Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

SOSH

Happy Patriots Day.  I expect some heavy usage today so please if there are any problems just let me know via twitter @sonsofsamhorn.  thanks folks.  nip

Photo

Better Playing Through Chemistry, Surgery etc.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
130 replies to this topic

#1 DLew On Roids


  • guilty of being sex


  • 11087 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:02 PM

People are going to look back at this stuff in 50 years and see athletes as just the first people to give PEDs a whirl. Go read the New Yorker article from last week about neuroenhancement to improve work performance. We're still in the Dark Ages with most of this stuff--Adderall is the Decadurobolin of knowledge-worker PEDs in my opinion--but eventually we're going to look awfully judgmental and naive.

#2 crow216


  • SoSH Member


  • 5306 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:05 PM

People are going to look back at this stuff in 50 years and see athletes as just the first people to give PEDs a whirl. Go read the New Yorker article from last week about neuroenhancement to improve work performance. We're still in the Dark Ages with most of this stuff--Adderall is the Decadurobolin of knowledge-worker PEDs in my opinion--but eventually we're going to look awfully judgmental and naive.


I've been saying this for a very long time. In time we're going to learn that proper use and dosage of many steroids can be extremely beneficial for men and women. Doctors already use it for some people, but I believe we're going to find that many of the drugs out there which are illegal now, shouldn't be.

#3 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 15981 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:07 PM

Man, I don't know, I think you have to be pretty naive to be thinking about the purity of the game arugment.

I am cynical, and I am a free market pig vermin. And I know damn well that from the time a guy could work less at his mill job by making money at baseball that guys have looked for ways to get the edge on the other guys they have to compete with. OK so we as society make some rules based on science of what is good and bad. OK, that's fine. Rules are rules. But then the population at hand, who are only at the levels they are because of their competitive nature, are greeted by a laissez-faire attitude and you expect that any person, I mean any single one, wouldn't at least weigh the odds? Come on. We can hope that our guys are pure and clean so that we can wear white hats in the movies or whatever the fuck you want, but it's stupidly naive.

If you want the purity of the game, go watch Little League. I'll guarantee you that if what you care about is spirit and competition then you will get it. But if you are a fan of the huge money making professional sports, IMO you have lost almost all of the right to take a holier-than-thou stance. And frankly I just don't see what the big deal is in terms of the competition. To me, not a single one of the many memorable Manny moments is changed by this suspension (or by dumb alliteration). And if I find out Mak Bellhorn was a juicer, I'll still admire that home run he hit off of batshit to win game 1 of the World Series. Or if it comes out that Aaron Boone was juicing in 2003, I'm still going to be pissed at Grady.

I guess I just feel bad for those who were so naive that this is some kind of loss of innocence. Or maybe you should feel bad for me being such a cynical fuck. I'm not sure which is worse, honestly.

But god damn it, I'm still going to enjoy a baseball game tonight.

#4 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 24822 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:09 PM

Man, I don't know, I think you have to be pretty naive to be thinking about the purity of the game arugment.

I am cynical, and I am a free market pig vermin. And I know damn well that from the time a guy could work less at his mill job by making money at baseball that guys have looked for ways to get the edge on the other guys they have to compete with. OK so we as society make some rules based on science of what is good and bad. OK, that's fine. Rules are rules. But then the population at hand, who are only at the levels they are because of their competitive nature, are greeted by a laissez-faire attitude and you expect that any person, I mean any single one, wouldn't at least weigh the odds? Come on. We can hope that our guys are pure and clean so that we can wear white hats in the movies or whatever the fuck you want, but it's stupidly naive.

If you want the purity of the game, go watch Little League. I'll guarantee you that if what you care about is spirit and competition then you will get it. But if you are a fan of the huge money making professional sports, IMO you have lost almost all of the right to take a holier-than-thou stance. And frankly I just don't see what the big deal is in terms of the competition. To me, not a single one of the many memorable Manny moments is changed by this suspension (or by dumb alliteration). And if I find out Mak Bellhorn was a juicer, I'll still admire that home run he hit off of batshit to win game 1 of the World Series. Or if it comes out that Aaron Boone was juicing in 2003, I'm still going to be pissed at Grady.

I guess I just feel bad for those who were so naive that this is some kind of loss of innocence. Or maybe you should feel bad for me being such a cynical fuck. I'm not sure which is worse, honestly.

But god damn it, I'm still going to enjoy a baseball game tonight.

Even Little League had Danny Almonte.

#5 Captaincoop


  • SoSH Member


  • 5189 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:09 PM

People are going to look back at this stuff in 50 years and see athletes as just the first people to give PEDs a whirl. Go read the New Yorker article from last week about neuroenhancement to improve work performance. We're still in the Dark Ages with most of this stuff--Adderall is the Decadurobolin of knowledge-worker PEDs in my opinion--but eventually we're going to look awfully judgmental and naive.


That was the most depressing article I have read in a long time. Are you saying you think it's a good thing that we're headed toward a world where everyone is taking one pill to be smart and another pill to run further and another pill to have sex, etc? It sounds Orwellian and terrible to me.

