Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greenies vs. Steroids

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by lllllllllllllllllll
    Wow, you are incredibly ignorant.

    Amphetamines do much more than " increase alertness ".

    They help you perform better, especially in athletics or physical jobs.

    I used to pop greenies before every hockey game, because of it I was more alert, faster, and rarely got fatigued. That's performance enhancement at it's highest order.

    I dont know if they help more than steroids or not, I've never taken steroids so I dont know, but I sure as hell know amphetamines do MUCH more than " increase alertness ".

    Why the hell do you think stargell and mays were taken them for ? LOL

    You might want to read this article about amphetamines, to learn more about it's rampant use and it's benefits.

    http://www.hbo.com/costasnow/episode....01.story.html
    How do you know you were faster, did you have a way to time yourself. Do you think maybe you just thought you were faster.

    As for your saying you were more alert and suffered less fatigue, I won't debate that, I stated the same in my post. The point in my post was that greenies and steroids are both bad for the game but steroids change ones physical build, make one stronger, greenies don't.

    I'm not downplaying greenies, should have been banned long ago.
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 03-09-2006, 01:12 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      I think a relevant question is when exactly did greenies become illegal? Regardless of the difference in effectiveness (obviously steroids are the better ergogenic aid), the questioner was asking what is the moral difference (not the performance difference) between the two.

      With that in mind, I think that knowing exactly when amphetamines became illegal and exactly when they became banned by baseball, would be important to answering that question. Currently, amphetamines are illegal except when prescribed by a doctor. I know that Brooks Robinson likened them to a cup of coffee..... hmmmm. Coffee isn't in the same class of illegal drugs as cocaine (which amphetamines are). Lord knows I'd rather drink a cup of joe then injest a banned substance, so what gives Brooksie?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Astro
        There is no proof that steroids help baseball players either... steroids can also hinder a ballplayer, if his muscle become too big they wont be able to move as quickly, pitch as accurately or remain energized as long

        If you think anyone who took steroids' records should be erased, then anyone who took greenies, or did anything against the rules' should also be erased....

        Who is to say one is worse than the other? It's a judgement call
        I can't say for sure but it's reasonable to at least think a player adding more muscle mass to his body "might" benefit from steroids. I doubt it would hurt unless he went overboard with a great deal of added weight. I'm sure there are some players doing steroids who are no better than they were before steroids.

        I don't think any records should be erased simply because we can't determine how much greenies or steroids added to a players numbers.

        I'm not saying one is worse that the other, only saying my view is getting bigger and stronger on steroids would seem to benefit some players more so than greenies.

        Comment


        • #19
          I'm not saying one is worse that the other, only saying my view is getting bigger and stronger on steroids would seem to benefit some players more so than greenies
          I rhink steroids probably do help more than greenies, but are we really going to continue to absolutely kill Bonds because he cheated more effectively than other ballplayers? I'm guessing there's a sizable number of people on this board who don't want Bonds in the hall and don't think his records should count, and my point was that those people should be just as critical of Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle.

          Comment


          • #20
            As en ex-steroid user myself, I know they don't provide the benefits many seem to think they do. They mostly are a placebo. Greenies I have no clue about. I heard they provide a coffee high.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by DoubleX
              Greenies give a short term boost (often followed by a low). Steroids create much longer lasting changes and basically change the composition of the body. From greenies I'm more aware and energetic for a few hours, with steroids my body is permanently stronger, and my fast-twich muscles and reflexes will permanently will permanent react faster until I stop doing steroids.

              Greenies were cheating, but there is no way they can be equated to doing steroids. It's the difference between smoking marijuana and injecting heroin (except even that comparison is an understatement).
              Well put. Apples and oranges in terms of their effect on a ballplayer. But, like many pointed out, both are cheating. Just different levels of it is all.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by lllllllllllllllllll
                Wow, you are incredibly ignorant.

                Amphetamines do much more than " increase alertness ".

                They help you perform better, especially in athletics or physical jobs.

                I used to pop greenies before every hockey game, because of it I was more alert, faster, and rarely got fatigued. That's performance enhancement at it's highest order.

                I dont know if they help more than steroids or not, I've never taken steroids so I dont know, but I sure as hell know amphetamines do MUCH more than " increase alertness ".

                Why the hell do you think stargell and mays were taken them for ? LOL

                You might want to read this article about amphetamines, to learn more about it's rampant use and it's benefits.

                http://www.hbo.com/costasnow/episode....01.story.html
                What kind of amphetamines did you take and how many?
                Get out the Vote!!!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by HogWash
                  As en ex-steroid user myself, I know they don't provide the benefits many seem to think they do. They mostly are a placebo. Greenies I have no clue about. I heard they provide a coffee high.
                  Mind telling us what Steroid program you were on?
                  Get out the Vote!!!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Astro
                    There is no proof that steroids help baseball players either... steroids can also hinder a ballplayer, if his muscle become too big they wont be able to move as quickly, pitch as accurately or remain energized as long
                    This, IMO, is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. Gets brought up quite a bit by people defending Bonds. Look at Bonds' swing sometime and show us where he is "hindered." Come on. It's a short, compact, quick action that starts with the hips, torso, and shoulder. Has nothing to do with being "hindered." Just rediculous.

