(That in itself is damning to the "steroids cause huge increases OH-MI-GAWD!!" crowd. Because it would mean that steroids don't have much of an effect on any player other than Bonds, which would make no sense.)

Or different steroids have different effects.

To quickly summarize, we have no real idea as to what steroids most of these guys really used (or if they really used), what other things they were used in conjunction with (or if they were used in conjunction with anything), for what period they used these steroids, in what quantities they used them, and so on. Rather, we only have what they were allegedly linked to. Unless, of course, you're treating these rumours and accusations as firm, fixed statements of fact, which you don't do.

Even with these items being in an uncontrolled state, it was still estimated that those linked to steroids experienced a performance increase of about 7% (excluding Bonds), which is not an insignificant boost in performance. I think most players would really enjoy an average 7% increase in their run-generation, wouldn't you?

In the case of Bonds, we're also talking about an elite player who allegedly used steroids and HGH in exceptional quantities in conjunction with a rigorous training program, for an extended period, under excessive supervision (as detailed in "Game of Shadows"). Is it not unreasonable, assuming that these accusations are true, to expect that a player doing so would expect to see a larger boost in performance than an individual who used in lesser quantities, for a lesser period, under lesser or no supervision?

Or, in your opinion, do all steroids, in any quantity, used for any duration, under any training regimen, have the same result of exactly 7%?

ok kevin

let's go look for a new word seeing as how you are saying i should stick to a definition of "placebo" as a substance that has no effect on the body

what word would you use to define a drug - let's say - lipitor, which lowers cholesterol - which a man decides to take - and he buys it offn the internet - because he's heard it will make his wang bigger. well, lipitor will lower his cholesterol but it won't do dick to his dong even though the guys believes it will.

what word would YOU use to describe that substance?
besides incorrect medication?

To quickly summarize, we have no real idea as to what steroids most of these guys really used (or if they really used), what other things they were used in conjunction with (or if they were used in conjunction with anything), for what period they used these steroids, in what quantities they used them, and so on.

Right; which makes media conclusions that players realized huge gains from steroids seem rather silly.

Even with these items being in an uncontrolled state, it was still estimated that those linked to steroids experienced a performance increase of about 7% (excluding Bonds), which is not an insignificant boost in performance. I think most players would really enjoy an average 7% increase in their run-generation, wouldn't you?

Sure, although they wouldn't necessarily opt for the 7% since the 7% wouldn't come without risk. But the issue is that 7% is relatively small compared to what many people allege.

In the case of Bonds, we're also talking about an elite player who allegedly used steroids and HGH in exceptional quantities in conjunction with a rigorous training program, for an extended period, under excessive supervision (as detailed in "Game of Shadows"). Is it not unreasonable, assuming that these accusations are true, to expect that a player doing so would expect to see a larger boost in performance than an individual who used in lesser quantities, for a lesser period, under lesser or no supervision?

A larger boost? Sure. One that completely swamps the effects of all other alleged users combined? No. That would damn the theory that PEDs greatly enhance performance, because then we'd left with two alternatives: (1) PEDs don't have much of an impact on performace; or (2) PEDs have a great impact, but Bonds is the only one who realizes it.

The second would make no sense.

Or, in your opinion, do all steroids, in any quantity, used for any duration, under any training regimen, have the same result of exactly 7%?

The 7% isn't my number, but, assuming it's representative for the sake of argument: no. (Though if the actual number is close to 0%, that would mean that all steroids/quantities/durations/regimens WOULD have the same effect: none.)

Right; which makes media conclusions that players realized huge gains from steroids seem rather silly.

So now that we have a study which, even using players who have only been "linked" with steroids, concludes an average offensive performance increase of 7%, we should dismiss the notion that steroids increase performance significantly? An average increase of 7% (for a study with unconfirmed usage by the participants, and removing the individual with the largest gain) is a large gain.

Sure, although they wouldn't necessarily opt for the 7% since the 7% wouldn't come without risk. But that's not the issue. The issue is that 7% is relatively small compared to what many people allege.

An average increase of 7% is a significant increase in offensive performance, and enough to change a bench player to a starter, or an average starter to a borderline all-star, or a borderline all-star into a superstar. For many players, a 7% increase in offensive performance represents a potential difference of millions of dollars over their careers, as well as an increase in the length of their careers. To break it down in terms only of HRs also ignores that a 7% increase may also change the distribution of a players offensive components - say a large increase in HRs being partially balanced by a large decrease in HR.