#6 LoweSox


  • Welches on Fantasy Baseball Dues


  • 1680 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:11 PM

People are going to look back at this stuff in 50 years and see athletes as just the first people to give PEDs a whirl. Go read the New Yorker article from last week about neuroenhancement to improve work performance. We're still in the Dark Ages with most of this stuff--Adderall is the Decadurobolin of knowledge-worker PEDs in my opinion--but eventually we're going to look awfully judgmental and naive.

I agree. Imagine the storm when the first woman who wants to play in the MLB/NFL/NHL etc. (or make an argument for playing in a unified basketball association) uses the 'PEDs' of tomorrow -- the safe ones, the ones used to balance out human abilities from the start.

#7 litigator02

  • 314 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:15 PM

Not Orwellian as much as Brave New Worldesque, which in many ways is far worse.


And then we'll take another pill to experience three hours of mild bemusement, with a 10% chance of either complete elation or mind-blowing anger at the end, and we won't even need to watch baseball games anymore.

#8 EllisTheRimMan

  • 1898 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:15 PM

If you want the purity of the game, go watch Little League. I'll guarantee you that if what you care about is spirit and competition then you will get it. But if you are a fan of the huge money making professional sports, IMO you have lost almost all of the right to take a holier-than-thou stance. And frankly I just don't see what the big deal is in terms of the competition. To me, not a single one of the many memorable Manny moments is changed by this suspension (or by dumb alliteration). And if I find out Mak Bellhorn was a juicer, I'll still admire that home run he hit off of batshit to win game 1 of the World Series. Or if it comes out that Aaron Boone was juicing in 2003, I'm still going to be pissed at Grady.

I guess I just feel bad for those who were so naive that this is some kind of loss of innocence. Or maybe you should feel bad for me being such a cynical fuck. I'm not sure which is worse, honestly.

But god damn it, I'm still going to enjoy a baseball game tonight.


I agree 100%, but the holier than thou purists like to discredit every elite player that is in baseball today becuase of an unfair competitive advantage compared to the greats of yesteryear.

There is really is no argument for that, and AFAIC I don't need to make one to enjoy the game as it is played today. Some do, however, and for those guys I would suggest switching to becoming cycling fans. Or watch the purity of the Olympics, FIFA or the NFL, or the NBA, NHL etc. etc.

#9 drbretto


  • guidence counselor


  • 4361 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:16 PM

People are going to look back at this stuff in 50 years and see athletes as just the first people to give PEDs a whirl. Go read the New Yorker article from last week about neuroenhancement to improve work performance. We're still in the Dark Ages with most of this stuff--Adderall is the Decadurobolin of knowledge-worker PEDs in my opinion--but eventually we're going to look awfully judgmental and naive.


In 50 years, children's cereal boxes will advertise 100% daily value of HGH. Average height for a human male will be 6'2" and all women will have natural D cups. People will look back at comments from this era and laugh.

Of course, I'm not excusing Ramirez as it's obviously illegal in 2009 and he is a complete moron to be caught after so much attention has been put on the subject in the last few years.

#10 Chemistry Schmemistry


  • has been programmed to get funky/cry human tears


  • 7394 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:16 PM

We allow near-sighted players to wear contact lenses.

We allow players with gimpy knees to wear knee-braces.

We allow players with torn elbow tendons to have tendons surgically moved from their feet back to their elbows.

We allow players with allergies to take drugs allowing them to play outdoors without suffering from allergic reactions.

Maybe the answer isn't in banning certain drugs that may or may not be unsafe and creating tests that are always hopelessly behind the drug technology?

Maybe the answer is in creating better and safer performance enhancing drugs?

#11 Rocco Graziosa


  • owns the lcd soundsystem


  • 11254 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:22 PM

We allow near-sighted players to wear contact lenses.

We allow players with gimpy knees to wear knee-braces.

We allow players with torn elbow tendons to have tendons surgically moved from their feet back to their elbows.

We allow players with allergies to take drugs allowing them to play outdoors without suffering from allergic reactions.

Maybe the answer isn't in banning certain drugs that may or may not be unsafe and creating tests that are always hopelessly behind the drug technology?

Maybe the answer is in creating better and safer performance enhancing drugs?



Best post of this thread.

I have a feeling in 50 to 70 years there will be a MUCH different view of performance enhancing drugs and they will be part of the legal world of medicine and professional sports.

#12 Myt1


  • thinks tim thomas is a dick-fil-a


  • 18359 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:24 PM

Man, are you out to lunch. Let me reconstruct:

Me: Ahem. Aren't you kind of missing the point? Or are you suggesting there's no relationship between strength and muscle mass?

Him: Ahem, yes, that is exactly what I'm STATING, not suggesting, in this context. Before you try to be clever, why don't you read some of the testimony, or like ONE study

What's your problem? He's unequivocally stating there's no direct relationship between muscle mass and strength. That's absurd.


You may want to look up the word "unequivocally," because it clearly doesn't mean what you think it means.

Let's do this one really slowly so you can follow along:

Him: Ahem, yes, that is exactly what I'm STATING, not suggesting, in this context. Before you try to be clever, why don't you read some of the testimony, or like ONE study


"In this context." Those of us who passed high school english classes would say that that's a textbook example of an "equivocation."

