You are totally pro-PED users. I get it. You have too much invested in that to ever admit that you are wrong, so you spilt hairs.

No we split hairs, because everyone on here is coming from a different point of view. Your simplistic black/white take on the issue is annoying because it's ####### stupid. You don't have any nuance, you don't have any point of view that requires a functioning brain, you say "Roiders are cheaters. Cheaters violate the character/integrity clause and shouldn't go in. Unless of course the cheaters did it in another way than with roids"...

You can't clarify why roids is different than amp users. You can't clarify why the character issue for roiders is a bigger deal than it is for someone like Cap Anson. You don't have a legitimate argument or point of view.


Esoteric gave his point of view and his reasoning. Andy also does that. You on the other hand don't. You don't have a consistent argument. And when you give an argument it says nothing.


Why is roids grossly immoral, but keeping blacks out of MLB not? Why is roids immoral but amps and spitballs aren't? Heck you have been asked multiple times to defend your point of view, and you never do.

the critical distinction is that amphetamines do not alter a player's permanent baseline the way steroids do.

Let's assume that this is true, though I don't know if it is.

But what if a player takes steroids ONE TIME? Or even two or three times... a small number. Surely this isn't enough to alter his "permanent baseline." Steroids are not a "magic pill," even though it seems to me that many people (sportswriters) still view them as such. They require time, they require repeated use, and they require hard work to have any effect. But I think most of anti-steroids crowd would say that a player who uses steroids even once has "crossed the line."

If, say, Rafael Palmeiro takes one single steroid shot (knowingly or unknowingly) and tests positive for it, does that make him an irredeemable cheater even if he gains no "enhancement" from it? While other guys were popping greenies 162 times a year?

Man, you guys are funny: is personal insults and hairsplitting really all that you have?

Well, no, but my question to Eso was ignored. Twice.

Actually, have you ever explained your distinction between amphetamines and steroids for HOFers?

OK, this was 80+ posts ago and the thread has swerved a bit. But here is Wilbur Wood's 1975 with Goose Gossage's 1975 removed:

149.2 IP, 210 H, 116 R, 104 ER, 23 HR, 22 BB, 10 K, ERA 6.25, ERA+ 62.

That's quite horrible. Kaat-Gossage (162 IP of 4.22 ERA, good for an ERA+ of 93) is at least worth talking about; Kaat is probably ahead if you don't believe in accounting for leverage.

How about this... here is Wilbur Wood's Jun 10th- August 20th... 19gs, 143ip, 2.89 era, 10 complete games, 2 shutouts and 13-6 record.... 1.196 whip....compared to Gossage 1.81 era and 1.193 whip over 141 ip. Only thing is that Wood then adds another 150 ip. I said maybe, but it doesn't really look like Gossage has much on Wood here.

It's easy to put up good numbers in shorter stretches. For the most part, any great reliever performance you find, is probably equaled or better by a starter at some point in time, for the simple fact that starters are almost always better pitchers on average.

Only thing is that Wood then adds another 150 ip.

In which he gave up 87 earned runs (5.28 ERA), and had a record of 3-14. Again, I don't see that as helpful at all. And Gossage's ERA is a full run lower than Wood's even in the favorable sample.

I meant the asterisk to be a personal one; not to imply that you would impose your moral judgment on the record book.

Thanks, since it wouldn't have been the first time that my views on this have been conflated with others'. It's pretty obvious that my POV on steroids and the HoF is shared by virtually nobody, as evidenced by the virtual non-existence of writers who've said they'd vote for Clemens and not Bonds.

Still, in the context that jmac raised, wouldn't you agree that 73* does a fairly good job of capturing the starting point of the mass furor over the PED issue? It wasn't just that the record was broken, it was the fact that in 2001 (unlike 1998) a significant chunk of people were suspicious of what they were witnessing.

I can only speak for myself here, but I didn't jump on Bonds's case until the BALCO revelations. In 2001 and for three years after that I was willing to give him the benefit of whatever doubt there was at the time. Hell, back then I was comparing Bonds favorably to Babe Ruth as a position player, and the only knock on him I voiced was his pre-2002 postseason blues.

