Steroids
J. Brandt
steroids.
More drug testing will bear that out.
Hell, any olympic athelete could look at some of the major leagues and tell
they were on the juice, just by looking at them.
Major League Baseball has lagged behind all the other sports for years. The
Players Association has had their heads in the sand for years also.
I'd put an 'S' behind the home runs records of McGuire, Bonds and Sosa. Then
laugh at their crys of innocence.
The results of their survey, 7% on Steroids. Test for the new stuff, and
it'll be through the roof.
JB
David Marc Nieporent
"J. Brandt" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
>Remember when Caminti and Canseco said half the major leaguers were on
>steroids.
>More drug testing will bear that out.
How will it do that? They already tested, and only 5% or so failed.
>Hell, any olympic athelete could look at some of the major leagues and tell
>they were on the juice, just by looking at them.
Wow. I wonder why sports bother to have drug testing, when J.Brandt can
actually determine drug use "just by looking at them."
>Major League Baseball has lagged behind all the other sports for years. The
>Players Association has had their heads in the sand for years also.
>I'd put an 'S' behind the home runs records of McGuire, Bonds and Sosa. Then
>laugh at their crys of innocence.
>The results of their survey, 7% on Steroids. Test for the new stuff, and
>it'll be through the roof.
What are you talking about?
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Smack
> Remember when Caminti and Canseco said half the major leaguers were on
> steroids.
>
> More drug testing will bear that out.
Did Miss Cleo tell you that?
> Hell, any olympic athelete could look at some of the major leagues and tell
> they were on the juice, just by looking at them.
Right, because no one becomes muscular without steroids. If you see a
baseball player who's muscular, you know they must take steroids.
> I'd put an 'S' behind the home runs records of McGuire, Bonds and Sosa. Then
> laugh at their crys of innocence.
So not only did they take steroids, but the steroids hit home runs for
them?
--
Stephen Mack
Arka Music - Engraving, Copying, Transposing
www.arkamusic.com
"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber
J. Brandt
and the dog days of summer (August), don't wear you down as much.
There were lots of players who had a great first half, but the long second
half brought them back to earth. Steroids offset that.
Why do you think Bonds walks so much. Respect? No! All the other players
know he is cheating, so they don't care if they walk him or not.
Bring in mandatory drug testing, and test for the new stuff. You'll see
totals of a lot of players go down.
Bonds is now saying he didn't know steroids was in the supplement he took.
THG. the super one, that didn't show up on the tests at first. But the
Olympics found it.
Right, now they'll all wine that they didn't know. Right, used to hit forty
homeruns and suddenly in his late thirties hit seventy.
Give me a break.
JB
David Marc Nieporent
"J. Brandt" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
>Say what you want. Steroids don't hit homeruns. Steroids make you stronger,
>and the dog days of summer (August), don't wear you down as much.
>There were lots of players who had a great first half, but the long second
>half brought them back to earth. Steroids offset that.
>Why do you think Bonds walks so much.
Because he doesn't swing at anything out of the strike zone.
>Respect? No! All the other players
>know he is cheating, so they don't care if they walk him or not.
I think players care whether an opposing player gets on base, since
they're, you know, trying to win the game?
>Bring in mandatory drug testing, and test for the new stuff. You'll see
>totals of a lot of players go down.
Still waiting for, you know, evidence?
>Bonds is now saying he didn't know steroids was in the supplement he took.
>THG. the super one, that didn't show up on the tests at first. But the
>Olympics found it.
He's not saying any such thing. He did not say that steroids were in the
supplements he took.
>Right, now they'll all wine that they didn't know. Right, used to hit forty
>homeruns and suddenly in his late thirties hit seventy.
You're right. Everyone who has a career year used steroids to get it.
Brilliant. With that kind of logical ability, you could be qualified to be
a fast food cook. Or perhaps a sportswriter.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>Say what you want. Steroids don't hit homeruns. Steroids make you stronger,
>and the dog days of summer (August), don't wear you down as much.
>
>There were lots of players who had a great first half, but the long second
>half brought them back to earth. Steroids offset that.
What accounts for players who start off slow and finish strong?
Couldn't just be that, like everybody else, athletes go through
stretches of increased and decreased productivity?
>
>Why do you think Bonds walks so much. Respect? No! All the other players
>know he is cheating, so they don't care if they walk him or not.
Ah, so basically they're walking him as a way of ostracizing him.
Sounds like a brilliant strategy. (If they liked him, would they be
pitching to him underhand?)
>
>Bring in mandatory drug testing, and test for the new stuff. You'll see
>totals of a lot of players go down.
>
>Bonds is now saying he didn't know steroids was in the supplement he took.
