Jose Bautista - Exception to rule or Breaker of rule?

[XZero771679666304]

Maybe it is lazy. It's been the case way too many times. And there's nothing that says a guy needs to balloon up like Bonds to get extra power from drugs. Not in the face of the ever-evolving world of PEDs.

 

Why should I trust? Why should I continue bashing my head against a brick wall for these guys when they repeatedly go out and do things like juicing up?

 

Why should you care at all? I've never understood that there is absolutely zero problem in perception with people taking all sorts of powders and pills and supplements in order to get stronger, but when we cross into the arbitrary "steroid" classification, suddenly guys are just popping pills that make them into the Hulk. As if the guys who don't take steroids are doing nothing but calisthenics in order to get stronger or something. It's completely nonsensical.

 

I'm in this camp. Steroid users are damaging their long term health, but beyond that, I just don't care. There is a pharmacological bonanza out there, most of it legal and effective.

 

And for the record, I don't think Bautista is using steroids. If there is a new undetectable stew out there, you'd think Manny would have been using it. It's steroid-era paranoia.

[davearm2]

Maybe it is lazy. It's been the case way too many times. And there's nothing that says a guy needs to balloon up like Bonds to get extra power from drugs. Not in the face of the ever-evolving world of PEDs.

 

Why should I trust? Why should I continue bashing my head against a brick wall for these guys when they repeatedly go out and do things like juicing up?

 

Why should you care at all? I've never understood that there is absolutely zero problem in perception with people taking all sorts of powders and pills and supplements in order to get stronger, but when we cross into the arbitrary "steroid" classification, suddenly guys are just popping pills that make them into the Hulk. As if the guys who don't take steroids are doing nothing but calisthenics in order to get stronger or something. It's completely nonsensical.

Curious to hear your opinion on speed limits. After all, it can't really be argued that 64 MPH is safe, but 66 MPH is dangerous and criminal. That would seem to fall in the completely nonsensical category too.

 

But yet nobody seems to disagree that a line has to be drawn someplace, since 130 MPH clearly is dangerous and criminal.

 

The PED topic is fundamentally the same.

[Soul]

Maybe it is lazy. It's been the case way too many times. And there's nothing that says a guy needs to balloon up like Bonds to get extra power from drugs. Not in the face of the ever-evolving world of PEDs.

 

Why should I trust? Why should I continue bashing my head against a brick wall for these guys when they repeatedly go out and do things like juicing up?

 

Why should you care at all? I've never understood that there is absolutely zero problem in perception with people taking all sorts of powders and pills and supplements in order to get stronger, but when we cross into the arbitrary "steroid" classification, suddenly guys are just popping pills that make them into the Hulk. As if the guys who don't take steroids are doing nothing but calisthenics in order to get stronger or something. It's completely nonsensical.

 

I'm in this camp. Steroid users are damaging their long term health, but beyond that, I just don't care. There is a pharmacological bonanza out there, most of it legal and effective.

 

And for the record, I don't think Bautista is using steroids. If there is a new undetectable stew out there, you'd think Manny would have been using it. It's steroid-era paranoia.

 

I don't care much at all. I don't see how being suspicious of this much of a jump in power means I care if he juiced.

 

There are probably so many guys doing it and getting away with it that it's not really much effect at all if he is or isn't using.

 

I'd care much more if it was a Cub player doing it, because I don't want the unwanted negative crap from others about the only MLB team I actually do care about. But even then, it's not like I sit around worrying about who is or isn't using.

 

It just seemed to me a reasonable possibility, given the history of usage in this sport. It doesn't mean I hate the guy. If he isn't using, then congrats on the mechanics changes. If he is using and doesn't get caught, congrats you got away with it. If he does -- too bad you rolled the dice and lost.

[SouthSideRyan]

Maybe it is lazy. It's been the case way too many times. And there's nothing that says a guy needs to balloon up like Bonds to get extra power from drugs. Not in the face of the ever-evolving world of PEDs.

 

Why should I trust? Why should I continue bashing my head against a brick wall for these guys when they repeatedly go out and do things like juicing up?

 

Why should you care at all? I've never understood that there is absolutely zero problem in perception with people taking all sorts of powders and pills and supplements in order to get stronger, but when we cross into the arbitrary "steroid" classification, suddenly guys are just popping pills that make them into the Hulk. As if the guys who don't take steroids are doing nothing but calisthenics in order to get stronger or something. It's completely nonsensical.

Curious to hear your opinion on speed limits. After all, it can't really be argued that 64 MPH is safe, but 66 MPH is dangerous and criminal. That would seem to fall in the completely nonsensical category too.

 

But yet nobody seems to disagree that a line has to be drawn someplace, since 130 MPH clearly is dangerous and criminal.

 

The PED topic is fundamentally the same.