I also seem to recall that the first significant explosion of general public interest in steroids in baseball came in the wake of the Canseco book and the BALCO revelations, both of which postdated 73 (or 73*) by more than three years. Three and a half years passed by between the Bonds single season record and the first congressional hearings. That doesn't say to me that the record in itself was that much of an impetus, at least until the players who broke the record in 1998 and then in 2001 were both linked to steroids by at least semi-credible third parties. Without the Canseco book and the BALCO revelations I doubt if the steroid issue would have reached the boiling point that it did, though I admit that's just an opinion based on my reading of the chronology. There's no way of knowing it for sure.

In which he gave up 87 earned runs (5.28 ERA), and had a record of 3-14. Again, I don't see that as helpful at all. And Gossage's ERA is a full run lower than Wood's even in the favorable sample.

Agreed, but that is all he brought to the table. I'm sorry I just don't see how a pitcher who allowed roughly 2 runs per 9 but only pitched two innings an appearance, is as valuable as a guy allowing 4.5 but who goes 8 routinely and throws nearly 300 innings.

Gossage's great year puts him in the conversation, but 150 innnings is a big gap, even if they are all at replacement level, it's still too big of a gap in my opinion. (Of course the 27 inherited runners out of 99 has to be considered as part of the equation)

Fair enough, here's a question. Just curious, do you believe Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire would have hit 70+ HRs had they been taking greenies alone, in the absence of other substances?

Mar McGwire hit 49 HR in 150 games at age 23 without steroids. He was a lock to break Maris's record if he stayed healthy long enough, and he almost didn't.

Barry Bonds never devoted himself to weight training until his 30s, and he was still going to be much stronger from doing that even if he didnt take steroids. without them he might have only hit 69 or 70 that season, if MLB HR rates post testing are any guide.

And who brings up placebos like HGH in a PED discussion?

At SoSH: Probably not, but while there would have been a steroids issue in baseball if Bonds had retired in 1999, there is little doubt in my mind that the intensity of the backlash was fueled for many based on how they feel about Bonds, if for no other reason than Bonds=eyeballs and that always activates the media. As to "evidence" for this, one small piece is the amount of bandwidth devoted to Bonds here. Add that to Pearlman, Game of Shadows, the Ecko Ball, any number of announcers/bloggers who went off on Bonds etc. etc. etc...it is clear that some of this was and is very much "about Bonds", who is one of the most polarizing and talked-about athletes in the history of sports. That is a big part of this story.

Bonds undoubtedly became a big part of the story, his presence likely ratcheting up the anti-steroids intensity and him being ultimately labeled (with Roger playing a supporting role) the face of steroids to the media and the public. All of that is true. But the idea that the steroids frenzy was fueled by anti-Bonds sentiment isn't supported by the facts.

He was a lock to break Maris's record if he stayed healthy long enough, and he almost didn't.

If this is true (which I'm also not sure it is), is it ok to take steroids to keep his body performing at his "permanent baseline", but not surpass it?

Hence my entire skepticism of this "performance baseline" thing.

And who brings up placebos like HGH in a PED discussion?

MLB needs to ban the placebo effect.

[97] I'm not sure why performance enhancement, under the guidance of a certified physician, isn't a legal thing.

The hangup lies partly in defining "enhancement", which seems to have two radically conflicting definitions. Baseball already allows a form of steroids (cortisone) for rehab purposes, but to go beyond that I suspect it'd have to be allowed only as long as a player were on the DL. It's a good point you raise, but it's an extremely tricky set of rules to establish to everyone's satisfaction. We've seen that for many years here in our discussions about the nature of the "enhancing" properties of amphetamines.

He was a lock to break Maris's record if he stayed healthy long enough, and he almost didn't.