                    Throwing strength would be affected if a player bulked up like Bonds, which his has. His arm went from average and accurate, to below average and accurate becuase of flexibility issues. Which is the reason why pitchers don't bulk on when they take steroids. A players workout program, type of steroid, and the amount of steroid will reflect their goals on the field. Plain and simple.

                    The energy comment is false as well. Not only does HGH and all the others give you stronger muscles with more stamina, but increased energy and focus as well.
                    Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 03-09-2006, 04:09 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print...509&type=story

                      ""Yet for every player who comes to rely on stimulants and develop a dependence on them, there's a corresponding skeptic. Bouton once ingested a "little red heart" to get up for a game and found the experience so unpleasant that he never did it again.

                      "I was wired, jittery and jumpy," Bouton said. "I hated it. I don't think I pitched well at all. I was so up for the game already, I didn't need any stimulants. I was overstimulated."

                      Houston Astros manager Phil Garner, who played 16 seasons in the majors, briefly tried Dexedrine, a stimulant prescribed for narcolepsy and attention deficit disorder. He took one five milligram tablet before each game as a pick-me-up, but soon found that it disrupted his sleeping and eating patterns and was generally counterproductive.

                      "It becomes a psychological addiction and a crutch," Garner said. "Some guys get on amphetamines and think they can't play without them. But it's just a false sense of security. If you educate yourself and really see what's happening, you find it's a dead-end street."
                      ""


                      Its pretty clear that amphetamines just supply a false sence of "energy" and the addictive nature of them pretty much offsets any posible advantage.

                      BTW did it dawn on anyone that amphetamines have been around for years but there was never a statisitcal bumb or slump that accompanied it the way that power numbers have been increased by Anabolics?
                      Get out the Vote!!!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Dasperp
                        I rhink steroids probably do help more than greenies, but are we really going to continue to absolutely kill Bonds because he cheated more effectively than other ballplayers? I'm guessing there's a sizable number of people on this board who don't want Bonds in the hall and don't think his records should count, and my point was that those people should be just as critical of Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle.
                        Do you have proof that Mantle used greenies, are we assuming anyone who played in that era had to do greenies.

                        It's not my belief that Barry should not get into the HOF and I can't see MLB discounting any of Barry's or anyone known to do steroids numbers. I se him getting into the HOF and his numbers standing. For sure a great number a great number of fans and the general public will doubt some of his numbers.

                        May I repeat that I and most do not approve of greenie use in the past but the fact is that steroids is the issue that is up front in the news today, thats why it the most discussed subject.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Its pretty clear that amphetamines just supply a false sence of "energy" and the addictive nature of them pretty much offsets any posible advantage.

                          BTW did it dawn on anyone that amphetamines have been around for years but there was never a statisitcal bumb or slump that accompanied it the way that power numbers have been increased by Anabolics?
                          How does providing two examples make it clear? Alex Sanchez and Felix Heredia haven't exactly benefitted from steroid use, but that doesn't mean it doesn't help. And there is absolutely no evidence that this hitter's era is a result of steroid use. With testing last year, offense didn't suddenly go back to the way it was in the 70's, and the drop was so small that it was probably just due to random fluctuation.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Dasperp
                            How does providing two examples make it clear? Alex Sanchez and Felix Heredia haven't exactly benefitted from steroid use, but that doesn't mean it doesn't help. And there is absolutely no evidence that this hitter's era is a result of steroid use. With testing last year, offense didn't suddenly go back to the way it was in the 70's, and the drop was so small that it was probably just due to random fluctuation.

                            Home runs last year dropped to their lowest levels since 1997 if I remember correctly (almost 8% from 2004) and I'm sure I can dig up a bill james quote or two that alludes to steroids impact.
                            Get out the Vote!!!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ESPNFan
                              Home runs last year dropped to their lowest levels since 1997 if I remember correctly (almost 8% from 2004) and I'm sure I can dig up a bill james quote or two that alludes to steroids impact.
                              Obviously more needs to be taken into account, but I posted this some time ago.

