Yes, it can help you hit a curveball. The faster your swing, the later you have to start it. The later you have to start your swing, the longer you have to watch a pitch. The longer you watch a pitch, the more likely you are to accurately identify it as a curve. The more you correctly identify a pitch as a curveball, the better you will be at hitting it.

This isn't string theory.

No, it just suddenly became a pitching era around 2008 (several years after they started drug testing). There are many theories for why that happened, but the biggest is that MLB changed their baseballs once again (probably to fool the fans/media into thinking that their testing was making some kind of a difference).

Here's a bit of reading about MLB's history of doing that:
http://steroids-and-baseball.com/
http://steroids-and-baseball.com/cha...baseball.shtml

Remember that pitchers were using PEDs just as much as hitters were. Wouldn't we expect a dropoff in performance from them without PEDs, too? We certainly haven't seen that at all (at least not since 2007/2008 when offensive levels fell around the game).

The point to take out of all of this, though, is that there are many more factors outside of PED use that can be attributed to both higher and lower offensive levels throughout the game.

This is wrong. But you can't fix stupid.

Explain where I went wrong, smart guy.

Hmmmm....

It is string theory?

Because all of the things you talk about don't have to do with being stronger. Most of it is central nervous system related. Which steroids cannot change.

It's why I ask if taking steroids can make you better at xbox 360. It flat out is NOT as simple as getting stronger and having a faster swing. If you want to believe that, that's fine. But it doesn't make it true.

So you're back to the "bat speed doesn't help baseball players" argument?

Never said that. The faster a guy can swing a bat the harder he should be able to hit a ball. It doesn't mean he can hit a ball any better however, and it also doesn't mean the initial reaction to the ball coming at him is any faster. THAT part of his swing is determined by his central nervous system.

I mean I've only got 23 ****ing years in this field, but you guys are the experts. :rolleyes:

You're making apparent that whatever 'field' you're in has nothing to do with baseball.

You simply don't understand the mechanics of a baseball swing if you truly believe what you're saying here. Even facially, your argument doesn't make any sense.

Like I said - this argument has nothing to do with the physical effects of steroids and everything to do with what makes a good hitter. You seem incapable of separating the two and I think it's because the pro-PED crowd just can't bring themselves to admit that PEDs have a massive impact on the competitive balance if some players are using them and other's aren't.

Whatever - the argument is in black and white and plain for anyone that wants to pay attention. Your position is that batspeed doesn't make better overall hitters. Fine - it's patently false, but whatever.

Enjoy that flat earth.

You're too stupid to realize you are the flat Earther in this argument. You don't understand the difference between the CNS and PNS and how steroids do and don't effect either. It applies to this discussion completely but because you are unaware of this, you keep arguing. you're still the dumbass that said that steroids target the fast twitch muscles, which would get you laughed right out of the room with people who deal with this stuff.

Again, you're the flat earther here. Just too ****ing ignorant to know it.

I'm not sure why we can't agree that "Performance Enhancing Drugs" don't actually enhance your performance.

No, it has nothing to do with CNS or PNS. It has to do with whether or not steroids can make you stronger. This is simple logic.

Steroids make you stronger.
Strength increases bat speed.
Increased bat speed enables you to be less quick with reaction time and still catch up.
Still catching up means you get longer to evaluate a pitch.
More time to evaluate a pitch increases the likelihood that the pitch will be hit.

23 years in the field of making stupid arguments? Sounds right.

Both you idiots realize that you can get stronger, and not have a faster bat swing right??????

Two guys both bench press 315 as their max.

Which guy is more powerful? Tell me.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PHYSICAL IMPACT OF STEROIDS! THEY ARE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

Jesus, do I need to put a period between every one of those to slow them down to the point that they're comprehensible for you? I'm accepting your position regarding the physical impact of steroids as 100% accurate. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I also don't care. I'm taking the point that you've conceded - that steroids improve strength and batspeed - as the fundamental cannon of the entire argument.

Using nothing more than that very same fundamental cannon applied to baseball, something I know a shitload about, I can tell you that you're just flat wrong. I've given you rationales for it. I've given you real-world examples of it.

Batspeed makes a HUGE difference in a hitters overall ability to hit a baseball. Not just how far they can hit it.