>THG. the super one, that didn't show up on the tests at first. But the
>Olympics found it.
>
>Right, now they'll all wine that they didn't know. Right, used to hit forty
>homeruns and suddenly in his late thirties hit seventy.
Just like you, I have no idea if Barry Bonds has used steroids, so I'm
not gonna speculate on whether his numbers are steroid-inflated, but I
do know that I don't feel any particular desire to see him test
positive. Would you care this much if Barry Bonds were friendlier?
>
>Give me a break.
I'd love to.
Smack
> Say what you want. Steroids don't hit homeruns. Steroids make you stronger,
> and the dog days of summer (August), don't wear you down as much.
>
> There were lots of players who had a great first half, but the long second
> half brought them back to earth. Steroids offset that.
You seem to be quite delusional about just how much of an edge steroids
gives a person.
> Why do you think Bonds walks so much. Respect? No! All the other players
> know he is cheating, so they don't care if they walk him or not.
Ummm, no offense or anything, but are you mentally retarded to any
clinical degree? It's just that it would explain a lot if you were.
> Bring in mandatory drug testing, and test for the new stuff. You'll see
> totals of a lot of players go down.
Why? Does steroid testing mean they're going to make parks bigger,
take weightrooms out of clubhouses, and paint the ball in earth tones?
> Right, now they'll all wine that they didn't know. Right, used to hit forty
> homeruns and suddenly in his late thirties hit seventy.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but since you don't seem to realize that
the damn horse is in fact dead, but there are much, much bigger
anomalies in baseball than Bonds' 73 HR year. Look at Roger Maris's
career. Did he juice for two years and then quit? Meanwhile, Bonds
hit fewer home runs in each of the two years following his
record-breaking year than the year before.
Maybe Bonds has juiced, and maybe not. The point is that this
obviously has more to do with your dislike of these players than
anything resembling the reality of the situation.
David Craven
"J. Brandt" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:NzUtb.107624$PD3.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> Say what you want. Steroids don't hit homeruns. Steroids make you
stronger,
> and the dog days of summer (August), don't wear you down as much.
Do you have any "proof" for this assertion. Steroids certainly help build
muscle and add bulk, but since we are just pulling speculations out of our
collective asses about steroids, isn't it at least as reasonable to argue
that the "dog days" are more likely to wear down a big bulky guy. Look at
who handles heat better.... the big chunky lineman or the skinny little
Marathon Runner. The Big Chunky Lineman might be better at the start, but
in any contest of endurance....
>
> There were lots of players who had a great first half, but the long second
> half brought them back to earth. Steroids offset that.
Is this the "only" reason that players come back to earth? Could it also
not be that once a player has been around the league a few times the other
teams figure how to get him out. And what about the players that
historically had better second halves. And lets look at the bulky football
player.
>
> Why do you think Bonds walks so much. Respect? No! All the other players
> know he is cheating, so they don't care if they walk him or not.
Hmmm. Bonds walks so much becuase he has a very good eye (which as far as
I know is not something that steroids can be used to develop) and because he
has a reputation of being a player that does not swing out of the strike
zone. This, in turn, means that the UMPIRES (the one group of people for
whom respect actually means something) are more likely to call a ball when
Bonds does not swing simply because they respect his judgment (as opposed to
when say, Randall Simon doesn't swing at a pitch... not that this ever
happens...)
Diamondback
anyone caught using steroids next season will be suspended and their names
published. While we had testing this year, there were no suspensions and no
names were given. Was Barry among those? Maybe, maybe not. But if his
numbers fall off dramatically next year will it be because he's off the
juice or because he's 40? Judge for yourself, but I know where I'll be
putting my money.
Rustbelt
will take place during spring training .... in September!! That is 5
1/2 months before the tests. This is enough time for anabolic
steroids to leave the body. It is a big deal that 5% to 7% failed the
tests. If the tests were unannounced, then what?
Just keep in mind that Anabolic steroids are illegal. Some steroids
are legal with prescription. Obviously, anabolic steroids do not hit
homeruns. Muscle mass does help players to hit the balls farther.
Anabolic steroids help build muscle masses including heart. Anabolic
steroid, in indirect way, help players hit homeruns. A silly argument
like hitting the ball traveling at 95 MPH is hard does not fly. MLB
players should be able to hit a ball coming at 95 MPH. How far the
ball travel is up to the player's strength. How to hit the ball is
the player's ability. They are not related.
Smack
> Just keep in mind that Anabolic steroids are illegal. Some steroids
> are legal with prescription. Obviously, anabolic steroids do not hit
> homeruns. Muscle mass does help players to hit the balls farther.
