Jump to content


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

Photo

NL MVP Ryan Braun has tested positive for performance enhancing drugs?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
367 replies to this topic

#101 teddywingman


  • Looks like Zach Galifianakis


  • 3,462 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 12:52 AM

I would like to see the argument articulated as to the difference. I have already stated the similarities - injecting a foreign substance into the body, allowing the athlete to compete at a higher level than he would "naturally", producing a competitive advantage, and in both cases there is the potential for serious negative consequences.

Those are some similarities. Humor me please and present the argument for why these are apples and oranges. Thanks in advance.



A line needs to be drawn somewhere.

You want to draw it at aspirin or morphine?

#102 ivanvamp


  • one campus at a time..


  • 4,476 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 06:28 AM

A line needs to be drawn somewhere.

You want to draw it at aspirin or morphine?


That doesn't answer my question. But if that *is* your answer, then all you are saying is that I'm right - that we're not talking apples and oranges (between, say, a halftime pain-killing injection and PEDs), but rather just establishing a "well you have to draw the line somewhere, and this seems as good a place as any to do it" kind of thing, which means we're talking various kinds of apples.

#103 Plympton91


  • loco parentis


  • 6,551 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 08:38 AM

That doesn't answer my question. But if that *is* your answer, then all you are saying is that I'm right - that we're not talking apples and oranges (between, say, a halftime pain-killing injection and PEDs), but rather just establishing a "well you have to draw the line somewhere, and this seems as good a place as any to do it" kind of thing, which means we're talking various kinds of apples.


The difference is that there is no reason for a perfectly healthy athlete to inject himself with marcaine in order to improve his performance. So, the need for the drug is limited to players who are legitimately injured and their own exposure to the drug is limited by the duration of the injury. The reason you ban steriods and HGH is to protect players who do not want to take the health risks from having to do so, and having to do so over prolonged periods that increase the health risks exponentially. The appropriate analogy is to why we no longer allow people to smoke on airplanes. When one person is smoking (taking PEDs), they're effectively forcing other people to do so as well.

I think the gray area is injury recovery. If it could be shown that steriods or HGH reduced the recovery time for Tommy John surgery (just an example out of my ass) from 12 months to 7 months, then I think you could make an argument that players who have had the surgery should be able to use it up until they start a rehab assignment or something.

Edited by Plympton91, 13 December 2011 - 08:46 AM.


#104 Curtis_Lesspanic

  • 512 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 09:30 AM

The difference is that there is no reason for a perfectly healthy athlete to inject himself with marcaine in order to improve his performance. So, the need for the drug is limited to players who are legitimately injured and their own exposure to the drug is limited by the duration of the injury. The reason you ban steriods and HGH is to protect players who do not want to take the health risks from having to do so, and having to do so over prolonged periods that increase the health risks exponentially. The appropriate analogy is to why we no longer allow people to smoke on airplanes. When one person is smoking (taking PEDs), they're effectively forcing other people to do so as well.

I think the gray area is injury recovery. If it could be shown that steriods or HGH reduced the recovery time for Tommy John surgery (just an example out of my ass) from 12 months to 7 months, then I think you could make an argument that players who have had the surgery should be able to use it up until they start a rehab assignment or something.


Exactly. If you take two identical players at the start of the season, in their primes, with no discernible injuries, give one Marcaine and the other one Trenbolone, the player who received the Marcaine will not have his performance enhanced and the one who took the Trenbolone will. Pain medications are performance enablers, things that allow a player to cope with some form of injury, not enhancers. To gain any benefit from a pain med, you first have to have your performance compromised. Take a cortisone shot for instance. A player takes one to get through the pain of an injury and get on the field. But the pain relief and anti inflammatory properties of the injection come with side effects that are absolutely not performance enhancing and may cost the Athlete in the long run.

And in addition to protecting the players who don't want to be forced into taking steroids, PEDs are also banned to protect the players using them because they tend to do so in amounts that are more than what is medically recommended, if at all, because some of the PEDs that these guys use aren't even designed for human consumption.

As far as injury recovery goes, if there was a way that it could be strictly monitored, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it as well.

#105 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,577 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 09:38 AM

I think the gray area is injury recovery. If it could be shown that steriods or HGH reduced the recovery time for Tommy John surgery (just an example out of my ass) from 12 months to 7 months, then I think you could make an argument that players who have had the surgery should be able to use it up until they start a rehab assignment or something.


