Mark McGwire announces that the sky is blue
...also that he used steroids.
over 2 years ago
rolub
166 comments
2 recs |
Email
PrintComments
goofy blurb from the front page of Yahoo Sports:
Saying he was “foolish,” Mark McGwire admitted Monday that he used steroids while breaking the baseball’s home run record.
by cleveland teamer on Jan 11, 2010 4:12 PM EST reply actions
McGwire’s going to be interview by Bob Costas tonight at 7 on the MLB Network, if anyone likes that sort of thing.
“I wish somebody would just come and get me,
because I don’t like this anymore! I really wish somebody would just come
and take me away! Just take me away! I can’t take this! I’m sorry,
but I just can’t! I wish somebody… would just come to my rescue,
and everything would be all right!”
I have a theory that all Tarantino movies would be better if he just wrote them—no need to direct or act in them—based on how good the dialogue and pacing of True Romance was. I’m guessing Tarantino would strongly disagree with box office receipts to prove his point (True Romance was a financial flop). Reservoir Dogs was pretty darn good, but I think it helps that Tarantino has 2 or 3 lines and gets killed pretty quickly.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 15, 2010 8:49 AM EST up reply actions
For Costas? Hell no! He has a pretty cool job!
by GoTribe028 on Jan 11, 2010 8:13 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
You know, I actually thought this would generate more discussion.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 11, 2010 9:57 PM EST reply actions
After Canseco’s book, the BALCO investigations, and the Mitchell Report the title of this Fan Shot sums it up nicely. Everyone knew McGwire used roids so him admitting it really doesn’t chalk up much astonishment. Hell, he even half-assed the admission by claiming he couldn’t remember what he took and the whole “steroids didn’t help me hit home runs” BS line.
I also love how he admits to using injections, and pills, and even HGH but still denies Canseco injected him. Can’t give Jose any satisfaction can he?
by The Grimace on Jan 11, 2010 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
yep…no one can admit that canseco was actually maybe right…
it was kinda obvious when his arms grew in diameter by 30 inches in an offseason…
I wouldn’t go that far. Didn’t Jose say he and Mac injected each other in the butts while playing for the A’s? There doesn’t seem to be any evidence for that.
Thats b/c Mark McGwire admits everything 20 things after everyone knew about it…like steroids use.
I am not saying he is a genius (canseco). very far from it. he has though turned into somewhat of the nostradamus of steroid use.
Canseco didn’t predict anything. He reported things that had already happened, allegedly. I don’t think he had much to say about the future.
I’m not. I’m merely saying that anyone a bit cynical and gifted with the ability to see could have made the same claims Canseco did.
agreed…read above post…
i agree he did point out the obvious but he did have a knack at knowing who was using…
Didn’t say it was…It just seems like everyone he says ends up coming out…didn’t he also say A-Rod from what I remember?? That one was more of a surprise
Really? That really surprised you? Maybe it’s the Indians fan in me, but A-Rod may as well have been wearing a sandwich board pronouncing his guilt or celebrating home runs by pantomiming sticking a needle into his rear.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
It didn’t shock me but I was not suspecting him really. i dunno if it is the indians fan in me but I just didn’t automatically suspect him. it surprised me a little when he got accused, but that is all relative. these days, very few people would really surprise me. he was one of the more surprising ppl that would come out…
It shouldn’t have surprised anyone, and the reason it shouldn’t is that he was exceptionally devout and disciplined about his physical fitness and overall preparation. If you think about it, all of the best hitters who have been implicated are guys who are legendary for working out and/or practicing a lot, guys with a relentless competitive drive to get better and better.
Like Jose Canseco?
In the past two years, six players have been suspended by MLB for PEDs: Sergio Mitre, J.C. Romero, Kelvin Pichardo, Manny Ramirez, Eliezer Alfonzo and Humberto Cota.
I’m not talking about the guys dumb enough to get caught since 2008. I’m talking about the guys who used and eventually were implicated from the 90s and early 2000s.