That would damn the theory that PEDs greatly enhance performance, because then we'd left with two alternatives: (1) PEDs don't have much of an impact on performace; or (2) PEDs have a great impact, but Bonds is the only one who realizes it.

How would it damn the theory that steroids (not PEDs) help performance? By an uncontrolled set of alleged users showing an average 7% increase (which is a significant performance boost) over those individuals not alleged to use steroids?

Incidentally, your two alternative are flawed. Much more reasonable conclusions based on the results of the study, assuming that the allegations are true, would be:
a) Steroids help performance by an average of 7%
b) Those alleged to have undergone an extended period using state-of-the-art steroids in conjunction with state-of-the-art performance enhancers, state-of-the-art training, and state-of-the-art monitoring demonstrate a higher level of performance increase than the average user of steroids.

Incidentally, I'm assuming that there was a spread in performance increases among the other alleged users of steroids, and that not everyone came in at exactly 7%. As a questions, outside of Bonds (who I'm assuming showed the largest performance increase), what were the other performance gains observed by players in the "linked to steroids" group?

say a large increase in HRs being partially balanced by a large decrease in HR.

Dammit. That`s supposed to read "A large increase in HR being partially balanced by a large decrease in doubles."

From The Daily News. Why not just call this "lawyer close to the investigation" by his real name: Richard Emery?

The receipts, coupled with other circumstantial evidence, could play a role in a perjury trial, says one lawyer close to the investigation.

"Roger has spoken 72 times and said a thousand different things," the lawyer said. "He's ruined himself as a witness. You have a massive public figure who will not be able to take the stand. This is his 'get-in-jail-free card.'"

bbc, someone who is convinced to take lipitor to make his penis larger has been scammed. I don't know how else to describe it.

Isn't a doctor that prescribes antibiotics for viral infections playing with fire? They talk about strains of bacteria that have become immune to antibiotics, largely owing to the overuse of antibiotics. Specifically, for inappropriately administering them for conditions they have no effect in treating.

I don't know what you'd call a drug administered for purposes other than what they're intended for, but I know what I'd call someone who used a drug that way: A fool.

Are these guys who used HGH fools? I don't know.

It always struck me that with bonds it wasn't just the chemistry but chemistry + talent + work ethic, unless you put all three together and shake well the results are going to be very mixed. Few players appear to have Bond's talent and or work ethic.

2c.

Pretty funny that placebo was the word of the day on the Colbert Report last night . . .

I don't know what you'd call a drug administered for purposes other than what they're intended for, but I know what I'd call someone who used a drug that way: A fool.

It's called off-label use and it's quite common and encouraged by doctors in every field of medicine when the benefits outweigh the risks.

Wrong sport but cycling is the only sport I follow except for baseball. Even though they know they will be getting tested to death this morning the third Tour de France rider has tested positively for EPO (third generation EPO called CERA-Continuous Erythropoietin Receptor Activator). I can somehow understand a guy who has been taking drugs for many years feeling he needs it, but Ricco's only 24 and was considered one of the top young riders.

The last guy they caught spent the night in jail.

The first guy they caught this year, Beltran, was one of Lance Armstong's "lieutenants," as were Roberto Heras, Floyd Landis, and Tyler Hamilton-who all also have been caught.

I can somehow understand a guy who has been taking drugs for many years feeling he needs it, but Ricco's only 24 and was considered one of the top young riders.

But, and this is the problem since these substances are illegal, so no one admits use until after they've been caught, and even then only at the minimal level necessary to explain the test, how do we know that he didn't become one of the top young riders precisely because he has been taking drugs for many years?

For all the problems that baseball may have with PEDs, it's nothing compared to the Tour de France.

bbc, someone who is convinced to take lipitor to make his penis larger has been scammed.

Sort of like someone who is convinced to take hGH for anything, unless he or she happens to be a child who isn't growing?

It's called off-label use and it's quite common and encouraged by doctors in every field of medicine when the benefits outweigh the risks.

Not for scheduled drugs it isn't (either common or encouraged). Maybe you knew that.

