Re: Frank Robinson: "Erase records of steroid users"
N. Silver
> In an article on MLB.com today Frank Robinson
> says Palmeiro's records should be erased after
> testing positive for steroids.
> He says why put the burden on MLB to try and
> figure out when the player started using steroids?
> If a player tests postive, just erase his records.
> Robinson says no asterisks are necessary, that to
> 'wipe the whole thing out' should get the players
> attention.
> It's a simple solution - if you use, you lose.
Frank Robinson, God bless him, was one of the greatest
I ever saw and one of the toughest. Steroid use was not
prohibited in MLB until very recently. As for Palmiero,
he served his suspension. Is Robinson suggesting that
the powers-that-be go back now, after the fact, and say,
"By the way, your records are going to be erased too."?
It's too late for that. Such penalties need to be worked
out in advance.
mrbrklyn
fact, and say, "By the way, your records are going to be erased
too."?>>
Yes, that apears to be what he is saying.
<<It's too late for that. Such penalties need to be worked
out in advance. >>
Why?
Ruben
sfb
facto Law shall be passed."
While probably not binding on MLB, it certainly sets a tone for imposing
penalties in the US.
"mrbrklyn" <spam-...@nylxs.com> wrote in message
news:1124887257....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
mrbrklyn
imposing
penalties in the US.>>
Why? Private industry can do pretty much what it wants. What law is
baseball breaking by erasing players from their record books for
steroid usage.
Ruben
EGK
after 1985 or so and call it the "steroid era" of MLB. Similar to the way
they talk about the "dead ball era".
It stinks that Maris was stuck with that asterisk while MLB hailed pumped up
guys like McGwire and Bonds.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
Pa
(Ruth's 60 for instance)...162 game season (Maris), and then the hopped
up on the juice records (Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and the
like)...it's soooo sad!! "Pa"
John Poutré
news:lqZOe.664734$cg1.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I don't think that he believes that the stats will be erased, just giving
his opinion on what he feels should be done.
honder
"Pa" <iamp...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1124889209.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
no, six... pre-artificial turf... no,...
honder
David the Nationals Fan
There was never an asterisk next to his name and record.
EGK
<davidth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Except that the bit about Maris and the asterisk is simply not true.
>There was never an asterisk next to his name and record.
http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/M/Maris_Roger.stm
It wasn't removed until 1991. Thirty years later.
Steve
EGK wrote:
> Tell that to Roger Maris. Maybe they should put an asterisk on all records
> after 1985 or so and call it the "steroid era" of MLB. Similar to the way
> they talk about the "dead ball era".
>
> It stinks that Maris was stuck with that asterisk while MLB hailed pumped up
> guys like McGwire and Bonds.
> >>>>>>
There was no asterisk next to Maris' HR total in 1961.
Steve
EGK wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2005 07:15:17 -0700, "David the Nationals Fan"
> <davidth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Except that the bit about Maris and the asterisk is simply not true.
> >There was never an asterisk next to his name and record.
>
> http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/M/Maris_Roger.stm
>
> It wasn't removed until 1991. Thirty years later.
>
> --
You need to read your own links:
Quoted from the link posted by yourself:
"After 30 years, the asterisk attached to Roger Maris' 61 home runs in
1961 is removed by an 8-man Committee for Statistical Accuracy.
Regarding the expunging of the asterisk, historian Bill Deane later
points out, "It was an easy job: the asterisk never existed. Maris's
record was, from 1962 until 1991, listed separately from Ruth's and was
never actually defined by 'some distinctive mark.'" "
EGK
That's semantics. For all intents and purposes there was an asterisk.
It's not just the typing character but the fact the record was listed
separately.
Lance Freezeland
gave us:
Maybe you need to come in again.
--
Lance
"Luck? If the roof fell in and Diz (Dean) was sitting
in the middle of the room, everybody else would be
buried and a gumdrop would fall in his mouth."
-- Leo Durocher
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Dirk
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:53:26 GMT, "honder" <hon...@nscolumbus.rr.com>
> gave us:
> >"Pa" <iamp...@cs.com> wrote in message
> >news:1124889209.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> I'm with you 100% Frank...three sets of records...154 game season
> >> (Ruth's 60 for instance)...162 game season (Maris), and then the hopped
> >> up on the juice records (Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and the
> >> like)...it's soooo sad!! "Pa"
>
> >no, four sets of records...pre-Jackie Robinson...no,five sets...post-DH,
> >no, six... pre-artificial turf... no,...
>
> Maybe you need to come in again.
Nooooobody expects that reply.
sfb
Frank Robinson's claim. The fact that MLB finally agreed that the so
called asterisk was a dumb idea lets the air out of that argument in
support of Frank Robinson.
notraybradley
I'll bank hard currency he wouldn't say that if Jose Guillen or Ryan
Church had tested positive.
And the way Guzman's hitting, he needs all the performance-enhancing
drugs he can get.
- Ray Bradley
mrbrklyn
<<Frank needs to worry more about keeping his team in the wild card
hunt.>>
Frank should mind his own business while all the unemployeed old men
here can determin what to do.