The rest of it is you just trying to talk about the physical impacts of steroids again because it's evidently the only thing you actually have a point of reference for. The fact is that their physical impacts are not germane to the discussion as I've gone ahead and used the ground rules you've set to move forward.

If steroids improve strength (A), strength improves batspeed (B) and batspeed improve overall hitting ability (C), then using the transitive property, steroids improve overall hitting ability. A and B in that string are points you've conceded. That leaves only C - batspeed improves overall hitting - as open to discussion.

And you have yet to marshall an argument suggesting otherwise.

But yet again, you've proven completely incapable of carrying on a rational discussion without spitting on your screen and otherwise hurling insults.

Keep on proving my point, Al.

Getting stronger does't mean your bat speed will improve.

Do you understand this?

Yeah, you can, if you train like an idiot. You can also get stronger and with that strength greatly increase your batspeed.

Baseball players don't train like idiots.

When they add strength, they do so in a manner that allows them to increase their batspeed via increasing their ability to move mass without decreasing their flexibility.

I do not see what's so hard to understand about this. Further, the fact that you're citing bench press again indicates how little you know about a baseball swing. Most hitters will generate a great deal of their batspeed from their legs. It allows them to swing their hips through harder and faster. The added strength in their arms will allow them to keep their hands back despite the additional force generated by their legs. That creates a great deal of kinetic energy buildup through their back and shoulders. As the ball reaches the hitting zone, they can then release all that. The greater the energy, the greater the speed (unless you sacrifice flexibility in the process; but hitters know better).

Again - you simply don't know enough about hitting a baseball to make the arguments your trying to make. Everything about a major league swing is improved through additional strength, unless your some juiced up idiot that strength trains to the point that you lose the 'loose limbs' that will let you flick the bat.

This has nothing to do with it. You have no clue as to what you're talking about.

I am citing the bench press as a reason. Answer the question. Two guys bench press 315 as their absolute max. Who is more powerful? Answer it.

It absolutely can if you do it correctly.

Again, I'm not talking about handspeed. Your position is that handspeed remains unchanged because fast-twitch muscles aren't impacted. Okay, whatever - I don't know why sprinters continue to use PEDs if that's the case as running speed is based almost entirely on fast-twitch muscles, but it's beside the point - I'm willing to concede your position for the sake of argument.

Batspeed, however, is more than just handspeed. It's a product of both handspeed and core strength. You continue to ignore the fact that you're swinging an object that has mass.

If can bench 100 lbs and try to swing a 3 lb, end-weighted object, I'm not going to be able to swing it nearly as hard as if I work out for awhile and get my strength to the point that I can bench 200 lbs. I'm going to be able to move that 3 lb object much more quickly because I don't have to work as hard to overcome the 'inertia' of a resting object.

You keep focusing on the ability to move hands (I guess) and speed/power comes from so much more than that. It comes, again, primarily from your legs. From there it simply compounds itself through your body and the strength builds on strength to create speed.

There's absolutely no way of knowing. There are too many variations in the bio-mechanics.

Now go ahead and explain to me how strength isn't at all relevant in someone's ability to move mass.

/facepalm

Ok let's clear a few facts up.

You can get stronger and not get faster. Fact.

You can get faster without getting stronger. Fact.

Two guys that bench press 315 as their max. Who is more powerful? The guy that can press it faster. The other guy can't press it as fast because THAT part of muscular function is dictated by how his central nervous system fires.

A guy can get stronger and not get faster because he isn't WIRED to be fast. it's a neurological thing, not a strength thing.

A guy can get faster, and not have gotten stronger. It's a neurological thing.

According to what you write, getting stronger is the key for a sprinter to get faster. This is not true. A sprinter gets faster by working on the rate of turnover in his stride. The body becomes more efficient from a motor skill perspective by doing this repeated movement. Stronger muscles doesn't always mean he can perform this movement more efficiently.

The same applies here. A guy can get stronger, but have shitty swinging mechanics, which LOTS of major league guys do, just like LOTS of NFL quarterbacks have shitty throwing mechanics, and getting stronger will not fix this.

Thus your argument is completely invalid. If it were true, then Strength and Conditioning coaches would be the second highest paid coaches on the god damn team. But they made bread crumbs compared to everyone else. If all it took was to have a bunch of guys batting better was to get them stronger, then S&C coaches would be looked at as gold. They aren't.

