It matters more when its impact is deeper, just as stealing a quarter isn't as bad as stealing $1 million.

They're both theft. Again, you've probably* created greater harm by stealing a million dollars than by stealing a quarter, but the distinction is really whether or not you're a thief.

I'll re-ask the question that both you and Morty ducked: Are you okay with HGH, where the consensus seems to be that it has no impact?

*You almost certainly harm a panhandler more by stealing a quarter from him than you do Bill Gates by stealing $1 million from him, both in terms of percentage of net worth and in far more tangible reduction of purchasing power.

They're both theft.

But they aren't the same, even though they're both theft -- just as amps and roids aren't the same even if both are "cheating" and "performance enhancing."

All number of crimes and civil offenses have different punishments determined by delving deeper into the nature and impact of the conduct. In the same way, delving deeper into the Steroid Era and the "amp era" leads one to the conclusion that the historical consensus on them is essentially true.

Yes, they are. Explicitly and implicitly. The attitude is that they are equivalent when it comes to increasing performance. We know what a exercise regimen utilizing steroids can do. We don't know the same thing about amphs--not by a long shot.

No it's not, the attitude is that both are performance enhancers beyond "normal" means and that there is a massive double standard in how the morons(oops, I mean baseball writers) treat the two. They were both cheating in the same sense, but because the writers are in their 40's and have a love connection with the past, they make it appear as if they are massively different things. They are not, using the quarter and million dollar analogy that Sugarbear put up, they are basically equivalent to stealing 1/2 a million to stealing a million. They are both so far over the imaginary line that it's ridiculous to parse them as separate types of cheating.

And we really don't know anything about roids with an exercise regimen, as the results among different confirmed users has been vast, to the point that it's very reasonable to argue that the exercise regimen was the real difference.

That's far too reductionist a principle for proper analysis. It leads to misimpressions and misunderstandings.

Got it. Proper analysis holds that it's sometimes okay to use illegal drugs to improve performance. Just not ones that build muscle.

Nor have the arguments against roids ever been more than superficially, "moral." It's bizarre that anti-anti-roiders have routinely hurled the allegation of "moralizer" at anti-roiders and yet here we are with someone arguing that amps are equally bad as roids based solely on the morality of use.

The arguments against steroids have always been moral to their core. The argument against them is that they're illegal, that they shift the competitive balance of the game in favor of the cheats, and that widespread use becomes coercive on those who would prefer not to use them. How is that not moral? All I'm saying is that it's logically inconsistent to be outraged by steroid use while giving amphetamine use a pass, particularly given that all three of the above statements are also true of amphetamines.

Got it. Proper analysis holds that it's sometimes okay to use illegal drugs to improve performance. Just not ones that build muscle.

It's not necessarily even "okay." The gravity of the "offenses" of the "amp era" have simply been deemed insufficient to materially revise the historical impression of that era -- one formulated with essentially full knowledge of what went on. The era has been reconsidered in light of the Steroid Era, and the questions you and others have raised. The consensus has held -- correctly, in my opinion, for the reasons I've noted.

All I'm saying is that it's logically inconsistent to be outraged by steroid use while giving amphetamine use a pass, particularly given that all three of the above statements are also true of amphetamines.

Bingo. I have no problem with people who are blasting roiders and want harsher punishments, it's the double standard between two very similar forms of cheating that I have issue with.

I have no problem with people who are blasting roiders and want harsher punishments, it's the double standard between two very similar forms of cheating that I have issue with.

Indeed; as noted, all the talk of amps and the amp era is little more than concern trolling.

one formulated with essentially full knowledge of what went on

Bs. The knowledge of what went on is limited and kept out of the press and not written with righteous indignation. It's ridiculous to say the knowledge of what went on is fully out there. Heck it's ridiculous to say that the masses have a clue what went on, they still think that in the roid era that pitchers didn't use and are surprised every time a pitcher name comes up.

The fact is that the indignation of the roid era is propped up by self righteous writers, who by demonstration of the past, have proven that beyond any reasonable doubt that they are one of the most uninformed segments of society on the planet. They are the creationist of the sports world. Too stupid to find a real job in sports so they write gossip columns hoping for page hits.

