Not David!

Didn't we already know this?

Or was he one of the players who used hGH for "medical purposes"?

Oh if only the Mitchell committee had subpoena power...

I want to find every last one of these guys and nail 'em to a cross. I confess that's my attitude. Heroes, villains, and nobodies alike. And if that means 80% of all players over the last 20 years, then so be it.

I want to find every last one of these guys and nail 'em to a cross. I confess that's my attitude.

really?
If true, it amazes me that you are a fan of sport in general.
either that or you are very sheltered.

Please mommy make it stop.

Well, now we know. Steroids can't make you a better first baseman than Rico Brogna. And it certainly doesn't help you to play left field.

#4 - I don't want their records erased from the books. I don't want them prosecuted. I'm not even saying they should be kept out of the Hall of Fame. But I do want them exposed if they took them.

D.C. Refuses No Reliever

For some reason, I just processed this reference now. Good one.

But I do want them exposed if they took them.

so you just want a 'shame list' ..

What drugs are you drawing the line on here, curious ...

Just the Juice? Juice and HGH?, they are vastly different things.
What about an illegal drug that would help you be at your peak every game? Are those drugs on your "shame list"?
What about something that is 'legal' now, but might not be legal in the future, or even visa versa

curious as to how this fits into your 'shame list'.

I'd really like to hear names out of curiosity...that's why they call me 'whiskers'.

Seriously, though, I don't think I have a right to know what minor drug crimes these guys have committed, especially after the fact. I think we all should know who the murderers and rapists in our communities are, but if a guy is a drug user, especially a drug that can't really make him criminally dangerous, it's none of my business.

#8 - PH:

For some reason, I just processed this reference now. Good one.

I'm impressed. I actually didn't expect anyone here to figure it out, even folks like Repoz who pride themselves on obscure music references. A fellow Pete fan, I take it?

The name is intended as a tribute, both to him and to Jim Bowden's uncanny ability to stitch an excellent bullpen together out of toss-offs, over-the-hill vets, and a couple core members over the last three years.

But I do want them exposed if they took them.

And, you know, crucified.

Very Roman of you.

David Segui should be branded with an asterisk.

12 - Larry

Indeed. After a decent interval I do hope to see some crucifixions.

Seriously though, what irks me is the cheating aspect of PEDs. To answer GR's question, I draw my line at PEDs which have "permanent" or "enduring" effects, i.e. those that add to muscle mass or speed the healing process. HGH, the various anabolic steroids, etc. I would exempt such things as speed/uppers/amphetamines and even clear Schedule 1 drugs like cocaine or whatnot: while these are illegal, they don't offer the permanent advantages that drugs which build muscle mass or improve reaction time over the long-term do.

I also happily volunteer that my standards are neither rigorous nor satsifactorily bright-line. They're subject to a lot of perfectly valid criticisms. I understand that. I'm merely expressing a personal disposition, subject to the inconsistencies normally associated with emotional reactions. If I were actually commissioner, I wouldn't seek to implement my stance, because I understand how impossible (and even unfair) it would be. I'm just burning off steam.

Indeed. After a decent interval I do hope to see some crucifixions.

Unfortunately, even crucifixion is powerless to solve the steroid crisis.

Gonfalon: BADA-BING.

Nice.

A fellow Pete fan, I take it?

Indeed. Though that song is one gigantic metaphor cluster####.

thanks esoteric

17 - PH:

Yeah it really is. The emotion behind it is clearly genuine, and the music and melody are both lovely, so I forgive him.

However, the best song by far from that album - both lyrically and musically - is "Slit Skirts." Probably his best solo song ever, in fact.

Mike Piazza says he experimented with girls.

those that add to muscle mass or speed the healing process.

Vitamins and a well balanced diet do these things. Should they be outlawed? What about getting a good night's sleep?

Vitamins and a well balanced diet do these things. Should they be outlawed? What about getting a good night's sleep?

Not that I don't agree with the implied sentiment behind the question, but can we please not rehash this debate again? We'd learn more if we debated how many home runs Babe Ruth hit than if we discussed the real or imagined distinctions between steroids, greenies, vitamins, and Lasik.

We'd learn more if we debated how many home runs Babe Ruth hit than if we...

Okay, let's start. Babe Ruth hit one walkoff homer back when the rule only counted as many runs as were needed to win the game. So he really had 715 HRs.

Of course, he did it on sheep jizz.

And it didn't go unnoticed that you oh so conveniently left that particular PED off your list. Why are you a sheep jizz apologist?

might have came

Way to go, editing department!

