Do tell. What was the illegal performance-enhancing substance the Babe took? How did he maintain that god-like physique? 
i don’t find that particularly illuminating. that tells us how the public feels, but it doesn’t tell us why they feel that way, or whether they’re right or wrong for feeling that way.
incidentally, this is precisely the question i wish more people would address. i think they’d have a lot harder time finding an answer that coincides with their opinion on “performance-enhancing drugs” than they would be comfortable with.
so what, if it’s not against the rules, is “unfair”? where is that line drawn, and why is it drawn there?
Try not to put words in my mouth.
Yikes! This thread is sorely misplaced. I have seen some amazing statements made here, not one with an accompanying cite:
Neurotik gave a statistical analysis of Barry Bonds, comparing his career before and after “he started juicing.” That’s incredible. Exactly when did he “start juicing?”
Stratocaster claims “Taking steroids helps you hit the ball farther on average.” and “People who abuse steroids hit more homers than they otherwise would have.” I don’t recall any comprehensive scientific analysis being performed that drew that conclusion. The backup offered for these statements is Barry Bonds’ statistical record. Hmmmmm.
RickJay believes it is “likely” that “steroids have allowed Bonds to avoid injury, or recover from it, unusually quickly, and to remain productive long after the age when most players collapse.” This claim seems to directly contradict the few actual cites that have been posted in this thread, regarding the negative health effects that using steroids can have on a person.
And all this in a thread supposedly about Jason Giambi using steroids.
No, it tells us what the player feels about the activity in question. If Giambi denies ever using steroids to reporters after having admitted it to a grand jury, if he has denied it at every juncture whether steroids were officially banned by MLB or not, it is absolutely illuminating as to how he felt the news would be received. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Or let me ask this another way: There are allegations that 50% or more of MLB players abuse steroids. Who are the active players who have unequivocally admitted using them? What does that tell you? Do you think those players perceive steroids as a slightly different enhancement than contact lenses. Please! This is ludicrous.
Please, clear the air then. What exactly were you alleging?
Christ almighty, you need a cite to show that steroids build muscle density and enhance athletic performance? Are you serious? You wonder if increased muscle density can contribute to greater power production in baseball? Tell you what, continue to consider this a questionable point and my assertions baseless. I’ll try to live with that horrible shame.
No wonder 50% of them are hitting 70+ home runs every year.
Babe Ruth is suspected of using cocaine.
Someone earlier mentioned that a ‘juiced’ Ruth would have hit 1000 home runs. IMO, if Ruth worked as hard as Bonds does on his game and physical upkeep, he wouldn’t have needed juice to hit 1000. If Ruth ‘juiced’ and stuck with his alleged (lack of) workouts, the ‘juice’ would have been wasted.
I have a feeling the Babe may also have done a little drinking of illegal alcohol during his record-setting days.
Also, it’s quite likely that Roger Maris took ‘greenies’ , which were illegal amphetamines, during his record-setting season.
However, no one is arguing that these are performance-enhancing substances. It’s just a reaction to this post:
Stratocaster: “I’ll root for all the guys who don’t use banned or illegal substances. Guys like, say, Roger Maris or Babe Ruth.”
Just in case it hasn’t been made clear enough yet to Strat, um, Babe Ruth hit a lot of home runs between 1919 and 1932.
I do think stimulants are a performance enhancing job. I know I’m a lot more productive after my morning caffiene dose.
… which is to say that stimulants are performance enhancing. Jeebs, I wish we could edit our posts, even for a minute after we post.
The fact that steroids made JASON GIAMBI sick does not preclude the notion that they made Bonds healthier.
Steroids speed the healing process from the regular muscular and joint injuries that baseball players commonly experience. It is quite possible that this has what has enabled Bonds to improve at an age when *essentially every other position player in the history of the major leagues * has declined.
Do I know this for a fact? No. Regrettably, it is the nature of thing sort of thing that once dishonesty has been exposed it is impossible to entirely trust what happened.
