Off with their heads!

It's interesting that a libertarian viewpoint stems from, in part, a desire for "an equitable sharing of power in the workplace."

I'm going to have to do some soul-searching now that I know the hackiest man on earth agrees with me about this.

That was quite compelling, although I wasn't really in need of being compelled.

The steroid frenzy is of a sad piece with this history. It began, as all drug frenzies do, with a series of scare stories guaranteed to terrify the rubes.

Cue Marilyn Monroe, all breathy and breathlessly:

"Oh, how ... edgy."

The professional thumb-suckers in my business spent the weekend talking about “technicalities” and being offended by the fact that Ryan Braun held a press conference in which he excoriated MLB for the clownish way its “system” had hung him out to dry. People who denounce him for engaging in “victimology” overlook the fact that he really was a victim. Where does he go to get his name back? Why did we know about him at all while his case was still under appeal?

Charles Pierce, you are so NOW.

Why, indeed, was any action taken at all while his case was still under appeal?

None was.

None was.

Forget it, he's rolling.

There's this, from the article:

Can someone seriously argue that it is ethical to take a drug to make a performance possible, but unethical to take a drug that makes that performance better? Isn't making a performance possible at all the ultimate performance enhancement?

which is, I think, a rather interesting take on the situation. Is there really all that much difference (ethically, that is) between what Ryan Braun allegedly did and taking cortisone shots in your elbow, a la Sandy Koufax, so that you can even go out and pitch at all?

Here's a somewhat funny article from Murray Chass (funny in the sense of what Chass has become).

-- MWE

which is, I think, a rather interesting take on the situation. Is there really all that much difference (ethically, that is) between what Ryan Braun allegedly did and taking cortisone shots in your elbow, a la Sandy Koufax, so that you can even go out and pitch at all?

I'll start by saying I don't care about steroid usage. I'd put Barry, Roger, Mac, etc...into the Hall without a second thought.

However, I think the legal/illegal (MLB law or US/state law) aspect of steroids vs. cortisone shots is a pretty clear barrier. If we assume that Braun did what he was alleged to have done then he clearly violated a rule by not getting the appropriate clearance whereas a guy getting a cortisone shot from a doctor is violating neither the law nor MLB policy.

That's why he's asking about ethics, Jose, not legality.

Is there really all that much difference (ethically, that is) between what Ryan Braun allegedly did and taking cortisone shots in your elbow, a la Sandy Koufax, so that you can even go out and pitch at all?

I think that there's a night and day ethical difference between rehab use of steroids and PE use of steroids, but if you don't agree with that premise, there's obviously no point in trying to distinguish between them, or in trying to come up with a system where the rehab use is allowable but enhancement beyond that isn't. It's like trying to discuss an equitable marginal tax rate with someone who doesn't believe in progressive taxation under any circumstance.

Nice hijack, Andy.

True, Jose, though the parenthesis "(ethically, that is)" seems to put the argument in the realm of "is it fair and sportsmanlike or not, no matter what the rules are." In that respect, it seems to me that the public-health argument comes back in. If the use of a particular PED has bad long-term effects, then it's different from drugs or supplements of any kind which are therapeutic.

Though then I suppose we're back to the "Curt Schilling is determined to pitch on this bloody ankle after some weird experimental surgery and thus possibly never walk again if it means a flag for Boston" ethical problem. To win, guys will do things that are long-term harmful – and some of those harmful things may be licit by the rules and laws of the US and MLB ...

I obviously did not make it clear but I was responding to the ethical portion of the question. I think it's reasonable to argue that it is unethical to do what Braun is alleged to have done while saying what Koufax did was perfectly fair. Braun knowingly broke a clearly defined rule (assuming the accusations are true), to my way of thinking that is clearly unethical.

The problem with that is the question of how many people are using. Part of the reason I don't care about PED usage is that I think the usage was so widespread that there was no unfair advantage gained by the users. During the 90s/early-00s there was such a widespread usage that it was effectively approved behavior by both MLB and the socially accepted rules of the players. Today? I don't have a good sense.

Braun knowingly broke a clearly defined rule (assuming the accusations are true), to my way of thinking that is clearly unethical.

Breaking a rule is not inherently unethical.

Nice hijack, Andy.

If that was a "hijack", it was one set in motion by Mike and Jose in #9 and #10, and continued by you in #11. I'm not sure what your problem is.

Fair enough, Jose – I have a more civilly-disobedient sense of ethics. It seems to me that there are a lot of rules that one might ignore for the sake of ethics, but it's fine to define it as you do.

Is there really all that much difference (ethically, that is) between what Ryan Braun allegedly did and taking cortisone shots in your elbow, a la Sandy Koufax, so that you can even go out and pitch at all?

Or Nolan Ryan pitching Advil as "advanced medicine for pain"? (You'll have to read in the twang on "pain.") As in, I had a headache Thiiiiis Big! that could've affected my performance, but then I took some Advil and I'm feeling better now. Or you could get into the well-worn caffeine issue.

I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere, and in this case, I guess one could argue that the legal issue and the ethical issue are more or less co-extensive. You could call it "regulatory ethics," although that term has a different meaning.

If that was a "hijack", it was one set in motion by Mike and Jose in #9 and #10, and continued by you in #11. I'm not sure what your problem is.

You brought taxation into the mix, creating the possibility of a 7000 post politics thread, which is totally what we need another one of. None of the posts you referenced referred to anything political.

Fair enough, Jose – I have a more civilly-disobedient sense of ethics. It seems to me that there are a lot of rules that one might ignore for the sake of ethics, but it's fine to define it as you do.

I think you guys are coming at it from slightly different angles. There are rules for which breaking them are indeed the ethical thing to do, though it's much more difficult to apply that to a rule in which all of the parties agreed to both the rule and its punishment.

Breaking a rule is not inherently unethical.

I think when it is done to gain an unfair advantage over others it is. That is why I referenced the issue of how widespread the usage of PEDs is and was, if Braun was doing nothing that a great majority of players are already doing, then I think it is fair to say it wasn't unethical. For the sake of simplicity in this discussion I am assuming that PED usage in 2012 is equivalent to the rate of players being caught in random testing (which is probably a ridiculous assumption but for the discussion I think is a useful assumption).

Regarding BDC's "civil disobedient" comment I would concur if I thought that was the case. The problem in this instance is I don't think there is a particularly strong case to be made that Braun was breaking a rule to expose a wrong being done. I think for such a case I would want to hear Braun stand up and tell us why he did it indicating his opposition (e.g. "had I used a name brand drug I'd be OK but I used a generic and MLB is in the pocket of the big pharmaceutical companies" or something like that). I think Braun did what he did for entirely personal reasons and not a greater good.