> Anabolic steroids help build muscle masses including heart. Anabolic
> steroid, in indirect way, help players hit homeruns. A silly argument
> like hitting the ball traveling at 95 MPH is hard does not fly. MLB
> players should be able to hit a ball coming at 95 MPH. How far the
> ball travel is up to the player's strength. How to hit the ball is
> the player's ability. They are not related.
Steroids don't turn doubles into the mammoth shots Barry Bonds' hits. I
agree with steroid testing because steroids are both illegal and
potentially dangerous (though not nearly as dangerous as that ephedra
crap). It has nothing to do with home run records, walks, or MVP
awards. People are grossly misinformed about just how much of an effect
steroids have on a person.
Diamondback
> Steroids don't turn doubles into the mammoth shots Barry Bonds' hits. I
> agree with steroid testing because steroids are both illegal and
> potentially dangerous (though not nearly as dangerous as that ephedra
> crap). It has nothing to do with home run records, walks, or MVP
> awards. People are grossly misinformed about just how much of an effect
> steroids have on a person.
I guess I'm grossly misinformed. Exactly how are they not related?
Steroids add muscle mass and, subsequently, strength. If you already have
the skill required to hit a 95-mph fastball, but your pre-steroid strength
got you just to the warning track most of the time, then it would make sense
(at least to me) that artificially increasing your power would move that
ball back a few feet more. It seems like a cause and effect relationship.
I'm no doctor, but I can do simple math.
Smack
> I guess I'm grossly misinformed. Exactly how are they not related?
> Steroids add muscle mass and, subsequently, strength. If you already have
> the skill required to hit a 95-mph fastball, but your pre-steroid strength
> got you just to the warning track most of the time, then it would make sense
> (at least to me) that artificially increasing your power would move that
> ball back a few feet more. It seems like a cause and effect relationship.
> I'm no doctor, but I can do simple math.
Once again, steroids don't turn a double or fly out into a Bonds home
run. If someone juices his whole life, he MAY be able to add an extra
5% of muscle mass from what he otherwise would. That's not going to add
ten or fifteen home runs onto a guy's season total. And just so we're
clear, steroids don't actually add muscle mass, they just make the
process slightly easier (not quite to the extent that, say, vitamin C
and protein do, though).
Tom
> Once again, steroids don't turn a double or fly out into a Bonds home
> run. If someone juices his whole life, he MAY be able to add an extra
> 5% of muscle mass from what he otherwise would. That's not going to add
> ten or fifteen home runs onto a guy's season total. And just so we're
> clear, steroids don't actually add muscle mass, they just make the
> process slightly easier (not quite to the extent that, say, vitamin C
> and protein do, though).
and here i thought what some steroids do is aid in the recovery of muscle
tissue, allowing said tissue to recover faster from stresses such as working
out.
Smack
>>Once again, steroids don't turn a double or fly out into a Bonds home
>>run. If someone juices his whole life, he MAY be able to add an extra
>>5% of muscle mass from what he otherwise would. That's not going to add
>>ten or fifteen home runs onto a guy's season total. And just so we're
>>clear, steroids don't actually add muscle mass, they just make the
>>process slightly easier (not quite to the extent that, say, vitamin C
>>and protein do, though).
>
>
> and here i thought what some steroids do is aid in the recovery of muscle
> tissue, allowing said tissue to recover faster from stresses such as working
> out.
Uhhhh, yes, that's basically correct. . . congratulations. . . ?
I'm not sure what the problem is here.
Mr. PHP
wrote:
>Diamondback wrote:
>
>> I guess I'm grossly misinformed. Exactly how are they not related?
>> Steroids add muscle mass and, subsequently, strength. If you already have
>> the skill required to hit a 95-mph fastball, but your pre-steroid strength
>> got you just to the warning track most of the time, then it would make sense
>> (at least to me) that artificially increasing your power would move that
>> ball back a few feet more. It seems like a cause and effect relationship.
>> I'm no doctor, but I can do simple math.
>
>Once again, steroids don't turn a double or fly out into a Bonds home
>run. If someone juices his whole life, he MAY be able to add an extra
>5% of muscle mass from what he otherwise would. That's not going to add
>ten or fifteen home runs onto a guy's season total. And just so we're
>clear, steroids don't actually add muscle mass, they just make the
>process slightly easier (not quite to the extent that, say, vitamin C
>and protein do, though).
You obviuosly never saw the West German Women's Olympic Swim Team
back in the 80s.
Those girls had to shave at least three times a day!
No amount of Vitimin C and protein could do that to a human body.
Either way, if steroids don't improve performance then what harm could
possibly result from testing and publishing the names of players using
the juice?
If the juice does not help, then why are they using it? If they are
using it and it does not help, then why are you against testing for it
since it is proven to be injurious?
