TheAgitator.com
Baseball’s Legitimacy Problem
Sunday, November 16th, 2003The baseball steroid scandal is a mess, but if there’s one thing that’s come out of it, it’s that Bud Selig hasn’t the slightest idea what he’s doing.
A couple of caveats:
1) My own unscientific opinion is that the dastardly side effects allegedly associated with steroids are exaggerated — the product of your typical drug war hysteria. As I understand it, testosterone is in fact now being prescribed for all sorts of maladies, particularly those that come as men grow older. From what I’ve read, the only significant side effect is an increased risk of some sorts of cancer, namely prostate and testicular.
2) While I don’t think steroids should be illegal, Major League Baseball certainly is within its rights to ban them. And I think it was right to, mainly because baseball has always been a game of numbers, of statistics, of records. And if those number are to retain their integrity, it’s important that baseball minimize as many variables as possible from season to season. If baseball truly wants to keep it’s stats books whole, it should go to great lengths to be sure it expands only once there’s talent to sustain major league competition, it should strive to keep ballparks of similar dimension, and it should certainly frown on new chemicals that could give today’s players an unfair advantage over the record setters of previous generations.
That said, I think baseball has failed on virtually all these counts. The league has expanded far too quickly in the last twenty years, the presence of a ballpark in Denver is enough in itself to call hitting stats from the last decade into question, and even given advances in physical training, nutrition science, and conditioning, it’s obviously clear that today’s players didn’t get this big this quickly without some help from chemicals.
Take a look at Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds ten years ago. Your average clenaup hitter from the 1980s couldn’t win an arm-wrestling match with today’s leadoff man. Barry Bonds’ head has swelled to the point that he looks like a walking bobble-head doll (and I’m not talking about his ego, here).
So I’d submit that baseball’s hitting records are already skewed. And there’s really no hope saving them now. The ironic thing, of course, is that the recent long-ball era is what saved the game after the strike a few years ago. But the juice that made the long-ball era happen couldn’t end up striking another devastating blow to the game’s integrity.
A few other observations:
1) One thing the steroid scandal does prove legitimate is the absolute dominance of today’s game’s elite pitchers. That guys like Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, and Greg Maddox can still so thoroughly dominate in a game so obviously tilted toward hitters proves that today’s handful of elite hurlers might be the best to ever play the game. What’s unfortunate is that four and five man rotations will prevent them from getting the innings they need to put up strikeout and victories statistics that can compete with history’s biggest names.
2) The penalty system baseball has put in place for steroid use is absurd. The average baseball player makes about $2.5 million. He can get caught with steroids five times, and baseball penalizes him with either a) a one-year suspension, or, b) a $100,000 fine. After five offenses! And even then, if he takes the fine, his name will never be released to the public.
Again, I’m not really sure whether banning steroids is worth the effort anymore. But if you’re going to put on the pretense of cracking down on them, this is pretty lame.
3) I also get a kick out of all the sports announcers claiming that once random testing is in place for all players, we’ll see home runs drop off dramatically next year, and the typical baseball player’s physiquie will revert to that of a 1980s shortstop.
I’m certainly not an expert, but as I understand it, that’s not the way steroids work.
When you lift weights, you create tiny rips in your muscle tissue. These rips are replaced by scar tissue your body generates. The scar tissue adds, then, to the existing muscle. Generally, you’re supposed to wait 24-48 hours between working out the same muscle groups to give this process time to happen.
Steroids make this process happen much more quickly, which cuts down on recovery time. Under a steroid regimen, you can pretty much work out the same muscle groups every day. The extra testosterone pumping through your system enables muscle tissue to regenerate much more quickly. So you can build muscle about twice as fast as someone who isn’t using.
But when you stop taking steroids, the muscle you’ve created with them doesn’t go away. You don’t lose size. Of course, if you stop working out altogether, muscle will atrophy, or sag. But I doubt any of these guys are going to abandon the weight room simply because they aren’t juicing up anymore.
So if the home run boom was caused by guys juicing up, testing for steroids next year isn’t going to slow it down, because the same guys the same size will still be swinging. It’s not as if Barry Bonds is suddenly going to turn into Whitney Houston.
I don’t understand the need for numbers to stay consistant. Things change.
I’m not a big baseball fan (give me the soap opera of boxing any day), but I know Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Cy Young, et al were great players. It’s not like they’re going to be forgotten when their records are broken.
If we really wanted to be consistent, shouldn’t players be restricted to a Babe Ruth diet of hot dogs, hambergers, and beer?
It’s not a science experiment.
The power numbers in baseball are already going down from the 73 homers by Bonds and the 70 by McGwire, not to mention Sosa hitting 60 or more three straight seasons. The major power hitters that are almost certainly juicing now (Bonds, Sosa, Giambi, etc.) are all aging. When these guys retire and the next generation is being tested then the numbers could drop. Of course that is assuming that they don’t find something that the tests can’t detect. The testers are always a step behind the dopers. They have to react to the new substances that come out and it sometimes takes years. Does anyone believe that nobody’s doping in the NFL or Olympics? They test for steroids in these and most athletic organizations but science will forge ahead and find better and less detectable juice.
In your side effects you forgot to mention hairloss, sterility, impotence, and man-boobs. Of course that is for men and only with certain types of steroids.
Well stated, but your medicine is way off. I wonât go in to the physiology of muscle growth, it is sufficed to say that you have vastly over simplified. But this is not my point. Most males synthesize enough testosterone to saturate all of their testosterone receptors, so enhanced stimulation of testosterone receptors does not account for the anabolic effects seen in most users. Recent studies are showing that the effects of anabolic steroids by athletes prevent the catabolic effects of cortisol during exercise. So you are correct in saying that recuperation time is decreased but not for the reasons stated.
