PDA

View Full Version : Other Sports Posnanski: What If We Are Wrong Again About Steroids?


Reaper16
08-06-2010, 12:18 PM
http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/08/06/what-if-we-are-wrong-again-about-steroids/


So I read the main story, and I read the expansive supporting material, and I read some of the work again, and here are the six words that keep playing in my mind: “Oh no, we’re doing it again.” It probably will take a little while for me to explain what I mean.

Let’s start at the start, with one of the hottest non-Brett Favre sports things on the Internet … Eric Walker’s expansive project he titled: Steroids, Other “Drugs,” and Baseball. (http://steroids-and-baseball.com/) No, it’s not the flashiest title in the world. But it’s striking reading. I’m going to give you a too-quick rundown of the work here for discussion purposes, but I would really recommend that, if you care at all about steroids, other drugs and baseball, you read Eric’s work for yourself. It’s persuasive, difficult, provocative and, yes, a bit angry. You (if you hold certain opinions) might find yourself feeling like the author is sticking his finger in your face and calling you a dolt. That’s the one unfortunate part of the writing, I think … but it comes from passion and I would hope you can move past it and read through and judge the interesting conclusions on their merit.

The main story — and the supporting material — is Eric Walker’s effort to try to bring some facts, some science and some cold logic to the steroid issue. It’s a worthwhile effort because one thing that is undeniable is that much of the steroid discussion you hear is overwhelmed by hysteria and moralizing and preconceived notions and pseudo science. Seems to me that nothing — nothing at all — about this steroid story is “obvious” and yet people talk about it in “obvious” ways all the time. Walker takes a baseball bat to it all.

The first thing Walker does is repeat the four logical reasons why steroid use in baseball is wrong in the first place. Apparently these four reasons have been more or less agreed upon among the various ethical philosophers who have studied the issue … and the reasons sound right to me. I would summarize the reasons like so:
1. Steroids are extremely dangerous tor your health and, in fact, can kill you.
2. Steroids help players hit more home runs and do other unnatural things.
3. Other players see steroid use and feel trapped, like they have no choice but to join in.
4. Kids see it all and want to do steroids themselves.

Maybe you can think of another reason steroids are wrong, but those four seem to cover just about everything … and the four (as Walker points out) are intertwined. To believe (3) and (4) you must believe (1) and (2). You could, in fact, argue that the only TRUE reasons we believe steroids are wrong in baseball is that they’re bad for you (and, thus, illegal) and they make players unnaturally good at baseball (and thus are cheating).
Again, you should read Walker’s conclusions for yourself. But since we’re trying to get to the main point, I’ll summarize Walker’s conclusions (as I understand them):
1. Walker contends steroids are not nearly as bad for responsible adults as people say and are significantly less dangerous than countless other things athletes do as a matter of course (he does say that steroids are extremely dangerous for adolescents).
2. Walker contends steroids do not help players hit more home runs.
3. Walker contends that other players are coerced to do MANY semi-dangerous and vaguely unnatural things to play high level sports … this is the price of playing sports at the highest level.
4. Walker contends kids absolutely do not take steroids because pro athletes do it.

Now, these conclusions are harsh and counterintuitive and against just about everything you’ve no doubt read and heard … and for the points of this essay I’m not here to say how much I agree or disagree. Walker makes his points openly, using many sources and studies and charts, and it seems to me that these opinions have simply not been given fair view in the open marketplace. For our purposes, the most interesting conclusion is No. 2 — his conclusion that steroids does not help hitters hit home runs — so we’ll spend our time on that one. But before moving on, I should probably point out that when it comes to those other three things, many people who have studied the issue closely agree. Here are Walker quotes on those subjects:

On health: “In sum, there are medical risks, but of nothing remotely like the variety or severity commonly suggested. In reality, they are unlikely, usually minor, and almost universally reversible.”

On coercion: “Each player does what he thinks is necessary to achieve and maintain the level of performance that he finds proper. There is no logical or ethical distinction between — just for example — killer workouts and PEDs. Each is what that athlete finds appropriate or necessary.”
On athlete role models: “Adolescents by and large do not have pro-athlete role models; in one extensive study, only 18% reported an athlete as a role model — and those so reporting were, as substance abuse goes, slightly cleaner than the rest.

OK, but, you want to talk home runs. Well, we all know what we all know … there were a lot of home runs hit in Major League Baseball in the years after the strike to 2006 or so. Per game, home runs spiked from .89 in 1993 to 1.03 in 1994 to a peak of 1.17 in 2000. And we all know about the rather remarkable (and even unbelievable) individual home run numbers — Brady Anderson suddenly hitting 50, Sosa and McGwire hitting all those home runs in 1998 and beyond, the Barry Bonds saga. From 1901-1993 only 11 different players hit 50-plus home runs. From 1994-2010, 14 different players did it.

But, even the angriest fans and critics must admit that many things can cause a home run spike. Many things HAVE caused giant home runs spikes. The greatest home run spike in baseball history happened from 1918 to 1921 — total homers jumped from 235 to 447 to 630 to 937. Why? There are various theories (outlawing of the spitball, a more regular rotation of baseballs, various scorekeeping changes*) but the overriding feeling is that Major League Baseball spiked the ball (so much so that it was regularly called “The Jackrabbit Ball,” and the era before is still called “Dead Ball”) . MLB denied any change in the ball, of course, but MLB always denies stuff like that … we know that the game was in pretty dire straits after the 1919 World Series and again after Ray Chapman was killed by pitch in 1920. Home runs — many of them hit by Babe Ruth — were good for baseball. Babe Ruth, it is still said, saved the game.
*Also, not well known, baseball did try to ban the intentional walk (http://www.seamheads.com/2009/07/19/the-attempt-to-eliminate-the-ibb/) in 1920.

The point here, though, is that if a simple adjustment in the design of a baseball could cause home runs to QUADRUPLE in four years (and this was in 1920, when our knowledge of physics was probably not quite as advanced) then we have to concede that the people running the game have long had the power to change the game of baseball.* Whether they used that power is debatable … but they have HAD the power. After all, the number of players who hit 30-plus home runs from 1900 to 1919 was zero, but the number from 1920-1930 was 19.
*This seems a good time to again pull out a quote from one of my most quoted movies: “Quiz Show.” This was Martin Scorsese (as president of Geritol) saying that they didn’t need to fix the quiz shows: “Why fix them? Think about it, will ya? You could do exactly the same thing by just making the questions easier.”