Tom
"Smack" <sm...@ecoisp.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:wH8wb.710$Yt4.574@lakeread05...
> Tom wrote:
> >>Once again, steroids don't turn a double or fly out into a Bonds home
> >>run. If someone juices his whole life, he MAY be able to add an extra
> >>5% of muscle mass from what he otherwise would. That's not going to add
> >>ten or fifteen home runs onto a guy's season total. And just so we're
> >>clear, steroids don't actually add muscle mass, they just make the
> >>process slightly easier (not quite to the extent that, say, vitamin C
> >>and protein do, though).
> >
> >
> > and here i thought what some steroids do is aid in the recovery of
muscle
> > tissue, allowing said tissue to recover faster from stresses such as
working
> > out.
>
> Uhhhh, yes, that's basically correct. . . congratulations. . . ?
>
> I'm not sure what the problem is here.
don't see too many Mr. olympians loading up on vitamin C to bulk up in their
off season. I would think that anyone would see that steroids do help the
muscles get stronger by speeding up their recovery time. You have to do
eveything else though. Vitamin C?
Dan Szymborski
mr...@planet.gong.rgi says...
Why do they cork bats if it doesn't help? Steroids probably do enhance
performance, but the effects are likely to be fairly minimal. It's not a
magical wonder drug.
> If they are
> using it and it does not help, then why are you against testing for it
> since it is proven to be injurious?
Whether it's injurious or not is pretty much irrelevant. If it doesn't
enhance performance, then there's pretty much no reason for anyone to be
testing for it.
--
Dan Szymborski
d...@baseballprimerREMOVE.com
"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not a whole-hearted
supporter of what is good."
-Robert Schumann
Smack
I don't think you read anything I wrote. I specifically said that I'm
FOR steroid testing. I also specifically said that steroids may help an
athlete gain about 5% more muscle mass than he would without it. And
without vitamin C and protein, good luck building ANY muscle mass.
Smack
> don't see too many Mr. olympians loading up on vitamin C to bulk up in their
> off season.
The ones who know better do. Sometimes up to 10 grams daily.
I would think that anyone would see that steroids do help the
> muscles get stronger by speeding up their recovery time. You have to do
> eveything else though.
Yes, and if you're lucky and work very hard, you might hope to gain an
extra 5% of muscle mass.
Rustbelt
> back in the 80s.
> Those girls had to shave at least three times a day!
>
> No amount of Vitimin C and protein could do that to a human body.
>
> Either way, if steroids don't improve performance then what harm could
> possibly result from testing and publishing the names of players using
> the juice?
>
> If the juice does not help, then why are they using it? If they are
> using it and it does not help, then why are you against testing for it
> since it is proven to be injurious?
It was East German swimmers...
Tell me. Is it grossly misinformed or just differing oppinions? A
good point in saying WHY ARE THEY USING THIS IF THEY DO NOT
HELP??????????? Cheating is cheating. There is no defense for that.
Keep in mind that Olympians have RANDOM drug testing. NCAA has drug
testing before events and tournaments. If you flunk, you are kicked
out. MLB has no guts to implement One Strike And You Are Out.
Smack
> Tell me. Is it grossly misinformed or just differing oppinions?
The biological effects of steroids? Well, maybe if it's your opinion
that the scientific data is wrong, that's a strange but valid opinion.
But the effects themselves are not up to opinion.
> A
> good point in saying WHY ARE THEY USING THIS IF THEY DO NOT
> HELP???????????
They do help, just not very much. There are a whole lot of reasons why
a player might take them. Maybe that slight edge is important to them,
maybe they're as misinformed as others on the subject, maybe they're
following the crowd.
> Cheating is cheating. There is no defense for that.
Okay, but up until this past year, it wasn't cheating. And, even now,
there are degrees of cheating. Using a supplement to potentially gain
5% extra muscle mass in game where strength is just one of many factors
- and a rather small one at that - to me is not grounds for banishment.
In swimming, where individuals compete and every second could mean the
difference between a medal and no medal, that 5% is probably much more
significant (not that I know anything about individual olympic sports).
I gotta tell ya, this must be the most on-topic this group has ever been
in late November.
Diamondback
The effects of anabolic steroids on physical performance are unclear. Well
controlled, double blind studies have rendered conflicting results. In
studies showing beneficial effects, body weight increased by an average of
about four pounds, lean body weight by about six pounds (fat loss accounts
for the discrepancy between gains in lean mass and body weight), bench press
increased by about 15 pounds, and squats by about 30 pounds (these values
represent the average gains for all studies showing a beneficial effect).
Almost all studies have failed to demonstrate a beneficial effect on maximal
oxygen consumption or endurance capacity. Anabolic steroid studies have
typically lasted six to eight weeks and have usually used relatively
untrained subjects.