The main benefit of anabolic steroids is they reduce recovery times following workouts, which means you can train harder than would otherwise be humanly possible. I imagine this would be hugely beneficial for athletes rehabbing from certain types of injuries.

There is also some evidence that players have used HGH to try to recover from injury (e.g., Andy Pettitte), but I'm not aware of any evidence that using HGH this way actually works.

#106 snowmanny

  • 2,564 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 10:00 AM

Every time there's a PED-related thread the same issues about morality, effect on performance, Babe Ruth playing in an all-white league, what's in a box of GNC muscle mix, etc etc get rehashed. I'm not really sure what relevance any of it has to Ryan Braun's case.

The owners and the union have made a determination of what's allowed and what the process is for testing and punishment, so all that other stuff is settled from a protocol point of view. You took something by accident? Doesn't matter. What you took doesn't really help you hit any better? Doesn't matter. Your wifes/dogs/teammates banned ointment splattered on your leg? Doesnt matter. Apart from an identifiable problem with the handling of the sample or the testing process I am not sure what defense could save him, but I'm interested to hear.

#107 BigJimEd

  • 1,774 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 10:15 AM

Many of the banned substances reportedly do help in injury recovery. PED's, for the most part, allow an athlete to work out harder and recover faster.
Pain killers allowed the athlete to get back on the field or in the weight room faster.

The health risks of most of these banned PED's are greatly exaggerated. Most of them are relatively safe and, even when abusing them, the risk is more short term than long term. Many of the allowed substances have greater proven health risks.

If anyone can point me to a credible study to show



But I do agree with snowmanny that the rules are the rules and if an athlete doesn't like them then too bad, try to change them. If one breaks the rules and gets caught then they pay the punishment. However with PED use, many feel the punishment isn't enough. Many feel anyone breaking this particularly rule should not be allowed in the hall of fame and some feel they should be permanently banned. I don't agree with that. They broke the rule and paid the agreed upon punishment. End of story.

But since this is such a sensitive public topic, MLB needs to do a better job of keeping it confidential until a final decision has been made.

#108 teddywingman


  • Looks like Zach Galifianakis


  • 3,462 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 02:20 PM

That doesn't answer my question. But if that *is* your answer, then all you are saying is that I'm right - that we're not talking apples and oranges (between, say, a halftime pain-killing injection and PEDs), but rather just establishing a "well you have to draw the line somewhere, and this seems as good a place as any to do it" kind of thing, which means we're talking various kinds of apples.


Plympton91 and Curtis Lesspanic it for me. My earlier analogy was weak and misleading.

#109 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 3,744 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 02:33 PM

As far as injury recovery goes, if there was a way that it could be strictly monitored, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it as well.

Philispohically I don't disagree, but if you allow use of performance enhancers for injury recovery - everyone's going to magically have injuries to recover from. No matter what system you devise to allow use of these drugs, someone is going to game it. As an example - when word got out in certain Olympic style sports that you could get a TUE (Therputic Use Exemption) for the steroids in inhalers, an asthma epidemic quickly followed.

Edited by Fred not Lynn, 13 December 2011 - 02:34 PM.


#110 ivanvamp


  • one campus at a time..


  • 4,476 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 05:42 PM

Exactly. If you take two identical players at the start of the season, in their primes, with no discernible injuries, give one Marcaine and the other one Trenbolone, the player who received the Marcaine will not have his performance enhanced and the one who took the Trenbolone will. Pain medications are performance enablers, things that allow a player to cope with some form of injury, not enhancers. To gain any benefit from a pain med, you first have to have your performance compromised. Take a cortisone shot for instance. A player takes one to get through the pain of an injury and get on the field. But the pain relief and anti inflammatory properties of the injection come with side effects that are absolutely not performance enhancing and may cost the Athlete in the long run.

And in addition to protecting the players who don't want to be forced into taking steroids, PEDs are also banned to protect the players using them because they tend to do so in amounts that are more than what is medically recommended, if at all, because some of the PEDs that these guys use aren't even designed for human consumption.

As far as injury recovery goes, if there was a way that it could be strictly monitored, I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it as well.


Ok you guys make some good points, and that makes sense. But let me bring it back to something like lasik surgery then. If I have bad eyesight, them's the breaks. Without the surgery, my ceiling is X. With the surgery, my ceiling is X+1.

Eyesight is a physical limitation, not different in principle than someone's height or bone structure (i.e., ability to carry more muscle mass). A person with less than ideal eyesight has a *natural* competitive disadvantage compared with someone who has 20/20 (or better) eyesight. If that person goes through lasik surgery (which *can* have complications), he could theoretically end up with vision better than the 20/20 guy, and thus, through the magic of medicine, he now has a competitive advantage.

