Baseball Steroid Thread

[Van Basten II]

Ultimately it's up the the athletes to decide whether they should use drugs to get into the big leagues. If they're for the most part willing to risk their health to play or remain in the Major League, it's their life.

For my part, i don't need breaking home run record season to follow the game, so whether they use or not is their collective choice.

[Dan Gould]

Well, I am glad they did it. It probably made baseball more exciting the last decade or two.

Guy

You're glad people pumped their bodies full of steroids and whatever else, to gain artificial advantages over honest players?

No, that I am completely indifferent about. I am just glad about the results.

Guy

So you are grateful for baseball played by juiced up athletes yet completely indifferent should they suffer adverse medical consequences in the future.

My understanding is that the "adverse medical consequences" are minor. In terms of current human tragedies, this probably ranks at #1,.......,000,....000,005.

From the Mitchell Report:

Steroid users place themselves at risk for psychiatric problems, cardiovascular and liver damage, drastic changes to their reproductive systems, musculoskeletal injury, and other problems. Users of human growth hormone risk cancer, harm to their reproductive health, cardiac and thyroid problems, and overgrowth of bone and connective tissue.

I agree, these are decidedly minor medical consequences. Everyone would enjoy sporting events so much more if we'd just let the athletes use whatever supplement modern science can produce.

What are the probabilities of any of those things happening as a direct result of using steroids? The statement you quote is meaningless without some actual numbers.

Obviously there is a proven medical link between the two. And you should well know that coming up with precise numbers is problematic because it would require an unethical use of steroids.

Athletes routinely place themselves at risk for injury as part of their line of work, and I am guessing that those risks are substantially higher than those of using steroid usage.

You can't seriously assert that this has anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Injuries occur to anyone from the "weekend warrior" to the professional athlete. They have nothing to do with the proven deleterious medical effects of steroid use/abuse.

[Adam]

Strictly speaking, if we are concerned about the future health of our athletes, we should ban football completely. It seems like all pro football players have incredible physical ailments for the rest of their lives. The simple fact is that baseball players get paid so much in order to be tools for public pleasure, the objects of our desire and disdain, not to live healthy happy lives for the rest of their days.

I think professional sports are so completely bastardized now that it doesn't matter if people take steroids. People love watching pumped up players with extreme statistics. People who thrilled to the Sosa-McGwire chase, Clemens incredible later years, Gagne's great years, etc are hypocritical if they are now shocked (Shocked!) over hearing that they were using. The simple fact is, people enjoyed the sport more because the players were using drugs. Heck, they very quickly forgave the strike and attended in larger numbers than ever. Why would anyone (baseball, owners, fans, players) have had any reason to oppose steroids in the late 90s and early 00s?

Guess I'm cynical today.

[Dan Gould]

Actually they didn't forgive the strike very quickly at all, it took McGuire and Sosa's steroid-aided "chase" to generate fan excitement again, four years later. There's no doubt that everyone in baseball is equally to blame for the situation. No one wanted to look too closely at the perverse results that were seen during the steroids era - like athletes in their late 30s and 40s performing better than they ever had previously, or a singles hitter like Sosa turning into Babe Ruth.

Nevertheless, I think fans can absolutely reject the accomplishments that were previously celebrated - if they looked at these stars and logically suspected they were juicing but couldn't fairly draw conclusions without proof. That proof is here, and I think everyone is entitled to reject Clemens, Bonds, McGuire, the whole lot of them. They cheated and just because it made baseball "more exciting" (which I think is a total crock of shit), it doesn't change that fact.

[Aggie87]

Pettite has come out and admitted to HGH use.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Aggie87

[Dan Gould]

Pettite has come out and admitted to HGH use.

Well that's the final nail in the Rocket's coffin. Proof that the trainer spoke the truth - what else do we need to believe the trainer is telling the truth when he says he injected Clemens?

Too bad Pettitte's got some integrity and 'fessed up almost immediately. Clemens on the other hand, having the same gargantuan ego that will be Barry Lamar's downfall, didn't think about coming clean and being contrite, he had his lawyer hack put out a statement with words like "libelous" and "troubled man".

