Comments on: Baseball’s Legitimacy Problem

By: Joshua Claybourn's Domain

Joshua Claybourn's Domain — Fri, 28 May 2004 23:25:05 +0000

Good piece

Baseball’s Legitimacy Problem, by Radley Balko

By: Gene Expression

Gene Expression — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:59:18 +0000

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…

By: Off the Kuff

Off the Kuff — Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:52:55 +0000

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…

By: Off Wing Opinion

Off Wing Opinion — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:07:53 +0000

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

By: Bobby

Bobby — Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:32:56 +0000

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.

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:45:05 +0000

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?

By: Frank N

Frank N — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:59:03 +0000

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?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:58:18 +0000

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.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:31:16 +0000

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.

By: MP

MP — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:55:49 +0000

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.

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:09:39 +0000

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?

By: Chad

Chad — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:36:37 +0000

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.

By: John T. Kennedy

John T. Kennedy — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:27:53 +0000

“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?

By: roger

roger — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:56:21 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:19:02 +0000

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.

By: Devin

Devin — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:12:19 +0000

Well stated, but your medicine is way off. I wonâ??t 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.

â??Effects of oral androstenedione on serum testosterone and adaptations to resistance training in young menâ? JAMA 281 2020-2028 1999

â??Androstenedione does not stimulate muscle protein anabolism in young healthy menâ? JCEM 85 55-59 2000

By: Bobby

Bobby — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 06:22:36 +0000

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.

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:46:28 +0000

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.