt out the witches then we'd never be rid of them, haha.

While I am positive that steroids need to be taken out of the game, I'm really not 100% sure how to go about it. Here's my reasoning, please let me know if you see holes in this logic. First, the fundamental problem with steroids is that they give some players an advantage over others. That's obvious. Baseball thrives on the notion that all players are following the same rules and playing the same game. When steroids are introduced this becomes a big problem. This isn't the kind of cheating that Gaylord Perry practiced either. Steroids affect every aspect of a player's performance, so it's not like they're cheating every so often, it's every moment they're on the field.

Ok, now. How do we get rid of 'roids? I know this is extremely harsh, but I think that the only way to make sure that no one is going to cheat is to have the punishment for steroids be bad enough that players won't consider the benefits they gain from juicing worth it anymore. Put yourself in the players' shoes. If I'm on the verge of reaching the majors and boosting my salary from $100,000 to $2,000,000 steroids are looking like a really good option. These players don't care if they get a 50 or even season-long suspension when they just increased their salary twenty-fold, especially if they're players who know they don't have hall of fame credentials at risk. I think there are a lot more mediocre players using than stars for this reason. An immediate lifetime ban is definitely intense, but I think its the only way to be certain. You want the cheaters out, then that'll do it. Case closed. I don't know. That's just my logic at this point. I'm open to other ideas, but that seems like the best and most thorough option to me. There is the problem of rehabbing players getting caught with HGH, but I think that as long as they notified their team, got permission and had an MLB (Or some other appointed) doctor's referral first it would be fine. Then the real cheaters would have no defense because they couldn't make up some backtracking story about how they gained thirty pounds of muscle during their rehab session. MLB could monitor all the legal users and boot out all the dopers. Of course with those doctor referrals they'd all have to come from one guy I think, or at least a set panel of doctors, so you don't have Dr. Greg anderson just writing out prescriptions for any and all. Any thoughts mi amigos?

But what if you don't believe steroids are cheating? Stay with me for one second. Let's say it's 1930. Some player coming out of the minors has decent talent. However, he is waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of his time. His name is Jack LaLane (alternate universe, where LaLane was a ball player). He lifts weights. He only eats exceptionally healthy. He is huge and sculpted (see young LaLane pics). That player with decent talent suddenly becomes the best power hitter in the league, and his speed doubles. Now, since no one else is lifting any weights (at least not as his level), and other players are eating hotdogs and drinking beer, wouldn't he be at an unfair advantage? Are steroids really that much more cheating than what this guy is doing? Remember, a proper diet, hiring a nutricionist and a personal trainer will make you better at sports. Isn't that a form of cheating also?

[Westlake]

Steroids are illegal. Maintaining a proper diet (and being sober) is not illegal.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

My stand on the steriod issue is this, I could take all the steroids in the world but I still could not hit a minor leaguers fastball, let alone a major leaguers. My point is even if you juice, you still have to have alot of talent. The steroid problem is just one big witch hunt.

One big witch hunt, your opinion.
I guess some other sports are also off base.

NFL has a steroid testing program. The NFL tripled the times a player could be tested. Players can be retested for new designer steroids that were peviously undetectable.

NBA since the 1999-2000 season, all tests random with no prior notice.

Get used to it, stop all the excuses......"you still have to hit the ball,"....."you still have to have talent" and all the rest.
It's here accept it, baseball is not the only sport that bans steroids. Just because the plan is not perfect means nothing, do the other sports have a perfect program. Waste of time to fight it, it's here and it's not going away.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

But what if you don't believe steroids are cheating? Stay with me for one second. Let's say it's 1930. Some player coming out of the minors has decent talent. However, he is waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of his time. His name is Jack LaLane (alternate universe, where LaLane was a ball player). He lifts weights. He only eats exceptionally healthy. He is huge and sculpted (see young LaLane pics). That player with decent talent suddenly becomes the best power hitter in the league, and his speed doubles. Now, since no one else is lifting any weights (at least not as his level), and other players are eating hotdogs and drinking beer, wouldn't he be at an unfair advantage? Are steroids really that much more cheating than what this guy is doing? Remember, a proper diet, hiring a nutricionist and a personal trainer will make you better at sports. Isn't that a form of cheating also?

A training program compared to chemical use, where is the comparison.

[digglahhh]

My stand on the steriod issue is this, I could take all the steroids in the world but I still could not hit a minor leaguers fastball, let alone a major leaguers. My point is even if you juice, you still have to have alot of talent. The steroid problem is just one big witch hunt.

With all due respect, our comparably pathetic athletic prowess is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Should you be allowed to cheat once you get into MIT, simply because you have to be damn smart to get admitted in the first place?

[deadball-era-rules]

Are steroids really that much more cheating than what this guy is doing? Remember, a proper diet, hiring a nutricionist and a personal trainer will make you better at sports. Isn't that a form of cheating also?

I can't believe that comparison was even made. Where steroids deviate from proper diet is that they make a person reach a physical potential that is not possible with regular training. You can reach a certain level of physical strength, speed, etc, but eventually you max it out. Steroids goes beyond what is humanly possible and that's why it is cheating. I don't know if you are aware of this, but players did excercise before Jack LaLane. Sure, there weren't weight training reimines like there are now, but players did keep in shape. Ty Cobb wore weighted boots and shoes during the offseason to strengthen his legs. Lou Gehrig was a frequent gym-goer. Plenty of players excercised years ago, so that argument is moot.

I'm kind of disappointed that my whole earlier argument was more or less overlooked because I thought there were some points that deserved valid discussion, not a bunch of 'steroids are here to stay, get over it' talk. The argument that you have to be talented anyway holds absolutely no water. Everyone has heard that excuse, but it's no different than a teacher saying 'Well, this student is already smarter than his/her peers, so let's just give them the test answers to begin with.' I really don't like hearing those kinds of arguments in favor of steroids because the logic is so off base. Are there any other anti-doping supporters out there who'd like to back me up in this?