You make the call.......

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Expendables II began filming in September of 2011...alcohol abuse can age people very quickly and movie make up can conceal a lot.
 
Steroids have been a banned substance in Baseball since 1991.
 
yankeesince59 said:
Expendables II began filming in September of 2011...alcohol abuse can age people very quickly and movie make up can conceal a lot.
Click to expand...

ok, so I was off... 3 years instead of 2 (if you consider the movie wasn't done filming in 3 months)... yes, it does wreck you quickly, but he's been doing crap for years... I don't doubt that make-up had been used in the movie, but his face is sunken in with the picture you showed... That's kinda hard to cover up with make-up...
 
Hammerojustice said:
ok, so I was off... 3 years instead of 2 (if you consider the movie wasn't done filming in 3 months)... yes, it does wreck you quickly, but he's been doing crap for years... I don't doubt that make-up had been used in the movie, but his face is sunken in with the picture you showed... That's kinda hard to cover up with make-up...
Click to expand...


Yeah he looks like he hasn't had a good meal in some time.
 
Rick2583 said:
Yeah he looks like he hasn't had a good meal in some time.
Click to expand...

And I don't dispute the fact he's abused his body far too much, but again, not sure how the make-up could cover up the fact he looks like he hasn't had a good meal nor do I think that could happen in the 3-year period unless he had cancer or aids or something...
 
...he face looks "sunken in" because it's a much more current picture, which is why I said "this is what he looks like now".

...make up in the movie 3 years ago...no make up in the current picture.





...not at all sure what the argument is.
 
yankeesince59 said:
Steroids have been a banned substance in Baseball since 1991.
Click to expand...

Which specific compounds? Pretty easy to craft new analogs that aren't the banned substances. Sorry to get lawyerly here, but the term "steroids" is too general. Cortisone is a steroid...is getting a cortisone shot cheating? I mean it does enhance performance.

My point is that it took baseball quite some time to link structures to the physiological activities and adopt testing that eliminated the analog game. In the drug world this is happened between pharma companies all the time....working around each others patent claims. Illegal drug designers employed similar strategies because govt regulatory agencies were stupid and just banned very narrow structures and classes.

There are entirely new classes of drugs coming on line in the next 5 years that will essentially revolutionize how one defines Performance Enhancing (not Viagra Rob). There will be no way to keep it out of athletics because frankly the healthcare system will likely mandate the widespread adoption of these compounds. This is partly why I'm an advocate for leveling the biological playing field. Old guys like Bonds and Clemens, even with supplements didn't have the sustained testosterone levels of the 21 year old rookies like a Mike Trout. I'd like to see this concept tested and studied. My chemical intuition is that they didn't much of an advantage at all....and much less than what lay people believe.
 
I don't need an education on the steroid subject...and how many players have been busted for getting a cortisone shot, which is something that is typically Doctor prescribed?...terrible comparison.

...I'll say it again, steroids have been banned since 1991 and anyone who wants to skew things by implying that Bonds and/or Clemens gained an edge by using something other than steroids is simply beating their own PEDs agenda drum.
 
Regardless of the stance anyone wants to take on Vitamin S, or the time frame, the legality issue of Vitamin S, regardless: above and beyond the use of Vit S.......the one implicit knock on both players, incl. other players also, IS:

No one is supposed to be exempt from lying to Congress, or in courts. PERJURY is not a forgivable offense, and NO Restitution for as much were ever made or spoken of. NONE......we all know if the common person in the US, were to perjure their testimony in front of a GJ or Congress, the common person would be doing time behind bars.

Congress threw themselves under the bus on this issue, and let MLB Players create a mockery charade of "Sworn Oaths".
 
We all knew these Vit-S users cheated to gain performance, albeit it Coco Puffs, or Vit-S, when one has the stats and accolades to gain entry into the HOF, without cheating, then why would anyone in their right mind cheat? Therein is the dilemma moreso than the legalities. Clemens wanted to prove the Bosox wrong for letting him go, so he turns to Roids to gain 2 consecutive Cy Youngs in Toronto. Bonds was jealous of the attention McGwire got for breaking Maris and Ruth's records, so he too cheated. The stories behind the use or need to use Roids, is a huge part of the problem. The fatal dose of Perjury was worse IMO, than the doses of Roids. How old was everyone here, when they first heard, NO ONE LIKES A CHEATER? Such is ingrained in our Culture, and System of Fairness, called LAW....!