Ruben
David M. Nieporent
> N. Silver wrote:
>> Frank Robinson, God bless him, was one of the greatest
>> I ever saw and one of the toughest. Steroid use was not
>> prohibited in MLB until very recently. As for Palmiero,
>> he served his suspension. Is Robinson suggesting that
>> the powers-that-be go back now, after the fact, and say,
>> "By the way, your records are going to be erased too."?
> I hope so. I think it's the only honorable thing to do.
>> It's too late for that. Such penalties need to be worked
>> out in advance.
> Who says?
The MLBPA?
--
David Marc Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth
9lnilnl...@jetable.org
9lnilnl...@jetable.org
Dan Szymborski
vancho...@optonline.net says...
> N. Silver wrote:
> > Frank Robinson, God bless him, was one of the greatest
> > I ever saw and one of the toughest. Steroid use was not
> > prohibited in MLB until very recently. As for Palmiero,
> > he served his suspension. Is Robinson suggesting that
> > the powers-that-be go back now, after the fact, and say,
> > "By the way, your records are going to be erased too."?
>
We're kind of late to start - where are the asterisks on 660
and 4256, both numbers put up by known amphetamine users?
--
Dan Szymborski
d...@REMOVEbaseballprimer.com
"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not a
supporter of what is good."
- Robert Schumann
Jeanne Douglas
"mrbrklyn" <spam-...@nylxs.com> wrote:
They'd be breaking the legally-binding contract that it has with the
Players' Association.
--
JD
"Baseball is a dull game only for those with a dull mind"--Red Smith
Ron Johnson
N. Silver wrote:
>
> Frank Robinson, God bless him, was one of the greatest
> I ever saw and one of the toughest. Steroid use was not
> prohibited in MLB until very recently. As for Palmiero,
> he served his suspension. Is Robinson suggesting that
> the powers-that-be go back now, after the fact, and say,
> "By the way, your records are going to be erased too."?
> It's too late for that. Such penalties need to be worked
> out in advance.
Doesn't matter what MLB rules if they don't get Sean
Lahman (Lahman database) and Sean Forman (baseball-reference)
to buy in. (among others)
Don't know either Sean all that well, but I'd be surprised
if either went along with any pronouncement from MLB.
Ron Johnson
Known juiced balls. (the Shibe ball as well as the ball used in the
late 20s). Known deadened balls (The NL after 1930 for instance) The
spitball era, the pitching mountain era (in the mid 60s you had to
mount an expedition to climb the so called pitching mound in Dodger
Stadium), the pitching box era ...
Rustbelt
including Steelers in the 70's.
Dan Szymborski
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca
says...
I know Forman wouldn't.
Dan Szymborski
@news1.news.adelphia.net>, d...@REMOVEbaseballprimer.com
says...
> In article <1124934408.033368.77870
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca
> says...
> >
> > N. Silver wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Frank Robinson, God bless him, was one of the greatest
> > > I ever saw and one of the toughest. Steroid use was not
> > > prohibited in MLB until very recently. As for Palmiero,
> > > he served his suspension. Is Robinson suggesting that
> > > the powers-that-be go back now, after the fact, and say,
> > > "By the way, your records are going to be erased too."?
> > > It's too late for that. Such penalties need to be worked
> > > out in advance.
> >
> > Doesn't matter what MLB rules if they don't get Sean
> > Lahman (Lahman database) and Sean Forman (baseball-reference)
> > to buy in. (among others)
> >
> > Don't know either Sean all that well, but I'd be surprised
> > if either went along with any pronouncement from MLB.
>
> I know Forman wouldn't.
Just to provide an example - Forman recognizes the correct,
4189 figure for Cobb's hits while MLB refuses to change the
4191. Same with a lot of birthdays - El Duque ain't 35 no
matter what MLB claims.
Of course, even without that, Sean doesn't strike me as the
type of guy to go along with MLB's pronouncements. Lahman,
on the other hand, I don't know as well, but I can't imagine
he'd be any more willing to toe the company line.
mrbrklyn
records.
What do we do with all of them? >>
So in your opinion, Ruth's use of alcohol made him stronger, build
excessive muscle mass, altered his reflexes and essentially altered his
entire his entire physiology like Steroids did for Bobby Bonds?
Ruben
notraybradley
Alcohol relaxes the system and can calm down somebody in high-stress
situation. Just in the way a drink or two can loosen up a party or
allow folks to dance, it can also settle the nerves. If there's
anything more nerve racking than playing baseball in New York...! No
wonder all the best baseball drinkers played there - Ruth, Mantle,
Martin, Boggs...
Though Baltimore might catch up single-handedly with Sidney Ponson if
he keeps this crap up...
Anyway, there's also the concept of "beer strength." Notice how guys
are more likely to get into fights when drinking? This is what makes
small, ugly, stinky guys think they're drop-dead sexy when approaching
a hot girl in a club.
Notice how in drunk driving accidents, so often the sober, innocent
people are the ones who die and the drunk walks away without a scratch?