And kudos to Tony LaRussa for having no idea until yesterday morning. Them’s some blinders.
Steel Nick
“Mark to me is a poster boy for working out and being a terrific teammate and making mistakes”
“He is not a poster boy for abuse and his production being enhanced.”
“The fact that he used some stuff to try and get his body in shape, you know that is not acceptable, it is still wrong, but it is not like it was blatant that he was trying to cheat”
Here’s my problem.
That is LaRussa’s position, and essentially it is McGwire’s position, that the steroids were taken primarily for their healing and recovery properties rather than to help performance. It goes without saying that performance is helped merely by putting a player back on the field in good condition, but the common view is that it’s helped way beyond that.
My problem: I see no evidence that the common view is right, and that the McGwire view is wrong. McGwire says the juice helped get him back on the field, but he had to hit the home runs himself. Why exactly is everyone so sure that’s not true?
I certainly have not heard anyone with real expertise say that it isn’t true. Lots of know-nothing talking heads like Costas and Rosenthal; no experts.
here’s my big thing. he was on the field. can’t hit homeruns from the training table. and that’s huge. if he spends one or more stints on the dl a season, the numbers aren’t near as gaudy. he said himself he thought about retiring in 94 due to injury frustration. if he does, his career isn’t much of anything. some other guy who might have pretty darn good might have gone the retirement route. all those 35+ peaks on these guys is the big deal to me in a way.
I understand that, that it skews the historical context.
The core question for me is, why should we be upset at a player for doing this?
For getting himself back on the field, healthy, able to help his team, able to compete at something approximating the best of his abilities?
This is one of the main reasons I think all the outrage is stupid.
by Jay on Jan 12, 2010 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Key addendum: This is the Tommy John argument. That is, players in the past didn’t have Tommy John surgery as an option, so based on Brick’s argument here, we should discount the achievements of those who made it back onto the field — *in many cases better than ever* — because so many other players went “the other route” and just retired.
i can see that. it’s not quite the same. i do think there’s something to it being literally unlawful, not a huge thing to me. but it’s was big enough to many players to choose not to do them. not all cases, but it’s not the same as choosing whether or not to have surgery.
I think it’s a more fair characterization of the overall state of things to say, the legal status was vague and inconsequential enough that hundreds of players, possibly even a majority of major leaguers, chose to use something or other anyway, at one time or another.
Except that the legal status is not vague, because possession and/or use of steroids without a prescription is, according to the DEA’s website, a felony as of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of February 27, 1991. That’s pretty cut and dried, regardless of baseball’s own legislation on the issue.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
No more illegal than amphetamines, which have been widely used in baseball since the 1960s if not earlier.
Where is all the pity for the clean players who didn’t pop greenies everyday? Maybe Frank Robinson is really underrated, because he was clean and Hank Aaron was a speed freak. You don’t know.
actually, i think that could be just as legit a concern. point is though, you don’t know. you can really only talk about what you’re privy to. we’re now privy to mcgwire, on some level. just because we don’t know about every player doesn’t mean you dismiss him. if i were frank robinson in the above scenario, i’d be pretty annoyed. and if i was someone like, (top of head, here) fred mcgriff, i would be pretty mad at mcgwire.
That’s only because we’ve had essentially a witch-hunt for steroids and nothing similar for amphetamines. I bet if you poured $100 million into an investigation, you would eventually turn up evidence on over 1000 major league greenie users, many of them by open admission.
Show me that there’s a real difference here. I don’t see one.
i can see trying to break any chemical enhancement down to being the same as all these other things. or that mcqwire is being unfairly singled out. and i’m not really disagreeing.
i’m not pretending to know where all lines on all items should be drawn, but i’m pretty comfortable in saying mcqwire crossed at least one of them, witch hunt or no… whether i can prove what he did truly helps or not or how many others were doing it.