He was pretty healthy for the next half-dozen years after his rookie season (the rabbit-ball 1987), and didn't come close to that 49 total during that time frame. I think it's possible, maybe even likely, a healthy* McGwire breaks Maris' record down the road, but he was never a lock.

* Which, of course, may be the bigger question entirely.

Gossage's great year puts him in the conversation, but 150 innnings is a big gap, even if they are all at replacement level

They weren't at replacement level; they were below it. Again, the difference between Wood and Gossage's seasons was 149.2 innings at a 6.25 ERA, which is a 62 ERA+; that's far worse than any estimate I've heard of replacement level for pitching. It also doesn't account for Wood's higher rate of allowing unearned runs (which tends to be a thing with knuckleballers).

Try this: If you sort the White Sox pitching staff by worst ERA to best, and add up the worst pitchers until you get to Bill Gogolewski, you get 148.2 innings and an RA of 6.96. Wood-Gossage is almost identical - 149.2 innings, RA of 6.97. So Gossage + the absolute worst pitchers on the staff = Wood.

[111] Sorry -- by "legal", I meant legal under US laws. (I don't actually know that its not, but I don't think it is).

I'm also not sure its helpful to conflate corticosteroids and anabolic steroids, though I agree (clearly) with the point you're making about rehabilitative vs. enhancing drugs. What is the "permanent baseline" of a player with inflammation issues that can be treated with corticosteroids? At what point should that prescription be made? When he can't walk? Or when he can only OPS 800 instead of 1000?

I just can't get my head around the idea of amps being non-enhancing, that they take you back to 100% and no further. That doesn't square with any other description of them, for either recreational or sports use - no one in the Olympic or cycling or football world would ever describe their efficacy as such.

I'm also not sure its helpful to conflate corticosteroids and anabolic steroids, though I agree (clearly) with the point you're making about rehabilitative vs. enhancing drugs. What is the "permanent baseline" of a player with inflammation issues that can be treated with corticosteroids? At what point should that prescription be made? When he can't walk? Or when he can only OPS 800 instead of 1000?

If I were a scientist I suppose I could make a stab at that, but in the case of cortisone it's an issue that seems to have been resolved without much controversy for the past 60+ years. Whatever we may think one way or the other about their moral use in baseball, it's clear that anabolic steroids are considered an "enhancement" distinct from any other "enhancement" in general use. And until we (and baseball) can agree on what constitutes a "permanent baseline" of a player's natural talent level, I doubt if we'll be seeing any approval of anabolic steroids for any purposes at all, even if in theory it might be a good idea.

They weren't at replacement level; they were below it. Again, the difference between Wood and Gossage's seasons was 149.2 innings at a 6.25 ERA, which is a 62 ERA+; that's far worse than any estimate I've heard of replacement level for pitching. It also doesn't account for Wood's higher rate of allowing unearned runs (which tends to be a thing with knuckleballers).

Try this: If you sort the White Sox pitching staff by worst ERA to best, and add up the worst pitchers until you get to Bill Gogolewski, you get 148.2 innings and an RA of 6.96. Wood-Gossage is almost identical - 149.2 innings, RA of 6.97. So Gossage + the absolute worst pitchers on the staff = Wood.

Remember I prefaced it with maybe, but yes I think a pitcher who pitches 300 innings at 5.00 is arguably as valuable as a reliever who pitches 140 innings at 2.00 era. That pitcher going 300 innings, clears up a spot or two on the bench for bats or gloves. That reliever who goes 140 innnings, costs you a bench spot by forcing you to have another pitcher.

I do not fathom there is any scenario that will make me think a 2.00 era reliever over 140 ips, is noticeably more valuable than a starting pitcher who throws 290 innings at 4.50 era.

More simply, if you stop taking amphetamines, they stop working. If you stop taking steroids, they stop working. I can't fathom how steroids can be classified as permanent.

Lassus, I didn't mean to ignore this, I simply missed it. That said, I'll admit that my stomach for breaking down the minutiae of these arguments is pretty much non-existent at this point -- it's the sort of debate I guess I'd be okay with having orally, but when reduced to writing (and when argued with the standard Primer-level attention to hairsplitting detail...note that I don't use "hairsplitting" as a negative term, really), this stuff always seems to swiftly devolve into epistemological musings on the nature of truth, fact, belief, etc. etc.

