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 4 pages
The reasons are that amps weren't as effective as steroids in accomplishing their aims, and didn't impact as many games due primarily to the nature of their application. Secondary reasons are the different acceptance rates of their usage among the game's factions, and the openness of their usage.
That's too broad a brush, but yes -- generally correct. The game's factions almost unanimously don't believe amp use impacted the game for the worse as much as steriod use. The primary reason is that amps did not "enhance performance" as much or as frequently as steroids.
This is exactly the sort of mentality I was referring to in #35. There's no way to respond to an argument that frames the issue in terms of generational hero worship and / or lack of intelligence. Too bad we can't resurrect Firing Line and arrange for nightly shouting matches between Primates like this and their counterparts Chass and Gumbel.
How many games do you think Pete Rose played in that he literally could not have played in without amps? I'm not talking about the illusory "he played better," I'm talking about literally played in.
There are other historical changes that account for the numbers you see, two straightforward ones are (1) increased salaries incentivizing longevity; and (2) vast increases in quality of training and nutrition, and understanding of physiology. Add (3) the advent of year-round dedication and training; and (4) dramatic improvements in surgery and sports medicine.
The idea that amps explain the numbers in the charts barely passes the laugh test.
At best all that effect does is to restore a player's natural talent during times when he's fatigued. There is zero evidence on the playing field that it has ever done anything more than that. If you want to consider that effect in itself a form of "enhancement", that's your druthers, but it's of a nature that's distinctive from the sort of enhancement effect of added muscles.
Compared to what? Are you seriously saying that a well rested player's natural talent level would be improved by amphetamines? If (for instance) Hank Aaron had started amping up as a 20 year old, are you claiming that his career stats would be greater than they were? If not, then how does that square with what you're saying?
Is it more than zero? Did Pete Rose play a single major league game that he would not have been able to play in without popping a greenie?
I thought Aaron's age 20 season was during the "amp era."
So then, even in your mind, it's possible that Rose didn't play a single extra game as a direct result of using greenies. Why, then, should anyone take seriously the "longevity records" claim?
And what makes you think his performance without greenies would have (1) been so bad that his manager would have demanded that he be benched; and (2) that Rose would have went along with the request? Those are pure speculation ... invention, really.
I'm pretty confident that steroids are a better PED, and had larger effects on player performance than amps.
So you essentially agree with the historical consensus.
Are you seriously saying that a well rested player's natural talent level would be improved by amphetamines?
Had he taken amphetamines for those games from the beginning of his career, it's not too far-fetched to believe that he's still the all-time home run king today.
It can't be seen easily. In fact, it really can't be seen at all. There's really no case that the charts show the "effect of widespread amphetamine usage."
Of course the health benefits of HGH and amps are pretty much the same, they allow players who shouldn't be playing the ability to play.
HGH doesn't actually help you get stronger or faster, it helps you heal.
Do amphs synthesize with protein to create muscle tissue?
What would an amph regimen for training and for everyday performing look like?
(We do know that amphs are highly addictive and that you build a dosage tolerance. How does that factor in?)
This includes the you gotta pay the piper rule. Your body keeps a tab running on the rest you need. You just can't keep from paying that tab with a debt crisis.
Records get broken over time; it happens in every sport. And naturally, as time goes on, more and more people get added to things like the 300 win and 3000 hit clubs. What else would you expect?
And this is another critical difference between amps and steroids -- the number of games impacted. Amps last a game, tops.
Suddenly, it's not whether the drug is illegal or performance enhancing that matters; it's the physiological mechanism by which it enhances performance?
Yes, of course it's the mechanics by which performance is enhanced and by how much and there's nothing "sudden" about it.
What are you expecting to see? No one's saying, "Barry Bonds broke the HR career record, therefore he used amps."
You can concede that this "enhancement" happened a handful of times a year (*), and still believe roids are in an entirely different category that should be viewed entirely differently. (IOW, what was already said in 42.)
Degree of impact. See 42, above.
How is this anything but a non sequitur. Suddenly, it's not whether the drug is illegal or performance enhancing that matters; it's the physiological mechanism by which it enhances performance? Just how many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?
None during training, amphetamines before at least some games (almost certainly day game after a night game, any time the player is feeling less than tip-top).
I have a feeling that's what the offseason was for.
Nobody is saying they work the same, they are saying that they both enhance performance more than you can get if you didn't take them.
It has to do with the assertions made that they are the same. Are they? It's not just about illegal--it's about why they are prohibited. That has to do with what they do.
Is that how steroids work?
How do you think transferring from one natural set of reflex protocol to another artificially created one would work? Do you thing the mind easily adapts to that? Have you ever seen tests administered to those under the influence as compared to those not?
Do you people know people who use amphs at high dosages over long periods of time?
do amphs create muscle tissue? Is that a difference in degree or kind?
The fatigue deficit that would accrue is a lot faster than six months. Yeah, I'm taking deficit, but don't worry I don't have to come down until around Xmas. Do you actually know people who take amphs like this, high-dosage regularly, who put off coming down for months?
It matters more when its impact is deeper, just as stealing a quarter isn't as bad as stealing $1 million.
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.
That's far too reductionist a principle for proper analysis. It leads to misimpressions and misunderstandings.
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.
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.
one formulated with essentially full knowledge of what went on
Indeed; as noted, all the talk of amps and the amp era is little more than 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 nefarious?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I don't understand this "different dynamic." What does it mean?
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.
...if Bonds really had been the focus of that investigation, it's funny that he wasn't even asked to testify.
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,
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 1.2014 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed