The Home run.....

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
totus44 said:
To have any rationale, educated and civil discussion or debate, all sides must first agree to common rules and language. This is where we (you and Rick) and myself are at an impasse. I've laid out to you the precise scientific definitions of both PEDs and Steroids. You want to populist social/cultural ideals and use that as the basis of the discussion. I reject those premises because they are factually flawed and/or completely false, and thus skew the debate.

I don't need a time machine to know that I'm correct is my analysis. You claim that I can't say the 50s and 60s and 70s were the PED era (too) because no one consider amphetamines as performance enhancing and they weren't banned. Yet you won't accept my direct analogy that oral androgens like what Mac and Sosa were taking prior to 2003 were also not banned and therefore by extension of your logic also not PEDs. BS. Everyone know the pot of coffee with the freebies in it was a huge pick me up. Performances enhanced vs. the state if the uppers has not been consumed. Thus, MLB has likely been influenced by some form of performance enhancement for all of our lifetimes and likely earlier as well. Just because the effectiveness of PEDs have improved and evolved over time, why do we now punish modern players and give the older generations a pass?

Anything less than consistent treatment is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


...I understand that, tote. But back up and read what I actually said. I did not say that you cannot count amphetamines as PEDs. Instead, I said you cannot go back in a time machine and retroactively undo what has already been done. There's a clear difference in what I said and what you are claiming I said. If you can dispute what I actually said, please point it out. Rick's views and words are his own, not mine, so don't view us as a singular entity.

...and for about the 4th time, again, you cannot take a trip in your time machine and hold players of years gone by accountable for rules that are being put in place today. Things and views and values and rules and change as deemed necessary during any given era.

...time and intelligence both allow for a change in judgment. And the current consensus is that PEDs and Baseball are not an acceptable combination in today's game. Baseball cannot go back and sanction players for greenies, period. Instead, they are trying to address the problem as it stands today.
...you cannot seriously tell me that there's no way to distinguish the difference between greenies and steroids and some other PEDs of today's modern medicine. Mickey Mantle on liquor and/or amphetamines is still Mickey fucking Mantle...Mickey Mantle on steroids in The Incredible Hulk. And if you don't see a difference, I don't know what to tell you.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
i think to a certain extent, people consider ILLEGAL ped use to be immoral, and some believe ALL ped use is immoral

i personally think it is kinda bullshit they arent allowed to use the newest forms of modern medicine in order to heal more rapidly
Click to expand...



...in that case, I'll ask the same question I posed to someone else but never got a reply...so do you think Bonds, Sosa, ARod, et al, should have been allowed to continue to do what they were doing?
 
yankeesince59 said:
...in that case, I'll ask the same question I posed to someone else but never got a reply...so do you think Bonds, Sosa, ARod, et al, should have been allowed to continue to do what they were doing?
Click to expand...

well, they were allowed more or less.

its a tricky subject, on one hand you dont want people damaging their organs and endangering themselves to gain an edge, on the other hand, some banned peds can actually help you heal quicker and stronger from an injury.

im not sure what the answer is other than make them mandatory and level the playing field! :cheers:
 
...that's not what I asked...do you think it would be right for them to be allowed to continue what they were doing?
 
yankeesince59 said:
...that's not what I asked...do you think it would be right for them to be allowed to continue what they were doing?
Click to expand...

not sure i follow, that it would be right for them to continue doing PEDs in their retirement?
 
...oh, you follow alright, but rather than address the obvious question, you opt for more coy tap dancing...you lose.
 
yankeesince59 said:
...oh, you follow alright, but rather than address the obvious question, you opt for more coy tap dancing...you lose.
Click to expand...

well, in most cases they were breaking the law, so i guess id have to say no, being the law abiding citizen that i am. i guess someone with looser morals would be okay with them purposefully breaking the law, but not me. the law is the law.
 
unless accompanied by a legal prescription of course
 
59, my answer to your question has been obviously all along, I have said I think the biochemical playing field should be leveled. If their T levels were lower due to age, sure supplement up. I also have no issues with taking whatever drugs make healing accelerate.

BTW...I'm not holding anyone in the past accountable for rules today, but you're pretty fucking naive if you think the players back in the day didn't consider amphetamines as performance enhancing. And oh, it turns out the shit was illegal then too. You have to view players through the temporal filter of that age. Mac and Sosa did nothing wrong in my opinion, all they did was to use OTC supplements. Bonds did too, but then he crossed into the world of illegal PEDs. Same with Arod, Canseco, etc. they were taking things that required prescriptions or were otherwise controlled substances.

While we're at it, why are anabolic steroids wrong, but tommy john surgery is OK? What about performance enhancing surgery...where are we going to draw the line?
 
totus44 said:
59, my answer to your question has been obviously all along, I have said I think the biochemical playing field should be leveled. If their T levels were lower due to age, sure supplement up. I also have no issues with taking whatever drugs make healing accelerate.

