PDA

View Full Version : baseball and steroids


whoman69
12-07-2004, 06:04 PM
do you care?

Saulbadguy
12-07-2004, 06:07 PM
I could care less. I might care when players install artificial super retinas, wired reflexes, and synthetic muscle fibers.

mcan
12-07-2004, 07:28 PM
Athletes have been on drugs since there were drugs to be given to them.. IE: the 1970s...

The fact is, drugs don't make you stronger. Steroids will only help you recover faster and maximize the work that you do in the gym. Most of the athletes back in the day ate crappy food and worked out a couple times a week... Then vacationed the entire offseason... The were on high dosages of steroids, but it didn't show on most of them because they didn't work as hard as the modern athlete.

Barry Bonds, et all... They are in the gym everyday, eating 2 grams of protein for every pound of body weight, working on their game the ENTIRE offseason, and they are working their asses off. They take steroids in much safer dosages, and most of them have a cycling program that minimizes the ill health effects... There really isn't any reason why an athlete (or any citizen for that matter) who is being safe about using these drugs, shouldn't be allowed to use them.

THEY DO NOT MAKE YOU A BETTER ATHLETE!!!

Deberg_1990
12-07-2004, 07:37 PM
I Dont know..I prefered the Mini-Bonds to juiced up Bonds

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/jacob_luft/12/07/bonds.elvis/index.html

tk13
12-07-2004, 07:39 PM
I'm in the middle, I don't think it's good at all considering some of these drugs are illegal, but I honestly don't think it has as big of an effect on sport as people would like to make it out to be. All steroids does is speed up the process, I still think we'd get to the point where baseball players were all bulked up and in shape 100% of the time.... that never happened when Aaron and Mays played. You hear those guys talk about going on the old home run derby show in the offseason and how they wouldn't do as well as they didn't bother staying in shape in the offseason. Athletes are bigger, faster, and stronger and ballparks are smaller.... of course things like home runs are going to be far more plentiful.

Bowser
12-07-2004, 07:40 PM
No matter how juiced up a guy is, he still has to have the skill to put a bat on a ball.

jspchief
12-07-2004, 07:40 PM
THEY DO NOT MAKE YOU A BETTER ATHLETE!!!

Then why take them?

Boozer
12-07-2004, 07:42 PM
It's not so much the homers as it is being a realist. If you're getting your panties in a wad about baseball players being on steroids, I hope you're not a fan of college or pro football. If you could make yourself 10% better at your job by taking a supplement (legal or not) that has minimal health risks, you'd be silly not to.

Katipan
12-07-2004, 07:44 PM
They don't make you hit the ball, but they make that ball goes further. Which changes alot of doubles, and triples into home runs. Which changes who teams build around. Which changes how oppositions pitch. Which changes which team succeeds. Which changes which team wins...

oh wait.

Bonds still doesn't have a World Series Ring.

O.K. I'll just stop at... "they make the ball go further"

mcan
12-07-2004, 07:49 PM
Then why take them?


Because you can work out three times more often and twice as hard without being worthless all week long... They allow you to WORK HARDER, and the hard work makes you a better athlete.

I dare you to take steroids every day and sit around eating nachos and drinking beer... How much muscle to you suppose that you'll build? None!

Then, go to the gym with a friend of yours who is roughly the same size and build. You take a ton of steroids and keep him clean. Both of you do exactly the same amount of work in the gym and eat the same kinds of food. The only difference between your results at the end of the month is that you will probably be leaner than him (less fat due to higher metabolic rate) and will not be as sore (quicker recovery time due to high levels of testosterone). You will probably not be much stronger or bigger than him though...

Boozer
12-07-2004, 07:51 PM
Because you can work out three times more often and twice as hard without being worthless all week long... They allow you to WORK HARDER, and the hard work makes you a better athlete.

I dare you to take steroids every day and sit around eating nachos and drinking beer... How much muscle to you suppose that you'll build? None!

Then, go to the gym with a friend of yours who is roughly the same size and build. You take a ton of steroids and keep him clean. Both of you do exactly the same amount of work in the gym and eat the same kinds of food. The only difference between your results at the end of the month is that you will probably be leaner than him (less fat due to higher metabolic rate) and will not be as sore (quicker recovery time due to high levels of testosterone). You will probably not be much stronger or bigger than him though...

Eh, I'd take issue with that last statement.

Logical
12-07-2004, 07:52 PM
Athletes have been on drugs since there were drugs to be given to them.. IE: the 1970s...

The fact is, drugs don't make you stronger. Steroids will only help you recover faster and maximize the work that you do in the gym. Most of the athletes back in the day ate crappy food and worked out a couple times a week... Then vacationed the entire offseason... The were on high dosages of steroids, but it didn't show on most of them because they didn't work as hard as the modern athlete.