According to the FDA:

Human Growth Hormone (HGH) is the active ingredient in a
number of human prescription drugs approved for marketing in
the U.S. under new drug applications (NDAs). FDA-approved
HGH can be legally prescribed for a limited number of
conditions including:

* hormonal deficiency that causes short stature in
children;

* long-term treatment of growth failure due to lack of
exogenous GH secretion;

* long-term treatment of short stature associated with
Turner syndrome;

* adult short bowel syndrome;

* adult deficiency due to rare pituitary tumors or their
treatment; and

* muscle-wasting disease associated with HIV/AIDS.

HGH has important benefits, but also serious, known risks.
Among the possible long-term side effects of HGH is an
increased risk of cancer, and other dangerous side effects
have been reported, including nerve pain and elevated
cholesterol and glucose levels. For this reason, HGH is
carefully regulated in the U.S.

hGH is not approved for improving recovery from injury or surgery, nor is it approved for anti-aging. AFAIK, adult hGH deficiency is not recognized as a medical condition justifying treatment with hGH supplementation (EDIT: except when it is the result of those rare pituitary tumors referenced above). Off-label use of hGH is illegal in the US.

New article: Radomski moved TV, found receipt.

Two interesting points (to me). The first re-raises the question of who signed for the package:

"It was addressed to Clemens as a hold for Brian McNamee," Radomski said. "Brian knows what he did with it. They signed for it, because all my packages you always had to sign for. Brian never signed for the package. The package got there before Brian got down there."

The second raises the issue of what other players are going to get burned for lying about their use:

"I just couldn't find the receipt. And just by [accident] this weekend, I moved my TV and whatnot and I found the package, an envelope, and it had [Clemens'] receipt and about seven or eight other receipts."

<snip>

Radomski said he couldn't recall the names of the other players for whom he had receipts for shipments, but he said they had all been previously named in the Mitchell report.

For their sake, they better hope that they haven't already gone in front of Congress, or made other statements to the feds on their use.

Nieporent will now come ina nd claim the FDA is a fascist organization, of course.

Well, that's a different argument. One he can have with you if he wants, but not me.

I'm pretty sure that hGH is not a PED, and I think the furor over it in the anti-doping community is misplaced. But like I said in a different thread, although I disagree with MLB's policy on hGH, I agree with FDA. Whether they're fascist or not, they exist in large part to protect the citizens of the USA from quackery, especially quackery that involves potentially dangerous substances.

"My TV broke and I said, 'Damn, I got to get it off the dresser,'" Radomski said Wednesday. "And it was right there."

That really bothered me, as I thought the Feds were supposed to have searched his place. If they did, and they missed something like that, then they did a really half-assed job. It wouldn't surprise me if more receipts keep slipping out over the next couple months, whenever Radomski decides to clean things a little.

kevin,

i still didn't get no answer from you

- leaving doctors/FDA/govt out -

lets try powdered aloe extract. which is legal and NOT a FDA drug. a person buys and uses it because he THINKS it will act like testosterone and give him bigger muscles. but what it DOES do to the body really is give diarrhea and has no affect at ALL on anything else.

since you don't want to use the word "placebo" to describe a substance that a person use because he THINKS it will do something to his body that it DOESN'T do but in fact does something else, WHAT WORD IS CORRECT HERE so i don't keep getting told by you that i used the wrong word?

because you know damm good and welll that i am NOT saying that HGH has zero effect on a human body, just that i can't find any evidence that it has any effect on the athletic performance of a young male baseball player. AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!!!!!! and whether or not you do/don't have to have a prescription is NOT relevant!!!!!

140. kevin Posted: July 17, 2008 at 09:33 AM (#2862066)

I agree with FDA. Whether they're fascist or not, they exist in large part to protect the citizens of the USA from quackery, especially quackery that involves potentially dangerous substances.


Of course. Even doctors with honest intentions lack the expertise to keep up with the latest pros and cons of the various new drugs emerging. So how can you expect the average citizen to? That's what we pay the FDA to do, to make evaluations on things we have neither the time, the training nor the inclination to do for ourselves.

Of course this is correct. But, if an athlete knows these risks, weighs them with consult of a doctor, and STILL wants to do HGH you think he shouldn't be able to? Why is it any different than smoking?

Of course this is correct. But, if an athlete knows these risks, weighs them with consult of a doctor, and STILL wants to do HGH you think he shouldn't be able to? Why is it any different than smoking?

