Re: Sosa tested positive in 2003 per NY Times

[fromthestretch]

So you're basically punishing today's players(as far as your opinion goes) for having better advancements in science.

 

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care?

 

Regardless of the difference, the intent of the player is the same: to gain an advantage. Seems hypocritical to me to give players from previous decades a pass on taking one substance but condemning more recent players for taking another.

[SouthSideRyan]

So you're basically punishing today's players(as far as your opinion goes) for having better advancements in science.

 

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care?

 

The point is if everyone's saying "it was illegal, they cheated, they're done. I was taught not to cheat, and they cheated, I have no pity for them."; then what the hell is the difference? Do you think the players of the 60s(or pick a decade) are above reproach and wouldn't have used today's PEDs if available back then. Greenies is what they had(that and people weren't looking for muscled bodies back then), so that's what they took. It seems unfair to punish players of today because they have better science.

[abuck1220]

So you're basically punishing today's players(as far as your opinion goes) for having better advancements in science.

 

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care?

 

Regardless of the difference, the intent of the player is the same: to gain an advantage. Seems hypocritical to me to give players from previous decades a pass on taking one substance but condemning more recent players for taking another.

 

why? one gives the player a MUCH, MUCH bigger advantage. do people really not think there's a difference?

[jersey cubs fan]

So you're basically punishing today's players(as far as your opinion goes) for having better advancements in science.

 

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care?

 

Regardless of the difference, the intent of the player is the same: to gain an advantage. Seems hypocritical to me to give players from previous decades a pass on taking one substance but condemning more recent players for taking another.

 

In 20-30 years the steroids people took in the 90s/00s are going to be considered quaint novelties from a bygone era.

[SouthSideRyan]

So you're basically punishing today's players(as far as your opinion goes) for having better advancements in science.

 

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care?

 

Regardless of the difference, the intent of the player is the same: to gain an advantage. Seems hypocritical to me to give players from previous decades a pass on taking one substance but condemning more recent players for taking another.

 

In 20-30 years the steroids people took in the 90s/00s are going to be considered quaint novelties from a bygone era.

 

And then the players of today can get on their high horse about the game being disgraced.

[jersey cubs fan]

So you're basically punishing today's players(as far as your opinion goes) for having better advancements in science.

 

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care?

 

Regardless of the difference, the intent of the player is the same: to gain an advantage. Seems hypocritical to me to give players from previous decades a pass on taking one substance but condemning more recent players for taking another.

 

why? one gives the player a MUCH, MUCH bigger advantage. do people really not think there's a difference?

 

How much more of an advantage did they have when so many others were using the same thing? And again, the only reason for that is because baseball people finally realized muscles weren't bad and the stuff got better. Those who cheated with what illegal substance they had access to and thought could help them would have used this stuff if they had access to it.

[Tracer Bullet]

So you're basically punishing today's players(as far as your opinion goes) for having better advancements in science.

 

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care?

 

They may improve it as a significantly greater clip, but if so it's because of a science, not an erosion of players character or anything. If they knew in the 70's what players in the 90's knew, and had access to the same stuff, they would have taken. Hell, it's all but a guarantee some of them at least experimented with the less evolved roids back then. The biggest difference is baseball people are so stupid they were convinved muscles were bad for a long time.

 

But I'm not even sure steroids improve players at a significantly greater clip than greenies. The toll of 162 games over 6 months is real and those guys took all that crap for a reason, they felt they needed it. It's still using chemistry to improve your performance, the only difference is advancements in chemistry.

 

I don't disagree that players thought greenies were effective. How effective they were, I'm not sure. But I don't think they were more effective as more recent PEDs, which not only allow players to add lean bulk, but also allow for faster recovery. The insane production of a handful of players that are known to have taken some pretty advanced stuff suggests that they're pretty effective.

 

I have no way of knowing whether players would have taken the stuff available now if it had been available in their time. I don't doubt that some/many would. But that's a lot of speculation.