And 1920 is not the only time that we’ve had rather stunning power surges. There was another massive homer jump between 1976 to 1977 … there were two expansion teams added in 1977, which was the conventional explanation for the jump. But expansion could not have made the difference between the 2,235 total home runs hit in 1976 and the 3,644 home runs hit in 1977. In 1976, four players hit 30-plus home runs, Mike Schmidt led all of baseball with 38, Graig Nettles led the American League with 32. In 1977, 19 different players hit 30-plus home runs and George Foster famously hit 52.

Why? Again, Walker suggests (convincingly) that it was the ball. MLB switched from a Rawlings ball to a Spalding ball before that season.
You no doubt remember the next mega-jump — that was 1987. There were 3,813 home runs hit in 1986 and there were 4,458 home runs hit in 1987. Nobody hit more than Jesse Barfield’s 40 home runs in 1986 and that year 13 players hit 30-plus homers. In 1987, four players hit 44-plus home runs and an amazing 28 players hit 30-plus homers. Those 28 players were a record — it SMASHED the previous record set, yep, in 1977.
Why did it happen in 1987? Still, nobody knows. But the best guess has long been that the ball was juiced.

So, you can see that baseball, willingly or unwillingly, has ALWAYS had the ability to send home run numbers skyrocketing. I’m not saying that there are baseball wizards behind curtains cackling to themselves as they inject homer juice into the baseballs (though I DO think that was probably the case in 1920). No, I’m saying that baseball gurus have always had the power to stealthily alter the game. One tiny switch … that’s all it takes.
The biggest power jump in the steroid era did not happen in the late 1990s as most of us think but actually from 1993 to 1994. There were 4030 home runs hit in 1993 … and the players were on pace to hit almost 4,700 homers in 1994 before the strike crushed the season. That was a huge spike year. You will no doubt remember the individual achievements. Matt Williams was just about on pace that year to break Roger Maris’ home run record when the strike struck, and Ken Griffey Jr. had a shot at the record, and Tony Gwynn was a real threat to hit .400 (just to show it wasn’t all power that year). Jeff Bagwell and Frank Thomas were both having absurd Jimmie Foxx kinds of years AND (people do forget this), Barry Bonds had 37 home runs in 112 games. He was on pace to hit 53 or so home runs. And this was the SKINNY Bonds (he might, with a stolen base rush, have had a shot at a 50-50 season). Seventeen different players (including a 25-year-old kid named Sammy Sosa) had at least a shot at 40 home runs … the most ever in a season had been eight.

So what happened from 1993 to 1994? Steroids kicking in? It doesn’t seem likely that all of a sudden all these players, all at once, started doing steroids at exactly the same time and their power numbers began to soar all at the same time. It seems much more likely that, yep, once again, something happened to the baseball.

This starts to get to the point here, which is this: We KNOW that adjustments to the baseball — adjustments so slight that baseball can deny they even exist — can create a massive shift in the game. We KNOW that slight alterations to the rules (such as expanding or shrinking the strike zone a touch or raising/lowering the mound) can create a massive shift in the statistics of the game. We KNOW that even minute changes in ballpark dimensions can create massive shifts as well*.
*Kauffman Stadium in 2002 was the easiest park in the American League to hit a home run. The fences were moved back just 10 feet. In 2004, Kauffman Stadium was the hardest park in the American League to hit a home run.

We KNOW these things are true. But we don’t KNOW what steroids do to help players hit home runs. It’s like Jim Mora said: We may THINK we know but really don’t know. For a long time, you will remember, the conventional wisdom was that weight training and steroid use could NOT help you hit home runs — could not give you the necessary hand-eye coordination, the necessary form, the necessary mental approach, the necessary preparation and so on. And then, one day, without any real shift in logic except that a few guys started hitting a lot of home runs, the conventional wisdom shifted wildly to the point where it seemed that steroid use was the MAIN FACTOR in home run hitting.

Eric Walker says it isn’t true. First of all, he says that if you remove the spikes caused by changes in the baseball — the 1977 change, the 1993-94 change — that true power has actually been declining since 1962 and has been at a constant the last 20 years or so (with the exception of the 1987 jump). The initial reaction is the call bull on it … but why? We know that changes in the baseball can cause home run flurries. We’ve known it for 90 years. But we don’t KNOW that steroids can cause home run flurries … we just assume it.

And Walker says it’s a bad assumption. He points out that steroids “very heavily favor” building your upper body while home run power mostly comes from lower body strength. He suggests that if Barry Bonds added 20 pounds of pure muscle to his whole body, probably no more than 5 or 7 of those pounds would be lower body, and by his math equation the added power would likely be no more than 2 to 4 feet of length. He points out that while the players may have looked bigger and stronger — and no doubt WERE bigger and stronger — it certainly was not the cause of the home run records.

With everything that has been said about steroids the last 10 or so years, I don’t expect you to just suddenly believe that steroids didn’t make any difference … you should read his entire piece and decide what you think. But one thing you might think is: “If steroids don’t make any difference, then why would players cheat and do them?” But there actually is precedent for ineffective cheating in baseball. For years, hitters thought they were cheating the game when they corked their bats. Even in the last couple of months, there has been a lot of talk about Pete Rose and whether or not he corked his bats. But study after study has shown that corked bats don’t make a damned bit of difference (or, if anything, cause the ball to be hit less solidly) … players may have THOUGHT they were cheating the game, and maybe the added confidence of having a corked bat helped them hit better than as some sort of baseball placebo effect. Or maybe not. Either way, hitters kept corking bats in some sort of vague attempt to cheat the game.

Anyway, it’s a whole lot to think about … but we SHOULD think about it rather than just blindly continue our hysterical “Let’s not vote for anybody in the Hall of Fame … these guys ruined baseball … the baseball world is crashing” talk. Nobody really LIKES that steroids infected the game, and nobody LIKES how it was handled, but that doesn’t mean we haven’t all wildly overreacted to what may have been a much smaller effect than people have simply assumed.

And that takes us all the way back to the beginning of this post. One thing sportswriters have done is beat ourselves up for the way we handled the 1998 home run chase. And people outside of baseball have beaten us up over it too. We celebrated Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. We celebrated the home run. We celebrated baseball. It was so much fun. A good friend of mine just told me that she cried in joy the day McGwire hit his 62nd home run. It was like that.

