Baseball Steroid Thread

[papsrus]

... Further proof that steriods only make you bigger, not a HR hitter. ...

... It only matters if you erroneously beleive that steriods somehow enhance your ability to hit HRs or throw strikes. ...

... This would be comparable to me saying I'm a pro athlete because I buy Wheaties. ...

Seriously. Time to wake up, Guys.

McGwire said he took roids to help him recover more quickly from injuries. (Wheaties may or may not do that as well).

You seem to acknowledge that steroids make an athlete "bigger," meaning more muscular, presumably -- more powerful. When this additional muscle power ("bigger," as you say) is combined with the God-given hand-eye coordination necessary to hit a baseball or throw a baseball, one could reasonably assume that the athlete who takes roids has an edge over the athlete who doesn't.

Roids won't make you see the ball better, or give you the ability to make contact with the ball more easily, but they do make you bigger, as you acknowledge, thus affecting how far the ball might travel once you do make contact with it.

Advantage roids user.

But, even if you believe that roids only help an athlete recover more quickly from injuries (as seems to be the justification they all give for taking them), and provide no additional power, that still gives these athletes an unfair advantage over those who didn't take roids.

Bottom line: If roids didn't provide some advantage, why would some athletes take them in the first place? You seem to be arguing that roids are no different than a placebo. That is clearly not the case.

[Noj]

It's good that McGwire came clean. It would be nice if MLB as a whole came clean.

The cheating and steroid use were widespread enough for me to not care and not consider it cheating. The players were juiced, the ball was juiced, and the fans had a gas watching the ball fly out of the yard. I prefer to close that chapter on MLB and move on, and see no need to continually rake these guys across the coals as if there weren't a culture in MLB encouraging steroid use when it was prevalent.

I'd let anyone with the numbers into the Hall Of Fame, no matter what. Pete Rose, in. Barry Bonds, in.

Calling the players outright "cheaters" in the face of MLB turning a blind eye to steroids, owners turning a blind eye to it, clubhouses letting the "trainers" peddling steroids through their doors, managers acting like they didn't know what was going on, fans acting all surprised like they didn't know it was going on...it's bullshit. The players get scapegoated for this crap, and get their names tarnished, when MLB as a whole is to blame. The MLB Hall Of Fame isn't sacred, who knows what they turned a blind eye to prior to the "steroid era." In fact, the media as a whole used to protect the images of ballplayers and managers no matter what sort of crap they did or said.

[Jazzmoose]

McGwire was a crappy player, on the level of Dave Kingman before he took PEDs...

That's ridiculous. I remember seeing both play, and there is no comparison.

[Matthew]

McGwire was a crappy player, on the level of Dave Kingman before he took PEDs...

That's ridiculous. I remember seeing both play, and there is no comparison.

Okay Moose, I'll grant that was a little extreme, but I saw McGwire play a lot in person in Oakland, and he wasn't all that, and you take away McGwire's PEDs, which heavily slants his stats, especially the second half of his career, and what do you get? Maybe an improved Dave Kingman (not that all improved though). But this is also the major harm that PEDs did to baseball, how is it possible to tell how much is McGwire, and how much is the PED? As to the "excitement" of the Steroid Era, to me, it was the dullest baseball I watched in my lifetime. Teams just sitting around waiting for that three run homer, *Yawn* The years of the 1980s, where you had speed and power in the game, was a great era, and the games were really fun to watch. Really, Vince Coleman stealing 118 bases in his rookie year of 1985? When will we ever see that again? *pulling up pants to armpits, and coughs*

Dave Kingman: 1941 games, 442 HR, 1210 RBI, .236 BA, .478 SLG

Mark McGwire: 1874 games, 583 HR, 1414 RBI, .263 BA, .588 SLG

edit: for grammar

Edited January 12, 2010 by Matthew

[Matthew]

Quote by The Genius Tony LaRussa™

LaRussa, on his reaction to today's news:

"I didn't know anything except that I knew we ran a legit program and that Mark was a good example of working his butt off and getting his strength gains as a product of hard work. I did, and still speak to his character and integrity."