Hmmmmm, what context could he have been talking about? Oh, yeah. Now I remember:

Bodybuilding is not about strength, it's about muscle size and definition. There is no debate that it is effective for those purposes. But doctors got before congress and testified that there is no credible scientific evidence that HGH substantively increases muscle strength or aerobic exercise capacity. Great for picking up chicks maybe, but not hitting home runs.


Oh, right. That context. Seriously, it is remarkable that your idiocy is so tenacious.

Now, getting back to the Sun article thing. You're a clown for thinking posting a Baltimore Sun article, without discussing the data in the studies it references, constitutes proof. Then, to top it off, the Sun article quotes indicate the outcome was equivocal so even the Sun citation is non-supportive.

Got it? Thank you. Have a nice day.


I've read the studies. As I pointed out, the ones I could find quickly (which you obviously knew about when you were trying to be cute with your posts) were password protected. I wasn't supplying the Sun article as proof, you fool, I was providing it as a jumping off point because I didn't have time to do more of your google work for you and chase down a non-password protected study.

And yet your great evidence is, "Lot's of people use it, so I'm going to assume it has some effect and bitch about the Sun until proven otherwise."

There's little else to say. You were actively trying to be a jackass, and you succeeded. Congratulations. But you should probably leave complicated things like reading to those with some talent for it.

Edited by Myt1, 07 May 2009 - 02:27 PM.


#13 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5643 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:25 PM

I have a feeling in 50 to 70 years there will be a MUCH different view of performance enhancing drugs and they will be part of the legal world of medicine and professional sports.


It works for me. Equal access for all means it's not cheating. And if they primarily help the recovery aspect...even better. The fact that players get hurt doesn't help anyone.

#14 keving18

  • 744 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:27 PM

Best post of this thread.

I have a feeling in 50 to 70 years there will be a MUCH different view of performance enhancing drugs and they will be part of the legal world of medicine and professional sports.



All those things on the list have therapeutic value.

Performance-enhancing drugs have, by definition, no therapeutic value, as they are not being use to treat any ailment. Therefore, any doctor prescribing them for off-label use to an athlete is violating his hippocratic oath of "First, do no harm".

#15 DLew On Roids


  • guilty of being sex


  • 11087 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:27 PM

That was the most depressing article I have read in a long time. Are you saying you think it's a good thing that we're headed toward a world where everyone is taking one pill to be smart and another pill to run further and another pill to have sex, etc? It sounds Orwellian and terrible to me.


I'm not assigning Good Thing or Bad Thing status to it. It's just going to happen as biology becomes more understood. With respect to things like endocrinology, we're at a comparable point today to where we were in chemistry 80 or 100 years ago. When there's a better understanding of what's safe, taking performance enhancers will become be as common as taking vitamins.

Whether that's good or bad is another question, but it hardly seems Orwellian if you mean it in the Animal Farm or 1984 sense.

#16 Alternate34

  • 2461 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:27 PM

We allow near-sighted players to wear contact lenses.

We allow players with gimpy knees to wear knee-braces.

We allow players with torn elbow tendons to have tendons surgically moved from their feet back to their elbows.

We allow players with allergies to take drugs allowing them to play outdoors without suffering from allergic reactions.

Maybe the answer isn't in banning certain drugs that may or may not be unsafe and creating tests that are always hopelessly behind the drug technology?

Maybe the answer is in creating better and safer performance enhancing drugs?


If they come up with PEDs that don't (1) become more effective with increased use (2) don't have serious health side effects for all people when used I probably won't be opposed. What that is now is diet maintenance and exercise (not as effective, but is a way to get far better). Whether this is possible considering the body chemistry behind these substances, I am skeptical.

#17 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 9441 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:30 PM

We allow near-sighted players to wear contact lenses.

We allow players with gimpy knees to wear knee-braces.

We allow players with torn elbow tendons to have tendons surgically moved from their feet back to their elbows.

We allow players with allergies to take drugs allowing them to play outdoors without suffering from allergic reactions.


We don't allow players without any sort of injury/condition to take performance enhancing drugs.

Whether this is right or wrong is a debatable point. But since the rule is well known, there's no equivalency between this situation and those you've posted.

#18 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18513 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:31 PM

Best post of this thread.

I have a feeling in 50 to 70 years there will be a MUCH different view of performance enhancing drugs and they will be part of the legal world of medicine and professional sports.


This might not be the thread for it, but if everyone can take drugs to put them on equal footing on the playing field, what's the point of competing? Isn't part of building a team putting together a collection of players that you believe is better than everyone else's? If you can close the gap between player A and player B with a pill it becomes less an athletic competition and more a competition between the chemists and medical staffs.

I don't know... maybe I'm being too much of a "purist" here, but I would be far less interested in sports if this was the way they were handled.

#19 DLew On Roids


  • guilty of being sex


  • 11087 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:31 PM

All those things on the list have therapeutic value.

Performance-enhancing drugs have, by definition, no therapeutic value, as they are not being use to treat any ailment. Therefore, any doctor prescribing them for off-label use to an athlete is violating his hippocratic oath of "First, do no harm".


So if a drug enhances performance without injuring the user--which is what Rocco was talking about--how does it harm him? Just using things for off-label purposes doesn't equal harm.

