As I listened yesterday to Dan Patrick whine about Giambi's statement that, "steroids do not help a person hit a HR," he asked the question over and over, "If they don't help then why did he take them?" Our own LSUfan asked me the same question, saying I am an educated man and surely I couild see that taking steroids makes one stronger and therefore helps a person hit the ball farther. Other bloggers have latched onto the Dan Patrick argument as well insisting if steroids were of no benefit then why would athletes take them. Well let me tell you why.
Athletes are idiots for the most part. They will try anything they THINK will give them an edge. That doesn't mean it will, but they always try. Cases in point:
Sammy Sosa using a corked bat. Many scientists have tried to prove that a corked bat will not help a hitter hit the ball further, but yet here was Sosa using one in a game.
Floyd Landis using synthetic testosterone right in the middle of a race knowing he will be tested.
Ricky Williams using pot after he asks to be reinstated.
Giambi and others will always try the next best thing, but that doesn't mean it will work. The fact is that steroids do not make you stronger. Working out makes you stronger and all athletes work out for more hours than the average person, with or without steroids, they put in hours each day in the weight room. The whole recovery argument is also lame, because these guys work out every day even without steroids. I do acknowledge that steroids help muscles recover faster, but even without them these guys work out daily. Pitchers have more to gain than hitters on steroids, but that fact is often overlooked. Happy Saturday.
Its true a corked bat will only hit the ball, if hit right, a few feet further. They say it ranges from 1-10 feet. But anyone who knows baseball knows you don't use a corked bat to "hit the ball further". The reason you use a corked bat is because it is lighter and it allows you get around on fastballs easier. Therefore making it easy to hit homeruns.
Anyone who tries to say that steriods doesn't help with the power of a HR isn't being honest with themselves. It helps you build muscle-mass and it, in turn, makes you stronger. Therefore it helps with the power aspect of home runs.
The only reason I don't have problems with Barry Bonds and him using steroids is because baseball was, is and always will be about cheating. Who cares if Barry cheats now? It doesn't matter.
And to take it a step further, anyone who follows baseball and talks to people who followed baseball back in the day, will tell you that Barry's godfather is the best of all time. If Willie hadn't been playing in the Polo Grounds he could have easily been the HR king right now.
Before law enforcement pulls the rest of the threads loose from the Jason Grimsley case and the Mets clubhouse guy you'll probably be proven right about pitchers using steroids as much or more than position players.
I think there are physical advantages of steroids for hitters. I remember a player with the Yankees at the end of his career (but not the name) who had a medical reason to use steroids and did. He said the ball jumped off his bat from the very first day. It may not help with your timing, but it appears to add another 10~20 foot to the occasional fly ball.
LGBuffalo, I disagree. I don't think steroids helps a hitter physically, but maybe mentally. I will say that amphetamines help more and that is why Bonds was caught using them. Greenies gets you "up" for the game and allows you to play when you are physically tired. All the greats used them at one time or another.
Dudski, I think people will really have a lot of egg on their faces when they realize some of their all time favorite pitchers are juicing up. As for a Yankee saying the ball really jumped off his bat, well that could just be his "altered" perception because he wants to believe they help. The human mind is a powerful thing and in that regard I do believe steroids help because players want to believe. They do help in training.
SLS, you have yet to provide any scientific evidence, just opinions, which we all have.
I'm just hoping that I'll wake up one day and it won't be a current topic. I don't think I'll ever live that long. It should have never reached this point, but that's what the league gets for turning the other way for so long.
Socal, what we do know is that the MLBPAssociation did everything it could do to water down drug testing, making it obvious that only the dumbest would be caught in the early years of testing.
Bonds was integral to BALCO, which existed to put illegal drugs into the hands of MLB players.
Bonds put on 30+ pounds of muscle in one offseason, which is not realistic without steroids/HGH. See the giant head. He's not dead of a tumor, so he's a HGH user, which is illegal.
Now, I'm sure some left wingers will state that since no REAL proof exsists, nothing can be said.
I think Ricky Williams has the biggest advantage. All the pot he smokes makes his opponents move in slow motion. Unfortunately, it makes him move in slow motion too.
I agree with LGB. Baseball is one of those games where cheating is not only ok, but encouraged, as long as you don't get caught. Plus, seriously, who really cares whether these guys are taking 'roids or not? Nearly every athlete is on some unnatural performance enhancing drug. The gov't has arbitrarily decided that some of these drugs are ok, and others aren't, even though most of them have the very similar side effects.