Dan Duquette was right - Roger was in the twilight of his career - until he discovered the joys of modern chemistry.

[Guy Berger]

You're glad people pumped their bodies full of steroids and whatever else, to gain artificial advantages over honest players?

No, that I am completely indifferent about. I am just glad about the results.

Guy

So you are grateful for baseball played by juiced up athletes yet completely indifferent should they suffer adverse medical consequences in the future.

My understanding is that the "adverse medical consequences" are minor. In terms of current human tragedies, this probably ranks at #1,.......,000,....000,005.

From the Mitchell Report:

Steroid users place themselves at risk for psychiatric problems, cardiovascular and liver damage, drastic changes to their reproductive systems, musculoskeletal injury, and other problems. Users of human growth hormone risk cancer, harm to their reproductive health, cardiac and thyroid problems, and overgrowth of bone and connective tissue.

I agree, these are decidedly minor medical consequences. Everyone would enjoy sporting events so much more if we'd just let the athletes use whatever supplement modern science can produce.

What are the probabilities of any of those things happening as a direct result of using steroids? The statement you quote is meaningless without some actual numbers.

Obviously there is a proven medical link between the two. And you should well know that coming up with precise numbers is problematic because it would require an unethical use of steroids.

If there is an "proven medical link", then there should be some concrete evidence from medical studies, as part of a controlled experiment and/or a rigorous statistical study. That's how "medical proof" works. We certainly have comparable information on the effects of substances that are far more dubious legally than steroids.

Athletes routinely place themselves at risk for injury as part of their line of work, and I am guessing that those risks are substantially higher than those of using steroid usage.

You can't seriously assert that this has anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Injuries occur to anyone from the "weekend warrior" to the professional athlete. They have nothing to do with the proven deleterious medical effects of steroid use/abuse.

Oh, I can totally assert it. The probability of injury would go down dramatically for most professional baseball players if they reduced the number of hours they have to play. The game is more physically taxing than it was in the days of Babe Ruth, so it is extremely likely that if we restricted players' exertion we would reduce baseball-related injuries. If we cut the number of games per season to 20 (with a week layoff, like football), limited players to one inning per game, illegalized pitches over 50 mphs or constrained field movement to brisk walking, we would surely improve the health of pro players by far more than the banning of steroids could ever hope to achieve.

Guy

Edited December 15, 2007 by Guy

[porcy62]

What's wrong with steroids, my wife is pretty happy with them...oh...wait...Are Viagra and Cialis steroids?

Edited December 15, 2007 by porcy62

[Aggie87]

Oh, I can totally assert it. The probability of injury would go down dramatically for most professional baseball players if they reduced the number of hours they have to play. The game is more physically taxing than it was in the days of Babe Ruth, so it is extremely likely that if we restricted players' exertion we would reduce baseball-related injuries. If we cut the number of games per season to 20 (with a week layoff, like football), limited players to one inning per game, illegalized pitches over 50 mphs or constrained field movement to brisk walking, we would surely improve the health of pro players by far more than the banning of steroids could ever hope to achieve.

Guy

In other words, create a whole different game than baseball? Or at least, an extremely different version of it?

[Guy Berger]

Oh, I can totally assert it. The probability of injury would go down dramatically for most professional baseball players if they reduced the number of hours they have to play. The game is more physically taxing than it was in the days of Babe Ruth, so it is extremely likely that if we restricted players' exertion we would reduce baseball-related injuries. If we cut the number of games per season to 20 (with a week layoff, like football), limited players to one inning per game, illegalized pitches over 50 mphs or constrained field movement to brisk walking, we would surely improve the health of pro players by far more than the banning of steroids could ever hope to achieve.

Guy

In other words, create a whole different game than baseball? Or at least, an extremely different version of it?

I was being facetious. But my point stands -- if we are going to get extremely exercised about the health risks faced by professional baseball players, then there are plenty of things that could be changed in the sport that will have a far more significant impact on this "problem" than cracking down on steroids.