I get the points that you guys are making, but again, I'm having a hard time seeing the moral distinction. I mean, beyond the basic (and legitimate) "look, it's against the rules and you shouldn't break the rules".

#111 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,522 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 01:05 PM

Ok you guys make some good points, and that makes sense. But let me bring it back to something like lasik surgery then. If I have bad eyesight, them's the breaks. Without the surgery, my ceiling is X. With the surgery, my ceiling is X+1.

Eyesight is a physical limitation, not different in principle than someone's height or bone structure (i.e., ability to carry more muscle mass). A person with less than ideal eyesight has a *natural* competitive disadvantage compared with someone who has 20/20 (or better) eyesight. If that person goes through lasik surgery (which *can* have complications), he could theoretically end up with vision better than the 20/20 guy, and thus, through the magic of medicine, he now has a competitive advantage.

I get the points that you guys are making, but again, I'm having a hard time seeing the moral distinction. I mean, beyond the basic (and legitimate) "look, it's against the rules and you shouldn't break the rules".


To restate what I posted a mere 27 posts ago. you are simply incorrect.

Lasik's ability to correct your vision is completely dependent on what is responsible for your imperfect vision. For example, I have an astigmatism. If I were to have lasik surgery, I could not be corrected to better than 20/40. Instead, I have glasses and am corrected to 20/15, which is better than the vision I was born with.

This will vary for each individual - for some, lasik will work as well as glasses or contacts, and as notfar pointed out, may actually have a minor advantage (relative to depth perception) versus those methods. For others, it won't. But again, it's about the method of vision correction that works for each individual, not about a single procedure giving someone an unfair advantage. Because anyone can correct their vision to 20/20 or better without using Lasik.

The only advantage of the procedure - the only one - is the convenience of not wearing glasses or contacts. How can that possibly be seen as analogous to using PEDs?

#112 Pearl Wilson


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,124 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 08:41 PM

BTW, lasik can correct your vision to better than 20/20 in some cases. Of course there is a limit and no sane person would subject themself to repeated surgeries believing their vision will continue to improve. There is no cycle of surgery followed by the surgery wearing off, being repeated, etc.

FWIW, Victor Conte's take:

Baseball players – along with other athletes – are loading up on synthetic testosterone (and perhaps HGH) at night, when the body is repairing itself between games and workouts. The testosterone is administered through patches, gels, creams or orals. By the following afternoon, when that player is vulnerable to MLB testing, the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone is beneath the 4-to-1 ratio that triggers a positive test.

“It’s a loophole,” Conte said, “you could drive a Mack truck through.”

For what it’s worth, Conte believes designer steroids – the Clear, for one – are no longer a danger to professional sports. But, the fast-acting testosterone treatments, he said, leave a person’s system within hours, after aiding him in muscle recovery, and so they are undetectable through the most common forms of testing. They also are easily obtainable and often administered as simply as through a patch.


We are talking about a high stakes industry that is not subject to public scrutiny, public peer review, or an IRB. Nobody knows the extent of it. If someone is harmed, what recourse do they have? I agree with FnL that the players need protection.

Edited by Pearl Wilson, 15 December 2011 - 08:45 PM.


#113 BigJimEd

  • 1,774 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 06:55 AM

BTW, lasik can correct your vision to better than 20/20 in some cases. Of course there is a limit and no sane person would subject themself to repeated surgeries believing their vision will continue to improve. There is no cycle of surgery followed by the surgery wearing off, being repeated, etc.

FWIW, Victor Conte's take:



We are talking about a high stakes industry that is not subject to public scrutiny, public peer review, or an IRB. Nobody knows the extent of it. If someone is harmed, what recourse do they have? I agree with FnL that the players need protection.


Protection from what? Is there any known athlete that has suffered serious health issues due to illegal PED use?

From everything I've read and heard many of the allowed supplements have more proven health risks than those that are banned.
Same with painkillers such as vicodin have some known serious long term health risks. We know of athletes that have been addicted to those so if the interest is to protect the athlete then why not ban them?

#114 ivanvamp


  • one campus at a time..


  • 4,476 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 11:27 AM

To restate what I posted a mere 27 posts ago. you are simply incorrect.

Lasik's ability to correct your vision is completely dependent on what is responsible for your imperfect vision. For example, I have an astigmatism. If I were to have lasik surgery, I could not be corrected to better than 20/40. Instead, I have glasses and am corrected to 20/15, which is better than the vision I was born with.

