I don't think I'm adding anything new to the steroids debate, but I've been wondering of this lately: steroids are illegal for the same reason that marijuana is illegal and cocaine is illegal--because they lie above some agreed line on what damage we're allowed to do to ourselves; a line that cigarettes and alcohol are under, but heroin is over.

The line isn't the interesting thing to me--draw it wherever--my point is that steroids are not illegal for any other reason. They are illegal because they fit our broad definition of poison. Further, their physically enhancing properties are not the reason they are illegal.

So it stands to reason, at least to me, that another substance that did not meet our criteria of poison--say a generally available nutrition supplement--that had the same performance enhancing properties as steroids without the detrimental effects, could not be banned. My question is whether taking them could be considered cheating?

And if that could not be considered cheating, then can steroids be considered cheating? Are steroids banned for enhancing performance or are they banned for being illegal? Because they seem to be illegal for reasons outside their performance enhancement. Are there any banned PEDs that don't fit our criteria for poison?

Also, I think Sandberg has become a little annoying since he decided people wanted to hear him speak.

"We have some other players coming up like [Rafael] Palmeiro coming up soon, and it'll be up to the sportswriters to speak loud and clear about that. I don't see any of those guys getting in."

Hmmmmmmm

Was Palmeiro the one who was allegedly traded because he was sleeping with Mrs. Sandberg?

Was Palmeiro the one who was allegedly traded because he was sleeping with Mrs. Sandberg?

Dammit, I missed the over/under on that one by a full two posts.

So it stands to reason, at least to me, that another substance that did not meet our criteria of poison--say a generally available nutrition supplement--that had the same performance enhancing properties as steroids without the detrimental effects, could not be banned?

Steroids was outlawed in olympic sports long before they were illegal. They are banned because they give an "unnatural" edge to performance, not because they are harmful. Blood doping is banned even though there's no foreign substance at all involved there.

It was cheating in the sport.

Actually, it wasn't.

I don't think I'm adding anything new to the steroids debate, but I've been wondering of this lately: steroids are illegal for the same reason that marijuana is illegal and cocaine is illegal--because they lie above some agreed line on what damage we're allowed to do to ourselves; a line that cigarettes and alcohol are under, but heroin is over.

The line isn't the interesting thing to me--draw it wherever--my point is that steroids are not illegal for any other reason. They are illegal because they fit our broad definition of poison

All incorrect. They are scheduled because of their proposensity for abuse (which only partially deals with any direct health effects). Poisons aren't scheduled because they are poisoned, and no item is scheduled because of its toxicity.

Further, their physically enhancing properties are not the reason they are illegal.


Partially true and partially false. Their "physically enhancing properties" are a contributor to their propensitive for abuse. Their physically enhancing properties are also part of their therapeutic value so that effects the extent do which they are scheduled.

So it stands to reason, at least to me, that another substance that did not meet our criteria of poison--say a generally available nutrition supplement--that had the same performance enhancing properties as steroids without the detrimental effects, could not be banned?

Incorrect. Substances are "banned" for a variety of reasons. "Banning" is generally connoted different than government regulation of Foods, Drugs and Cosmetics, or the criminal scheduling of drugs by a government. Banning is usually considered to be a private act which can be accomplished for a variety of reasons, including reasons of health OR FOR COMPETITIVE EFFECTS.

And if that could not be considered cheating, then can steroids be considered cheating?

And if you call it cheating, then your saying all of America is cheating. And I'm not going to sit here while you insult the United States of America.

Yeah, I think it's safe to say that when even your former teammates are publicly giving you the thumbs down, you're f***ed.

Congratulations Sammy, wherever you are; you've just officially been inducted into the Hall of Shame.

I'd like to know if there's any evidence upon which Sandberg bases his "Sammy didn't use until 1998" position, because it seems awful convenient for him to say that nothing untoward was happening until the very moment those two stopped sharing a clubhouse.

Sandberg hates everything. He used his induction speech as an audition for the crotchety old wing of the HoF.

I'd like to know if there's any evidence upon which Sandberg bases his "Sammy didn't use until 1998" position, because it seems awful convenient for him to say that nothing untoward was happening until the very moment those two stopped sharing a clubhouse.


All of these denouncements from ex-players is the same. Steroids are bad and it was pretty rampant, but I never saw anything or knew about it when I played.

I am shocked that attention whore Mark Grace hasn't chimed in yet.

Sandberg hates everything. He used his induction speech as an audition for the crotchety old wing of the HoF.

Yep, it was utterly embarrassing. I'm gonna be really pissed if he winds up the next manager over Trammell.

Not that it either supports or refutes his position with respect to Sosa and the Hall, but I always remember Sandberg as the guy who quit and walked out on his team.

It may also be an unfair way to describe it, but that's how my brain has always stored the memory of his first retirement.

Also, I think Sandberg has become a little annoying since he decided people wanted to hear him speak.

There was a time (around 2005) where Yahoo! Sports decided people wanted to read what Sandberg had to offer. Don't know if the columns are still around, but if you need a pick-me-up, haven't quite gotten your fill of ex-player received wisdom, or haven't slapped your forehead enough today, I'd recommend digging them up.