Most changes in strength during the early part of training are neural:
increased strength is mainly due to an improved ability to recruit motor
units. Anabolic steroids affect processes associated with protein synthesis
in muscle. Studies lasting six weeks (typical study length) would largely
reflect neural changes and could easily miss the cellular effects of the
drugs.
The gains made by athletes in uncontrolled observations have been much more
impressive. Weight gains of thirty or forty pounds, coupled with thirty
percent increases in strength, are not unusual. Such case studies lack
credibility because of the absence of scientific controls. However, it would
be foolish to completely disregard such observations because the "subjects"
have been highly trained and motivated athletes.Please see the articles on
pharmacology of sport and sports medicine in the countries of the former
Soviet Union for more information on anabolic steroids.
Full story is here:
http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/anabster/anabster.html
"Smack" <sm...@ecoisp.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:171120030953480792%sm...@ecoisp.nospam.com...
Dan Szymborski
diamo...@hotmail.com says...
[...]
> The gains made by athletes in uncontrolled observations have been much more
> impressive. Weight gains of thirty or forty pounds, coupled with thirty
> percent increases in strength, are not unusual. Such case studies lack
> credibility because of the absence of scientific controls. However, it would
> be foolish to completely disregard such observations because the "subjects"
> have been highly trained and motivated athletes.Please see the articles on
> pharmacology of sport and sports medicine in the countries of the former
> Soviet Union for more information on anabolic steroids.
And this paragraph is the huge problem. Lack of scientific controls
isn't just a formality to be waved off; they're very important. In this
case, if athletes certainly an ability to gain far more muscle and
strength with steroids than non-athletes would, but they also have an
ability to gain far more muscle and strength *without* steroids than non-
athletes would.
Smack
> The gains made by athletes in uncontrolled observations have been much more
> impressive. Weight gains of thirty or forty pounds, coupled with thirty
> percent increases in strength, are not unusual. Such case studies lack
> credibility because of the absence of scientific controls. However, it would
> be foolish to completely disregard such observations because the "subjects"
> have been highly trained and motivated athletes.
Maybe they shouldn't be disregarded, but they shouldn't be given any
weight (no pun intended). I haven't heard any specifics (which by
itself is suspicious), but gains of thirty or forty pounds, coupled with
thirty percent increases in strength aren't terribly unusual for
athletes *without* steroids, so I see no reason why they'd be that
unusual *with* steroids. Without controls, the "observation" doesn't
tell us what the athletes would likely gain without help from steroids.
Rustbelt
> Rustbelt wrote:
> The biological effects of steroids? Well, maybe if it's your opinion
> that the scientific data is wrong, that's a strange but valid opinion.
> But the effects themselves are not up to opinion.
What scientific data? What do they say about anabolic steroids?
Check Merck Index and see what they say. Any bio-chemist will tell
you that muscle mass can be increased by using anabolic steroid. And
please do not just say steroids. They are checking for anabolic
steroids.
> They do help, just not very much. There are a whole lot of reasons why
> a player might take them. Maybe that slight edge is important to them,
> maybe they're as misinformed as others on the subject, maybe they're
> following the crowd.
Not very much... How do you quantify that 1%? 2%? 5%? If a ball
travels 1% more, that is 3 to 4 feet. 5% will be 15 to 20 feet. Is
it misinformed? I am not sure.
> Okay, but up until this past year, it wasn't cheating. And, even now,
> there are degrees of cheating. Using a supplement to potentially gain
> 5% extra muscle mass in game where strength is just one of many factors
> - and a rather small one at that - to me is not grounds for banishment.
> In swimming, where individuals compete and every second could mean the
> difference between a medal and no medal, that 5% is probably much more
> significant (not that I know anything about individual olympic sports).
When was anabolic steroids banned from the public? They were banned
in 1970s if you remember. THEY ARE ILLEGAL. People did not started
to cheat last year. Collective bargaining agreements do not supercede
the LAW of the land.
> I gotta tell ya, this must be the most on-topic this group has ever been
> in late November.
Agreed although if the steroid use continues, there will not be too
many people talking about baseball anymore. There will be some who
will argue that they do not hurt baseball, but many will be turned off
by them.
Diamondback
bio-chemist? Why exactly should we buy what you are saying? I'm not trying
to flip you off, but what I'm reading says that steroids help a body recover
from a rigorous workout more quickly. That can be a considerable factor for
someone who's job is to work out every day.
"Smack" <sm...@arkamusic.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Na8xb.5020$Yt4.2539@lakeread05...
Smack
> Why exactly should we buy what you are saying?
Don't. Research it.