PS: please don't tell me Viagra is a banned substance, tho' it is the ultimate performance enhancer....???? LMAO....!
 
totus44 said:
Which specific compounds? Pretty easy to craft new analogs that aren't the banned substances. Sorry to get lawyerly here, but the term "steroids" is too general. Cortisone is a steroid...is getting a cortisone shot cheating? I mean it does enhance performance.

My point is that it took baseball quite some time to link structures to the physiological activities and adopt testing that eliminated the analog game. In the drug world this is happened between pharma companies all the time....working around each others patent claims. Illegal drug designers employed similar strategies because govt regulatory agencies were stupid and just banned very narrow structures and classes.

There are entirely new classes of drugs coming on line in the next 5 years that will essentially revolutionize how one defines Performance Enhancing (not Viagra Rob). There will be no way to keep it out of athletics because frankly the healthcare system will likely mandate the widespread adoption of these compounds. This is partly why I'm an advocate for leveling the biological playing field. Old guys like Bonds and Clemens, even with supplements didn't have the sustained testosterone levels of the 21 year old rookies like a Mike Trout. I'd like to see this concept tested and studied. My chemical intuition is that they didn't much of an advantage at all....and much less than what lay people believe.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's fair to say which specific compounds as compounds will always come (by definition) before ways to detect them... detecting will always be behind the game of the compounds... Just saying...

While the term Steroids is too general, we can't say which are ok which aren't, which were, which weren't, etc. That slope is too slippery... if it isn't a true vitamin or a medical necessity, it shouldn't be ok to take... that simple... you think something would be nice if you could take would be great, well fine... but that is your choice and should not be used as an acceptable excuse... You chose to take something that was truly not necessary.
 
Hammerojustice said:
I don't think it's fair to say which specific compounds as compounds will always come (by definition) before ways to detect them... detecting will always be behind the game of the compounds... Just saying...

While the term Steroids is too general, we can't say which are ok which aren't, which were, which weren't, etc. That slope is too slippery... if it isn't a true vitamin or a medical necessity, it shouldn't be ok to take... that simple... you think something would be nice if you could take would be great, well fine... but that is your choice and should not be used as an acceptable excuse... You chose to take something that was truly not necessary.
Click to expand...


But in the case of Pettitte where he swore that he only took a substance to heal from an injury (which I truly believe) where do you draw the line?
 
Rick2583 said:
But in the case of Pettitte where he swore that he only took a substance to heal from an injury (which I truly believe) where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

Healing from an injury is a medical need... trying to recover from a work out more quickly is not... that would be the line... Pettitte had an injury... He used while recovering... ok... but someone who is trying to be able to get more workout efficiency in a bottle doesn't get that pass
 
Hammerojustice said:
Healing from an injury is a medical need... trying to recover from a work out more quickly is not... that would be the line... Pettitte had an injury... He used while recovering... ok... but someone who is trying to be able to get more workout efficiency in a bottle doesn't get that pass
Click to expand...


But how do you know who used for healing purposes & who didn't?
 
Are the on the field or was there a DL stint? If they're still recovering from an injury, they aren't ready to play.... If you can play, you don't NEED to take anything to heal...

I do think there should be more than 1 doctor signing off on an injury/treatment... Exception might be emergency surgery (i.e. an appendectomy)
 
yankeesince59 said:
I don't need an education on the steroid subject...and how many players have been busted for getting a cortisone shot, which is something that is typically Doctor prescribed?...terrible comparison.

...I'll say it again, steroids have been banned since 1991 and anyone who wants to skew things by implying that Bonds and/or Clemens gained an edge by using something other than steroids is simply beating their own PEDs agenda drum.
Click to expand...

Not trying to educate you, don't turn this into something its not. I used cortisone specifically to demonstrate that the term 'steroids' is misleading and bandying it about led to a lot of confusion. To be clear I know you mean anabolic steroids, I would prefer we be specific as there are several classes of steroids and most are perfectly legit.