(edited for clarity)

I don't think there is a particularly strong case to be made that Braun was breaking a rule to expose a wrong being done

That's certainly true. Though part of the ethical structure of sports is that people are praised for resorting to medicine that gets them back out there (the cortisone injections, the bloody socks, the coupla Advil). It does seem odd that you can be a hero for undergoing one sort of treatment and a villain for undergoing another, solely based on a rule. The rule, if arbitrary enough, can come to seem foolish over time (like the proscription of "professional" athletes in Olympic events, once as villainized as steroids in baseball).

If that was a "hijack", it was one set in motion by Mike and Jose in #9 and #10, and continued by you in #11. I'm not sure what your problem is.

You brought taxation into the mix, creating the possibility of a 7000 post politics thread, which is totally what we need another one of. None of the posts you referenced referred to anything political.

Okay, that was a throwaway line that I think is a pretty good analogy, but if you think it was an attempt at a political hijacking, consider it deleted. (I tried to strike it just now but the time limit for editing has expired.)

Breaking a rule is not inherently unethical.

I think it is in sports. Civil disobedience presupposes an unethical rule is being violated. No one things it is noble to go around shoplifting to protest property rights. In sports, the rules exist as a mutually agreed upon system. In playing the game in the first place you are agreeing to the rules in a way that a black person simply didn't ever agree to eat at different restaurants (as an example). EDIT: as said above, in civil disobedience, to make a political point, the rule is broken not just publicly but as loudly as possible. "I will go eat in that restaurant and you'll have to arrest me to stop me" then call the media to be there. If Braun had wanted to do this, he'd have called the press to come watch him shoot up.

In other words, it's hard to argue civil disobedience as a justification of PED use. My take is, prior to specific rules prohibiting their use, the issue was vague and one could argue a player could justifiably say they were simply pushing the limits to improve their performance. Now that they are specifically banned, whether a player agrees with that or not, it is unethical to use them. If they believe, deep in their hearts, that PED use should be allowed they can either campaign for their legalization, use them with knowledge they'll be punished if caught, or form their own league.


As far as cortisone, I think it undeniable that cortisone is administered unethically in sports. Anyone who has ever taken cortisone under a doctor's care knows that there are pretty heavy limitations on its use and that using it multiple times on the same spot is a bad idea. Yet doctors and trainers do this routinely in sports (at all levels). Either "civilian" standards for cortisone use are far too strict or the drug is being abused in athletics. I've never understood how someone can argue against PED use on a health basis and not against how cortisone is used. If the argument is simply fairness, that is a line we all draw a little differently and I'd let the established rules be the guide.

You brought taxation into the mix, creating the possibility of a 7000 post politics thread, which is totally what we need another one of. None of the posts you referenced referred to anything political.

Agreed, one of the Usual Suspects is once again trying to inject his partisan political derangement into a thread that has nothing at all to do with partisan politics in the hope of creating yet another tiresome mutli-thousand post red diaper baby political rage thread that we don't need.

Fortunately, it looks like the site moderators are no longer going to allow these clowns to completely hijack the Newsblog the way they've been doing for years now, and they will eventually be quarantined into their own separate area.

Undeniable idiocy does describe the article rather well...

As far as cortisone, I think it undeniable that cortisone is administered unethically in sports. Anyone who has ever taken cortisone under a doctor's care knows that there are pretty heavy limitations on its use and that using it multiple times on the same spot is a bad idea. Yet doctors and trainers do this routinely in sports (at all levels). Yet doctors and trainers do this routinely in sports (at all levels). Either "civilian" standards for cortisone use are far too strict or the drug is being abused in athletics. I've never understood how someone can argue against PED use on a health basis and not against how cortisone is used. If the argument is simply fairness, that is a line we all draw a little differently and I'd let the established rules be the guide.

You've brought up a good point when you distinguish the health argument from the question of fairness, but the fairness part can be addressed by the fact of historical precedent that has long allowed cortisone use in order to get a player back in action. It's also done in the open, which further distinguishes the practice from the Bondses of the baseball world.

Since my objections to steroids are 90% level playing field and 10% health, I can't address your point about the latter objection, though I'd wonder if any former players have ever cited coerced cortisone use by their team as a factor in the shortening of their careers. I can't remember any such complaints, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been any.

cortisone is the same as prednisone and i don't know about shots into bones but i sure can tell you that doctors do NOT want you on prednisone more than 7 straight days if possible so it doesn't mess your brain and all the rest of your body parts. so i am not sure how long cortisone lasts in a joint but i keep thinking about all these guys who had cortisone injected into bad joints moren a few times.

which reminds me - i always wanted to know - if a joint hurts,doesn't that mean there is something wrong inside it or something wrong with the muscles/tendons around it? and if you put the cortisone pain reliever inside the joint and the pain goes away and the athlete uses it why doesn't that injure the original injury MORE?

also when i was trying to find info on HGH and the supposed performance enhancement uses (which i can't find any of) i saw this article about a doctor who used it to inject into joints to repair damage to cartilage - and seems to me that this would be a GOOD medical use of HGH but i've never read about athletes having that done - is the anti-HGH hysteria THAT much?

and can't NOBODY convince me that MLB, commisioner, managers, owners, trainers were totally unaware that athletes were suing roids. all the constant insisting that the player needed to Get Bigger or "get stronger" especially younger players and prospects.

as for ryan braun
well, far as i'm concerned
1 - he deserved his MVP because that was awarded based on the regular season and the supposed positive test was taken AFTER it
2 - i disbelieve that a REGULAR courier who lived in the area and regularly collected samples had nooooooo idea there was a station near the ballpark or that the fedex at the airport was open 24 hours - or that for some reason he couldn't pick up the phone and dial 1800gofedex. so i am extremely suspiscious about that sample and that courier

3 - it also occurred to me how incredibly easy it would be for someone to make a player get a positive test (i mean to give him the stuff without his knowing). Just smear testosterone gel on something that a player would touch or use like his deodorant. or inside his jock/cup or glove. the stuff absorbs through the skin even after it dries...

4 - the sample cup could have been tampered with BEFORE collection as well as after. I know the drug testing company said that the seals weren't tampered with, but really, do you think they gave it a thorough and serious evaluation - i mean like the lab techs on CSI - before opening it? i very VERY seriously doubt it.