My take on it all-- don't penalize Bonds now for taking 'roids in an era when so many others took them. Make testing and penalties more serious for steroids, so that steroid use really becomes detrimental to an athlete's pocket.
After that, we can wait for the next new drug to penalize.
SLS, you have a lot of assumptions in your statement.
Bonds was not integral in BALCO, he was trained by Anderson who worked for BALCO. He did not advertise for them.
Bonds put on 30 pounds or more but it was not all muscle, but even if it was more muscle does not always help you hit the ball. Ever hear of muscle bound? Too much muscle can constrict body movement.
As for his head size and no tumor, well it is possible he took HGH which makes the bones grow, especially the plates in the head which are fused together, but that is a condition called acromegaly. When that happens, the head is mishapened as well as the hands and feet. Bonds hands are just fine and his head does not look like the head of a person who has taken HGH. Of course you would have to have had biochemistry and know something of science to understand that. Choose to live on planet earth, but take your head out of the sand and quit believing everything you hear. Look up some facts.
Ihatephils, yes steroids were encouraged by MLB, but still Bonds is innocent until he tests positive.
Shooter, excellent observation on Ricky.
Steelr, it will be a topic for a long time. Barry will break the record and that will keep it current. Then people will argue about it until someone else breaks his record.
Last edited by socalsportsfan on May 20th at 6:50 AM.
Before I start, let me open my thesaurus. Now, socal, ARE YOU KIDDING!. "Steroids do not make you stronger"? There's not a single word of that statement that makes sense. E-V-E-R-Y athlete, plus scientific proof can proove the invalidity of that statement. Being that you base your blog on the fact that you claim this statement to be true, the blog itself merits no answer. As for players in the past using different types of "drugs" to get and edge, absolutely. That's why there are asterisks, to clarify under what circumstances this "record" was obtained. I don't have a problem with Bonds getting the record, in fact I don't care much for records. They tend to be anomalies of the game and that's why the are recognized. The game itself is what has always interested me. But that's me and I understand that. Now, back to Bonds, he will get the record, no questions, the argument is, should there be an asterisk next to his record. The answer is a resounding, YES!
As for scientific evidence, since there is so much, please provide one link to a reputable site that says steroids increase strength. They allow a player to recover from work outs. The work outs provide the strength. There are all sorts of claims from "vitamin" companies, but if you believe all of those you are probably taking Enzyte so you can be like Bob.
Socal, as bad as I thought your Josh Hancock blog was, this blog is that good.
Anyone who tries to say that steriods doesn't help with the power of a HR isn't being honest with themselves. It helps you build muscle-mass and it, in turn, makes you stronger.
LGB, with this logic, anything that builds muscle mass is a performance-enhancer and should therefore be banned. So, bye-bye weight-lifting, protein shakes, legal muscle-building drugs, etc.
Bigger muscles = ability to hit ball over fence, receive big $$$ endorsements, die sooner, have fans hate your for taking illegal drugs, etc.
So, should we standardize how big one's muscles can be?
Richie Sexson has bigger muscles than David Eckstein. That's not fair to Eckstein, now, is it?
I choose to life on planet reality.
And in country North Korea.
The gov't has arbitrarily decided that some of these drugs are ok, and others aren't, even though most of them have the very similar side effects.
Absolutely, 100% correct, despite the fact that you hate the Phillies.
Now, socal, ARE YOU KIDDING!. "Steroids do not make you stronger"?
He's correct in that statement. Steroids are to strength as books are to knowledge. Do books themselves make you smarter? No, only indirectly. You have to put the work in to read those books, to comprehend them, and to make your own connections and conclusions about it.
In the same vein, to get the intended effect from steroids -- increased muscle mass -- one must adhere to a strict workout schedule and a stringent diet.
I hear the argument that steroids are like Popeye's spinach (not in those terms), and the question I always pose is, "Why are most of the players testing positive for steroids mediocre Minor League pitchers?"
Ultra, I don't hate the Phillies. I am a Braves fan, but I am a NL fan first and foremost. I just wish the Phillies would contend. They are getting drummed by Toronto this week. Plus I picked Howard in my fantasy draft and he has been a bust. I picked up Rowand for my OF.
Ultra-You are missing the point. Steroids is not a natural way to build muscle-mass. To be honest, it doesn't matter what you say. What I wrote is right. Steriods helps build muscle-mass, which in turn gives you more power.