I think the perception has always been that steroids are “more helpful” to improving performance than amphetamines.
This is a cultural thing, obviously; America generally associate steroids with huge muscles and have since the late 70s (Arnold). America then generally associates huge muscles with: A) Being super strong, B) Getting lots of dates and C) Being super awesome at sports and life.
On the other hand, we don’t culturally value things like “concentration”, especially in the context of sports, the way we do speed, strength, etc. As a result, I think most baseball fans, if they were honest with themselves, would admit that they think steroids would obviously help one hit a baseball whereas they find the potential effects of amphetamines to be dubious.
I understand, more than most, that this doesn’t make sense from a biological or chemical standpoint. But I’m pretty convinced that it’s the perception.
This leads me to a question I find sort of interesting, though: how would these “scandals” be viewed in other cultures? At least prejudiciously I would think some denizens of Eastern cultures might find the use of amphetamines to be the more obvious “performance enhancer.”
i always feel like the olympics have had a big impact on these things. i think the first time i ever heard of steroids in my life was ben johnson. and it always was portrayed as this highest form of cheating. in more recent years, it has been a big issue in endurance sports (EPO, blood doping) and there was some obvious benefits being gained. i can’t think of a single significant ‘scandal’ regarding amphetamines.
Amphetamines lack some of the benefits of steroids though. They are more of a masking agent to the muscle fatigue and degeneration that steroids can effectively prevent. All the concentration in the world doesn’t help when your body cannot react to the commands.
This is a cultural thing, obviously; America generally associate steroids with huge muscles and have since the late 70s (Arnold). America then generally associates huge muscles with: A) Being super strong, B) Getting lots of dates and C) Being super awesome at sports and life.
This is really astute. Steroids play into the whole Popeye Muscle Beach act. The puerile American fantasy that big muscles equal big success.
The archetypal slugger looks more like Paul Bunyan than Babe Ruth. In real life the actual slugger looks like Hank Aaron.
He’ll parlay it into either $50 million or $125 million through betting?
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 14, 2010 9:57 AM EST up reply actions
No more illegal than amphetamines, which have been widely used in baseball since the 1960s if not earlier.
This doesn’t, in any way, make steroids less illegal. I’m assuming the reason that there wasn’t the witch hunt is because there isn’t the definitive link between amphetamines and performance.
The link is every bit as definitive.
One thing I can tell you for sure, certain starting pitchers used to patrol the clubhouse, making sure all their starting position players were popping at least one pill the day of their starts.
Nobody ever did that with steroids as far as I know. Does that sound like something that doesn’t work?
Maybe you should try an amphetamine sometime.
Amphetamines do not make you stronger, faster or able to recover for injuries faster. the only link there really is, is that you concentrate a little better. at the same time, this doesn’t always work and makes some people antsy. being antsy at the plate isn’t good. focus is good but it can also cause antsyness. I don’t know exactly what stimulant in that family “greenies” are and I would like to know.
here are also some of the negatives that could effect baseball performance.
Loss of Coordination
Uncontrollable Movements
High Blood Pressure
Blurred vision (not so good when trying to hit)
Sweating and Fever
Headache
Dizziness
Convulsions
None of those sound good and many actually inhibit performance.
Which explains why possibly two-thirds of all major leaguers were using them at one point.
Steroids eventually lead to certain types of injuries. That doesn’t mean that, on the whole, they aren’t a therapeutic tool that promotes healing.
but the reality is, that the only benefit of increased concentration, would be negated by some of the side effects (blurry vision, dizziness). I have never taken them so I do not know from experience, but those side effects seem like they would hurt production.
Do you realize what amphetamines are? As somebody mentioned downthread they’re Adderal or whatever brand name you like. Do you see the millions of American kids and adults who are on those drugs for ADD are performing worse at school or jobs because of dizziness?
No, that’s ridiculous. Because the drugs are dosed properly and the drugs wouldn’t be prescribed if they’re side effects were prevalent enough to outweigh the benefits.
