Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
Could also be Terrmel Sledge
Knott gave several strong reasons for distinguishing "the PEDs he took" from those he didn't. To call that merely "convenient" is effectively to dismiss his reasoning as being little more than a rationalization of his own behavior, which in turn is in so many words accusing him of being dishonest.
I would say that the equivalency is weak, and relies on looseness in the definition of "Performance Enhancing." If you set some minimum threshold of enhancement for a drug to meet before it became an ethical concern (which everybody does), you could with perfect consistency oppose steroids and be indifferent to greenies.
And it's easy to come up with a thousand one liners to dismiss the issue that Knott poses and see him essentially as a sucker for not buying into the steroids program.
What might be even more interesting would be to get Knott and Bob Tufts together for an unscripted and open ended discussion about the whole PED question, and the practical and moral dilemmas it presented to players in their precarious career positions. I say that because Bob has also written about PEDs here on BTF from a similar vantage point, and it'd be interesting to see how they'd interact.
This is manifestly false. They're treated differently in the Mitchell Report, and there are official therapeutic use exceptions -- granted rather freely -- to the anti-amp policy.
On the other hand, it was a positive for Nandrolone and a real good chunk of Nandrolone positives are from supplements that contained -- without listing it -- andro.
Here we get at the heart of the dispute. Knott did not say that greenies made him "play better" than he would have with normal rest.
But the moral issue arises when a player feels the need to damage his health in order to keep up with the players who simply don't care about such long term issues.
Knott's actions show little more than an awareness of the difference between moral and legal questions.
Of course that totally dodges the moral issue of the steroid user getting an advantage over the non-user.
#48-50 typically spends 100% of his energy on ad hominen attacks, while Knott's points go unaddressed.
you don't think it matters that someone who ate right, slept instead of going out whoring and boozing, had to compete against guys who took drugs to give them more energy and focus? i guess not, because the team encouraged and abetted it.
He's not a sucker. More akin to a guy who went home at 5:30 every day to spend time with his family, rather than spending another two hours at the office chasing a promotion. He was more concerned about his own health than his career prospects, and that's fine. It's his choice to make.
Of course that totally dodges the moral issue of the steroid user getting an advantage over the non-user. If the guy who works late is rifling through the company's private papers during that time in order to gain an advantage, then your analogy would make more sense.
Pitchers were gaining velocity that they didn’t have and hitters with no pop started hitting balls out of the park with greater frequency. Players were gaining size at a rapid pace, and baseball was turning into a power game....
David, Andy? STFU? Thanks.
I'm waiting with baited breath to see how many Primates are going to accuse Knott of being "dishonest" for not "admitting" that steroids and amps are equivalent PEDs. But sometimes silence speaks louder than words.
It doesn't dodge the issue at all. By working late, one gains an advantage, whether or not one "rifles through the company's private papers" or simply sits at one's desk and plugs away at things.
The "similarity" is that both drugs can be viewed as performance enhancers and that there's no meaningful difference on this score, or on the issue of the HOF.
I don't see much point in another round of that particular topic.
All of the above responses other than Lisa's** (which I'll respond to separately) keep coming back to the same definitional dispute over what constitutes either "enhancement" and / or "normal" rest. Since nobody here is changing his or her views on these definitions anytime soon, I don't see much point in another round of that particular topic.
Then why did you force it onto this thread?
Then why did you explicitly ask for a discussion that hinges on that point?
There's no real dispute anyway, other than by those trying to muddy the waters to reach a predetermined result.
Taking a substance to make one feel more rested doesn't remotely transgress any serious system of competitive ethics
I was hoping out loud to get some more views from actual ballplayers,
I was hoping out loud to get some more views from actual ballplayers, in response to the quotes from Knott that I copied in #16 above. The utterly predictable responses from the peanut gallery here, all of which have been posted countless times before, are about as interesting to me as my take on the same subject is to some of you. What is interesting is the take of actual ballplayers like Knott and Tufts, and like Lisa, I only wish we could have more of them.
Taking a substance to make one feel more rested doesn't remotely transgress any serious system of competitive ethics...
Amps do not alter the performance ceiling; roids do.
I'm waiting with baited breath to see how many Primates are going to accuse Knott of being "dishonest" for not "admitting" that steroids and amps are equivalent PEDs.
And when you tried to bait people into responding to you in #35, saying that if people didn't respond it would prove they were liars, what was your goal then?
Then why did you direct your question to us, rather than actual ballplayers? If you wanted Bob's take on it, you could've just e-mailed him.
It's the core reason the two substances are distinguished, so it's very material for these purposes.
Roids provide an indefinite increase in muscle unobtainable without them and, therefore, fundamentally increase performance capability
He never played with Burroughs (AFAICT).
There's nothing "fundamental" about that distinction. It's merely a distinction made by the rules...
And, as noted, amps aren't really "prohibited" since almost 100 players are allowed to use them. They're merely provisionally, or conditionally, prohibited.
No offense to Lisa (who I mostly agree with about steroids), but I don't see what's so different about her perspective on PEDs.
The one thing that elevates this otherwise routine thread from Repoz's usual pinata posts is the viewpoint of Knott, which I hope people will read in its entirety.
Amps do not alter the performance ceiling
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.7303 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed