Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greenies = Steroids = Pine Tar

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by GnomeansGno

    I find it funny that you refuse to believe ( judging by your arguements with others on this very thread) amphetamines, corkedbats, spitballs, ritalin, etc, " help " a lot, but deem steroids as the ultimate performance enhancing drug that can turn bobby bonilla into mickey mantle with one injection.
    I've never said those things don't help at all, just that they're not on the same level as steroids, especially when taken to the degree that Bonds allegedly did.


    Or what about that book on mantle, where a friend of his states mantle suspected steroids was possible for a " odd " growth spurt he had as a teen ?

    Something to think about....
    I have never heard of this. Do you have a passage from the book, or some more details? That's interesting.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by StanTheMan

      and his behavior is illegal, with the facts as I currently understand them.

      Anything other than NOT voting him in the HOF with the facts we currently have is condining illegal activity, IMO.
      It's funny you should mention this, because, in a related story, Cal Ripken's seat in Cooperstown is being revoked after it was learned that he had not one, but TWO unpaid parking tickets. Those HOF voters sure are strict.

      Visit ESPN to get up-to-the-minute sports news coverage, scores, highlights and commentary for AFL, NRL, Rugby, Cricket, Football and more.





      Mark

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
        I've never said those things don't help at all, just that they're not on the same level as steroids, especially when taken to the degree that Bonds allegedly did.




        I have never heard of this. Do you have a passage from the book, or some more details? That's interesting.
        So stacking multiple types of steroids at the sametime ( which is what the book states, including cattle steroids, LOL) is the " best way " to gain an edge ?

        Interesting, because house did that and was a failed experiment.


        Anyway, I'm not saying steroids don't help, but IMO, it's overrated, i basically see it as a drug that helps you recover from injuries faster, and prolongs workouts.

        As for mantle, I got that information from a book called The Last Hero: The Life of Mickey Mantle by David Falkner. This is the sameguy who wrote a book on robinson, and morgan, and I believe someoneelse ( forgot at the moment).

        Here's an excerpt from the book - The suddeness with which he grew may or may not have been significant. Growth spurts are obviously common at that age. What was not so common, however, was how quickly he bulked up. Nick Ferguson recalled the time & the dramatic change in his friend's physical appearance.
        'Mutt used to drive Mickey back & forth from Oklahoma City, to the Children's Hospital,' he said. 'They'd leave him there for awhile & then take him back. Mick was like 130 when this started, and then he lost weight to where he may have been 100 pounds, I don't know, but then all that changed. I don't know what they were giving him. He thought maybe it was steroids, but I have no idea what it was, but he claimed that's what pumped him up to 160 pounds, he looked totaly different. I also think that that's maybe what caused him trouble in his later years. His muscles didn't develop naturally maybe, and it caused a lot of pulls and everything. It was just kinda unusual the way he grew like that in one year.'
        Attached Files
        Last edited by GnomeansGno; 03-25-2006, 04:00 PM.
        " NEVER underestimate the heart of a champion " ~ Rudy Tomjanovich

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by GnomeansGno
          So stacking multiple types of steroids at the sametime ( which is what the book states, including cattle steroids, LOL) is the " best way " to gain an edge ?

          Interesting, because house did that and was a failed experiment.


          Anyway, I'm not saying steroids don't help, but IMO, it's overrated, i basically see it as a drug that helps you recover from injuries faster, and prolongs workouts.
          House obviously wasn't getting the best advice or the best mixture of steroids possible. Heck, you go out on your own and experiment, all sorts of things are bound to go wrong, and you're bound to not benefit as much. I agree they help you recover from injuries faster, and they also allow the muscles to heal quicker. A normal person works out and tears the muscle fibers. Naturally, we get sore and the muscles need time to repair themselves. On steroids, you can lift like a madman day after day, hour after hour, increasing strength. Strength which aids on a baseball field, that's a fact.

          Which leads me to the Mantle question. Do you think someone can just pump steroids into a young man and he all of a sudden gains 30 or 40 pounds without doing the necessary weight training? What was Mantle doing for workouts at the time?

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
            House obviously wasn't getting the best advice or the best mixture of steroids possible. Heck, you go out on your own and experiment, all sorts of things are bound to go wrong, and you're bound to not benefit as much. I agree they help you recover from injuries faster, and they also allow the muscles to heal quicker. A normal person works out and tears the muscle fibers. Naturally, we get sore and the muscles need time to repair themselves. On steroids, you can lift like a madman day after day, hour after hour, increasing strength. Strength which aids on a baseball field, that's a fact.

            Which leads me to the Mantle question. Do you think someone can just pump steroids into a young man and he all of a sudden gains 30 or 40 pounds without doing the necessary weight training? What was Mantle doing for workouts at the time?
            It seems that we both sort of agree on what steroids does for an athlete, and I agree with your point about house. But the way the book " game of shadows " states bonds was using steroids ( cattle?) it sounds like he was doing just what tom house was doing.

            As for mantle, I was never accusing him of taking steroids, just pointing out that steroids were around backthen, and some athletes knew about them. I agree that steroids wont help someone build muscle without a proper workout regimen, but doesn't it make ligaments grow abnormally regardless ?
            " NEVER underestimate the heart of a champion " ~ Rudy Tomjanovich

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by GnomeansGno
              Steroids = Vastly overrated as a " performance enhancing drug ".
              Statements like this make me want to start a "Facts About PEDs THREAD"

              The enitire East german Olympic team says Hi.

              Abstract. Several classified documents saved after the collapse of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in 1990 describe the promotion by the government of the


              Thats an article from Clinical chemistry that details the Use and effects of Anabolic use by the East Germans during their state sponcered doping program.
              Get out the Vote!!!

              Comment


              • #82
                The article on East Germany's use of steoids -- and many other drugs, usually in combination -- raises many points and questions. Thanks for posting it. That steroids had an effect on performance was obvious (check the graphs), but it was primarily in sports where strength (weightlifting, hammer throw, shotput, even skiing) and speed (track, swimming) were/are crucial. It's also clear from reading this that the steroids and related cocktails were used overwhelmingly on young athletes, not mature ones, and especially females. Even more obvious from the report is that injurious side-effects were noticed from very early on, and we're talking 30+ years ago. Also interesting is the research that went into covering up the steroid use. Still, the deleterious side-effects became so evident, so quickly, that it became a public issue. The report details this. The implications for baseball are unclear, at least to me, because of the different skill sets involved, the relative ages of the athletes involved and the gender issue. This report won't settle that question. Again, the bulk of the data seem drawn largely from female subjects, who apparently showed the most remarkable results (as well as the most debilitating side-effects). To me, this report can be read on one hand as strengthening the anti-steroid faction, while on the other hand bolstering the case of those who argue that jury is still out the effects of steroids on performance in baseball. I think the medical data in the report also buttress the case that if Bonds had taken all that he's bben claimed to have taken, he probably wouldn't be able to walk and would resemble a Jane Goodall research subect.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by sandlot
                  The article on East Germany's use of steoids -- and many other drugs, usually in combination -- raises many points and questions. Thanks for posting it. That steroids had an effect on performance was obvious (check the graphs), but it was primarily in sports where strength (weightlifting, hammer throw, shotput, even skiing) and speed (track, swimming) were/are crucial. It's also clear from reading this that the steroids and related cocktails were used overwhelmingly on young athletes, not mature ones, and especially females. Even more obvious from the report is that injurious side-effects were noticed from very early on, and we're talking 30+ years ago. Also interesting is the research that went into covering up the steroid use. Still, the deleterious side-effects became so evident, so quickly, that it became a public issue. The report details this. The implications for baseball are unclear, at least to me, because of the different skill sets involved, the relative ages of the athletes involved and the gender issue. This report won't settle that question. Again, the bulk of the data seem drawn largely from female subjects, who apparently showed the most remarkable results (as well as the most debilitating side-effects). To me, this report can be read on one hand as strengthening the anti-steroid faction, while on the other hand bolstering the case of those who argue that jury is still out the effects of steroids on performance in baseball. I think the medical data in the report also buttress the case that if Bonds had taken all that he's bben claimed to have taken, he probably wouldn't be able to walk and would resemble a Jane Goodall research subect.
                  Sandlot, I can't tell you how good it is to see someone has finally decied to put the time into reading this. For that I thank you first off. Sometimes I feel like when I post it I'm talking to a wall. I'll try to answer your questions bit by bit as best I can.
                  First yes the Events of the Olympics are basicly either strenght or speed related. But much like these events what they have in common with baseball is the emphasis on a practiced, repeated motion. Baseball players need much less pure brute strength than say a hammer thrower but the tourque in a hamer throw and the tourque generated in a baseball swing use many of the same muscle groups. Both athletes repeat a motion refining it and getting to to a level that is absolutely instictive. You add 5 or ten more lbs of muscle, particularly to the quick twich muscle fibers in the arms trunk and legs and that could be all that a batter needs to do is quciken his swing and subsequently reaction time, to see some inprovement in power definetly and possibly average.
                  Second yes the Athletes in the East Germans programs were started very young but remeber these athletes and the governments weren't just looking for some incrimental improvement in one area of their game like most baseball players. They were trying to create the best Swimmer, polevaulter, etc.. in the world, a Gold medalist. As you can see most every athlete imporved which is what most would asume would happen with ball players. So while The MLB players didnt start these substances while they were adolesants most were plenty skilled enough to benifit from them.