This in no way contradicts the possibility that steroids can have terrible effects on other aspects of one’s health, such as the ones Giambi has experienced. I see nothing contradictory about the notion that steroids can help you be stronger and overcome muscle injury while creating a risk of injury to certain internal organs.
As has been pointed out, Babe drank alcohol when it was illegal.
Nothing I have read says that steriods are the cause of Giambi’s ailment. I’ve read several statements from MDs stating that it is possible, but it could just be coincedence, and coincedence != causality.
it tells us how the player feels the public will react. he feels this way because the public disapproves of steroid use. it does not tell us at all why steroid use should be banned. most people would falsely publicly deny using marijuana. does that mean marijuana should be illegal?
i’m sure everyone perceives steroids as a slightly different enhancement than contact lenses. the point is, if steroid use was acceptable to the public, no one would deny using them. i don’t see any concrete reasons to use that as a line of demarcation. so, again, where do we draw the line and why do we draw it there?
Apparently making my statement in a thread on performance-enhancing substances wasn’t context enough. Let me clarify: If someone now can conclusively prove that Ted Williams drank moonshine in celebration after every Red Sox game, it would not reduce my respect for his sporting achievements even a little, the illegality of his actions notwithstanding. If he injected steroids, that would be different.
I never said or implied that public opinion by itself should make something illegal. What I said was that a player who would deny using a substance, even when it was not banned by baseball, denied it for a reason, and it isn’t because he was proud of using it.
Yes, and if murder was an acceptable act to the general public, murderers wouldn’t bother denying their actions either. But neither is.
Why do you think anyone is arguing that public opinion is the reason for banning steroids? Steroids pose a serious health risk, athletes abusing them encourage children to follow suit, and within the confines of sporting events (which is less important) it provides an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules. That’s why most people disapprove, I would think. You’re confusing cause and effect.
because that’s what your test amounts to. if someone denies something, it’s because he feels he’ll be viewed in a bad light if that something comes out. the only reason that would happen is if the public has a negative opinion of that something.
i disagree that children are necessarily encouraged to follow suit, and i think that’s a matter for parents to deal with, but i’m not terribly interested in taking up the “health risk” concern. most people i know that are opposed to steroid use would still be opposed to it even if no health concerns were present, and i want to find out why.
if steroid use wasn’t against the rules, as in previous baseball seasons, there would be no unfair advantage with regards to the rules. everyone could use them, and so, barring health concerns, everyone would. and all would be fair in love, war, and baseball. so tell me: if there were no health concerns posed by steroids and they were not against the rules, would you still oppose their use by professional athletes? would you still consider the records tainted? if so, where would you draw the line between banned performance aids and permissible aids, and why would you draw it there?
if the effect is the shame a player feels when using steroids, the cause is a negative public opinion. i want to know all about what causes that negative public opinion.
This is a non sequitur. Please show me where I am arguing that public opinion should be or is the foundation for making steroids illegal (or where anyone else is, for that matter). Don’t restate something that does not assert this even implicitly.
Quite a curious crowd you’re running with. Equally interesting is the fact that you are intimate enough with this group to know they would still oppose steroid use even if the act weren’t unhealthy, yet you don’t know why that would be. Apparently your Vulcan mind meld was incomplete (I’m assuming you obtained your knowledge through some medium other than conversation, since that would have permitted the simple enough option of just asking them).
Anyway, I will continue to believe that non-doctor-prescribed steroids are illegal for the same reason that most drugs are: they are harmful to the people abusing them.
No. And if you pose a hypothetical where murder doesn’t actually kill someone, I’ll change my opinion on that as well.
I would probably continue to draw the line between banned performance aids and permissible aids. You understand that in your hypothetical, steroids are no longer banned, correct? (In addition to being as healthful as mother’s milk.)
I’ll try one more time. It is a rightly illegal substance that provides an unfair advantage for those willing to risk their well-being over those who follow the rules. To summarize: it is both illegal, irresponsible and cheating. I think most people quite properly find this to be dirty pool.