|
Post by Retro Jimbue on Feb 24, 2009 12:06:21 GMT -5
what constitutes cheating???.......the numbers???.....or the act itself???.......were guys using greenies in the 60's less guilty of cheating then the guy using ped's today???.......are the amphetamines looked upon as cheating less because the stats are not altered as much???......
|
|
|
Post by roger on Feb 24, 2009 12:35:44 GMT -5
What about the jello pack or whatever Randy Johnson got surgically placed to prevent friction between bones in his knees (I believe). That probably extended his career a few years. Is'nt that a type of PED(evice)
|
|
|
Post by Retro Jimbue on Feb 24, 2009 13:16:45 GMT -5
i always wondered why randy said there was always room for jello.....
|
|
|
Post by POTY on Feb 24, 2009 13:18:19 GMT -5
There are many forms of cheating, just as there are many forms of stealing or lying. Obviously the punishment should fit the severity of the crime. Steroids are are to cheating as Armed robbery is to stealing. Greenies are to cheating as petty theft is to stealing.
|
|
|
Post by Retro Jimbue on Feb 24, 2009 14:00:33 GMT -5
There are many forms of cheating, just as there are many forms of stealing or lying. Obviously the punishment should fit the severity of the crime. Steroids are are to cheating as Armed robbery is to stealing. Greenies are to cheating as petty theft is to stealing. why???.......please elaborate!!!.....i'm just curious!!!
|
|
|
Post by dg on Feb 24, 2009 14:05:10 GMT -5
There are many forms of cheating, just as there are many forms of stealing or lying. Obviously the punishment should fit the severity of the crime. Steroids are are to cheating as Armed robbery is to stealing. Greenies are to cheating as petty theft is to stealing. why???.......please elaborate!!!.....i'm just curious!!! Same here. I was under the impression that the amphetemines being taken weren't of the garden variety over the counter kind.... that at least some (if not most) of what was being taken was illegal. If not, why on earth would the substances be banned from the sport? Doesn't compute.
|
|
|
Post by DavidL on Feb 24, 2009 14:28:17 GMT -5
Do we know that steroids are more effective than amphetemines? They may not make a person stronger, but they do help overcome fatigue, which is a big issue over 162 games. Did amphetemines have less of an impact on performance over the course of a season than steroids? I really don't know.
|
|
|
Post by POTY on Feb 24, 2009 14:56:57 GMT -5
Do we know that steroids are more effective than amphetemines? They may not make a person stronger, but they do help overcome fatigue, which is a big issue over 162 games. Did amphetemines have less of an impact on performance over the course of a season than steroids? I really don't know. So where did the 500+ home runs come from if they weren't making guys stronger? I don't think there is much argument that Steroids add strength, and I think that those who are experts in this area will agree that there is a big difference between taking greenies and anabolic steroids. And if none of this makes any sense to anyone, just look at what was being done during prior eras. You don't see the spike in numbers, you don't see the spike in PED related injuries, you don't see little guys all of a sudden putting up numbers that were formally reserved for power hitters, you don't see guys recovering from injuries in half the time. My understanding is that greenies gave a player something akin to a super caffeine buzz. If anyone wants to equate this to steroids, be my guest, but I don't think this argument would fly with most people.
|
|
|
Post by Retro Jimbue on Feb 24, 2009 15:07:34 GMT -5
in high school i never used any up's to play ball cause i mostly pitched and felt i didn't need them.....after high school i knew my future was in the infield and i can absolutely 100% tell you that if not for black beauty's i would not have been able to play ball at the level i had grown accustomed too at times.......my game revolved around my legs and if i was fatigued or out the night before .....i needed help and i knew it.......i can also tell you i felt invincible when using "up's" had some of my best games under the influence.....in brooklyn i played a ton of games where there was money on the line.......bookies would regularly take action at the game and then take care of the players accordingly.......you have a good game you get paid.....very simple!!!.......believe me i'd be flying by warmups!!!!.......i also played in touch tackle football leagues (different from two hand touch) .......always big money on the game, now when i say big money i'm talking about 4-5 grand.....that's plenty in 1975......all side bets between wise guys from all over the place.........you went into different neighborhoods to play and sometimes needed cops to get out of the neighborhood depending on ref's calls and things.......now i didn't take them all the time ......but when i knew i needed them i never hesitated.......and believe me i wasn't the only guy!!!.......did they make me run faster or catch better or react quicker???.......i don't know .......but they didn't hurt!!!!
|
|
|
Post by DavidL on Feb 24, 2009 15:13:07 GMT -5
Without greenies, how many players miss an additional 10-20 games a year? How do we know that Mickey gets to 500 HRs without being able to play 140+ games regularly? Does Roger get to 61 without them? If Roger needed greenies to get to 61, is his record any cleaner than Big Mac's 70 or Big Head's 73?