However, since you're a good sport and I don't want you to think I'm intentionally blowing you off, I'll give you my a precis response: the 'permanence' I refer to w/r/t anabolic steroids is directly related to my argument about how they fundamentally alter the baseline, the denominator. Amphetamines may amp you up, temporarily increase (or restore) your mental acuity and focus, but they do not alter your raw physical strength, lift capacity, or bat speed. (They may sharpen one's reflexes, but that's not the same as bat speed, which is a function of strength.) Anabolics, meanwhile, physically alter the body of the user on a semi-permanent basis, allowing them to put on vastly more muscle mass than they otherwise naturally would be able to. Sure, the effect can be labelled "temporary" if one squints enough -- but then this way of viewing things would render EVERYTHING 'temporary', including weight-lifting or nutritional regimes, exercise programs, everything -- hell, life itself is 'temporary' by this reckoning. It strikes me as a parsing of the meaning of the term that avoids the reality that one drug affects someone's brain function for an hour, and the other one fundamentally alters a person's physical body on an ongoing basis.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that I find a lot of the hair-splitting in these arguments tends to devolve into cutesy epistemological dorm-room bull session stuff. (It seriously reminds me of the same 'well but if you look at it THIS way...' tricks I used to play on my buddies in college: "Dude, think about it: if skyscrapers and cars and plastic garbage bags and nuclear waste are create by humans, doesn't that make them just as 'natural' as anything else? Yo, stop bogarting that J, bro.")

And with that, I am well and truly done. Let's be honest with ourselves: NOBODY is going to convince ANYBODY to abandon their strongly-held positions at this point. Let's all just agree that Murray Chass is an ass and call it a day, what say?

And with that, I am well and truly done. Let's be honest with ourselves: NOBODY is going to convince ANYBODY to abandon their strongly-held positions at this point. Let's all just agree that Murray Chass is an ass and call it a day, what say?

[Bangs cue stick butt on floor in demonstration of approval.]

Talking about the 1975 White Sox is eight times more interesting than talking about steroids.

David Nieporent is an amazing reader of minds.

Well, when all of the arguments for a certain conclusion are irrational, one looks for reasons why the conclusion was made. And one quickly comes up with things like "the conclusion came first" or boyhood heros.

One then considers that when rational people make irrational arguments, there is a distinct possibility that these people are being dishonest as to their motives.

FWIW, from personal experience, the idea that amps "just take you back up to 100%" is wrong. I've used amphetamines. Aside from the effects on clarity, stamina, etc., I could run faster and workout harder when I was using than not. And I wasn't coming off the slog of a road trip in August.

One then considers that when rational people make irrational arguments, there is a distinct possibility that these people are being dishonest as to their motives.

It strikes me as an altogether unconstructive and uncongenial move to not-so-subtlely float the idea that someone you disagree with holds their anti-steroid position because they are a dishonest liar concealing a secret motive. It just seems rather unfortunate to go straight to attacking someone's character, especially over something so ultimately petty.

For the record, I'm pretty sure I'm younger than everyone else in this thread (or nearly so at least), so I tire of the "defending boyhood heroes" line. I was born in late 1980. My boyhood heroes were...Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens, and their contemporaries.

It strikes me as an altogether unconstructive and uncongenial move to not-so-subtlely float the idea that someone you disagree with holds their anti-steroid position because they are a dishonest liar concealing a secret motive. It just seems rather unfortunate to go straight to attacking someone's character, especially over something so ultimately petty.

The alternative is that you're incapable of forming rational thought, which, judging from the rest of your posting history, doesn't seem to be the case.

The distinctions between amps and steroids for HOF purposes are non-existant, and so the people claiming there are meaningful distinctions come off looking really silly.