You guys are way out of your element arguing with me on this.

Case closed.

baseball swings power comes from the legs and the shifting of your body weight. The rest i dont care to argue. lol

You are so ****ing dense, it's ridiculous. Of course it's possible to get stronger without getting faster and vice versa. We aren't comparing two different people, though. We are comparing the same person. All else being equal, a professional baseball player is going to have increased bat speed as he gets stronger. It's really no more complicated than that; for non troglodytes, anyway.

Though he makes a good point - strength and conditioning coaches don't get paid shit.

Maybe it's because dumbass muscleheads like him are able to teach someone how to lift heavy things repeatedly. They're essentially fungible so there's no point in giving them real money.

Hitting coaches, OTOH, actually have to understand how to apply strength and it's uses to a swing. They actually have to be able to understand a swing and articulate how to refine it. In other words, stuff that a musclehead dipshit like him can't manage. As such, supply and demand dictates that they'd actually get paid pretty well.

He knows absolutely nothing about baseball or a baseball swing, yet I'm the idiot that doesn't understand why adding strength does augment and improve most people's swings.

Whatever - the last word is yours, Al. I'm sure it will be just as enlightening as every other bit of juice-addled tripe you've littered throughout this mess of a thread.

Heh.

Comedy gold. It's like the Rick James skit where he goes "course I remember grinding my feet into Eddie Murphey's couch......"

There is nothing contradictory there unless you're an idiot...which you are...and you missed where I qualified the second statement with a reference to professional baseball players.

It is possible to get stronger without getting faster, but it's also understood that professional baseball players train to do both.

I would be in for doing some steroids. Maybe it would clear up my hip pain issues.

You don't know a god damn thing about me or the strength and conditioning field nor steroids. You repeatedly prove that over and over in this thread.

You were the one that chimed in with goodies such as how steroids improve fast twitch fibers and such. There's nothing worse than some asshole like you or Saul talking on these subjects like you know something, when you are really complete ****ing idiots.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/46503925/

Ryan Braun won his 50-game PED suspension appeal.


Braun tested positive in early October for "insanely high" levels of synthetic testosterone. But he has maintained a cry of innocence since news of that positive test broke and made an appeal to a three-person panel of independent arbitrators last month in New York City. His side of the story was apparently convincing. It's the first time a PED suspension appeal has been successful since Major League Baseball implemented its drug policy, and it obviously comes as great news for the Brewers. The 2011 National League MVP is again a sure-fire first-round fantasy outfielder.

Ryan Braun has won his appeal and will not be suspended.

Ryan Braun wins appeal of suspension

The vote was 2-1. The union rep voted for Braun, management voted no, and baseball's independent arbitrator Shyam Das broke the tie in favor of Braun. No reasoning or details have been released yet.

Son of a bitch.

Statement from Ryan Braun in response to arbitration decision:

Not sure why, but I thought MLB would be a little more gracious in the event of a successful appeal. Guess not.

"As a part of our drug testing program, the Commissioner's Office and the Players Association agreed to a neutral third party review for instances that are under dispute," MLB executive vice president for labor relations Rob Manfred said in a statement. "While we have always respected that process, Major League Baseball vehemently disagrees with the decision rendered today by arbitrator Shyam Das."

One minor nugget of leaked info from Milwaukee's paper.

This might follow along with our earlier speculation that maybe there was a chain of custody issue or something where Braun's side argued the sample was tampered with. Who knows if that's true, but if there's a chain of custody issue, MLB has to improve their process and standards to fix that.

Really? What exactly was the argument you made in your appeal? I haven't heard that anywhere.

Give it a few days. He wanted to start talking right away, but his lawyers told him to shut up until after the appeal.

He's innocent in my book.

I can't help but think that Manny Ramirez and Barry Bonds (if he was ever caught) would never have gotten the benefit of the doubt from an arbitrator on appeal like this. The arbitrator's decision here was seemingly based on absolutely nothing.

Whatever, MLB's inconsistent brand of justice just saved my fantasy team in 2012.

I have very little doubt that he took PEDs, but who really cares anyway? It's professional sports. Let them take what they want.

There's obviously something different that 2 out of 3 felt was significant, there was too much chatter and speculation that Braun could beat it to think that this was just arbitrary.