Greenies may provide a different kind of boost, but they are a PED nonetheless.
And the spike in numbers over the last 20-30 years could also be due to better conditioning by players (you really think Mickey and Roger, much less Babe, were working out and pumping iron in the winter, or even during the season?), as well as smaller ballparks. Compare the dimensions of stadia since Kramden opened to those of the 30's-60's. Are smaller ballparks PED(evice)s?
|
|
|
Post by Retro Jimbue on Feb 24, 2009 15:28:15 GMT -5
Do we know that steroids are more effective than amphetemines? They may not make a person stronger, but they do help overcome fatigue, which is a big issue over 162 games. Did amphetemines have less of an impact on performance over the course of a season than steroids? I really don't know. So where did the 500+ home runs come from if they weren't making guys stronger? I don't think there is much argument that Steroids add strength, and I think that those who are experts in this area will agree that there is a big difference between taking greenies and anabolic steroids. And if none of this makes any sense to anyone, just look at what was being done during prior eras. You don't see the spike in numbers, you don't see the spike in PED related injuries, you don't see little guys all of a sudden putting up numbers that were formally reserved for power hitters, you don't see guys recovering from injuries in half the time. My understanding is that greenies gave a player something akin to a super caffeine buzz. If anyone wants to equate this to steroids, be my guest, but I don't think this argument would fly with most people. no question the steroids added strength along with enhancing muscle recovery......but and correct me if i'm wrong......your saying that because steroids messed with the numbers of the game ie. homers, rbi's etc..........that's what makes them worse then greenies cause although greenies were illegal they didn't produce sega numbers......that's what it sounds like to me.......and i'm not totally in disagreement with you but without greenies players would not have been able to produce the same numbers they did at that time either......let's remember our athletes are bigger and stronger anyway.......i'll give you an example .....saturday i watched highlights of the 1969 world series (very painful)......anyway tommie agee makes two catches that are at the time spectacular.......he chases elrod hendricks drive into leftcenter and as i'm watching it i'm thinking to myself .....how big is shea stadium?......here's agee running forever to get to this ball ......and agee was considered at the time a fast guy.......and where's the left fielder???.....if that didn't convince me they show him going after blair's shot to rightcenter......again he's all out running and shea looks huge.......and the rf'er never gets in the picture......my point is today melky would have been waiting to catch both of those balls and the stadium walls no longer dwarf the players........guys the size of mantle and yaz are now 2b'man......so is it really the roids or the athlete that has made the biggest difference......imo it's the athlete but don't get me wrong......the roids don't hurt......just like the greenies didn't!!!!
|
|
|
Post by POTY on Feb 24, 2009 15:31:00 GMT -5
Without greenies, how many players miss an additional 10-20 games a year? How do we know that Mickey gets to 500 HRs without being able to play 140+ games regularly? Does Roger get to 61 without them? If Roger needed greenies to get to 61, is his record any cleaner than Big Mac's 70 or Big Head's 73? Greenies may provide a different kind of boost, but they are a PED nonetheless. And the spike in numbers over the last 20-30 years could also be due to better conditioning by players (you really think Mickey and Roger, much less Babe, were working out and pumping iron in the winter, or even during the season?), as well as smaller ballparks. Compare the dimensions of stadia since Kramden opened to those of the 30's-60's. Are smaller ballparks PED(evice)s? David, I hear what you're saying but I don't understand why you are defending roids by making the argument that greenies were somehow in the same ballpark.
|
|
|
Post by dg on Feb 24, 2009 15:39:43 GMT -5
What is the line between using steroids to recover faster and work out longer vs. using amphetemines to recover faster from fatigue, either travel related or self induced? "Good" banned substances and "Bad" banned substances? I'm unable to compute how or why the line should be drawn.