Sandberg hates everything. He used his induction speech as an audition for the crotchety old wing of the HoF.

He really has... and I have to wonder WTF happened.

His public persona during his playing days was that of a quiet, don't rock the boat type... If you read deeper in the background, you'll actually hear that there was very much a prankster side to Sandberg (he was supposedly quite adept at the hotfoot).

So how and where did this Bob Feller quality come from?

Ryno seems so... unpleasant... now.

So how and where did this Bob Feller quality come from?

Ryno seems so... unpleasant... now.

He's basically Gary Carter...with a future.

zonk:

I would think being publicly embarrassed in such a personal manner in your industry has something to do with it.

I doubt there isn't a day goes by where this doesn't come up in some manner.

We have to remember that baseball is populated by folks with harsh senses of humor.

But the thing is -- the whole "Cindy sleeps around" thing was pretty much common knowledge during the whole retirement thing... and my recollection of his 2 years back wasn't that of a grump. Even when he first got the minor league managerial job, he seemed pleasant enough.

I don't know... maybe it builds and builds and something snaps, but it's like everything that comes from Sandberg now fits neatly into 2 buckets: 1)before the HOF speech and 2)after the HOF speech.

Incorrect. Substances are "banned" for a variety of reasons. "Banning" is generally connoted different than government regulation of Foods, Drugs and Cosmetics, or the criminal scheduling of drugs by a government. Banning is usually considered to be a private act which can be accomplished for a variety of reasons, including reasons of health OR FOR COMPETITIVE EFFECTS.

Not to be snarky here or anything, but it seems to me that this still reverts to Stevens bright line theory. Food is a performance enhancer. Water or other fluids are. Sleep and exercise is. Someone who is malnourished, dehydrated, and exhausted will not perform as well as someone who is not.

"We have some other players coming up like [Rafael] Palmeiro... I don't see any of those guys getting in."

That's not what SHE said, OH YEAH, HIIIII-YOOOOOOO!!! :::cymbal:::

By the way, here's your 1996 Chicago Cubs outfield: Sammy Sosa, Luis Gonzalez, Brian McRae.

Sandberg has been a total douche in the last 5 years. Apparently he was quiet his whole career so no one would find out what an ####### he really is.

I watched Ryno sign autographs for 30 minutes last year at a minor league game. Class act.

I reiterate: not being inducted into the Hall of Fame can be considered 'punishment' only by adopting a ridiculously low standard for what constitutes 'punishment'.

Incorrect. Substances are "banned" for a variety of reasons. "Banning" is generally connoted different than government regulation of Foods, Drugs and Cosmetics, or the criminal scheduling of drugs by a government. Banning is usually considered to be a private act which can be accomplished for a variety of reasons, including reasons of health OR FOR COMPETITIVE EFFECTS.

Has baseball banned any substances that are not also illegal for general use? Lacking a prescription, can I legally have HGH or andro?

You know what-he is entitled to his opinion. I personally like how Ryno doesn't sugarcoat his feelings on the matter. And you know what, I agree. You have to be an idiot to take steroids, with all the known side effects and longterm repercussions. Sure I know they did it for the money, but lets see how happy it makes them when they end up like John Matuzsak.

Was Palmeiro the one who was allegedly traded because he was sleeping with Mrs. Sandberg?

Doesn't this argue against Palmeiro using steroids?

Hasn't Sandberg always been vocal about his dislike for Sosa?

Doesn't this argue against Palmeiro using steroids?

To quote some guy from the Drew Carey show, "small potatoes make the steak look bigger."

Beside, we already know that Palmeiro was into all sorts of PEDs.

Has baseball banned any substances that are not also illegal for general use? Lacking a prescription, can I legally have HGH or andro?

I thought that andro was OTC when McGwire was taking it, but I could be wrong. I also thought that MLB might have banned creatine (which Brady Anderson used), but again, I'm not sure.

. They are scheduled because of their proposensity for abuse

Oh, come on, BL, this is as much a political decision as a scientific decision. "Propensity for abuse"? Who measures that? How? What does it even mean?

lets see how happy it makes them when they end up like John Matuzsak.

Tooz abused every drug available. That, combined with the damage done in a collision-based sport, did him in. 'Roids were the least of his problems.

Maybe 'unpleasant' is even too strong a word -- he's certainly entitled to his opinion and others have expressed the same positions he has in much less tactful ways.

Perhaps it's more because he sounds so different from the way he did 20 years ago.

There was a sort of quiet dignity about Sandberg and now it just seems more quiet frustration. To his credit, for a guy wanting to get noticed for a big league manager's job, he certainly isn't borrowing from the Curt "HEY! Listen to ME!!!" Schilling book.