People with alcohol in their system don't tense up before the impact,
reducing their chance of injury. It's the guys who fight the impact who
get hurt. This recently happened in Anne Arundel County, south of
Baltimore, where two high school kids were killed and one hurt as a
drunk lady ran into their VW with her pickup truck. Two kids die and
she walks out of the truck and refused medical treatment!
So, I'm not saying that getting tanked before a game would suddenly
turn David Newhan into David Ortiz, but a little alcohol is not an
impairment, and might actually help. It's not going to make you
stronger, but it might make you *think* you're stronger, which might be
more important.
My overall point on Robinson's statement is that:
1) nobody knows if guys like Mantle, Maris, Killebrew, Howard,
etc...used steroids or not. They've been known about since the 20s,
after all. You can't compare Bonds and Sosa to the Golden Age of
Baseball guys because nobody knows if THOSE guys were clean or not.
2) Steroids weren't illegal in baseball until recently. You're gonna
throw a 20 year career under a bus because he screwed up, definitely
once, but maybe, MAYBE only once? Yet Steve Howe had HOW many chances
after repeated cocaine suspensions?
3) The Nationals are one of the feel-good stories of the year. Robinson
has done wonders with a team that just can't hit. *IF* it comes out
that Palmeiro actually was given the steroid as a treatment from some
dumb doctor who gave him that shot instead of a tetanous shot, and it
all really was an innocent mistake - Robinson, Schilling, and all these
other suddenly-holier than thou players and writers are gonna look
dumb.
And, Schilling, for the record, how many times did you pitch under the
influence? You chewed tobacco for years, which is a mild sedative.
What's that whole "let he who is without sin throw the first stone"
story I remember hearing in Sunday School?
4) Since when is lying to Congress that big of a deal? Seems every
President since Washington has done it, and the most recent ones have
done it repeatedly! Is lying about steroid use really worse than lying
about having sex with an intern while on the phone with world leaders,
or about weapons of mass destruction?
PS - if you answer "Yes" to that, please do the world a favor and don't
reproduce. Cut yer balls off now and donate to some poor testicleless
kid in Barbados. Baseball ain't war, and it ain't foreign policy.
5) and, if Raffy really is the biggest juicer this side of Bill
Romanowski, and he's been shooting up since he started playing ...
making all of his stats steroid-tainted, do we also condemn all the
guys who threw screwballs, who doctored pitches with sandpaper or
vaseline, or anybody who ever had a corked bat, or anybody who used a
small mirror or jewelry to blind opposing players? After all,
cheating's cheating, right?
If I was MLB, and I had a positive test for Palmerio, I'd have said
"Raffy, we have you tested positive for steroids. If you want to
maintain your innocence, and say it was a doctor's error, you can do
that. You get suspended, You put up with the media scrutiny and
Congressional investigation. You could become a national laughingstock.
Or, if you have been using steroids knowingly, we offer you this -
tomorrow night, you hurt your ankle. You go on the DL. Your leg doesn't
respond to the treatment. You retire a hero. You go into the Hall of
Fame. Everybody is spared."
Sure, it sounds like the Sopranos, but wouldn't that have been a better
story?
- Ray Bradley
David Hageman
> Notice how in drunk driving accidents, so often the sober, innocent
> people are the ones who die and the drunk walks away without a scratch?
> People with alcohol in their system don't tense up before the impact,
> reducing their chance of injury. It's the guys who fight the impact who
> get hurt. This recently happened in Anne Arundel County, south of
> Baltimore, where two high school kids were killed and one hurt as a
> drunk lady ran into their VW with her pickup truck. Two kids die and
> she walks out of the truck and refused medical treatment!
Well, IMO your example is a poor one.
VW vs pickup truck? It wasn't because she was "loose". It was because
she was in a bigger, taller vehicle.
> So, I'm not saying that getting tanked before a game would suddenly
> turn David Newhan into David Ortiz, but a little alcohol is not an
> impairment, and might actually help. It's not going to make you
> stronger, but it might make you *think* you're stronger, which might be
> more important.
LOL! No way "a little alcohol....might actually help."
Anyone whose motor skills are dulled by alcohol is crazy to step into
the batters box...or play a field position.
Maybe it works for your softball team but not in a major league
situation.
>
> My overall point on Robinson's statement is that:
> 1) nobody knows if guys like Mantle, Maris, Killebrew, Howard,
> etc...used steroids or not. They've been known about since the 20s,
> after all. You can't compare Bonds and Sosa to the Golden Age of
> Baseball guys because nobody knows if THOSE guys were clean or not.
>
> 2) Steroids weren't illegal in baseball until recently. You're gonna
> throw a 20 year career under a bus because he screwed up, definitely
> once, but maybe, MAYBE only once? Yet Steve Howe had HOW many chances
> after repeated cocaine suspensions?
Steve Howe vs Raffie Palmeiro is apples to oranges.
Howe was a felon because of his cocaine convictions, and he was
"punished" the same way you would probably be suspended or worse from
your job if you suddenly appeared on the front pages in the media for
doing the same thing.
Palmeiro's statistics are fraudulant in a sense that he took something
to cheat...to enhance his ability over his league mates. He got
caught. He lied to the Senate committee.
