Tougher Steroid testing isn't decreasing HR totals

[west coast orange and black]

no need to shout, chisox; we hear you loud + clear.

consider, though, that the athlete who takes a substance that is not presently tested for runs the great risk of having that substance detected once that substance can be detected and is included in screening.

the athlete takes the huge risk of traceable levels remaining in his body for more than a year.

say a player used a substance today that is not detectable today. there is no way that anyone can guarantee that a new test will not become available within the next 12-14 months and detect the banned substance.

[chisox2k5]

no need to shout, chisox; we hear you loud + clear.

consider, though, that the athlete who takes a substance that is not presently tested for runs the great risk of having that substance detected once that substance can be detected and is included in screening.

the athlete takes the huge risk of traceable levels remaining in his body for more than a year.

say a player used a substance today that is not detectable today. there is no way that anyone can guarantee that a new test will not become available within the next 12-14 months and detect the banned substance.

MLB doesent do that

[west coast orange and black]

mb does not do what, add substances to the banned list and add substances for which they test?

[chisox2k5]

mb does not do what, add substances to the banned list and add substances for which they test?

MLB doesent retrotest

[west coast orange and black]

right about retro-testing, but that is a different subject.

players who use *substance 00* today that is not explicitly on the banned list at the moment run the risk that on their next test that *substance 00* will now be included in the testing. per the agreement, new substances can be added to the banned list and be included in screening (as in "any and all").

because players are tested on an ongoing basis, and more often than just once each year, they run the risk that *substance 00* not tested for today will be tested for tomorrow. and nearly all steroids remain at traceable levels in the human body upwards of one year.

and, there are other dangers and risks for steroid users, as we know.

[chisox2k5]

and nearly all steroids remain at traceable levels in the human body upwards of one year.

Are you suuuuuuure?

TESTOSTERONE SUSPENSION 1-3 DAYS

CLENBUTEROL 4 - 5 DAYS

TESTOSTERONE UNDECONOATE 1 WEEK

TESTOSTERONE PROPIONATE 2 WEEKS

STANOZOLOL (ORAL) 3 WEEKS

OXANDROLONE (Anavar) 3 WEEKS

(INJECTABLE) METHENOLONE ENANTHATE 4 - 5 WEEKS

METHANDIENONE (ORAL) 5 - 6 WEEKS

TREMBOLONE HEXAHYDROBENZYLCARBONATE 4 - 5 WEEKS

MESTEROLONE 5 - 6 WEEKS

NORETHANDROLONE 5 - 6 WEEKS

STANOZOLOL (INJECT) 2 MONTHS

FLUOXYMESTERONE 2 MONTHS

OXYMETHOLONE (Anadrol) 2 MONTHS

Sustanon 250 3 MONTHS

TESTOSTERONE ENANTHATE 3 MONTHS

TESTOSTERONE CYPIONATE 3 MONTHS

TREMBOLONE ACETATE 4 - 5 MONTHS

BOLDENONE UNDECYLENATE 4 - 5 MONTHS

METHANDIENONE (INJECTABLE) (D-Bol) 5 MONTHS

NANDROLONE PHENYLPROPIONATE 11 - 12 MONTHS

NANDROLONE DECANOATE NANDROLONE UNDECANOATE 17 - 18 MONTHS

The only thing close to or over a year is Deca Durabolin.

(sorry about the caps, copy paste jobs)

[west coast orange and black]

i concede that "nearly all" is poor choice of words.
better is "oil-based". this is significant, as the oil-base family is the family of choice.

i hope that you have considered the great risks that using athletes take when they do use >>>

no formal announcements of added drugs to testing;
written evidence of use - schedules, monitoring, etc;
witness testimony against the user

[chisox2k5]

i concede that "nearly all" is poor choice of words.
better is "oil-based". this is significant, as the oil-base family is the family of choice.

No.

Anavar is oil based. Detection time, 3 weeks.

Test cyp is oil based. 3 months

Equipoise is oil based. 3 months

Sust 250 is oil based. 3 months

Test prop is oil based. 2 weeks

Pro athletes arent idiots, use a water base or non esterfied solution and you can beat drug tests... you just have to inject yourself more.

[Dontworry]

No.

Anavar is oil based. Detection time, 3 weeks.

Test cyp is oil based. 3 months

Equipoise is oil based. 3 months

Sust 250 is oil based. 3 months

Test prop is oil based. 2 weeks

Pro athletes arent idiots, use a water base or non esterfied solution and you can beat drug tests... you just have to inject yourself more.

" Pro athletes arent idiots, use a water base or non esterfied solution and you can beat drug tests... you just have to inject yourself more "

Or a cortisone shot.

As I said before, nothing will stop players from trying to gain an edge. Banning corked bats from baseball didnt stop sosa, or belle.

It's simple logic really, everyone tries to gain an edge.

My point is that everyone expected a drop in hr's in 2005, when that hasnt happened at all.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

1) We have 1st hand testimony that steriods and greenies were in widespread use in baseball in the 70s. Kind of strange that it took til 1994 to start adding HR.
.