This is what drives my absolutely batstuff crazy: I knew we ran a legit program is pure bs coming out of the mouth of LaRussa. Peter Gammons ran an article accusing Jose Canseco of juicing way back in the 1980s, papers constantly ran articles on the A's and steroids, of course, St. Anthony denied everything (in fact, he went off on a major Gammons rant, calling him everything in the book). Tony, I don't know about anyone else, but I never did, do not now, nor will I ever buy your blind eye excuses. Why people think this guy has any integrity is beyond me. He's on ARod's level in my book.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Matthew

[Jazzmoose]

Okay Moose, I'll grant that was a little extreme, but I saw McGwire play a lot in person in Oakland, and he wasn't all that, and you take away McGwire's PEDs, which heavily slants his stats, especially the second half of his career, and what do you get? Maybe an improved Dave Kingman (not that all improved though).

Well, my thinking wasn't along the lines of offense. I remember seeing Kingman field, and it was...exciting. McGwire was much better with the glove. As for the second half of his career, I'd pretty much given up on baseball by then. In fact, my main memories of McGwire are of that first, magic season. By the strike year ('94 was it?), baseball was behind me.

I completely agree with your assessment of the steroid era as a total bore. Home runs are fun, when they aren't being hit by shortstops fifty times a year or whatever, but give me sound tactical baseball any day. The game was turned into a sandlot joke by steroids, in spite of blindman Goodspeaks protestations.

I agree about LaRussa as well. He's either a liar or an idiot. I once had a lot of respect for him; he's pissed that away completely.

[Chalupa]

Interesting take on all of the McGwire hoopla.....

Mark McGwire’s Pound of Flesh

posted by Dave Zirin on 01/12/2010 @ 08:54am

In the ten years Brian Williams has anchored the NBC Nightly News, he has never once launched a broadcast by lambasting a public figure. Henry Paulson after the economic collapse? George W. Bush after Katrina? Dick Cheney after everything? All were spared the personal disdain of "America's most trusted newsman." Until yesterday. Williams began his broadcast by going after true evil: Mark McGwire. As Williams said,

Good evening. Because this is a family broadcast, we probably can't say what we'd like to about the news today that Mark McGwire--the home run hitter, the family favorite from the St. Louis Cardinals--stopped lying today and admitted that he did it while on steroids…..He's been unable to get into the Hall of Fame and, apparently--even for him--the shame here was too much.

Yes, cue the vultures, for retired slugger Mark McGwire has finally admitted the obvious and told the world he used steroids and other performance enhancers throughout his playing career. He clears his conscience a half-decade after a disastrous appearance in front of Congress, simulcast on C-SPAN and ESPN, where he auto-repeated "I'm not here to talk about the past" to his inquisitors. Monday's admission today, in advance of starting work as the new hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals, is a shocker right up there with "Sarah Palin finds work at Fox News." His teary audio confession also further cements McGwire's reputation as the Hamlet of the Steroid Era: tortured, indecisive, self-pitying, and in constant mourning about his own frailties.

For anyone who hoped that McGwire's confession could spark an opportunity to have an honest discussion about how we understand that juiced period in baseball history, from roughly 1992-2006, these hopes were quickly liquidated. Now is the time of the Sunday morning hangover and everyone is a born again zealot, personified by the harrumphing visage of Brian Williams. The media, so happy to cheerlead the home run barrage during the 1990s, now want an apology parade of humbled players swimming in tears and begging for mercy.

Read the rest here.....

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/515740/mark_mcgwire_s_pound_of_flesh

[vajerzy]

I think McGwire did steroids to get healthy- so I believed him last night. I also think McGwire did steroids to get stronger and be a better player- so I did't believe him last night. I believe, in his view of things- he's sorry for what he did. HOWEVER- I believe this was orchestrated in part by MLB- and I believe MLB knows EVERYTHING about steroids- starting with Bud Selig on down to the owners and LaRussa and the players. You'll be hard pressed to convince me otherwise. The little known and mostly circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

It's a total joke.

[PHILLYQ]

Quote by The Genius Tony LaRussa™

LaRussa, on his reaction to today's news:

"I didn't know anything except that I knew we ran a legit program and that Mark was a good example of working his butt off and getting his strength gains as a product of hard work. I did, and still speak to his character and integrity."