#20 NDame616


  • will bailey


  • 933 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:32 PM

Maybe the answer is in creating better and safer performance enhancing drugs?


As someone who is fairly well informed in the AAS world, I can say that taking PEDs is pretty safe when done correctly, which it looks like Manny has done with taking a PCT.

A lot of the stuff pro athletes that have trainers and "doctors" to help them greatly minimize the risks involved.

#21 Resonance Wright


  • It's a put-on


  • 1910 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:33 PM

We allow near-sighted players to wear contact lenses.

We allow players with gimpy knees to wear knee-braces.

We allow players with torn elbow tendons to have tendons surgically moved from their feet back to their elbows.

We allow players with allergies to take drugs allowing them to play outdoors without suffering from allergic reactions.

Maybe the answer isn't in banning certain drugs that may or may not be unsafe and creating tests that are always hopelessly behind the drug technology?

Maybe the answer is in creating better and safer performance enhancing drugs?


The point at which the comparisons start to break down is that you can't wear two knee braces and then run twice as fast.

It's arguable that a lot of these drugs, right now, are safe at a proper dosage. The problem is that people aren't using a safe dosage, nor do they want to. They want results.

If you legitimize the use of safer PEDs you aren't doing anything to change the dynamic of why people take them in the first place. They take them to get ahead. If it becomes something like weightlifting, where everyone's doing it, no one gets ahead by doing it -- at least, not in a safe way. So you aren't addressing the problem at all, by making PEDs better and safer. Basically what you're doing is just creating a situation where people will take multiple doses of the 'safe' drug, or augment the 'safe' drug with an unsafe one. They are, by design, doing something unethical and illegal in order to gain a hidden competitive advantage as it stands.

#22 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2063 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:36 PM

This might not be the thread for it, but if everyone can take drugs to put them on equal footing on the playing field, what's the point of competing? Isn't part of building a team putting together a collection of players that you believe is better than everyone else's? If you can close the gap between player A and player B with a pill it becomes less an athletic competition and more a competition between the chemists and medical staffs.

I don't know... maybe I'm being too much of a "purist" here, but I would be far less interested in sports if this was the way they were handled.


Exactly, and why not build a mechanical arm that can throw 200 mph and can hit the ball 1000 feet? Wouldn't that be even more 'exciting'? Heck why not just have robots play the game and eliminate people altogether.

The PED apologists never cease to amaze me with their myopia.

Edited by Ananti, 07 May 2009 - 02:38 PM.


#23 Alternate34

  • 2461 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:37 PM

This might not be the thread for it, but if everyone can take drugs to put them on equal footing on the playing field, what's the point of competing? Isn't part of building a team putting together a collection of players that you believe is better than everyone else's? If you can close the gap between player A and player B with a pill it becomes less an athletic competition and more a competition between the chemists and medical staffs.

I don't know... maybe I'm being too much of a "purist" here, but I would be far less interested in sports if this was the way they were handled.


There are several aspects that wouldn't be leveled unless we are talking about some crazy level of enhancement. Hand eye coordination though improved by these drugs isn't leveled off. Teamwork might be more accentuated sinc athletic ability would be closer. The other things is that these drugs would still require some level of work ethic. You can't build muscle without work even with PEDs.

Also, certain equipment, knowledge of nutrition, weight training techniques, drills, etc. augment a player's natural ability. While I think there is a discernable difference, if PEDs become completely benign, the difference becomes blurry.

#24 keving18

  • 744 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:37 PM

So if a drug enhances performance without injuring the user--which is what Rocco was talking about--how does it harm him? Just using things for off-label purposes doesn't equal harm.


If you have any evidence they don't do any harm, we'll discuss it. Right now, there isn't any because controlled studies haven't been done yet.

But it's more complicated thatn that. Then we have to decide if that's the direction we want to take the game. We banned astroturf and the spitball because we find the concept aestetically abhorent. That's where I am right now.

that every user has kept his use secret until he got caught goes a long way towrds deciding whether the players thought they were doing something wrong or not.

#25 keving18

  • 744 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:40 PM

As someone who is fairly well informed in the AAS world, I can say that taking PEDs is pretty safe when done correctly, which it looks like Manny has done with taking a PCT.

A lot of the stuff pro athletes that have trainers and "doctors" to help them greatly minimize the risks involved.


Please provide evidence. Anecdotal experience means nothing.

I 've never witnessed a trainwreck. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

#26 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 24822 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:40 PM

If you have any evidence they don't do any harm, we'll discuss it. Right now, there isn't any because controlled studies haven't been done yet.

But it's more complicated thatn that. Then we have to decide if that's the direction we want to take the game. We banned astroturf and the spitball because we find the concept aestetically abhorent. That's where I am right now.

that every user has kept his use secret until he got caught goes a long way towrds deciding whether the players thought they were doing something wrong or not.

Eh, what? Toronto says "Up here, hoser."

#27 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 15981 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:40 PM

Exactly, and why not build a mechanical arm that can throw 200 mph and can hit the ball 1000 feet? Wouldn't that be even more 'exciting'? Heck why not just have robots play the game and eliminate people all together

The PED apologists never cease to amaze me with their myopia.