BTW...I'm not holding anyone in the past accountable for rules today, but you're pretty fucking naive if you think the players back in the day didn't consider amphetamines as performance enhancing. And oh, it turns out the shit was illegal then too. You have to view players through the temporal filter of that age. Mac and Sosa did nothing wrong in my opinion, all they did was to use OTC supplements. Bonds did too, but then he crossed into the world of illegal PEDs. Same with Arod, Canseco, etc. they were taking things that required prescriptions or were otherwise controlled substances.

While we're at it, why are anabolic steroids wrong, but tommy john surgery is OK? What about performance enhancing surgery...where are we going to draw the line?
Click to expand...


Regarding your 1st paragraph, if that were okay then someone like Pettitte should be eligible for the HOF since he swore that that's the reason (and the ONLY reason) he took them. which honestly I believe him. Problem is, like you said, where do you draw the line.
 
I believe that meds for pain management due to a surgical procedure or antibiotics or steroids (like to recover from something like poison ivy) should be ok, but growth hormones to accelerate the healing process post surgery shouldn't be legal... That being said, I think any PED should be illegal...
 
Hammerojustice said:
I believe that meds for pain management due to a surgical procedure or antibiotics or steroids (like to recover from something like poison ivy) should be ok, but growth hormones to accelerate the healing process post surgery shouldn't be legal... That being said, I think any PED should be illegal...
Click to expand...

That's all well & good Steve but the term PEDs seem to mean many different things.
 
Remember that slippery slope.....this from WADA

“Stimulants bupropion, caffeine, nicotine, phenylephrine, phenylpropanolamine, pipradrol, pseudoephedrine ({lt} 150 micrograms per millilitre), synephrine, and narcotics hydrocodone, mitragynine, morphine/codeine ratio, tapentadol and tramadol have all been added to the 2014 Monitoring Programme for possible in-competition abuse,” WADA said in a media statement after its Executive Committee meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

“In addition, glucocorticosteroids have been added to the Programme for possible out-of-competition abuse,” it added.

The resurgence of nicotene from e-cigarettes is the likely culprit. So that begs the question....did the guys in years gone past have a competitive advantage when chewing tobacco during the game? Someone get me a hairsplitting time machine, lol!

But in all seriousness, does have a big problem here. As time goes on, these beaurocratic organizations are going to keep further refining what is and is not a PED. If that is where MLB and MLBPA are aligned, then we will continue to see things that were legal in year X, but now illegal in year X+Y. Y can be 1 or 50.
So how do we view someone who used a now banned substance that was not banned for the majority of that players career? How much larger would the list of 103 have been in 2003 if no one knew the testing was coming?

I don't think you can hold anything against players pre-2004 season. I also think that post 2004, there is a judgment call regarding guys that were following the letter of the law or the intention of the law. This is where there is a strong case against Bonds, ARod, Manny, etc. They knew the new agreement their union signed, yet they continued to find a way to skirt around these rules. This is where MLB needs to be more emphatic with BBWA, HOF voting, etc.

In that I agree with you 59, you can't go back and retroactively say someone cheated, when at that time what they did was not understood to be cheating. But in the same vein, we have to agree that throughout the history of the game there were players that were taking something that is now known to be a PED, and that they were taking that substance because they felt it gave them an edge. An example for you....how about cocaine? How should Strawberry's addiction to coke be viewed now that everyone agrees that it was a PED?
 
totus44 said:
Remember that slippery slope.....this from WADA

“Stimulants bupropion, caffeine, nicotine, phenylephrine, phenylpropanolamine, pipradrol, pseudoephedrine ({lt} 150 micrograms per millilitre), synephrine, and narcotics hydrocodone, mitragynine, morphine/codeine ratio, tapentadol and tramadol have all been added to the 2014 Monitoring Programme for possible in-competition abuse,” WADA said in a media statement after its Executive Committee meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

“In addition, glucocorticosteroids have been added to the Programme for possible out-of-competition abuse,” it added.

The resurgence of nicotene from e-cigarettes is the likely culprit. So that begs the question....did the guys in years gone past have a competitive advantage when chewing tobacco during the game? Someone get me a hairsplitting time machine, lol!

But in all seriousness, does have a big problem here. As time goes on, these beaurocratic organizations are going to keep further refining what is and is not a PED. If that is where MLB and MLBPA are aligned, then we will continue to see things that were legal in year X, but now illegal in year X+Y. Y can be 1 or 50.
So how do we view someone who used a now banned substance that was not banned for the majority of that players career? How much larger would the list of 103 have been in 2003 if no one knew the testing was coming?

I don't think you can hold anything against players pre-2004 season. I also think that post 2004, there is a judgment call regarding guys that were following the letter of the law or the intention of the law. This is where there is a strong case against Bonds, ARod, Manny, etc. They knew the new agreement their union signed, yet they continued to find a way to skirt around these rules. This is where MLB needs to be more emphatic with BBWA, HOF voting, etc.

In that I agree with you 59, you can't go back and retroactively say someone cheated, when at that time what they did was not understood to be cheating. But in the same vein, we have to agree that throughout the history of the game there were players that were taking something that is now known to be a PED, and that they were taking that substance because they felt it gave them an edge. An example for you....how about cocaine? How should Strawberry's addiction to coke be viewed now that everyone agrees that it was a PED?
Click to expand...