Amps have never been forced to be held by a higher standard, because the people who's job it is to bring the subject up, aren't that informed on anything in their field, beyond two minute sound bites.

Indeed; as noted, all the talk of amps and the amp era is little more than concern trolling.

I honestly have no idea what that means.

Folk-psychological understandings of the self are at the heart of the distinction, I think, at least for the great majority of people.

Taking a pill so we get through a tough period and function like we normally function is something basically every American can relate to; systematically transforming your body into something it couldn't be without a drug--not so much.

Even if studies were to establish that amps, over a season, helped ballplayers more than a careful steriod regime, I don't think this psychological distinction would get overturned.

Based on all the discussions and arguments I've had over the past several years, I'd say that "Being at your best when you don't feel great" vs "Being better than you could be otherwise" is a pretty fundamental intuitive difference that lots of people are unwilling to let go of.

Bs. The knowledge of what went on is limited and kept out of the press and not written with righteous indignation. It's ridiculous to say the knowledge of what went on is fully out there. Heck it's ridiculous to say that the masses have a clue what went on, they still think that in the roid era that pitchers didn't use and are surprised every time a pitcher name comes up.

It wasn't limited and kept out of the press when it was going on. The press didn't write about it with "righteous indignation" at the time it was going on, because it wasn't a subject that warranted righteous indignation.

I honestly have no idea what that means.

Phony concern for a belief you don't have. As you said, you "have no problem with people who are blasting roiders and want harsher punishments." So what do you care what their belief is regarding amps? Your "concern" is a form of concern trolling.

It wasn't limited and kept out of the press when it was going on. The press didn't write about it with "righteous indignation" at the time it was going on, because it wasn't a subject that warranted righteous indignation.

Yes it does, it's Cheating with a capital C. It's making you play better than you normally can, it makes your hand eye coordination better. Just because in that era they didn't have the education to know better, doesn't mean we have to accept that eras interpretation of the severity of the crime.

It's akin to accepting that the mvp and cy young and gold gloves of those eras are correct and that no amount of additional information should change your mind on the matter. RBI and batting average was the standard for those awards then, and that means they are correct and we shouldn't try to reevaluate them.

Amps make you hit a baseball better than you normally could, Amps make your throws more accurate than they would be without them, how is that not cheating? Amps make you run harder than you would have, give you quicker reaction time etc.

Indeed; as noted, all the talk of amps and the amp era is little more than concern trolling.

Not to me. To me, it's pointing out that baseball has already answered the question of what to do vis-a-vis performance enhancing drugs and player reputations, the Hall of Fame, etc. The game has already seen a period during which PEDs were a part of the day-to-day fabric of the game, and the general consensus seems to be that it was no big deal. To me, steroid use pre-testing falls into exactly the same moral bucket. It's in a gray area between cheating and not cheating, given that both were illegal and neither were banned by the sport. I can't see any way to parse the two eras that doesn't feel like special pleading on behalf of the amphetamine era, as the principle is whether or not it was cheating, not how effective the cheating may have been. Especially since none of the amphetamine defenders are saying HGH is okay.

Now, positive steroid tests (or positive amphetamine tests) post-testing fall into a completely different bucket for me. I'm okay with the general principle in American sports that anything not specifically prohibited is tacitly permitted. But once it's specifically prohibited, it's absolutely cheating. My (entirely hypothetical) Hall of Fame ballots would see me voting for Clemens and Bonds (never failed a test), but not for Palmeiro and Manny (failed tests being an automatic disqualifier).

Yes it does, it's Cheating with a capital C. It's making you play better than you normally can, it makes your hand eye coordination better. Just because in that era they didn't have the education to know better, doesn't mean we have to accept that eras interpretation of the severity of the crime.

They did have the "education to know better." They also have it now, and they've reassessed the amp era in light of the Steroid Era, and the points made on these boards have been considered in depth. Nonetheless, the historical consensus has held.

To me, steroid use pre-testing falls into exactly the same moral bucket. It's in a gray area between cheating and not cheating, given that both were illegal and neither were banned by the sport. I can't see any way to parse the two eras that doesn't feel like special pleading on behalf of the amphetamine era, as the principle is whether or not it was cheating, not how effective the cheating may have been.