Barry Bonds, et all... They are in the gym everyday, eating 2 grams of protein for every pound of body weight, working on their game the ENTIRE offseason, and they are working their asses off. They take steroids in much safer dosages, and most of them have a cycling program that minimizes the ill health effects... There really isn't any reason why an athlete (or any citizen for that matter) who is being safe about using these drugs, shouldn't be allowed to use them.

THEY DO NOT MAKE YOU A BETTER ATHLETE!!!

I agree, they only enhance your ability to be a better athlete.

mcan
12-07-2004, 07:54 PM
I agree, they only enhance your ability to be a better athlete.

One amendment and this statement is accurate...


"They only enhance your ability to BECOME a better athlete."

jspchief
12-07-2004, 07:57 PM
Because you can work out three times more often and twice as hard without being worthless all week long... They allow you to WORK HARDER, and the hard work makes you a better athlete.

I dare you to take steroids every day and sit around eating nachos and drinking beer... How much muscle to you suppose that you'll build? None!

Then, go to the gym with a friend of yours who is roughly the same size and build. You take a ton of steroids and keep him clean. Both of you do exactly the same amount of work in the gym and eat the same kinds of food. The only difference between your results at the end of the month is that you will probably be leaner than him (less fat due to higher metabolic rate) and will not be as sore (quicker recovery time due to high levels of testosterone). You will probably not be much stronger or bigger than him though...

Take two exactly equal players and give one of them steroids, and the one that takes steroids gets an advantage. Period.

mcan
12-07-2004, 07:58 PM
Eh, I'd take issue with that last statement.


Why...

Muscles do not grow stronger or bigger relative to the amount of sexual hormone you have in your body. They grow bigger and stronger relative the amount of work (time under tension) that they are put through...


There are a couple other elements at play that might give a slight edge to the higher T levels, but not much. Mostly that's a nutritional issue. Higher levels of T will help you to metabolize fat better and turn that into energy as well, so you might get a slightly higher rate of growth, but I can't imagine it would be very much.

Logical
12-07-2004, 07:59 PM
One amendment and this statement is accurate...


"They only enhance your ability to BECOME a better athlete.":thumb:

Rain Man
12-07-2004, 07:59 PM
I don't care about baseball, but if I did care about baseball I'd also care about steroids. As it is, I don't care.

David.
12-07-2004, 08:00 PM
steriods are fun.

mcan
12-07-2004, 08:02 PM
Take two exactly equal players and give one of them steroids, and the one that takes steroids gets an advantage. Period.


this is only true if they take the roid right before the game...

If they are both able to bench 400 lbs going into the game, they will both only be able to bench 400 lbs during the game. The difference being the guy who is "on" will be able to do that the whole game, while the guy who is not will slowly only be able to do 380, 360, 340, 320... Untill finally he gets too tired to work anymore.

Logical
12-07-2004, 08:03 PM
...
Then, go to the gym with a friend of yours who is roughly the same size and build. You take a ton of steroids and keep him clean. Both of you do exactly the same amount of work in the gym and eat the same kinds of food. The only difference between your results at the end of the month is that you will probably be leaner than him (less fat due to higher metabolic rate) and will not be as sore (quicker recovery time due to high levels of testosterone). You will probably not be much stronger or bigger than him though...
Actually I sort of question your last statement as well. It is my understanding that the steroids will will allow the muscle tissue to regenerate at a slightly faster rate than without it. So if you are both doing intense weight training the steroid user will see slightly more benefit. Big Daddy is the expert on this so I will defer to him if he shows up.

jspchief
12-07-2004, 08:08 PM
this is only true if they take the roid right before the game...

If they are both able to bench 400 lbs going into the game, they will both only be able to bench 400 lbs during the game. The difference being the guy who is "on" will be able to do that the whole game, while the guy who is not will slowly only be able to do 380, 360, 340, 320... Untill finally he gets too tired to work anymore.

No. It has nothing to do with immediate performance results. It has to do with building your muscle faster. If the two guys have identical workout regimens, the guy on steroids will display advantages in as little as two weeks.

mcan
12-07-2004, 08:11 PM
Actually I sort of question your last statement as well. It is my understanding that the steroids will will allow the muscle tissue to regenerate at a slightly faster rate than without it. So if you are both doing intense weight training the steroid user will see slightly more benefit. Big Daddy is the expert on this so I will defer to him if he shows up.


The key word their is "faster" not "better" or "bigger."

The process that builds muscle is called "protein synthesis." It is regulated by the bodies hormone levels, but more hormone does NOT mean more protein, nor does it mean that your body will do the process when it is not needed. The process happens when the muscle tissue becomes destroyed or the energy in the muscle (glycogen) becomes depleted.

