Sources: A-Rod tested positive for steroids in '03

[imb]

maybe someone can fill me in here (that's what she said) but what is the difference in purpose between something like, say, creatine and steroids. Obviously steroids are illegal and more potent, but isn't the purpose basically the same? Both are supplements that help someone get more out of the their workouts, except one you can buy at friggin walmart and the other makes sportswriters hate you.

 

all these tears about "THEY'RE NOT DOING IT NATURALLY" ring sort of hollow when these guys can theoretically pump thousands of dollars of legal supplements into their bodies and work out 20 hours a week if they want to. That's not "natural" either.

[USSoccer]

maybe someone can fill me in here (that's what she said) but what is the difference in purpose between something like, say, creatine and steroids. Obviously steroids are illegal and more potent, but isn't the purpose basically the same? Both are supplements that help someone get more out of the their workouts, except one you can buy at friggin walmart and the other makes sportswriters hate you.

 

all these tears about "THEY'RE NOT DOING IT NATURALLY" ring sort of hollow when these guys can theoretically pump thousands of dollars of legal supplements into their bodies and work out 20 hours a week if they want to. That's not "natural" either.

 

I think this is primarily an issue for people who have some sort of fairy tale notion of athletics and baseball. The people that tear up at Billy Crystal-narrated histories of the game. Basically baby boomers who idolize "the way things were" and such, who grew up hearing stories about the 1929 Yankees and watching Mickey Mantle and such.

 

Applying any modicum of critical thinking leads to the conclusion that if you believe usage was widespread, the playing field was relatively even, and cheating in baseball isn't anything new.

[Wilson A2000]

maybe someone can fill me in here (that's what she said) but what is the difference in purpose between something like, say, creatine and steroids. Obviously steroids are illegal and more potent, but isn't the purpose basically the same? Both are supplements that help someone get more out of the their workouts, except one you can buy at friggin walmart and the other makes sportswriters hate you.

 

all these tears about "THEY'RE NOT DOING IT NATURALLY" ring sort of hollow when these guys can theoretically pump thousands of dollars of legal supplements into their bodies and work out 20 hours a week if they want to. That's not "natural" either.

 

There is a big difference between the results creatine will give and the results anabolic steroids will bring. They aren't on the same level. I realize that it is a subjective process in determining what is banned and not banned, but the rules are the rules. Fine, the MLB did not impose punishments for taking steroids until 2003. But if you are going to take steroids and profit off of them (possibly extending your career and taking down cherished records), then you also have to be responsible for the poor persona you are going to acquire. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That is why the baseball writers and veterans committe might not vote a number of the high-profile steroid users in. And it is tough to disagree with a veterans committee member not voting Big Mac in someday when they know that he did something baseball said not to do in order to have the HR record for a time. McGwire had his day in the sun, now he will spend his days in the dark.

[wade]

maybe someone can fill me in here (that's what she said) but what is the difference in purpose between something like, say, creatine and steroids. Obviously steroids are illegal and more potent, but isn't the purpose basically the same? Both are supplements that help someone get more out of the their workouts, except one you can buy at friggin walmart and the other makes sportswriters hate you.

 

all these tears about "THEY'RE NOT DOING IT NATURALLY" ring sort of hollow when these guys can theoretically pump thousands of dollars of legal supplements into their bodies and work out 20 hours a week if they want to. That's not "natural" either.

 

I said this in the Sosa thread- big, big difference between creatine and steroids. Both in results and side effects, not to mention legality.

 

That said, I think I get what you're saying - isn't laser eye surgery 'performence enhancing'?

[imb]

I know there's a big difference between creatine and other supplements and steroids, but there's a big difference between creatine and other supplements and not taking anything, too. No one is going to flip if you go drop a paycheck at GNC and work out 20 hours in the gym, but if you take steroids all of a sudden everything you've done in the game is negated. Never mind the fact that it's just a really powerful supplement.