Smoking is legal, but only under certain restrictions - you can't just smoke wherever and whenever you feel like it. HGH is the same way - its use is legal, but only under a defined set of circumstances, and for a defined set of conditions.

If athletes want to go ahead and use it for one of the non-approved applications, that's fine. However, they have to understand and assume the legal risks of their actions, in addition to the medical ones.

"It was addressed to Clemens as a hold for Brian McNamee," Radomski said. "Brian knows what he did with it. They signed for it, because all my packages you always had to sign for. Brian never signed for the package. The package got there before Brian got down there."

Whoops. There goes the claim that Radomski sent it to Clemens. Yes, he sent it to Clemens' house, but he was intending it for McNamee. Which means McNamee ordered it, which means this doesn't do a thing to bolster McNamee's story.

You can only smoke in certain places because of the public health issues associated with 2nd hand smoke. Where's the public health issue with HGH?

And Kevin's arguments are of course, in the realm of whether MLB should restrict/prohibit HGH, not why the government should make HGH illegal. I don't think athletes should get special dispensation from the drug laws, I just dont see a good justifctaion for outlawing HGH from a govt standpoint.

No, kevin, you're overreaching. MLB should look to FDA to decide whether HGH represents a health hazard such that this 'compulsion' issue you state warrants them to take action. MLB doesnt decide health matters, it decides what's best for its sport.

I don't think athletes should get special dispensation from the drug laws, I just dont see a good justifctaion for outlawing HGH from a govt standpoint.

And that's a reasonable position, assuming that HGH doesn't actually impact health in a notably negative way. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), at this point, HGH is currently a government regulated substance, and athletes are (much as the rest of us) subject to these same laws.

Should these laws be changed, however, I agree that the issue then becomes a matter of personal regulation and choice, and possibly a matter for collective bargaining between the union and the owners.

Whether they're fascist or not, they exist in large part to protect the citizens of the USA from quackery, especially quackery that involves potentially dangerous substances.

Well, apparently some fascism is good fascism.

How about give the mining companies sole authority on how much coal dust or aspestos it's safe to inhale while we're at it? Because if you're going to allow MLB health expert status, then you're going to have to allow it for everyone else too.

Ohmygod! What if everyone could decide for themselves how much risk to accept? Then we might be free! We can't have that!

the amount of dust behind the tv must have been a foot tall.

if an athlete knows these risks, weighs them with consult of a doctor, and STILL wants to do HGH you think he shouldn't be able to? Why is it any different than smoking?

Because we got it wrong on nicotine? Seriously, though, why should any scheduled drug be different from any non-scheduled drug? Well, the answer is that we, through our elected legislators and their appointed regulators, have decided that there are risks associated with off-label use of these substances that outweigh the potential benefits.

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is about. I don't see how MLB could specifically condone illegal drug use, regardless of the soundness of the basis for a specific drug being illegal. Now, I happen to think that MLB would still ban hGH even if FDA decided to lift the prohibition on off-label use, but that's purely hypothetical and an entirely different matter. But as of right now, FDA is deciding the health matters, not MLB, so what's your objection?

Nieporent will now come ina nd claim the FDA is a fascist organization, of course.

From David:

Well, apparently some fascism is good fascism.

Looks like someone nailed that one on the head.

Well, apparently some fascism is good fascism.

Yeah, I don't believe that all government regulation is intrinsically evil, and I don't lose any sleep worrying about whether libertarians might make semi-clever jokes at my expense because I feel that way.

the amount of dust behind the tv must have been a foot tall.

Except that the article clearly said under the TV, rather than behind:

Radomski said he found that receipt, along with "seven or eight others" for shipments to other baseball players, under the TV.

With that being said, it still reflects poorly on anyone who searched Radomski's home. He'll probably find more receipts next week when he opens his desk drawer, or looks in the cupboard.

With that being said, it still reflects poorly on anyone who searched Radomski's home. He'll probably find more receipts next week when he opens his desk drawer, or looks in the cupboard.

Maybe it was a real big tv. The feds get bad backs, too.

No fair enough. I got that.

I did find it funny that this drug dealer, not only kept receipts of his illegal activity's, but when questioned as to the other players within the receipts, didn't know. Yet knew exactly what he shipped to Roger. Its all to bizarre.

bbc, someone who is convinced to take lipitor to make his penis larger has been scammed.

