How Are Steroids Different?

[EastCoastNiner]

I normally don't like reading articles by Bill Simmons because I find them to be too long, but he always makes some good points, and puts things in perspective.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090811&sportCat=mlb

 

 

How is using steroids or any PED different than stealing signs, corking bats, ect.?

[fly3rs18]

i dont feel like reading that right now, but steriods really is no different. it affects different parts of the game then those other thiings, but they are all cheating and should all be taken just as seriously

[kingfish]

I think the steroids thing is kind of overrated. People think just cause you use steroids you will become this incredible baseball star. Not true. You still have to have talent and know how to play the game right. Its a presumption that EVERYONE (or almost everyone) was taking steroids, why wasnt everyone putting up hall of fame numbers? Manny and A-rod were on the list, but were clearly the best players of this era (besides Bonds). If everyone was taking it everyone should have been able to hit like A-rod or Manny. Do steroids help? Yes. Do they turn you into Babe Ruth overnight? No. And even to this day Manny and A-Rod are still way ahead of the pack, when the game is clean. So steroids probably didnt effect them much at all.

[Flash]

Steroids are wrong but at the same time something that really has little effect on a game IMO. Steroids don't teach hand-eye coordination. You could still be jacked but not know how to hit a baseball.

 

I think Pitchers using them is wrong but with the wear and tear of a 162 game season how can you not expect them to take something?

[fly3rs18]

I think the steroids thing is kind of overrated. People think just cause you use steroids you will become this incredible baseball star. Not true. You still have to have talent and know how to play the game right. Its a presumption that EVERYONE (or almost everyone) was taking steroids, why wasnt everyone putting up hall of fame numbers? Manny and A-rod were on the list, but were clearly the best players of this era (besides Bonds). If everyone was taking it everyone should have been able to hit like A-rod or Manny. Do steroids help? Yes. Do they turn you into Babe Ruth overnight? No. And even to this day Manny and A-Rod are still way ahead of the pack, when the game is clean. So steroids probably didnt effect them much at all.

 

 

i agree. people think that a guy bonds was only good because of steroids. thats just incredibly wrong. maybe he might not have hit quite as many homeruns, but even without steroids he would still be one of the best ever

[fish7718]

Steroids are an advantage though. Throughout the year your gonna hurt a lot. Steroids help your muscles heal quick so they are an advantage in that your going to be full strength just about every inning of every game. Steroids also help get back from muscle related injuries quicker as well. Obviously Bonds would have been one of the greatest ever steroids or not and its sad such a great baseball talent is going to be tainted like this. However Steroids are not only a unfair advantage BUT THEY ARE A SELF-HARMFUL advantage. It sends the wrong message to the youth of America by telling them if you take steroids you can be better. Even if it isn't the case when you see your favorite player taking steroids and doing good you want to be just like him. This is why steroids must be taken out because they HURT you probably more in the end then they help you. It's an illegal drug, illegal drugs require a ban.

[kingfish]

Everyone agrees roids should be taken out, but from a baseball perspective Manny or A-Rod could have hit just as well without them. Im not defending what they did but they are still among the best players of all time.

[EastCoastNiner]

Everyone agrees roids should be taken out, but from a baseball perspective Manny or A-Rod could have hit just as well without them. Im not defending what they did but they are still among the best players of all time.

 

They would probably still be very good hitters, but they would not have near the same HR's and power that they have had throughout their career.

 

 

There is a reason that they are banned, and it's because they give you a distinct advantage.

 

 

Barry Bonds would not have nearly the same amount of HR's and Walks that he had during his career if he didn't "allegedly"(Jim Rome's favorite line. .) take steroids.

[Phightins]

I was thinking the other day...

 

People are so quick to blame steroids for offensive numbers becoming so inflated over the years, but the workout regimens that today's baseball players have are insane compared to what guys did as recently as 20 years ago. Shouldn't these multi million dollar, world class weight rooms in every MLB stadium be considered performance enhancers too? I heard an interview with Mike Schmidt recently, and he said that he never lifted a weight in his life, and that the majority of teammates he played with throughout his career didn't either (and he only retired about 20 years ago, imagine what things were like for ballplayers in the 30s and 40s, or earlier). Now don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with today's players taking advantage of new work out technology, but it is a clear advantage that these guys have over players of previous era's. So, even though steroids are so "wrong" and "unethical", as technology continues to enhance itself players will continue to become stronger and stronger, and probably more immune from injury, so records will continue to be blown through the roof with or without steroids. So yes I agree the whole steroid issue has been massively overblown.