OK so why don't we remove the webbing from the glove, lossen the windings of the baseball, and play like it's 1898 again.

Did you enjoy baseball for the last 5 years?

Did you enjoy baseball for the last 15 years?

Did you enjoy baseball for the last 35 years?

If you answered yes to any of these questions then you are part of the problem. Because these off the record side enhancements have been there all along. So either you didn't actually enjoy it or you are a hypocrite.

That's your myopia.

#28 glennhoffmania


  • peaks prematurely


  • 8381673 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:42 PM

We allow near-sighted players to wear contact lenses.

We allow players with gimpy knees to wear knee-braces.

We allow players with torn elbow tendons to have tendons surgically moved from their feet back to their elbows.

We allow players with allergies to take drugs allowing them to play outdoors without suffering from allergic reactions.

Maybe the answer isn't in banning certain drugs that may or may not be unsafe and creating tests that are always hopelessly behind the drug technology?

Maybe the answer is in creating better and safer performance enhancing drugs?


Good point but I think there is a distinction. None of these things makes a person superior to someone who doesn't suffer from those conditions. PEDs do make people superior, all else being equal. So if I can't see the ball but you can, contacts simply put us on the same level. But if we both have 20/20 vision and I take PEDs, we're no longer equal.

Interesting thought though. I never thought about it this way.

#29 keving18

  • 744 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:42 PM

Exactly, and why not build a mechanical arm that can throw 200 mph and can hit the ball 1000 feet? Wouldn't that be even more 'exciting'? Heck why not just have robots play the game and eliminate people altogether.

The PED apologists never cease to amaze me with their myopia.


Brave New World, Ananti.

All new technology should NOT be used as promiscuously as possible. We don't use nuclear weapons for crowd control, for instance.

Edited by keving18, 07 May 2009 - 02:42 PM.


#30 Alternate34

  • 2461 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:42 PM

Exactly, and why not build a mechanical arm that can throw 200 mph and can hit the ball 1000 feet? Wouldn't that be even more 'exciting'? Heck why not just have robots play the game and eliminate people all together

The PED apologists never cease to amaze me with their myopia.


Why not indeed!

People are reattaching ligaments from their legs to their arms. You can even have synthetic ligaments. Tom Brady had a choice between having a cadaver ligament used to repair his knee or a synthetic one. At what point would a this become equipment as opposed to part of the human body?

I agree on PEDs, but my main concern is the harm they cause to the body when taken.

#31 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2063 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:45 PM

OK so why don't we remove the webbing from the glove, lossen the windings of the baseball, and play like it's 1898 again.

Did you enjoy baseball for the last 5 years?

Did you enjoy baseball for the last 15 years?

Did you enjoy baseball for the last 35 years?

If you answered yes to any of these questions then you are part of the problem. Because these off the record side enhancements have been there all along. So either you didn't actually enjoy it or you are a hypocrite.

That's your myopia.


So you're telling me wearing a baseball glove is the same as fundamentally altering the internal make up of the players? Really?

Did I enjoy baseball, yes, but I enjoyed it far less than I would have if it there weren't PED users. So I'd like to see the end of PED using and punishment for the users. How does that make me a hypocrite?

Edited by Ananti, 07 May 2009 - 02:47 PM.


#32 luckysox


  • Eeyore


  • 3226 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:45 PM

Man, I don't know, I think you have to be pretty naive to be thinking about the purity of the game arugment.

I am cynical, and I am a free market pig vermin. And I know damn well that from the time a guy could work less at his mill job by making money at baseball that guys have looked for ways to get the edge on the other guys they have to compete with. OK so we as society make some rules based on science of what is good and bad. OK, that's fine. Rules are rules. But then the population at hand, who are only at the levels they are because of their competitive nature, are greeted by a laissez-faire attitude and you expect that any person, I mean any single one, wouldn't at least weigh the odds? Come on. We can hope that our guys are pure and clean so that we can wear white hats in the movies or whatever the fuck you want, but it's stupidly naive.

If you want the purity of the game, go watch Little League. I'll guarantee you that if what you care about is spirit and competition then you will get it. But if you are a fan of the huge money making professional sports, IMO you have lost almost all of the right to take a holier-than-thou stance. And frankly I just don't see what the big deal is in terms of the competition. To me, not a single one of the many memorable Manny moments is changed by this suspension (or by dumb alliteration). And if I find out Mak Bellhorn was a juicer, I'll still admire that home run he hit off of batshit to win game 1 of the World Series. Or if it comes out that Aaron Boone was juicing in 2003, I'm still going to be pissed at Grady.

I guess I just feel bad for those who were so naive that this is some kind of loss of innocence. Or maybe you should feel bad for me being such a cynical fuck. I'm not sure which is worse, honestly.

But god damn it, I'm still going to enjoy a baseball game tonight.