Anyone remember, it was in the early 1990s that a number of pitchers commented on the ball, the cover seemed tighter, the seams felt lower, harder to grip, harder to get "stuff" on the ball. History repeating, this complaint was heard by a number of NL pitchers in 1930, tighter cover, lower seams the ball was harder to grip.
That was the season ( 1930) the NL hit 892 home runs and batted .303, the only time an entire league hit .300. What happened the following year in the NL, 493 home runs and batted .277, welcome beck to the real world in 1931.

The answer was simple, at the winter meetings in 1929 the NL owners decided to go with a thinner lighter cover and lower seams for the 1930 season and the NL exploded. They then decided to go back to the old ball in 1931 and you can see the difference. It's been thought that the "new" ball was actually slipped in near the end of the 1929 season but there is no doubt it was used for the entire 1930 season.

Lets not forget the one thats been pushed on the back burner in regards to the 1990s home run derby, another change that took place near the beginning of the 1990s, that tiny little strike zone, some how lowered from a point mid way between the hitters shoulders and belt line to just above the belt line, a joke, hitters delight.

The ball, the strike zone, some expansion early to mid 1990s, balls began flying out of parks like never before.

[brooklynboy]

Testing??Testing?? What testing???

And what steroid testing are we talking about here??? MLB??
You got to be kidding...

[Dontworry]

Anyone remember, it was in the early 1990s that a number of pitchers commented on the ball, the cover seemed tighter, the seams felt lower, harder to grip, harder to get "stuff" on the ball. History repeating, this complaint was heard by a number of NL pitchers in 1930, tighter cover, lower seams the ball was harder to grip.
That was the season ( 1930) the NL hit 892 home runs and batted .303, the only time an entire league hit .300. What happened the following year in the NL, 493 home runs and batted .277, welcome beck to the real world in 1931.

The answer was simple, at the winter meetings in 1929 the NL owners decided to go with a thinner lighter cover and lower seams for the 1930 season and the NL exploded. They then decided to go back to the old ball in 1931 and you can see the difference. It's been thought that the "new" ball was actually slipped in near the end of the 1929 season but there is no doubt it was used for the entire 1930 season.

Lets not forget the one thats been pushed on the back burner in regards to the 1990s home run derby, another change that took place near the beginning of the 1990s, that tiny little strike zone, some how lowered from a point mid way between the hitters shoulders and belt line to just above the belt line, a joke, hitters delight.

The ball, the strike zone, some expansion early to mid 1990s, balls began flying out of parks like never before.

Good points.

The HR rate went up in 1993. There was a pretty flat rate in both leagues from 1988 to 1992. In 1993, both leagues took a big step up. In 1994, both leagues had reached their new level, where they stayed till 1998 (NL) or 2005 AL).

So something happened in 1993 that drove the HR rate change. That's the key year. And that pretty much takes out expansion and the strike as factors - it was a done deal by then.

Personally, I think we reached a tipping point - a whole bunch of factors related to bat construction, opposite field HR, aluminum bats, and maybe even steroids and greenies combined to change the style of play. It's similar, if less dramatic to the HR spike in the early 30s.

Also, just in case you ask about Aluminum Bats, I'll explain to you what I mean.

With a wooden bat, if you crowd the plate the pitcher can throw inside and break your bat. So hitters stayed back from the plate, and were vulnerable to outside pitches.

But with the introduction of aluminum bats, this wasn't true. You can stand right on top of the plate and unload on the outside pitch. And if they throw inside, you can muscle it for a single, since the bat won't break.

Now the pros don't use aluminum bats, of course. But when they were learning the game, in little league and high school, they sure did. And that's where they learned how to play. So the hitters learned how to drive the ball to the opposite field, and the pitchers didn't learn how to stop it. And so the number of opposite field home runs tripled from the 80s to the 90s.

That's how aluminum bats contributed.

[chisox2k5]

Or a cortisone shot.

Cortisone is used as an anti inflammatory.

People who compare cortisone to illegal AAS are ignorant and unedcuated on the topic.

[Dontworry]

Cortisone is used as an anti inflammatory.

People who compare cortisone to illegal AAS are ignorant and unedcuated on the topic.

How can you say cortisone shots do not enhance performance ?


Player A, inflammation, cannot play is on the Bench, No Runs, No Hits No Rbis....


Player A, takes cortisone shot--a steroid. Gets off Bench, and plays---runs, hits, RBIS.


That is performance enhancement of the highest order

[chisox2k5]

How can you say cortisone shots do not enhance performance ?


Player A, inflammation, cannot play is on the Bench, No Runs, No Hits No Rbis....


Player A, takes cortisone shot--a steroid. Gets off Bench, and plays---runs, hits, RBIS.


That is performance enhancement of the highest order

lol... except cortisone is being used LEGALLY and the effects of cortisone and the different types of illegal steroids being used by players are DIFFERENT.

I never said cortisone doesent enhance performance.