This will vary for each individual - for some, lasik will work as well as glasses or contacts, and as notfar pointed out, may actually have a minor advantage (relative to depth perception) versus those methods. For others, it won't. But again, it's about the method of vision correction that works for each individual, not about a single procedure giving someone an unfair advantage. Because anyone can correct their vision to 20/20 or better without using Lasik.

The only advantage of the procedure - the only one - is the convenience of not wearing glasses or contacts. How can that possibly be seen as analogous to using PEDs?


I completely get that you find the analogy ridiculous (and, btw, I almost certainly agree with you), but I guess the argument I am trying to make is that in the case of lasik, a player is using an artificial procedure or aid to help improve his performance, greater than what his body in its natural state can do.

This is true in the case of improved eyesight. It is true in the case of heightened testosterone levels. It is true in the case of pain-killers (when otherwise, a guy would be too hurt to play).

What makes PEDs (steroids, HGH, etc.) inherently "worse" or "evil" or whatever word you want to use? Is it the health risks involved?

#115 Pearl Wilson


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,124 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 10:56 AM

Protection from what? Is there any known athlete that has suffered serious health issues due to illegal PED use?

From everything I've read and heard many of the allowed supplements have more proven health risks than those that are banned.
Same with painkillers such as vicodin have some known serious long term health risks. We know of athletes that have been addicted to those so if the interest is to protect the athlete then why not ban them?

Protection from moral hazard, from people who do business and science in the shadows. You said earlier and I don't disagree, that some athletes may have benefited by using PEDs yet you seem to discount the notion that harm is also possible.

I think we can agree that the incentive is there to try something new in order to gain an edge and that young athletes are vulnerable. The something new - almost by definition - has been subject only to limited testing and peer review. I'm sure there are a lot of well-intentioned people buying and selling goods and services related to PEDs, but there are likely some crooks among the bunch and some (possibly unintentionally) bad science mixed in with the good. If you don't believe there is the potential for significant harm then we can agree to disagree.

Leaving aside the issue of physical harm for a moment, the stuff is expensive right? Because the market price is all sorts of screwed up. If an athlete is attempting to buy a banned substance but instead receives sugar pills, will he/she even know? If they do know, who are they going to report it to?

If MLB wants to bless certain PEDs made in certified facilities (as they do presently for non PED supplements) and sold by certain outlets, then ok by me because it means that there will have been some sunshine let in.

#116 Pearl Wilson


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,124 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 11:12 AM

...painkillers such as vicodin have some known serious long term health risks. We know of athletes that have been addicted to those so if the interest is to protect the athlete then why not ban them?


I can go to MedLine Plus and find all kinds of info about (to use your example) Vicodin including the precautions and the side effects. The risks are known and an adult can make an informed choice.

#117 Yaz4Ever


  • Please hire me!


  • 8,457 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 11:23 AM

I can go to MedLine Plus and find all kinds of info about (to use your example) Vicodin including the precautions and the side effects. The risks are known and an adult can make an informed choice.


Wait a minute here. Are you insinuating that the guy I met at the gym last week might not have fully counseled me on precautions and side effects? I mean, I wasn't expecting the third nipple, but could this be a side effect? He told me they were completely safe.

Pearl's making a solid point here, folks. There is no way an athlete can make a fully-informed decision about these gray/black market substances. Just because your teammate didn't have adverse affects doesn't mean you won't. I can't understand how multimillion dollar athletes can be so ready to gamble away their livelihoods (or more importantly, their lives) with these items, unless they became multimillion dollar athletes because of them and the fear of coming off and exposing themselves is too great.

#118 The Allented Mr Ripley


  • holden


  • 9,167 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 11:30 AM

Protection from what? Is there any known athlete that has suffered serious health issues due to illegal PED use?


Lyle Alzado comes to mind.

#119 jk333

  • 1,781 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 11:48 AM

Lyle Alzado comes to mind.


How about every wrestler? (generalization)

There are many side effects that have been documented from steroids; the effects can be managed but I don't think anyone thinks that they are completely safe.
Example - http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15248788

Both Vicodin and Anabolic steroids are controlled substances. Controlled substances are controlled for a reason. Steroids get abused because they can improve the performance of a healthy athlete.

#120 E5 Yaz


  • Transcends message boarding


  • 26,174 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 12:49 PM

Lyle Alzado comes to mind.