For the record, I'm pretty sure I'm younger than everyone else in this thread (or nearly so at least), so I tire of the "defending boyhood heroes" line. I was born in late 1980. My boyhood heroes were...Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens, and their contemporaries.

Well, I don't claim to know exactly what motivates people to make ludicrous conclusions. So for you it's not boyhood heros. Big whoop. Doesn't really matter why you're doing it.

I tire of the "defending boyhood heroes" line. I was born in late 1980. My boyhood heroes were...Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens, and their contemporaries.

Irritating though I find Ray's tendency to invent motives for other posters, I'm going to do it back to him - my suspicion is that he's actually trying to be charitable, because he finds it less insulting to call someone dishonest than to call them irrational.

I find this opinion ridiculous, but it should be noted that this opinion should not be ascribed to anyone who has not actually claimed it, because I AM MAKING IT UP.

*sigh*

Well, that's a dispiriting way for this conversation to end.

Eso -

Your argument rests on a specific and falsifiable claim that amphetamines do not enhance athletic ability beyond its "natural" level.

As far as I can tell from searching around on the medical databases, this claim is indeed false. The still-cited classic articles are Weiss and Laties, "Enhancement of Human Performance by Caffeine and the Amphetamines" in Pharmacological Review and Weiss and Laties, "Performance Enhancement by the Amphetamines" in Neuro-Psycho-Pharmacology. In both articles, they show that the performance enhanceming effect of amphetamines in athletic tasks goes beyond simply removing fatigue effects and instead improves baseline performance.

The distinctions between amps and steroids for HOF purposes are non-existant, and so the people claiming there are meaningful distinctions come off looking really silly.

There is a distinction of the legality of the substances, depending on what players are being discussed.

Some people talk about the clubhouse culture, rather than the chemical differences. They claim that baseball was more accepting of amphetamines than steroids, because unlike amphetamines, steroids were taken furtively by players who lied and denied it. Here's Tom Verducci from the Q-and-A linked here on Friday:

"I asked [Alex Rodriguez] about steroids in 2002 while working on the Caminiti story. It was in his hotel suite in Chicago after a game one night. He looked at me like I had two heads. Steroids? Gee, why would anybody take them? What do they do? I don’t know anything about it...I walked out of the suite shaking my head about his complete and theatrical lack of knowledge about the worst kept secret in the game. It would be seven years later that we all discovered, by his own admission, that he was loaded to the gills on steroids at that very moment."

Here's an account of Pete Rose's court testimony, under oath, in 1981:

"Under questioning by the doctor's lawyer, Rose was asked: "Are you denying it now that you have ever taken any greenies or Dexamyl?"

He replied: "What is a greenie?" A few questions later, as the lawyer continued to press him, Rose asked again, "What's a greenie? Is that a -- what's a greenie?" He denied in court that day ever having taken any form of amphetamine."

...His denial that he even knew what a greenie was, two years after telling Playboy that he had taken them, was audacious."

This has been a very interesting thread, thanks!

I side in the minority on this one. I understand that greenies may have had the effect of a PED, but it's also true that greenies aren't on trial here. Like many things in life, searching for 100% consistency is as meaningless as counting crows; the world is gray, not black and white. Steroid users cheated the game. The fact that preceding generations of ballplayers did as well does not vindicate them IMO.

In some respects, let's say that Mike Trout started using a non-detectable performance enhancing drug (say drug x), and down the road came out and stated that PED world had evolved and he took advantage of the system because x drug wasn't specifically banned. Should he be commended for beating the system or vilified for cheating the players he played with and against?

If the argument is that greenie users are already in the HOF, is the lesson that the steroids guys should be in the HOF to be consistent, or is it that the previous edition of the BBWAA really let the game down?

I also don't see what the big deal is about Goose saying anything here. A reporter asked him his thoughts and he gave them. Much like we are all doing.

I do agree that anyone who listens to Counting Crows has rendered their career meaningless.

You are totally pro-PED users. I get it. You have too much invested in that to ever admit that you are wrong, so you spilt hairs.