All therapeutic drugs have “side effects” you can find on an MSDS. They don’t mean anything for the vast majority of users.
these side affects DO exist. whether they are more common in more street level amphetamines (like speed) I do not know.
Go look up the side effects for any prescription chemical.
Find me one that’s efficacious and doesn’t list something on par with ‘dizziness’ or any of the rest of that list. I’ll wait.
This is a remarkably weak poin you’re trying to make: “this drug couldn’t have been good because of the side effects.”
Really? Do you not get Lipitor ads wherever you are? Propecia? Viagra? Yaz? Bad standup about prescription drug ads?
by afh4 on Jan 14, 2010 11:33 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I wasn’t stating that these are guarenteed side effects or that they are as common in OTC ampetamines as they are in speed…I am just stating they are some of the more common side effects of taking anything from the family of amphetamines. It is not 100% that adderall would even help someone hit. I think that there are more obvious results of the effects of steriods (even though there is inconclusive proof in the realm of amphetamines).
You have absolutely no idea what you are taking about. None.
by afh4 on Jan 15, 2010 9:14 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
It isn’t as definitive. Amphetamines have a deleterious effect when consistently used that steroids have not been proven to have. Amphetamines also produce the short term masking effect that odradek mentioned, that masking leads to the gradual worsening of existing conditions and to the inflammation of others. It’s possible, even probable, that popping before some games would help. Using greenies before 162 games or over the course of several seasons would do nothing but ruin your body’s ability to respond to your brain.
I don’t think it’s recognized how universal amphetamine use was in the 1970s. Day game after a night game, or game after a long flight, everybody was taking them to get up for a game. Everybody. The trainer, the broadcasters, the beat writers. There were bowls of greenies in the lockerroom. Pete Rose would supposedly walk around and make sure everyone had their pills, The game where Dock Ellis hit four of the first five batters he faced he admitted he was hopped-up on greenies.
Yeah, but Doc Ellis also threw a no-hitter on LSD
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jan 14, 2010 12:15 PM EST up reply actions
This could be disputed.
The only ‘truth’ to that is Ellis’ own testimony. There’s little other evidence that he was under the full effects of LSD at game time.
I've really got to change my signature.
There was an online petition floating around to get MLB Network to rebroadcast the game. I signed it. Would have been fun to watch and judge for ourselves. Ellis’ version is pretty fun regardless. What’s your motivation to dispute it?
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 18, 2010 8:50 AM EST up reply actions
Ball Four broke some ground on publicizing amphetamine use.
by cleveland teamer on Jan 14, 2010 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
Page 221: “John Kennedy [not that one] flew into a rage at Emmett Ashford over a called strike and was tossed out of the game. Still raging, he kicked in the water cooler in the dugout and threw the metal cover on the field. Afterward we asked him what had gotten into him. He really isn’t that type. And he said, ‘Just as I got called out on strikes my greenie kicked in.’”
very true…and some of the side effects can detract from performance. even if it makes you more focused, blurred vision makes it hard to hit a baseball…so would dizziness and nausea
Imagine how many hits Pete Rose would have had if he had laid off the pills.
by odradek on Jan 14, 2010 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
How does greenies being illegal cloud the legal status of steroids? It’s not like only one can be illegal.
Maybe Aaron was a speed freak, we don’t know one way or the other. McGwire, on the other hand, is an admitted steroid user. The two aren’t analogous; there is at best ambiguity in Aaron’s case, where there is clear cut guilt in McGwire’s.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
There is a causal relationship between the uproar and witch hunt surrounding steroids and hGH and our knowledge that McGwire used.
Had there been an equal uproar over amphetamines, which are legally and morally equivalent, then we’d know about hundreds of amphetamine users, too.
Essentially, McGwire comes in for special scorn because our law enforcement and sense of outrage is highly selective and illogical.