Let me say that I am undecided on what type, if any, punishment he
should endure. I like Raffie. I don't like this to be a case of 1st
hand evidence vs. hearsay. There's no way Sosa didn't juice. Nor
Giambi. Nor Barry Bonds.
In fact their slugging stats are all the evidence one should need. If
Peterson could get death based upon circumstantial evidence, then
Bonds/Giambi should also be getting the same scrutiny and disgust as
Palmeiro.
> 4) Since when is lying to Congress that big of a deal? Seems every
> President since Washington has done it, and the most recent ones have
> done it repeatedly! Is lying about steroid use really worse than lying
> about having sex with an intern while on the phone with world leaders,
> or about weapons of mass destruction?
It's only a big deal because it was lying under oath. Clinton was
impeached for that. Not for getting a hummer with Arafat on the line.
And BTW, Bush didn't lie about WMD.
>
> 5) and, if Raffy really is the biggest juicer this side of Bill
> Romanowski, and he's been shooting up since he started playing ...
> making all of his stats steroid-tainted, do we also condemn all the
> guys who threw screwballs, who doctored pitches with sandpaper or
> vaseline, or anybody who ever had a corked bat, or anybody who used a
> small mirror or jewelry to blind opposing players? After all,
> cheating's cheating, right?
Who used small mirrors or jewelry to blind an opposing player?
>
> If I was MLB, and I had a positive test for Palmerio, I'd have said
> "Raffy, we have you tested positive for steroids. If you want to
> maintain your innocence, and say it was a doctor's error, you can do
> that. Yo get suspended, You put up with the media scrutiny and
> Congressional investigation. You could become a national laughingstock.
> Or, if you have been using steroids knowingly, we offer you this -
> tomorrow night, you hurt your ankle. You go on the DL. Your leg doesn't
> respond to the treatment. You retire a hero. You go into the Hall of
> Fame. Everybody is spared."
>
> Sure, it sounds like the Sopranos, but wouldn't that have been a better
> story?
Nobody leaves the mob and retires a hero. Not even Henry Hill.
They get their heads placed in bowling ball bags.
David H.
Raymond DiPerna
notraybradley wrote:
>
> Notice how in drunk driving accidents, so often the sober, innocent
> people are the ones who die and the drunk walks away without a scratch?
I've heard of this also. Is it really true, though? It seems to me
that in any major car wreck it's basically a fluke as to who lives and
dies, based on point of impact, level of impact, where each person is
sitting, whether they're in a seat belt, whether the car rolls over...
any number of factors.
This may be simply a case of selective memory/bias. People take
special note of cases in which the drunk person walked away, but not of
cases in which the drunk person was killed and everyone else walked
away.
> People with alcohol in their system don't tense up before the impact,
> reducing their chance of injury.
Even if this conclusion is accurate (that they reduce their chance of
injury) I hardly think it matters at the magnitude of collision we're
talking about. If someone's head hits the windshield at 80 mph, I
don't think it's going to matter whether they've "tensed up" or not.
> It's the guys who fight the impact who
> get hurt. This recently happened in Anne Arundel County, south of
> Baltimore, where two high school kids were killed and one hurt as a
> drunk lady ran into their VW with her pickup truck. Two kids die and
> she walks out of the truck and refused medical treatment!
Fluke. And you haven't analyzed the impact and forces involved and
various other factors with respect to each person.
> My overall point on Robinson's statement is that:
> 1) nobody knows if guys like Mantle, Maris, Killebrew, Howard,
> etc...used steroids or not. They've been known about since the 20s,
> after all.
Hmm. My understanding is that anabolic steroids were first known
around the 50s.
> 3) The Nationals are one of the feel-good stories of the year. Robinson
> has done wonders with a team that just can't hit. *IF* it comes out
> that Palmeiro actually was given the steroid as a treatment from some
> dumb doctor who gave him that shot instead of a tetanous shot, and it
> all really was an innocent mistake - Robinson, Schilling, and all these
> other suddenly-holier than thou players and writers are gonna look
> dumb.
Does that scenario really seem likely, though? A doctor injected him
by mistake?
--Ray
notraybradley
in the 1930s, but weren't widely used until the late `40s and 1950s.
The Depression and the War kinda took over during the 30s and early
`40s. (source - http://www.steroidinformation.com/history.htm)
I'm not going to get into a physics debate on a baseball newsgroup.
However, having dated a doctor who worked in Shock Trauma and
Hopkins-Bayview, there's no doubt amongst the medical community that
the drunks live. Sure, it's all a matter of size of vehicle, momentum,
surface tension, tensile strength, etc etc etc... but, there's plenty
of anecdotal, if not scientifc proof, in the emergency rooms that when
drunks hit sober people, the drunk driver lives. It may be an old wives
tale, but that's seldom solace in the many cases where the drunk lives.