This hits it on the head. I am not sure how any of us who are as invested in professional sports as folks on this site are can say this is yet another example of the loss of "the purity of the game." Come on. The purity of the game? These guys don't play for the love...they play because its their job. Now of course most love their job, and most count themselves lucky to have it as their job, but it's still a job. I am sure there are guys who don't love it, but still play - for the $$$. Is that pure? And this is a game AND a business that we, as fans, pay HUGE amounts of money to watch - you have to sell your firstborn for a weekend series at Fenway if you are from out of state!! Is that pure?? And it's a game that we, as fans, spend unreal amounts of time obesssing about. I spend more time reading this website than I do talking to my partner some nights! I LOVE this game. The strategy, the asthetic beauty, the competition, the skill, the heart stopping plays and last at bat comebacks. I don't love it because baseball or it's players are "pure" or even should be pure. I don't love it because of innocense. Sure, having a catch in the backyard with my dad is one of my earliest memories, and watching the Sox on TV still makes me think of my grand dad every night. But those things are about ME, they are my memories, and Manny and AROD and Mark McGwire taking PED's is not going to change them...or make me stop watching every night. The game is just too damn good, whether guys are juicing or not. And I know this, too - if I could increase my chances of doubling even my piddly little $60,000 salary by juicing, I would sure as heck give it some thought. Because $120,000 gives me and my family more opportunities in life. I know folks think, "oh, how greedy!!" but I think we kid ourselves if we say that we wouldn't consider doing something illegal to make 5 million instead of 2.5 million a year. I say do your time, Manny. I will still remember your pose after the game winning home run in the '07 Angel's series, and I will still smile about it.

#33 Resonance Wright


  • It's a put-on


  • 1910 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:45 PM

It's pretty simple. In the 'better living through chemistry' utopia that people like to invoke about steroids, you won't take steroids to get ahead. You'll have to take them just to keep up. Much like ballplayers never used to pump iron and now you have to work out.

If it's really safe, then it's hard to have a problem with it -- but it isn't going to do anything to address the root of why people are taking steroids now.

They're doing it to get a big league deal, or a bigger contract, or stay in the game a few more years. They're doing it for lots of reasons. If you establish some sort of baseline in which it is now safe and even good to take steroids, you'll just be pushing the line back. Your A+ safe, awesome performance enhancer? Sure, everyone will take it. And the guys who are juicing now will also be taking something else. And they will still be getting ahead.

Let's just not bother pretending that someone's going to get ahead in the Steroid Arms Race by creating some mythical sports pill that will make everyone strong and healthy and capable of playing every game in a 190 game season. That's just going to move the baseline -- that is all.

Personally I think the juicers will remain ahead of the testers and that's the way it is, but it doesn't mean you stop testing or banning. There's a difference between some people being able to cheat, and everyone cheating.

Edited by Resonance Wright, 07 May 2009 - 02:48 PM.


#34 EllisTheRimMan

  • 1898 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:46 PM

The point at which the comparisons start to break down is that you can't wear two knee braces and then run twice as fast.


Yes, but you can wear them and keep playing, accumulating stats and helping your team win. This is a competitive advantage over players from the past that didn't have access to the sports medicine available today and more advances will surely come, giving future players more and more advantages.

If (and it is a big IF) steroid use is and has been as widespread as most believe then marginal and elite players have access to the same competitive advantages, leveling the playing field so to speak. Tommy John surgery is a breakthrough that has extended careers and allowed pitchers that used to be washed up to keep going. Saito's stem cell injection may be the next wave. etc. etc. etc.

#35 Alternate34

  • 2461 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:46 PM

As someone who is fairly well informed in the AAS world, I can say that taking PEDs is pretty safe when done correctly, which it looks like Manny has done with taking a PCT.

A lot of the stuff pro athletes that have trainers and "doctors" to help them greatly minimize the risks involved.


The problem is that there is an impetus to abuse them because you can get greater short term results from abuse. An ADDITIONAL problem is that there is no controlled use that has been proven safe for younger athletes. Asking these people to draw the line at what is safe causes the escalation of use and horrible depression stories and insane injuries because athletes will be like, "Just a smidge more," and boom they're clinically depressed.

#36 keving18

  • 744 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:47 PM

Why not indeed!

People are reattaching ligaments from their legs to their arms. You can even have synthetic ligaments. Tom Brady had a choice between having a cadaver ligament used to repair his knee or a synthetic one. At what point would a this become equipment as opposed to part of the human body?

I agree on PEDs, but my main concern is the harm they cause to the body when taken.


Those things you are referencing are therapeutic innovations. I don't think anybody is objecting to that.

#37 Myt1


  • thinks tim thomas is a dick-fil-a


  • 18359 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:47 PM

Myt1: You may want to look up the word "unequivocally," because it clearly doesn't mean what you think it means.

What? Making a declaration IN CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't mean unequivocal? Get real.


When it also includes the phrase, "in this context," no, it doesn't. Not at all.

I just don't know what else to tell you. Dictionaries are available online now if you've always hated rushing off for a big dusty book with tiny print every time you wanted to peruse the latest edition of Reader's Digest. Is English your first language?

Look. If you have some definitive evidence, post it and we'll pick it apart. Otherwise, we'll have to assume you're as out to lunch as you appear to be. Making a citation without posting the evidence means nothing.


Once again, I wasn't providing the Sun article as a scientific citation. I was providing it as a first google hit and evidence that the theory that WBV was talking about was hardly unknown and that you were deliberately being a jackass. Seems pretty definitive to me. But while we're at it, your citation of, "Duh, lots of people do it," was still awesome.