 

The whole culture around greenies, and the effect they may have had, is much less concerning to me than the culture and effects of the PEDs in the 90s/00s. Some guys were a little more open about what they were doing, but most tried to keep it private. Some went to pretty great lengths to keep it private. My sense is greenies were never really like that. Those differences are important, at least to me.

[fivepercent]

My whole point was I just dont want to see all these players from MY generation be hailed at the doors of Cooperstown like they're something special

 

What a giant load of crap. Like those previous guys were anything special? They're freaking baseball players that put up good numbers. The vast majority were probably unethical jerks and complete morons.

 

I never said that. I was just pointing that I have no control over the players already in there. Just the ones from my generation. I would have no problem booting the old guys out as long as the integrity clause is still valid.

 

It's just going to be laughable if the PED guys ever get in to watch them get on stage and deliver their little speech.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't disagree that players thought greenies were effective. How effective they were, I'm not sure. But I don't think they were more effective as more recent PEDs, which not only allow players to add lean bulk, but also allow for faster recovery. The insane production of a handful of players that are known to have taken some pretty advanced stuff suggests that they're pretty effective.

 

I have no way of knowing whether players would have taken the stuff available now if it had been available in their time. I don't doubt that some/many would. But that's a lot of speculation.

 

The whole culture around greenies, and the effect they may have had, is much less concerning to me than the culture and effects of the PEDs in the 90s/00s. Some guys were a little more open about what they were doing, but most tried to keep it private. Some went to pretty great lengths to keep it private. My sense is greenies were never really like that. Those differences are important, at least to me.

 

Why? The difference is back then they did it and nobody cared. You didn't "rat out" your fellow players and the media didn't touch the subject. One guy wrote a book and was ostracized, with the help of the media. They pretended it was milk and vitamins and living right. But they took what they could get if they thought it would help.

 

And no, there's not a lot of speculation in assuming they would have taken it if they had access and thought it would help. That's just how sports works. Always have, always will.

[SouthSideRyan]

The whole culture around greenies, and the effect they may have had, is much less concerning to me than the culture and effects of the PEDs in the 90s/00s. Some guys were a little more open about what they were doing, but most tried to keep it private. Some went to pretty great lengths to keep it private. My sense is greenies were never really like that. Those differences are important, at least to me.

 

I don't understand this line of reasoning. The fact that they kept their cheating a secret makes it worse?

[fromthestretch]

So you're basically punishing today's players(as far as your opinion goes) for having better advancements in science.

 

You don't see an appreciable difference between taking greenies and taking PEDs today? You don't think one improves performance at a significantly greater clip than the other? Or you just don't care?

 

Regardless of the difference, the intent of the player is the same: to gain an advantage. Seems hypocritical to me to give players from previous decades a pass on taking one substance but condemning more recent players for taking another.

 

why? one gives the player a MUCH, MUCH bigger advantage. do people really not think there's a difference?

 

I'm not saying that the stuff today isn't much better than the stuff back in the '60s. But again, if you're going to get up in arms about PEDs, then why give players from previous eras a free pass for taking substances? Also, as goony and others have stated, is it really that big of an advantage when so many players are taking them?

[abuck1220]

really? people don't think steroids gave guys that much of an advantage? quite a coincidence then that four of the absolute best hitters from 1998-2003 have all been busted.

 

if everybody was using them (clearly not the case), the steroid-aided efforts of sosa, bonds, etc would have been neutralized to some extent by some steroid using pitchers.

[SouthSideRyan]

really? people don't think steroids gave guys that much of an advantage? quite a coincidence then that four of the absolute best hitters from 1998-2003 have all been busted.

 

if everybody was using them (clearly not the case), the steroid-aided efforts of sosa, bonds, etc would have been neutralized to some extent by some steroid using pitchers.

 

Is it a coincidence that some of the worst hitters in the majors or guys that never even made it there have also been busted?