(source - cute brunette doctor who doesn't date me anymore and lives in
South Baltimore)
For the case in AACounty, the kids in the VW were stopped at a red
light. The woman in the truck was travelling at approximately 50 mph
and rear-ended the VW, and sent the vehicle flying. According to the
police, she made no effort to stop. These boys probably never knew what
hit them until they saw the headlights. Sure, physics-speaking - those
boys had no chance. Still, the drunk woman should have been at least
somewhat hurt. Accidents at 50 mph are just not things you bounce out
of the truck after. It's a Ford, not a NASCAR. (source - Baltimore Sun,
Annapolis Capital - this weekend's papers. Both websites don't have the
full account of the accident up anymore, otherwise I'd link those.)
In any event, Ray, I am playing Devils' Advocate. Note my use of the
word *IF* - the man hasn't been convicted in a court yet, and he says
he has a case. As Americans, we should hear him out. Now, do I
personally believe Raffy has been shooting up daily for 20 years like
Canseco? No. He simply doesn't have the build or characteristics.
However, do I think he's been taking steroids sporadically, perhaps to
give him an edge - real or imagined - through the tough spots?
Definitely maybe. That I could easily believe. Do I also know doctors
F*** up and make mistakes? Yes! (look at my ex, she dumped me, and I
was a great boyfriend for her. Best she's ever had or had since). It is
LIKELY a doctor gave Palmerio a faulty shot? No. Could it happen? Yes.
Until Raffy says *something* - we're all just sitting here guessing,
really, at what his defense could possibly be. If it's a medical
mistake, which *could* happen, then this whole affair is much ado about
nothing. No different than my old ENT giving me the wrong antibiotic
for a sinus infection.
And David, where did I say being "dulled by alcohol" helps in baseball?
I said a little alcohol is not an impairment, that's it. It calms the
nerves which might otherwise adversely affect somebody in a
high-pressure situation. But other players have been using drugs on the
field for years.
Schilling was a world-class boozer for years during his early years,
and chewed tobacco like a fat kid chews cake. Tobacco is a mild
sedative...just like a small amount of alcohol. Mantle admitted he
played drunk and hungover. Ellis Kinder had to be lifted from a game
that Mickey McDermott finished because Kinder was too drunk.
(wikipedia). David Wells said in "Perfect I'm Not: Boomer on Beer,
Brawls, Backaches and Baseball" that he was drunk when he threw his
perfect game. Amphetamines were routinely used to recover from
hangovers from the 1950s on, and, lets' not forget Dock Ellis'
no-hitter under the influence of LSD. Or Tim Raines' admitting he used
coke during games, and slid head-first to avoid breaking his vial in
the back pocket..
These stories and more are available at a friendly neighborhood Google
search or library, BTW.
- Ray Bradley
Raymond DiPerna
notraybradley wrote:
> Anabolic steriods were theorized in Europe in the 1920s, and developed
> in the 1930s, but weren't widely used until the late `40s and 1950s.
> The Depression and the War kinda took over during the 30s and early
> `40s. (source - http://www.steroidinformation.com/history.htm)
Okay. I guess the point is that baseball players probably wouldn't
have used them before the 50s or so.
> For the case in AACounty, the kids in the VW were stopped at a red
> light. The woman in the truck was travelling at approximately 50 mph
> and rear-ended the VW, and sent the vehicle flying.
Now take alcohol out of the equation. Which vehicle do you think
carried a greater chance of survival for its passengers in that
collision?
> According to the
> police, she made no effort to stop. These boys probably never knew what
> hit them until they saw the headlights. Sure, physics-speaking - those
> boys had no chance. Still, the drunk woman should have been at least
> somewhat hurt. Accidents at 50 mph are just not things you bounce out
> of the truck after.
Sometimes they are. We just saw a plane crash in the Amazon jungle
that left some 40 people dead, while about 60 people got up and walked
away.
> In any event, Ray, I am playing Devils' Advocate. Note my use of the
> word *IF* - the man hasn't been convicted in a court yet, and he says
> he has a case. As Americans, we should hear him out. Now, do I
> personally believe Raffy has been shooting up daily for 20 years like
> Canseco? No. He simply doesn't have the build or characteristics.
> However, do I think he's been taking steroids sporadically, perhaps to
> give him an edge - real or imagined - through the tough spots?
> Definitely maybe. That I could easily believe. Do I also know doctors
> F*** up and make mistakes? Yes! (look at my ex, she dumped me, and I
> was a great boyfriend for her. Best she's ever had or had since). It is
> LIKELY a doctor gave Palmerio a faulty shot? No. Could it happen? Yes.
> Until Raffy says *something* - we're all just sitting here guessing,
> really, at what his defense could possibly be. If it's a medical
> mistake, which *could* happen, then this whole affair is much ado about
> nothing. No different than my old ENT giving me the wrong antibiotic
> for a sinus infection.
I think Palmeiro probably took steroids intentionally, though I'm not
out to stone him for it.
I have a hard time seeing the difference between steroids and
amphetamines; both are being used to enhance performance.
--Ray
Dan Szymborski
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, rdip...@nyc.rr.com says...
>
> notraybradley wrote:
> > Anabolic steriods were theorized in Europe in the 1920s, and developed
> > in the 1930s, but weren't widely used until the late `40s and 1950s.