Is there evidence that steroids adds more to HR totals than year round training + lowered mounds + pitchers who are no longer allowed to throw inside + fences being pulled in 60 feet + diluted pitching staffs via expansion? That equation is also a mystery to me.
Furthermore, pitchers were also using. 99% of the complaints are due to HR records. If a hitter gains from using, wouldn't the same apply to a pitcher?
|
|
|
Post by Retro Jimbue on Feb 24, 2009 15:47:26 GMT -5
Without greenies, how many players miss an additional 10-20 games a year? How do we know that Mickey gets to 500 HRs without being able to play 140+ games regularly? Does Roger get to 61 without them? If Roger needed greenies to get to 61, is his record any cleaner than Big Mac's 70 or Big Head's 73? Greenies may provide a different kind of boost, but they are a PED nonetheless. And the spike in numbers over the last 20-30 years could also be due to better conditioning by players (you really think Mickey and Roger, much less Babe, were working out and pumping iron in the winter, or even during the season?), as well as smaller ballparks. Compare the dimensions of stadia since Kramden opened to those of the 30's-60's. Are smaller ballparks PED(evice)s? David, I hear what you're saying but I don't understand why you are defending roids by making the argument that greenies were somehow in the same ballpark. i don't see how he's defending roids!!!....although i'm sure the counselor don't need me to defend him.......if i may po.....your the one who is against steroids to the degree that you are critisizing arod and co. .........the point i'm trying to make is (why get all bent out of shape when players have been cheating to some degree all along).......
|
|
|
Post by POTY on Feb 24, 2009 15:47:59 GMT -5
in high school i never used any up's to play ball cause i mostly pitched and felt i didn't need them.....after high school i knew my future was in the infield and i can absolutely 100% tell you that if not for black beauty's i would not have been able to play ball at the level i had grown accustomed too at times.......my game revolved around my legs and if i was fatigued or out the night before .....i needed help and i knew it.......i can also tell you i felt invincible when using "up's" had some of my best games under the influence.....in brooklyn i played a ton of games where there was money on the line.......bookies would regularly take action at the game and then take care of the players accordingly.......you have a good game you get paid.....very simple!!!.......believe me i'd be flying by warmups!!!!.......i also played in touch tackle football leagues (different from two hand touch) .......always big money on the game, now when i say big money i'm talking about 4-5 grand.....that's plenty in 1975......all side bets between wise guys from all over the place.........you went into different neighborhoods to play and sometimes needed cops to get out of the neighborhood depending on ref's calls and things.......now i didn't take them all the time ......but when i knew i needed them i never hesitated.......and believe me i wasn't the only guy!!!.......did they make me run faster or catch better or react quicker???.......i don't know .......but they didn't hurt!!!! Very interesting story, and more importantly, perhaps it explains your position on this topic more than anything. I too played a lot of ball, both organized and in the street, although I never had the wiseguys placing side bets on our games that I knew of. Regardless, I never took any kind of drug to give me a boost. I never felt I needed it. If my body was not playing up to it's capabilities due to fatigue, I still tried my best. I just never thought twice about doing something other than working very hard. If the question is, does greenies or amphetamines give as much a boost as steroids, I honestly cannot answer that. If it was something that was brought to the public's attention back then, I probably would have felt just as much against it. But then again, I was a kid and I may not have felt so strongly about it. If a generation was left in the dark, this does not mean that we should turn a blind eye on what we know to be true now.