BTW, I'm sure that someone will set me straight here, but why can't players use drugs that speed up the healing process? Wouldn't that contribute to quality of life, beyond the playing field? Just curious.

I've started leaning the other way towards steroids:

I think we should issue a blanket pardon for anybody that comes clean on their own about Steroid use.

If Laura Roslin can blanket pardon Cylon Collaborators, then there is no reason we can't blanket pardon steroid users.

OMG Wok I just totally got hooked on BSG like this week! I've downloaded like 20 episodes on Amazon.

I hope I didn't spoiler.

I enjoyed David's choice of 'experimenting' with steroids, which in his case had to mean 'experimenting' with them until his body grew two sizes and his head shot wouldn't fit on the Jumbotron.

"Slit Skirts"...Probably his best solo song ever, in fact.

I prefer "Rough Boys". He wants to bite and kiss them. Also "Pure & Easy" is pretty good.

Ex-Oriole David Segui says he experimented with steroids

Well, there go *his* HOF chances.

Seriously though, what irks me is the cheating aspect of PEDs. To answer GR's question, I draw my line at PEDs which have "permanent" or "enduring" effects, i.e. those that add to muscle mass or speed the healing process. HGH, the various anabolic steroids, etc. I would exempt such things as speed/uppers/amphetamines and even clear Schedule 1 drugs like cocaine or whatnot: while these are illegal, they don't offer the permanent advantages that drugs which build muscle mass or improve reaction time over the long-term do.


You've chose a definition that allows you to continue to believe in your heroes of the past who were PED users (Mantle, Maris, Mays, Aaron). I understand that. You want their statistics immortalized forever in bronze, while you want to undermine any new heroes who dare achieve similar, or greater feats.

But you do realize that in general steroids don't build muscle mass? Specifically, steroids allow the hardest working MLB players to work harder, and reduce their recovery times. That extra hard work is what builds muscle mass. So you'd like to "out" the MLB players who took their jobs most seriously and gave their best for their teams. Even at some personal risk.

And who ever claimed steroids improved reaction time? They help you build strength, and stronger muscles may give you a quicker bat, but does it really give you faster neural connections? Are these players getting smarter as well?

And HGH hasn't been shown to do anything for the trained athlete. Isn't it ironic you'd forgive cocaine use, but not the use of a placebo?

Look, you can believe whatever you want to believe. You still want to think of your childhood heroes in those black and white stills as pure, and anything more complicated than that troubles you. I think it's silly and hypocritical, but it's still a natural human reaction. Once we give our allegiance to someone, whether a politician, a baseball player, or a family member, it's awful hard to take that back. Loyalties are tough to undo.

And for those who don't want to revisit the steroids discussion, move on to chess. It ain't going away, and this is a discussion board.

It was so totally worth it in exchange for him leading Louisiana Tech to a win over LSU in Ruston that glorious spring day back in '87.

#24 - Gonfalon:

As you may remember, I'm a known sheep's balls apologist. Don't you dare attack my idol, the Lambino.

#32 - ValueArb:

I was born in 1980, so this isn't about any childhood heroes of mine. In fact, my childhood heroes were the Bash Brothers, so that ship done sailed a long time ago. The standard I laid out has nothing to do with preserving "old" records, it has to do with...well, the reasoning I explained above. It's not about a hidden agenda or anything. As for the various pharmaceutical effect of anabolics, I believe you're very mistaken about their effects, but honestly I don't think it's worth debating since we'll just get into a citation war and fail to the move the dial in any way whatsoever.

Also, do remember what I wrote above, because I think it's really key when engaging with me, in particular, on this subject:

I also happily volunteer that my standards are neither rigorous nor satsifactorily bright-line. They're subject to a lot of perfectly valid criticisms. I understand that. I'm merely expressing a personal disposition, subject to the inconsistencies normally associated with emotional reactions. If I were actually commissioner, I wouldn't seek to implement my stance, because I understand how impossible (and even unfair) it would be. I'm just burning off steam.

Plank's question to me is about whether "vitamins and a good night's sleep" should count as PEDs is an easily shot down one (I've spent way too much time taking law school exams recently not to be able to distinguish those in a heartbeat), but as Nieporent also points out, there's a solid nub of an argument behind it: what counts as an "artificial" drug? HGH is a natural hormone found in the human body, after all.