[fromthestretch]

really? people don't think steroids gave guys that much of an advantage? quite a coincidence then that four of the absolute best hitters from 1998-2003 have all been busted.

 

if everybody was using them (clearly not the case), the steroid-aided efforts of sosa, bonds, etc would have been neutralized to some extent by some steroid using pitchers.

 

There were also several guys that took them that didn't become elite hitters.

 

There's much more to this era than just steroids that has helped lead to better offensive numbers.

[Tracer Bullet]

really? people don't think steroids gave guys that much of an advantage? quite a coincidence then that four of the absolute best hitters from 1998-2003 have all been busted.

 

if everybody was using them (clearly not the case), the steroid-aided efforts of sosa, bonds, etc would have been neutralized to some extent by some steroid using pitchers.

 

Is it a coincidence that some of the worst hitters in the majors or guys that never even made it there have also been busted?

 

No - they weren't good enough to make it alone, so they thought PEDs would help. That makes sense. Some guys want the $ and fame that comes with being considered that best hitters ever, so they took it too. Also makes sense.

[abuck1220]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

[jersey cubs fan]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Who is saying they didn't help? They still competed against other players who took the drugs. Sammy never would have hit 60 if he didn't start being more selective at the plate. All the roids and power in the world wouldn't have made him layoff the low outside slider. The elite players got more elite with some roids, but a whole hell of a lot of guys stayed mediocre with steroids.

[Tracer Bullet]

The whole culture around greenies, and the effect they may have had, is much less concerning to me than the culture and effects of the PEDs in the 90s/00s. Some guys were a little more open about what they were doing, but most tried to keep it private. Some went to pretty great lengths to keep it private. My sense is greenies were never really like that. Those differences are important, at least to me.

 

I don't understand this line of reasoning. The fact that they kept their cheating a secret makes it worse?

 

Drinking a cup of coffee clearly labeled as spiked with greenies isn't the same as having a personal trainer shoot drugs into your ass. Yes, when you're trying to decide which is worse, going to great lengths to hide what you're doing suggests strongly that you think what you're doing is wrong. The guys knew they were drinking coffee that was designed to make them more focused and it was handed out by team trainers, in coffee pots, known by literally everyone involved in the game and accepted as part of baseball by those in the game. As bad as the steroids era was, the culture wasn't quite like that. And even to the extent there was general knowledge of some of the roids being taken, the real good stuff was kept under pretty wraps pretty well.

 

Add that culture to the extreme difference in the effectiveness of the drugs (at least imo) and I think one is much different than the other.

 

I'm not saying all steroids era players should be kept out of the HOF. It's become such a joke to me anymore that I really don't care.

[fromthestretch]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that they didn't help. The degree to which they helped isn't clear when you consider that many players that took them didn't see major spikes in their homerun totals or top the leaderboard in ERA or strikeouts.

[SouthSideRyan]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.

[Tracer Bullet]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Who is saying they didn't help? They still competed against other players who took the drugs. Sammy never would have hit 60 if he didn't start being more selective at the plate. All the roids and power in the world wouldn't have made him layoff the low outside slider. The elite players got more elite with some roids, but a whole hell of a lot of guys stayed mediocre with steroids.

 

Stayed mediocre? I think a whole hell of a lot of guys went from not good enough to make it, to good enough to play/start in the majors because of PEDs. How effective they were is going to be difficult to determine, given how little we know about who was taking them, how rigid they were in taking them, and exactly what they were taking. [Have to wonder how much better Sammy's eye got when pitchers started throwing pitches even further off the plate b/c he'd gone from hitting 20 HRs to hitting 40 HRs. might be a bit of chicken/egg at play, though my memory is he did lay off pitches better eventually]

 

BTW - I also wonder if taking PEDs would eventually have a negative impact on a pitcher. Seems like the ability to recover from throwing a lot of pitches really hard would be great until your body finally breaks and the strings holding your shoulder and elbow together snap. Your shoulder might not be as sore until you finally can't lift your arm above your head anymore.