Is there any use crying over spilt hairs?
No, I say: no, there is not.

Anyway, nowadays it's more like "LOON" Gossage, amirite?

I do agree that anyone who listens to Counting Crows has rendered their career meaningless.

Everything means nothing to me. Feel better now?

I'm on the side of the angels

And now you're on the list of the ignored. You don't seem to have any interest in actual discussion, and I'm not interested in being preached at by a fundamentalist.

"Glad" to know that now with Bob Feller gone that the HOF will have another curmudgeonly pitcher to rant on about something every year.

It strikes me as an altogether unconstructive and uncongenial move to not-so-subtlely float the idea that someone you disagree with holds their anti-steroid position because they are a dishonest liar concealing a secret motive. It just seems rather unfortunate to go straight to attacking someone's character, especially over something so ultimately petty.

To be fair, some of those people are just retarded.


EDIT: Again, the problem is that when people make arguments that are demonstrably wrong -- factually, I mean, not merely morally -- and continue to make those arguments after their errors are pointed out to them, there are only two explanations: that they are deliberately lying, or that they are incapable of understanding. Someone who says that anyone who uses any PEDs should be banned doesn't make any sense, but might not fit into the above description. But someone who draws distinctions between amphetamines and steroids that are scientifically and logically wrong does.

I side in the minority on this one. I understand that greenies may have had the effect of a PED, but it's also true that greenies aren't on trial here. Like many things in life, searching for 100% consistency is as meaningless as counting crows; the world is gray, not black and white. Steroid users cheated the game. The fact that preceding generations of ballplayers did as well does not vindicate them IMO.

Wait, "steroids users cheated the game" is the "gray" perspective rather than the "black and white" one? And what does the fact that the world is purportedly gray have to do with the issue of whether one should be logically consistent?

In some respects, let's say that Mike Trout started using a non-detectable performance enhancing drug (say drug x), and down the road came out and stated that PED world had evolved and he took advantage of the system because x drug wasn't specifically banned. Should he be commended for beating the system or vilified for cheating the players he played with and against?

First, if it wasn't banned, what difference does it make whether it was detectable? Why is that word there, except to make it sound somehow illicit? Second, he should be commended for playing really well. He didn't "cheat" anyone in the scenario you describe, nor did he "beat the system."

If the argument is that greenie users are already in the HOF, is the lesson that the steroids guys should be in the HOF to be consistent, or is it that the previous edition of the BBWAA really let the game down?

The problem isn't that the "previous edition" of the BBWAA did that, but that the current edition of the BBWAA -- the very same people who are sanctimonious about steroid use -- are defending those earlier players. What you're ignoring is that retroactive morality is always repugnant. It's one thing to say that MLB should ban PEDs, and then people like Rafael Palmeiro who violate that ban should be vilified. It's another to say that people who used PEDs at a time when it was fine should be ex post facto punished. Gaylord Perry might have been a cheater cheater cheater (*), but people who used the spitball pre-ban were not. (Indeed, MLB actually grandfathered them in, recognizing that not only is ex post facto morality repugnant, but that it was unfair to change the rules on players who built their careers in a given way.)


(*) Not really, because he's not Barry Bonds.

I side in the minority on this one. I understand that greenies may have had the effect of a PED, but it's also true that greenies aren't on trial here. Like many things in life, searching for 100% consistency is as meaningless as counting crows; the world is gray, not black and white. Steroid users cheated the game. The fact that preceding generations of ballplayers did as well does not vindicate them IMO.

For me, I don't consider this an unreasonable position. There's no requirement that the Hall of Fame be consistent. If you think that PED users did a real bad thing, you don't have to be bound by the failure of the Hall to keep out earlier PED users. In fact, it's a practical certainty that if there haven't been contemporary steroid users inducted yet, there will be within five years. So if you want to keep steroids out of the Hall, but you still want to keep voting for at least some players, you have to accept some inconsistency.