> > The Depression and the War kinda took over during the 30s and early
> > `40s. (source - http://www.steroidinformation.com/history.htm)
>
> Okay. I guess the point is that baseball players probably wouldn't
> have used them before the 50s or so.
Yeah, it doesn't become practical until the late 50s when
dianabol hit. Stimulants were really the PED of choice in
the 60s - the incidents of steroids increases once we hit the
70s and we get the weights.
Raymond DiPerna
Rob Petrie wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Raymond DiPerna" <rdip...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:1124999786....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > notraybradley wrote:
> >> Anabolic steriods were theorized in Europe in the 1920s, and developed
> >> in the 1930s, but weren't widely used until the late `40s and 1950s.
> >> The Depression and the War kinda took over during the 30s and early
> >> `40s. (source - http://www.steroidinformation.com/history.htm)
> >
> > Okay. I guess the point is that baseball players probably wouldn't
> > have used them before the 50s or so.
>
> > I think Palmeiro probably took steroids intentionally, though I'm not
> > out to stone him for it.
> >
> > I have a hard time seeing the difference between steroids and
> > amphetamines; both are being used to enhance performance.
>
> Amphetamines give only a temporary mental stimulus to the brain and
> don't physically change the body.
> Steroids permanently (as long as you keep taking them, probably) change
> the body.
> That's the difference.
But if the end result is the same -- artificially enhancing performance
-- then wouldn't this just be a distinction without a difference?
--Ray
David Hageman
> Rob Petrie wrote:
> > Amphetamines give only a temporary mental stimulus to the brain and
> > don't physically change the body.
> > Steroids permanently (as long as you keep taking them, probably) change
> > the body.
> > That's the difference.
>
> But if the end result is the same -- artificially enhancing performance
> -- then wouldn't this just be a distinction without a difference?
It's a huge difference.
Amphetamines might give you a quicker reflex ability which..at least to
the batter...makes him think and feel that he has gained an edge on
reacting to the pitch.
But it doesn't make your 360 feet flyball a 400 ft one.
Steroids achieves that.
That's the difference to me.
David H.
Seth Jackson
wrote:
>So, I'm not saying that getting tanked before a game would suddenly
>turn David Newhan into David Ortiz, but a little alcohol is not an
>impairment, and might actually help. It's not going to make you
>stronger, but it might make you *think* you're stronger, which might be
>more important.
Ruth and Mantle didn't have "a little" alcohol in their systems. They
were drunks. You really believe that helped make them better players?
>My overall point on Robinson's statement is that:
>3) The Nationals are one of the feel-good stories of the year. Robinson
>has done wonders with a team that just can't hit. *IF* it comes out
>that Palmeiro actually was given the steroid as a treatment from some
>dumb doctor who gave him that shot instead of a tetanous shot, and it
>all really was an innocent mistake - Robinson, Schilling, and all these
>other suddenly-holier than thou players and writers are gonna look
>dumb.
Actually, it'll be the doctor that would look dumb. He'd be lucky to
get off without a huge malpractice suit.
>4) Since when is lying to Congress that big of a deal? Seems every
>President since Washington has done it, and the most recent ones have
>done it repeatedly! Is lying about steroid use really worse than lying
>about having sex with an intern while on the phone with world leaders,
>or about weapons of mass destruction?
Do you understand the concept of "under oath"?
>If I was MLB, and I had a positive test for Palmerio, I'd have said
>"Raffy, we have you tested positive for steroids. If you want to
>maintain your innocence, and say it was a doctor's error, you can do
>that. You get suspended, You put up with the media scrutiny and
>Congressional investigation. You could become a national laughingstock.
>Or, if you have been using steroids knowingly, we offer you this -
>tomorrow night, you hurt your ankle. You go on the DL. Your leg doesn't
>respond to the treatment. You retire a hero. You go into the Hall of
>Fame. Everybody is spared."
Yeah, that would be brilliant considering that steroids is currently
the biggest scandal surrounding MLB. That would sure send the right
message out to the world if that information ever got out. It would
be the best possible way to ensure that Congress steps in - exactly
what MLB wants to avoid.
Raymond DiPerna
A "quicker reflex ability" doesn't help a hitter?
--Ray
BadgerBC
"Seth Jackson" <a...@mindspring.invalid> wrote in message
news:3rksg1lucb615vsph...@4ax.com...
> On 25 Aug 2005 08:23:28 -0700, "notraybradley" <tele...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So, I'm not saying that getting tanked before a game would suddenly
> >turn David Newhan into David Ortiz, but a little alcohol is not an
> >impairment, and might actually help. It's not going to make you
> >stronger, but it might make you *think* you're stronger, which might be
> >more important.
>
> Ruth and Mantle didn't have "a little" alcohol in their systems. They
> were drunks. You really believe that helped make them better players?