So while I could wade in try to explain the distinctions I have in mind (and I think I can, in large part), I won't. I'm not looking for a fight on the matter because I consider a man's view on the steroids issue to be largely a question of personal disposition, not a "justiceable" (to use a legal term) matter. Both sides have significant logical lacunae in their arguments; Anti-PED arguments have trouble drawing brightline distinctions and dealing with the practical consequences stemming from labelling players and their numbers "illegitimate." Pro-PED arguments often get so tangled in hair-splitting casuistry that they fail to engage with the overarching moral truth: this is cheating, and a deception of the audience. My disposition happens to fall towards the "pwn them all" side, but that doesn't mean I would seek to impose it on others. There is room enough in this world for me, Kevin, Gambling Rent, and Nieporent as far as I'm concerned when it comes to this question.

And anyway, I'd rather talk about Pete Townshend anyway. I mean, if I'm going to be screwing off instead of preparing for my Secured Transactions exam, I might as well do it talking about something like The Who's awesome ultra-obscure 1968 single "Dogs," right?

Sorry to ask you about your cherry picked standards about what should and shouldn't be allowed. By the way are you in law school?

I should have deferred to you about your expertise in making asinine distinctions. Did you learn that in law school?

Your logic is amazing to me. You should really be a lawyer. Have you thought about going to law school?

By the way you don't get to walk away from a comment like that and claim the moral high ground. You made the argument now either defend it or retract it.

Your aggressiveness is bizarrely at odds with the tone of this thread, buddy. It's almost as if you didn't actually read my last post at all, especially the part where I explicitly disclaimed the moral high ground, pointed out that my stance is largely dispositional (i.e. it's a gut reaction rather than one I've worked out exhaustively) and said that there's room enough on BBTF for intelligent people of good faith to disagree.

And incidentally you're wrong: I do get to walk away from my comment. I've already defended it in a specifically qualified fashion (that you seem to have ignored), and I'm not going to retract it so you can declare a victory that rightfully belongs to neither of us. I suppose you're upset about my pointing out that your particular argument was flimsy. Well, I'm sorry: it was a hilariously shoddy counterargument. Unless you're just trying to be disgreeable, it shouldn't be hard to concede that there are, at the very least, both cognizable (i.e. objective) and culturally accepted (i.e. normative) differences between a "good night's rest" (no drug intake whatsoever, hence no PED) or standard vitamins (i.e. those found in natural foodstuffs), vs. things that one cannot consume legally without a prescription (anabolics, HGH, etc.) There are many formidable counterarguments that someone on the opposing side could have made challenging the line I drew. Yours was not one of them.

And what's with the law school barbs? So I mentioned it...it's on my mind because I have an exam tomorrow. What's the deal? Half of this site is comprised of lawyers, it seems, so I hardly stand out. And certainly nobody can accuse me of coming across as a feeb. Seriously, you only risk embarrassment to yourself by seizing upon it and trying to transform it into, I dunno, some sort of attack on my perceived arrogance? I have no idea where you were going with that.

In sum: WTF dude?

Well I had to work yesterday so I'm late responding, but DC's opinion is DC's opinion. He doesn't have to defend it. But DC, let me also point that there is more grey area than you admit. Greenies have been on the controlled list for a long, long time and aren't natural in any way. But beyond that, there are cortisone shots which have been common for thirty years or so (cortisone is a steroid hormone used to treat joint swelling), arthroscopic knee surgery (what would Mickey Mantle have been like with modern knee surgeries), laser eye surgery and i'm sure many more that I've forgotten.

The only reason to ban steroids and HGH is to protect ballplayers from themselves, so they all aren't forced to take dangerous drugs to improve their performance. I don't regard it as cheating any more than I do advanced medical care. And I don't care what the records are, people get so hung up on fake records like 714 that were created in eras with different ballparks, training programs, population sizes and compositions, etc. They are all meaningless to me.

If this is true then why does Segui continue to entertain the fiction that he used hGH for therapeutic purposes? We all know that isn't true.

What? How do you know better than he does?

hGH does have therapeutic purposes.

I was adding the lawyer comments because you were seemingly using it to bolster your argument simply by mentioning it.

I don't think you can differentiate vitamins from steriods as easily as you imagine. What about B-12 injections? What about creatine?

What if there is a 'safe steriod' invented in a few years. Should that be allowed? It would cause no harm to the player and be performance enhancing. Kinda like vitamins.

Why the double standard about amphetamines. They are known PED's and tons of ballplayers used them since WW2.

Also, saying these players should be "nailed to the cross" and "exposed for what they did" IS taking the moral high ground. Thinking 'if I was a ballplayer I would be noble and wouldn't be like the others' is the worst kind of arrogance.

EDIT: Yes, I realize the first time I accused you of taking the moral high ground was for something different.