|
|
|
Post by Retro Jimbue on Feb 24, 2009 15:57:54 GMT -5
in high school i never used any up's to play ball cause i mostly pitched and felt i didn't need them.....after high school i knew my future was in the infield and i can absolutely 100% tell you that if not for black beauty's i would not have been able to play ball at the level i had grown accustomed too at times.......my game revolved around my legs and if i was fatigued or out the night before .....i needed help and i knew it.......i can also tell you i felt invincible when using "up's" had some of my best games under the influence.....in brooklyn i played a ton of games where there was money on the line.......bookies would regularly take action at the game and then take care of the players accordingly.......you have a good game you get paid.....very simple!!!.......believe me i'd be flying by warmups!!!!.......i also played in touch tackle football leagues (different from two hand touch) .......always big money on the game, now when i say big money i'm talking about 4-5 grand.....that's plenty in 1975......all side bets between wise guys from all over the place.........you went into different neighborhoods to play and sometimes needed cops to get out of the neighborhood depending on ref's calls and things.......now i didn't take them all the time ......but when i knew i needed them i never hesitated.......and believe me i wasn't the only guy!!!.......did they make me run faster or catch better or react quicker???.......i don't know .......but they didn't hurt!!!! Very interesting story, and more importantly, perhaps it explains your position on this topic more than anything. I too played a lot of ball, both organized and in the street, although I never had the wiseguys placing side bets on our games that I knew of. Regardless, I never took any kind of drug to give me a boost. I never felt I needed it. If my body was not playing up to it's capabilities due to fatigue, I still tried my best. I just never thought twice about doing something other than working very hard. If the question is, does greenies or amphetamines give as much a boost as steroids, I honestly cannot answer that. If it was something that was brought to the public's attention back then, I probably would have felt just as much against it. But then again, I was a kid and I may not have felt so strongly about it. If a generation was left in the dark, this does not mean that we should turn a blind eye on what we know to be true now. yeah i know po.....let's not get too personal here.....don't mistake my admittance as an admittance of being less then .......i make no apologies ......if you like playing judge and jury that's fine but we've been through this holier then thou routine before......let's not revisit it!!!!......i'm 53 years old now .....you think it makes a difference what you or anybody here thinks of me for taking up's when i was playing......if i was concerned about it i'd never admit to it......i'm not saying it was the right decision or the smart decision but it was my decision ......and here's another new's flash for you .....it's not the only decision that i've made in my life that others may frown upon......i guess this makes me arod to your jeter......i can live with that!!!!
|
|
|
Post by POTY on Feb 24, 2009 16:01:48 GMT -5
David, I hear what you're saying but I don't understand why you are defending roids by making the argument that greenies were somehow in the same ballpark. i don't see how he's defending roids!!!....although i'm sure the counselor don't need me to defend him.......if i may po.....your the one who is against steroids to the degree that you are critisizing arod and co. .........the point i'm trying to make is (why get all bent out of shape when players have been cheating to some degree all along)....... Maybe I am out to lunch, but I see it as saying that hey Greenies were just as bad, so why all the hubbub over roids? I defend neither, but I believe that roids are in a different class. Why shouldn't I criticize A-Rod? Because he is a Yankee? No one seems to mind the criticism of FAT HEAD. A-Rod disgraced the very uniform he wears, and the fans who follow that uniform. Although, I agree that half of them could care less. I guess it just comes down to this for me. I constantly find myself having to defend myself on this issue that I believe most people outside of BTB actually agree with me on. But for some reason I get a huge amount of resistence on this topic. If you're OK with roids in baseball, or greenies, of little blue pills, or whatever it is that gives you an advantage, hallea-frikin-luellia. I prefer the hard-working SOB who let's his God given talent speak for him, and believe it or not, there are some guys out there who have the moral fortitude to live by that. So I applaud them, instead standing behind a fraud, whether he is a Yankee or not.
|
|
|
Post by fordham on Feb 24, 2009 16:32:10 GMT -5
The only difference seems to be the amount of muscle you add on, how you bulk up. It's amazing that the NFL seems to be immune to all of this, as football players today are so much bigger than the past, and that's not from good nutrition.
|
|
|
Post by dg on Feb 24, 2009 16:43:35 GMT -5
I'm not sure anyone was saying greenies were just as bad. I wasn't. I was asking if they were as bad. I don't know.
I have difficulty blasting one form of PED use while winking and grinning at another. Maybe I just don't get the murder vs. petty theft analogy.
Yes, fordham, the NFL is immune to this. They get an A+ for damage control.
|
|
|
Post by DavidL on Feb 24, 2009 17:39:14 GMT -5
I hope you're not really asking if I'm defending roids, POTY. Take a look at my posts on the issue. What I'm taking issue with is the idea that greenies are so much less corrupting of the game - they both give players a significant edge in different ways. Greenies don't help a hitter hit the ball farther, or a pitcher throw the ball harder, but they enabled players to play in circumstances when they otherwise couldn't, or at least not at an effective level. Which one did more to corrupt the game? I really don't know, but I think downplaying the effect of greenies on the game is a dangerous path. And, perhaps more to the point, players were taking both to get an edge - the intent is the same, so that even if roids did give players more of an edge, was using greenies any less a cheat than using roids? I don't think so.
|
|