More seriously, we have video footage of the sport going back to 19xx -- we can establish that as the upper bound on acceptable physical exertion for baseball players and enforce it as necessary. That wouldn't create a "whole different game" and would reassure those in this thread who are agitated about the health risks faced by professional baseball players. Once we have taken those steps we could consider reducing less significant health risks like those caused by steroids.

I'd still be glad to see any concrete medical evidence (published in top journals) that establishes the health consequences from using steroids.

Guy

[Van Basten II]

Pro sports are not good for health period.

We can make rules to reduce risks but that's about it. There still will be muscles or bones that will be overtaxed by making repetitious movements that our body is not accustomed to.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Van Basten II

[Dan Gould]

Oh, I can totally assert it. The probability of injury would go down dramatically for most professional baseball players if they reduced the number of hours they have to play. The game is more physically taxing than it was in the days of Babe Ruth, so it is extremely likely that if we restricted players' exertion we would reduce baseball-related injuries. If we cut the number of games per season to 20 (with a week layoff, like football), limited players to one inning per game, illegalized pitches over 50 mphs or constrained field movement to brisk walking, we would surely improve the health of pro players by far more than the banning of steroids could ever hope to achieve.

Guy

In other words, create a whole different game than baseball? Or at least, an extremely different version of it?

I was being facetious. But my point stands -- if we are going to get extremely exercised about the health risks faced by professional baseball players, then there are plenty of things that could be changed in the sport that will have a far more significant impact on this "problem" than cracking down on steroids.

More seriously, we have video footage of the sport going back to 19xx -- we can establish that as the upper bound on acceptable physical exertion for baseball players and enforce it as necessary. That wouldn't create a "whole different game" and would reassure those in this thread who are agitated about the health risks faced by professional baseball players. Once we have taken those steps we could consider reducing less significant health risks like those caused by steroids.

I'd still be glad to see any concrete medical evidence (published in top journals) that establishes the health consequences from using steroids.

Guy

I can't believe I'm dealing with this kind of foolishness.

Number one - we're talking about the health consequences of using substances that are illegal without proper medical authorization. That is completely different from the foolishness you are spouting about ways to reduce the health risks associated with playing the game as it was intended.

Number two - I don't have time to go find multiple medical journal articles about the effects of steroids. I just googled "medical impact of steroid use" and one of the first hits was this article. While the topic is women's use of steroids, what is the first sentence of the abstract?

Although numerous studies have documented the psychiatric and physiological effects of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) in males, virtually no studies have investigated the effects of illicit AAS use in women.

NUMEROUS STUDIES HAVE DOCUMENTED THE PSYCHIATRIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS.

That's good enough for me.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[T.D.]

Seems to me that the debate about anabolics, HGH, etc. is to some extent pissing in the wind.

Within a generation or so, I think that "genetic doping" will be possible and widespread. That will totally change sports as we have known them, and big-time sports will be played by medically created cyborgs.

I've been paying less attention to spectator sports, and focusing on my own personal fitness/participation.

[porcy62]

Pro sports are not good for health period.

We can make rules to reduce risks but that's about it. There still will be muscles or bones that will be overtaxed by making repetitious movements that our body is not accustomed to.

Seems to me that the debate about anabolics, HGH, etc. is to some extent pissing in the wind.

Within a generation or so, I think that "genetic doping" will be possible and widespread. That will totally change sports as we have known them, and big-time sports will be played by medically created cyborgs.

Agree.

[Larry Kart]

Fascinating article about Brian McNamee, the personal trainer who turned in Clemens and Pettitte:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/sports/b.../15mcnamee.html

Part of the way through (and based to some extent on the photograph of him with Clemens), I said to myself, "I know this guy, or rather someone very much like him." Then I got down to the part about McNamee having sex with a near-comatose woman (so doped up on GHB, the date-rape drug, that her life was in danger) in a St. Petersburg, Fla. hotel swimming pool at 3:45 a.m. in Oct. 2001 while another naked man stood nearby in the pool, either just watching to waiting to take his turn, and everything clicked into place. (In the event, a security guard interrupted things.) Well, the guy I know (in his mid-40s), who looks so much like McNamee that he could be his brother, and is a former athlete who has a certain charm and is pleasant to be around at places like, say, a golf driving range, has revealed at odd times that his bond to his buddies is of almost supernatural importance to him (perhaps the sole positive emotional tie he has going), while correspondingly, though he finds women sexually attractive, he has never been able to sustain any relationship with a woman, in part because (or so it seems to me, based on things I've seen him do and heard him say) he basically would like to treat them like rag dolls, or worse. I'm thinking, clubhouse.