As does Mike Webster and Steve Courson

#121 samuelLsamson

  • 962 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 04:45 PM

As does Mike Webster and Steve Courson


Indeed. There is also some evidence of steroid use leading to suicide in young athletes.

Experienced users sometimes take fertility drugs at the end of their cycles of steroids to jumpstart their natural production of testosterone and avoid the psychological crash that can accompany the cessation of steroid use.

''You're left with very low testosterone levels, which can affect the chemicals in the brain, which control mood, and these people can very often become very depressed and suicidal,'' said Dr. Edward L. Klaiber of Worcester, Mass., a leading researcher and endocrinologist. ''I've had a number of steroid-using adolescents who have expressed suicidal thoughts.''



#122 Resonance Wright


  • It's a put-on


  • 1,910 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 01:26 AM

I completely get that you find the analogy ridiculous (and, btw, I almost certainly agree with you), but I guess the argument I am trying to make is that in the case of lasik, a player is using an artificial procedure or aid to help improve his performance, greater than what his body in its natural state can do.

This is true in the case of improved eyesight. It is true in the case of heightened testosterone levels. It is true in the case of pain-killers (when otherwise, a guy would be too hurt to play).

What makes PEDs (steroids, HGH, etc.) inherently "worse" or "evil" or whatever word you want to use? Is it the health risks involved?


At a certain level, the answer can simply be 'they're being used illegally'. Some parts of the MLB code of ethics don't really have to be based on deep, universal, transcendental truths; they can be based on the laws of the land. On the one hand that's just kicking the can down the road; on the other hand, it's ok if the sport keeps things simple. It's... a sport.

I think Emerson's statement about foolish consistency bears fruit here; to some extent you can classify all manner of things as performance enhancers, from training regimens to icepacks to Advil, right alongside today's PEDs and tomorrow's genetic and nanotechnological enhancements, but does that really mean that we should treat them all the same? Is it helpful to do so? Is it even practicable for baseball to break it all down into proscribed and permitted categories, and to have to monitor so many many more things that a player does and doesn't do, because on some sophist level they can be classified as performance enhancement?

Sure, it isn't all casuist hairsplitting. There are interesting gray areas, like amputee sprinters with artificial limbs, and platelet therapy. And they're the sort of thing that lend themselves to a deep and challenging debate. Remember Lance Armstrong's cancer treatment and ensuing therapy? Some people think that that medical regimen actually enhanced Armstrong, and more, that his doctors knew very well that the approach they were choosing would boost his athletic capacity. You want a meaty slippery slope argument, there it is -- on the one hand if you're the athlete, you know damned well that you don't want MLB bureaucrats dictating what your doctor can do, for reasons that may or may not be sound and ultimately relevant. On the other hand, as an observer of human behavior you also know that there are doctors who would be more than happy to choose 'therapy' treatments with an eye for performance enhancement. To frame this in a baseball context: what if Rocco Baldelli's disorder was completely curable, if he went through some sort of hyperintensive medical treatment along the lines of what Lance Armstrong went through? And Rocco Baldelli comes back and wins a couple Triple Crowns? He tests clean, he has a documented medical reason for every treatment he received, he clearly had a medical condition that needed addressed, but he still hits 50 jacks and doesn't seem too tired at the end of a doubleheader? His condition is rare, so it's not like everyone can exploit it if you let it stand, and Rocco just wants to play ball. But he is now, clearly, a better ballplayer than he ever was. How do you draw the line?

Here's my take: having baseball be the final arbiter on what is right or wrong is a problem. It's fine if baseball redefines the debate and casts a light on key issues, but a) baseball is powerless anyway to say something's fine if it's illegal and b) nobody ought to rightfully trust baseball to make these decisions anyway, it's like letting McDonalds run the FDA. These are issues that have to be ultimately determined by society -- by law. And to me that's where you draw the line. The stuff we're looking at over the last 20 years in baseball that have been problems, like steroids and amphetamines, are handily addressed by the law.

Sometimes things can be simple and that's ok.

#123 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,577 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 11:40 PM

Webster likely died due to complications from brain trauma. Alzado blamed steroids for the brain tumor that took his life, but I'm not aware of any evidence that steroids cause such tumors. This is the "evidence" that PEDs are harmful?

Look, I don't think athletes should be allowed to use steroids, and I'm sympathetic to those who wish to keep users out of the Hall of Fame, but the moral outrage this issue evokes would be better focused on other issues, such as athletes who beat their wives.