[EastCoastNiner]

I was thinking the other day...

 

People are so quick to blame steroids for offensive numbers becoming so inflated over the years, but the workout regimens that today's baseball players have are insane compared to what guys did as recently as 20 years ago. Shouldn't these multi million dollar, world class weight rooms in every MLB stadium be considered performance enhancers too? I heard an interview with Mike Schmidt recently, and he said that he never lifted a weight in his life, and that the majority of teammates he played with throughout his career didn't either (and he only retired about 20 years ago, imagine what things were like for ballplayers in the 30s and 40s, or earlier). Now don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with today's players taking advantage of new work out technology, but it is a clear advantage that these guys have over players of previous era's. So, even though steroids are so "wrong" and "unethical", as technology continues to enhance itself players will continue to become stronger and stronger, and probably more immune from injury, so records will continue to be blown through the roof with or without steroids. So yes I agree the whole steroid issue has been massively overblown.

 

I absolutely hate that argument as I think it is absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

Lifting isn't injecting drugs into your body to give you an advantage on top of lifting weights which is natural.

 

 

Mike Schmidt is saying this because he is a self-admitted juicer himself.

[Phightins]

I absolutely hate that argument as I think it is absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

Lifting isn't injecting drugs into your body to give you an advantage on top of lifting weights which is natural.

 

 

Mike Schmidt is saying this because he is a self-admitted juicer himself.

 

What argument? Am I arguing anything? Read the post again (I should say read the post for the first time, since I know you probably just picked and chose a few lines to read on your first glance through it). I am pointing out that todays players have a distinct advantage over players of previous eras. It is a legal advantage, but it is nonetheless an advantage. That is why I am sick of the clueless media blaming inflated numbers on steroids.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Phightins09

[Phightins]

And Mike Schmidt said he "never used steroids, but had he played in the late 90s he would have been tempted". I am not sure if you are just trying to get a stir out of me or if you are just plain ignorant, but either way you got your facts wrong. Try again.

[EastCoastNiner]

What argument? Am I arguing anything? Read the post again (I should say read the post for the first time, since I know you probably just picked and chose a few lines to read on your first glance through it). I am pointing out that todays players have a distinct advantage over players of previous eras. It is a legal advantage, but it is nonetheless an advantage. That is why I am sick of the clueless media blaming inflated numbers on steroids.

 

It's not cheating to lift weights though.

 

I get your point that the players from the previous era's may not have had the same technology as the players today, so today's players have an advantage, which is legal, but that's just tough luck for the previous era's.

 

 

Like it said in the article, did Mike Schmidt, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and players from older era's have an advantage because they didn't have to play against as many, if any, Dominican, Cuban, Venezuelan, and other ethnic players, when many of those countries have players from there that are the best in the MLB today?

[Phightins]

It's not cheating to lift weights though.

 

I get your point that the players from the previous era's may not have had the same technology as the players today, so today's players have an advantage, which is legal, but that's just tough luck for the previous era's.

 

 

Like it said in the article, did Mike Schmidt, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and players from older era's have an advantage because they didn't have to play against as many, if any, Dominican, Cuban, Venezuelan, and other ethnic players, when many of those countries have players from there that are the best in the MLB today?

 

That is a good point. I have always enjoyed wondering how Babe Ruth would fare against late 90s Pedro Martinez, or how Joe DiMaggio would do against Randy Johnson. Always fun to compare era's.

[EastCoastNiner]

That is a good point. I have always enjoyed wondering how Babe Ruth would fare against late 90s Pedro Martinez, or how Joe DiMaggio would do against Randy Johnson. Always fun to compare era's.

 

I'm one of the people that will take the modern generation 10/10 times, with a few exceptions.

[Phightins]

I'm one of the people that will take the modern generation 10/10 times, with a few exceptions.