âEffects of oral androstenedione on serum testosterone and adaptations to resistance training in young menâ JAMA 281 2020-2028 1999
âAndrostenedione does not stimulate muscle protein anabolism in young healthy menâ JCEM 85 55-59 2000
Therefore the argument can be made that the use of steroids is not an unfair anabolic advantage, but simply a way of keeping your own body from undoing all the work done in building itself up.
I’m really not too concerned about the baseball roids, other than skewing the records, but in football, people are growing larger and faster at a quicker rate than the equipment can possibly improve.
In baseball, the roid problem makes comparison to past generations very difficult. In football, it will eventually lead to more and more serious injuries, possibly even deaths.
That the NFL tests for steroids, HGH, etc, is an absolute joke. Nobody has been suspended (as far as I can remember), and that tells me that the testing is clearly NOT occurring. If they really were testing, 2/3 of the league would be suspended. Frankly, I suspect that’s the only reason why they haven’t really been testing.
“What’s unfortunate is that four and five man rotations will prevent them from getting the innings they need to put up strikeout and victories statistics that can compete with history’s biggest names.”
Have you considered that that maybe these guys are so effective when they pitch *because* they’re pitching less often?
There is a good article in the latest Outside magazine. A well known author, who is also anendurance athlete, wrote an article based on his first hand account of taking performance enhancing drugs. It was his experiment to show how insidious the effects of cheating are to the world of sports. It is a very good article. Perhaps you can find time to read it, if you want to know more on the subject. Baseball is but an overrrated sport, IMO. I love baseball, but it certainly does not measure up to endurance sports such as cycling or running. Swimming is also known for quite a bit of cheating.
The world of pure sport cannot survive under the weight of cheating. If it were to be made legal for athletes to do whatever they want to win, then we spectators are a truly cynical breed wanting nothing more than to be entertained at any cost.
You could also take a bit of time to read Lance Armstrong’s latest book, Every Second Counts. I believe you would not only get something out of it concerning cancer and survivorship, but also would get a good look into the world of sport.
Chad:
I’m curious as to how one would define a “pure sport.” What makes a sport ‘unpure?”
Creatine? It’s similar to steroids, only legal. What about vitamins? Aren’t they unnatural? What about whey protein? Carbo loading?
I just don’t understand the difference, other than some substances/activities have a stigma and others don’t.
And is it really reasonable to demand athletes follow a ‘natural’ regimen for dramatically unantural activities?
I agree with Josh. This concept of “cheating” relates back to the stigmatization of steroids. The lifestyle of a professional athlete is optimized to create a well performing athletic physique. Diet, training regimen, and supplements are all finely tuned for peak performance. Is it a cheat to use protien supplements vs. chicken? Is it a cheat to use lean vs. fatty meats, especially when the lean meats are not “free-roam”?
Steroids do have side effects. Abuse of them could raise serious health issues. This is where baseball has a vested interest to step in. Optimally, they would regulate the usage of the supplements instead of banning them. This would help to protect the player’s health while providing more pizazz to baseball. Most fans live for the long ball anyhow.
As for maintaining “statistical integrity”, that’s a sham. Training techniques are so far advanced today than before 1970 that it is totally an apples and oranges comparison.
1) Androstenedione is a very ineffective steroid.
2) Steroids are in every sport at every level. College swimmers use steroids. Soccer players too.
3) The only reason the number of positive tests was 5-7% is that 5-7% of MLB players are absolute nitwits. A moron with the ability to type ‘beat steroid test’ into google can learn how to beat a test in about 15 minutes.
4) Testing is ineffective (see #3). If you think the NFL is drug free (or even close) I have a bridge to sell you. Third string NCAA Division III football players are on.
5) The adverse side effects of intelligent anabolic use are overstated.
Josh:
The difference is that protein, vitamins, carbohydrates are produced naturally in nature. I can’t think of tree that Androstenedione or other steroids grow on.
Gee….I thought Barry Bonds putting on 30 lbs of muscle between the ages of 30 and 35 was a very natural occurence. I have a million dollars, anyone kow where I can get the title for the Brooklyn Bridge?
To anon 1:58pm
First, I’ve never seen a pill in nature. Vitamins are pills. Powerbars, a major source of my carbs, do not occur in nature. The closest thing to whey protein I’ve seen in nature is dandruff. And what about Creatine?
If you’re talking about protein, carbs, and vitamins in general exisiting in nature, then the same is true of steroids.
Second, who cares if it’s ‘natural’ by whatever definition?
Creatine is found naturally, mostly in red meat. I do, however, get your point that it is not produced in a powder form that can be dissolved in a glass of water. You would probably get very fat eating steaks to get the amount of creatine that you can from supplementation. I say legalize it all and let doctors advise athletes of the safe uses of the substances they will use anyway.
More On Arnold And Steroids
With Arnold Schwarzenegger being sworn in as California Governor yesterday, ESPN.com’s Tom Farrey takes a hard look at how Arnold’s
A common fallacy
Radley Balko, in writing about baseball’s legitimacy problem vis-a-vis steroid usage, falls victim to a common and annoying fallacy when…
Thoughts on Steroids
I’ve recently been thinking about the question of steroids, partly because Radley Balko, Sailer, and a few others have been mentioning Arnold’s use of steroids and/or the recent THG scandal. My primary question is: what’s the big deal? First, some…
Good piece
Baseball’s Legitimacy Problem, by Radley Balko