I'd wonder if any former players have ever cited coerced cortisone use by their team as a factor in the shortening of their careers.

Surely you've seen North Dallas Forty (or was it Semi-Tough ... or both?) -- granted football not baseball. There are also long-term quality of life issues (bbc brushes up against this in #29). And the same "pressure" arguments apply here as in baseball (not that I put too much stock in these) in that if you don't take that shot and get on the field, you lose your job to the guy who is willing to take that shot or the young healthy kid (North Dallas Forty again) ... and therefore if you do take that shot, you are "taking a job away" from the AAA guy.

And actually MWE, we were hashing this argument out around here in the early days of steroids before it mainly became name-calling. It's the essence of the "what's the difference between steroids and spitballs?" argument and, more relevantly, "what's the difference between steroids and greenies?"

Forgotten in all the Clemens steroids haze is that Clemens in at least his last few years was using one of those major painkillers (I forget the name, it was the one that was banned) so his body could go out there every 5 days and go 6 innings. PEDs _may_ have made it possible for Clemens to stay out there in his early 40s but (by his own admission) painkillers definitely made it possible for him to be out there. It is an interesting ethical question whether a doctor should prescribe medicines just to allow a guy to keep pitching (it is his job after all) but I don't see a (pre-testing) difference from the player's perspective.

It can be quite simple:

P = X + Y

P is performance; X is current (inning, game, season) "natural" talent; Y is amount added by "artificial" means.

Some people like to say they object to Y only when it is "artificial" but of course they don't include vision correction, cortisone, etc. so that argument doesn't hold.

Some people like to say they object to Y when it's against the rules but (a) pre-testing there was no baseball rule against steroids and (b) nobody seems upset about spitballs or corked bats (unless used by Sammy Sosa at which point they become evidence of far greater unethical behavior).

Some people like to say they object to Y only when it passes a certain threshold but nobody knows the magnitude of Y for, well, anything really. Almost certainly vision correction has a greater impact than steroids for players whose vision is screwed up. There's at least as much medical evidence for the enhancing effect of greenies as steroids but nobody objected to their use.

Some people like to say they object to Y only when it's against the law and as long as they also objected to greenies, that's internally consistent. If they don't object to greenies now and/or didn't object to greenies until the steroids controversy then there's some hypocrisy.

Some people (well, Andy) like to say they object to Y only when P > P* where P* represents the level of performance a player would achieve with their "truly true" talent (i.e. X < P* due to a hangover and the player can take up to exactly the right amount of greenies to restore them to P*). This could be a reason to excuse Clemens' use of prescription painkillers but that gets us into whether degradation of the body due to 25 years of pitching is part of "truly true" or just "true" talent.

In the end, which Ys are objected to and which aren't ends up with "this Y gives us the heebie jeebies" which I gather is Pierce's argument (I won't give him a click-through if I can avoid it). This is most obvious in the case of Ys which are in common usage (glasses, contacts, etc.) and I think we can all agree that these are acceptable. It is less obvious in the case of "traditional" baseball rule-breaking (spitballs, corked bats, stealing signs) where the unacceptable sin is getting caught, until then it is colorful. It gets fuzzier when a prescription drug like cortisone or painkillers are involved. But nobody can come up with a rational ethical argument why greenie use was tolerated for so long (and still more acceptable) while steroid use is anathema. Health effects, medical evidence of enhancement, illegality, "secret but open" usage, banned by every other sport in the world, etc.

So there is a rather difficult question to answer as to why steroids gave the general public the heebie jeebies but greenie usage did (and does) not. I gather Pierce pins this on the "drug-frenzy-mongers" which is probably where it should be pinned but it would make for an interesting history.

However, the current rules do offer us an easy (not necessarily correct) way out of these conundra.

a) there was no baseball rule banning PED use pre-testing (and usage seems to have been widespread and open among players) so no baseball ethics were violated.* Greenies and steroids treated equally, which is to say both are ignored.

b) there is now a baseball rule banning PED use so baseball ethics are violated when knowingly used. (Baseball rules are violated when unknowingly used). We should all object to knowing PED use as a violation of baseball ethics (with exceptions of course for our dear extreme libertarian friends and anybody who can find a civil disobedience argument here) ... just as we object to spitballs, corked bats, etc. :-)

c) the level of punishment gives us a mechanism for deciding the severity of the ethical violation. Steroid usage draws a 50-game suspension. First greenie usage gets a warning, second gets a 25-game suspension. Therefore, like it or not, I am stuck with the fact that steroid usage is considered a more serious violation of the rules than greenie usage and Andy is stuck with the fact that greenie usage is a violation of the rules even if used only "restoratively." Generally things like corked bats draw a 5-game suspension so one-time steroid "usage" is 10 times more serious than one-time "usage" of a corked bat. If memory serves, Alomar got 10 games for spitting on an ump so steroid usage 5 times worse than spitting on an ump. What happened with Rocker and his big mouth, I don't remember.

Which brings us, if we want, to the HoF. (a) suggests that there's no justification for "banning" the current steroid users (except possibly Palmeiro who violated the rule). I say "suggests" because it really depends on just how broadly you think the "character" in the clause covers. One can still consider steroid usage to be _generally_ unethical (i.e. in broader society) and therefore such a person is not deserving of honor. The "problem" there is that by applying the ethics of broader society, the can of worms around drunk drivers, wife beaters, and just plain old-fashioned racists is thrown wide open. Near as I can tell, the "character clause" has only been applied with regard to "baseball character" although Landis's intent seems to have been more broad than that (e.g. he wanted to honor war heroes even if they were crappy players).

(c) gives a means of assessing steroid users caught post-testing. Alomar engaged in unethical behavior that reduced his career and, more importantly, damaged his team for 10 games. However this was not automatically disqualifying and was ultimately acceptable under the "character clause." I'm sure other HoFers have been suspended at one time or another or engaged in other behavior (e.g. the source of hangovers) that damaged their team. Well, a future one-time steroid violating HoF candidate will cost his career and team 50 games. If 10 games is acceptable is 50? For those who support a "steroid adjustment" to numbers -- well, the steroid adjustment is now automatically built in.**

The argument for continuing to ban all steroid users from the HoF becomes, in essence, a civil disobedience argument -- that the HoF voters do not believe baseball's punishment is severe enough so the voters will act "illegally but ethically" until society changes. Alas, unlike real civil disobedience, these voters will likely not be "punished" in any way.

*You can argue that the Vincent letter or broader social ethics mean they were always against the rules. But I'll pull out "the exception proves the rule ... or lack thereof in this case." The existence of the rules as part of the CBA makes it clear that such a rule could have existed in past CBAs but it did not. The lack of an earlier rule "proves" that the behavior was acceptable.

