Great article.  You deserve hundreds of thumbs up for that one.  You hit the nail on the proverbial head.  You said very well what it seems I have been unable to communicate in other threads.

I understand what the article is saying, but I have to disagree to a point. And, I think anyone that has ever taken amphetamines would agree. Yes, they keep you up, but there is a price you pay. First, you are usually jittery. I would think that would be a detriment to performance. You need patience at the plate and concentration. Just because you are wide awake doesn't mean your performance is going to be good. Second, there is no performance enhancement. The bat still has to hit the ball. And, unlike steroids, the bat won't hit the ball any farther or harder. Third, you get the same sort of thing from a couple strong cups of coffee for the most part. Or, a Red Bull.  And the fourth thing is, you crash hard. You are 4 times as tired when you come off the things as you were when you were on because your heart beats so fast.

Having said all that, I do think everyone should play on a level field. MLB banned amphetamines because if you keep taking them  to stay up, your heart will eventually give out. The last thing they want is some player in the second game of a double header in August passing out and dying.

If Willie Mays took them as alleged, that kind of shoots a hole in your argument. He hit the ball, he caught the ball, he stole bases and is thought of one of the best ever. He was not jittery, seemed to be in control at the plate and if there is no performance enhancement why would athletes take them?

If you are speaking from personal experience, it would appear that you suffered from an overdose or just over did it.Looking for an edge and looking to get high are not the same. Willie for one did not seem to have any of these issues. If coffee and Red Bull produced the same kind of results as amphetamines, they would be illegal.....I can drink a couple of cups of espresso and go to sleep, not true with amphetamines.

Wonderful Article man, I fully agree with you

I think that these athletes having played on a daily basis need a pick me up somehow to give them a boost.    Steroid use is not what I'm voting for, but amphetamines to me would be similar to using a minor supplement as creatine.    The records back then should'nt be tarnished in anyway due to use of amphetamines.    Just a pick me up, is all those were.

"What is the definition of performance enhancing drugs?  Personally, I believe it means any drug that allows a player to perform at a higher level than if he never took the drug. "

By your definition, aspirin is a performance enhancing drug.  So is caffeine.  You want to "make a fuss" about those too?

thank you. thank you. thank you! not only should this be an eye-opener for MLB critics, but i said something similar when i was arguing in the 'curt schilling' blog.

I agree, before this discussion continues, everyone should get a copy of Jim Bouton's book.

I don't see the link (as cinnalocks said) between steroids and amphetamines.  I do know that until the amphetamines were banned, with all of the day games, there used to be two coffee pots in the Cubs clubhouse.  One was straight coffee and the other had a little pick-me-up in it.  That wouldn't help you hit the ball further or recover from injury, however.

I have both "Ball Four" and "I Hope You Didn't Take It Personally".

After reading them I must say I would really like to bring back the phrase "Beaver Shooting".

i played professional baseball from '97-07, right in the prime of the so-called "Steroid Era" in baseball and will tell you that "greenies" were more widely used than steroids in my opinion.  getting "beaned up" before a game with your teammates was part of the drill and there were no stigmas attached to it if you were a known user of the drug.  Coaches "beaned up", trainers "beaned up, everybody in the clubhouse "beaned up".  I never used steroids but did use amphetamines on occasion to get myself ready for a game.  You play a 140 or 160 game schedule and it is hard for your body to be ready to play every night.  75% of all players I played with during my career used some sort of stimulant to get ready for a game.  Examples are coffee, red bull, monster energy drinks, ginseng, Xenadrine, Hydroxycut, adderal, and other more potent prescription medications.  It wasn't hidden in the clubhouse and it seemed like everyone knew what was going on.  Like I said, it's hard to prepare yourself physically to perform at least six nights a week on a high level.

Yep.  The players will always do what they can get away with doing.  Always have.  Always will.  The honor system just won't work.

