Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, why do steroids concern you so much more than amphetamines?
Aaron admits to amphetamine usage in his autobiography
I think there is little doubt that amphetamine usage surely enhances performance over the course of a 23 season 3300 game career
Amphetamines makes one more alert, but they do not increase your strength or speed up your swing. There is no era of amphetamines which can be pointed to and examined because of suspicious stat boosts. All that has happened in the steroid age has an immense amount of data behind it establishing the relationship between PEDs and actual enhanced performances. I do not think that amphetamines are responsible for 60 homeruns being topped six times in a four year period, do you?
I did speed a few times when I was in college and looking to pull a pre test all nighter to make up for semester long lethargy in my devotion to the subject. My experience was that they tend to fool you into thinking that you are really smoking, that your mind is really working at a faster rate than normal. They did keep me up all night, but whether or not they constituted any true help on my exams, I am uncertain, some of what I wrote appeared to be gibberish to me when I got my exam papers back. I cannot imagine taking speed and then suddenly being a better athlete than I was before. It might make me a more alert athlete, but not a faster or stronger one.
I seriously doubt that there is any need to suspect that any of the existing records are amphetamine tainted, they don't have the ability to add 20 homers a season to someone's total. And I don't think amphetamines were responsible for some of the discussions which arose during the steroid era, such as "Why is Barry Bonds skin completely gray this Spring?"
Amphetamines makes one more alert, but they do not increase your strength or speed up your swing.
The Baseball Student: How hard is it to hit a baseball? (http://thebaseballstudent.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-hard-is-it-to-hit-baseball.html - broken link)
Quote:
a major league batter must discern the vertical location within ~1.5 inches for a vertical object that's moving at several feet per second in the plane perpendicular to the batter's line of sight. He also must swing during the correct 0.03-second window for a fastball that arrives in less than 0.4 seconds. A good changeup, if it fools the hitter completely, will have an arrival time delayed by as much as 0.06 seconds, causing the hitter to misjudge his timing window completely.
I would argue that being alert is a huge factor in hitting a baseball.
I'm not defending those who cheat at the game of baseball and I hate Barry B*nds as much as anyone. But the fact is that players throughout baseball history of done whatever it takes t get an advantage.
Players in the 80's, 90's and 00's (and 10's I'm sure) used steroids and HGH and who knows what else.
Players in the 60's and 70's used amphetamines
Babe ruth shot himself up with sheep testicle extract
To crucify one set of cheaters and glorify another seems disingenuous.
But the fact is that players throughout baseball history of done whatever it takes t get an advantage.
Perhaps so, but the steroid age is the only one where we have such impressive evidence for who cheated and how much of an impact it had on performance. It is the only "cheating" related era which featured such severe assaults on the records. If any of those other methods for cheating are on the same level as steroids, why is it that they failed to produce results congruent with the miracles of the '90's and early 2000's? Players were popping greenies back in the sixties, I read about it in Ball Four, but there were not any record setting offensive performances which erupted league wide during the '70's. Wasn't George Foster the only guy to hit 50 plus homeruns that decade? No one hit 50 plus in a single season during the '80's. Then it happens 24 times between 1990 and 2006. Either the amphetamines got a lot better starting in 1990, or something else was at work.
I'm pretty comfortable with the something else theory.
At age 36 the wheels could fall off anytime from here on out (he will have a batting average less than his career average this year, but still above .300 of course), but man he's an awesome player. Had he started his career in the Major Leagues instead of playing in Japan, Pete Rose would soon no longer be the Hit King.
He's 772 hits shy of 3000 right now which means 4 more years averaging 193 hit per season, a very good possibility for this guy even as he approaches 40.
Had he been in the major leagues the whole time and then also played for the Yankees, he would be thought of as perhaps one of the best ever to play.
I figure he's going to the Hall of Fame. He probably will not need 3000 to qualify because he's been such a quality player during his ML career. When I think of the ex-players in The Hall, I divide them up into two classes. There's the very good players, and then there's the "cream of the cream". Tony Perez, Wade Boggs, and Tom Seaver are all in the former category, while Willie Mays, Ted Williams and Hank Aaron are all in the highly elite category. Ichiro will probably fit into the former category, but it's close. He lacks power at the plate. That's his only shortcoming, but power is a highly valuable asset. If you want to go way back into baseball history and make a comparison, Ty Cobb might be a pretty good one. Speed on the bases, defensive standout, and a great contact hitter. I'd put Cobb in the top category of baseball Hall of Famers, though he lacked power. But through most of Cobb's career, no one had power. The came with Babe Ruth who became a full-time outfielder over 10 years after Cobb entered the league. On the other hand, Cobb was a noted SOB. Ichiro is a quality guy.
Perhaps so, but the steroid age is the only one where we have such impressive evidence for who cheated and how much of an impact it had on performance.
Lots of players like this featured in the Mitchell Report
Quote:
Larry Bigbie: admitted to purchasing and using a variety of performance-enhancing substances from Radomski from 2001 to 2005, including human growth hormone, Deca-Durabolin, Sustanon, testosterone, and anti-estrogen drugs.
Fernando Vina: Radomski claimed he sold human growth hormone, Winstrol, and Deca-Durabolin to Viña from 2000–2005. Radomski produced three checks showing some of the transactions. Viña did not respond to interview requests
It is the only "cheating" related era which featured such severe assaults on the records. If any of those other methods for cheating are on the same level as steroids, why is it that they failed to produce results congruent with the miracles of the '90's and early 2000's? Players were popping greenies back in the sixties, I read about it in Ball Four, but there were not any record setting offensive performances which erupted league wide during the '70's. Wasn't George Foster the only guy to hit 50 plus homeruns that decade? No one hit 50 plus in a single season during the '80's. Then it happens 24 times between 1990 and 2006. Either the amphetamines got a lot better starting in 1990, or something else was at work.
I'm pretty comfortable with the something else theory.
I would fully expect drugs to become more effective over time but home runs aren't the only measure of a baseball player.
Can I assume that since you refuse to acknowledge B*nds as the career home run leader since he was alleged to use steroids while accepting Aaron as the career home run leader though he admitted using amphetamines that you will accept a certain level of cheating?
Can I assume that since you refuse to acknowledge B*nds as the career home run leader since he was alleged to use steroids while accepting Aaron as the career home run leader though he admitted using amphetamines that you will accept a certain level of cheating?
If this was a court of law, what would happen next would be my attorney objecting on the grounds of our side having made no stipulation that amphetamine use constitutes cheating. Then your lawyer would get up to argue and my mouthpiece would box him in by pointing out that your side has presented no evidence which establishes a relationship between amphetamine use and enhanced performance on the field. Then the judge would ask your attorney if he/she did indeed have any such evidence which your side planned to present. If the answer was no, then the original objection would be sustained. If the answer was yes, then the objection would remain sustained, but after the presentation of the evidence, I could be recalled and then asked that question.
And my answer then would probably be based on my evaluation of the evidence presented.
This isn't a court of law, but that is my response anyway.
I think that the evidence supporting the idea that the offensive outburst of the '90's and early '00's was a product of steroid use, is unassailable and affords but one conclusion.
That a single hit, catch, throw, pitch or basepath heroic has ever been made possible by amphetamine use, and would not have been as effective without such use, has yet to be established.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