** Yes, being caught in May means you were probably using in April too so you could argue for throwing out all that season's statistics prior to the player getting caught if you want. In an HoF-length career, it's not likely to matter.

CPP uses the economists trick of assuming away your biggest obstacle when he writes that someday there will be a PED that does not have negative health side-effects. The most defensible reason for the rule against PEDs, IMO, is that there is a prisoner's dilemma that forces each player to take PEDs, despite the adverse health consequences. This is the reason why some players who were clean elected not to submit test samples in 2003 -- to get the number of "failed" tests over the 5% threshhold to require mandatory testing. If I am clean player John Doe (since we do not know who was actually clean), I fear the health consequences of taking PEDs and I fear the professional consequences of not taking PEDs in a world where my competitors are using PEDs. I want there to be error-free testing, which will get PEDs out of the game.

The most defensible reason for the rule against PEDs, IMO, is that there is a prisoner's dilemma that forces each player to take PEDs, despite the adverse health consequences...If I am clean player John Doe (since we do not know who was actually clean), I fear the health consequences of taking PEDs and I fear the professional consequences of not taking PEDs in a world where my competitors are using PEDs.

Replace PEDs with corticosteroids and painkillers and your statement is still totally accurate...

Extremely well-said, Walt.

No, there is a difference in the incentive structure for PEDs and corticosteroids and pain killers. A player who is perfectly healthy and does not use corticosteroids and/or pain killers is not at a competitive disadvantage to a player who uses corticosteroids and/or pain killers. A player who is perfectly healthy and does not use PEDs is at a competitive disadvantage to the player who uses PEDs. The only way you can get to equivalence between PEDs and pain killers/corticosteroids is to posit that a player who uses pain killers/corticosteroids will be able to build muscle mass by ignoring pain and soft tissue injuries.

A player who is perfectly healthy

doesn't exist.

Just to be clear, I think it is entirely possible that cortisone could be used more aggressively in the civilian population. Doctors tend to be very conservative (which I applaud) in treating non-chronic or non-life threatening aches and pains. However, I do know two people who had tendons detach (well, essentially dissolve) after three blasts of cortisone in just over a year. Ugliness. So, who knows?

I'm also not at all saying they're exactly equal. Just saying there is ample gray area in there. Walt's post does a good job of fleshing that area out, IMO.

P = X + Y

There's another way to look at this by slightly changing the meaning of X in this equation. Define it instead as the maximum natural performance of which a player is capable. If P is how far a player can, under optimum conditions, hit a baseball, the X is the 450 feet he can hit it using his skill and his natural strength and power, and Y is the 30 feet extra he gets from using steroids to artificially add to those natural athletic gifts.

But for greenies and cortisone, the equation then needs to change to

P=X*(1-n),

where 0<n<1, and n represents a level of pain/injury or fatigue that prevents a player from optimizing his performance. Palliatives drive n toward zero, as does an amphetamine that eliminates fatigue and promotes peak alertness and concentration.

I’m not going to argue its correctness, but this is the thought process that results in more lenient punishment for amphetamines than steroids. The presumption is that greenies allow maximum performance more often than is otherwise possible, whereas the anabolic steroid actually increases the maximum.

I’m not going to argue its correctness, but this is the thought process that results in more lenient punishment for amphetamines than steroids. The presumption is that greenies allow maximum performance more often than is otherwise possible, whereas the anabolic steroid actually increases the maximum.

Well, again, this calls for definitions of what is the maximum? All players are fatigued and injured in small ways by September. A guy playing his 10th straight game in his 3rd different city on the road in September is not going to "naturally" be as fresh as he was in the middle of a May homestand. If a pill could restore him to the latter, doesn't that act the same as a pill which increases his maximum? If a Marathoner could take a pill at mile 20 which restored him to his natural state at the start of the race, shouldn't that be considered more than a restorative?

Or is it really about the distance and frequency of the dingers?

cortisone is the same as prednisone and i don't know about shots into bones but i sure can tell you that doctors do NOT want you on prednisone more than 7 straight days if possible so it doesn't mess your brain and all the rest of your body parts.

This isn't accurate. I've been on prednisone for 8-10 weeks at a time, and while the side effects can be unpleasant, they are tolerable.

Pred is an anti-inflammatory, and it's prescribed for many things. A lot of times, it's prescribed for 7 days, sure, but a lot of time, it's prescribed for much longer. I've been on 60mg a day. After a couple weeks at that dosage, your adrenal glands shut down, as pred mimics adrenaline, and your body thinks it doesn't need any. If you stop pred abruptly, you could die, so you wean yourself off of it. I would reduce my dosage by 10mg every week, so, at 60mg, it takes 6 weeks to get off of it totally, from the time that you can stop taking 60mg daily.

People who are on pred for longer periods have it rough. But, doctors will prescribe it that way.

So there is a rather difficult question to answer as to why steroids gave the general public the heebie jeebies but greenie usage did (and does) not.

I still think this stems from the anti-Commie hysteria of the '70s and '80s. For most of us over a certain age, the first time we were exposed to steroid use was when performance-enhanced Olympians from Eastern Bloc countries started winning medals that used to belong to us. And in those days, everything "Communist" = "bad." So we grew up thinking steroids were Communist, bad, and anti-American.

No, there is a difference in the incentive structure for PEDs and corticosteroids and pain killers. A player who is perfectly healthy and does not use corticosteroids and/or pain killers is not at a competitive disadvantage to a player who uses corticosteroids and/or pain killers. A player who is perfectly healthy and does not use PEDs is at a competitive disadvantage to the player who uses PEDs. The only way you can get to equivalence between PEDs and pain killers/corticosteroids is to posit that a player who uses pain killers/corticosteroids will be able to build muscle mass by ignoring pain and soft tissue injuries.

Nope, still the same as I see it. Pitcher A has some shoulder soreness, gets a cortisone shot, takes his next turn in the rotation that would have gone to the guy in AAA; guy in AAA gets screwed. Alternatively Pitcher A doesn't take the shot and always refuses to take the shot, starts missing one out of every 4 starts, loses his job to guy in AAA.

This is precisely the scene in North Dallas Forty (or Semi-Tough, never could keep those two movies straight). Starting, aging wide receiver has always refused to take "the shot". Young, fast guy is starting to threaten to take his position. Old guy gets banged up, refuses the shot. Coach comes to him with a sort of "hey, I'm behind you 100% but, y'know, I don't want to send you out there if you're not ready to go so y'know maybe I'll give the start in the playoff game to that young fella cuz, y'know, I only have your health in mind." Guy of course takes the shot.