I do disagree with it. I think the extent of the inconsistency is too great to be justified. Inducting only steroid users who were better at keeping their use private doesn't seem like a particularly laudable end. Having the Hall treat one group of PED cheaters so differently than another smacks of generational bias rather than an attempt to set right past wrongs. (I also don't see the necessity of policing PED use at the HoF ballot level. It should be policed among active players, and it's good that it is being so policed. It doesn't seem like something that can usefully be dealt with by the Hall.)

Which relates to a further point, one made by David above. If Manny Alexander and Manny Ramirez "cheated the game" by using PEDs, and you're not making scientifically dubious arguments about amphetamines not really having performance enhancing effects, then you also believe that Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle "cheated the game". If there's a sportswriter out there who has devoted a column - or a single column inch - to the argument that the heroes of the golden age of 1950s baseball "cheated the gane", I haven't seen it. Honestly, DFA, I didn't even see you make that claim, though it was implied. It'd be interesting to see it made, full stop, no dependent clauses.

Minor points of clarification:

Were all amphetamines (well, the ones players were taking en masse) illegal without a prescription in the 1950s?

Would those condemning amphetamine use condemn them if they were taken with a prescription?

The pills always required a prescription. An over-the-counter inhalable version was available from the 1930s until 1970. New restrictions on amphetamines were imposed in 1965, but prescriptions were not hard to get. In part because prescriptions were being widely abused-- over half, and by some estimates 90% of amphetamine pills ended up on the black market-- they became a Schedule II drug as of 1971.

jack

people would condemn any sort of steroid use in any player even if he was given them BY A SPORTS PHYSICIAN under strict supervision to heal seriously damaged muscle. nobody condemns any of the ballpolayers for amphetamine use mfor exactly one reason - THEY DO NOT MAKE LARGER MUSCLES. and you can't convince anti-roiders that male humans can increase muscle size without also doing roids (not including vaginal suppositories or precursors like progesterone or DHEA or androstenedoine) and people absolutely INSIST that 100% of the time, bigger muscle = ballplayer who hits more home runs.

the number of people who think that because mcgwire hit 49 homers as a rookie, he HAD to be using, is very high

i would bet just about any amount of money that no one except jeff pearlman would have a problem if any ballplayer toook ANY substance that permanently improved his performance as a baseball player AS LONG AS it did not increase the size of his muscles.

for example, let's suppose that player X uses, say, saline nose spray and finds out that spraying it in his nose improves his ability to focus on the spin of the ball and that after using the spray for a year, the ability is permanent.

did he cheat?

let's suppose that player Y decides to fix Vitamin C and does weekly butt injections because he found that it strengthened his wrist tendons and back tendons, allowing him to have significnatly increased butt, i mean BAT spead. besides him being an obvious homosex (i mean seriously, isn't that why everyone is so UPSET that androgen injections are, for whatever reason, taken in the BUTT???!!!!! seeing as how you know how Those Peeple are) has he cheated?

let's suppose that player Z lines his jock strap with aluminum foil after giving himself an enema with capsascin powder because he finds that this significantly enhances his alertness and focus and enables him to run faster, field better and singles those balls where the fielders ain't.

should any of these guys have to announce his new discovery that gave him this great advantage to either other players or to the media? all of those things used are available over the counter to anyone who wants them, including toddlers. has anyone "cheated?"

now youse guys might could laugh and say something like IGGNERINT WIMMEN!!!!! but the point is that each one of these guys was specifically TRYING to find something to make himself a better player, some little edge, wasn't NONE of the substances he used illegal (like androstenedione, the Clear, vit B-12). is trying to find any sort of edge not prohibited - is that a bad thing?

should we punish/suspend all the guys who wear those metal necklace thingys because they believe that they help prevent injuries/improve their playing by using cosmic rays/magnetic fields/radioactive spider juice?

126. Esoteric Posted: January 07, 2013 at 01:25 AM (#4340506)

*sigh*

Well, that's a dispiriting way for this conversation to end.

And better for you to end it there. No need sinking any further into an unsupportable argument.