Only, then, the steroid news started to emerge, and a pumped up Barry Bonds (who nobody wanted to celebrate for too many reasons to go into here) started to hit the home runs, and Hank Aaron’s record fell and suddenly we felt cheated. Why did we allow ourselves to get pulled in? This was fake! We should have known! We were duped! And we could not allow ourselves to be duped, so we came back, harsher and harsher, more and more convinced that none of what we saw was real. When Mark McGwire came out to admit his steroid use and apologize for what he did (all so he could come back and be a hitting coach in the game he clearly loves) he was crushed from all sides because he was unwilling to concede that the home runs he hit were fake.

And after reading Eric Walker’s work, those six words repeated: “Oh no, we’re doing it again.” What if McGwire was right? What if we find out that Walker’s conclusions — and the conclusions of many people who have studied the steroid issue — are right? What if we find out that steroids were NOT the cause of the home runs, not even a little bit? What if we find out that the home runs were the cause of a livelier ball and a smaller strike zone and harder bats and the willingness of players to swing hard even if it means striking out and smaller ballparks and pitch counts? People will say “Well, then why have home runs gone down again? It’s obvious that it is because of steroid testing and the game is finally clean again and …” but there we go, making assumptions again.

What if we are wrong again? What if we find that all the angry articles we’ve written about how steroids will make you a great home run hitter are wrong (articles were no doubt read by children wanting to be home run hitters)? What if we find that the home run spike in the late 1990s were not because of steroids but instead largely because of a helium baseball that was put in to get people to forget about the strike? It’s a worthwhile question: Will we beat ourselves up again 10 years from now?


A very worthwhile discussion to have. I've always felt about steroids what this new study seems to conclude.

blaise
08-06-2010, 12:25 PM
Home runs per season is one thing, I didn't see anything about home runs over a career. Who knows how many home runs Mays or Ted Williams could have hit if they extended their careers three more years? Steroids could have allowed Williams a couple more years. Ken Griffey Jr might still be playing if he could take roids to help himself feel better.

jspchief
08-06-2010, 12:37 PM
2. Walker contends steroids do not help players hit more home runs.I'm not buying it.

1. Helps you recover from injuries quicker = more at bats
2. You can't tell me strength can't improve swing speed, giving balls the extra push they need to be HRs.

Brainiac
08-06-2010, 12:41 PM
It's ridiculous to argue that steroids don't help guys hit more home runs.

You can talk all you want about "possible other causes", but that's all bullshit speculation. The evidence is overwhelming.

L.A. Chieffan
08-06-2010, 12:43 PM
Roids has been in baseball A LOT longer than the Mid 90's.

jspchief
08-06-2010, 12:48 PM
Roids has been in baseball A LOT longer than the Mid 90's.Yes, but I'm guessing just like other medical science, it has advanced with time.

Surgery has been around since the dark ages, think they've gotten better at it over time?

blaise
08-06-2010, 12:55 PM
Roids don't help. Guys just do them for kicks.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 12:55 PM
Home runs per season is one thing, I didn't see anything about home runs over a career. Who knows how many home runs Mays or Ted Williams could have hit if they extended their careers three more years? Steroids could have allowed Williams a couple more years. Ken Griffey Jr might still be playing if he could take roids to help himself feel better.

Or they could have injured themself and not played for as long. Whatever.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 12:56 PM
Roids has been in baseball A LOT longer than the Mid 90's.

I would imagine since the early 70s

Reerun_KC
08-06-2010, 01:02 PM
Roids is baseball, without it, womens softball is more entertaining...

Roid'd up monsters hitting 600ft homeruns are why I want to watch baseball... And no, there is nothing pure about baseball or the sport itself...

Reaper16
08-06-2010, 01:03 PM
Home runs per season is one thing, I didn't see anything about home runs over a career. Who knows how many home runs Mays or Ted Williams could have hit if they extended their careers three more years? Steroids could have allowed Williams a couple more years. Ken Griffey Jr might still be playing if he could take roids to help himself feel better.
That's a fair point.
It's ridiculous to argue that steroids don't help guys hit more home runs.

You can talk all you want about "possible other causes", but that's all bullshit speculation. The evidence is overwhelming.
Can you point to the overwhelming evidence? I haven't seen it, neither has Poznanski, who makes a point in the article of saying that there is no solid evidence we can point to in order to KNOW the effects of steroids on HR power.

jspchief
08-06-2010, 01:31 PM
Can you point to the overwhelming evidence? I haven't seen it, neither has Poznanski, who makes a point in the article of saying that there is no solid evidence we can point to in order to KNOW the effects of steroids on HR power.

Overwhelming? not off the top of my head.

But the explosion of the HR in an era where steroids really hit their scientific stride, followed by a drop-off since baseball took a hard line, makes a compelling case for it.

Reaper16
08-06-2010, 01:36 PM
Overwhelming? not off the top of my head.

But the explosion of the HR in an era where steroids really hit their scientific stride, followed by a drop-off since baseball took a hard line, makes a compelling case for it.
Yes, that is the principal piece of evidence. So, like, did anyone actually read the article? Because that piece of evidence is addressed.

TheGuardian
08-06-2010, 01:41 PM
1. Steroids are extremely dangerous tor your health and, in fact, can kill you. -

Wrong. Go find me the list of people who have died DIRECTLY from steroid use. Anyone who says Lyle Alzado is IMMEDIATELY disqualified and is certifiably stupid.

Reaper16
08-06-2010, 01:42 PM
1. Steroids are extremely dangerous tor your health and, in fact, can kill you. -

Wrong. Go find me the list of people who have died DIRECTLY from steroid use. Anyone who says Lyle Alzado is IMMEDIATELY disqualified and is certifiably stupid.
The study that Posnanski is writing about more or less agrees with you.

TheGuardian
08-06-2010, 01:44 PM
The study that Posnanski is writing about more or less agrees with you.

Right. John Romano did a similar thing a while back for HBO. The shit people believe about steroids is ridiculously stupid. Thank the media.

googlegoogle
08-06-2010, 01:44 PM
I would imagine since the early 70s

Reggie?

Demonpenz
08-06-2010, 01:47 PM
Bash brothers!

Demonpenz
08-06-2010, 01:50 PM
Reggie?

reggie theus was a huge roid user

Demonpenz
08-06-2010, 01:53 PM
baseballs allure was anyone anysize can play it, wee willie keeler was 4'9 and he won an mvp. When people were jacked up on roids, it took that part of the game out.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 01:56 PM
Just for the record I have been saying for years on this board that the responsible use of steroids was safe and the moderate use in conjunction with HGH has been used for years in Europe to extend the quality of life when used as an anti-aging floormat. I have also been absolutely blasted and called every name in the book for saying that.