And, again, that's a niche opinion, not that that means it's wrong.

What is wrong is the notion that somehow no one's ever thought of these arguments and that opinions of the amp era are somehow the result of "poor education" or lack of awareness of what was going on. And, worse, that the historical consensus is merely a cover for protecting "yesterday's heroes." The press and other factions of the game didn't think amps were that bad when Hank Aaron, Pete Rose, et al. were contemporary heroes. Pete Rose "admitted" he was an amp user in 1979.

Taking a pill so we get through a tough period and function like we normally function is something basically every American can relate to; systematically transforming your body into something it couldn't be without a drug--not so much.

....

Based on all the discussions and arguments I've had over the past several years, I'd say that "Being at your best when you don't feel great" vs "Being better than you could be otherwise" is a pretty fundamental intuitive difference that lots of people are unwilling to let go of.

Good post.

Taking a pill so we get through a tough period and function like we normally function is something basically every American can relate to; systematically transforming your body into something it couldn't be without a drug--not so much.

....

Based on all the discussions and arguments I've had over the past several years, I'd say that "Being at your best when you don't feel great" vs "Being better than you could be otherwise" is a pretty fundamental intuitive difference that lots of people are unwilling to let go of.

And yet we're okay with prosthetically (glasses) or surgically (Lasik) being better than you could be otherwise, even for athletes.

Taking a pill so we get through a tough period and function like we normally function is something basically every American can relate to; systematically transforming your body into something it couldn't be without a drug--not so much.

Even if studies were to establish that amps, over a season, helped ballplayers more than a careful steriod regime, I don't think this psychological distinction would get overturned.

Based on all the discussions and arguments I've had over the past several years, I'd say that "Being at your best when you don't feel great" vs "Being better than you could be otherwise" is a pretty fundamental intuitive difference that lots of people are unwilling to let go of.

This may be true, though if there were any real evidence that a well-rested Major League ballplayer's ability to hit a Major League pitch were actually "enhanced" by amphetamines, I'd be more than willing to reconsider my opinion. But until that time, the distinction you're making between "Being at your best when you don't feel great" vs "Being better than you could be otherwise" is the crucial one.

As for HGH, I wouldn't have any problem with that, any more than I have a problem with a cortisone shot, if HGH's use were similarly publicized in the media. And as I've said before, if steroids were prescribed by MLB-approved doctors for limited restoration use during in-season rehab periods, with similar publicity, I'd be a lot less opposed to steroids. But of course that's not been the case to date. Instead we've had secret sessions attended to by the sort of marginal characters who advertise their products on the margins of websites like this, with an eye towards enhancement, not restoration.

And yet we're okay with prosthetically (glasses) or surgically (Lasik) being better than you could be otherwise, even for athletes.

This again. As if normal vision gives a ballplayer an advantage that's comparable to a set of steroid-enhanced muscles. And people wonder why these discussions never go anywhere.

They did have the "education to know better." They also have it now, and they've reassessed the amp era in light of the Steroid Era, and the points made on these boards have been considered in depth. Nonetheless, the historical consensus has held.

Who ####### cares about the historical consensus? It's about what is the correct interpretation, not what the ####### morons who write about it think is the right interpretation.

It's about whether or not amps and roids are the same type of cheating. Just because the rest of the world doesn't view it as that way, doesn't mean that the rest of the world is correct. Bowing to the masses is just a sign of stupidity or willful ignorance.

And, again, that's a niche opinion, not that that means it's wrong.

What is wrong is the notion that somehow no one's ever thought of these arguments and that opinions of the amp era are somehow the result of "poor education" or lack of awareness of what was going on. And, worse, that the historical consensus is merely a cover for protecting "yesterday's heroes." The press and other factions of the game didn't think amps were that bad when Hank Aaron, Pete Rose, et al. were contemporary heroes. Pete Rose "admitted" he was an amp user in 1979.