Only working the muscle will generate growth. The extra hormone just makes sure that you can do it ALOT. How do you suppose those bodybuilders get into the gym two or three times a day? A normal person would be way overtrained and start to shrink like a marathon runner. That's why athletes like this stuff. It makes them not so tired after practice, so they can get to the gym every day too...

Cochise
12-07-2004, 08:13 PM
So the record stood for 40 years and then it's broken, what, 7 times in 5 years?

And each time by a guy who used to weigh about a buck and a quarter but now looks like Ivan Drago?

Right... keep telling me it had nothing to do with it...

Katipan
12-07-2004, 08:15 PM
The moral of this story is to make sure you start your sons on Growth in high school. That way they can cycle off by college!

mcan
12-07-2004, 08:17 PM
No. It has nothing to do with immediate performance results. It has to do with building your muscle faster. If the two guys have identical workout regimens, the guy on steroids will display advantages in as little as two weeks.


Not true (according the research that I've done). If they both put in the same amount of work, they will both get back the same results. The key is that the guy who is "on" will be able to get in 4 weeks worth of working out in that 2 week period...

That said, there is one other factor that I hadn't thought of... There comes a point when your body says "stop growing." Most body builders call it the "genetic ceiling." These guys have been working out like monsters for years already, and have stopped growing due to the lowering T levels in an aged body. If both players in the previous scenario were at that level, then yes the guy who was ON would have a growth advantage...

jspchief
12-07-2004, 08:21 PM
Not true (according the research that I've done). If they both put in the same amount of work, they will both get back the same results. The key is that the guy who is "on" will be able to get in 4 weeks worth of working out in that 2 week period...

That said, there is one other factor that I hadn't thought of... There comes a point when your body says "stop growing." Most body builders call it the "genetic ceiling." These guys have been working out like monsters for years already, and have stopped growing due to the lowering T levels in an aged body. If both players in the previous scenario were at that level, then yes the guy who was ON would have a growth advantage...

That's just not the case. Even if player 1 and player 2 do the exact same workout regimen, the guy that is on steroids will be stronger, faster.

Boozer
12-07-2004, 08:21 PM
By a show of hands, who doesn't think steroid use is rampant in college and pro football? [/hands at his side]

mcan
12-07-2004, 08:23 PM
So the record stood for 40 years and then it's broken, what, 7 times in 5 years?

And each time by a guy who used to weigh about a buck and a quarter but now looks like Ivan Drago?

Right... keep telling me it had nothing to do with it...


You aren't reading... I didn't say it had nothing to do with it. In fact, it has a lot to do with it... The facts are these:

1. Players in the eighties used all sorts of steroids. Where did THEIR homeruns go?

2. Players today work more than twice as hard, and twice as smart from the days of milkshake diets and "don't lift weights or you'll lose flexiblity and range of motion." Players back then actually thought this way!

mcan
12-07-2004, 08:25 PM
That's just not the case. Even if player 1 and player 2 do the exact same workout regimen, the guy that is on steroids will be stronger, faster.


I promise you that if you took steroids right now and went for a nice little run, you would be no faster or stronger than you were before you took them.

mcan
12-07-2004, 08:26 PM
By a show of hands, who doesn't think steroid use is rampant in college and pro football? [/hands at his side]


Of course they are! You can just look at these guys and see that they are juiced. People don't get that big naturally.

Boozer
12-07-2004, 08:30 PM
Of course they are! You can just look at these guys and see that they are juiced. People don't get that big naturally.

My new favorite "delicious irony" is football fans getting indignant over baseballs "steroid problem."

Logical
12-07-2004, 08:34 PM
So the record stood for 40 years and then it's broken, what, 7 times in 5 years?

And each time by a guy who used to weigh about a buck and a quarter but now looks like Ivan Drago?

Right... keep telling me it had nothing to do with it...

There is no way you can say that Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa used to weigh a buck and a quarter, both have been big power hitters for their entire career. I will give you the growth on Barry.

jspchief
12-07-2004, 08:55 PM
I promise you that if you took steroids right now and went for a nice little run, you would be no faster or stronger than you were before you took them.

As in 5 minutes after taking them? No sh*t. Give me two weeks and I'll definately be stronger.

jspchief
12-07-2004, 08:57 PM
My new favorite "delicious irony" is football fans getting indignant over baseballs "steroid problem."

There's nothing ironic about it. At least football makes an honest effort to test for steroids, and has legitimate punishments.

MLB just sweeps it under the carpet.

Demonpenz
12-07-2004, 08:59 PM
sammy was pretty darn skinny in his days with the rangers

Demonpenz
12-07-2004, 09:00 PM
Oh and sammy's forehead didn't look like the overhang at tiger staduim

Boozer
12-07-2004, 09:00 PM
There's nothing ironic about it. At least football makes an honest effort to test for steroids, and has legitimate punishments.

MLB just sweeps it under the carpet.

