Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greenies = Steroids = Pine Tar

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

  • Metal Ed
    replied
    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3

    It's a sad story, whether one likes or dislikes Barry a sad ending. One of the greatest ball players even with no steroids went down a path that will cause many to put some of his numbers in doubt, unsure where to rank him.

    I agree, Shoeless. Imagine what his legacy could have been, had he not taken steroids. Think of it: underappreciated in his own time, as McGwire and Sosa got all the praise. Then their drug use would come to light, bringing them down; and Bonds, had he been clean, would have been re-evaluated in retrospect. He would have emerged as a hero, judged the superior ballplayer, underappreciated because he didn't have the power numbers of the steroid users. Now, few will remember how great he was before the drugs transformed him into something else. It's a sad story, but this was his choice. Say what you want to about "everyone does it" and "you have to do it to stay competitive"; that may be true for the journeyman who has been in and out of the minor leagues his whole career, but it certainly wasn't true for Barry Bonds.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metal Ed
    replied
    Originally posted by GnomeansGno
    You could easily make a case that today's league is stronger than the pre 1947 league, after that it would be tougher, more opinions than anythingelse.

    Personally I think the strongest the league ever was the 1980's.

    I agree with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metal Ed
    replied
    Originally posted by Pine Tar
    If I'm not mistaken, Schedule 2 means it is more controlled by the government than schedule 3.
    You know what, you are 100% right; I completely reversed the order of the two. Steroids are Schedule 3, which are less tightly regulated than schedule 2. Schedule 2 includes amphetamines. Sorry for the confusion.

    According to Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control...edule_II_drugs

    Schedule II drugs
    Findings required:

    (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
    (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
    (C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
    These drugs are only available by prescription, and distribution is carefully controlled and monitored by the DEA.

    Drugs on this schedule include:

    Cocaine (used as a topical anaesthetic);
    Methylphenidate (Ritalin);
    Most pure opioid agonists: Pethidine (INN) or meperidine (USAN), fentanyl, Hydromorphone, opium, oxycodone (the main ingredient in percocet and OxyContin), or morphine;
    Short-acting barbiturates, such as secobarbital;
    Amphetamines, except for injectable methamphetamine. Amphetamines were originally placed in Schedule III, but were moved to Schedule II in 1971. Injectable methamphetamine has always been in Schedule II;

    Schedule III drugs
    Findings required:

    (A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
    (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
    (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
    These drugs are available only by prescription, though control of wholesale distribution is somewhat less stringent than Schedule II drugs.

    Drugs on this schedule include:

    Anabolic steroids;
    Intermediate-acting barbiturates, such as talbutal;
    Ketamine, a drug that was originally developed as a milder substitute for PCP (primarily to be used as a human anesthetic) but has since become popular as a veterinary anesthetic;
    Paregoric;
    Xyrem, a preparation of GHB used to treat narcolepsy. Xyrem is in Schedule III but with a restricted distribution system;
    Marinol, a synthetic cannabinoid used to treat nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy, as well as appetite loss caused by AIDS;
    Hydrocodone / Codeine, when compounded with an NSAID(e.g. Vicoprofen, when compounded with Ibuprofen) or with Acetaminophen (e.g. Vicodin / Tylenol 3);
    Rohypnol (Flunitrazepam). Flunitrazepam was placed in Schedule IV in 1984 and moved to Schedule III in 1995, but the DEA is considering moving it into Schedule I because of widespread non-medical use, and the fact that flunitrazepam is not approved by the FDA. It is best known as a date rape drug but is also fairly widely used in recreational ways. Flunitrazepam is already classified as a Schedule I drug in several states.