From post 1: steroids are illegal for the same reason that marijuana is illegal and cocaine is illegal--because they lie above some agreed line on what damage we're allowed to do to ourselves; a line that cigarettes and alcohol are under, but heroin is over

Marijuana and, for example, psilocybin mushrooms are far less toxic and damaging than cigarettes and alcohol (great ####### song though), not to mention aspirin.

from BL: They are scheduled because of their proposensity for abuse

I agree with Srul and also call BS on this. Booze and nicotine are way more addictive than weed or shrooms, and the reasons for one bunch being legal and the other banned are more political than anything.

I reiterate: not being inducted into the Hall of Fame can be considered 'punishment' only by adopting a ridiculously low standard for what constitutes 'punishment'.

That's certainly true, but OTOH a HoF blackball does constitute the only concrete manner in which a writer can render a judgment on individuals connected to steroids. It's not as if there were really any other way to do this. Writing a mere opinion column that's forgotten about two days later doesn't quite register the way that a Hall of Fame vote does.

lets see how happy it makes them when they end up like John Matuzsak.

Ringo's going to take their women?

Greg Pope says, "I thought that andro was OTC when McGwire was taking it, but I could be wrong."

No. You're right. I was taking the stuff at the same time. OTC from the mall heath food store. It didn't do much of anything (creatine did more), and I've always thought that the fact that McGwire was taking andro was an argument AGAINST his taking steroids. Why take Tylenol for pain when you're taking morphine? My knowledge of what was banned when and by whom is far less than perfect, but I remember thinking that McGwire wasn't taking anything in 1998 that was either banned or illegal. I could be wrong. The main things held against McGwire seem to be 1) Canseco, whose word is hardly the best, and 2) his refusal to talk at the hearing. Given the number of people who appear to have blatantly lied at the hearing, Mark is starting to look better and better. I would not write him off from the HoF yet, especially since someone will eventually get permission to actually study steroids to find out what they actually do and do not do, and we will also probably find out someday just how many players were doing it. If approximately everyone was doing it, and that appears to be close to likely, then there was no competitive edge. You had to do it just to stay in the bigs at all. Both McGwire and Bonds' records make perfect sense without steroids (McGwire, ballpark effects account for all of the homer surge; Bonds, publicly announced strike zone change opened up a high inside sweet spot). Sosa's do not, but until recently I will confess that I thought it was probably the corked bats. - Brock Hanke

I'd like to know if there's any evidence upon which Sandberg bases his "Sammy didn't use until 1998" position, because it seems awful convenient for him to say that nothing untoward was happening until the very moment those two stopped sharing a clubhouse.

That was my first thought too, Craig. The convenient fact, though, is that Sosa's dramatic improvement came in 1998, the first season after Sandberg retired for good.


Hasn't Sandberg always been vocal about his dislike for Sosa?

Yes, but usually not *this* vocal.

I also thought that MLB might have banned creatine (which Brady Anderson used), but again, I'm not sure.

Creatine's not banned by any major sporting body, including the IOC.

That was my first thought too, Craig. The convenient fact, though, is that Sosa's dramatic improvement came in 1998, the first season after Sandberg retired for good.

No, it came in 1996, when Sosa hit a league leading 40 HR by Aug 20 when he was hit in the wrist and lost the rest of the season. Sans injury, he would have gotten close to or over 50 HR that year, which would have been a dramatic improvement over his previous career high of 36.

The line isn't the interesting thing to me--draw it wherever--my point is that steroids are not illegal for any other reason. They are illegal because they fit our broad definition of poison

All incorrect. They are scheduled because of their proposensity for abuse (which only partially deals with any direct health effects). Poisons aren't scheduled because they are poisoned, and no item is scheduled because of its toxicity.

Steroids are theoretically scheduled because of their propensity for abuse. They are actually scheduled because politicians decided to schedule them over the objection of everyone -- law enforcement, medical authorities, etc.

which would have been a dramatic improvement over his previous career high of 36.

Which came in just 144 games (the 1995 partially shortened season) following on 25 in 105 in 1994. It's still a big jump of course -- from 101 HR in 1628 PA (1488 AB) from 1994-1996 to 292 HR in 3516 PA (3005 AB) 1998-2002. At that PA pace, he'd have hit 218; at that AB pace, just 203. Still over 700 PA (he averaged 703 from 1998-2002), he'd have hit 43 HR at the 94-96 pace. And of course it's not unusual for a good hitter to add power during his late 20s, early 30s (though usually at the expense of BA which wasn't the case with Sosa).

Anyway, it always has been and always will be silly to look for evidence of steroids in performance spikes. Sosa had a 170 ISO at age 21 in MLB; he was over 200 by 24; he took another step up at 25 and again at 29. That's not really an unusual development curve (look at Schmidt or Stargell for examples). Ryan Howard was doing that sort of thing in A-ball at roughly the same ages. You'd be silly to have predicted Sosa would ever hit 60, but he sure had a better chance than Howard.

Note, Sosa absolutely stunk in 1997, even by 1993-1996 standards and I consider it just a flukey outlier. That's why I ignore it. YMMV.

And as I frequently point out, I had an email exchange with Rob Neyer over Sosa's "power surge" back in 99 when he wrote an article saying Sosa had almost no chance of repeating 60 HR and used the "never hit more than 40" argument. That was long before steroid debates were raging.