This is what drives my absolutely batstuff crazy: I knew we ran a legit program is pure bs coming out of the mouth of LaRussa. Peter Gammons ran an article accusing Jose Canseco of juicing way back in the 1980s, papers constantly ran articles on the A's and steroids, of course, St. Anthony denied everything (in fact, he went off on a major Gammons rant, calling him everything in the book). Tony, I don't know about anyone else, but I never did, do not now, nor will I ever buy your blind eye excuses. Why people think this guy has any integrity is beyond me. He's on ARod's level in my book.

maybe LaRussa was drunk and behind the wheel?

[Neal Pomea]

Just loved Tom Boswell's post in live chat at today's Washington Post, about Ken Griffey Jr. versus other players of his era:

Tom Boswell: Junior is the perfect example of why we shouldn't throw open the doors of Cooperstown to all the cheaters. "Oh, everybody did it, so I don't want to keep anybody out, so I'll vote like there was no Steroid Age." What kind of Amoral Dumber-Than-A-Rock logic is that. The world is complicated. Deal with it. If you have a HOF vote, do your best to figure out who cheated __beyond a reasonable doubt__ and don't vote for 'em. But vote for the others. It's not perfect. But it's better than "I give up."

[Tim McG]

... Further proof that steriods only make you bigger, not a HR hitter. ...

... It only matters if you erroneously beleive that steriods somehow enhance your ability to hit HRs or throw strikes. ...

... This would be comparable to me saying I'm a pro athlete because I buy Wheaties. ...

Seriously. Time to wake up, Guys.

McGwire said he took roids to help him recover more quickly from injuries. (Wheaties may or may not do that as well).

You seem to acknowledge that steroids make an athlete "bigger," meaning more muscular, presumably -- more powerful. When this additional muscle power ("bigger," as you say) is combined with the God-given hand-eye coordination necessary to hit a baseball or throw a baseball, one could reasonably assume that the athlete who takes roids has an edge over the athlete who doesn't.

Roids won't make you see the ball better, or give you the ability to make contact with the ball more easily, but they do make you bigger, as you acknowledge, thus affecting how far the ball might travel once you do make contact with it.

Advantage roids user.

But, even if you believe that roids only help an athlete recover more quickly from injuries (as seems to be the justification they all give for taking them), and provide no additional power, that still gives these athletes an unfair advantage over those who didn't take roids.

Bottom line: If roids didn't provide some advantage, why would some athletes take them in the first place? You seem to be arguing that roids are no different than a placebo. That is clearly not the case.

I fully understand all that.

My point is that no amout of HGHs or steroids will substitute for sound baseball fundamentals, vision, batting technique, natural ability or athleticism. Guys play injured all the time, but nobody calls anti-inflamatories or pain meds performance enhancers.

It just seems to me that we are allowing ourselves to give steroids a lot more credit than it deserves, quite frankly.

Edited January 15, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[Chuck Nessa]

Geez, get a grip guys. This is a "sport" aka entertainment and some guys cheated. Damn.

Spend more time with your real life and make that good.

End of sermon.

[papsrus]

My point is that no amout of HGHs or steroids will substitute for sound baseball fundamentals, vision, batting technique, natural ability or athleticism. Guys play injured all the time, but nobody calls anti-inflamatories or pain meds performance enhancers.

It just seems to me that we are allowing ourselves to give steroids a lot more credit than it deserves, quite frankly.

The science doesn't support your conclusion.

Steroids build muscle mass. Anti-inflammatories and pain killers don't. Nor do bennies, bourbon, caffeine, weed, LSD or whatever else they took in dugouts in years past. All these substances may alter an athlete's performance for better or worse, but they do not build muscle mass.

Increased muscle mass = ball goes farther = player on roids has advantage over player who doesn't use steroids.

There are some legitimate medical uses for anabolic steroids, particularly after some specific types of surgery. But that's not generally how they are/were used by athletes.

[Jazzmoose]

Nor do bennies, bourbon, caffeine, weed, LSD or whatever else...

Now you tell me.

[papsrus]

Nor do bennies, bourbon, caffeine, weed, LSD or whatever else...