I've never taken Coke only drank it so I don't know what effect it could have on you but unless it improved your chances of performing better between the lines (no pun intended) I don't think it could be labeled as a PED. Much like alcohol. Even back in the day when you talk about UPPERS, yes it gave players an edge compared to other players who may have been tired from say a day game after a night game or playing both ends of a double header BUT.......did it make them better?

IMO unless it improved your ability (hit better, run faster, throw harder) then they can't be referred to as PEDs since it didn't ENHANCE your PERFORMANCE.
 
Taken in moderation, yes coke will make you much better. Better focus, sharper vision, quicker reflexes, etc. Much more amplified affects than say from nicotine.

Rick, a liitle snort and you are on another plain. With steroids, they do nothing unless you are in the gym doing the work to build muscle or stretch/recover from building activities. This idea that Arod could take a lozenge before batting for a little testosterone boost, I think any affect it had was in his head.
 
totus44 said:
Taken in moderation, yes coke will make you much better. Better focus, sharper vision, quicker reflexes, etc. Much more amplified affects than say from nicotine.

Rick, a liitle snort and you are on another plain. With steroids, they do nothing unless you are in the gym doing the work to build muscle or stretch/recover from building activities. This idea that Arod could take a lozenge before batting for a little testosterone boost, I think any affect it had was in his head.
Click to expand...

A few years back I was talking to a guy who played a lot of softball. He also worked out a lot & every now & again would give himself a shot. We got to talking about Barry Bonds. And in his words he told me "Rick, people who question Bonds as a hitter are idiots, Yes I'm able to hit a ball a bit further when I get into one as I'm sure it does for Bonds BUT, you still have to be able to hit the ball, and take it from me.........it does NOTHING! to help your hand / eye coordination. THAT takes talent."
 
Good point Rick. Strength gain only gets you so far. Now faster recovery, say from a major leg work out, that's also a huge plus. Lastly, being able to keep this up throughout your 30s and early 40s, that too is an advantage. But you need to have the underlying skill set and tools to play the game.
 
Harmon Killebrew - one of my all time favorite sluggers/hitters.
Hit 40 HRs eight different times, I believe at one point he was the all time career HR leader for A.L. RH hitters.
I'm also pretty sure he also hit more HRs than anyone during the 1960s.

This may sound funny, but as time passes, I think he's become one of the most UNDERRATED H.O.F sluggers in history.
 
blgridesagain said:
Harmon Killebrew - one of my all time favorite sluggers/hitters.
Hit 40 HRs eight different times, I believe at one point he was the all time career HR leader for A.L. RH hitters.
I'm also pretty sure he also hit more HRs than anyone during the 1960s.

This may sound funny, but as time passes, I think he's become one of the most UNDERRATED H.O.F sluggers in history.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right about the 60s. The top 5 HR hitters from 1960-1969 were..........

1) Harmon Killebrew....................393
2) Henry Aaron..........................375
3) Willie Mays.............................350
4) Frank Robinson......................316
5) Willie McCovey........................300

And yeah, Killebrew was one of the best HR hitters I grew up watching. Unfortunately I think he was slightly over looked because he was only a career 256 hitter. JMO.
 
He would hit the "big fly" - towering shots.
Yep, he did have a very modest (lol) lifetime BA but I think the main reason why he often gets overlooked/forgotten when they talk about great sluggers from the 60's, 70's and 80's is because he wasn't a fast runner and wasn't flashy in the least.
However, he was indeed one of the first big time modern era sluggers to admire his HRs.
He wasn't audacious or arrogant, as he would just take a step or two as he dropped his bat to take a look at the flying ball. And I would bet the ones he did "look at", were GONE !
 
blgridesagain said:
He would hit the "big fly" - towering shots.
Yep, he did have a very modest (lol) lifetime BA but I think the main reason why he often gets overlooked/forgotten when they talk about great sluggers from the 60's, 70's and 80's is because he wasn't a fast runner and wasn't flashy in the least.
However, he was indeed one of the first big time modern era sluggers to admire his HRs.
He wasn't audacious or arrogant, as he would just take a step or two as he dropped his bat to take a look at the flying ball. And I would bet the ones he did "look at", were GONE !
Click to expand...


Without mentioning his name, there was another big slugger back around the same time who played for the Washington Senators. He only ended up with around 350 career HRs but he had a little stretch of 40 HR seasons also. Do you remember who I'm talking about?
 
The bat looked like a twig in his hands - he would he ferocious line drives -- So did McCovey.
I can remember opposing 1b playing McCovey very deep with one foot near the foul line.
And opposing 3b would do just about the same thing when Howard was at bat.

Remember Don Mincher from those Senators? lol
He wasn't in those guys' class - but he could wallop a few HRs here and there.

Those Nats also had a quirky relief pitcher, forgot his name- he would have a funky weird delivery- he would go through some motions and move around, rub here and there... lol (of course with no runners on base)
 
Get back to ya later Rick, gotta go. Who the heck was that reliever? What a character. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top