1991? If your talking about the secret memo from Vincent....that wasn't a ban, it was a don't ask don't tell policy. Bonds and Clemens likely used both anabolic steroids and biologics such as hGH. But in the case of Bonds we know that the materials he got from BALCO technically didn't violate the policy....by that I mean that baseball, like many lay people.....thought using terms like "steroids" was specific enough.

My agenda is to share my expertise with friends. You're arguments become that much stronger when you link the chemical structure class to their physiological functions. Other than that I'd like to see, and we will eventually, a clinical trial that presents actual data on performance enhancement rather than the current beliefs that try to masquerade as facts. I'm not knocking you and this isn't personal, I'm speaking generally about sports fans and the media.
 
Rick2583 said:
But how do you know who used for healing purposes & who didn't?
Click to expand...

Ah, great question....the introduction of the concept of "intent". I'll even give you a like. :)

There are a lot of things on the wada list that aren't performance enhancing, although there may be urban legend that taking x makes you better at y. The goal of wada is to essentially create a chemical-free and recombinant biological-free athlete.

Sometimes guys take things they think gives them an edge, yet no such edge is produced. There was an intent to " cheat". Other times people take things because they believe its only to recover and resume their career. I know most of you tend to disagree, but I'm OK with this...there is a lot of money invested in these guys and this isn't the Olympics. To me this is where the waiver policy could be really used effectively and giving guys these "banned items" under doctor supervision would also serve as a basis for measuring performance increases as well as improving testing.

But if you try to use beyond treatment/return to play.... Then that is cheating.
 
totus44 said:
Not trying to educate you, don't turn this into something its not. I used cortisone specifically to demonstrate that the term 'steroids' is misleading and bandying it about led to a lot of confusion. To be clear I know you mean anabolic steroids, I would prefer we be specific as there are several classes of steroids and most are perfectly legit.

1991? If your talking about the secret memo from Vincent....that wasn't a ban, it was a don't ask don't tell policy. Bonds and Clemens likely used both anabolic steroids and biologics such as hGH. But in the case of Bonds we know that the materials he got from BALCO technically didn't violate the policy....by that I mean that baseball, like many lay people.....thought using terms like "steroids" was specific enough.

My agenda is to share my expertise with friends. You're arguments become that much stronger when you link the chemical structure class to their physiological functions. Other than that I'd like to see, and we will eventually, a clinical trial that presents actual data on performance enhancement rather than the current beliefs that try to masquerade as facts. I'm not knocking you and this isn't personal, I'm speaking generally about sports fans and the media.
Click to expand...


...yes or no...do you think Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, Anderson, Caminiti, and others of their same ilk, "intentionally" tried to gain an unfair advantage through the use of PEDs?

...and I'm not trying to make this into something it's not...I'm simply pointing out that like it or not, and whether or not is apparent to you, yes, you do seem to be trying educate others on the PEDs topic and you say things to others as if they are totally devoid of the knowledge that you alone presume to have over and above them. Problem is, you always seem to hand pick links or point to references that only support your personal feelings on the PEDs issue. You seem to disregard or discount the other side of the argument.
...as I've said before, for every opinion/link you provide, I can usually counter them with my own if I choose.
 
yankeesince59 said:
...yes or no...do you think Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, Anderson, Caminiti, and others of their same ilk, "intentionally" tried to gain an unfair advantage through the use of PEDs?

...and I'm not trying to make this into something it's not...I'm simply pointing out that like it or not, and whether or not is apparent to you, yes, you do seem to be trying educate others on the PEDs topic and you say things to others as if they are totally devoid of the knowledge that you alone presume to have over and above them. Problem is, you always seem to hand pick links or point to references that only support your personal feelings on the PEDs issue. You seem to disregard or discount the other side of the argument.
...as I've said before, for every opinion/link you provide, I can usually counter them with my own if I choose.
Click to expand...

I know this wasn't directed at me, but absolutely!
 
yankeesince59 said:
...yes or no...do you think Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, Anderson, Caminiti, and others of their same ilk, "intentionally" tried to gain an unfair advantage through the use of PEDs?