 

I turned on the radio today and some yahoo.com sports editorialist was literally about to pee in his pants freaking out about what a disgrace ARod is now and how he didn't come by his numbers naturally etc etc etc. But none of these guys are natural (outside of maybe david wells). You can pump a thousand dollars worth of legal supplements into your body and hit the gym and win MVPs and everyone will worship you and you'll be a hero or you can pump steroids into your system and STILL Have to hit the gym, but if you get caught you're enemy No. 1.

 

If people want to twist their panties about it, complain about the players breaking the law and shut up.

[Wilson A2000]

The reason that Barry Bonds hit the home runs he did is not because he worked out hard. He always did that. He hit the number he did at the end of his career because he was on steroids. Yes you still have to work out to get the benefits of steroids, but they give you so much more than the typical gym rat will get.

[imb]

what i'm saying is that why is that wrong? well, i know why it's wrong, because it's illegal. but no one harps on bonds for breaking the law, they harp on him for cheating.

 

steroids give you much more of a boost than a legal supplement, but the right combination of legal supplements gives you much more of a boost than just buying $10 creatine at wal mart. If player a hits 30 home runs and does it by taking nothing and doing 500 push ups every day, and player b hits 50 home runs while running 500 dollars worth of legal supplements into his veins before every game, no one is going to give him a hard time for not doing it naturally, even though he's just as "un-natural" as someone who uses steroids.

 

i guess my issue is the legality of steroids and how people react to users.

[wade]

IMB, I get you for the most part. In fact, I don't get all 'throw 'em out of baseball' when someone's caught. If they have a rule in effect, and enforce it, then whatever.

 

But, it's a slippery slope from supplements to hormone replacement. That's why the supps are legal-

[bcl412]

IMB is making some good points and it is one of the reasons I find it hard to get all worked up over the steroid issue. The other thing is you never know what stats are steroid inflated and what stats would have taken place if the person didn't use. There are just too many questions associated with the steroid issue for me to get worked up over it.

[Wilson A2000]

steroids give you much more of a boost than a legal supplement, but the right combination of legal supplements gives you much more of a boost than just buying $10 creatine at wal mart. If player a hits 30 home runs and does it by taking nothing and doing 500 push ups every day, and player b hits 50 home runs while running 500 dollars worth of legal supplements into his veins before every game, no one is going to give him a hard time for not doing it naturally, even though he's just as "un-natural" as someone who uses steroids.

 

i guess my issue is the legality of steroids and how people react to users.

 

The problem is that the people who are hitting 50-60 home runs are not just using the legal supplements. They are all on steroids.

[Wilson A2000]

IMB is making some good points and it is one of the reasons I find it hard to get all worked up over the steroid issue. The other thing is you never know what stats are steroid inflated and what stats would have taken place if the person didn't use. There are just too many questions associated with the steroid issue for me to get worked up over it.

 

I know Roger Maris' record was overcome because of steroids

[imb]

when a player gets busted taking weed onto a plane, they do a little community service maybe get a little suspension, take their fine and people forget about it, as long as they don't get repeatedly caught. And something like that has no positive effect on their on-field performance. But if someone takes steroids to make themselves a better player, people react like the guy just punched their kid in the balls and pissed on their mom's grave. And they're doing something that's going to have a POSITIVE effect.

 

Steroids are banned, they're illegal, you shouldn't use them. I get that. If a player uses them and gets caught, suspend him for 50 games or whatever it is and move on.

 

But all this crying about babe ruth's record and hank aaron's record and roger maris' record, get over it. Barry Bonds broke Hank Aaron's' record. Mark McGwire broke Roger Maris' record. They both did it on steroids, something Hank Aaron presumably didn't use and something Roger Maris definitely didn't use. But Bonds and McGwire both had access to TONS of stuff that Aaron and Maris didn't. Do you want to discount records because hitters get to use legal supplements now that neither Aaron or Maris had access to? If a guy hits .400 this year and credits it to watching tape of pitchers on his IPod, should we erase that because Ty Cobb hit .400 without it?

[Wilson A2000]

If a guy hits .400 this year and credits it to watching tape of pitchers on his IPod, should we erase that because Ty Cobb hit .400 without it?