And, none of us know for sure, but I suspect that 41-year-old Clemens would not have been able to take the mound for 6 innings every 5 days without painkillers. His current ability to perform was essentially non-existent.

I will grant you that, sure, a healthy player isn't pressured to use painkillers while healthy ... but he is pressured as soon as he has an owie.

But for greenies and cortisone, the equation then needs to change to

P=X*(1-n),

where 0<n<1, and n represents a level of pain/injury or fatigue that prevents a player from optimizing his performance. Palliatives drive n toward zero, as does an amphetamine that eliminates fatigue and promotes peak alertness and concentration.

This is just Andy's "restorative" argument. You can generalize that by:

P = X * (1 + n)

where n = f(injury, cortisone, greenies, PEDs). Injury having a negative effect on P, coritsone having a positive effect only in the presence of injury, greenies and PEDs having positive effects in all cases (by assumption). Still boils down to whether P > P* where P* is taking only the effect of injury. All of those substances improve performance relative to what is "natural". I don't understand why the "platonic ideal of maximum 'natural' performance" represents a major ethical threshold that performance enhancement to a sub-ideal performance level does not.

Forgotten in all the Clemens steroids haze is that Clemens in at least his last few years was using one of those major painkillers (I forget the name, it was the one that was banned) so his body could go out there every 5 days and go 6 innings.

Vioxx, I think.

Nope, still the same as I see it. Pitcher A has some shoulder soreness, gets a cortisone shot, takes his next turn in the rotation that would have gone to the guy in AAA; guy in AAA gets screwed. Alternatively Pitcher A doesn't take the shot and always refuses to take the shot, starts missing one out of every 4 starts, loses his job to guy in AAA.

Worse, I think. I don't think baseball players were ever expected to take steroids by their team's coaches. Steroids suggested and administered by team doctors, no less.

I have to think that there's greater coercion with painkillers than all of the PEDs combined.

Walt (# 30 and #41),

First, those were two very good posts, both informative and with a POV that was clear and non-inflammatory.

Where we differ is that you don't see the ethical difference between a substance that restores a player's "platonic ideal of maximum 'natural' performance", and one that enables him to go beyond that.

If my concerns about steroids were primarily about a player's health, I'd agree, since I have no doubt that more players' health has been screwed up by amps than by steroids. For that reason alone I'm glad that amps were included in the testing agreement.

And that aside, I already agree about the unethical coercion put upon a player to take a cortisone shot against his will, whether or not that coercion is direct or implicit.

But since my primary concern is about competition, I see a big ethical difference between a player who uses PEDs to restore himself to his maximum "natural" state, and one who uses PEDs in an attempt to extend his talent beyond that. We've seen lab studies cited on other threads that are interpreted as saying that greenies can extend a normal, rested player's talent in such a manner, but I've yet to see a full description of those tests in laymen's terms, and how those supposed enhancements can transform a Major League ballplayer to a higher level of "natural" talent. Certainly there's not a scintilla of statistical evidence (let alone proof) for this that shows up in BB-Reference.

Whereas there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that greenies can result in increased playing time, anecdotal evidence that's hard to dismiss. And I've said many times that I accept the point that greenies have quite likely increased the counting stats of many players, though I also think that that effect is exaggerated in some cases, and more likely to show up in cases of players who were famous for their nightlife lifestyle (the Mantles of baseball) than in the cases of those who weren't (the Aarons).

Which leads to the point raised most prominently by McGwire, that his use of steroids was merely to speed his recovery from injury. The problem with that is that given the complete lack of independent monitoring of his training regimen, there's absolutely no way that anyone outside of McGwire's inner circle will ever know the guaranteed truth about his motivations.

And that's why I've advocated the acceptance of steroid use under tightly supervised conditions, restricted to players on the DL, and only after having been thoroughly examined by an ML-approved doctor, who would diagnose his condition and write whatever prescriptions he felt were necessary for recovery. But once the player got off the DL, he would be tested regularly and randomly to make sure that he wasn't continuing his use.

Obviously I can't speak to whatever practical objections might be raised by such a program, but since we're dealing with the ethical situation here, that's not my immediate concern. My point is that with such a system in place for steroids, this would put them in the same restorative category as greenies and cortisone. It wouldn't address the health issues surrounding the long range negative effect of greenies / cortisone, which is a separate topic. But what it would accomplish, if carried out as described, would be to separate the "good" uses of steroids (injury recovery) from the "bad" uses (surreptitious training sessions with creepy characters like Anderson, which take place the year around and have little or nothing to do with "injury recovery").

I realize that this is a "platonic ideal" solution that like all platonic ideals would be harder to implement perfectly in practice, but it brings the discussion back into the realm of honest disagreement about ethical preferences**, and away from the sort of accusatory rhetoric about who's "honest" and who isn't. AFAIC it's getting to be a waste of time and energy even to engage with people like that.

**I completely disagree with the libertarian POV about PEDs, but I have no problem respecting it as an honestly expressed preference.

I realize that this is a "platonic ideal" solution that like all platonic ideals would be harder to implement perfectly in practice, but it brings the discussion back into the realm of honest disagreement about ethical preferences**, and away from the sort of accusatory rhetoric about who's "honest" and who isn't. AFAIC it's getting to be a waste of time and energy even to engage with people like that.

I've been that person, but I've thought about how to phrase my objection in a way that hopefully is not offensive.

I can absolutely respect the position that "back to peak" is different than "above peak." I don't agree because I think "at peak" for a full season is itself unnatural, for lack of a better term, but it's a perfectly common sense distinction.

The real problem I have is the certainty of the data. I just don't believe that we can measure the difference between what a player could do naturally and what a player could only do with the aid of some sort of performance-enhancing drug with any precision at all. Since every player naturally performs below the ideal for his talent (since perfection is impossible), it's very hard to say whether steroids or amps are simply restorative (in the sense that they only take the player to his "natural ideal") or whether they provide actual enhancement (taking a player to otherwise unattainable levels of ability).

Again, it's not my definition of restorative, but if that's your definition, I see your position's biggest problem as knowing the difference between those two effects. And with that problem, I think your classification of reasonable/unreasonable is inherently unfair.

I completely disagree with the libertarian POV about PEDs, but I have no problem respecting it as an honestly expressed preference.