The decision is based on something, we just don't know what that something is yet. We already know that he failed far worse than any other known result from anyone who has ever taken that test in the world, maybe something was wrong with testing procedure or the chain of custody.

Believe what you want, I guess. Nothing I've read (to this point, anyway) provided a good explanation for that Braun test beyond a performance enhancer.

If the decision was based on something tangible or meaningful, I really doubt MLB would have went public in their disagreement of it. Doing so is an embarrassment for them.

If you have something to say just come right out and say it.

Now, everyone who tests positive will be appealing.

No need.

For the most part, they already were.

Why not?

Manny got busted 2 times and NEVER denied it. He was guilty as they come. Bonds pretty much admitted to it saying they used to rub that shit on him but he "thought" it was some kind of bengay type shit.

No, Manny appealed the first time. Retired immediately after the 2nd time and didn't bother appealing.

Oh, Bonds used a whole lot more than that.

It's all there.

im sure he did, but my point was that he basically admitted it.

Why do you think they don't? They almost always appeal, and until today they have never won. Its not like everyone told Braun "hey, forget it, appealing is a waste of time, nobody ever appeals" and Braun thought "eh, why not, I'll give it a shot, maybe this appeal thing could work"

lol, He didnt say he didnt take anything though. He just said its for my personal life and i leave that out of the media. He never came out n said, i didnt take anything. Im a Dodger fan believe me, i watched everything about it.

True, but they didn't catch him with their tests, though.

Yeah, at the time that clear shit was undetectable by the tests they were doing. Now they have tests to see that.

If i remember right that was that new shit that Balco got involved in. Its been a few years, so my memory may be a bit spotty on that.

I can tell you are driving at something but can't pin it down. Would you mind being specific?

I'm a Manny fan...I remember it well. He did appeal following the news.

What are you saying, though? That every athlete who has ever denied taking PEDs following a positive test was telling the truth? LMAO

The rumor is that it basically wasn't shipped fast enough because whoever was responsible thought Fedex was closed Saturday evenings that created the chain of custody problem which is kind of laughable that they ****ed something so simple up that badly.

You'll get there, don't worry.

Interesting that you are hinting at baseless accusations yet are afraid to clearly state what you mean.
There is a word for that but I'm not going to say it.

Of course not, but in these 2 cases Bonds and Manny, they basically admitted it. I aint stupid, i can read between them big ass lines.

Athletes will continue tot ake steroids and i cant blame them, especially players from piss poor countries. Its like say, i can live like crap in the dominican (aka Manny) or i can take steeroids and earn about 300 million in the USA retire and live the rest of my life as a king in the DR. Hell, i'd do the same. Its a no brainer really.

They also didn't actually have drug tests in the early 2000s. In the later 2000s, they didn't catch him as he might have been taking something else undetectable (or maybe he wasn't taking anything at all by that point, but I kind of doubt it).

I hope that is not it. If its a technical violation of the rules for the procedure, so be it, but unless that particular test required that urine be newer than X days to be effective, that wont fly in the court of public opinion.

I'd hope it was more like some random guy in the lab who wasn't authorized took it out of the room and had possession of it for several hours, or it was accidentally contaminated by some Dorito dust from a slob on his lunch break, or something stupid and irresponsible like that.

Well...guys like Manny would be playing in the MLB regardless of whether they take PEDs due to sheer talent, but I see your point. And I certainly don't blame anybody for doing it either in that situation.

Believe what you want about this. Makes no difference to me.

Joel Sherman ‏ @Joelsherman1 Close
Heard Braun sample sat with collector all weekend because he thought FedEx was not open to send to lab. This was technicality that

Joel Sherman ‏ @Joelsherman1 Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Braun side used to sway arb. MLB shocked that carried the day

So it's a technicality that got him off, then? At least that's something more tangible than nothing at all.

You know, assuming this is even entirely correct. MLB is clearly putting this information out there to save face.

Spoken like a true coward.

Hardly. Nobody is ever entirely objective, it's impossible.

Jeff Passan ‏ @JeffPassan Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
USADA CEO Travis Tygart tells Y! Sports of the Braun decision: "It's frankly unreal. And it's a kick in the gut to clean athletes."

MLB is going to get a whole lot of shit over this one.

So his sample basically was with the collector, unprotected, for an entire weekend? Probably sat in the guys trunk or something. Boneheaded move by the testing company. They should know the shipping schedules like the back of their hands.