Hydrae
08-06-2010, 01:57 PM
It might be interesting to do some comparisons with trends that happened in college baseball. I don't think they use the same ball as the majors but have no idea. It could help to find commonalities that would lead to stronger conclusions either way.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 02:04 PM
Reggie?

I'm not even going to speculate. Who cares?

TheGuardian
08-06-2010, 02:05 PM
Just for the record I have been saying for years on this board that the responsible use of steroids was safe and the moderate use in conjunction with HGH has been used for years in Europe to extend the quality of life when used as an anti-aging floormat. I have also been absolutely blasted and called every name in the book for saying that.

That's because people that know nothing about steroids and growth hormone usually scream loudest and are the most ignorant to boot.

Steroids save lives and give people a higher quality of life everyday. We also know now that low testosterone levels are FAR more dangerous than even abusing high doses of test.

jspchief
08-06-2010, 02:09 PM
Yes, that is the principal piece of evidence. So, like, did anyone actually read the article? Because that piece of evidence is addressed.
So... "no one can actually prove that steroids help you hit HRs"

Can anyone actually prove that the alleged changes in the ball help you hit HRs? Or that the changes even happened? The suggestion that MLB is keeping it quiet in an era where opening your mouth is a ticket to a book deal and a spot on Oprah is laughable.

I get what he's saying, but I don't see a lot of weight behind it beyond "what if".

jspchief
08-06-2010, 02:13 PM
Steroids save lives and give people a higher quality of life everyday. We also know now that low testosterone levels are FAR more dangerous than even abusing high doses of test.

That's pretty much entirely irrelevant to the way steroids are being used in the topic being discussed.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 02:14 PM
That's because people that know nothing about steroids and growth hormone usually scream loudest and are the most ignorant to boot.

Steroids save lives and give people a higher quality of life everyday. We also know now that low testosterone levels are FAR more dangerous than even abusing high doses of test.

I'm just can't wait for the dangers of vaccines to become glaringly self-evident. I won't even begin to tell you the abuse I have put up with here on that front. Funniest thing is all I was ever trying to do was help people. The truth is people don't want to do their own due diligence because they are too fucking lazy. They just want to believe whatever comes out of the FDA. Glorify vaccines, demonize roids. It's all one giant ocean of lies.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 02:15 PM
That's pretty much entirely irrelevant to the way steroids are being used in the topic being discussed.

You keep ignoring the downside factor. It could make somebody hit less HR's

Marcellus
08-06-2010, 02:21 PM
I'm not buying it.

1. Helps you recover from injuries quicker = More at bats
2. You can't tell me strength can't improve swing speed, giving balls the extra push they need to be HRs.

Greenies give you more energy (energy = power) and energy equals more at bats or better at bats.

Here is something to think about.

This year HR's and hitting are way down. The only change prior to this season, they started testing for amphetamines.

jspchief
08-06-2010, 02:24 PM
You keep ignoring the downside factor. It could make somebody hit less homeruns.I'm not sure I get what you're saying.

Marcellus
08-06-2010, 02:25 PM
Just for the record I have been saying for years on this board that the responsible use of steroids was safe and the moderate use in conjunction with HGH has been used for years in Europe to extend the quality of life when used as an anti-aging floormat. I have also been absolutely blasted and called every name in the book for saying that.


While I don't agree with your take on vaccines. I do agree with you on this.

I read the steroid handbook back in the 90's and they are like anything else. Moderation is key.

Alcohol is more likely to fuck you up than moderately dosed steroids.

Cigarettes are way deadlier yet we aren't outlawing them.

BigCatDaddy
08-06-2010, 02:35 PM
That's because people that know nothing about steroids and growth hormone usually scream loudest and are the most ignorant to boot.

Steroids save lives and give people a higher quality of life everyday. We also know now that low testosterone levels are FAR more dangerous than even abusing high doses of test.

Truth. I'm actually going to be starting TRT if my HPTA restart does not work in case it's self inflected damage.

BigCatDaddy
08-06-2010, 02:39 PM
Also saying "Steroids" is like saying "drugs" there are so many different types, ways of injection, etc... It's just so vague. Kids take steroids for Poison Ivy. Personally I think low T in males could be a major player in anxiety and depression, but it's easier for a doctor to just give someone an SSRI and send them on there way. Hormone treatments will be more common in the future.

blaise
08-06-2010, 02:42 PM
Or they could have injured themself and not played for as long. Whatever.

And? Are you saying steroids could extend a career or not?

Mr. Laz
08-06-2010, 02:48 PM
it helps them train,it helps them condition,it helps them "feel" strong,it helps stay healthy(until they stop), it helps them recover faster

whether anyone can prove/disprove it helps specifically with home runs is irrelevant.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 02:56 PM
And? Are you saying steroids could extend a career or not?

It could extend or shorten a career. Steroids are a double edged sword.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 03:01 PM
I'm not sure I get what you're saying.

Can you recover from injuries quicker, sure. May you extend your career, maybe. Because of this additional strength could you injure your back in McGwireque fashion? Absolutely.

OnTheWarpath58
08-06-2010, 03:38 PM
It could extend or shorten a career. Steroids are a double edged sword.

Absolutely.

The muscle grows quicker and bigger than the joints, tendons and ligaments were designed to support.

Barry Bonds, for example, started 150 or more games 8 times prior to starting the juice - and only once after starting.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 03:49 PM
All that said not being able to use substances like Deca Durabolin to recover from injuries is just stupid.

alnorth
08-06-2010, 04:02 PM
Barry Bonds, for example, started 150 or more games 8 times prior to starting the juice - and only once after starting.

Well, there's that whole "getting older" thing too.

alnorth
08-06-2010, 04:04 PM
it helps them train,it helps them condition,it helps them "feel" strong,it helps stay healthy(until they stop), it helps them recover faster

whether anyone can prove/disprove it helps specifically with home runs is irrelevant.

You may have missed the point of the article. If it helps you train, recover from injury, etc that might be a good case for banning it from baseball. However, if steroids do not significantly impact your ability to hit a home run, then we have wildly over-reacted in our collective condemnation of the players who took steroids. Our disapproval should have been closer to the level it would be if they were smoking crack or doing blood doping for energy/recovery or whatever.