Smack
> Any bio-chemist will tell
> you that muscle mass can be increased by using anabolic steroid.
Which I agree with.
> Not very much... How do you quantify that 1%? 2%? 5%?
Simple: weighing mass. When 4g of mass is increased to 5g, that's a 25%
increase, 6g: 50%, and so on.
If a ball
> travels 1% more, that is 3 to 4 feet. 5% will be 15 to 20 feet. Is
> it misinformed? I am not sure.
You seem to be saying that an 5% increase in muscle mass means the ball
travels 5% further. I haven't heard of any studies on this. In light
of recent controversy, I'm sure it'll come up eventually. My guess -
and we're admittedly now in the territory of pulling theories out of our
asses - is that an extra 5% muscle mass on an advanced weightlifter is
not going to make nearly a 15-20ft difference on an advanced weightlifter.
That being said, take a guy who can already squat close to twice his
body weight (and there's no reason to start juicing before that), and a
ball hit squarely - and when was the last time you saw a Bonds home run
not hit squarely? - is going to leave the park. Whether it leaves it by
an extra 15 or 20 feet doesn't make much difference to me.
>>Okay, but up until this past year, it wasn't cheating. And, even now,
>>there are degrees of cheating. Using a supplement to potentially gain
>>5% extra muscle mass in game where strength is just one of many factors
>>- and a rather small one at that - to me is not grounds for banishment.
>> In swimming, where individuals compete and every second could mean the
>>difference between a medal and no medal, that 5% is probably much more
>>significant (not that I know anything about individual olympic sports).
>
>
> When was anabolic steroids banned from the public? They were banned
> in 1970s if you remember. THEY ARE ILLEGAL. People did not started
> to cheat last year. Collective bargaining agreements do not supercede
> the LAW of the land.
By this logic, shoplifting constitutes cheating at baseball.
>>I gotta tell ya, this must be the most on-topic this group has ever been
>>in late November.
>
>
> Agreed although if the steroid use continues, there will not be too
> many people talking about baseball anymore. There will be some who
> will argue that they do not hurt baseball, but many will be turned off
> by them.
I agree. . . for about three weeks. Then everyone will get over it and
stop depriving themselves of a game they like. Steroid use has never
hurt attendance at bodybuilding events.
Rustbelt
> travels 5% further. I haven't heard of any studies on this. In light
> of recent controversy, I'm sure it'll come up eventually. My guess -
> and we're admittedly now in the territory of pulling theories out of our
> asses - is that an extra 5% muscle mass on an advanced weightlifter is
> not going to make nearly a 15-20ft difference on an advanced weightlifter.
I never said 5% increase in muscle mass means the ball travels 5%
further. This is your theory. BTW, are you a weightlifter or a body
builder? I work out with weights. It is very sad to see how easily
people can get anabolic steroids. I will not use them.
> That being said, take a guy who can already squat close to twice his
> body weight (and there's no reason to start juicing before that), and a
> ball hit squarely - and when was the last time you saw a Bonds home run
> not hit squarely? - is going to leave the park. Whether it leaves it by
> an extra 15 or 20 feet doesn't make much difference to me.
You are assuming what I said here. You are accusing Bonds being on
anabolic steroids. Also, I am just stating the facts. You have a
theory saying anabolic steroids do not help HR total.
You are trying to make conclusions from your assumptions. If you
check my messages, I said anabolic steroids help increase muscle
masses. Muscle mass increase people's strength. People's strengths
contributes to how far a person can hit the ball. That is all I said.
You said everyone who disagree with you on this issue was grossly
misinformed. Again, what is grossly misinformed about this?
BTW, how many times have you seen people hit the ball to warning
track? Every inch matters if a ball just leaves ball park. One thing
is every player has to hit the ball. I never said they are not
special athletes. Hitting the ball is a hard thing. But you have to
be able to hit the ball the make to ML. It is easy to avoid this. DO
NOT USE ANABOLIC STEROIDS. That is not a controversy. It is a crime.
I do love Bob Costa's quote. "Since the tests were announced,
players flunked at IQ tests as well." Being dumb is not an excuse to
commit a crime.
> By this logic, shoplifting constitutes cheating at baseball.
Again, you are assuming what I said here. Shoplifting is misdemeaner
to felony. Carrying and using ILLEGAL drug is a felony. No
questions. I do not support felones unless they admit their wrong
doings and change themselves. By supporting felones and what they did
or doing, I would be wrong too. BTW, shoplifting is against law too.
If a player is caught shoplifting, they are breaking the law.
Baseball players breaking the laws should be punished.
Go ahead. Bring on the car speeding issue.
> I agree. . . for about three weeks. Then everyone will get over it and
> stop depriving themselves of a game they like. Steroid use has never
> hurt attendance at bodybuilding events.