Now you tell me.

[vajerzy]

My point is that no amout of HGHs or steroids will substitute for sound baseball fundamentals, vision, batting technique, natural ability or athleticism. Guys play injured all the time, but nobody calls anti-inflamatories or pain meds performance enhancers.

It just seems to me that we are allowing ourselves to give steroids a lot more credit than it deserves, quite frankly.

The science doesn't support your conclusion.

Steroids build muscle mass. Anti-inflammatories and pain killers don't. Nor do bennies, bourbon, caffeine, weed, LSD or whatever else they took in dugouts in years past. All these substances may alter an athlete's performance for better or worse, but they do not build muscle mass.

Increased muscle mass = ball goes farther = player on roids has advantage over player who doesn't use steroids.

There are some legitimate medical uses for anabolic steroids, particularly after some specific types of surgery. But that's not generally how they are/were used by athletes.

I can hit a baseball pretty well. I have the hand/eye coordination to make contact. Rarely struck out. In HS hit about .350. Weighed 150- didn't hit any HRs. Some doubles. Played adult baseball for 6 years until my late 30s. Weighted 180- more muscle, worked out. Hit about .400 and had multple HRs and extra base hits. Wamt to play again this year after 11 years off- weigh 190- not as much muscle mass. Ball doesn't jump off the bat like last year. Still can make contact. My conclusion: less muscle mass = shorter distance. So- Steroids = muscle mass = longer distance.

Think Brady Anderson, Lenny Dykstra, Brett Boone.

[Brad]

Geez, get a grip guys. This is a "sport" aka entertainment and some guys cheated. Damn.

Spend more time with your real life and make that good.

End of sermon.

Good advice I believe.

[Tim McG]

My point is that no amout of HGHs or steroids will substitute for sound baseball fundamentals, vision, batting technique, natural ability or athleticism. Guys play injured all the time, but nobody calls anti-inflamatories or pain meds performance enhancers.

It just seems to me that we are allowing ourselves to give steroids a lot more credit than it deserves, quite frankly.

The science doesn't support your conclusion.

Steroids build muscle mass. Anti-inflammatories and pain killers don't. Nor do bennies, bourbon, caffeine, weed, LSD or whatever else they took in dugouts in years past. All these substances may alter an athlete's performance for better or worse, but they do not build muscle mass.

Increased muscle mass = ball goes farther = player on roids has advantage over player who doesn't use steroids.

There are some legitimate medical uses for anabolic steroids, particularly after some specific types of surgery. But that's not generally how they are/were used by athletes.

I can hit a baseball pretty well. I have the hand/eye coordination to make contact. Rarely struck out. In HS hit about .350. Weighed 150- didn't hit any HRs. Some doubles. Played adult baseball for 6 years until my late 30s. Weighted 180- more muscle, worked out. Hit about .400 and had multple HRs and extra base hits. Wamt to play again this year after 11 years off- weigh 190- not as much muscle mass. Ball doesn't jump off the bat like last year. Still can make contact. My conclusion: less muscle mass = shorter distance. So- Steroids = muscle mass = longer distance.

Think Brady Anderson, Lenny Dykstra, Brett Boone.

You know, Cal Ripken hit for average, too. He didn't hit that many HRs either. Hitting HRs isn't necessarily the benchmark of baseball success. Not everyone can do that, Vajerzy. You would know that better than any of us.

My piont is this: Why didn't everyone who juiced hit record numbers of HRs then? This is where the whole muscle mass eqauls HRs falls apart. Even the biggest steroid monkey on the planet in Jose Canseco gained the nickname of Jose CanStrikeOut. Now why is that?

His mechanics were flawed. McGwire worked on his swing as did Barry Bonds. There is just no way you can tell me that steroids/HGHs equal HRs any more than owning a Lamborghini makes you a champion race car driver. It simply does not work that way. Your own personal example deals more with the aspect of aging and staying away from the game. With all due respect, not the same thing.

And Papsrus, bringing in LSD, weed and booze isn't even a part of this discussion. We are talking about performance enhancers. Anti-inflamatories and pain meds enhance performance. So do cortizone injections and nutritional suppliments. Asprin. Colds medicine. Even that boo-boo juice trainers spray on a bruise when a player gets hit by a pitch enhances a player's performance. So where do we draw the line?