…our law enforcement and sense of outrage is highly selective and illogical.
Agreed. The respective cases of Mike Vick and Dante Stallworth illustrate this all too vivdly.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
by Joel D on Jan 14, 2010 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I couldn’t say, but they are controlled substances. A doctor can’t just call in a prescription for them.
Yeah, he can. Adderall is an amphetamine that can be prescribed by a doctor. Derek Lowe has ADHD and has it prescribed to him. There are many other forms of amphetamines that can be prescribed as well. At the same time Steroids in various forms can also be prescribed. People suffering from AIDS or Cancer to people who have various deficiencies.
Yes, obviously it can be prescribed, but as a controlled substance, iit has to be in writing, that’s all I was saying.
More specifically, the amphetamines, including Adderall (which is a combination of amphetamine and dextroamphetamine), are Schedule II controlled substances, which mean they can only be dispensed by written prescription and can’t be refilled (believe me, I know). You used to have to get a new written prescription every 30 days, but now you can get multiple prescriptions as long as it’s clear the additional ones can’t be filled until 30, 60, etc. days later.
The steroids are Schedule III controlled substances, and can be dispensed by oral prescription. They can also be refilled (up to five times).
So steroids are more tightly controlled, due to the lesser likelihood of abuse and less severe risk of dependence.
JB’s only partially correct here. Yes some "anabolic steroids" were classified as Schedule III drugs under the Controlled Substance Act in 1994. However, a number of others – including androstienedione – were not listed under the Controlled Substance Act until the revision in 2004. But guys who were using andro in 2001 are painted with the same brush as Canseco. Different hormone, different laws, different outcomes.
BTW there may not be a "dirty" McGwire and a "clean" McGwire, but there maybe a "dirty" Canseco and a "clean" Canseco. We know that Jose juiced but no so sure that his identical twin Ozzie did. One could hit HRs and the other couldn’t.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
But guys who were using andro in 2001 are painted with the same brush as Canseco.
I don’t think that’s really the case. Who is this mythical player who only used andro and has been ostracized?
Can you differentiate the andro-user from the Diabanol-user? I can’t. They’re all called “steroid users”. For the CSA ’94 accusation to hold water you hafta know which steriod they used and when they used it.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
But specifically in the case of McGwire, he admitted to using anabolic steroids, which was the only point I was trying to make.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Not to but put too fine a point on it, but andro and Diabinol are both anabolic steroids.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Then why isn’t andro use a felony? This site seems to think it would be.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
OTC Andro was outlawed by the CSA in 2004 well after McGwire retired. If he use andro and only andro, he’d still be using steroids, just not illegal steroids.
BTW, cholesterol, Vitamin D, and birth control pills are all steroids.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
McGwire admitted to using Andro way back in 1998 or 1999, and that alone was not enough to make him a villain or a patsy.
I understand that it is a steroid, but it’s not considered a capital-S steroid as far as the conventional wisdom (i.e., the popular stupidity) is concerned.
It’s not a capitol-S steroid among professionals either, since the associated dangers of the hormone are minor. But like just about any other drug/substance – acetaminophen, caffeine, aminophylline, whatever – you take too much of it and it will have deliterious effects.
In short, in makes more sense to schedule Tylenol than it does Andro, or Andrew for that matter.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Yes. It’s the popular stupidity that thinks that there are clear, bright lines to draw, in which on this side is a bunch of stuff called “steroids,” which are “bad” and “cheating,” and on this other side stuff that has nothing to do with steroids. As you have shown us on many occasions, there are hundreds of therapies that are steroids, and they are all steroids, and just about any line that gets drawn is pretty arbitrary.
I still think it strains credulity to believe that a drug that aids muscle development doesn’t help you hit a baseball further.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 12, 2010 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
Does it aid in muscle development directly? Or does it merely aid in recovery time, which makes it easier to train harder, which aids muscle development?
I’m saying: It makes a difference.