[jersey cubs fan]

Drinking a cup of coffee clearly labeled as spiked with greenies isn't the same as having a personal trainer shoot drugs into your ass. Yes, when you're trying to decide which is worse, going to great lengths to hide what you're doing suggests strongly that you think what you're doing is wrong. The guys knew they were drinking coffee that was designed to make them more focused and it was handed out by team trainers, in coffee pots, known by literally everyone involved in the game and accepted as part of baseball by those in the game. As bad as the steroids era was, the culture wasn't quite like that. And even to the extent there was general knowledge of some of the roids being taken, the real good stuff was kept under pretty wraps pretty well.

 

Add that culture to the extreme difference in the effectiveness of the drugs (at least imo) and I think one is much different than the other.

 

I'm not saying all steroids era players should be kept out of the HOF. It's become such a joke to me anymore that I really don't care.

 

The only reason those earlier eras were "more open" about their drug use in the clubhouse was because they were exremely confident it would stay in the clubhouse and they would suffer no repercussions. The concept of "one of their own" ratting them out to the public was not considered, and the media would never consider touching those stories. Drug testing became a huge issue in sports in the 80's, probably starting with Olympic competition but continuing into high school and college sports and then pro football. Tell-alls were very common and guys could no longer be confident that their bending of the rules would remain quiet from the public. They were forced to be more secretive, but a hell of a lot more people were aware of what was going on than want to admit it now.

[Tracer Bullet]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.

 

I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies. I'm struggling to see how that could be true. The evidence seems to suggest that, at a minimum, some PEDs were really effective at making really good players, really really great.

 

Also - that seems to be your issue. You seem to have an issue with people thinking one kind of PED is worse than another kind of PED. Others don't seem bothered by such a belief.

[fromthestretch]

nobody's saying they magically make you great. but i don't know what to tell you if you don't think steroids helped bonds hit 73 homeruns when he was 40 years old or clemens post a 2.00 era when he was 45.

 

Nobody said they didn't help. The issue is that people seem to think one kind of illegal help is too far, and any other kind of illegal help in the past is ok.

 

I don't know. Some people seem to be suggesting that today's PEDs aren't much or any more effective than greenies.

 

Who is saying that?

[Tracer Bullet]

Drinking a cup of coffee clearly labeled as spiked with greenies isn't the same as having a personal trainer shoot drugs into your ass. Yes, when you're trying to decide which is worse, going to great lengths to hide what you're doing suggests strongly that you think what you're doing is wrong. The guys knew they were drinking coffee that was designed to make them more focused and it was handed out by team trainers, in coffee pots, known by literally everyone involved in the game and accepted as part of baseball by those in the game. As bad as the steroids era was, the culture wasn't quite like that. And even to the extent there was general knowledge of some of the roids being taken, the real good stuff was kept under pretty wraps pretty well.

 

Add that culture to the extreme difference in the effectiveness of the drugs (at least imo) and I think one is much different than the other.

 

I'm not saying all steroids era players should be kept out of the HOF. It's become such a joke to me anymore that I really don't care.

 

The only reason those earlier eras were "more open" about their drug use in the clubhouse was because they were exremely confident it would stay in the clubhouse and they would suffer no repercussions. The concept of "one of their own" ratting them out to the public was not considered, and the media would never consider touching those stories. Drug testing became a huge issue in sports in the 80's, probably starting with Olympic competition but continuing into high school and college sports and then pro football. Tell-alls were very common and guys could no longer be confident that their bending of the rules would remain quiet from the public. They were forced to be more secretive, but a hell of a lot more people were aware of what was going on than want to admit it now.

 

Really? My recollection is the spiked coffee pots being clearly marked and open in the clubhouse ran right through the 80s and maybe even later than that. I might be mis-remembering.