Re: Sosa tested positive in 2003 per NY Times

[SouthSideRyan]

yeah, i'm not romanticizing anything. if aaron took greenies, i guess he cheated. but a) his cheating helped him less than bonds' cheating and b) the stuff aaron did was apparently more widespread than what bonds did, thus making the playing field more level, and, in my mind, making his cheating less of a big deal.

 

i'm not trying to glorify aaron or those guys in any way.

 

Do we really have any idea how much more widespread greenies were/are than steroids/HGH? We have the steroid survey from 2003, I know, but to my knowledge we really only have subjective observation as far as the usage of greenies.

 

Well HGH wasn't tested for in '03(Might still not, can't remember), and I think it's pretty well accepted that there is stuff out there you can be on that won't be caught on a test. Taking the % of players who failed the test in '03 as the % of players on stuff seems foolish to me.

[Banedon]

yeah, i'm not romanticizing anything. if aaron took greenies, i guess he cheated. but a) his cheating helped him less than bonds' cheating and b) the stuff aaron did was apparently more widespread than what bonds did, thus making the playing field more level, and, in my mind, making his cheating less of a big deal.

 

i'm not trying to glorify aaron or those guys in any way.

 

Do we really have any idea how much more widespread greenies were/are than steroids/HGH? We have the steroid survey from 2003, I know, but to my knowledge we really only have subjective observation as far as the usage of greenies.

 

Well HGH wasn't tested for in '03(Might still not, can't remember), and I think it's pretty well accepted that there is stuff out there you can be on that won't be caught on a test. Taking the % of players who failed the test in '03 as the % of players on stuff seems foolish to me.

 

That's fine...I was just challenging the notion that we really had any concept of how widespread the use of any of the mentioned substances is...

 

I'll admit, this thread has at least made me question my position on this issue.

[Wheelimus]

I wonder if Ryno is so down on the steroid-era players because he blames them for his comeback not working out? While his numbers in 96 and 97 weren't that far below his last few pre-retirement years, I could see a guy convincing himself that it wasn't fading skills but rather an uneven playing field.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Did other people cheat playing baseball? Sure they did, but it still doesn't sanitize the people that have apparently gotten caught cheating now.

 

When most of the hysteria is about how they are violating the sanctity of the history of the game, the real, non-romanticized history of the game is very relevant.

[Soul]

yeah, i'm not romanticizing anything. if aaron took greenies, i guess he cheated. but a) his cheating helped him less than bonds' cheating and b) the stuff aaron did was apparently more widespread than what bonds did, thus making the playing field more level, and, in my mind, making his cheating less of a big deal.

 

i'm not trying to glorify aaron or those guys in any way.

 

Do we really have any idea how much more widespread greenies were/are than steroids/HGH? We have the steroid survey from 2003, I know, but to my knowledge we really only have subjective observation as far as the usage of greenies.

 

To my knowledge, we don't. It has been speculated that the use of amphetamines in baseball has always been widespread. I think Tony Gwynn said once he guessed 50% of the players were using it to pep up for games. An 81 game road schedule is indeed tiring.

 

It's cheating, no doubt. I just can't equate it with steroid use, the difference in effect is too great. Especially these regimen-supported programs some of these guys engaged in, where they have some kind of roid czar planning out hourly pill taking with different flavors of roids for different days, etc. The gulf between that and greenies? Grand Canyon.

[Banedon]

yeah, i'm not romanticizing anything. if aaron took greenies, i guess he cheated. but a) his cheating helped him less than bonds' cheating and b) the stuff aaron did was apparently more widespread than what bonds did, thus making the playing field more level, and, in my mind, making his cheating less of a big deal.

 

i'm not trying to glorify aaron or those guys in any way.

 

Do we really have any idea how much more widespread greenies were/are than steroids/HGH? We have the steroid survey from 2003, I know, but to my knowledge we really only have subjective observation as far as the usage of greenies.

 

To my knowledge, we don't. It has been speculated that the use of amphetamines in baseball has always been widespread. I think Tony Gwynn said once he guessed 50% of the players were using it to pep up for games. An 81 game road schedule is indeed tiring.

 

It's cheating, no doubt. I just can't equate it with steroid use, the difference in effect is too great. Especially these regimen-supported programs some of these guys engaged in, where they have some kind of roid czar planning out hourly pill taking with different flavors of roids for different days, etc. The gulf between that and greenies? Grand Canyon.

 

Yeah see that's where I question it. Seems like complete speculation.

[SouthSideRyan]

Another point that I'm not sure has been addressed here is legal supplements. Was everyone okay with McGwire taking andro while it was legal in '98? Is it just a muscle issue, as long as people don't have to see a physical transformation in a player, they're ok with it?

 

ETA: If I can get more outlandish, take it to a hypothetical. Say a designer drug is developed that works as well as steroids without the potentially dangerous side effects. It does the work of steroids, but is legal. Is there an issue here?

[Soul]

yeah, i'm not romanticizing anything. if aaron took greenies, i guess he cheated. but a) his cheating helped him less than bonds' cheating and b) the stuff aaron did was apparently more widespread than what bonds did, thus making the playing field more level, and, in my mind, making his cheating less of a big deal.