 

No. I don't think you can erase records. But you can make sure they don't get into the Hall of Fame.

[SouthSideRyan]

Wilson, what's your opinion on players who used greenies?

[imb]

If a guy hits .400 this year and credits it to watching tape of pitchers on his IPod, should we erase that because Ty Cobb hit .400 without it?

 

No. I don't think you can erase records. But you can make sure they don't get into the Hall of Fame.

 

That's not what i'm talking about

[wade]

when a player gets busted taking weed onto a plane, they do a little community service maybe get a little suspension, take their fine and people forget about it, as long as they don't get repeatedly caught. And something like that has no positive effect on their on-field performance. But if someone takes steroids to make themselves a better player, people react like the guy just punched their kid in the balls and pissed on their mom's grave. And they're doing something that's going to have a POSITIVE effect.

 

Steroids are banned, they're illegal, you shouldn't use them. I get that. If a player uses them and gets caught, suspend him for 50 games or whatever it is and move on.

 

But all this crying about babe ruth's record and hank aaron's record and roger maris' record, get over it. Barry Bonds broke Hank Aaron's' record. Mark McGwire broke Roger Maris' record. They both did it on steroids, something Hank Aaron presumably didn't use and something Roger Maris definitely didn't use. But Bonds and McGwire both had access to TONS of stuff that Aaron and Maris didn't. Do you want to discount records because hitters get to use legal supplements now that neither Aaron or Maris had access to? If a guy hits .400 this year and credits it to watching tape of pitchers on his IPod, should we erase that because Ty Cobb hit .400 without it?

 

I'm with you all the way until the part about watching tape, etc. There are evolutions in every sport with equipment, etc. There's contact lenses, laser eye surgery, etc. For example, comparing Tiger and Byron Nelson is a little unfair to Byron since he used inferior clubs and balls, but that's too bad for the old dude. That said, it's not a good analogy for steroids.

 

So, after nitpicking I'll suggest that the corked bat, scuffed baseball, is a better analogy- but those still aren't illegal outside of baseball.

[imb]

that's what i'm getting at. A player uses steroids and people want to erase his records or put an asterisk by them or kick him out of the game or keep him from the hall of fame, but the justification is never (or rarely) "they're illegal." It's always about the unfair advantage over players who don't use or didn't use.

 

if baseball comes out and says "hey, look, we're erasing barry bonds' record because he used steroids and they are illegal" I will be fine with that. But when people say that Bonds' records shouldn't count because steroids gave him an advantage that Aaron and Maris didn't have, I can't buy it. Bonds had access to a lot of stuff that neither of them did. If someone never, ever takes steroids but hits 74 home runs because he watched a lot of tape and swallowed a gallon of fish oil a day, will those same people talk about an unfair advantage? Hank Aaron couldn't watch clips of himself on his IPod or shop at GNC.

[bcl412]

that's what i'm getting at. A player uses steroids and people want to erase his records or put an asterisk by them or kick him out of the game or keep him from the hall of fame, but the justification is never (or rarely) "they're illegal." It's always about the unfair advantage over players who don't use or didn't use.

 

if baseball comes out and says "hey, look, we're erasing barry bonds' record because he used steroids and they are illegal" I will be fine with that. But when people say that Bonds' records shouldn't count because steroids gave him an advantage that Aaron and Maris didn't have, I can't buy it. Bonds had access to a lot of stuff that neither of them did. If someone never, ever takes steroids but hits 74 home runs because he watched a lot of tape and swallowed a gallon of fish oil a day, will those same people talk about an unfair advantage? Hank Aaron couldn't watch clips of himself on his IPod or shop at GNC.

 

I've been thinking about this and maybe legal muscle enhancers can=new bat technology, for example some people think maple bats are a better bat (at least that's what I understand, it's not really the point though). The new equipment technology is fine as long as it doesn't create too unfair of an advantage. My example of this is steroids=aluminum bats. It's just an advantage that is too strong to the point where its use creates an artificial feel to the game.