For me, I don't consider this an unreasonable position. There's no requirement that the Hall of Fame be consistent. If you think that PED users did a real bad thing, you don't have to be bound by the failure of the Hall to keep out earlier PED users. In fact, it's a practical certainty that if there haven't been contemporary steroid users inducted yet, there will be within five years. So if you want to keep steroids out of the Hall, but you still want to keep voting for at least some players, you have to accept some inconsistency.

I'm not really sure I agree with this. There's no legal requirement that the HOF be consistent, obviously -- but I think there's an implicit requirement inherent in the nature of the HOF. This has nothing to do with PEDs; I've made the same argument with voters who argue that the HOF should be radically smaller (or larger, I suppose, but there are really no voters out there making such an argument) than it is now. It's fine to argue that a baseball hof should be restricted to the inner circle players (although I think such a hall would be pretty pointless and uninteresting), but that's not the HOF we have, and voters should not be allowed to dramatically shift the standards at this point. If you want to make it a bit more exclusive, go ahead. Top 12% instead of 15%. (Numbers made up for illustrative purposes.) But to say that half the players from the 1930s belong in the HOF but only inner circle players do today is wrong. In the context of PEDs, I think that means that if you want to say that marginal candidates who you think wouldn't have gotten in without PED use should be excluded, that's one thing. (Though I think it wrongheaded for other reasons.) But to suddenly retroactively apply an automatic wholesale exclusion, no.

The distinctions between amps and steroids for HOF purposes are non-existant, and so the people claiming there are meaningful distinctions come off looking really silly.

There is a distinction of the legality of the substances, depending on what players are being discussed.

And when people thought Sosa was "parsing" his statement before Congress to leave open the possibility that he may have taken steroids legally in the DR, that didn't seem to matter to them.

For me, I don't consider this an unreasonable position. There's no requirement that the Hall of Fame be consistent.

"Requirement"? No, but I think consistency is a major part of the legitimacy, credibility, and respect of the institution.

(And as David said, this applies to issues other than PEDs.)

.except for Gaylord Perry and Don Drysdale. They're cool.

And Sisler and Ruth (used illegal bats)

And I have to say that if you're talking "character clause" and you're fine with Juan Marichal but not Barry Bonds you have some mighty screwed up priorities. And yes, I understand that the Roseboro incident cost him votes.

I could hear the voices of many of you out there, pleading with me to keep all the "cheaters" out of Cooperstown. Hey, I'd love to help. But …

Unfortunately, I continue to hear my own voice, asking: "How, exactly?" If you could all just tell me precisely who did what, maybe it might actually be possible to keep the Hall untarnished and pristine. But it isn't possible in this universe.

Jayson Stark.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_/id/8814530/jayson-stark-mlb-hall-fame-ballot

#122 There's a heck of a lot of research on the performance enhancing aspects of amphetamines. I've frequently posted a series of posts (from the usenet Braves group) by Dr. Steve Patterson. While most of it has to do with the safety of steroids, it also includes a mention of a paper that sums up much of the research into the performance enhancing aspects.

Take the right amphetamine in the right amount and you get improved reaction time. While Andy objects that there's no proven link between reaction time and baseball performance that's true of all PEDs. Nobody to my knowledge has studied what any PED does for baseball players.

Ron J2:

I haven't looked into the research, mostly because my amphetamine use was recreational, short-lived, and a long time ago. And what I was using was methamphetamine, which may well have somewhat different pharmacological effects than something like dexedrine. But still, what you cite is consonant with my (admittedly anecdotal, n=1) experience. When I was using, I felt like a superhero. I was faster, stronger, more finely-tuned than when I was not. Even if much of that was a placebo, it was a hell of a placebo.

no proven link between reaction time and baseball performance

Tell that to any batter facing a 95-100mph fastball or a fielder getting tensed, coiled and on their toes just before one of 150 pitches in a game. baseball is all about focus and reaction time, which is why people are all upset about the 100 or so therapeutic use exemptions for adderall and ADHD drugs given each year.