God - if you go after everyone taking amphetamines, then you are going to have to arrest 3/4 of the SUV driving Soccer moms in America!

So, let me see if I have this right...Not only do we get to strip the juicers of their steroid assisted records and achievements but now we get to reduce their seasons by 20 games per year too???...Wow, by my calculations that should clean up both the record books and the HOF...Welcome back Hank, George, Willie, Roger and Mickey...So long juicers!...Excellent article!!!...What else do you got?

Wait, do you understand that the article suggested that anything done BY Hank, Willie, Roger and Mickey in about 20 games per season would be removed from the books?  That the 20 games per season thing was NOT meant for the steroid users of today, right?

He was saying that players from the 50's and 60's were using drugs to enable them to play in more games.  And as users of a controlled substance, should also have records altered, like the steroid users.  He's talking about taking homers AWAY from Mays and Aaron and the like.

Hey ML,
Yes, I am quite aware what the intent of the article is/was...The problem, however, is this: Steroids and HGH for that matter, do a MUCH better job of lessening the time it takes for the body to recover. Thus, not only are the juicers benefiting from enhanced performance they are also benefiting from being able to exhibit that enhanced performance in more games...So, by the time you deduct the 'juicers' achievements they have realized from BOTH the enhanced performance AND the additional games...well, they are barely found in the box score let alone the record book...and they are certainly nowhere near the HOF.

The article served to further reinforce, not diminish, the added performance benefits of taking steroids.

hi

hi

No, the point of the article was to point out that "cheating" has been documented to occur as early as the early 1900's with the spit ball, which was banned in the middle 1920's.  Players have admitted to the use of amphetamines since the 1960's, and we know that steriods entered Baseball as early as the late 1980's.  How can one determine who cheated, and even if one took a subtance to increase performance how much did it alter their numbers?  The answer is that we will never know.  Therefore, just leave all the records alone.  No one's numbers are to be changed.  Everyone just needs to quit whinning about steroids because people in the generation before them used a subtance to get through games and the season.

"Any sports writer or fan believes that for any player who used steroids that their numbers should not be in the record book. Well, then you need to include the players that used amphetamines"

This line was to be sarcastic.  In other words, don't take it literally.  It was meant to be a "joke", and to point out the hyopricsay by the sports writers and media as to who should and who should not be included in the HOF.

Did we read the same article? 
Steroids do a better job in recovery than what?  Therapy?  You won't get an argument from me on that.  But you missed the part where players in the past would take "uppers" in order to play in many more games than they normally would have been physically able to.  Hence, for similar reasons one would alter records of steroid users one could also alter the records of all the players who took illegal stimulants as well.  This includes many current Hall of Famers.

Since the "juicers" are not getting any added benefit on the field, it is logical to conclude that the steroid use is not too dissimilar from "greenies" and other illegal stims used by scored of players for decades and decades.  The article points out the futility of altering records for ANYONE.

That was what I took from the article.  No one knows and augmenting records to account for drug use is a worthless and ignorant gesture.  Just make new rules and move on.  When the players find something else to take, make new rules for them and more on again.  It will be a never ending cycle.

If it was meant to be read that way, OK.  I guess.  The problem is that it is not sarcastic at all.  In fact, it was pretty smart and well reasoned.  It makes a ton of sense.  Which is why I was applauding the article.

Probably because baseball fans, unlike football or basketball fans, need to take amphetamines themselves just to stay awake while watching the games.

See ya on the sidelines, ML

You are the king of misconceptions.  I never wanted others to believe that speed and steroids are the same drug.  I merely pointed out that in the end, their effect is similar.  I have never changed my argument as the facts have never changed.

Nice quote from Sen. Bunning.  Remind me...  Where did he get his PhD in the medical sciences?  And where can I see his study on the effects of steroids on baseball players?