 

Probably the truth, but could you also imagine how good Babe Ruth would have been had he had a modern trainer to get him into decent shape? Same goes for a lot of guys of that era.

[Flight]

I think it comes down to it being dangerous to your body and health, where a corked bat or stealing signs can't physically hurt you.

 

If it was healthy, I'd say just make it legal so we can get on with sports and the playing field is even again.

[EastCoastNiner]

I think it comes down to it being dangerous to your body and health, where a corked bat or stealing signs can't physically hurt you.

 

If it was healthy, I'd say just make it legal so we can get on with sports and the playing field is even again.

 

Obviously steroids aren't good for your health, but that isn't the reason that they are banned.

 

 

Also, recent studies have shown that corked bats are actually worse for the batter, and won't result in more hits and more HR's.

[kingfish]

Probably the truth, but could you also imagine how good Babe Ruth would have been had he had a modern trainer to get him into decent shape? Same goes for a lot of guys of that era.

Could you imagine how much Babe Ruth would have sucked if he played against pitchers that had modern trainers to get them into decent shape?

Edited August 13, 2009 by kingfish

[fish7718]

Obviously steroids aren't good for your health, but that isn't the reason that they are banned.

 

 

Also, recent studies have shown that corked bats are actually worse for the batter, and won't result in more hits and more HR's.

I think it is. If they were healthy for you I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed. It would just like have a new pair of running shoes, just the best avail equipment.

[Phightins]

Could you imagine how much Babe Ruth would have sucked if he played against pitchers that had modern trainers to get them into decent shape?

 

Obviously we will never be able to know how players from different era's would fare against one another, but it certainly makes for good conversation.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Phightins09

[fly3rs18]

It's not cheating to lift weights though.

 

I get your point that the players from the previous era's may not have had the same technology as the players today, so today's players have an advantage, which is legal, but that's just tough luck for the previous era's.

 

 

Like it said in the article, did Mike Schmidt, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, and players from older era's have an advantage because they didn't have to play against as many, if any, Dominican, Cuban, Venezuelan, and other ethnic players, when many of those countries have players from there that are the best in the MLB today?

 

 

todays lifting regimes are just as much of an advantage as using steroids is. its probably more of an advantage. i dont get why you are acting like steroids has a huge impact and yet lifting is just "tough luck".

[EastCoastNiner]

todays lifting regimes are just as much of an advantage as using steroids is. its probably more of an advantage. i dont get why you are acting like steroids has a huge impact and yet lifting is just "tough luck".

 

One is legal, and one is illegal.

 

 

Steroids give you a MUCCCHHH bigger advantage than just lifting does, or the players would never use steroids.

 

 

If it didn't give you a major advantage, it wouldn't be illegal, and don't try and tell me the reason that steroids are illegal is becuase they are bad for your health.

[fly3rs18]

One is legal, and one is illegal.

 

 

Steroids give you a MUCCCHHH bigger advantage than just lifting does, or the players would never use steroids.

 

 

If it didn't give you a major advantage, it wouldn't be illegal, and don't try and tell me the reason that steroids are illegal is becuase they are bad for your health.

 

it doesnt matter if it is illegal or not. lifting vs not lifting is a much bigger difference then lifting vs steroids. there are still a lot of people who are HUGE with only lifting, no roids. there arent many people who are huge with never lifting.

 

and guys use steroids because it allows them to lift more often and lift more.

 

 

if you are comparing players today to players 40 years ago, the fact that guys today lift is way more of an advantage. obviously steroids adds on to that, but lifting does a lot more

[Phightins]

One is legal, and one is illegal.

 

 

Steroids give you a MUCCCHHH bigger advantage than just lifting does, or the players would never use steroids.

 

 

If it didn't give you a major advantage, it wouldn't be illegal, and don't try and tell me the reason that steroids are illegal is becuase they are bad for your health.

 

With todays players, that is true. But when comparing players from different eras, not true at all. As I said most players in the past did not lift at all, and look at the stuff today's players do to get in shape. They did not have the ability to do this stuff as recently as 5, 10 years ago. Even if there was no such thing as a "performance enhancing drug", today's players are at a much bigger advantage than players of the previous generations.