Socal-Of course it helps you physically. Just to bring it back to Dan Patrick, "If it didn't help you physically and only mentally, why even take them?" Why would a trainer give them "real" steroids? Why not just, say, a sugar pill? If its all mental then you don't need to take them and it would be pointless to have them.
Buffalo, players try things all the time only to find out they didn't help. Giambi tried them, but he can readily say now that they didn't help. Unless you have tried them, I don't think you can speak from a valid viewpoint. Giambi can.
They do help with work outs. No one denies that, but the negative effects they have might counter balance anything positive. If people continue to blame all the injuries on steroids, then how does that help. If they help recover, then why do people get injured on them? If they help with power, then why aren't all steroid users hitting them out of the park? Certainly Canseco says most players use them. Isn't it just possible that Canseco, Pujols, Mark McGuire, and Sammy Sosa are all big men? Babe Ruth was. Aaron was no slouch, although with his amphetamines he was able to go and go and go.
Buffalo, do you think Hank should be stripped because he used "greenies". Don't you think those are illegal and they do help or why would they be banned?
Ultra-Ok heres the kicker....STERIODS, not protien shakes, weight-lifting but STERIODS are against the rules.
As for weight-lifting not being natural....I hope you are kidding. So picking stuff up isn't natural? Regardless if you do it on a weight bench or if you are moving furniture from one house to another, you working your arms is natural. That really doesn't make sense.
As for Protein shakes, they don't build muscle mass. They help add to the muscle mass that is already there, meaning they add weight and the neccessary PROTIEN that is needed to make sure the muscle-mass you've grown yourself stays nurtured.
Steriods is not comparable to those two. You are talking apples and oranges.
Socal- No I've never taken steriods but I had a few friends who did. Do you know what the negative effects of steriods are? Where steriods usually attacks and when they do?
As for Hank, no I don't think he should be stripped whether or not "greenies" were illegal back then. As I stated before, I have no problem with Bonds breaking the record with him using steriods as he has done.
What I have a problem is people trying to say steriods were legal when he used them or try to say that they have a minimal effect on power. Its just not true.
One more thing on Aaron, you're the first person I've ever heard from that said he used greenies. I'm not saying it didn't happen but thats the first I heard it.
What I have a problem is people trying to say steriods were legal when he used them or try to say that they have a minimal effect on power. Its just not true.
Technically, they were illegal in the early '90's, but the rule was never enforced. An overwhelming number of players and coaches were completely oblivious to the rule.
It's like some of those laws that some states have that are completely archaic. Like this one: "Residents of even numbered addresses may not water their plants on odd-numbered days excluding the thirty first day where it applies."
Technically, anyone living in an even-numbered address that has watered their plants on an odd-numbered day... should be arrested, fined, or otherwise punished according to the law. No one enforces it though. So, are all those people criminals?
And it wasn't illegal to have in the United States until the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 was passed in January of 2005. That placed "both anabolic steroids and prohormones on a list of controlled substances, making possession of the banned substances without a prescription a federal crime."
The Steroid Control Act of 1990 put anabolic steroids in the Schedule III category.
As for steroidal effect on power, there's really no conclusive evidence to say either way how effective they are. But look at the list of players that have used them, and you'll find that most of them are mediocre Minor League pitchers, and most of the hitters that have used them are "small-ball" types. The only power hitter on that list is Rafael Palmeiro.
One more thing on Aaron, you're the first person I've ever heard from that said he used greenies. I'm not saying it didn't happen but thats the first I heard it.
Like Bonds, there's no evidence that Aaron used amphetamines. However, Aaron did play in the era in which there was widespread amphetamine usage. So, just as people conclude that Bonds used steroids without any real evidence, we conclude that Aaron used amphetamines. Willie Mays and Mike Schmidt are two notable names that have admitted to using them, as well.
Ultra-We've been through the whole 90's thing, I know they didn't enforce it. It really doesn't matter. Like I said, I don't think Bonds should have an asterisk next to his name and I don't think he should be stripped of the all-time home run record, if and when he breaks it.
One thing I've got to know....Have you been watering your plants on the wrong day?
As for weight-lifting not being natural....I hope you are kidding. So picking stuff up isn't natural?
The weight sets are manufactured. So, no, it isn't natural.
But your argument that lifting weights is a natural exercise goes against your argument that steroids are not natural. Steroids just allow you to work out longer and recover from it quicker, like Cortizone shots, painkillers, aspirin, etc.