Steroids do not add an additional level to baseball performance.  There just is no evidence to draw that conclusion.  There is no conclusion from the medical community as yet and the players who have used it have shown no on the field effect from the use of the drug.  You can name McGwire, Bonds and Sosa, but that is just way too few of the hundreds or perhaps thousands of players who have used to draw that kind of conclusion.    I never revised anything.  It was the above article that was suggesting grouping speed and steroids together.  I was simply agreeing with the principle behind it.

You are surrounded by facts that you opt to ignore.  You draw strange conclusions with no basis behind them and have not used common sense in any thought process having to do with steroids in baseball.  It seems you have your agenda and are unwilling to even consider the plethora of facts that contradict it.

The similarities are in the article.  Read it.

The two quotes you cited are not only taken completely out of context, but are NOT in contradiction to each other to begin with.  Especially if you consider what they were in response to.

Those players you say you can name have never ever ever once testified that they got any on the field help from the use of steroids.  In fact, Rodriguez recently claimed that he did not even know if they helped him or not.  The conclusions you drew from their stats does not take into effect the scores of players who have not had any statistical changes.

Yes, I can name many players.  I have done so ad nauseum in other threads.  You want a list?  Go Google the identified positive testers.  Once again, you make an absolutely uninformed conclusion.

If Sen. Bunning is going to conclude that steroid use has helped players on the field, then he either needs some kind of advanced medical degree, done some research on the subject or found a consensus for it among the medical community.  His 17 years in the Majors carries the same weight on the effect of steroids in baseball as it does him claiming the new Common Extensible Cryogenic Engine is a flawed design.  How do you know he has privileged information?  Care to support that with some sort of evidence besides your faith that he has?  You want some names from me?  How about  Hau Liu, MD, MBA, MPH.  Dena M Bravata, MD, MS.  Anne Friedlander, PhD.  I have many more in my searches.  Do you really need me to use the space for it?  Again, you have drawn a flawed conclusion because you made it based on assumptions you wish were the case.  This is becoming a broken record.

I can name several facts you have ignored and many conclusions you have made based on false, or wished for information.  Some have appeared in this very post.  And many others can be found other threads on this subject that I have contributed to.  Please don't ask me to repeat myself.  No one wants repeat posts.

If I were unwilling to even consider the "plethora" of facts that contradict the performance enhancements of steroid usage, I would not be engaged in this debate with you ML.

That is not necessarily true.  You could be desperately trying to convince me to change my mind.  If you were willing to entertain a different point of view, there really wouldn't be a discussion.  You see, since there is no medical consensus as yet on the matter, should it eventually come out, I will abide by whatever it is those with more knowledge and skill in the subject than me come up with.  Right now, I have drawn conclusions based on the cases on the field.  But it is possible my conclusion will be proved wrong.  And I am completely willing to accept that should it become the case.  I have said this repeatedly in these threads.  If you were open to the possibility you were wrong, your insistence that you are right and I am wrong suggests to me that you will never change your tune no matter what.

I may not be a medical expert.  I freely admit.  But, I bet I have done more research on this matter than you or the average poster here.  Occasionally over the last few years in my spare time I have looked up medical studies and other materials regarding the effects of steroid not just on athletes, but more specifically baseball players.  I doubt you can make the same claim.

One moment you are adamant that steroids do not enhance the performance of MLB players and now you are willing to concede they do enhance performance…

What?  I never did that.  What the heck are you talking about?  I have never made that claim.  You either really don't understand what is being said here, or you are just making stuff up in an attempt to throw me off my game.

Hey Sparky, why do you have to be such a jerk about it? 
If you were so sure of your position I would think you would not feel the need to curse at me and tell me how incompetent I am.  You would let your facts speak for themselves.  Therefore, it is more likely that you are not confident in what you are saying and are trying to get a rise out of me by tweaking me emotionally.  It won't work.

First, there is this gem you seem to have missed...  The article very succinctly suggested steroids could be considered performance enhancers while amphetamines could be considered performance enablers. This is not a similarity this is a distinct difference. 
That sure sounds like a similarity to me based on the classic definition of the word.  Yet you are telling me it's not.  Well, that has been your M.O. for much of this.