That's reasonable. I would say that I have a problem with PEDs because of the combination of coercion and health-risks, so perhaps that's not what you'd call entirely libertarian. I think MLB and the MLBPA should have come up with some sort of testing policy and enforcement scheme. I don't like the current setup but I don't think doing nothing is appropriate.

I do think considering enhancement as an issue of character is a bit of an overreach, though, unless you're very strict across the board. It seems questionable to say "some cheating is ethically okay, but cheating that works too well isn't." (I'm speaking only ethically here. I don't see a good argument that steroid use is less ethical than really any other form of hidden cheating.)

I can absolutely respect the position that "back to peak" is different than "above peak." I don't agree because I think "at peak" for a full season is itself unnatural, for lack of a better term, but it's a perfectly common sense distinction.

The real problem I have is the certainty of the data. I just don't believe that we can measure the difference between what a player could do naturally and what a player could only do with the aid of some sort of performance-enhancing drug with any precision at all. Since every player naturally performs below the ideal for his talent (since perfection is impossible), it's very hard to say whether steroids or amps are simply restorative (in the sense that they only take the player to his "natural ideal") or whether they provide actual enhancement (taking a player to otherwise unattainable levels of ability).

I'll agree that you can never make precision measurements of such things, but the problem with greenies is that not only is their exact time of use by specific players unknown, but (a) unlike steroids, their effects wear off very quickly, and after a while you need to increase the dosage in order to obtain the same result; and (b) there's not a single season put up by any player that has numbers that anyone could attribute to any pill. Even if you scoff at Hank Aaron's claim that he took but one greenie in his entire career, those oft-cited spike seasons in his late 30's are far more attributable to park factors than anything else. And there is nothing in any player's stat line that remotely compares to the sort of spike that Barry Bonds had during his juicing period. The fact that you can't reasonably attribute any precise X percentage or Y percentage of his spike to steroids doesn't mean that you can't reasonably conclude that he benefitted by them. Bonds may have been, and probably would have been, one of the all-time greats if he'd never juiced a day in his life, but that doesn't negate the larger point. Players peak at varying points of their career, but no other player in history besides Barry Bonds has ever had by far his best seasons during his late 30's and beyond. He'd previously exhibited phenomenal "natural" talent, but nothing on the level he did in his later years.

I completely disagree with the libertarian POV about PEDs, but I have no problem respecting it as an honestly expressed preference.

That's reasonable. I would say that I have a problem with PEDs because of the combination of coercion and health-risks, so perhaps that's not what you'd call entirely libertarian. I think MLB and the MLBPA should have come up with some sort of testing policy and enforcement scheme. I don't like the current setup but I don't think doing nothing is appropriate.

The truth is that even here on BTF, there are innumerable divisions among the steroid "hardliners", and among their loosely coalesced opponents. The question of whether steroids are primarily a health / coercion question or an "unfair advantage" issue is but one of the many splits. I'm almost exclusively on the "unfair advantage" side of the coin, but I can see how the two concerns merge when a player feels he has to risk his health by taking steroids in order not to be put at a competitive disadvantage himself.

I do think considering enhancement as an issue of character is a bit of an overreach, though, unless you're very strict across the board. It seems questionable to say "some cheating is ethically okay, but cheating that works too well isn't." (I'm speaking only ethically here. I don't see a good argument that steroid use is less ethical than really any other form of hidden cheating.)

For what's probably the umpteenth time, when I raise the question of character, I'm always referring to it strictly in the baseball sense, and how the lack of it impacts the level playing field on an ongoing basis. And if I seem like a hardline and coldhearted bastard when it comes to the Hall of Fame, it's because HoF elections are the most visible way to render a judgment against steroids that will get people's attention. I know it seems worse than trite to some of you to keep harping on this point, but the Hall of Fame is not the Hall of Statistical Merit.

That said, there's one obvious question of "unfairness" about focusing on the Hall of Fame, and I'd be less than honest not to acknowledge it: The fact that it affects only a relative handful of known (or unknown) juicers. Manny Alexander may have to live in private disgrace at having been nabbed, but Mark McGwire has had to live out his disgrace in public.

This is why I will almost always lean over backwards not to "name" players like Sosa, since the reputational stakes are so much higher for the superstars than for anyone else. But to me it's also a case of greater rewards, proportional punishment. And for those who find this out of proportion, there's always your personal Hall of Fame, which we all know in many ways is the most important Hall of Fame of them all. Bert Blyleven was in many of our personal HoF's for years, and it's been often expressed here that these HoF's were in fact more real than the one in Cooperstown.

As for the other forms of cheating, it's a matter of degree and proportion. I suppose I can see the argument that steroids are no worse than spitballs or corked bats, but neither I or anyone connected with baseball is likely to agree with that. I don't see "cheating is cheating" any more than I see a criminal misdemeanor to be the equivalent to a criminal felony.

Is there really all that much difference (ethically, that is) between what Ryan Braun allegedly did and taking cortisone shots in your elbow, a la Sandy Koufax, so that you can even go out and pitch at all?

Well, the argument is that cortisone gets you back to your "natural" state, while steroids gets you to a point beyond that.

[Snip extended rant where I again explain why I don't care about steroids.]

I'll agree that you can never make precision measurements of such things, but the problem with greenies is that not only is their exact time of use by specific players unknown, but (a) unlike steroids, their effects wear off very quickly, and after a while you need to increase the dosage in order to obtain the same result; and (b) there's not a single season put up by any player that has numbers that anyone could attribute to any pill. Even if you scoff at Hank Aaron's claim that he took but one greenie in his entire career, those oft-cited spike seasons in his late 30's are far more attributable to park factors than anything else. And there is nothing in any player's stat line that remotely compares to the sort of spike that Barry Bonds had during his juicing period. The fact that you can't reasonably attribute any precise X percentage or Y percentage of his spike to steroids doesn't mean that you can't reasonably conclude that he benefitted by them. Bonds may have been, and probably would have been, one of the all-time greats if he'd never juiced a day in his life, but that doesn't negate the larger point. Players peak at varying points of their career, but no other player in history besides Barry Bonds has ever had by far his best seasons during his late 30's and beyond. He'd previously exhibited phenomenal "natural" talent, but nothing on the level he did in his later years.

There are so many bad arguments in this paragraph that it's hard to know where to begin. Someone else can start explaining to Andy what is wrong with it. I'll jump in when your fingers get tired.

I haven't read this yet but, come on, "professional thumb-suckers" is awesome and accurate.

There are so many bad arguments in this paragraph that it's hard to know where to begin. Someone else can start explaining to Andy what is wrong with it. I'll jump in when your fingers get tired.