Demonpenz
08-06-2010, 04:16 PM
You may have missed the point of the article. If it helps you train, recover from injury, etc that might be a good case for banning it from baseball. However, if steroids do not significantly impact your ability to hit a home run, then we have wildly over-reacted in our collective condemnation of the players who took steroids. Our disapproval should have been closer to the level it would be if they were smoking crack or doing blood doping for energy/recovery or whatever.

do you know anyone personally that wildly overacted? Like went around smashing shit when they found out that Sosa was steriods

Mr. Laz
08-06-2010, 04:21 PM
You may have missed the point of the article. If it helps you train, recover from injury, etc that might be a good case for banning it from baseball. However, if steroids do not significantly impact your ability to hit a home run, then we have wildly over-reacted in our collective condemnation of the players who took steroids. Our disapproval should have been closer to the level it would be if they were smoking crack or doing blood doping for energy/recovery or whatever.
no ... there is no doubt that it helps them be a better athlete which is the only thing that matters. It's cheating. Hey, i don't care if you want to take steriod ... to each his own. When it comes to a competitive sport then it's cheating.

corking a bat,pitcher using sandpaper on a ball, using steriods ... whatever, it's cheating.

Mecca
08-06-2010, 04:22 PM
Basically the information that is sold publicly on steroids and HGH is so completely wrong it either qualifies as misinformation or so completely false that it would rate up there with what you'd see in a smear campaign.

For years now Steroids have been treated like they are heroin by general media then we wonder why average person has the view they do.

There's a reason why steroids aren't illegal in most countries...

blaise
08-06-2010, 04:23 PM
Can you recover from injuries quicker, sure. May you extend your career, maybe. Because of this additional strength could you injure your back in McGwireque fashion? Absolutely.

So, it can corrupt the record books. If a guy like Bonds used it and added more productive years at the end of his career, and Griffey and Ted Williams didn't, it affects the record books in terms of career home runs. I'm not saying steroids are the devil, but let's not pretend it can't add to the career home run total for guys nearing the end of their career.
The claim by some that steroids have no effect on home run figures is false in my opinion. Without steroids I don't think Bonds hits that many homers. With steroids I think Ted Williams hits more.

Mecca
08-06-2010, 04:24 PM
do you know anyone personally that wildly overacted? Like went around smashing shit when they found out that Sosa was steriods

We call those people the sports media, no one has had a bigger overreaction to this than sports writers.

That and the federal government actually holding a hearing about it.

It's completely retarded.

Mecca
08-06-2010, 04:26 PM
So, it can corrupt the record books. If a guy like Bonds used it and added more productive years at the end of his career, and Griffey and Ted Williams didn't, it affects the record books in terms of career home runs. I'm not saying steroids are the devil, but let's not pretend it can't add to the career home run total for guys nearing the end of their career.
The claim by some that steroids have no effect on home run figures is false in my opinion. Without steroids I don't think Bonds hits that many homers. With steroids I think Ted Williams hits more.

And here is why baseball takes heat when it's pretty obvious to anyone with eyes the NFL is far more roided up.

No one cares about football records or if some LT is roided out of his mind, since for some reason baseball records matter it becomes a larger deal than it ever should have.

OnTheWarpath58
08-06-2010, 04:28 PM
So, it can corrupt the record books. If a guy like Bonds used it and added more productive years at the end of his career, and Griffey and Ted Williams didn't, it affects the record books in terms of career home runs. I'm not saying steroids are the devil, but let's not pretend it can't add to the career home run total for guys nearing the end of their career.
The claim by some that steroids have no effect on home run figures is false in my opinion. Without steroids I don't think Bonds hits that many homers. With steroids I think Ted Williams hits more.

No doubt about that. Pre-juice, BB never hit 35 in a season.

After, he had 9 seasons over 35.

He might have gotten to 500 without the juice.

Mecca
08-06-2010, 04:30 PM
The article does point out that skinny Bonds was on pace for 53 before the strike...the HR numbers aren't about roids.

blaise
08-06-2010, 04:32 PM
And here is why baseball takes heat when it's pretty obvious to anyone with eyes the NFL is far more roided up.

No one cares about football records or if some LT is roided out of his mind, since for some reason baseball records matter it becomes a larger deal than it ever should have.

There's nothing wrong with taking steroids into account when looking at baseball numbers. What the NFL players do or don't do seems pretty irrelevant to me when it comes to that.

blaise
08-06-2010, 04:33 PM
The article does point out that skinny Bonds was on pace for 53 before the strike...the HR numbers aren't about roids.

Why'd he do steroids then?

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 04:48 PM
do you know anyone personally that wildly overacted? Like went around smashing shit when they found out that Sosa was steriods

Hell yea how about George Bush addressing it in the state of the union. How about ESPN's absolute obsession with the subject. How about Barry Bonds being blackballed by the entire league so he couldn't play. From grand jury testimony to witch hunt that is the BB case it's beyond ludicrious. Tons of overreaction, I guess you just weren't paying attention.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 04:55 PM
Basically the information that is sold publicly on steroids and HGH is so completely wrong it either qualifies as misinformation or so completely false that it would rate up there with what you'd see in a smear campaign.

For years now Steroids have been treated like they are heroin by general media then we wonder why average person has the view they do.

There's a reason why steroids aren't illegal in most countries...

Amen brother. They were even closing down anti-aging clinics.

notorious
08-06-2010, 05:02 PM
Greenies give you more energy (energy = power) and energy equals more at bats or better at bats.

Here is something to think about.

This year HR's and hitting are way down. The only change prior to this season, they started testing for amphetamines.

This.


And several players have been interviewed on ESPN stating the EXACT same thing.


The baseball season is long, and a little help in the energy department makes a huge difference.

jspchief
08-06-2010, 05:11 PM
And here is why baseball takes heat when it's pretty obvious to anyone with eyes the NFL is far more roided up.

No one cares about football records or if some LT is roided out of his mind, since for some reason baseball records matter it becomes a larger deal than it ever should have.Yep. It's the media and baseball nerds crying the loudest.

The average fan wants bigger, faster, stronger. They like seeing baseballs get mashed into other area codes, dunks from beyond the 3 point line, and tackles that look like two dumptrucks colliding.

CrazyPhuD
08-06-2010, 05:18 PM
Meh....steriods make your pee pee smaller....plus they cause you to pirate more movies!

alnorth
08-06-2010, 05:23 PM
do you know anyone personally that wildly overacted? Like went around smashing shit when they found out that Sosa was steriods

you make have mis-read my post. I said "wildly over-reacted", not "went postal"

alnorth
08-06-2010, 05:24 PM
no ... there is no doubt that it helps them be a better athlete which is the only thing that matters. It's cheating. Hey, i don't care if you want to take steriod ... to each his own. When it comes to a competitive sport then it's cheating.

corking a bat,pitcher using sandpaper on a ball, using steriods ... whatever, it's cheating.

well, no duh.

Jaywalking is also against the law, but you wont get LWOP for it. The question is degree of offense and appropriateness of punishment, not whether it should be against the rules.

Marcellus
08-06-2010, 05:33 PM
This.


And several players have been interviewed on ESPN stating the EXACT same thing.


The baseball season is long, and a little help in the energy department makes a huge difference.

It's easier for people to point at steroids and blame it all on that because their old school heroes used greenies not steroids so to consider greenies cheating would make them all cheaters, except that greenies weren't against the rules back then just like steroids weren't against the rules for most of that era.

The fact is there has been performance enhancement in baseball since the 60's and if you look at it objectively the steroid era is no worse than any other era.

Marcellus
08-06-2010, 05:35 PM
The article does point out that skinny Bonds was on pace for 53 before the strike...the HR numbers aren't about roids.

Skinny McGwire hit 49 his rookie season.

Brainiac
08-06-2010, 05:50 PM
Skinny McGwire hit 49 his rookie season.

So what's the difference between 49 and 70? Answer: steroids.

Marcellus
08-06-2010, 05:55 PM
So what's the difference between 49 and 70? Answer: steroids.

I am not saying steroids didn't play a roll. I am just saying no more of a roll in baseball history than amphetamines yet that is ignored.

This season is a perfect example of the effect amphetamines had on baseball. It's not a coincidence.

jspchief
08-06-2010, 05:59 PM
It's easier for people to point at steroids and blame it all on that because their old school heroes used greenies not steroids so to consider greenies cheating would make them all cheaters, except that greenies weren't against the rules back then just like steroids weren't against the rules for most of that era.

The fact is there has been performance enhancement in baseball since the 60's and if you look at it objectively the steroid era is no worse than any other era.Not sure I agree with that. I think for the casual fan, the difference between greenies and roids is one makes you grow into something resembling a comic book superhero. The players look like they are enhanced. It's all about perception.

Marcellus
08-06-2010, 06:19 PM
Not sure I agree with that. I think for the casual fan, the difference between greenies and roids is one makes you grow into something resembling a comic book superhero. The players look like they are enhanced. It's all about perception.


May be true that that is the perception but this year sure looks like compelling evidence amphetamines had a bigger impact than roids. This is the first year they have tested for amphetamines. Hitting is waaaaay down, pitching is way up as you probably know.

There has been a lot of discussion about this on baseball shows.

JohnnyV13
08-06-2010, 06:39 PM
Just for the record I have been saying for years on this board that the responsible use of steroids was safe and the moderate use in conjunction with HGH has been used for years in Europe to extend the quality of life when used as an anti-aging floormat. I have also been absolutely blasted and called every name in the book for saying that.

Big Daddy, I actually agree with you.

But, its MODERATE use of roids, not the mega doses that many bodybuilders want to use.

The idea is to pop your testosterone and HGH levels back into a 20's age range, rather than an older age. You could see ambulation benefits; especially, in much older patients. Remember the studies they did in the early 90's showing that geriatric people actually gained more health benefits from weight training than young people? The fact is, from a health standpoint, gyms should be filled with grandfathers instead of young people.

The problem is, many physicians fear that HGH will cause unknown tumors to proliferate, so that cancers will be more progressed by the time they are discovered.

From a pure health standpoint, I can see using moderate roids and hgh levels at older ages to help body composition and ambulation. I definately wouldn't recommend the sort of massive doses some bodybuilders want to use to maximize muscle growth.

tk13
08-06-2010, 07:01 PM
I think this is probably one of the single most in-depth discussions we could have about something. There are SO many factors at play it is very difficult to evaluate them all.

I do think:

1) That young players (at least successful ones) would be more inclined to take steroids if the pros are doing it. Yeah maybe they're not "role models", but they don't have to be. You may hate Barry Bonds, but if you think they helped him, you'd do it too. And that's not good... even if you think steroids are okay, most people aren't smart or responsible enough to handle something like that.

2) I think at the end of the day, steroids helped the boom, but probably not as much as the general public generally assumes. Everyone seems to deny it now... but I think there was a time where people made it seem like you magically turned into popeye.

Brady Anderson is the one I don't get. Yeah he probably used steroids, but then what happened? Why didn't he keep doing that?
Here's his HR numbers in that stretch: 13, 12, 16, 50, 18, 18
Did he just do it for a year and say "Oh well, that's enough"?

Tough to say. I'm sure it helped some people. And the others... like McGwire for instance, you will probably never convince me that it made a huge difference in his pure power. That guy was a freak, I think he legitimately had the talent to hit 70 HR's. He could hit a 480 foot bomb like it was nothing. I don't think steroids added the 70 feet to most of his HR's needed to get over the fence.

But sure it's a factor. I think there are a lot of factors... without going into the whole juiced ball stuff. The ballparks were all becoming way smaller. Some of the ballparks in the old days were enormous. Willie Mays played part of his career at the Polo Grounds where it was like 450 to the gaps and 480 to center. More and more expansion also led to more diluted rosters.

Plus the biggest thing is that even if they never took steroids, year-round training is much more serious now. Players didn't train anything like they do now.

veist
08-06-2010, 07:15 PM
Greenies give you more energy (energy = power) and energy equals more at bats or better at bats.

Here is something to think about.

This year HR's and hitting are way down. The only change prior to this season, they started testing for amphetamines.

It really would not surprise me if the greenies had a lot more to do with the hitters production than 'roids.

Mecca
08-06-2010, 07:26 PM
A story about greenies is not nearly as sexy as a steroid story, Steroid paranoia is pretty much ridiculous and has been for a long while in this country.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 07:32 PM
Big Daddy, I actually agree with you.

But, its MODERATE use of roids, not the mega doses that many bodybuilders want to use.

The idea is to pop your testosterone and HGH levels back into a 20's age range, rather than an older age. You could see ambulation benefits; especially, in much older patients. Remember the studies they did in the early 90's showing that geriatric people actually gained more health benefits from weight training than young people? The fact is, from a health standpoint, gyms should be filled with grandfathers instead of young people.