[papsrus]

... it is extremely likely that if we restricted players' exertion we would reduce baseball-related injuries. If we cut the number of games per season to 20 (with a week layoff, like football), limited players to one inning per game, illegalized pitches over 50 mphs or constrained field movement to brisk walking, we would surely improve the health of pro players by far more than the banning of steroids could ever hope to achieve.

Guy

This is actually how my Rays play the game. ......

Edited December 16, 2007 by papsrus

[Brownian Motion]

Do these allegations against Roger Clemens come as a surprise to folks who follow baseball, or has he been suspected of being a steroid user for many years?

[T.D.]

Do these allegations against Roger Clemens come as a surprise to folks who follow baseball, or has he been suspected of being a steroid user for many years?

Very little surprise. As a long-time (once; don't really follow it any more) fan of "athletics" (track and field), which has no end of doping scandals, two very clear predictors of doping are (i) dramatic late-career (say, mid-30s) improvement and (ii) drastic physique change. (In US women's athletics, for instance, think Regina Jacobs for (i) and Flo-Jo for (ii)).

Roger exhibits both. For (i), you can find lots of stories about his renascence after leaving the Red Sox to Duquette's comments that his skills had declined. For (ii), look at early vs. late career photos. There's plenty of illustration in media stories the past couple of days.

One thing that really puzzles me is why multimillionaire ballplayers had personal trainers and clubhouse boys, who seem far from the brightest guys, supply and administer their drugs. Surely there are plenty of "Doctor Feelgoods" out there...When Outside Magazine ran their famous 2003 "Drug Test" article in which an amateur cyclist juiced up, the author was able to find a physician to administer the whole cocktail of doping products. I strongly recommend the linked article, btw!

Edited December 16, 2007 by T.D.

[Matthew]

Do these allegations against Roger Clemens come as a surprise to folks who follow baseball, or has he been suspected of being a steroid user for many years?

No, they've been floating around for years. Someone who bulked up as much as Clemens did in his thirty's is going raise suspicions.

[Dan Gould]

I find one aspect of Andy Pettitte's confession somewhat amusing:

He says that he used HGH to 'recover' from surgery, not to get an unfair advantage.

If that is so, why did he go to his trainer to get it? Why not consult with the surgeon who performed the surgery or his regular physician? The obvious reason is that neither one of them would have said "yes, HGH will help you recover faster, here's a prescription."

The NY tabs are all over Roger the Dodger about how bad Pettitte's confirmation of McNamee's story is for Roger's denials. Pretty funny too is the fact that both Andy and Roger use the Hendrickson's as their agents - and one decides to confess, the other puts out a belligerant statement, and both are "fully supported" by their flacks. Does anyone think this hurts the relationship between the two? Pettitte had to know that any confession that confirms the trainer's statements would look bad for Roger.

[Van Basten II]

Here's a take on the subject by one of our iconoclastic local writer Pierre Foglia who generally covers le Tour de France.

SPLASHED ! - It's now baseball's turn to find itself rolled into scandal. More than 80 players named, some big stars. Bonds we already knew. But also Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada and "our own" Eric Gagné. Steroids, Growth hormones. Some evidences. Some testimonies.

Sanctions? Who knows. We will see. We will study each case separately.

Suspensions? For the moment, none.

Measures? Yes, one. Listen carefully, it is kinda funny: in the future, players will no longer be warned of controls 24 hours in advance! They were warned in advance! Ya know much how they woulda caught without warning ...