So, I'm struggling to figure out which leg you're standing in with your stance on steroids.
Steriods is not comparable to those two. You are talking apples and oranges.
Again, see my book-knowledge analogy. Steroids don't add muscle mass, either. The weight-lifting does.
Have you been watering your plants on the wrong day?
You bet I have! I've been doing it in-between my steroid-aided workouts and my daily burning of the American flag while on the phone with Fidel Castro.
Last edited by UltraMegaOK1988 on May 20th at 3:40 PM.
Socal, would a site from the American Medical Association be credible enough for you? Here it is. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ anabolicsteroids.html
Ultra, by your choice of logic then your own posts don't amount to much, since they are made of letters, wich in turn make words, wich in turn make sentences... So, since a bunch of letters do not make statements, your statements don't exist. Does that make sense? NO! That's the same rationale you're using about steroids. In your world the only way that steroid would build muscle is if they were to act in a manner reminiscent of "the Incredible Hulk", you know, you turn green, become huge, leap around. Do you watch a lot of cartoons? Is this were you get your arguments? I thought you sounded a little Bugs Bunnyish. Ehhh, what's up doc?
But enough is enough, I'll admit that I'm being confrontational and even a little childish. Not to excuse myself, but the steroid subject hits very close to home. My best friend in college died of cancer related to steroid use. He was young and stupid (as ultra has so eloquently put it, must athletes are stupid, right?) When you're being scouted, you try to get any edge possible to impress and get ahead, he did, got ahead, got drafted, and died 3 years later. So, once again, my apologies for my tone in the last couple of posts and the begining of this one. I just would like to add that when you put steroids into your body (as with any drug), you are risking more than you can bargain.
In your world the only way that steroid would build muscle is if they were to act in a manner reminiscent of "the Incredible Hulk"
Actually, I've been saying that's exactly how steroids don't work, except I've been analogizing it to Popeye's spinach.
Most people think steroids are magic pills that increase your muscle mass overnight. They don't realize how much hard work goes towards ensuring that you get the desired effect from the steroids.
My best friend in college died of cancer related to steroid use
So, you're incapable of making a non-biased statement on the issue of steroids. You'll be forever avenging your friend's death, which you blame on steroids.
I don't mean to demean your input, I'm just saying it's probably always going to be biased in regards to this issue.
as ultra has so eloquently put it, must athletes are stupid, right?
I didn't say that, Socal did. In fact, I think athletes are wrongly perceived as unintelligent. They may not be able to effectively explain to you quantum physics or the like, but they're not stupid.
What steroids actually do is give you an adrenaline boost and get you pumped, so that when you do work out your mucles do not get as fatigued as they normally would and therefore you are able to lift more or longer and that allows you to tear your mucle tissue, you heal faster and build muscle mass. Yes it does help you hit home runs because it allows you not to have to swing as hard to get it over the fence. If you do not have to swing as hard you have more control of the bat which helps you make better contact. I know that there has been cheating since the beginning of time, dosnt make it right, and it is not wrong if there are no rules against using certain substances. Bottom line is that it still also takes skills to be able to hit a 95mph fastball out of the park. I ask myself, what would of Babe been able to acheive if he would not of partied so much?
Snake, the steroids help you while you work out only in that they recover quickly. None of the steroids that I know of actually give you a boost of adrenaline, unless you take epinephrine, which is not a steroid, but it is banned. Epinephrine is closer to what Greenies do.
As for hitting it further, they do not make that happen. Believe it if you want, but it doesn't make it so. On Ruth, he would not have done more. Ballparks were altered to help him as it was.
Socalsports .......... I don't know as such what to make of Giambi's statement. But if the rumours are to be believed that the Yankees are thinkin of rescinding his contract. Then all hell is surely about to break loose. He's now into the final two years of the $120m contract that he'd signed with them. I truly wonder what his agent Scott Boras must be now thinking ?
If they are going to pursue this I can see it going all the way to the Supreme Court. It'll be an unprecedented step as such were they to take it.
I've got a new post up under the rampantfanatic guise titled So Ya' Want Balls ? Well I Got Ya' Balls Right Here Come Suck On This ! Enjoy it and have some fun at the same time.
A professional athlete's career lasts a very short time. On a average only 4-10 years at a max. During that period of time, they need to make as much money as possible so that they can live comfortably in retirement. An athlete will take any thing that extends their career, even if there is no scientific proof that it helps at all. That is the reason why they take these steriods.