Sort of like someone who is convinced to take hGH for anything, unless he or she happens to be a child who isn't growing?

As I said later in that post, I don't know.

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is about. I don't see how MLB could specifically condone illegal drug use, regardless of the soundness of the basis for a specific drug being illegal.

MLB can't "condone" it in the sense of handing out hGH shots in the locker room or putting out a memorandum saying, "We order everyone to use hGH on pain of firing."

They can "condone" it in the sense of saying, "It's none of our business." If I get speeding tickets, you know what my senior partner says? Nothing. He couldn't give a crap. Does he punish or sanction me? No. Is he "condoning" it? In a sense. Is it okay if he does so? Yes. An employer is not required to enforce criminal laws, except insofar as those laws impose a specific obligation on him -- a very narrow set of circumstances. (For instance, if I stole from a client, he is legally obligated to report me and to notify the client.)

Ohmygod! What if everyone could decide for themselves how much risk to accept? Then we might be free!

No. We might be dead.

True. Then again, we all die eventually. The question is whether we live first.

Sane Joe Bivens, Permanent Guardian Posted: July 17, 2008 at 11:34 AM (#2862172)

bbc, someone who is convinced to take lipitor to make his penis larger has been scammed.

- agree

and at this particular time, i think that a baseball player who is convinced to take HGH to improve his baseball performance has been scammed. because i don't see that it is different then taking amoxicillin or any other prescription drug or flaxseed oil or whatever to improve his baseball performance.

and by the way i know that it is against the law to take ANY prescription drug without a prescription.

but the whole question is to me - if roger did take a prescription drug that he got illegally, should that be looked any different then if he had taken amoxicillin?

and i say no

because even kevin admits that he has no evidence that HGH is a baseball performance enhancing drug

i think it is actually like what i said earlier - like men eating powdered rhino horn because they think it will give them a bigger penis. it is what they THINK that makes them take it. because it has zero affect on a penis medically

i think it is actually like what i said earlier - like men eating powdered rhino horn because they think it will give them a bigger penis. it is what they THINK that makes them take it. because it has zero affect on a penis medically

Now I really feel guilty about taking that rhino's horn.

I did find it funny that this drug dealer, not only kept receipts of his illegal activity's, but when questioned as to the other players within the receipts, didn't know. Yet knew exactly what he shipped to Roger. Its all to bizarre.

Well, he remembered enough to know that they had all already been named in the Mitchell report, which he stated. It's also reasonable to expect that it wasn't hard for him to recognize the one receipt as relating to Roger, since it did have his name on it (in addition to McNamee's).

Also, as a dealer, he needs to keep some form of records, so that he knows whether or not he's filled his "orders", or what "orders" he has. Strangely enough, to be effective as a certain type of criminal, you often need a reputation for honesty and trustworthiness. His personal records are just one way of assisting in presenting that trustworthiness.

How about if he catches you cooking the books or double-payrolling yourself? Does he sanction you then?

What if an attorney submits billable hours that do not accurately reflect the number of actual hours worked on a client's behalf? That's fraud any way you slice it.

Not only do most firms encourage this behavior, but the level of abuse required to get any substantial disciplinary action by the bar association itself is so extreme that it's understood in the industry as standard practice. It's really a repulsive aspect of the profession and part of the reason I got out of personal injury defense.

CrosbyBird Posted: July 17, 2008 at 12:05 PM (#2862200)

i think it is actually like what i said earlier - like men eating powdered rhino horn because they think it will give them a bigger penis. it is what they THINK that makes them take it. because it has zero affect on a penis medically

Now I really feel guilty about taking that rhino's horn.

- don't feel bad
i should have known better than to click on that email that said Mr. Lisa Gray, you can grow 8"

Improper analogy. How about if he catches you cooking the books or double-payrolling yourself? Does he sanction you then? Of course he does.

No, it's a proper analogy. My taking money from him costs him money. My speeding does not. And a player's use of steroids does not.

And what of your officemates? What if they went to your boss and complained that your speeding was compelling them to speed too and they didn't want to endanger their lives? What do you think your boss would say to you then?

I think he'd tell them to grow up, and find another job if they don't like the working conditions at this one.

In any case, that's an improper analogy, since ballplayers' officemates didn't complain. It would be more like, "What if a moralistic schmuck with too much free time on his hands complained to my boss that my speeding was endangering my officemates, even though my officemates didn't care?"