 

i'm not trying to glorify aaron or those guys in any way.

 

Do we really have any idea how much more widespread greenies were/are than steroids/HGH? We have the steroid survey from 2003, I know, but to my knowledge we really only have subjective observation as far as the usage of greenies.

 

To my knowledge, we don't. It has been speculated that the use of amphetamines in baseball has always been widespread. I think Tony Gwynn said once he guessed 50% of the players were using it to pep up for games. An 81 game road schedule is indeed tiring.

 

It's cheating, no doubt. I just can't equate it with steroid use, the difference in effect is too great. Especially these regimen-supported programs some of these guys engaged in, where they have some kind of roid czar planning out hourly pill taking with different flavors of roids for different days, etc. The gulf between that and greenies? Grand Canyon.

 

Yeah see that's where I question it. Seems like complete speculation.

 

They're like concentrated NoDoze, man. They aren't even meth-level amphetamines. It's not speculation at all. There's a massive gulf.

[Mugged By Fluffy]

I wonder if Ryno is so down on the steroid-era players because he blames them for his comeback not working out? While his numbers in 96 and 97 weren't that far below his last few pre-retirement years, I could see a guy convincing himself that it wasn't fading skills but rather an uneven playing field.

 

Nah. I could be wrong but that doesn't seem very Sandberg-like. He was never one to make excuses or to make complaints. He was(and is) an old-school gamer who worked hard and played hard. I honestly believe he thinks that steroids cheapen accomplishments and his respect of the game is what is behind his comments.

[CUBZ99]

Did other people cheat playing baseball? Sure they did, but it still doesn't sanitize the people that have apparently gotten caught cheating now.

 

When most of the hysteria is about how they are violating the sanctity of the history of the game, the real, non-romanticized history of the game is very relevant.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. The baseball HOF voters are well within their rights to exclude any player that was caught using steroids from the hall. It might make them hypocrites, but that is their right.

 

Personally, I tend to think that taking action at some point to exclude proven cheaters is better than turning the other cheek.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'll ask it again...why is chemically altering your body (steroids, hgh) considered illegal while lasik eye surgery is not? I'd think from a hitting stand point, artificially improving vision might help as much if not more than adding muscle mass.

[CUBZ99]

I'll ask it again...why is chemically altering your body (steroids, hgh) considered illegal while lasik eye surgery is not? I'd think from a hitting stand point, artificially improving vision might help as much if not more than adding muscle mass.

 

Why is drinking alcohol legal, but smoking marijuana is illegal? Some would say that alcohol is as dangerous if not more dangerous than marijuana.

[Soul]

I'll ask it again...why is chemically altering your body (steroids, hgh) considered illegal while lasik eye surgery is not? I'd think from a hitting stand point, artificially improving vision might help as much if not more than adding muscle mass.

 

Then you'd have to say wearing contacts should be cheating too. Only players with natural 20/20 vision could play. Unless they could figure out how to be successful with less-than stellar vision.

 

It would definitely get Kevin Gregg off our team BTW.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'll ask it again...why is chemically altering your body (steroids, hgh) considered illegal while lasik eye surgery is not? I'd think from a hitting stand point, artificially improving vision might help as much if not more than adding muscle mass.

 

I may be wrong, but I think roids and hgh are illegal without a prescription because they can be very, very harmful if taken incorrectly.

 

Or do you mean against baseball rules, rather than illegal?

[Roast]

I'll ask it again...why is chemically altering your body (steroids, hgh) considered illegal while lasik eye surgery is not? I'd think from a hitting stand point, artificially improving vision might help as much if not more than adding muscle mass.

 

I may be wrong, but I think roids and hgh are illegal without a prescription because they can be very, very harmful if taken incorrectly.

 

Or do you mean against baseball rules, rather than illegal?

I'm pretty sure he's referring to baseball rules specifically.

[Roast]

Another point that I'm not sure has been addressed here is legal supplements. Was everyone okay with McGwire taking andro while it was legal in '98? Is it just a muscle issue, as long as people don't have to see a physical transformation in a player, they're ok with it?

 

ETA: If I can get more outlandish, take it to a hypothetical. Say a designer drug is developed that works as well as steroids without the potentially dangerous side effects. It does the work of steroids, but is legal. Is there an issue here?

I'm sure people would attempt to make it illegal. But on the flip side how is that any different than how players now use things such as gatorade, activade, and a plethora of protein-enhanced drinks/supplements to help their muscles recover. None of that was available to players in the past..

[Sammy Sofa]

I'll ask it again...why is chemically altering your body (steroids, hgh) considered illegal while lasik eye surgery is not? I'd think from a hitting stand point, artificially improving vision might help as much if not more than adding muscle mass.

 

I may be wrong, but I think roids and hgh are illegal without a prescription because they can be very, very harmful if taken incorrectly.

 

Or do you mean against baseball rules, rather than illegal?