The thing is, it's an opinion driven by logical application of a principle. The principle in this case is that cheating is defined by intention and action to break the rules. If you want to argue that amphetamines are cool because there was no rule specifically prohibiting them, steroids pre-testing are cool for the same reason. If you want to argue that steroids pre-testing are verboten because they were illegal, then amphetamines pre-testing are verboten for the same reason. If you want to argue that amphetamines are okay while steroids aren't because amphetamines don't work as well as steroids, then you're left having to accept HGH as well. There is absolutely no parsing of the facts that makes amphetamines acceptable while steroids and HGH are unacceptable without special pleading.

Who ####### cares about the historical consensus?

In this case, everyone should, since the consensus is the same as the contemporaneous opinion. Amp use was widely acknowledged, widely known, and widely understood. No one made a big deal about it.(*) That's indicative of its true nature and gravity. The fact that the consensus has held upon reassessment strengthens the contemporaneous understanding.

(*) Cf., steroids. If you walk into a room and one eight-year-old is all smiley as he reaches into the goodie jar on the living room coffee table, and you walk into the bathroom and another eight-year-old is furtively doing something hidden behind a stall, and lies to you when you ask what he's doing, which is more likely to be up to something he believes to be nefarious?

This again. As if normal vision gives a ballplayer an advantage that's comparable to a set of steroid-enhanced muscles. And people wonder why these discussions never go anywhere.

God forbid that these discussions try to get at principles. This was posted in direct response to discussion of the principle being that steroids make an athlete better than he would be otherwise.

Lasik is also capable of producing better than 20/20 vision. Are you sure that's not a greater advantage than greater strength?

In this case, everyone should, since the consensus is the same as the contemporaneous opinion. Amp use was widely acknowledged, widely known, and widely understood. (*) No one made a big deal about it. That's indicative of its true nature and gravity. The fact that the consensus has held upon reassessment strengthens the contemporaneous understanding.

No it means that nobody wants to rock the boat of their own narrative.

Amps help you see better, and help hand eye coordination. How tough is this to understand. Players play beyond their ability due to amp usage. There is a reason that red bull and other sport drinks are being banned at the high school level nowadays.

Who ####### cares about the historical consensus? It's about what is the correct interpretation, not what the ####### morons who write about it think is the right interpretation.

Since you've made more claims about amps' magical powers than anyone I've seen here to date, perhaps you'd like to show some actual proof (or compelling evidence) that a well-rested Major League ballplayer's performance is actually enhanced by amphetamines. Or even a well-rested college or high school ballplayer. I'd like to see some proof (or compelling evidence) that a well-rested ballplayer's normal level of alertness is not his optimal level, and that trying to improve on that level with amphetamines has any positive effect.

And as a side note, I'd like for you to show me any testimony or other evidence that Hank Aaron ever used amphetamines beyond the one time he described in I Had a Hammer. It's possible that he did, but all you seem to be working on at this point is a combination of extrapolation and assumption.

(*) Cf., steroids. If you walk into a room and one eight-year-old is all smiley as he reaches into the goodie jar on the living room coffee table, and you walk into the bathroom and another eight-year-old is furtively doing something hidden behind a stall, and lies to you when you ask what he's doing, which is more likely to be up to something nefarious?

Again that is due to the expectations placed on the situation. If in that scenario you have a parent who allows the kids to smoke, and the first kid is reaching for a pack of matches, meanwhile the household has a strict no reading comic book ban and the second kid is hiding a garfield book, which kid is actually doing more wrong?

Since you've made more claims about amps' magical powers than anyone I've seen here to date, perhaps you'd like to show some actual proof (or compelling evidence) that a well-rested Major League ballplayer's performance is actually enhanced by amphetamines. Or even a well-rested college or high school ballplayer. I'd like to see some proof (or compelling evidence) that a well-rested ballplayer's normal level of alertness is not his optimal level, and that trying to improve on that level with amphetamines has any positive effect.

Show me a study that a ball player who dedicates his life to the gym without roids performs significantly worse than one who does roid usage?

This again. As if normal vision gives a ballplayer an advantage that's comparable to a set of steroid-enhanced muscles. And people wonder why these discussions never go anywhere.

God forbid that these discussions try to get at principles. This was posted in direct response to discussion of the principle being that steroids make an athlete better than he would be otherwise.

Lasik is also capable of producing better than 20/20 vision. Are you sure that's not a greater advantage than greater strength?