Look, we all know what you wanted to do. You wanted to turn the whole thread into a big discussion about everything you've learned about how best to cycle when you and your buddies get your grunt on down at the gym.

Edited by Myt1, 07 May 2009 - 02:48 PM.


#38 NDame616


  • will bailey


  • 933 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:48 PM

Please provide evidence. Anecdotal experience means nothing.

I 've never witnessed a trainwreck. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


Comeon, you serious? Do you honestly think everyone who cycles anything just drop dead? Most of the "dangers" of PEDs are media driven based on the problem in baseball. There was a HUGE movement to ban ephedra years ago when idiots did it wrong. I just took it for 6 weeks. I somehow survived.

OK, real proof:
Arnold Schwarzenegger: age, 61
Lou Ferrigno: Age, 57
Chris Dickerson: Age, 69
Hulk Hogan is 55.

There's tons of healthy 50-60 year old former bodybuilders who completely abused steroids DECADES before the science was there to make the drugs safer and the whole cycle (involving PCT) better.

There's a huge difference between a high school kid buying something off of ome gym jock and a professional athlete who pays tens of thousand of dollars for treatment, advice, PCT, cycles, etc.

#39 JimBoSox9


  • will you be my friend?


  • 11650 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:49 PM

All those things on the list have therapeutic value.

Performance-enhancing drugs have, by definition, no therapeutic value, as they are not being use to treat any ailment. Therefore, any doctor prescribing them for off-label use to an athlete is violating his hippocratic oath of "First, do no harm".



my GOD, you are polluting this thread. His point was make PEDs safer, which wouldn't violate the oath to give out.


Edit: Myt1, if you want pint of free advice, just put him on ignore. Clearly you two are not going to convince each other of anything at this point.

Edited by JimBoSox9, 07 May 2009 - 02:50 PM.


#40 EllisTheRimMan

  • 1898 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:49 PM

Those things you are referencing are therapeutic innovations. I don't think anybody is objecting to that.


Steroids and other PEDs or drugs of the future (hello stem cells) have therapeutic benefits for injuries, so your argument is off base.

#41 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 15981 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:50 PM

So your telling me wearing a baseball glove is the same as fundamentally altering the internal make up of the players? Really?

Did I enjoy baseball, yes, but I enjoyed it far less than I would have if it there weren't PED users. So I'd like to see the end of PED using and punishment for the users. How does that make me a hypocrite?


Because the players you are decrying were playing a game you enjoyed. Your enjoyment of that game contributed to the machine that got them all to try to make the game more enjoyable which they did through increased competition which they did through steroids. You are saying that a steroid game is ultimately a game of robots that you can't possibly enjoy but what I'm telling you is that it's the game you've been watching. So in this, you are a hypocrite, you want to take some path of righteousness against that which you have enjoyed. And I'm sure the first time Babe Ruth hit 57 HR, some Ananti ancestor sat in his bleacher seat and said "is this the kind of game we want to watch? Where is the action with these foolish HOME RUNS?" etc.

Life evolves. Do you watch pitchers who have recovered from Tommy John surgery? Because in the 1910's it would have been seen as a desecration of the body. Maybe PED's are the next valid step in medical science, or maybe they will always be a cheat. I don't know right now, but I don't think your vision of the future gives your opinion any more weight than mine.

#42 Alternate34

  • 2461 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:52 PM

Those things you are referencing are therapeutic innovations. I don't think anybody is objecting to that.


Right, I was responding to the robot arms problems which would cause reall issues with the theraputic use bright line by blurring it. If Tommy John surgery added 10 MPH to a fastball, it would still have theraputic use but also enhancement properties. If steroids and HGH and other PEDs help with coming back from injury (which they do) they have a theraputic use. Considering that alot of these players are injured all the time, the theraputic bright line is again blurred. This is why you need lists to say what substances are banned and I think the best way to do that would be to establish which PEDs (a) give increasing returns with increased use and abuse and (b) cause serious health problems.

#43 Chemistry Schmemistry


  • has been programmed to get funky/cry human tears


  • 7394 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:54 PM

Exactly, and why not build a mechanical arm that can throw 200 mph and can hit the ball 1000 feet? Wouldn't that be even more 'exciting'? Heck why not just have robots play the game and eliminate people altogether.

The PED apologists never cease to amaze me with their myopia.


I think we've already come dangerously close to that barrier with Tommy John Surgery.

I've heard the quip, more than once, that since some pitchers are stronger with the replaced tendon, it's better to get that surgery out of the way early in a career, perhaps even before the surgery has any medical benefit.

Ted Williams was rumored to have unusual vision. What if, when performing LASIK, the eye were "corrected" to a level of far-sightedness that made it easier to pick up the rotation of a pitch? Probably already happened if it's possible.

There are all manner of medical techniques that aren't entirely natural, whatever that means.

#44 ngruz25


  • Bibby


  • 9488 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:54 PM

Life evolves. Do you watch pitchers who have recovered from Tommy John surgery? Because in the 1910's it would have been seen as a desecration of the body.

Would it have? I honestly have no idea but that strikes me as odd.

Anyways, I think the Christian Scientists have it right...