                  Third reguarding the sideeffects. Actually the fact that most of these athletes began their doping during their youth probably contributed much more to the eventual side effects that they would encounter. There is evidence that Anabolics can close the growth plates of adolecents, etc..
                  And like you point out this was 30 years ago and some of the anabolics of today have much lower hepatoxicity levels than those the East Germans were using. Also important is the levels of sexlinked androgens in these compounds. These are where most of the really dibilitating sexual mutations come from and the East Germans were still using Testosterone which has none of the androgenic properties removed. Also there is such a better understanding of how and what to do to minimize side effects now. And newer less toxic less androgenic substances come out every day. In Will Carrol's book an Scientist who claimed to be instrumental to creating THG was quoted as saying there is alreayd a "perfect anabolic" available and that THG is already 3 generations old.

                  I think finally you need to realise that these substances are sought after by the athletes and they would only do so if they thought they would help them. LOL as far as the Bonds example goes, You could say he has changed in his appearence and again he had enlisted a laboratory to assist him. As the years go on we will, unfortunately I'm afraid, learn much more about the consequences of some of the ballplayers actions.

                  Again Sandlot thanks so much for giving it a read.
                  Get out the Vote!!!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose
                    While your point is understood, the taunting nature of your posts is uncalled for and absolutely frowned upon on this site. We don't do that here.
                    I for one am tired of all the baseball purests crying about Bonds as well. If this were McGwire, there would not be nearly the outcry.

                    As for jaquishsucks "taunting" Johncap, be careful Captain. You seem to be using your moderater status to take sides here. The taunting that occured was in response to a post where Johncap wrote some much nastier things about jaquish. So is it OK to attack a person but not to taunt them? Or is it only OK to do either if you agree with their perspective? Just trying to get the rules straight. I hate hypocrisy

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by johncap
                      Once again proving you're not a baseball fan. If you think players of today are better than yesterday, then you just don't have a clue. You think because someone puts up 70 homers or hits .385 against today's dreck that that makes them better players or hitters than a Yaz hitting .301 or Schmidt topping out at 48 homers against much tougher pitching? Please don't make those kinds of unenlightened blanket statements. They make you look as foolish as your previous comments did.
                      players today are better trained, in better shape, work much harder(weight rooms, video tapes). they are betetr becuz they have taken ideas from the past and expanded on them. Only a few from the past stand up today. But if we have a time machine, get the 1920's all stars vs. today, it wouldnt be a contest. They couldnt hit 100mph in the 9th inning. I still love the players of the past, dont get me wrong, but its ridiculous. They arent anywhere near todays players. Sports supplements and science mixed with baseball IQ (Bonds) make for athletes no one ever dreamed of. one day, everyone will be doing something similiar to steroids, but safe. i just like to sit back and enjoy it. Watch a genuis at work in barry bonds.the only thing that made me mad about his book was how he treated people. Screw the steroids.

                      and look for a book to be published in the next two years on an unknown by the name of Buck Freeman. Yes, im college edumacated and know a large amount about baseball. And buck freeman, as much as i love the topic, couldnt play today. Unless he wanted to lift weights and work at his game 5 hours a day.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                        One guy does not make your blanket statement true, or even logical. Steroids are on another planet from greenies. Would most take that leap; who knows. Should we just assume everyone in history "would have" done them?
                        Actually, according to our government, amphetamines are a more dangerous substance than anabolic steroids. Amphetamines are a Schedule 3 substance, the same category as cocaine and heroin. Steroids are the next tier down, Schedule 2. Personally, I wouldn't want to take either of them. But it is not hard to imagine that the same folks who would take one would probably take the other.