It's been 10 years, since the Festina affair in 1998, that i get asked if i'm not ashamed of covering the bike dudes, "this fucking sport full of juiced guys". We just did twice a primetime show lasting an hour about Geneviève Jeanson, girl's biking for Christ's sake ! An event even less followed than curling. Two hours. They get Eric Gagné, best pitcher in 2003, baseball national pastime of 300 millions Yanks, Eric Gagné from Mascouche. Loaded on Growth Hormones. My newspaper title : Eric Gagné splashed.

You understand what it means splashed? That means it is not even his fault. There was some mud on the ground, he was there by chance, he ended up having it all over his clothes. Poor bastard. Genevieve Jeanson, she has cheated, she's a conniving cunt. Gagné? He was splashed, poor guy. We should understand, in a world of drug addicts, he had to make a living: 10 millions per year.

Gagné has been hired by the Milwaukee Brewers. Are they overburdened?

Dismayed? Nope. They are only a little bit disappointed. Will they suspend their new acquisition? No, so what?

Gagné was traded to the Boston Red Sox, who just won the World Series. Did they know that Gagné was loaded on growth hormones, yeah, so what ?

It's decided, this year i'm covering baseball. I find them way cooler than the bike dudes

Edited December 16, 2007 by Van Basten II

[Guy Berger]

Oh, I can totally assert it. The probability of injury would go down dramatically for most professional baseball players if they reduced the number of hours they have to play. The game is more physically taxing than it was in the days of Babe Ruth, so it is extremely likely that if we restricted players' exertion we would reduce baseball-related injuries. If we cut the number of games per season to 20 (with a week layoff, like football), limited players to one inning per game, illegalized pitches over 50 mphs or constrained field movement to brisk walking, we would surely improve the health of pro players by far more than the banning of steroids could ever hope to achieve.

Guy

In other words, create a whole different game than baseball? Or at least, an extremely different version of it?

I was being facetious. But my point stands -- if we are going to get extremely exercised about the health risks faced by professional baseball players, then there are plenty of things that could be changed in the sport that will have a far more significant impact on this "problem" than cracking down on steroids.

More seriously, we have video footage of the sport going back to 19xx -- we can establish that as the upper bound on acceptable physical exertion for baseball players and enforce it as necessary. That wouldn't create a "whole different game" and would reassure those in this thread who are agitated about the health risks faced by professional baseball players. Once we have taken those steps we could consider reducing less significant health risks like those caused by steroids.

I'd still be glad to see any concrete medical evidence (published in top journals) that establishes the health consequences from using steroids.

Guy

I can't believe I'm dealing with this kind of foolishness.

Number one - we're talking about the health consequences of using substances that are illegal without proper medical authorization. That is completely different from the foolishness you are spouting about ways to reduce the health risks associated with playing the game as it was intended.

Sorry, Dan, I misunderstood. I had thought you were genuinely concerned about the health risks to professional baseball players.

Guy

[Dan Gould]

No, I was genuinely surprised when you stated that you enjoy juiced baseball more than the previous kind and were completely indifferent to any long term impact the juice might have.

[Jazzmoose]

One thing that really puzzles me is why multimillionaire ballplayers had personal trainers and clubhouse boys, who seem far from the brightest guys, supply and administer their drugs.

You're making the typical American mistake of confusing "smart" and "rich". Most professional baseball players just aren't that high up the intelligence ladder themselves. The only difference between them and the clubhouse boys is they can hit a curveball...

Edited December 16, 2007 by Jazzmoose

[Adam]

What are people going to do when they decide to acknowledge that virtually every pro football player is on some sort of steroid or other drug?

Oh, wait, I think people don't really care.

So why do they care about baseball?

I think most sports fans don't care if some athletes are using steroids. I think most fans aren't too concerned about the long-term health of athletes either. They see the trade-off as being the massive wealth and sexual access that athletes get. End of story.

What baseball should do is legalize steroids but regulate. Each team is allowed 5 juiced players, for example, to even the field across teams, but still allow for big exciting superstars. What do you all think? That would make everyone happy.