    Amphetamines are nasty stuff, according to wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamines

    Short-term physiological effects include decreased appetite, increased stamina and physical energy, increased sexual drive/response, involuntary bodily movements, increased perspiration, hyperactivity, jitteriness, nausea, itchy, blotchy or greasy skin, increased heart rate, irregular heart rate, and headaches. Fatigue can often follow the dose's period of effectiveness. Overdose can be treated with chlorpromazine. [1]

    Long-term abuse or overdose effects can include tremor, restlessness, changed sleep patterns, poor skin condition, hyperreflexia, tachypnea, gastrointestinal narrowing, and weakened immune system. Fatigue and depression can follow the excitement stage. Erectile dysfunction, heart problems, stroke, and liver, kidney and lung damage can result from prolonged use. When snorted, amphetamine can lead to a deterioration of the lining of the nostrils. Short-term psychological effects can include alertness, euphoria, increased concentration, rapid talking, increased confidence, increased social responsiveness, nystagmus (eye wiggles), hallucinations, and loss of REM sleep the night after use. Long-term psychological effects can include insomnia, mental states resembling schizophrenia, aggressiveness (not associated with schizophrenia), addiction or dependence with accompanying withdrawal symptoms, irritability, confusion, and panic. Chronic and/or extensively-continuous use can lead to amphetamine psychosis, which causes delusions and paranoia, but this is uncommon when taken as prescribed. Amphetamine is highly-psychologically addictive, and, with chronic use, tolerance develops very quickly. Withdrawal is, although not physiologically threatening, an unpleasant experience (including paranoia, depression, difficult breathing, dysphoria, gastric fluctuations and/or pain, and lethargia). This commonly leads chronic users to re-dose amphetamine frequently, explaining tolerance and increasing the possibility of addiction.

    [edit]
    Addiction
    Because of the widespread ability in prescription amphetamine today, mainly in the ADD/ADHD medicines Adderall and Dexedrine, there is an increased risk of abuse and addiction among persons of all ages. Tolerance is developed rapidly in amphetamine use, therefore increasing amount of the drug that is needed to satisfy the addiction. Many abusers will repeat the amphetamine cycle by taking more of the drug during the withdrawal. This leads to a very dangerous cycle and may involve the use of other drugs to get over the withdrawal process.

    Anyone is able to develope tolerance to amphetamines. Children and other ADD and ADHD sufferers have been known to feel different when not taking the medication, a feeling significantly different enough from being medicated that drives the users to keep taking the drug when it is not needed, however, addiction to ADD/ADHD medication is rare if it is not abused or wrongly prescribed.
    Last edited by Metal Ed; 03-27-2006, 05:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GnomeansGno
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    I doubt you could, because unless you take isolated cases, when you lump in all the dreck and do an overall comparison of all MLB players of any given bygone era to today, today loses. Just look at all the guys who hang around with ERAs over 6. When you compare the best to the best, I take the classics such as Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, Carlton, Drysdale, Gibson, Koufax, over todays stars. They were just more complete, better schooled more disciplined and more consistent, in general. Of course I didn't go back to the 20, 30s or 40s. That's another whole set of comparisons that can be argued ad infinitum. I just don't by any statement that includes, "today's players are better than yesterday's"!
    You could easily make a case that today's league is stronger than the pre 1947 league, after that it would be tougher, more opinions than anythingelse.

    Personally I think the strongest the league ever was the 1980's.
    Last edited by GnomeansGno; 03-27-2006, 03:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    Originally posted by GnomeansGno
    Actually you could make a case that today's players are superior to players of the past,
    I doubt you could, because unless you take isolated cases, when you lump in all the dreck and do an overall comparison of all MLB players of any given bygone era to today, today loses. Just look at all the guys who hang around with ERAs over 6. When you compare the best to the best, I take the classics such as Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, Carlton, Drysdale, Gibson, Koufax, over todays stars. They were just more complete, better schooled more disciplined and more consistent, in general. Of course I didn't go back to the 20, 30s or 40s. That's another whole set of comparisons that can be argued ad infinitum. I just don't by any statement that includes, "today's players are better than yesterday's"!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3
    I think it's reasonable to believe or at least think that a 230 pound Barry could do more damage to the opposition than a 195-200 pound Barry. Can that be said with certainty I would say no, but a possibility.