The problem is, many physicians fear that HGH will cause unknown tumors to proliferate, so that cancers will be more progressed by the time they are discovered.

From a pure health standpoint, I can see using moderate roids and hgh levels at older ages to help body composition and ambulation. I definately wouldn't recommend the sort of massive doses some bodybuilders want to use to maximize muscle growth.

There are different things going on here. Mass dosing or "stacking" as long as it is done in cycles with the right diet can be maintained for long periods of time and is not even remotely as dangerous as we have all been led to believe. I love using Albert Beckles as an example. Dude competed until he was like 62 and was stacking for two decades. He currently is 80 and judges competitions. http://www.bodybuilders.com/albert.htm Hell at 61 the guys actually won the Niagara Falls Pro Invitational. Guy will outlive most on this BB for sure.

The anti-aging benefits have been known for a long time. They continue to try and kill that too. What really angers me though is all the small pharmaceutical companies they went after that created good prohormone products like ergopharm. The government continues to have a serious hard on for all of these small companies making good products and lie to us about their motives. It's flipping ridiculous.

Mecca
08-06-2010, 07:37 PM
They'd rather not allow you to have anti aging things or things that allow you to live longer...they want people to die sooner so they don't have to pay social security etc etc and you also then would have to pay for the governments drugs you'd need being old and frail.

Silock
08-06-2010, 07:57 PM
That's because people that know nothing about steroids and growth hormone usually scream loudest and are the most ignorant to boot.

Steroids save lives and give people a higher quality of life everyday. We also know now that low testosterone levels are FAR more dangerous than even abusing high doses of test.

I agree. That's why I want them from a certified doctor, though, and not from some vetrinarian in Mexico.

JohnnyV13
08-06-2010, 09:07 PM
There are different things going on here. Mass dosing or "stacking" as long as it is done in cycles with the right diet can be maintained for long periods of time and is not even remotely as dangerous as we have all been led to believe. I love using Albert Beckles as an example. Dude competed until he was like 62 and was stacking for two decades. He currently is 80 and judges competitions. http://www.bodybuilders.com/albert.htm Hell at 61 the guys actually won the Niagara Falls Pro Invitational. Guy will outlive most on this BB for sure.

The anti-aging benefits have been known for a long time. They continue to try and kill that too. What really angers me though is all the small pharmaceutical companies they went after that created good prohormone products like ergopharm. The government continues to have a serious hard on for all of these small companies making good products and lie to us about their motives. It's flipping ridiculous.

SUre, the larger stacking done by competitors with regular cycles is probably better than we have been led to believe, but doctors don't have long term studies to back that up. Those kind of long term studies are hard to do: its hard to track people for 30 years or so and collect data.

I work in the health care field and my dad is a doctor, so I have a pretty good idea how they would think. Doctors, whose primary concern is health, wouldn't recommend taking megadose risk because they wouldn't see any real health benefit to large muscle mass gains.

They wouldn't want to go beyond natural levels, and would want to delay supplementation until later in life. THe idea is that even if you proliferate unknown tumors, at that point you wouldn't be cutting off as much potential life expectancy and you'd be gaining tangible ambulation benefits.

There are a number of people taking HGH for anti aging (body composistion, less wrinkles, more energy), and hopefully doctors are tracking some of these people with clinical studies so they can quantify the tumor proliferation risk.

Btw, i cruise bodybuilding.com regularly myself. Its a great site.

Marcellus
08-06-2010, 09:17 PM
SUre, the larger stacking done by competitors with regular cycles is probably better than we have been led to believe, but doctors don't have long term studies to back that up. Those kind of long term studies are hard to do: its hard to track people for 30 years or so and collect data.

.

Schwarzenegger is still pretty healthy though he may be an exception.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 10:11 PM
SUre, the larger stacking done by competitors with regular cycles is probably better than we have been led to believe, but doctors don't have long term studies to back that up. Those kind of long term studies are hard to do: its hard to track people for 30 years or so and collect data.

I work in the health care field and my dad is a doctor, so I have a pretty good idea how they would think. Doctors, whose primary concern is health, wouldn't recommend taking megadose risk because they wouldn't see any real health benefit to large muscle mass gains.

They wouldn't want to go beyond natural levels, and would want to delay supplementation until later in life. THe idea is that even if you proliferate unknown tumors, at that point you wouldn't be cutting off as much potential life expectancy and you'd be gaining tangible ambulation benefits.

There are a number of people taking HGH for anti aging (body composistion, less wrinkles, more energy), and hopefully doctors are tracking some of these people with clinical studies so they can quantify the tumor proliferation risk.

Btw, i cruise bodybuilding.com regularly myself. Its a great site.

Love the avatar dude.

JohnnyV13
08-06-2010, 10:23 PM
Love the avatar dude.

Her name is Susan Ward. She's not really well known, but she's a hot chick. Does a great deranged femme fatale.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-06-2010, 10:28 PM
The idea that home run power comes from your legs is only partially true. It comes from your legs, and your wrists and forearms.

Why do you think that all of the older HR hitters were considered "country strong"? It was because of the strength in their wrists and forearms.

If you are putting on muscle, and a lot of it is in your upper body, you are going to gain mass in your forearms. There are many stories of people marveling at the size of McGwire's forearms--they were enormous. Being able to control and create that much leverage with the bat head would give you a tremendous amount of speed through the zone, and that is going to lead to more homers.

jspchief
08-06-2010, 10:42 PM
The idea that home run power comes from your legs is only partially true. It comes from your legs, and your wrists and forearms.

Why do you think that all of the older HR hitters were considered "country strong"? It was because of the strength in their wrists and forearms.

If you are putting on muscle, and a lot of it is in your upper body, you are going to gain mass in your forearms. There are many stories of people marveling at the size of McGwire's forearms--they were enormous. Being able to control and create that much leverage with the bat head would give you a tremendous amount of speed through the zone, and that is going to lead to more homers.The entire notion that steroids only help your upper body is absurd anyway. They help whichever part of your body that you work.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 10:53 PM
Her name is Susan Ward. She's not really well known, but she's a hot chick. Does a great deranged femme fatale.

Cool. I haven't really caught up on the latest on this front in like 10 years. At that time I was under the impression that the entire basis for tying roids to cancer was based upon only one thing, that when they gave estrogen to women in menopause they saw a spike in breast cancer.This made them draw the very irresponsible conclusion that any manipulation of any natural hormonal levels caused cancer. I would be curious to know if there has ever been any scientific evidence linking increased testosterone levels to cancer.