...and I'm not trying to make this into something it's not...I'm simply pointing out that like it or not, and whether or not is apparent to you, yes, you do seem to be trying educate others on the PEDs topic and you say things to others as if they are totally devoid of the knowledge that you alone presume to have over and above them. Problem is, you always seem to hand pick links or point to references that only support your personal feelings on the PEDs issue. You seem to disregard or discount the other side of the argument.
...as I've said before, for every opinion/link you provide, I can usually counter them with my own if I choose.
Click to expand...


Sorry man...get caught up trying to dispell the FUD. Players obviously doing things with the intent to gain unfair advantage like taking drugs or even stealing signs...that sullies the image of the game. But the game has been vague in too many areas, and earned their stain in an lot of cases. Moving forward I'd like to see a more educated approach that applies common sense and is based on real data.

Science will continue to evolve and baseball needs to stop reacting 20-30 years after the fact. I'd like to see a more proactive approach that secure player health and the integrity of the game.
 
totus44 said:
Sorry man...get caught up trying to dispell the FUD. Players obviously doing things with the intent to gain unfair advantage like taking drugs or even stealing signs...that sullies the image of the game. But the game has been vague in too many areas, and earned their stain in an lot of cases. Moving forward I'd like to see a more educated approach that applies common sense and is based on real data.

Science will continue to evolve and baseball needs to stop reacting 20-30 years after the fact. I'd like to see a more proactive approach that secure player health and the integrity of the game.
Click to expand...

I agree... If they put a policy forward that says if anyone takes something which isn't medically necessary, recovering from a DL stint (WHILE on the DL), or anything which COULD improve performance will be classified as using... Don't list specific compound...
 
...I think any player who blatantly bypasses/circumvents legal access to easily available team doctors in lieu of quacks working out of a strip mall should be suspended/banned automatically...and subsequently be brought up on legal charges of "criminal stupidity".
 
You mean we can't take the Judge Dredd approach on roiders? LOL....

Judge, Jury, Executioner......?

and I was looking forward to the hangings, or firing squads......Tho' I'd prefer to fit them all with a brand new pair of custom sized, cement boots, great for deep sea fishing.....!
 
yankeesince59 said:
...I think any player who blatantly bypasses/circumvents legal access to easily available team doctors in lieu of quacks working out of a strip mall should be suspended/banned automatically...and subsequently be brought up on legal charges of "criminal stupidity".
Click to expand...

I agree
 
yankeesince59 said:
...I think any player who blatantly bypasses/circumvents legal access to easily available team doctors in lieu of quacks working out of a strip mall should be suspended/banned automatically...and subsequently be brought up on legal charges of "criminal stupidity".
Click to expand...

I generally agree with this, with a few clarifications. Players aren't exceptionally bright, so I'd like a mechanism where MLBPA or MLB create approved treatment policies and certify clinics. In the age of Obamacare, many high end doctors have left the insurance systems and gone into cash only private practice. This only gives the Biogenesis and Balco's more places to hide, and pro athletes have the cash these doctors need. There is an even finer line between quack and greedy bastard with a medical license.
 
totus44 said:
I generally agree with this, with a few clarifications. Players aren't exceptionally bright, so I'd like a mechanism where MLBPA or MLB create approved treatment policies and certify clinics. In the age of Obamacare, many high end doctors have left the insurance systems and gone into cash only private practice. This only gives the Biogenesis and Balco's more places to hide, and pro athletes have the cash these doctors need. There is an even finer line between quack and greedy bastard with a medical license.
Click to expand...


...I think a more concerted effort between MLB and MLBPA is definitely on the way. In fact, from what I recall, it was actually the players' union who really helped push through the current program. Like I've said many times, yes, the current system has its flaws but it is certainly better than no system at all. Much like the new replay system, it is a work in progress.
 
I know its a slippery slope but I think if there's anything that can be proven to be used STRICKLY as medicinal purpose. should not be among the banned items.
 
Rick2583 said:
I know its a slippery slope but I think if there's anything that can be proven to be used STRICKLY as medicinal purpose. should not be among the banned items.
Click to expand...

Outside of chemo agents, nothing is strictly medicinal. All drugs have some level of alternative use, that's the nature of only having 20,000 odd genes in the genome. This is where the waiver process is so important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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