    Also, in regard to your closing sentence at this time we do not know for sure to what extent Barry used steroids, the reports might possibly contain some errors. Are we now going to debate how much he used, thats not the issue, it's did he or did he not.

    In the end the only thing we are now aware of is that he did use some steroids, perhaps before the ban. Possibly he may challenge and prove those charges to be false, we shall see.

    The bar keeps getting raised with Barry. We kept hearing how there was no proof that he ever used steroids. He was training 6 hours plus in the gym, that one is funny. Is that what turned him into the Hindenberg. Now when it appears that he did we keep hearing "so what" what about the corked bats, spit balls othe rule bending and breaking. Now you seem to challenge the reports because you believe if he did what they say he did he practically be disabled. I say lets wait and see, this may not be the end of the story.

    It's a sad story, whether one likes or dislikes Barry a sad ending. One of the greatest ball players even with no steroids went down a path that will cause many to put some of his numbers in doubt, unsure where to rank him.

    Thats the story, when and if he passes Ruth, maybe Aaron the sports channels and national news will not talk about the rule breaking of the past. You can be sure the word steroids will be a part of the story, linked to him even after he leaves the game.
    Good post Joe.

    The people who have always believed Bonds used, always met the wrath of "you have no proof, you have no proof." So now we have what appears to be the most concrete proof possible, short of an admittal or a secret video tape, and now we hear about corked bats, or how steroids don't help, or the legality isssue, or others were doing them, or even bringing up greenies. The word greenies was never brought up until all this came out. It was a non issue before. But it was something to grasp at, in an attempt to apologize for Bonds' alleged steroid use. At some point, the focus needs to stay on Bonds and how baseball shat the bed on this issue for the past 20 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • GnomeansGno
    replied
    Originally posted by johncap
    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.

    Actually you could make a case that today's players are superior to players of the past, but then you could also say that if players of the past had today's nutritional benefits and whatnot, they probably could of accomplished more things.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by sandlot
    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.
    I think it's reasonable to believe or at least think that a 230 pound Barry could do more damage to the opposition than a 195-200 pound Barry. Can that be said with certainty I would say no, but a possibility.

    Also, in regard to your closing sentence at this time we do not know for sure to what extent Barry used steroids, the reports might possibly contain some errors. Are we now going to debate how much he used, thats not the issue, it's did he or did he not.

    In the end the only thing we are now aware of is that he did use some steroids, perhaps before the ban. Possibly he may challenge and prove those charges to be false, we shall see.

    The bar keeps getting raised with Barry. We kept hearing how there was no proof that he ever used steroids. He was training 6 hours plus in the gym, that one is funny. Is that what turned him into the Hindenberg. Now when it appears that he did we keep hearing "so what" what about the corked bats, spit balls othe rule bending and breaking. Now you seem to challenge the reports because you believe if he did what they say he did he practically be disabled. I say lets wait and see, this may not be the end of the story.

    It's a sad story, whether one likes or dislikes Barry a sad ending. One of the greatest ball players even with no steroids went down a path that will cause many to put some of his numbers in doubt, unsure where to rank him.

    Thats the story, when and if he passes Ruth, maybe Aaron the sports channels and national news will not talk about the rule breaking of the past. You can be sure the word steroids will be a part of the story, linked to him even after he leaves the game.
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 03-27-2006, 11:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    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
    I must have just missed that, Pine Tar. But it was more for the na-na-na than anything else. And he avoided that in his next post, with a very solid point I can agree with. Maybe you read what he said differently than I did, but I did not feel Johncap went over the line, outside of that go wipe comment.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • johncap
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • GnomeansGno
    replied
    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.

    http://www.mdadvice.com/library/ped/pedillsymp598.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Pine Tar
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metal Ed
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jaquish
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X