And, once again, Kevin manages to make comments irrelevant to the point. Someone talked about whether MLB could "condone" the use of hGH if hGH is illegal. I pointed out that a business is free to "condone" illegal acts by employees if it chooses, if by "condone" you mean "not care about."

They can "condone" it in the sense of saying, "It's none of our business."

OK. Possibly poor word choice on my part. As I said, I disagree with MLB's activist policy WRT hGH. I would prefer that they more or less ignore it, since I really do not think it's much of a PED (if it even is one at all) and I further believe that continually calling attention to it as a) undectable and b) a PED is likely to lead to more use rather than less.

So let me try again: given the current state of public opinion on the subject of PEDs and the current state of the law on hGH, if an MLB player is caught up in a federal investigation of hGH distribution, I do not think that MLB can afford to be perceived as condoning the use of this illegal drug by its players.

My taking money from him costs him money. My speeding does not. And a player's use of steroids does not.

An individual players use of steroids (assuming that steroids positively effect performance) effects other players monetarily. Thus, assuming that steroids improve performance, players should care about whether others with whom they are competing for jobs are using steroids to enhance their performance.

Additionally, with respect to MLB, numerous surveys have indicated that fans are anti-steroid (for whatever it's worth) and would prefer to see "clean" players. If MLB gives a "clean" game to the fans, which is what they claim to want (assuming that fans aren't lying), isn't it reasonable to expect that revenues would increase? If so, then the use of steroids by players are costing their employers money.

Basically, an isolated players' use of steroids potentially costs both his co-workers and his employers money (assuming that steroids enhance performance, and fans really do want to see a "clean" game).

So let me try again: given the current state of public opinion on the subject of PEDs and the current state of the law on hGH, if an MLB player is caught up in a federal investigation of hGH distribution, I do not think that MLB can afford to be perceived as condoning the use of this illegal drug by its players.

That's a fair statement, although I would say less because of <u>public</u> opinion than because of the fear of being hauled before Congress again.

seeking a clever screen name since 1999 Posted: July 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM (#2862233)

They can "condone" it in the sense of saying, "It's none of our business."

OK. Possibly poor word choice on my part. As I said, I disagree with MLB's activist policy WRT hGH. I would prefer that they more or less ignore it, since I really do not think it's much of a PED (if it even is one at all) and I further believe that continually calling attention to it as a) undectable and b) a PED is likely to lead to more use rather than less.

- agree

So let me try again: given the current state of public opinion on the subject of PEDs and the current state of the law on hGH, if an MLB player is caught up in a federal investigation of hGH distribution, I do not think that MLB can afford to be perceived as condoning the use of this illegal drug by its players.

- agree
because too many customers believe that use of that particular chemical is a bad thing, and therefore its KNOWN (condoned) use is bad for business. same thing with androstenedione, which you used to be able to buy offn the shelf, which NOW has been shown to actually not build muscle at all - at least in males. no idea what it does to females, but since we don't play MLB, don't nobody really care

I would say less because of public opinion than because of the fear of being hauled before Congress again.

That is also a fair statement.

An individual players use of steroids (assuming that steroids positively effect performance) effects other players monetarily. Thus, assuming that steroids improve performance, players should care about whether others with whom they are competing for jobs are using steroids to enhance their performance.

First, I thought we were talking about hGH.
Second, if by "should" you mean "ought to," then it's an odd statement; how can someone decide what someone ought to care about? If OTOH by "should" you're simply making a prediction, then it seems empirically like an inaccurate prediction. The vast majority of players didn't seem to care. (For instance, players who used PEDs didn't seem to conceal it very diligently from other players, and in addition players who have been revealed to have used PEDs didn't and don't seem to have suffered any ostracism from their peers as a result.)

Additionally, with respect to MLB, numerous surveys have indicated that fans are anti-steroid (for whatever it's worth) and would prefer to see "clean" players. If MLB gives a "clean" game to the fans, which is what they claim to want (assuming that fans aren't lying), isn't it reasonable to expect that revenues would increase? If so, then the use of steroids by players are costing their employers money.

And once again, I think a prediction must give way to empirical observation, which is that fans don't seem to actually care. Even the most rabid anti-steroid jihadists here didn't/don't seem to have put their money where their mouth was. Just because people claim to disapprove doesn't mean that they care.