#124 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 3,744 posts

Posted 19 December 2011 - 02:09 AM

Webster likely died due to complications from brain trauma. Alzado blamed steroids for the brain tumor that took his life, but I'm not aware of any evidence that steroids cause such tumors. This is the "evidence" that PEDs are harmful?

Look, I don't think athletes should be allowed to use steroids, and I'm sympathetic to those who wish to keep users out of the Hall of Fame, but the moral outrage this issue evokes would be better focused on other issues, such as athletes who beat their wives.


There are substantial health issues among former GDR athletes who participated in that systematic state sponsored doping programs up until the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The fundamental difference between wife beating and doping is that wife beating has nothing to do with actual sports performance. Personally my moral disdain for those who have practiced doping is limited to those who knowingly broke clearly communicated rules of sport. If I was playing a sport where I knew many of my competitors were using steroids and stimulants and it wasn't prohibited under the rules of my sport, you bet I'd be using them too!

#125 BigJimEd

  • 1,774 posts

Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:58 AM

Lyle Alzado comes to mind.

This is part of the misinformation. Alzado died of brain tumor. He attributed to steroids but his own doctor admitted steroids played no role.

Webster had CTE, not aware of any evidence steroids, if he did use, played any part what so ever.

Not saying there is no danger but it has become a scapegoat and the danger is greatly exaggerated. It is a political/PR issue as much as anything.FWIW, the AMA, FDA and the DEA all opposed adding steroids to the controlled substance act when it first was added.

There is ample evidence that steroid use in adolescents can have serious health risks. There are also studies that show the main reason they use steroids are for appearance, not for sports. Studies, also, show prevention is linked to educating young people and showed no link between perceived use in pros and use among teens and young adults


Of course there is risk in the black market, that is more my point. By allowing many of these PEDs which evidence suggests is safer than some that are already allowed, sports leagues would make it safer for athletes. They could many of these things from a doctor on the up and up who could explain all the risks. The doctor can make sure what is taken is what it is supposed to be and is the correct dosage.

Will there be some that push the envelope? Yes, but there will be less of them and the black market won't be the billion dollar industry it currently is.

I also think they should still test for these things. Testing for unhealthy levels. I'm not against all testing just that sports in general should step back and review what, why and how?
At least if the goal is the health of athletes.

#126 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,577 posts

Posted 19 December 2011 - 09:17 AM

There are substantial health issues among former GDR athletes who participated in that systematic state sponsored doping programs up until the fall of the Berlin Wall.


I'm sure this is true, but what the East Germans did was probably qualitatively different from the sort of PED use that was/is prevalent among U.S. athletes.






#127 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 3,744 posts

Posted 19 December 2011 - 11:27 AM

I'm sure this is true, but what the East Germans did was probably qualitatively different from the sort of PED use that was/is prevalent among U.S. athletes.

If it worked for them, someone in the US will try it. I have already agreed in this thread that most doping could be done safely if supervised medically. Problem is, while then EVERYONE would HAVE to do it then (thusly not actually making the game any better or more interesting), some/many would then choose to dope beyond the limits of safe supervision to gain their edge. Even by allowing safe, supervised limits you're introducing doping policy and limits, and if you think the enforcment process is messy now it would get a whole lot worse. The safest, easiest limit to communicate and enforce is zero.

#128 Resonance Wright


  • It's a put-on


  • 1,910 posts

Posted 19 December 2011 - 06:45 PM

Of course there is risk in the black market, that is more my point. By allowing many of these PEDs which evidence suggests is safer than some that are already allowed, sports leagues would make it safer for athletes. They could many of these things from a doctor on the up and up who could explain all the risks. The doctor can make sure what is taken is what it is supposed to be and is the correct dosage.

Will there be some that push the envelope? Yes, but there will be less of them and the black market won't be the billion dollar industry it currently is.


Sure, if people take steroids in an environment where they're legal, the average dosage of steroids will probably be safer -- people will have access to regulated drugs and a legal support structure to facilitate their safer use, whereas people who take black market drugs are participating in an anarchocapitalist enterprise with no safeguards and no overwhelming market force to put safety first. But I definitely disagree that if everyone gets safe steroids that fewer people will push the envelope. Nobody's going to be interested in an 'average dose' of steroids except for the people who are content to play without an edge today.

Ballplayers generally aren't taking PEDs for pure gains in performance so much as they're taking them to get that edge edge. They are in a free market competition for a limited amount of opportunity; if everyone has access to 'safe' steroids then just taking steroids doesn't give you an edge anymore in that competition, you're just breaking even. It's the old 'I don't have to outrun the bear if I can outrun you' argument.