Just link to the wiki article on "Special Pleading."

"Special Pleading"

Once again, spike seasons are meaningless and evidence of nothing.

Once again, spike seasons are meaningless and evidence of nothing.

Talk about special pleading. I wonder what the wiki entry for "ostrich" says.

Players peak at varying points of their career, but no other player in history besides Barry Bonds has ever had by far his best seasons during his late 30's and beyond.

To be fair to Barry Bonds, there is no other player in baseball history quite like him. He's on a very short list of greatest players in baseball history before any of the steroid seasons. He went 1-2-1-1-4 in MVP voting from ages 25-29; that may well be the most dominant run in baseball history if you account for integration and league size.

I think you could make a case for Randy Johnson. He put up his best seasons in his late 30s: there were spikes in 1995 and 1997 that you could argue fit with his late performance, but we're talking about huge changes in durability and consistency. Putting up 190ish ERA+ with 215ish innings with an injury season sandwiched within is not in the same realm as 4 consecutive seasons of leading the league in ERA+ and strikeouts while finishing in the top 3 in IP.

Less dramatic, but still a clearly different late-career level of performance, would be his teammate Curt Schilling's numbers. His age 34, 36, and 37 seasons were remarkable when compared to the rest of his career. Perhaps that's not by far but it's significant. It is not ridiculous to say that going from "very good pitcher" to "arguably a HOF," with peak performance in the mid-to-late 30s is as big a leap as going from "most dominant player in baseball history" to "most dominant player in baseball history with even more gaudy numbers."

Talk about special pleading. I wonder what the wiki entry for "ostrich" says.

As I've mentioned to you before, Andy -- explained it in depth, even -- Baseball Prospectus looked at spike seasons between the Steroids Era and past eras, and found nothing of note.

As for the other forms of cheating, it's a matter of degree and proportion. I suppose I can see the argument that steroids are no worse than spitballs or corked bats, but neither I or anyone connected with baseball is likely to agree with that. I don't see "cheating is cheating" any more than I see a criminal misdemeanor to be the equivalent to a criminal felony.

They aren't equivalent, and that's not my argument. The more significant the effect, the worse the offense, generally speaking. I'm speaking only about the morality of the action, the "character" as we'd call it in baseball terms.

Do you distinguish stealing $1000 from stealing $500 in a moral sense? That's often the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. If John stabs Bill with the intent to kill him, does the degree of moral evil change depending on whether Bill lives or dies? Again, not the punishment, nor the damages John might owe to Bill's family, nor the cost he must pay in a polite society, but the ethical weight of his behavior.

I'm not saying that you can't think steroids are worse than spitballs or corked bats. (I do think they're worse, primarily because of the health risks.) I'm saying that the sort of deception and obvious rule-breaking is morally similar in both cases. A player is willing to secretly violate the rules of baseball to gain a competitive advantage. That's the moral evil. The degree of advantage? That's the damage.

I'm curious where you'd rank Ty Cobb's on-field behavior, in terms of character and sportsmanship, in comparison to steroid use. I'm thinking particularly of sharpening his spikes and sliding hard with full intention of injuring his opponents. Or Juan Marichal's behavior?

To be fair to Barry Bonds

You unspeakable monster!

#56 Cobb specifically denied those allegations, and the most famous incident (the Baker case) looks pretty clearly a partisan press fabrication.

In fact Cobb used a fadeaway side (there are dozens of game pictures that show this) almost all of the time. When he was involved in confrontations on the basepath they were almost always a body-check type of collision (the same type of tactic used by Frank Robinson if he'd been knocked down by a pitcher)

Who's the player most seriously hurt by Cobb's spikes? Probably Cobb himself.

He tried (successfully) to avoid spiking Joe Sewell -- who just couldn't get out of the way. Cobb ended up spiking himself (easy enough to do when you're dodging at top speed) and missed a month when the wounds became infected.

Cobb picked up the rep as an evil baserunner on media reports of the Frank Baker play. And yet when Ban Johnson (hardly a Cobb backer) investigated he found Baker:

a) was barely grazed (he wrapped his arm and continued playing -- not what you'd expect given the myths surround the events. According to accounts in the Philly papers Baker was taken from the field, seriously injured)

b) was totally at fault. Cobb did a hook slide away from Baker's tag. Baker was awkwardly positioned, well off the bag and reached in.

Kuenzel photo of the play (Yes, Cobb's right foot is a little high, but it seems to be descending and going straight for the bag.At least that's the way Johnson saw it. Baker too for that matter.)

Quoting Cobb now:

"And yet, half a century later, I constantly meet youngsters who have been indoctrinated in the Baker legend so well that they look me over as if I was Old Beelzebub, himself."

EDIT: It's also noteworthy that Cobb called Carl Mays out for throwing at players before he hit Chapman.

You can find Cobb involved in all sorts of incidents. As far as I'm aware he's the only manager to be involved in an on-field fight with one of his own players (Howard Ehmke) and it was far from the only on-field fight he was involved in. Plenty of others just off the field too. It's specifically the use of spikes for intimidation and/or injury that I'm disputing.

He and Ruth were central figures in provoking an outright riot (when Ruth accused Cobb of ordering his pitchers to throw at the Yankees and Cobb reacted with typical grace -- this while Bob Meusel was fighting the pitcher in question). He's got plenty on his rap sheet and doesn't need myth making to make him worse than he was.

The presumption is that greenies allow maximum performance more often than is otherwise possible, whereas the anabolic steroid actually increases the maximum.

And this presumption is completely false. Clinically demonstrated.

Citation?

As for the other forms of cheating, it's a matter of degree and proportion. I suppose I can see the argument that steroids are no worse than spitballs or corked bats, but neither I or anyone connected with baseball is likely to agree with that. I don't see "cheating is cheating" any more than I see a criminal misdemeanor to be the equivalent to a criminal felony.

They aren't equivalent, and that's not my argument. The more significant the effect, the worse the offense, generally speaking. I'm speaking only about the morality of the action, the "character" as we'd call it in baseball terms.

Do you distinguish stealing $1000 from stealing $500 in a moral sense? That's often the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. If John stabs Bill with the intent to kill him, does the degree of moral evil change depending on whether Bill lives or dies? Again, not the punishment, nor the damages John might owe to Bill's family, nor the cost he must pay in a polite society, but the ethical weight of his behavior.