From the tweet, it sounds like the sample was with the person responsible for shipping it, as opposed to being left at the testing facility. Sounds like the collector left work on Friday, took the sample with him, and was too lazy/thought FedEx was closed, so he just took it home with him. If the sample has been in a secure location that entire time, I bet Braun would have lost the appeal.

Colossal screw-up. Sounds like MLB needs a new testing company to perform these tests.

It sounds like whatever happened was just a slight enough loophole to get Braun off in the mind of the supposedly neutral arbitrator. I'm now reading that it's a loophole that MLB is trying to close soon.


Jeff Passan ‏ @JeffPassan Reply Retweeted Favorite · Open
USADA CEO Travis Tygart says it's commonplace for collectors to keep samples refrigerated when taken late at night and on holidays, weekends

Jeff Passan ‏ @JeffPassan Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Tygart: "This stuff happens around the world all the time. They're collected at people's homes after the UPS or FedEx or DHL is closed."


The collector may have not known MLB's procedure and simply just done what they usually do with other tests.

I don't understand why the test yielded a result that was so out of whack compared to others who tested positive. Isn't this an issue?

Except in this case, the sample is literally worth millions upon millions of dollars. I think it is safe that it probably should have been treated a bit more securely than it was.

And who collects samples at people's homes? Most employers who require such screenings make the candidate go into the facility to obtain the sample. Collecting a sample at someone's home as opposed to a sterile, professional facility seems a bit odd to me.

The fact that the sample was not secure the entire time, in combination with the odd result, may have lead to the arbitrator ruling the way he did.

Hopefully more facts will be forthcoming. I am interested to see what the exact chain of custody was for the sample, etc.

I'd like to know where you read/heard that because as far as I know nothing factual has come out about his actual testosterone level. That sounds like something the Braun camp might have put out to curry favor in the media/public.

In any case, that apparently wasn't an issue at all here.

You don't know shit mr. race baiter...


Ryan Braun's positive test for testosterone showed a level that was extremely elevated, and likely the highest that has been recorded in Major League Baseball, according to sources with knowledge of the NL MVP's test.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201..._epstein/12/12
/ryan.braun.test/index.html

...and now a source close to the 2011 National League MVP has suggested to Teri Thompson of the New York Daily News that the results of the positive test were too high to be taken seriously. As in, they were at a dangerous level.

Here’s more from Thompson and the Daily News:

Ryan Braun’s original test for performance-enhancing drugs as the playoffs were winding down in October was “insanely high, the highest ever for anyone who has ever taken a test, twice the level of the highest test ever taken,” said a source familiar with the developing case in which Ryan was reported to have tested positive for an elevated level of testosterone caused by a synthetic substance, triggering a possible 50-game suspension.

The never-before-seen ratio, according to the source, is one of several “highly unusual circumstances.”

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...with-the-case/

Braun’s positive test reportedly included “insanely high levels” of testosterone, by far the most ever detected in a player. He requested an independent drug test a few weeks after testing positive, which was clean, but it was not authorized nor recognized as exculpatory by MLB.


http://www.jsonline.com/sports/brewers/138857174.html

“According to one of the sources, the collector, after getting Braun’s sample, was supposed to take the sample to FedEx/Kinkos for shipping but thought it was closed because it was late on a Saturday. As has occurred in some other instances, the collector took the sample home and kept it refrigerated. Policy states that the sample is supposed to get to FedEx as soon as possible.”

Who said anything about race here?


So you're citing some vague description of an "insanely high" test from a "source close to the 2011 National League MVP" (or basically, the Braun camp as I said) without any real facts at all? LMAO

It's amazing what people will believe when they want to.

It probably contributed. If the result was a standard "guilty" reading about the same as other dirty urine, maybe Braun doesn't win. However, if you combine this issue, however minor it may seem, with one of, if not the highest test result ever known to have occurred, characterized as "insanely high", that may be enough for Diaz to throw it out.

Seems very odd. All the talk before was that his levels were so high that something must have been wrong. And then he gets off because of this? Will be interesting to see if more comes out.

I don't think anyone out there is disputing or not believing those stories. Its not like this couldn't be objectively refuted, either Braun had the highest known test result in the history of that test, or he didn't. The "what the hell are they saying, thats that true, that's BS" story would have leaked long ago.