It really bothers me that we are willing to erase entire careers simply because we want to give far too much credit to a drug with a spotty record of producing HRs. Again, if that stuff worked then 75% of the league would be going yard and HRs would be as common as beer at a Sunday afternoon ballgame.

Edited January 16, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[Aggie87]

Then why didn't everyone who juiced hit record numbers of HRs then? This is where the whole muscle mass eqauls HRs falls apart. Even the biggest steroid monkey on the planet in Jose Canseco gained the nickname of Jose CanStrikeOut. Now why is that?

His mechanics were flawed.

You answered your own question.

Flawed mechanics and steroids just means he's going to hit grounders, line drives, and his occasional homers harder. The steroids didn't automatically turn his grounders into home runs.'

For someone else who had better mechanics and better coordination, the increased muscle mass helps drive balls that might only get to the warning track OVER the fence, resulting in an increased number of HRs hit while on steroids. The ones that would have gone over the fence anyway simply traveled further over the fence than they would've.

[Tim McG]

Then why didn't everyone who juiced hit record numbers of HRs then? This is where the whole muscle mass eqauls HRs falls apart. Even the biggest steroid monkey on the planet in Jose Canseco gained the nickname of Jose CanStrikeOut. Now why is that?

His mechanics were flawed.

You answered your own question.

Flawed mechanics and steroids just means he's going to hit grounders, line drives, and his occasional homers harder. The steroids didn't automatically turn his grounders into home runs.'

For someone else who had better mechanics and better coordination, the increased muscle mass helps drive balls that might only get to the warning track OVER the fence, resulting in an increased number of HRs hit while on steroids. The ones that would have gone over the fence anyway simply traveled further over the fence than they would've.

I get your point. If these guys [McGwire and Bonds] were just your average, run-of-the-mill baseball players I'd totally agree with you, Aggie. But they weren't. These were the greatest hitters of all-time.

These guys were hitting moon shots well before the so-called steroids era. They didn't get cheapy HRs which barely cleared the fence. These were bonafide no-doubters, my friend. I have been to numerous Giants and A's games when both McGwire and Bonds played [and before all that steroid crap started] and I can tell you when they got into one, you knew it was going yard. Make no mistake.

So let's assume for a moment that muscle mass somehow makes the ball travel further when hit, OK? Then those HRs might go 20 feet less far maybe? They would have still gone out, Aggie. These were upper-deckers half the time. So the ball might land in the 10th row of the bleachers instead of halfway to the Oakland Bay Bridge.

Still a HR, Dude.

Edited January 16, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[Aggie87]

I get your point. If these guys [McGwire and Bonds] were just your average, run-of-the-mill baseball players I'd totally agree with you, Aggie. But they weren't. These were the greatest hitters of all-time.

These guys were hitting moon shots well before the so-called steroids era. They didn't get cheapy HRs which barely cleared the fence. These were bonafide no-doubters, my friend. I have been to numerous Giants and A's games when both McGwire and Bonds played [and before all that steroid crap started] and I can tell you when they got into one, you knew it was going yard. Make no mistake.

So let's assume for a moment that muscle mass somehow makes the ball travel further when hit, OK? Then those HRs might go 20 feet less far maybe? They would have still gone out, Aggie. These were upper-deckers half the time. So the ball might land in the fifth row of the bleachers instead of halfway to the Oakland Bay Bridge.

Still a HR, Dude.

I get you on that, but are you suggesting that Bonds/McGwire/Sosa/whoever never hit flies that only travelled to the warning track? Surely you can admit that they occasionally hit balls like that, that either were caught for an out, or were doubles or whatever.

Those are the hits that would have been more possible to become HRs, with the use of steroids. How many of those in a season would Bonds/McGwire have hit? Without steroids - a double or out. With steroids, an extra Home Run.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Aggie87

[Tim McG]

I get your point. If these guys [McGwire and Bonds] were just your average, run-of-the-mill baseball players I'd totally agree with you, Aggie. But they weren't. These were the greatest hitters of all-time.