Again, you are assuming this. You are accusing bodybuilders use
anabolic steroids. I know some are since they were caught. Many did
not. Their tests are not announced like baseball players' tests.
My family have not gone back to baseball since 1994 strike. Do I love
baseball? Yes. I have had two season tickets offered to me FREE in
1996 and 1997 along with playoff tickets. I did not go to any of the
games. I do not miss the game. I missed for may be a month, but the
strike cured that very easily. I saved money and had more time to do
more meaningful things such as spending time with my family. I still
follow the game, but I will not go back. Not everyone thinks like
this, but I know plenty of people who lost interests in baseball since
1994.
BTW, do you have the attendance figure of bodybuilding events to claim
what you claim?
Smack
> I never said 5% increase in muscle mass means the ball travels 5%
> further. This is your theory.
Uh, no.
> BTW, are you a weightlifter or a body
> builder? I work out with weights. It is very sad to see how easily
> people can get anabolic steroids. I will not use them.
Yes, I lift weights. The temptation to use steroids being what it is,
my research on the subject led me to conclude that the benefits aren't
worth the risks involved, both physically and legally. Maybe if I could
reasonably expect a 10-20% increase in muscle mass, I might feel more
tempted; but that's just not the case.
> You are assuming what I said here. You are accusing Bonds being on
> anabolic steroids. Also, I am just stating the facts. You have a
> theory saying anabolic steroids do not help HR total.
No, I have no such theory. This was all in response to the assertion
that Bonds' sudden rise in HR total from the 40's to 73 was because of
steroids, and that steroids are a major contributing factor to players'
HR totals. Based on what I know about steroids, I see no reason to
believe the effect on HR totals can be any more than minimal.
I apologize if I lumped you in with others in this group who have
asserted rather unequivocaly that Bonds does indeed use steroids.
> You said everyone who disagree with you on this issue was grossly
> misinformed.
No, I never said that. I said, and I quote, "People are grossly
misinformed about just how much of an effect steroids have on
a person." Taken literally, of course, this would just mean that there
are in fact people who are grossly misinformed on the subject, which I
don't see how you could argue with. ;-) Of course, what I meant was
that the general public - or atleast the people making most of the
assertions on this subject - are significantly overestimating the
effects steroids have on a person (when compared, say, to most of the
research on the effect).
> BTW, how many times have you seen people hit the ball to warning
> track? Every inch matters if a ball just leaves ball park.
Steroid use might make the difference in balls hit within a few feet of
the wall. Based on that, I would have to say that the effects of
steroids on HR totals are minimal. Again, this is all in response to
the assertion that the Bonds' HR totals jumping from the 40's to 73 is
because of steroids, which is pretty ridiculous.
Steroid use was rampant throughout the sporting world during the 1980's,
and yet there was no great rise in HR totals then. No player even
reached 50 during the decade. Oh yeah, that's all what I assume.
>>By this logic, shoplifting constitutes cheating at baseball.
>
>
> Again, you are assuming what I said here. Shoplifting is misdemeaner
> to felony. Carrying and using ILLEGAL drug is a felony.
So if a crime is a misdemeanor, it doesn't necessarily constitute
cheating at baseball; but if it's a felony, it does? Oh, I know, I
know, I'm making assumptions.
> No
> questions. I do not support felones unless they admit their wrong
> doings and change themselves. By supporting felones and what they did
> or doing, I would be wrong too. BTW, shoplifting is against law too.
> If a player is caught shoplifting, they are breaking the law.
> Baseball players breaking the laws should be punished.
MLB is not a law enforcement organization. It's not their
responsibility to keep players from shoplifting, jaywalking, sodomy,
computer fraud, grand theft auto, manslaughter, or murder. And none of
those things constitute cheating at the game of baseball. And instead
of accusing me of making assumptions here, just check the rulebook.
> Again, you are assuming this.
Yes, I make a lot of assumptions. I assume that molecules contain
atoms, that when I take a step the ground I'm walking on will support
me, that when I drop a glass it will break, that when I type these words
the monitor will display them a certain way, and that the objects in my
vision are as they appear. Some of my assumptions are more informed
than others, some less.
> You are accusing bodybuilders use
> anabolic steroids. I know some are since they were caught. Many did
> not. Their tests are not announced like baseball players' tests.
Well, you are assuming that just because some bodybuilders were caught,
they were using steroids.
> My family have not gone back to baseball since 1994 strike. Do I love
> baseball? Yes. I have had two season tickets offered to me FREE in
> 1996 and 1997 along with playoff tickets. I did not go to any of the
> games. I do not miss the game. I missed for may be a month, but the
> strike cured that very easily. I saved money and had more time to do
> more meaningful things such as spending time with my family. I still
> follow the game, but I will not go back. Not everyone thinks like
> this, but I know plenty of people who lost interests in baseball since
> 1994.