Almost everything I’ve ever read concerning the effects of steroid use indicate a direct increase in strength as a result of new muscle tissue growth. Which will obviously be further enhanced if you are already doing weight training.
I think it’s pretty reasonable to say that anyone using steroids will have increased strength and muscle mass over someone of a like body type who is not using.
Wasn’t implying that it did as a rule. But I am of the belief that if you had two Mark McGwires, one on steroids and the other not, the juiced Mark hits the ball harder and further. If you already had excellent ability to hit the ball and wanted an extra push beyond where your limit normally was, then steroids will do that for you.
Second one is mostly curve-fitting and extremely vague. The question I always ask people like this is, “If somebody clean broke the record, wouldn’t it look statistically identical to this?”
All-time record-breaking achievements are extreme outliers by definition. It doesn’t prove anything to show how rare they are statistically.
First guy is from Penn State — is that the best we can do? — and again, where is the science? What’s clear is that he has an agenda and a career crusading against PEDs. I don’t see any evidence, though. It’s telling that his big anecdote is about the personal experience of a football player with no scientific background. An athlete’s feelings are not evidence of anything other than his feelings.
All-time record-breaking achievements are extreme outliers by definition. It doesn’t prove anything to show how rare they are statistically.
So it’s just a bizarre coincidence that three extreme outliers broke records in the same stat in the same three seasons?
First thing is, maybe so, yes, and maybe it isn’t so bizarre. There are a hundred different things we could come up with that would have been equally bizarre but didn’t happen. The postseason being canceled in the Indians best season in 40 years was bizarre, and the Indians winning 95 games and still missing the playoffs was bizarre, but that doesn’t mean there was a conspiracy in either case. A certain number of bizarre things will happen, just because there is an amazing number of things that could happen that would be considered bizarre.
Of course that’s right. That’s black swan. But I must take exception with the following:
The postseason being canceled in the Indians best season in 40 years was bizarre, and the Indians winning 95 games and still missing the playoffs was bizarre, but that doesn’t mean there was a conspiracy in either case.
These were not coincidences. They are evidence of a higher power.
A search of LGT didn’t produce any results for either of these guys, so here’s a link to a steroids-have-no-effect argument from eric walker: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/actual-effects.shtml. For the steroids-have-an-effect argument, see R. G. Tobin, On the potential of a chemical Bonds: Possible effects of steroids on home run production in baseball, from 2007 (I failed to link to what is a pdf file). Apologies in advance if this is a dead horse.
by YoDaddyWags on Jan 15, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, well, so did Mark Shapiro’s ability as GM. Also, Hafner’s contract.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 12, 2010 6:17 AM EST up reply actions
What about all the federal statutes that were violated by the release of some of these names? Isn’t flagrant disregard for a judicial order a bigger offense—legally and ethically—than taking steroids?
by Gradyforpresident on Jan 13, 2010 1:55 PM EST reply actions
Also, will someone tell me how to do mobile commenting?
by Gradyforpresident on Jan 13, 2010 1:56 PM EST reply actions
I wish “Z” worked on the mobile site
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jan 13, 2010 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
my only complaint is having to switch my browser recognition for the fanshots link.
also, my phone automatically capitalizes and spell checks things as i type which i find really frustrating. it’s trying to change who i am.
You need one of those HTC phones that gets you, or whatever.
by NickFantana on Jan 14, 2010 10:32 AM EST up reply actions
I really have no interest in getting involved in another “how bad are steroids” discussion here, but I did have one thought. Anyone else notice how the Indians “era of champions” matches pretty nicely on the “steroid era”? I raise this not to suggest that the Indians were secretly producing steroid-fueled super players, but to raise the point that steroids are small-market friendly. Look at Hafner right now. He has chronic health issues which limit his playing time and periodically limit his effectiveness. As a result his contract is an albatross on an organization that really has very little margin for albastrosses. His problems are presumably exactly the kinds of thing McGwire says, and his experiences show (look at 91, 93-94), steroids are effective for. With steroids, Hafner’s contract looks not so bad because it doesn’t contain as much risk of sudden, rapid degradation. In an era where steroid use is widespread contract risk is negated allowing for smaller market teams to sustain higher value individual contracts. In an era where steroid use is less widespread, the risk of such contracts is greater and larger-payroll teams havea competitive advantage in their ability to acquire contract risk.