I see where you're going with this, but within the context of baseball culture, the difference between amps and steroids is a lot greater than the difference between $500 and $1000. The fact that (up to now) up to 80% of the writers have apparently understood this distinction means little or nothing to most people here. Ray speaks for the prevailing sentiment here when he dismisses them as merely a "mob", and he's welcome to reduce this collective judgment to such simplistic terms. I look at it as the judgment of a large group of people who've collectively been a lot closer to the game than the vast majority of people who dismiss them. At bottom it's obviously a subjective judgment, and while I respect the opinion that all PEDs (or all forms of cheating) are ethically equivalent, I don't buy it, and neither (up to now) do the people who either run or cover the game.

I'm not saying that you can't think steroids are worse than spitballs or corked bats. (I do think they're worse, primarily because of the health risks.) I'm saying that the sort of deception and obvious rule-breaking is morally similar in both cases. A player is willing to secretly violate the rules of baseball to gain a competitive advantage. That's the moral evil. The degree of advantage? That's the damage.

But it's the degree of advantage that causes the damage, and it's the degree of the damage that IMO calls for the degree of punishment. I also see the argument that by using the HoF as the line in the sand, you're adding an unfair penalty for "successful" juicers.** Perhaps so, but the others are punished with suspensions, and eventually they'll get the message or be out of the game altogether. AFAIC the steroid disqualifier is the writers' answer to the thumb on the scale that the steroid users employ(ed), a small but pointed action on behalf of the clean players who were competitively disadvantaged when they faced the juicers during their careers.

**Much as it's unfair to mete out extra punishment to would-be killers who know how to shoot straight.

I'm curious where you'd rank Ty Cobb's on-field behavior, in terms of character and sportsmanship, in comparison to steroid use. I'm thinking particularly of sharpening his spikes and sliding hard with full intention of injuring his opponents. Or Juan Marichal's behavior?

Assuming for sake of argument that all of these incidents are true, they were still well within the culture of the game, especially the culture of the game in Cobb's time. Cobb may have been an S.O.B. and a blackguard, but whatever he did to earn those descriptions took place in the open, and not behind bathroom doors or in the locker rooms of sleazeball "trainers".

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with overall "character". I don't doubt that the vast majority of juicers were nicer people than Ty Cobb off the field, and perhaps even more honorable, but it's what their actions influenced on the field itself that's the sole focus of my concern.

I see where you're going with this, but within the context of baseball culture, the difference between amps and steroids is a lot greater than the difference between $500 and $1000. The fact that (up to now) up to 80% of the writers have apparently understood this distinction means little or nothing to most people here. Ray speaks for the prevailing sentiment here when he dismisses them as merely a "mob", and he's welcome to reduce this collective judgment to such simplistic terms. I look at it as the judgment of a large group of people who've collectively been a lot closer to the game than the vast majority of people who dismiss them. At bottom it's obviously a subjective judgment, and while I respect the opinion that all PEDs (or all forms of cheating) are ethically equivalent, I don't buy it, and neither (up to now) do the people who either run or cover the game.

You're citing popular opinion?

You're citing popular opinion?

If you want to say "mob", Ray, why don't you just do it and get it over with?

Andy, some simple questions:

Do you think Braun is in the same category as Bagwell?

If not, how far apart are they?

Is Braun closer to Palmeiro or to Bagwell?

I see where you're going with this, but within the context of baseball culture, the difference between amps and steroids is a lot greater than the difference between $500 and $1000.

That's not responsive to the question I'm asking you, which is very, very specific. I'm asking you not about the damage, but about the morality of the decision to use an illegal drug, that represents a known health-risk, and is explicitly banned under MLB's substance-abuse policy, to enhance one's competitive ability.

Talking about the damage, or the opinion of the writers, or felony vs. misdemeanor (especially this one: possession of a little more than an ounce of pot is a felony in some states, while reckless driving is a misdemeanor, and I think we can all agree that the reckless driving is a greater moral evil) is irrelevant and distracting.

I think you're really straining the idea of the words character and sportsmanship if you're going to say that beating a fellow player about the head with a bat (and there's no question that this did happen) is a lesser offense than steroid use. If you want to say "conduct detrimental to the sport," I still think Marichal is on a totally different plane.

The fact that (up to now) up to 80% of the writers have apparently understood this distinction means little or nothing to most people here.

As it should. An argument stands or falls on its own merits. Popularity is irrelevant. Of course, I also don't think the writers "understand" the distinction. I think they have created a distinction out of whole cloth, where none reasonably exists.

within the context of baseball culture, the difference between amps and steroids is a lot greater than the difference between $500 and $1000. The fact that (up to now) up to 80% of the writers have apparently understood this distinction means little or nothing to most people here. Ray speaks for the prevailing sentiment here when he dismisses them as merely a "mob", and he's welcome to reduce this collective judgment to such simplistic terms. I look at it as the judgment of a large group of people who've collectively been a lot closer to the game than the vast majority of people who dismiss them.

I'm not inclined to get on the merry-go-round for its 120,000th rotation, but I wanted to hit and run with the following:
80% of the writers have concocted this distinction more than understood it. And the fact that these wise 80% were "a lot closer to the game" when their ethical observations on PED culture might have been of some use doesn't strengthen their credibility, it sinks it.

#60 I assume you're responding to #59. There's an awful lot of research on the subject going back more than 50 years. It's tricky to sum up because the results vary by product and by dosage levels (and in many cases the results are also seemingly variable by individual) and a lot of the research is sufficiently old that it's not online.

However, what it boils down to is that if you get the dosage right (more is probably not better, but a lot of these haven't been studied at high dosage levels for ethical reasons. There's a pretty clear risk of killing the test subjects) then you get a measurable increase in reaction time. Certainly seems like the ADD drugs (for which there are quite a few TUEs) are among those -- NHTSA lists "Desoxyn®; Amphetamine: dextroamphetamine; Dexedrine®, Adderall®, Benzedrine®, DextroStat®, Biphetamine®, Gradumet®." as among those which, "have shown to improve reaction time, relief fatigue, improve cognitive function testing, increase subjective feelings of alertness, increase time estimation, and increase euphoria. However, subjects were willing to make more high-risk choices."

There's a decent summary of the issues here

Of note: "n 2006 there were 28 major league players who had diagnoses for ADHD, and were receiving treatment with stimulant medication during the season." In 2007 (when amphetamines were added to MLB's banned substances list) this jumped to 103. (That could be as high as 14% of players, though it's probably more like about 10%. But it's probably gone up since then. As I noted in other threads, 40% of the field in the Tour de France that Floyd Landis tested positive had some form of TUE)