Possibly so, and so can glasses or contact lenses, but it's an advantage that anyone can openly take advantage of without any danger to one's health**, two distinctions which put all three of those "enhancements" in a decidedly different category than steroids.

**I've had lasik surgery myself, and its effects often gradually diminish over time. I began with 20/15 right after the operation, and now it's more like 20/25.

#121 In addition there's the health risk. For all the talk about the dangers of steroids, the experts in the field will tell you(at least I can't find any exceptions) that amphetamines are more dangerous.

Steroids thread ... I missed you so. How have I survived these long cold months without you?

I don't care about the relative PEDness of various drugs. Follow the rules. So when there were no rules* regarding amps, have at. When there were no rules* regarding steroids then go for it. Society at large may care (and it is welcome to do so) but Baseball should follow baseball's rules. So all the records are legit, and everything past that is sophistry. Especially since the actual real world impact of amps, steroids and such is largely unknowable.

Personally I am not offended by either Hank Aaron or Barry Bonds. Great players, both of them.

* Rules: It is not really a rule unless it is documented and enforced. For both amps and steroids we have that now. So we should follow the rules.

Since you've made more claims about amps' magical powers than anyone I've seen here to date, perhaps you'd like to show some actual proof (or compelling evidence) that a well-rested Major League ballplayer's performance is actually enhanced by amphetamines. Or even a well-rested college or high school ballplayer. I'd like to see some proof (or compelling evidence) that a well-rested ballplayer's normal level of alertness is not his optimal level, and that trying to improve on that level with amphetamines has any positive effect.

Show me a study that a ball player who dedicates his life to the gym without roids performs significantly worse than one who does roid usage?

That's a nice dodge, which is essentially an admission that your claims about amps can't be backed up.

As for your counter-question, you show me any weight-addicted and non-juiced player who's improved his late career performance relative to his own past prime years, to any degree comparable to Barry Bonds. We all know that Bonds is sui generis, a genius comparable to Einstein yada yada yada, but there's a reason he went from weights alone to weights + steroids, and I doubt if it was because he was just trying to qualify for cruising time at Muscle Beach.

Possibly so, and so can glasses or contact lenses, but it's an advantage that anyone can openly take advantage of without any danger to one's health**, two distinctions which put all three of those "enhancements" in a decidedly different category than steroids.

1. Openness vs. non-openness is kind of a non-response in my opinion. Steroids are "bad" because they're prohibited. Lift the prohibition, and they can be used openly. The fact that they were used in secret while amphetamines were used openly points more to the difference in how illegal and recreational drug use was perceived pre- and post- "War on Drugs" than anything else. Steroid use in bodybuilding and the strength sports was much more out in the open in the 1960s and 1970s than it was in the 1990s and 2000s as well.

2. There are a pretty good number of writers and researchers who believe it's possible to use steroids for physique and performance enhancement without any danger to your health as well. And as noted on the Eric Gagne thread, it's pretty clear that MLB players are/were using them in ways that minimize the health risks (Gagne's protocol from the team doctor, Manny popping for a post-cycle therapy drug as opposed to a steroid, etc.).

If you want to argue that amphetamines are okay while steroids aren't because amphetamines don't work as well as steroids, then you're left having to accept HGH as well. There is absolutely no parsing of the facts that makes amphetamines acceptable while steroids and HGH are unacceptable without special pleading.

See what I wrote in #118.

I don't care about the relative PEDness of various drugs. Follow the rules. So when there were no rules* regarding amps, have at. When there were no rules* regarding steroids then go for it. Society at large may care (and it is welcome to do so) but Baseball should follow baseball's rules. So all the records are legit, and everything past that is sophistry. Especially since the actual real world impact of amps, steroids and such is largely unknowable.

Personally I am not offended by either Hank Aaron or Barry Bonds. Great players, both of them.

* Rules: It is not really a rule unless it is documented and enforced. For both amps and steroids we have that now. So we should follow the rules.

Exactly.

Possibly so, and so can glasses or contact lenses, but it's an advantage that anyone can openly take advantage of without any danger to one's health**, two distinctions which put all three of those "enhancements" in a decidedly different category than steroids.