BIG_DADDY
08-06-2010, 10:56 PM
There are many stories of people marveling at the size of McGwire's forearms--they were enormous. Being able to control and create that much leverage with the bat head would give you a tremendous amount of speed through the zone, and that is going to lead to more homers.

That sounds like an accurate take to me. I still wonder if using roids was the reason for all of his back problems.

KC_Connection
08-07-2010, 12:19 AM
A very worthwhile discussion to have. I've always felt about steroids what this new study seems to conclude.
Yes, me as well. Although I believe steroids did have some effect on increasing the strength/power of MLB players, the greater factor in those increased HR totals was a juiced ball.

Has anybody here seen this documentary, Bigger, Stronger, Faster*, from a few years back? Very entertaining and informative, and really puts this country's steroid hysteria into perspective.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1151309/

irishjayhawk
08-07-2010, 12:23 AM
I'm just can't wait for the dangers of vaccines to become glaringly self-evident. I won't even begin to tell you the abuse I have put up with here on that front. Funniest thing is all I was ever trying to do was help people. The truth is people don't want to do their own due diligence because they are too ****ing lazy. They just want to believe whatever comes out of the FDA. Glorify vaccines, demonize roids. It's all one giant ocean of lies.

ROFL

KC_Connection
08-07-2010, 12:23 AM
Oh, and for anybody who thinks the steroid/PED era in baseball has ended, I would point them to this article:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8470

DaneMcCloud
08-07-2010, 12:31 AM
I'm just can't wait for the dangers of vaccines to become glaringly self-evident. I won't even begin to tell you the abuse I have put up with here on that front. Funniest thing is all I was ever trying to do was help people. The truth is people don't want to do their own due diligence because they are too fucking lazy. They just want to believe whatever comes out of the FDA. Glorify vaccines, demonize roids. It's all one giant ocean of lies.

Dude...

The "Lie" began in Europe and the guy that started the "Lie" has been barred from ever practicing medicine, forever.

He faked his research.

You're overreacting and you're coming across as a loon.

You're not a loon, so take a look around, Dude.

Children by the MILLIONS are fine.

irishjayhawk
08-07-2010, 12:34 AM
And, for those interested, Dane is referring to Andrew Wakefield.

BIG_DADDY
08-07-2010, 01:02 AM
Dude...

The "Lie" began in Europe and the guy that started the "Lie" has been barred from ever practicing medicine, forever.

He faked his research.

You're overreacting and you're coming across as a loon.

You're not a loon, so take a look around, Dude.

Children by the MILLIONS are fine.

Dude, I have literally several hundreds hours of research in on this and have posted endlessly on the subject for years now. Some articles have been from some of the top immunologists. Others have exposed the endless lies and cover up of the FDA. The evidence is there for anyone who will do their due diligence. You read one article and and want to label me a loon. Whatever makes you happy bro. I am not going to keep doing the subject over and over again. I believe the truth about vaccines will become self-evident to even the average simpleton eventually. Until then knock yourself out cause I could care less what you think of me.

DaneMcCloud
08-07-2010, 01:43 AM
Until then knock yourself out cause I could care less what you think of me.

Come on, Man. I have no beef with your or your persistence or ideals.

I just believe differently. I'm not insulting you for your stance and I truly hope that your path doesn't lead to any harm for your child.

My wife and I have thoroughly researched as well. Even though I'm the oldest of four children in my family, I'm the last to have children. My daughter, who's now two years old, has been immunized according to our doctor's schedule.

She has eight cousins, ranging in age from 9 to 19. ALL have been immunized and have absolutely no problems. So we felt safe in immunizing our daughter.

I hope all works out well for you and your family.

Marcellus
08-07-2010, 08:20 AM
Oh, and for anybody who thinks the steroid/PED era in baseball has ended, I would point them to this article:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8470

Kind of flies in the face of steroids contributing to HR's if drug use isn't down but HR's have been down.


If you believe this article you have to come to the conclusion that amphetamines were a bigger contributor to performance enhancement than steroids are. (unless someone has developed an undetectable amphetamine)

BIG_DADDY
08-07-2010, 12:17 PM
Come on, Man. I have no beef with your or your persistence or ideals.

I just believe differently. I'm not insulting you for your stance and I truly hope that your path doesn't lead to any harm for your child.

My wife and I have thoroughly researched as well. Even though I'm the oldest of four children in my family, I'm the last to have children. My daughter, who's now two years old, has been immunized according to our doctor's schedule.

She has eight cousins, ranging in age from 9 to 19. ALL have been immunized and have absolutely no problems. So we felt safe in immunizing our daughter.

I hope all works out well for you and your family.

Cool, to each their own. I am glad everything has worked out for the kids as well. My cousin just got diagnosed with MS in her mid-20s. Neurological disorders have risen lock step with the massive increase in vaccines. She has seen many specialists and is aware that this may have come from one of her childhood inoculations. We have no idea what the long term effects of this beyond massive schedule is. The other thing that is glaringly obvious is my kid just doesn't get sick. At 3 he has only had a handful of runny noses that last a day or two and one feaver that lasted a day. Average toddler is sick constantly averaging 8 times a year. My kid was a 3 pound preemie and supposed to be sicker than most. Every time we go to the preemie party at Stanford we hear about how sick all the other kids have been with one exception, another kid who is not getting vaccinated. Just saying. Best to you and your family.

lawrenceRaider
08-07-2010, 12:43 PM
I'm just can't wait for the dangers of vaccines to become glaringly self-evident. I won't even begin to tell you the abuse I have put up with here on that front. Funniest thing is all I was ever trying to do was help people. The truth is people don't want to do their own due diligence because they are too ****ing lazy. They just want to believe whatever comes out of the FDA. Glorify vaccines, demonize roids. It's all one giant ocean of lies.

Wow, now that's just plain stupid. You do realize that the Dr responsible for the vaccine scare has been discredited and made up/falsified his research? That whole bit on the vaccine scare is all about parents not wanting to admit they have inferior genetics that produced a kid with problems. Must be someone else's fault.

I've always said that Juice doesn't help hit home runs. Something people ignore is that pitchers were also Juiced up, so any gains by the hitters should have been offset by the gains from the pitchers. Ballpark sizes also shrank during the 'roid era, and have since been expanded in many ballparks, just like in KC.