                        However, I agree with your original point that steroids distort the game much more than greenies, and that steroids have a much greater effect as performance enhancers. From a performance enhancing perspective, I completely agree with you that steroids are a different world entirely than greenies. From a moral/ethical perspective, though, I think that you are wrong. Both are illegal, both are breaking the law; in fact, legally, amphetamines are actually the more serious drug. There are also more long term studies proving the harmful effects of amphetamines, than there are for steroids.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Metal Ed
                          Actually, according to our government, amphetamines are a more dangerous substance than anabolic steroids. Amphetamines are a Schedule 3 substance, the same category as cocaine and heroin. Steroids are the next tier down, Schedule 2. Personally, I wouldn't want to take either of them. But it is not hard to imagine that the same folks who would take one would probably take the other.

                          However, I agree with your original point that steroids distort the game much more than greenies, and that steroids have a much greater effect as performance enhancers. From a performance enhancing perspective, I completely agree with you that steroids are a different world entirely than greenies. From a moral/ethical perspective, though, I think that you are wrong. Both are illegal, both are breaking the law; in fact, legally, amphetamines are actually the more serious drug. There are also more long term studies proving the harmful effects of amphetamines, than there are for steroids.
                          If I'm not mistaken, Schedule 2 means it is more controlled by the government than schedule 3.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Pine Tar
                            If I'm not mistaken, Schedule 2 means it is more controlled by the government than schedule 3.
                            Both drugs pose greater risk and danger from adverse effects than any possible benefit it might provide you.

                            " NEVER underestimate the heart of a champion " ~ Rudy Tomjanovich

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Pine Tar
                              I for one am tired of all the baseball purests crying about Bonds as well. If this were McGwire, there would not be nearly the outcry.

                              As for jaquishsucks "taunting" Johncap, be careful Captain. You seem to be using your moderater status to take sides here. The taunting that occured was in response to a post where Johncap wrote some much nastier things about jaquish. So is it OK to attack a person but not to taunt them? Or is it only OK to do either if you agree with their perspective? Just trying to get the rules straight. I hate hypocrisy
                              First of all, the reference to this person taunting me is inacurate. He was taunting someone else and was chastised for that.

                              As for your comments about my "nasty" remarks, they stand as stated. The comments he made were offensive, unenlightened and tasteless.

                              We're not baseball purists, at least not in this regard. The arguments calling for action on this issue are because of COMMON SENSE, not purity. All this BS back and forth trying to equate using cork, or spitballs or greenies to what this subject really is about is a travesty and a microcosm of what is wroing with society in general today. Actions are justified when compared to someone else's sins and no one is held accountable for what they do. Each case is judged on its own merit. As far as I'm concerned, GUILTY, time to sentence!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by jaquishsucks
                                players today are better trained, in better shape, work much harder(weight rooms, video tapes). they are betetr becuz they have taken ideas from the past and expanded on them. Only a few from the past stand up today. But if we have a time machine, get the 1920's all stars vs. today, it wouldnt be a contest. They couldnt hit 100mph in the 9th inning. I still love the players of the past, dont get me wrong, but its ridiculous. They arent anywhere near todays players. Sports supplements and science mixed with baseball IQ (Bonds) make for athletes no one ever dreamed of. one day, everyone will be doing something similiar to steroids, but safe. i just like to sit back and enjoy it. Watch a genuis at work in barry bonds.the only thing that made me mad about his book was how he treated people. Screw the steroids.

                                and look for a book to be published in the next two years on an unknown by the name of Buck Freeman. Yes, im college edumacated and know a large amount about baseball. And buck freeman, as much as i love the topic, couldnt play today. Unless he wanted to lift weights and work at his game 5 hours a day.
                                Players today are bigger and stronger, whether chemically enhanced or not, but they are not BETTER players. There is more to being a good player than being a better physical specimen including knowledge of the game, fundamentals, desire, focus, incentive.

                                The fact of the matter is that simply by virtue of numbers, there are players in the majors today who would be in AA ball 40 years ago. At the top rung, how many of today's players could carry Willie Mays' jock? Not many. No, today's players are not better than yesterday's. All things are relative.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X