These guys were hitting moon shots well before the so-called steroids era. They didn't get cheapy HRs which barely cleared the fence. These were bonafide no-doubters, my friend. I have been to numerous Giants and A's games when both McGwire and Bonds played [and before all that steroid crap started] and I can tell you when they got into one, you knew it was going yard. Make no mistake.

So let's assume for a moment that muscle mass somehow makes the ball travel further when hit, OK? Then those HRs might go 20 feet less far maybe? They would have still gone out, Aggie. These were upper-deckers half the time. So the ball might land in the fifth row of the bleachers instead of halfway to the Oakland Bay Bridge.

Still a HR, Dude.

I get you on that, but are you suggesting that Bonds/McGwire/Sosa/whoever never hit flies that only travelled to the warning track? Surely you can admit that they occasionally hit balls like that, that either were caught for an out, or were doubles or whatever.

Those are the hits that would have been more possible to become HRs, with the use of steroids. How many of those in a season would Bonds/McGwire have hit? Without steroids - a double or out. With steroids, an extra Home Run.

Oh sure. I saw a ton of fly-outs, too. But when the wind isn't blowing out, that can happen to anyone. Besides, haven't you ever hit a baseball/softball/racquetball/golfball/tennis ball where you didn't feel you got all of it? I have and I am certain McGwire and Bonds have, too. Add to that all the BBs Bonds got and the total HR count might have been 900 if the opposing pitchers had any guts.

Add steroids to that pop-up....it's still going to be a pop-up. It is a mishit. Hit it flush, and it goes out. Then there is weather, who is pitching and if he's got his game on, are they throwing around the hitter, etc...too many factors involved to say unequivically one way or the other, Aggie.

Edited January 16, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[Aggie87]

I get your point. If these guys [McGwire and Bonds] were just your average, run-of-the-mill baseball players I'd totally agree with you, Aggie. But they weren't. These were the greatest hitters of all-time.

These guys were hitting moon shots well before the so-called steroids era. They didn't get cheapy HRs which barely cleared the fence. These were bonafide no-doubters, my friend. I have been to numerous Giants and A's games when both McGwire and Bonds played [and before all that steroid crap started] and I can tell you when they got into one, you knew it was going yard. Make no mistake.

So let's assume for a moment that muscle mass somehow makes the ball travel further when hit, OK? Then those HRs might go 20 feet less far maybe? They would have still gone out, Aggie. These were upper-deckers half the time. So the ball might land in the fifth row of the bleachers instead of halfway to the Oakland Bay Bridge.

Still a HR, Dude.

I get you on that, but are you suggesting that Bonds/McGwire/Sosa/whoever never hit flies that only travelled to the warning track? Surely you can admit that they occasionally hit balls like that, that either were caught for an out, or were doubles or whatever.

Those are the hits that would have been more possible to become HRs, with the use of steroids. How many of those in a season would Bonds/McGwire have hit? Without steroids - a double or out. With steroids, an extra Home Run.

Oh sure. I saw a ton of fly-outs, too. But when the wind isn't blowing out, that can happen to anyone. Besides, haven't you ever hit a baseball/softball/racquetball/golfball/tennis ball where you didn't feel you got all of it? I have and I am certain McGwire and Bonds have, too. Add to that all the BBs Bonds got and the total HR count might have been 900 if the opposing pitchers had any guts.

Add steroids to that pop-up....it's still going to be a pop-up. It is a mishit. Hit it flush, and it goes out. Then there is weather, who is pitching and if he's got his game on, are they throwing around the hitter, etc...too many factors involved to say unequivically one way or the other, Aggie.

As we have over the past couple of years, we'll have to agree to disagree then.

[Quincy]

I get you on that, but are you suggesting that Bonds/McGwire/Sosa/whoever never hit flies that only travelled to the warning track? Surely you can admit that they occasionally hit balls like that, that either were caught for an out, or were doubles or whatever.

The homer that McGwire hit to break the record was a freakish line drive home run. The line drive home run was also a steroid era special.

[paul secor]

Just curious if anyone else here besides GoodSpeak thinks that Bonds would have hit 73 or McGwire would have hit 70 without juicing.