by APV on Jan 14, 2010 6:31 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
i agree. we should give hafner steroids.
by Brick. on Jan 14, 2010 10:29 AM EST up reply actions 7 recs
I would buy this a bit more, but during the 90’s, the Indians were actually sporting one of the highest payrolls in the game. So I am not sure how small-market friendly it actually is.
I think Adam is on to something with the basic concept, which is statistically sound. If PEDs reduce risk, then they reduce the disadvantages of small-payroll clubs (to the extent those clubs are wiling and/or able to capitalize). Roger is correct, however, that the late-90s Indians are not a great example of a small-market team.
Those teams were successful for a few obvious reasons. One, a handful of draft picks turned out to be borderline HOFers. Two, a handful of key trades for young talent turned out to be All-Stars. Three, a handful of second- and third-tier free agent signings turned out to be productive regulars. Four, we faced little and sometimes no significant competition within the newly formed AL Central.
I am curious how people feel about Olympic athletes, and sprinters in particular, using steroids as a means of being able to perform better in their respective sports. The general consensus among people that seem to understand the medicine behind this stuff is that it is tough to really tie increased strength directly to steroid usage, but rather improved recovery time. Does the same hold true for a runner? My impression is that for someone like Lance Armstrong (not implicating him necessarily) is that steroids would be hugely helpful given the long-distance nature of his races, whereas someone like Justin Gatlin or Marion Jones, who both saw a quick fall from grace, would not necessarily benefit as much from steroid usage if what I have been reading is correct. Maybe the quicker recovery time really does allow them to work out so much better than it makes them faster than anyone else, but my initial thought is that there is a link to steroids equalling stronger and faster based on the usage for sprinters.
it is tough to really tie increased strength directly to steroid usage
I dunno. Here’s what I was taught: Pre-adolescent males and females have roughly the same percentage of muscle mass. Post adolescent males have more muscle mass – both as a percentage and in toto – than post adolescent females. The differentiating factor here is that – post adolescence – males produce significantly more adrogens – testosterone and 17-keto steroids – than females. The increase muscle mass is directly related to when, and how much, adrogen is generated. That’s the Reader’s Digest version any way.
In addition there’s a condition know as adrenal masculinizing syndrome (Stein-Leventhal Syndrome). You’ll note that the author of the article refers to it as, “it is an experiment of nature, not producible in the laboratory, which has helped the understanding of the normal biosynthesis and physiology of adrenocortical hormones. (androgens)”. And that it causes, “rapid growth, increased musculature and accelerated epiphyseal development (bone growth maturation) are caused by the protein-anabolic action of androgen.” In short a definitive increase in muscle mass secondary to the unusual production of androgens – commonly known as anabolic steroids.
Bottom line: increase you androgen levels and your muscles get bigger and you get stronger. Do some additional exercise and you’ll get even bigger and stronger. QED
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
This seems like the most logical outcome for someone that knows nothing about the medical side to it. My initial, simplistic reaction is to look at people that take steroids, bodybuilders for example, and see muscles that go far beyond normal. Do I think there is a huge advantage to taking them performance-wise? Yes, but again without knowing much about it from the scientific perspective.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Jamie Moyer legs out infield single, drives in two runs
- The Citi Field All-Star game has finally been made official for 2013
- Brett Lawrie receives four-game suspension, fined for ‘aggressive actions’ toward umpire
- PNC Park security guard loses finger in struggle with fan during Pirates game
- Create-a-Caption: Partying like it’s 1988