Note to MLB: Institute nominal testing program, the fans will buy it.

jspchief
12-07-2004, 09:07 PM
Note to MLB: Institute nominal testing program, the fans will buy it.

Yea, doing nothing is a much better effort.:rolleyes: It's like thiefs, you can't keep all of them from stealing, so why bother stopping any?

Look, I realize that there will always be steroids in sports. It's the nature of the beast. The chemists that are creating these drugs will always have the upper hand, because they only have to make a small change to an existing drug, then testers are forced to figure out what that change is.

But other leagues have at least made an effort. Minor league base ball has ten times the steroid enforcement that MLB has. It's evident that there is juicing, now it is MLB's job to try and stop it.

And all this arguing is ignoring the fact that it's illegal, regardless of what effect it has on the game. I oppose the use of illegal drugs in any sport.

BigRedChief
12-07-2004, 09:10 PM
Any way you slice it it is cheating. Does it help? How much? Whatever :shake:

If you try to cheat thats it in my book. Cheaters shouldnt be rewarded they should be run out of town on a rail :cuss:

whoman69
12-08-2004, 06:33 PM
I think the most telling argument I can give is the man in the middle of the controversy. Barry was injured in 1999 and came back in 2000 having gained at least 50 lbs of muscle, probably closer to 75. I will call that his point of initial steroid use. In the five seasons since then he has had 258 HR in 2122 AB in 586 games. Prior he had impressive numbers of 445 HR in 6976 AB in 2130 games. From taking steroids he improved from a HR in every 15.6 AB to 8.2 AB and a HR in every 4.78 games to one every 2.27 games. No player in the history of baseball has gotten better after age 35. Bonds turned 36 in 2000. His career high in HR prior to this was 46 in 1993 and he went over 40 HR only three times in the 14 seasons prior. Since his steroid use he has hit 40 HR in every season and broken his career high twice. The only player in the history of baseball to get better after age 30 was Paul Molitor and that was because he switched from 3B to DH and was finally healthy.
The argument that players are better conditioned and stronger has real holes in it. If that is true then how come pitchers haven't kept pace?

KCJake
12-08-2004, 06:45 PM
Athletes have been on drugs since there were drugs to be given to them.. IE: the 1970s...

The fact is, drugs don't make you stronger. Steroids will only help you recover faster and maximize the work that you do in the gym. Most of the athletes back in the day ate crappy food and worked out a couple times a week... Then vacationed the entire offseason... The were on high dosages of steroids, but it didn't show on most of them because they didn't work as hard as the modern athlete.

Barry Bonds, et all... They are in the gym everyday, eating 2 grams of protein for every pound of body weight, working on their game the ENTIRE offseason, and they are working their asses off. They take steroids in much safer dosages, and most of them have a cycling program that minimizes the ill health effects... There really isn't any reason why an athlete (or any citizen for that matter) who is being safe about using these drugs, shouldn't be allowed to use them.



The smartest man on the planet. Finally, someone that knows what their talking about. :clap:

KCJake
12-08-2004, 06:48 PM
I think the most telling argument I can give is the man in the middle of the controversy. Barry was injured in 1999 and came back in 2000 having gained at least 50 lbs of muscle, probably closer to 75.
Sorry, but no one in the history of the world has ever gained 75lbs of muscle in one year. I would say, VERY FEW have come close to putting on 50lbs of muscle in one year.

Logical
12-08-2004, 07:04 PM
...

And all this arguing is ignoring the fact that it's illegal, regardless of what effect it has on the game. I oppose the use of illegal drugs in any sport.

I on the other hand oppose drugs being illegal, it is a stupid waste of national resources. Legalize them but control distribution and tax the hell out of it.

Dave Lane
12-08-2004, 07:37 PM
I could care less. I might care when players install artificial super retinas, wired reflexes, and synthetic muscle fibers.

Why then?

Dave

Dave Lane
12-08-2004, 07:38 PM
I on the other hand oppose drugs being illegal, it is a stupid waste of national resources. Legalize them but control distribution and tax the hell out of it.

I agree 100%. Surprised Jim?

Dave

Dave Lane
12-08-2004, 07:40 PM
sammy was pretty darn skinny in his days with the rangers

Do the jitterbug
Out in the muskrat land
And they shimmy
And Sammys so skinny

And they whirled and they twirled and they tangoed
Singin and jinglin the jango
Floatin like the heavens above
It looks like muskrat love

See what you did to me!

Dave

Saulbadguy
12-08-2004, 07:40 PM
Why then?

Dave
There are varying levels of artificial performance enhancement.

The funny thing is, some of the substances that are banned in MLB are natural performance enhancers. The things I mentioned, which don't even exist, are artificial, and would probably mess up the game.

Unless of course, every player had them installed. At that point, who cares about records?