If ballplayers couldn't make more money by enhancing their performance, I think very few ballplayers would bother to do it. Sure, some would, for ego or competitiveness, but the fact of the matter is that steroid use was heavily financially rewarded. These guys weren't just doing it to hit the ball farther or bounce back quicker.

I'm normally sympathetic to the 'legalize, regulate, and protect users' argument, but in this case I don't think it would achieve anything good -- certainly not what you say.

#129 SoxScout


  • Maalox Territory


  • 30,161 posts

Posted 10 February 2012 - 02:01 AM

Nightengale tweets that a resolution to the appeal will be announced in the next few days

#130 HangingW/ScottCooper

  • 1,061 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:08 PM

Apparently there should be a resolution today per Jon Heyman on twitter. I can't access twitter at work, just quoting Rotoworld

Ryan Braun is expected to be given a decision on his 50-game PED suspension appeal on Thursday.
It's been over a month since Braun made a plea of innocence in front of an independent arbitrator in New York City, and he's finally going to know his status for the start of the 2012 campaign. If the suspension is upheld, he'll be forced to sit out the first 50 games of the season. If it's overturned, it will be the first time in major league history that a PED appeal has been successful.


Edit jsonline.com has the Suspension upheld... wow.


http://www.jsonline..../140213003.html

Edited by HangingW/ScottCooper, 23 February 2012 - 05:11 PM.


#131 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3,413 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:10 PM

According to this Brewers beat writer, Braun has won his appeal:

https://twitter.com/#!/Haudricourt/status/172804608597557249
link to tweet

#132 glennhoffmania


  • likes the tomahawk chop


  • 8,384,290 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:15 PM

According to the Washington Post he lost.

http://www.washingto...ILWR_story.html

But Milwaukee paper says he won.

http://www.jsonline..../140213003.html

Edited by glennhoffmania, 23 February 2012 - 05:19 PM.


#133 Laser Show

  • 3,374 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:20 PM

Tom Haudricourt is sticking to it:

I've been told AP is reporting Braun lost his appeal. Believe me, Braun won.
5:13 PM - 23 Feb 12 via web


MLB has put out a statement saying it "vehemently disagrees" with arbitrator's decision on Braun. That would be Shyam Das.
5:18 PM - 23 Feb 12 via web


Edited by Laser Show, 23 February 2012 - 05:21 PM.


#134 pedros hairstylist


  • Allison?


  • PipPipPip
  • 5,577 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:23 PM

According to the Washington Post he lost.

http://www.washingto...ILWR_story.html

But Milwaukee paper says he won.

http://www.jsonline..../140213003.html


The Post story from the AP is now a correction saying he won.

#135 HangingW/ScottCooper

  • 1,061 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:23 PM

It's not true unless Rob Lowe chimes in.

#136 HangingW/ScottCooper

  • 1,061 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:25 PM

Statement from MLB:

“Major League Baseball considers the obligations of the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program essential to the integrity of our game, our Clubs and all of the players who take the field. It has always been Major League Baseball’s position that no matter who tests positive, we will exhaust all avenues in pursuit of the appropriate discipline. We have been true to that position in every instance, because baseball fans deserve nothing less.

“As a part of our drug testing program, the Commissioner’s Office and the Players Association agreed to a neutral third party review for instances that are under dispute. While we have always respected that process, Major League Baseball vehemently disagrees with the decision rendered today by arbitrator Shyam Das.”

#137 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:31 PM

That has to be the oddest result that could possibly come of this. And why would MLB say that though?

Unfortunately, there probably won't be any more facts that come out about this. Seems like there must be a story there though.

#138 soxhop411


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,728 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:32 PM

That has to be the oddest result that could possibly come of this. And why would MLB say that though?

Unfortunately, there probably won't be any more facts that come out about this. Seems like there must be a story there though.



Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Braun says he will address media Friday. #MLB #Brewers


you also have to remember the test results were LEAKED, we should not have known about the drug test until his appeal was decided. if it wasn't leaked we would not know any of this. Whoever leaked it is most likely fired or something

Edited by soxhop411, 23 February 2012 - 05:33 PM.


#139 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,522 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:33 PM

I'm sure the facts will come out shortly and we can judge for ourselves, but that's an odd statement for MLB to issue.

Kind of ridiculous to claim that you've always respected the process while ripping the decision that came out of the very same process. Makes them look petty. Also, the notion that MLB is some sort of shining beacon of righteousness in the fight against PEDs is laughable on its face.