A couple of guys in High School tried the needle(not sure what kind of steroid) There were three that I knew of, one guy was 150lbs soaking wet, he turned into a workout fiend and got up to about 220lbs of solid muscle. He had bad problems with "roid rage".
The second guy got scared and only took a couple of doses.
The third got lazy with his workouts after about a month but kept juicing, he got fat. He had a little rage issue too, he wasn't any stronger than he was before the needle so he got his #### kicked on a regular basis.
No point to my story, just though I'd share some personal knowledge of roids.
If they are going to pursue this I can see it going all the way to the Supreme Court. It'll be an unprecedented step as such were they to take it.
The Supreme Court, Supreme Court?
I'll be honest, I think the Supreme Court would find this issue a waste of their time. But then again, they did hear that ridiculous case between Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt, so you never know.
If the Yankees do void Giambi's contract, the player's union will absolutely raise hell because it sets a terrible precedent that shifts some power back to the owners.
Everybody on the A's was using the juice, led by Big Mac and Jose Canseco. Steroids help a player avoid the wear and tear on the body during a season, while allowing them to add muscle. It also gives them acne (see Bonds, Sosa), shrunken testicles (see Derek Jeter), and they develop a gigantic head (see Barry Bonds). I think a lot of players used steroids in the '80s and early '90s.
Not class acts like Donny Baseball, Wade Boggs, and Ken Griffey Jr., but other all-stars for sure.
Ultra Mega ....... It's not beyond the realms of impossibility that it could happen. That's why I believe that the Yankees will certainly have to way up their options if they do pursue this. As I'd said it'll set a precedence that I for one don't believe that MLB wants to see happen. But if it does we'll really see where the power really lies. Within Selig's own realm or with the owners. Beacause if the Yankees were to come out on top you can expect other owners to follow suit. Not only on this topic but if they should any type of a grievance ahgainst a player when it comes to their behavior. The folldgartes will open !
My best friend in college died of cancer related to steroid use
Hmm... facts or funfan's personal anecdote... Tough decision.
Don't commit the fallacy of Misleading Vividness, steroids are certainly not healthy, but they are no more of a health risk than eating at McDonald's three times a week. As Ultra pointed out, your situation prevents you from level-headedly interpreting the facts -- understandable.
Steroids do not create muscle, the player who uses the steroids does -- it's really as simple as that.
There are many fallacies out there with regard to what steroids can and can't do. But lets not fool ousrelves that it can't be dangerous. It's all dependent upon the user and whether or not they're abusing the use of that prescribed substance. It's been substantiated that in some cases that it can cause not only physical defects in some cases but also psuchological ones also. But there's never been a clear pattern to the actual findings. One can only hope that some clear resolution will be sought once and for all.
But lets not fool ousrelves that it can't be dangerous.
No one is arguing that it "can't be dangerous", I'm arguing that it isn't dangerous.
Consider your terminology, dangerous is an extremely relative term -- if you're prepared to call the use of steroids "dangerous", you're devaluing the term to the point where ordering a Big Mac from the local McDonalds is also "dangerous." At the point where the term no longer carries any appreciable weight, it loses its value in the context of debate.
Could walking outside during a thunderstorm be construed as dangerous? Sure. Do people still do so without second thoughts? Absolutely. The question is: Why? Has our decision making process undergone an spontaneous decay in the instant we choose to walk outside while it's raining? Concisely, no. It's a cost-benifit analysis -- either I will have to remain, for the sake of argument, at work for several more hours waiting for the storm to pass, or I walk to my car and drive home, risking the chance that I'll slip and fall or be struck by lightning. In the context of the decision, the relative danger is negligible.
Coming back the topic at hand, are steroids healthy? Certainly not. Should we consider them "dangerous"? I would stretch to say that I would not consider them dangerous substances, especially if taken in small quantities.
I think what's primarily being debated here is whether or not steroids are "the magic spinach" which immediately take a scrawny Jason Giambi and turn him into a home-run-hitting-superstar. And I think that point has been easily
Northsider ........... If you read intently my piece you'd see that I stated if abused the use of steroids can be considered dangerous. As with any prescribed medicine that's abused by a patient. The only thing one should consider in all of this is does the ends justify the means ? And at the same time should the level playing field just be done away with ?
Because many of these guys weren't simply using it as a way staying in shape but as a way of getting ahead. It leaves those out there not using anything little chance of joining 'the party' unless they want to forego their own integrity.