1. Openness vs. non-openness is kind of a non-response in my opinion. Steroids are "bad" because they're prohibited.

No, they're "bad" because they have the ability to enhance performance in ways that other drugs can't. The lack of openness is simply an admission that unlike amps, which were openly displayed and distributed in communal jars in locker rooms, steroids users felt that they had something to hide.

2. There are a pretty good number of writers and researchers who believe it's possible to use steroids for physique and performance enhancement without any danger to your health as well. And as noted on the Eric Gagne thread, it's pretty clear that MLB players are/were using them in ways that minimize the health risks (Gagne's protocol from the team doctor, Manny popping for a post-cycle therapy drug as opposed to a steroid, etc.).

All this is well and good, and I've stated my position on it in #118.

No, they're "bad" because they have the ability to enhance performance in ways that other drugs can't. The lack of openness is simply an admission that unlike amps, which were openly displayed and distributed in communal jars in locker rooms, steroids users felt that they had something to hide.

Amps were openly displayed and distributed in an era that was much more relaxed with regard to illegal and recreational drug use in general. And it's clear from a lot of the player revelations over the past decade or so that steroid use wasn't hidden within the locker room. Yes, it was hidden from the reporters, but there was a different dynamic between reporters and players during the steroid era than during the openly displayed amphetamine era. The differences between eras contribute at least as much to the different behavior as the differences between PEDs.

Yes, it was hidden from the reporters, but there was a different dynamic between reporters and players during the steroid era than during the openly displayed amphetamine era.

I don't understand this "different dynamic." What does it mean?

The simplest explanation is that amps weren't hidden from reporters because there was ample reason to believe reporters wouldn't care and steroids were hidden from reporters because reporters would care. This "different dynamic" has a lot of heavy lifting to do to overcome this straightforward counterveiling explanation.

Amps were openly displayed and distributed in an era that was much more relaxed with regard to illegal and recreational drug use in general.

Yes and no. Let's put it this way: Drug use was then far more of a polarizing topic than it is today. On the one hand you had all sort of silly claims about how drugs were going to bring about world peace and human happiness, and certain types of celebrities could enhance their standing with open drug use and even an occasional arrest. But then you had a presidential candidate labeled as "amnesty, acid and abortion" by a rival who won 49 of the 50 states. Baseball was much closer in that respect to J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon than it was to Timothy Leary and George McGovern.

And it's clear from a lot of the player revelations over the past decade or so that steroid use wasn't hidden within the locker room.

You're probably right, but I'd like to see some actual citation on that.

Yes, it was hidden from the reporters, but there was a different dynamic between reporters and players during the steroid era than during the openly displayed amphetamine era.

Not really as much as you might think. There have always been writers and other media reporters who had a good relationship with ballplayers, and others who were held at arm's length.

The differences between eras contribute at least as much to the different behavior as the differences between PEDs.

Leonard Schecter and Jim Bouton blew the lid on amps in 1970, and after a brief huff 'n' puff from Bowie Kuhn, things went right back to normal. And yet as soon as Canseco's book came out, you quickly had congressional hearings and a breakthrough testing regimen. Part of this may simply be the effects of greater general awareness of drug abuse, but it also had to do with a widespread feeling of distinction between "restoration" drugs and "enhancement" drugs, and what the latter were doing to the game on the field.

And just to get it out of the way: Yes, there was a lot of media laziness and complacency, and both the media and the owners (and Selig) have to share in the blame. But once the steroid use was actually confirmed and publicized, there was a media reaction, hypocritical or otherwise. There would have been no such reaction if Canseco had merely written a book about giving McGwire greenies out of a locker room jar.

And yes, amps were also covered under the new testing regime, but that was much more due to (legitimate) concerns about health than it was about performance enhancement. If PE had been the real reason for amps being subject to severe penalties, that would have been done long ago, since amp usage was never any secret.

And yet as soon as Canseco's book came out, you quickly had congressional hearings and a breakthrough testing regimen. Part of this may simply be the effects of greater general awareness of drug abuse, but it also had to do with a widespread feeling of distinction between "restoration" drugs and "enhancement" drugs, and what the latter were doing to the game on the field.