 

Do you look down on people who drive 66 mph?

[davearm2]

Of course not.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Of course not.

What if we all said we didn't either?

[Sammy Sofa]

Or there are new drugs or combinations that evade detection.

 

Or there's all the obvious changes in his swing and approach at the plate. Unless you somehow think that is PED-enhanced, too.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Remember when Sammy Sosa changed his swing in 1998?

 

Remember when he turned into a gigantic monster?

 

Do we really have to take the Soul way of things and be afraid and not trust everything and everyone? It's really frustrating to see people laying out and quoting and linking to the really well done analysis that makes it perfectly clear the huge difference in Bautista's offensive approach prior to the end of 2009 and then afterwards. He started raking at the end of 2009 because he started making obvious changes with his swing and stance. He didn't suddenly balloon up or even get significantly bigger; yet of course you have people leaping to the idea of steroids. It's really disappointingly lazy.

 

Maybe it is lazy. It's been the case way too many times. And there's nothing that says a guy needs to balloon up like Bonds to get extra power from drugs. Not in the face of the ever-evolving world of PEDs.

 

Why should I trust? Why should I continue bashing my head against a brick wall for these guys when they repeatedly go out and do things like juicing up? Not going to happen. You can call it fear if you want. I think that's pretty stupid, but whatever man -- these are the kinds of posts you like to make to rile people up. It's what you do.

 

The fact that there's analysis of a swing change isn't conclusive. Not in the slightest. I read the posts on that, looked at the link. The bottom line is, a guy can do more than one thing at a time.

 

Sorry if you think pointing out the ridiculousness of your position is "riling you up." Maybe that should help you realize how terrible your approach is.

 

Let's break this down to the very basics to see if we can all get a grasp on your reasoning. OK, evidence as to why Bautista has had the recent success that he's had:

 

1. Significant and well-analyzed changes to his swing and stance.

 

Pretty short list, yeah, but we've got some great breakdowns as to why this would lead to him having such an improvement to his game. You, inexplicably, think this is "inconclusive." Why?

 

What evidence do you have of him juicing besides the dramatic increase in power? Are there any physical signs at all that would lead you to believe he is using? You yourself said it's suspect that a guy who typically displayed HR power in the teens suddenly can hit around 50...so do you really think that someone doing that could so so without using PED's that would lead to a pretty drastic change in his musculature? I mean, here are your own words:

 

And there's nothing that says a guy needs to balloon up like Bonds to get extra power from drugs.

 

I agree; of course guys don't need to get huge to get a power boost from PED's. But that makes more sense if you're talking about a guy who goes from hitting, say around 10 home runs a year to 20-25. You really think a guy is going to suddenly tack on almost 3 times the amount of doubles and over FOUR times the amount of home runs from his previous season without a noticeable physical change? You really think that a man can increase his slugging power between season by over 200 points courtesy of PED's and not display any significant change in his physical appearance?

 

Ah, but you dismiss this with this throaway line:

 

Not in the face of the ever-evolving world of PEDs.

 

So now they're comic book drugs that effectively can give people amazing abilities they only hinted at before with almost no change in physical appearance? Look, we're not talking about someone arguably using PED's here to boost their modest power based only out of their strength or somebody using PED's to to stay off the DL. We're potentially talking about someone who used PED's to go from hitting around 15 HR a year to over 50 and 200+ jump in slugging. I'm sorry, but you're not going to get that dramatic a result courtesy of PED's without some very noticeable physical changes.

[Guest]

He's not dismissing the swing change at all. He's merely suggesting that he doesn't feel the swing change in itself would result in the performance difference.

[Sammy Sofa]

He's not dismissing the swing change at all. He's merely suggesting that he doesn't feel the swing change in itself would result in the performance difference.

 

Which is still ridiculous. He's deciding that the swing and stance analysis is "inconclusive" because...well, frankly, I don't know why. It's a weird position to take based on the analysis available and the lack of evidence for PED use outside of the power increase. I mean, how many guys can you point to who were busted for PED use or are strongly suspected of it who had their big power surges occur DURING a season? Remember, Bautista started displaying this power at the end of 2009, when he hit 10 of his 13 home runs that season in the final month+ and his slugging lept to about 300 points higher than the average he was displaying the previous 4 months, not coincidentally when he also started consistently sticking with the changes to his stance and swing that have been broken down here. Sure, maybe this was some elaborate ruse to mask the fact he inexplicably started a major PED regimen in the middle of the season...but really, how likely is that? Or was it just happy coincidence that he and his coaches' efforts to work on his swing coincided with the PED's kicking in (again, the PED's he inexplicably started taking during the season instead of starting the regimen in the offseason, or was he taking them the whole time and they just never "worked" until the swing/stance changes?)?