                              AVG NUMBER OF HR and ERA of a MLB team

                              RED = 161 - 200 ----- RED = 4.31 – 4.80
                              BLUE = 121 - 160 ---- BLUE = 3.81 – 4.30
                              GREEN = 81 - 120 ---- GREEN = 3.31 – 3.80
                              ORANGE = 41 - 80 --- ORANGE = 2.81 – 3.30
                              BLACK = 1 - 40 ------ BLACK = 2.31 – 2.80


                              YEAR - HR - ERA

                              2005 – 167 -- 4.29
                              2004 – 182 -- 4.47
                              2003 – 174 -- 4.41
                              2002 – 169 -- 4.28
                              2001 – 182 -- 4.41
                              2000 – 190 -- 4.77
                              1999 – 184 -- 4.71
                              1998 – 169 -- 4.46
                              1997 – 166 -- 4.39
                              1996 – 177 -- 4.61
                              1995 – 146 -- 4.45
                              1994 – 118 -- 4.51
                              1993 – 144 -- 4.18
                              1992 – 117 -- 3.72
                              1991 – 130 -- 3.89
                              1990 – 128 -- 3.85
                              1989 – 119 -- 3.69
                              1988 – 122 -- 3.71
                              1987 – 171 -- 4.27
                              1986 – 147 -- 3.95
                              1985 – 139 -- 3.87
                              1984 – 125 -- 3.79
                              1983 – 127 -- 3.85
                              1982 – 130 -- 3.84
                              1981 – 69 --- 3.58
                              1980 – 118 -- 3.28
                              1979 – 132 -- 3.98
                              1978 – 114 -- 3.67
                              1977 – 140 -- 3.99
                              1976 – 93 --- 3.51
                              1975 – 112 -- 3.70
                              1974 – 110 -- 3.62
                              1973 – 129 -- 3.74
                              1972 – 106 -- 3.26
                              1971 – 119 -- 3.47
                              1970 – 143 -- 3.88
                              1969 – 130 -- 3.61
                              1968 – 100 -- 2.98
                              1967 – 115 -- 3.31
                              1966 – 137 -- 3.52
                              1965 – 134 -- 3.50
                              1964 – 138 -- 3.58
                              1963 – 135 -- 3.46
                              1962 – 150 -- 3.96
                              1961 – 151 -- 4.03
                              1960 – 133 -- 3.82
                              1959 – 140 -- 3.91
                              1958 – 140 -- 3.86
                              1957 – 138 -- 3.84
                              1956 – 143 -- 3.97
                              1955 – 139 -- 4.00
                              1954 – 121 -- 3.90
                              1953 – 130 -- 4.14
                              1952 – 106 -- 3.70
                              1951 – 116 -- 4.04
                              1950 – 130 -- 4.36
                              1949 – 107 -- 4.12
                              1948 – 97 -- 4.12
                              1947 – 98 -- 3.89
                              1946 – 76 -- 3.46
                              1945 – 63 -- 3.58
                              1944 – 65 -- 3.52
                              1943 – 56 -- 3.34
                              1942 – 67 -- 3.49
                              1941 – 83 -- 3.89
                              1940 – 98 -- 4.11
                              1939 – 90 -- 4.27
                              1938 – 92 -- 4.28
                              1937 – 89 -- 4.27
                              1936 – 85 -- 4.53
                              1935 – 83 -- 4.24
                              1934 – 84 -- 4.28
                              1933 – 67 -- 3.81
                              1932 – 85 -- 4.18
                              1931 – 67 -- 4.12
                              1930 – 98 -- 4.80
                              1929 – 84 -- 4.47
                              1928 – 68 -- 4.01
                              1927 – 58 -- 4.02
                              1926 – 54 -- 3.92
                              1925 – 73 -- 4.33
                              1924 – 56 -- 4.05
                              1923 – 61 -- 3.98
                              1922 – 66 -- 4.06
                              1921 – 58 -- 4.03
                              1920 – 39 -- 3.46
                              1919 – 28 -- 3.06
                              1918 – 15 -- 2.77
                              1917 – 21 -- 2.68
                              1916 – 24 -- 2.71
                              1915 – 24 -- 2.84
                              1914 – 26 -- 2.75
                              1913 – 29 -- 3.06
                              1912 – 28 -- 3.37
                              1911 – 32 -- 3.36
                              1910 – 22 -- 2.77
                              1909 – 16 -- 2.53
                              1908 – 17 -- 2.37
                              1907 – 15 -- 2.50
                              1906 – 16 -- 2.65
                              1905 – 21 -- 2.82
                              1904 – 21 -- 2.67
                              1903 – 21 -- 3.11
                              1902 – 22 -- 3.17
                              1901 – 28 -- 3.49
                              Last edited by Sultan_1895-1948; 03-09-2006, 08:00 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 2Chance
                                Brett Butler used to drink about 15 cups of coffee during a game. I suppose he thought he was getting an edge over other players, too. Or he just liked coffee.


                                Things like this kind of make me laugh. How do we know Butler was drinking coffee? How do we know if was just lying and he was actually just popping pills and using coffee as a cover story? Besides 15 cups is kind of an absurd number to begin with.

                                Hey I guess if Jeff Kent can get hurt washing his car then Butler can being drinking 15 cups of cofffee.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X