 

The hypothetical I'd put out there to the people determined to railroad steroid users is whether or not they'd be OK with PED's down the line that work in effect like the banned substances do (increased power, less DL time, etc.) but are ultimately not as harmful as they are now, if at all, and are legal. Would those be OK or would those be tainting the game? Let's say the health risks have been lowered to the point that they're legal if a doctor approves their use. Not all athletes are able to or willing to use them, but they're out there. Should those be allowed?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'll ask it again...why is chemically altering your body (steroids, hgh) considered illegal while lasik eye surgery is not? I'd think from a hitting stand point, artificially improving vision might help as much if not more than adding muscle mass.

 

I may be wrong, but I think roids and hgh are illegal without a prescription because they can be very, very harmful if taken incorrectly.

 

Or do you mean against baseball rules, rather than illegal?

 

Yes, I meant against baseball rules.

 

and if it's the harmful argument...if sometime in the future, steroids become as safe as lasic surgery, should they then become legal in baseball?

[Sammy Sofa]

I'll ask it again...why is chemically altering your body (steroids, hgh) considered illegal while lasik eye surgery is not? I'd think from a hitting stand point, artificially improving vision might help as much if not more than adding muscle mass.

 

I may be wrong, but I think roids and hgh are illegal without a prescription because they can be very, very harmful if taken incorrectly.

 

Or do you mean against baseball rules, rather than illegal?

 

Yes, I meant against baseball rules.

 

and if it's the harmful argument...if sometime in the future, steroids become as safe as lasic surgery, should they then become legal in baseball?

 

Hell yes.

 

I'm hoping it's just a stepping stone to cyborgs.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'll ask it again...why is chemically altering your body (steroids, hgh) considered illegal while lasik eye surgery is not? I'd think from a hitting stand point, artificially improving vision might help as much if not more than adding muscle mass.

 

I may be wrong, but I think roids and hgh are illegal without a prescription because they can be very, very harmful if taken incorrectly.

 

Or do you mean against baseball rules, rather than illegal?

 

Yes, I meant against baseball rules.

 

and if it's the harmful argument...if sometime in the future, steroids become as safe as lasic surgery, should they then become legal in baseball?

 

I know. I was trying to be cute. Those things are illegal (without a prescription) thus they are against baseball rules. Seems like a pretty easy distinction. As to whether they should be allowed if they become legal, I guess. Though I struggle to see a need for HGH in the world other than by prescription.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'll ask it again...why is chemically altering your body (steroids, hgh) considered illegal while lasik eye surgery is not? I'd think from a hitting stand point, artificially improving vision might help as much if not more than adding muscle mass.

 

I may be wrong, but I think roids and hgh are illegal without a prescription because they can be very, very harmful if taken incorrectly.

 

Or do you mean against baseball rules, rather than illegal?

 

The hypothetical I'd put out there to the people determined to railroad steroid users is whether or not they'd be OK with PED's down the line that work in effect like the banned substances do (increased power, less DL time, etc.) but are ultimately not as harmful as they are now, if at all, and are legal. Would those be OK or would those be tainting the game? Let's say the health risks have been lowered to the point that they're legal if a doctor approves their use. Not all athletes are able to or willing to use them, but they're out there. Should those be allowed?

 

HGH is legal by prescription now, in some form. There was a guy in my grade school that was on it b/c he had mild dwarfism. If you have a valid prescription for HGH but are good enough to play MLB, then you should get an exception.

 

I hate to fight the hypo, but it seems far fetched.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'll ask it again...why is chemically altering your body (steroids, hgh) considered illegal while lasik eye surgery is not? I'd think from a hitting stand point, artificially improving vision might help as much if not more than adding muscle mass.

 

I may be wrong, but I think roids and hgh are illegal without a prescription because they can be very, very harmful if taken incorrectly.

 

Or do you mean against baseball rules, rather than illegal?

 

The hypothetical I'd put out there to the people determined to railroad steroid users is whether or not they'd be OK with PED's down the line that work in effect like the banned substances do (increased power, less DL time, etc.) but are ultimately not as harmful as they are now, if at all, and are legal. Would those be OK or would those be tainting the game? Let's say the health risks have been lowered to the point that they're legal if a doctor approves their use. Not all athletes are able to or willing to use them, but they're out there. Should those be allowed?

 

HGH is legal by prescription now, in some form. There was a guy in my grade school that was on it b/c he had mild dwarfism. If you have a valid prescription for HGH but are good enough to play MLB, then you should get an exception.

 

I hate to fight the hypo, but it seems far fetched.

 

I don't think it's too far fetched to think that down the line supplements that have similar effects to banned PED's but without many of the health risks will emerge.

[Wheelimus]

I'll ask it again...why is chemically altering your body (steroids, hgh) considered illegal while lasik eye surgery is not? I'd think from a hitting stand point, artificially improving vision might help as much if not more than adding muscle mass.

 

Then you'd have to say wearing contacts should be cheating too. Only players with natural 20/20 vision could play. Unless they could figure out how to be successful with less-than stellar vision.

 

It would definitely get Kevin Gregg off our team BTW.

 

At the very least it would help his chances if half of the batters he faced can't see.

 

I can't imagine he'd pitch much worse a little blurry...