#45 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 15981 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:55 PM

Ted Williams was rumored to have unusual vision. What if, when performing LASIK, the eye were "corrected" to a level of far-sightedness that made it easier to pick up the rotation of a pitch? Probably already happened if it's possible.


One could argue that LASIK could have extended Jim Rice's useful career. Should LASIK be banned in the interests of purity?

Then again, it didn't do much for Trot. (that's for SJH!) :)

#46 Alternate34

  • 2461 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:56 PM

Comeon, you serious? Do you honestly think everyone who cycles anything just drop dead? Most of the "dangers" of PEDs are media driven based on the problem in baseball. There was a HUGE movement to ban ephedra years ago when idiots did it wrong. I just took it for 6 weeks. I somehow survived.

OK, real proof:
Arnold Schwarzenegger: age, 61
Lou Ferrigno: Age, 57
Chris Dickerson: Age, 69
Hulk Hogan is 55.

There's tons of healthy 50-60 year old former bodybuilders who completely abused steroids DECADES before the science was there to make the drugs safer and the whole cycle (involving PCT) better.

There's a huge difference between a high school kid buying something off of ome gym jock and a professional athlete who pays tens of thousand of dollars for treatment, advice, PCT, cycles, etc.



I am not convinced that all of those examples are healthy.

Even if they are, some portion of the population may be able to tolerate use. Not all abusers will go Benoit, but they are more too.

Additionally, while there is a huge difference, the key is that allowing the upper level to do it provides a huge incentive to those lower down to try to abuse for short term gain. By testing at high levels, it makes it easier to stay ahead at the lower levels because the research for new testing that is inexpensive and more effective will matriculate. The pros will stay ahead because they have resources to fight this. Those who are amateurs will have a much harder time keeping ahead of testing.

#47 BigJimEd

  • 1757 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:58 PM

Ted Williams was rumored to have unusual vision. What if, when performing LASIK, the eye were "corrected" to a level of far-sightedness that made it easier to pick up the rotation of a pitch? Probably already happened if it's possible.

I believe some golfers have had LASIK for the purpose of improving their golf game.

#48 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 15981 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:59 PM

Would it have? I honestly have no idea but that strikes me as odd.

Anyways, I think the Christian Scientists have it right...


To harvest from one part of the body a part for another part of the body?

Desecration is the wrong word because it implies something spiritual that I won't take the time to prove, so good call out on that, I should use a different word (though my guess is that the church would not have allowed harvesting in that way), but a physician wouldn't have even considered it as a form of healing.

#49 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2063 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 02:59 PM

Because the players you are decrying were playing a game you enjoyed. Your enjoyment of that game contributed to the machine that got them all to try to make the game more enjoyable which they did through increased competition which they did through steroids. You are saying that a steroid game is ultimately a game of robots that you can't possibly enjoy but what I'm telling you is that it's the game you've been watching. So in this, you are a hypocrite, you want to take some path of righteousness against that which you have enjoyed.


Yes, it's the game I've been watching but was sold to me as something else. It was sold to me as athletes who are doing it through normal legal and fair means. And knowing after the fact that it wasn't has drastically decreased my enjoyment. If they were up front about it and told everyone what the product it, you can accuse me of being a hypocrite, but that wasn't the case.

And I'm sure the first time Babe Ruth hit 57 HR, some Ananti ancestor sat in his bleacher seat and said "is this the kind of game we want to watch? Where is the action with these foolish HOME RUNS?" etc.

Life evolves. Do you watch pitchers who have recovered from Tommy John surgery? Because in the 1910's it would have been seen as a desecration of the body.


Utter nonsense.

I'm sure even in 1910 people have heard of such a thing as surgery, and naturally understand the difference of the repairing an injury to using a substance to get an unfair advantage.
When people with healthy elbows voluntarily undergo surgery to improve themselves, then I'll start to worry about the nature of that surgery.

#50 esaslaw

  • 342 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 03:00 PM

Doping is an absolute evil, which left unchecked will destroy sport.

If sport does not control dangerous doping practices, those practices become mandatory for players who wish to remain competitive. This goes far beyond the playing field at the top level - this goes to young athletes who aspire to reach that level. If it becomes clear that to be competitive doping is a requirement, you're not going to see guys start doing it at 25 after they reach the top level - you're going to see 15 year olds do this stuff, and eventually you'll hear horror stories of it being 12 year olds, then 9 year olds...

Can doping ever be absolutely eradicated? No, probably not, but it MUST be reigned in, it must become an act that isn't acceptable - under the written rules of the game, and more importantly, the social code of its players.

Furthermore, doping absolutely gives those who practice it an edge, although many in baseball are assuming different edges than truly exist. Steroids, for instance are a recovery drug. While it may be useful for a hitter on steroids to build muscle strength by doing more weight training, the BEST use for steroids in baseball is among pitchers. Pitching is all about recovery - and that's what steroids help you with most. In a 162 game season, it's the recovery aspects of doping, both steroids and stimulants that really help, not the mass/strength side.


I agree 100%. We watch these games assuming that the people we are watching are not using substances to enhance their performance at the risk of their future health. If it is required that a player must jeopardize their health to play we are watching circus performers and not sport.