Even the most rabid anti-steroid jihadists here didn't/don't seem to have put their money where their mouth was. Just because people claim to disapprove doesn't mean that they care.

so true.

And what of your officemates? What if they went to your boss and complained that your speeding was compelling them to speed too and they didn't want to endanger their lives? What do you think your boss would say to you then?

Piss off?

First, I thought we were talking about hGH.

You clearly stated steroids in your comment, as it was quoted.

Second, if by "should" you mean "ought to," then it's an odd statement; how can someone decide what someone ought to care about? If OTOH by "should" you're simply making a prediction, then it seems empirically like an inaccurate prediction. The vast majority of players didn't seem to care. (For instance, players who used PEDs didn't seem to conceal it very diligently from other players, and in addition players who have been revealed to have used PEDs didn't and don't seem to have suffered any ostracism from their peers as a result.)

This was a response to your statement that, since an action like an individual taking steroids doesn't cost other people money, then others shouldn't care or act against it. Steroid use by one individual in MLB does cost other individuals money (assuming that steroids improve performance). Thus, by your reasoning, it should be a cause of concern to other players. I agree whether or not they do care is unclear - as you note, they don't seem to have isolated the players who were caught using, but they did agree to much more extensive testing and penalties (under outside pressure).

And once again, I think a prediction must give way to empirical observation, which is that fans don't seem to actually care. Even the most rabid anti-steroid jihadists here didn't/don't seem to have put their money where their mouth was. Just because people claim to disapprove doesn't mean that they care.

I agree with you as well, which was why I qualified it with "which is what they claim to want (assuming that fans aren't lying)". I'm far too aware that people will often give what they perceive to be the right answer to a survey, even if they don't happen to believe it.

Well, you're wrong about that too because a lot of players, and a lot of trainers, did complain. They just did so privately so as not to precipitate a public scandal (see: Joyner, W).

Joyner didn't complain privately, whatever that means. He just decided not to use himself, apparently -- after first deciding to. (Of course, he used the same line as everyone who people disbelieve: "He tried them a couple of times and then decided not to use them after that.") And the caveat doesn't make sense anyway; if they cared so much, they would have complained publicly. Apparently they really didn't care enough to take action.

Yeah, sure he would, Dave. In fact, the office would be empty in two weeks and all your office mates would be working for the rival firm across town if he told them he didn't care what they thought and they should go on endangering their lives just because the a$$hole in the next cublicle insisted on doing it.

Uh, yeah. That's why BigLaw can't get any associates to work for them: people go to the rival firm across town when the firms explain the crappy work conditions they'll have to endure. (Endangering lives? No. Marriages? Yes. You try billing 2500 hours.)

I guess when Nieporent talks about freedom, he's only speaking about the freedoms he cares about, and not the ones others care about.

You're free to quit your job any time you don't like what the job requires.

And once again, I think a prediction must give way to empirical observation, which is that fans don't seem to actually care.

For instance, even the biggest jihadist here looks the other way when Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz use steroids, because they're on his favorite team.

So, I'm not free to make my job safer so I'll continue to be healthy enough to perform it adequately?

You're free to make your job safer for you, but not for the rest of us who may have a different cost/benefit analysis than you do. Or you can open your own office where you control the safety standards and set up tighter requirements. Or you can find a place to work that has a safety environment that more precisely suits your needs.

You are also free to sue your employer if he is creating an unsafe environment. If it rises to the level of legitimate negligence, you'll win some money for your troubles.

Instead of inundating the court system with millions upon millions of wrongful injury and death suits, wouldn't is be a little easier, efficient and regretless to set work guidelines that establish mutually agreed upon safety standards?

Doesn't that make just a little more sense?

It would, if they were actually "mutually agreed upon." But they're not; they're imposed by the government.

It wasn't imposed by the government.

Uh, yes, it was, my fascist young friend. And by friend, I don't actually mean friend.

I guess when Nieporent talks about freedom, he's only speaking about the freedoms he cares about, and not the ones others care about.

You're free to quit your job any time you don't like what the job requires.

So that's a confirmation....


What's so fascinating about the DMN/Kevin debates, are ones like this, Kevin's right (more or less), and Nieporent is wrong (more or less), but Kevin can't actually win the debate because DMN is a much better debater, who stays calm and seemingly rational (I said seemingly for a reason), whereas Kevin comes off as slightly insane even when he's right about something.