No, the comments you quoted were NOT in context at all.  If anyone would know this it would be me.  I wrote them.  They were were taken in response to two separate elements of the discussion.  And obviously you missed (again, not surprising) their meaning.

Yes.  Really.  They never ever have.  And no, I never hung my hat on what any player player says.  The only reason I would bring up what a player says is if someone else brings up a player's comments as if the player is an expert on the subject.  As you did.  Also, ragging on me for emphasizing a point does not discredit the comment to begin with.

Thus far you have mentioned only 5 names and in only two posts. This equals Scores,...

Nice one, Sparky.  I am hoping that you and I both know that more than 5 players have come up positive.  In the interest of space, I don't copy the entire list.  You hanging your entire dispute of my comment because I only listed 5 shows how weak you are being here.

I don't know whose stats you DID look at, but it sure wasn't for Sanchez, Strong, Gibbons, Franklin or Santangelo.  None of those guys showed any "obvious" improvement.  And even if they did, does that mean that every player who showed an "obvious improvement" must have been assisted by steroids?  To coin a phrase, REALLY?  Also, your Santangelo quote was great.  Yet another out of context quote.  When he said it worked, he was referring to his recovery from an injury.  Not from added bonus on the field.  He does fill in work on a local sports radio station where he explained this over the air.  Nice try though.

So, your search for a list of positive testers went nowhere?  And how is that my fault?  I don't know what you are doing wrong but I made the search and found plenty of sources that listed the names.  Oh, and thanks again for being nit-picky and ragging on me exaggerating to make a point.  When I said "thousands" I thought it was obvious that it was not literally thousands of players.  I was making the point that far more players have used than just the ones who got caught or were suspected of using.  Something else I said that went right over your head.

Finding a player, who has taken steroids without a performance improvement, proves nothing.

What a convenient thing to say.  I beg to differ somewhat.  I think that finding players who have taken steroids without a performance improvement, while not actual proof, says quite a bit about the effect of steroid use as it pertains to baseball players.  But, apparently you think finding players who have taken steroids and had no performance increase is proof that taking steroids increases a players performance on the field.

Regarding Mr. Bunning, I was not saying he wasn't a credible authority on baseball matters. (Thank you for either altering my meaning or missing the point again.)  I was saying that he is not a credible authority on the effects of steroids on baseball players.  Now if I wanted to hear about how pitching mechanics of the 60's and '70's compare to those today, his would be comments that hold some weight.  But, considering that he himself likely took some of those amphetamines I think his comments on today's steroid users just reek of hypocrisy.  Do you know Mr. Bunning?  No?  Then why did you use his quote as if it were some kind of meaningful insight into steroid use?  You were the one who dragged him into this.  Not me.  I was merely reacting to something you said.  Then you go and overblow my reaction to your comment.  This seems to be part of you M.O. as well.
So, serving a consolatory role for a senate hearing qualifies him to comment on the effects of steroids on baseball players?  Really?  You really believe that?  You think players are liars...  How about politicians?  That just opens up yet another can of worms.

The names I came up with.  Yes.  I did read it.  I have more names if you want to use them.  Some of the studies were indeed live.  some were synthesized interpretations.  Which doesn't discredit the findings.  The timeline, age of participants and sample size of the studies only reinforces the findings.  In my research it was very hard to find studies that specifically worked with baseball.  Those that did could not draw an substantial conclusions.  One of the studies dealt with HGH.  Most dealt with specific anabolic steroid use regarding muscle growth.  And no, I did not look into the funding sources.  I understand that where the money comes from for these things has been known to influence outcomes.  However in this case, I am unaware of what purpose creating a foggy result achieves for anyone.  Oh, the quote you made by one of the doctors I mentioned reinforces what I have been saying all along.  I don't know why you bothered to include it.  Your Dr. Hoffman quote also reinforces what I have been claiming.  And yes, I read it carefully.  Did you?  Your Dr. Schlifstein quote is a general one that is partially accepted in the medical community.  The muscle growth is right on with others. The enhanced performance part debatable depending on what activity one is talking about.
Unlike you, I will give out credit where credit is due.  And in this case, it looks as if you actually went and looked something up.   Which is more than nearly everyone out there does.