>
Oh boy. I'm no medical expert, but hangovers can't possibly help anyone see
a 90mph fb better. I really believe if they're going to erase the records
or modify them, they need to give the players who played in wool uniforms
extra credit. Does anyone have any idea how tough it is to wear wool and
play in humid NY weather or St.Louis? And those guys played mostly day
games. Plus, I cannot imagine how dehydrated players like Ruth, Mantle,
Hack Wilson, etc must've been after a night of carousing and trying to play
in wool. How about poor Yogi or Campanella? How tough must it have been to
wear wool and all that equipment (that were heavier) and catch
doubleheaders?
Rustbelt
Raymond DiPerna
> >
> > David Hageman wrote:
> >> Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> >> > Rob Petrie wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Amphetamines give only a temporary mental stimulus to the brain
> >> > > and
> >> > > don't physically change the body.
> >> > > Steroids permanently (as long as you keep taking them, probably)
> >> > > change
> >> > > the body.
> >> > > That's the difference.
> >> >
> >> > But if the end result is the same -- artificially enhancing performance
> >> > -- then wouldn't this just be a distinction without a difference?
> >>
> >> It's a huge difference.
> >>
> >> Amphetamines might give you a quicker reflex ability which..at least to
> >> the batter...makes him think and feel that he has gained an edge on
> >> reacting to the pitch.
>
> edge."
> That's all it is: a "feeling" not based on reality.
Even assuming arguendo that this is true, the case for steroids
increasing baseball performance suffers from the same problem: lack of
proof that steroids have the kind of effect on performance that many
people just assume.
> >> But it doesn't make your 360 feet flyball a 400 ft one.
> >> Steroids achieves that.
> >>
> >> That's the difference to me.
> >
> > A "quicker reflex ability" doesn't help a hitter?
>
> If he swings wildly because he is pepped up, doesn't mean he swings
> *better* at the pitches.
Who said anything about "swinging wildly"? (*)
And again, the same thing could be said about steroids: that batters
have so much extra strength that they "swing wildly."
And don't forget all the wails from the witchhunters about "roid rage."
If it's true that steroids cause "roid rage," I fail to see why
someone on steroids wouldn't be just as "pepped up" and "wild" with
their swing as someone on amphetamines would be.
(*) Also, some batters might be helped by "swinging wildly." Ever
watch Gary Sheffield? I can't imagine it's possible for him to swing
any _more_ wildly than he does on a regular basis.
--Ray
Dan Szymborski
@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, r...@att.net says...> news:1124999786....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> don't physically change the body.
> Steroids permanently (as long as you keep taking them, probably) change
> the body.
> That's the difference.
Ah, so illegal performance-enhancing drugs are only cool as
long as they chemically alter the nervous system instead of
muscles. And they're OK if you have to take a lot of doses!
Actually, I think that the reason for people to have a
problem with steroids and not amphetamines is even easier to
describe - they have no interest in drug-free baseball but
interest in protecting amphetamine users like Rose, Mays,
Stargell, and Snider.
Ron Johnson
Rob Petrie wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> news:1124934842.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > honder wrote:
> >> "Pa" <iamp...@cs.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1124889209.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> > I'm with you 100% Frank...three sets of records...154 game season
> >> > (Ruth's 60 for instance)...162 game season (Maris), and then the hopped
> >> > up on the juice records (Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and the
> >> > like)...it's soooo sad!! "Pa"
> >> >
> >> no, four sets of records...pre-Jackie Robinson...no,five sets...post-DH,
> >> no, six... pre-artificial turf... no,...
>
> We can extend this to as many subsets as you care.
>
> The pulling-in-the-fences era, the reducing-the-foul-ball-area,
> era,..., the throwing-out-of-any-ball-with-even-a-speck-of-dirt-on-it era
> [post Aug. 17, 1920 beaning death of Ray Chapman],...
>
> > Known juiced balls. (the Shibe ball
>
> I think he meant to write the 'shine' ball.
Nope. I meant the Shibe ball. In 1909 Ben Shibe patented a new
type of ball. Cork center tightly wrapped with two layers of rubber.
(Speaking of which, actual stadiums made a big change too. And Shibe
introduced the first park that a modern fan would recognize as
a stadium)
Supposedly first used (secretly) in the 1910 World Series and
officially introduced in 1911 in the AL (later in the NL)
Ball was vastly livelier than anything that was used before (at
least while new) In 1911 the league BA went up 30 points and OPS
was up 75 points -- scoring was up 28%.
Befor the Shibe ball came along power hitting as we know it now was
simply impossible.
Still, the shine ball and spitball era are kind of a subset of the
lively ball era.
Then in the 20s we have the situation where a handful of players
(Burleigh Grimes was the last of them) we in effect licensed to
cheat. A handful of pitchers were allowed to continue throwing
spitballs for the remainder of their careers.
Dan Szymborski
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, r...@att.net says...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
>
> Look at these other legal substances that are also stimulants on the
> nervous system: nicotine (in cigarettes) and caffeine (in coffee, tea,
> sodas).
>
> Why did not *they* not increase a player's performance any less than
> amphetamines?
> They all do the same thing on the nervous system.
> I don't hear anybody complaining about players in any era smoking
> cigarettes, drinking cups of coffee, tea, or sodas!
> IOW, why do you think amphetamines are any different than those other
> injested--and legal, substances when they all do the same thing to the
> nervous system, and nobody objects to players using nicotine-caffeine to
> "get up" before a game?