 

I hope this makes sense and I am not sure if I agree with my scenario that much I was just throwing something out there.

[DiamondMind]

maybe someone can fill me in here (that's what she said) but what is the difference in purpose between something like, say, creatine and steroids. Obviously steroids are illegal and more potent, but isn't the purpose basically the same? Both are supplements that help someone get more out of the their workouts, except one you can buy at friggin walmart and the other makes sportswriters hate you.

 

 

that's actually a very good point. :shock:

[Wilson A2000]

Wilson, what's your opinion on players who used greenies?

 

They were just made illegal two years ago. Strong coffee pretty much did the same thing. Coffee has been used for years. I doubt any homerun records were dismantled because of greenies.

[Wilson A2000]

maybe someone can fill me in here (that's what she said) but what is the difference in purpose between something like, say, creatine and steroids. Obviously steroids are illegal and more potent, but isn't the purpose basically the same? Both are supplements that help someone get more out of the their workouts, except one you can buy at friggin walmart and the other makes sportswriters hate you.

 

 

that's actually a very good point. :shock:

 

Weed is like creatine. Heroine is like anabolic steroids. The effect of steroids is many times stronger.

[Derwood]

Wilson, what's your opinion on players who used greenies?

 

They were just made illegal two years ago. Strong coffee pretty much did the same thing. Coffee has been used for years. I doubt any homerun records were dismantled because of greenies.

 

you can't directly link steroids to broken home run records either. greenies were useful because they gave players that extra kick of energy they needed to get through the long season. steroids help you recover from fatigue and injuries more quickly (because I can't imagine players do a ton of heavy weight lifting during the season). in both cases, you still need to have bat speed, hand-eye-coordination, etc. that neither of those "supplements" can provide

[Wilson A2000]

Wilson, what's your opinion on players who used greenies?

 

They were just made illegal two years ago. Strong coffee pretty much did the same thing. Coffee has been used for years. I doubt any homerun records were dismantled because of greenies.

 

you can't directly link steroids to broken home run records either. greenies were useful because they gave players that extra kick of energy they needed to get through the long season. steroids help you recover from fatigue and injuries more quickly (because I can't imagine players do a ton of heavy weight lifting during the season). in both cases, you still need to have bat speed, hand-eye-coordination, etc. that neither of those "supplements" can provide

 

Yes you can. Bonds had his best years as his career was declining. He had his best years as soon as he was on the juice. His career path should have gone the other way. Big Mac was on the juice since his Oakland days. It is one thing to say that you don't think taking steroids is really a big deal. It is another thing to say that they weren't the cause of the home run binge from 1998-2005.

 

Of course steroids don't swing the bat for you. They made good players great and great players world class ones.

[imb]

maybe someone can fill me in here (that's what she said) but what is the difference in purpose between something like, say, creatine and steroids. Obviously steroids are illegal and more potent, but isn't the purpose basically the same? Both are supplements that help someone get more out of the their workouts, except one you can buy at friggin walmart and the other makes sportswriters hate you.

 

 

that's actually a very good point. :shock:

 

Weed is like creatine. Heroine is like anabolic steroids. The effect of steroids is many times stronger.

 

why does potency make it wrong? It doesn't, it's wrong because it's illegal, yet no one talks about that. it's always about some historic record that someone broke.

 

creatine is many times stronger than working out with no supplements, but no one would shed a tear if a player hit 62 home runs while working out with creatine, something maris never had access to.

[Wilson A2000]

creatine is many times stronger than working out with no supplements, but no one would shed a tear if a player hit 62 home runs while working out with creatine, something maris never had access to.

 

Certain drugs are illegal because they are extra potent. That is why creatine is not illegal in baseball, and anabolic steroids are.

 

Yes people would care if someone broke Maris' record with creatine. But creatine is not strong enough to do so. Anything that a person puts into his body must be extra powerful in order for a person to break Maris' record unless they were that once in a generation person would could do it cleanly. I don't think Bonds, Sosa, or McGwire was that person apart from the juice. I thought ARod could have been, but who knows now.