Do my posts demonstrate that I am ignoring you

This one doesn't.  Others before it have.  But in all your posts you have shown an uncanny knack for missing the point and making far out conclusions about what I say.

I started out believing as you do now, but then I reviewed the facts and grew up.

I wish you would share some of those facts with me. 

You have researched nothing!

You lose.  It is all too clear that I have made the research.  I provided you with some of it as you asked.  But I guess that isn't enough to convince you.  I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. 

Once again, the dog and cat comment was meant to show how such an argument failed.  It didn't even stem from your comment to begin with.  But never mind what it means...  Just attack it.

Pat used as a defense that since people refer to them as "performance enhancing" drugs, then they MUST enhance performance.  I was pointing out the folly of using the title of something to determine what its use is by providing everyday examples of things whose names describe the exact opposite of what they really do.  I guess that idea is to "out there" for someone like you to understand, so you just attack it.

Performance improvements could very well be in their minds.  I guess you never heard of the placebo effect.  And again, you turned what I said into an absolute.  Another thing you tend to do here.

For the Lasik surgery thing, I don't know who's post you read about that but it wasn't mine.  I never cite Wikipedia as a source for anything.  But the fact remains, that eyesight is far more important to hitting that muscle mass.  This has been confirmed by those intimately familiar with the science.  But never mind that, I'm sure you won't believe it anyway. 
No, I'm not an optometrist.  And thank you for ragging on the fact that I got the numbers reversed when it comes to measuring eyesight.  Of course, that doesn't change the concept presented one bit.  But you feel the need to rag on it anyway.  You sound like the kind of guy who kills the messenger for bringing you the bad news, as if it was that messenger's fault for creating the news to begin with.

Un-freaking-believable!

Again, a concept you took literally and out of context.  I was reacting to an absurd point by making an absurd point myself.  A common thing that MOST folks understand.

Yes, It has happened, you goofball.

It has?  In who?  Certainly not the steroid poster boy Barry Bonds.  His speed and arm strength DECREASED when he was displaying what many think to be steroid induced power.  I'm wondering who got faster who used?  Who started throwing farther?  You call me a goofball but you just made some blanket comment with nothing to back it up with.

Every player has cheated but these are the only examples you can provide?

Again, you want MORE?  What else do you need?  Good grief.  You will NEVER be satisfied.  Even if the medical community comes out and claims steroid has no on the field benefit you will still be out there claiming it does.  That seems a certainty.

The cigarette thing was merely ONE example I gave.  You again missed the point.  (I have to say that a lot to you)  I was not equating getting hooked on smokes to getting hooked on steroids.  Far from it.  The main gist is that if a player thinks something will help, they WILL do it even if it risks his health.  As part of the reason for this, read Ball Four.

Are you YET sick of your own absurdity? I gotta tell ya, the last time I saw someone shit on them self this much, I was changing the diaper of my 3 month old son. And, just like him, I am sure you are giggling with a great big smile on your face too.

The irony of that comment is so thick you could cut it with the proverbial knife.  Wait, maybe I need to clarify this before you start drawing your goofball conclusions.  I was not saying that I was going to literally cut your words with a knife.  This is a comment commonly used to show that a person saying something about someone else, when it is that very person who the comment ought to be directed to!

I find it sad that you accuse me of incompetency when you are the one who has consistently made mistakes and incorrectly attributed comments to me.  I pity your arrogance and refusal to even acknowledge there is a point of view counter to your own narrow vision.