What's so fascinating about the DMN/Kevin debates, are ones like this, Kevin's right (more or less), and Nieporent is wrong (more or less), but Kevin can't actually win the debate because DMN is a much better debater, who stays calm and seemingly rational (I said seemingly for a reason), whereas Kevin comes off as slightly insane even when he's right about something.

So I take it that Kevin and DMN did not sit next to each other at the Orioles game meet up? In most years, I would say that meet up would have more interesting than the Orioles game itself.

No, it wasn't. Read Upton Sinclair.

1) Upton Sinclair was a novelist.
2) That doesn't have the foggiest thing to do with what I said. (*)

I don't think even you would regard Upton Sinclair as a fascist.

Sinclair was an avowed socialist. Since socialism and fascism are really just two forms of statism, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. They're both ideologies that seek to use government to impose their will on the public to fulfill their utopian visions.

Sinclair, incidentally, correctly understood that the government response to The Jungle was done for the benefit of the industry, not the public.


(*) EDIT: To elaborate on this point, you seem to think that if a particular law is popular, it therefore is not an infringement on our freedom. But tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

What difference does it make from whence tyranny comes, as long as it comes?

To many "libertarians" [not all- if there is a group that can never be accused of groupthink it's libertarians] it makes all the difference] where the tyranny comes from IS all important.

to them the "Government" telling a coal mine owner that he has to install a ventilation system and provide his workers with respirators, is far worse than a coal mine owner telling his workers, "Go eff off, I own the mine you obey my work rules or your fired"

why is it worse? among other things because within their craniums many libertarians dwell in a fantasyland where there are no difficulties or transaction costs associated with changing jobs, moving, retraining, etc etc., and hey, it doesn't matter if you can't afford to feed your family for a month because it will all even out in the long run.

why is it worse? among other things some libertarians dwell in a mirror image ideological fantasy world akin to the early communists, for instance, shortly after the Russian Revolution - the country was having problems feeding city dwellers (being ideologically committed communists one of their first acts was to essentially ban what we would call commerce as "profiteering"- one of the inner circle guys (I forget which one- but he was one of the guys Stalin later had purged), said hey, why don't we just lift the profiteering law, and let Farmers (by that he meant communes/collectives) sell x% of their produce - to middle men, who can then resell it in the markets - it made sense- it likely would have worked- his fellow commies were HORRIFIED- the middlemen would be allowed to profit from their fellow man, they would grow into a parasite class- everything we have worked for would be undone!!!!


The Libertarians, like the Communists, do not look to the actual or practical, they look first to their "principals". The fact that the average person is in no position to be able to determine if a new product is poisonous before he/she uses the stuff pales in comparison to the horror that is the government telling a pharmaceutical company that it can't sell a product. Many of them honestly believe that the FDA and anything like the FDA should be banned, and that companies should be free to sell whatever, and we all should be free to buy whatever, and hey if they knowingly sell something toxic they can be prosecuted AFTER THE FACT. Well I have a toddler, I don't want to live in a world where there is no enforcement mechanism at least trying t keep unsafe products from being marketed and sold BEFORE THE FACT. Are the FDA and other enforcement agencies perfect? No. Are they free from political interference? no. Do they do what they are supposed to do BETTER than a libertarian alternative? (a voluntary trade association for instance?)
YES

"one of the inner circle guys"

Lenin had a Hall of Merit? Geez, I never knew.

Incidentally, I think that you meant "principles", JPWF13. There is nothing worse than school principals with no sense of the practical results of their decisions.

I think you give the libertarian too much credit. Regarding your first "why is it worse" paragraph, the libertarian's response to all that is "tough ####\". They don't care about any of that. They just want everyone to keep out of their pockets.

There is nothing worse than school principals with no sense of the practical results of their decisions.

There's nothing worse than seeing having written something stoopid like that after the edit option has expired...

But as soem 19th C guy once said, "I can never trust a man who doesn't know more than one way to spell a word"

I believe it was Trotsky, who was later assassinated. Another thing we all have to look forward to if, god forbid, the libertarians ever seize power.

But the assassinations will be guided by the invisible hand, and done without government regulation, so we know that they'll be done efficiently.