[Soul]

It's not ridiculous. But it's obvious that once you feel you're right about something, any further arguing with you will simply yield greater and greater degrees of shoutdowns and brow beatings.

 

I don't need that, from you or anyone else. So I'm done. Have a good day.

[Sammy Sofa]

Now THAT'S ridiculous. Come back when you can actually argue an opinion. There's nothing unreasonable in my last post that someone shouldn't be able to break down and argue against if they have an arguable conclusion that goes beyond "some guys who have big power surges use steroids." Why are you unable or unwilling to break down the situation as I did to argue your point? If you find yourself unable to argue your point and giving up so easily then it probably wasn't very sound to begin with. Edited May 6, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[davearm2]

Of course not.

What if we all said we didn't either?

Then it'd be unanimous that where the line has been drawn is wrong.

 

That surely does not lead to a conclusion that there shouldn't be a line at all.

[Guest]

Of course not.

What if we all said we didn't either?

Then it'd be unanimous that where the line has been drawn is wrong.

 

That surely does not lead to a conclusion that there shouldn't be a line at all.

The metaphor is a bit flawed in that you have both a clear, absolute measure for speed as well as something that can increase almost indefinitely when compared to the "acceptable" baseline.

 

With PED's, there really isn't any clarity in measuring the benefits, the drawbacks or anything else. It's not clear what should be labeled a PED and what shouldn't be as it isn't as simple as comparing 80 to 45 and saying that one is higher. They may simply be qualitatively different instead of quantitatively.

 

In addition, it is easy to see how someone doing 130 in a 55 zone would be endangering not only his own life but the lives of others. So there is an absolute morality involved there, as well.

[imb]

It's not ridiculous. But it's obvious that once you feel you're right about something, any further arguing with you will simply yield greater and greater degrees of shoutdowns and brow beatings.

 

I don't need that, from you or anyone else. So I'm done. Have a good day.

 

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lil7ksHW9s1qbb49vo1_400.jpg

[javy knows my name]

OH GOOD LORD YES

[Formerly Snayke]

The PED topic is fundamentally the same.

 

I wish I could process this.

[Rob]

Drinking a protein shake before working out is much, much, much more effective than using HGH. Protein shakes are perfectly legal and acceptable supplements. HGH is a PED.

[Sammys Boombox]

None of us can really know whether or not he's juicing. I think he's probably not. Just my opinion. However, it really sucks that any time somebody has a career year or turns their career around nobody can tell whether or not it's legitimate.

[imb]

If we accept that it's possible for Jose Bautista to cheat and not get caught, then we have to accept the possibility that anyone in the league could be cheating right now. Therefore it doesn't matter whether or not he's on PEDs.

[Cubswin11]

Bautista hit 3 HR today. His line for the season is .368/.520/.868 for an OPS of 1.388 :shock:

 

He has 16 HR and 35BB in 32 games. He has reached base in all but one game so far this year.

[Derwood]

Since May 15, 2010, Bautista has 63 HR, which is over 20 more than the next player on the list (Pujols)

[javy knows my name]

Good God, those are 2002 Bonds numbers

[sneakypower]

76 HR (.278/.399/.664) in his last 200 games, a 62 HR pace

[NewUserName]

Drinking a protein shake before working out is much, much, much more effective than using HGH. Protein shakes are perfectly legal and acceptable supplements. HGH is a PED.

 

But HGH is not illegal because it makes you good at baseball..it is illegal because it is addictive and harmful. If protein shakes were addictive and harmful to your health would they also be a PED?

[Rob]

Drinking a protein shake before working out is much, much, much more effective than using HGH. Protein shakes are perfectly legal and acceptable supplements. HGH is a PED.

 

But HGH is not illegal because it makes you good at baseball..it is illegal because it is addictive and harmful. If protein shakes were addictive and harmful to your health would they also be a PED?

 

Your post is the first time I've ever heard of HGH being labeled addictive. However you are certainly right in that there are harmful side effects. But the side effects are merely the reason it's a controlled substance. They aren't the reason it is banned from competitive sports.

 

HGH was declared a banned substance by the Olympic Council back in the late 80s. The move was more pre-emptive than anything else. There wasn't anything to suggest that HGH was going to be terribly useful as an anabolic agent, but athletes had assumed it would be and began taking it in abundance. And while studies in recent years have shown that HGH has very little effect on how hard one can hit a baseball, there isn't exactly a good reason to un-ban it either...

 

At any rate, I digress.

 

My previous post was intended only to show that the line between "supplement" and "PED" isn't drawn by how useful a substance is... What sense does it make for all these self-righteous fools to ostracize a player as a "cheater" for taking a less effective substance with more side effects? This sort of "cheater" is to be pitied for being a moron, not burned at the stake for ruining the integrity of the game.