Wait, are you seriously suggesting that speed is no different
than coffee? Illegal, harmful drugs that are banned by most
countries and eliminated from sports by every anti-doping
organization around = Maxwell House?
That makes as much sense as saying steroids are just like
hamburgers.
Ron Johnson
Rustbelt wrote:
> I know. Where do you stop?
Saw a program that appears to advocate taking away the Zulu
victory at Isandlwana because their warriors were using
performance enhancing drugs.
Ron Johnson
Dan Szymborski wrote:
> In article <JNEPe.635$4P5.297
> @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, r...@att.net says...
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >
> >
> > Look at these other legal substances that are also stimulants on the
> > nervous system: nicotine (in cigarettes) and caffeine (in coffee, tea,
> > sodas).
> >
> > Why did not *they* not increase a player's performance any less than
> > amphetamines?
> > They all do the same thing on the nervous system.
> > I don't hear anybody complaining about players in any era smoking
> > cigarettes, drinking cups of coffee, tea, or sodas!
> > IOW, why do you think amphetamines are any different than those other
> > injested--and legal, substances when they all do the same thing to the
> > nervous system, and nobody objects to players using nicotine-caffeine to
> > "get up" before a game?
>
> Wait, are you seriously suggesting that speed is no different
> than coffee? Illegal, harmful drugs that are banned by most
> countries and eliminated from sports by every anti-doping
> organization around = Maxwell House?
Well caffeine was on the WADA list of banned substances. Removed early
in 2004. (with athletes testing positive at a level of 12 micrograms of
caffeine or more per 1 millilitre of urine. Don't know how many cups of
coffee we're talking about here)
An Australian pentathlete-- Alex Watson -- was disqualifed at Seoul
for excessive caffeine levels and he still maintains it was
nothing more than drinking a lot of coffee. (Many other Australian
athletes take caffeine tablets. Among them, the national rugby team)
New research shows that it's a performance enhancer for endurance
athletes. Research at the University of Birmingham have shown that
introducing caffeine into sports drinks increases the rate in which
carbohydrate is delivered to the athlete by 26%
Also found the WADA's criteria for banning something:
a substance is banned if it meets two of the three following criteria:
* The product is performance-enhancing
* It is harmful to the athlete's health
* It is contrary to the spirit of sport
Harmful to an athlete's health is kind of open ended. Harmful at
what levels?
mrbrklyn
most as effective as placebo.
He asked a legitamate question which you ran roughshot over. Comparing
caffiene and Amphetamines and deteriming that they are similar in
effect is dishonest. And this determination is a complete red hearing.
Comparing either with steroids is just a gross lie.
Ruben
mrbrklyn
rage." >>
A don;t know what roid rage is but the psycological affect of steroids
on the brain which includes increasing agressiveness and lowing ability
to focus is well documented and common, as anyone who has dealt with
turning away testoterone prescriptions from weight lifters is
completely aware of.
Ruben
Ron Johnson
mrbrklyn wrote:
Quoting for context is a good thing.
> That must be why the FDA determined that OTC Caffeine diet tablets are
> most as effective as placebo.
What does caffiene's potential effectiveness as a diet tablet have
to do with their potential for performance enhancement in endurance
athletes?
>
> He asked a legitamate question which you ran roughshot over. Comparing
> caffiene and Amphetamines and deteriming that they are similar in
> effect is dishonest.
Right, which is something I didn't do. Dan knows me well enough to
know that I like to pass out odd bits of info (such as the fact
that caffeine is potentially performance enhancing, that somebody
has been sent home from the Olympics for a positive test and that
it's no longer banned since it doesn't seem to meet 2 of the 3
WADA criteria for being banned.)
On that note what I origionally had in their is a brief history
of caffeine testing in bridge. It's a long and insane story, but
bridge has adopted the WADA stardards for drug testing. In the first
trial run there were a number of positives. Most for caffeine (like
many bridge players I'm a heavy caffeine drinker. It takes a *lot*
of coffee to trigger a positive test but I'll bet most nights that
I play I'd be over the limit. Habit.)
> And this determination is a complete red hearing.
> Comparing either with steroids is just a gross lie.
Right, as Dan will vouch for (since I'm pretty sure he's the guy who
passed me the link), there are people who've studied both who are
prepared to argue that amphetamines are more dangerous than steroids.
Ron Johnson
Raymond DiPerna wrote:
> notraybradley wrote:
> >
>
> > 3) The Nationals are one of the feel-good stories of the year. Robinson
> > has done wonders with a team that just can't hit. *IF* it comes out
> > that Palmeiro actually was given the steroid as a treatment from some
> > dumb doctor who gave him that shot instead of a tetanous shot, and it
> > all really was an innocent mistake - Robinson, Schilling, and all these
> > other suddenly-holier than thou players and writers are gonna look
> > dumb.
>
> Does that scenario really seem likely, though? A doctor injected him
> by mistake?
>
Sound improbable? The team doctor for Juventus (Riccardo Agricola) has
been convicted of doing exactly this.