Caminiti blew the lid on steroids years earlier and no one cared about enhancement drugs. Then Barry Bonds broke the single season home run record and it became a huge deal.

If I am not mistaken, many MLB players currently take amphetamines in a way that is legal and sanctioned by the league, but as far as I know no one is sanctioned to take anabolic steroids. I'm not sure what this indicates or proves, but it seems pertinent.

I don't understand this "different dynamic." What does it mean?

My father was a newspaper guy back in the day. Politicians engaged in philandering and such and reporters turned a blind eye. Now days reporters love to report on politicians and theie sexcapades. This is a different dynamic. A similar (not exact, but very similar) change in dynamic has taken place in the field of sports reporting. Sports figures were heroes and reporting on that other stuff was not done, today it is, this is a different dynamic.

I disagree that players in the 1970s were "heroes," when in fact the exact opposite was true. If amps were seen as something to worry about, their use would have been added to dope smoking, acid dropping, long hair, laziness, lack of hustle, divorce, womanizing, disrespect for the game, and all the rest in the bill of particulars frequently aimed at those guys. Post 1976 and free agency, you could add "greed" to the list.

Caminiti blew the lid on steroids years earlier and no one cared about enhancement drugs. Then Barry Bonds broke the single season home run record and it became a huge deal.

Barry Bonds broke the single season home run record in 2001.

Caminiti admitted using steroids in 2002.

BALCO and Greg Anderson were first linked to Bonds in September of 2003

Bonds was subpoenaed by the grand jury in December of 2003

The BALCO story was first published in December of 2004

Canseco's book came out in February of 2005,

The congressional hearings took place in March of 2005, a full three and a half years after Bonds broke the single season home run record. These hearings were the cumulative result of many factors, but if Bonds really had been the focus of that investigation, it's funny that he wasn't even asked to testify.

I realize that this "Bonds trashed Roger Maris" narrative was popular with a certain strain of sportswriter**, but to pretend that this was the determinant reason for baseball (and congress) finally getting around to trying to clean up the mess is oversimplification.

**Although in many cases that Maris narrative was really little more than a shorthand way of voicing disgust at the whole steroids mess and what it had done to the integrity of the game, and the reaction was hardly confined to blasting Barry Bonds alone.

If steroids leave a stain, they should be a lot easier to detect

That's what happened to Drew Brees.....

You're probably right, but I'd like to see some actual citation on that.

You mention Bouton in the very same post and still want citations? Is there a single book written by or with a baseball player from that era that doesn't mention drug use within baseball?

The Pirates got wrapped up in drug trials. The Philles got dragged into drug trials. Willie Mays was using amphetamines. Hank Aaron admitted using amphetamines. Pete Rose was poppings pills. The Cardinals were popping pills. So on and so on.

And it's clear from a lot of the player revelations over the past decade or so that steroid use wasn't hidden within the locker room.

You're probably right, but I'd like to see some actual citation on that.

You mention Bouton in the very same post and still want citations? Is there a single book written by or with a baseball player from that era that doesn't mention drug use within baseball?

I think you may have missed the operative word in the sentence that I was responding to. I'm well aware of all those other things you mention.

...if Bonds really had been the focus of that investigation, it's funny that he wasn't even asked to testify.

He was, but he declined to voluntarily appear while publicly stating the reason for doing so was his on-going injury rehab.

Caminiti admitted using steroids in 2002.

BALCO and Greg Anderson were first linked to Bonds in September of 2003

Bonds was subpoenaed by the grand jury in December of 2003

Canseco's book came out in February of 2005,

I was wrong about the timing. But what else changed between 2002 and 2005 so that everyone suddenly cared about steroids?

(Bonds didn't do anything to Roger Maris of course. He broke McGwire's record)

I was wrong about the timing. But what else changed between 2002 and 2005 so that everyone suddenly cared about steroids?

Canseco's book came out, more players were exposed as users, and people just got more and more tired of 'roiders. It had been building for years.

Bonds broke records in 2001 and 2007 -- neither had much impact on what transpired. He hit 73 well before critical mass was hit, and hit 756 well after testing had been implemented.

Bouton is very clear in Ball Four that he doesn't think greenies help. In fact, he says they hurt. They give you a false sense of effectiveness.