#140 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:36 PM

you also have to remember the test results were LEAKED, we should not have known about the drug test until his appeal was decided. if it wasn't leaked we would not know any of this. Whoever leaked it is most likely fired or something


Really? Leaking the results seems to be pretty standard then.


I can't remember ever hearing about someone failing a test and then failing an appeal months after the rest of the tests are announced. You always hear about the failed test and appeal and then the appeal later when it failed.

The only ones we wouldn't hear about would be people who won their appeals, and this is the first one.

Edited by BucketOBalls, 23 February 2012 - 05:37 PM.


#141 soxhop411


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,728 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:41 PM

RT @TomJolly: Key to Braun's exoneration: Lab said to wait 48 hours to send results instead of mandated 24: http://nyti.ms/x2ATzq

Jon Heyman ‏ @JonHeymanCBS Close
part of braun's argument was that the chain of custody was broken for 2 days, meaning the sample was left unprotected

Edited by soxhop411, 23 February 2012 - 05:42 PM.


#142 Sampo Gida

  • 3,136 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:48 PM

RT @TomJolly: Key to Braun's exoneration: Lab said to wait 48 hours to send results instead of mandated 24: http://nyti.ms/x2ATzq

Jon Heyman ‏ @JonHeymanCBS Close
part of braun's argument was that the chain of custody was broken for 2 days, meaning the sample was left unprotected


If that was the case Braun would not be vindicated in the court of public opinion, although Brewers fans will rejoice.

And of course, you can be sure some will say Bud had a hand in this to protect his old team.

I think Braun would want to let his fellow players know how he won, so the real reason, if these are not it, should come out.

#143 Sampo Gida

  • 3,136 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:53 PM

“As a part of our drug testing program, the Commissioner’s Office and the Players Association agreed to a neutral third party review for instances that are under dispute. While we have always respected that process, Major League Baseball vehemently disagrees with the decision rendered today by arbitrator Shyam Das.”


I thought there were 3 arbitrators and it was 2-1, so why name only 1 of the 2 arbitrators who voted for Braun?

#144 E5 Yaz


  • Transcends message boarding


  • 26,174 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:59 PM

I thought there were 3 arbitrators and it was 2-1, so why name only 1 of the 2 arbitrators who voted for Braun?


Umm, because you didn't read the right story?

MLB executive vice president Rob Manfred and union head Michael Weiner are part of the arbitration panel, and management and the union almost always split their votes, leaving Das, the independent panel member, to make the decision.



#145 PC Drunken Friar

  • 3,577 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 06:09 PM

On ESPN, they said that the tainted sample reportedly had been suppose to be delivered to FedEx on a Saturday, but the handler thought FedEx was closed, so he waited until Monday morning to deliver it. So Braun won his appeal based on a technicality.

Woof.

#146 staz


  • Intangible


  • 4,757 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 06:09 PM

A freshman level Public Relations 101 class could have handled the release of this news with more competency.

#147 soxhop411


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,728 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 06:16 PM


Steve Berthiaume @SBerthiaumeESPN

Braun test sample collector thought FedEx/Kinkos was closed because it was late on a Saturday. MLB is livid and considering options.


#148 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 07:07 PM

On ESPN, they said that the tainted sample reportedly had been suppose to be delivered to FedEx on a Saturday, but the handler thought FedEx was closed, so he waited until Monday morning to deliver it. So Braun won his appeal based on a technicality.

Woof.


How would that break chain of custody; the handler had it the whole time. If he was gonna tamper with it, he could have anyway. I would think MLB would argue that procedure was followed(as soon as possible), just the handler was wrong about what was possible.

#149 DaubachmanTurnerOD

  • 536 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 07:22 PM

How would that break chain of custody; the handler had it the whole time. If he was gonna tamper with it, he could have anyway. I would think MLB would argue that procedure was followed(as soon as possible), just the handler was wrong about what was possible.


I don't think it's a chain of custody issue; I think it's a passage of time issue. The thought being that the chemsitry of the sample could change over the greater period of time.

Whether that's true or not, I have no idea.

#150 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 23 February 2012 - 07:30 PM

I don't think it's a chain of custody issue; I think it's a passage of time issue. The thought being that the chemsitry of the sample could change over the greater period of time.

Whether that's true or not, I have no idea.


If that's the case, wouldn't they just go get a new sample though? You would think the lab would know that and not bother testing it.

Either he got off on a major technicality or the testing procedure is alot less rigorous than I though.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users