I know one or two as well.
> BTW, do you have the attendance figure of bodybuilding events to claim
> what you claim?
If you're so interested, why don't you look them up and give us a full
report? And I'd appreciate it if you didn't make any assumptions that
the figures you read are correct, or that the paper you read them on is
reflecting the light correctly, or that you can see the ink correctly
unless you've just had your eyes examined, or that the examination room
was properly lit, or that the chart in the examination room wasn't just
a figment of your imagination, or that your imagination is not
influenced by outside sources, or that the outside sources are not
conspiring against you, or that the conspiracy against you has been
properly thought out, or that your assumptions of what makes a
conspiracy properly thought out are correct, or that the word "correct"
is being conveyed properly, or that. . .
Rustbelt
> my research on the subject led me to conclude that the benefits aren't
> worth the risks involved, both physically and legally. Maybe if I could
> reasonably expect a 10-20% increase in muscle mass, I might feel more
> tempted; but that's just not the case.
I am never tempted. I respect you for not taking anabolic steroids.
> I apologize if I lumped you in with others in this group who have
> asserted rather unequivocaly that Bonds does indeed use steroids.
No apology necessary although people can come to their own
conclusions. I appreciate Barry Bonds hitting 73 HRs. No one will
ever know about the effect of steroids on that total IF HE USED
STEROIDS. Until there are proofs, I will not say he is or was on
steroids.
> No, I never said that. I said, and I quote, "People are grossly
> misinformed about just how much of an effect steroids have on
> a person." Taken literally, of course, this would just mean that there
> are in fact people who are grossly misinformed on the subject, which I
> don't see how you could argue with. ;-) Of course, what I meant was
> that the general public - or atleast the people making most of the
> assertions on this subject - are significantly overestimating the
> effects steroids have on a person (when compared, say, to most of the
> research on the effect).
I do not have an issue with your saying HR increase is minimal. That
is your OPINION. I have an issue saying people are misinformed on
because of your OINION.
> Steroid use might make the difference in balls hit within a few feet of
> the wall. Based on that, I would have to say that the effects of
> steroids on HR totals are minimal. Again, this is all in response to
> the assertion that the Bonds' HR totals jumping from the 40's to 73 is
> because of steroids, which is pretty ridiculous.
>
> Steroid use was rampant throughout the sporting world during the 1980's,
> and yet there was no great rise in HR totals then. No player even
> reached 50 during the decade. Oh yeah, that's all what I assume.
I will not say anabolic steriod uses were rampant in baseball in the
1980's since no one has any proofs or facts.
> So if a crime is a misdemeanor, it doesn't necessarily constitute
> cheating at baseball; but if it's a felony, it does? Oh, I know, I
> know, I'm making assumptions.
> MLB is not a law enforcement organization. It's not their
> responsibility to keep players from shoplifting, jaywalking, sodomy,
> computer fraud, grand theft auto, manslaughter, or murder. And none of
> those things constitute cheating at the game of baseball. And instead
> of accusing me of making assumptions here, just check the rulebook.
I believe MLB has to follow the law also. They have to inforce the
law. If a member breaks that, they should turn them in.
> Yes, I make a lot of assumptions. I assume that molecules contain
> atoms, that when I take a step the ground I'm walking on will support
> me, that when I drop a glass it will break, that when I type these words
> the monitor will display them a certain way, and that the objects in my
> vision are as they appear. Some of my assumptions are more informed
> than others, some less.
>
> > You are accusing bodybuilders use
> > anabolic steroids. I know some are since they were caught. Many did
> > not. Their tests are not announced like baseball players' tests.
>
> Well, you are assuming that just because some bodybuilders were caught,
> they were using steroids.
> >
> I know one or two as well.
I know many.
> If you're so interested, why don't you look them up and give us a full
> report? And I'd appreciate it if you didn't make any assumptions that
> the figures you read are correct, or that the paper you read them on is
> reflecting the light correctly, or that you can see the ink correctly
> unless you've just had your eyes examined, or that the examination room
> was properly lit, or that the chart in the examination room wasn't just
> a figment of your imagination, or that your imagination is not
> influenced by outside sources, or that the outside sources are not
> conspiring against you, or that the conspiracy against you has been
> properly thought out, or that your assumptions of what makes a
> conspiracy properly thought out are correct, or that the word "correct"
> is being conveyed properly, or that. . .
I did not make any assumption here. All I said was do you have the
number. If not, do not make such a claim. I will not say one way or
another.
