Big Mac finally comes clean

[scout]

The answer is I have no idea. You won't ever be allowed to do testing as such because of the medical ethics involved. All you can do is speculate.

I'm not going to dance around the issue. The steroid era of baseball impacted stats more then any other period other then pre-Jackie Robinson era. We can never gauge the impact that racism had on baseball. Steroids, on the other hand, can be calculated to a degree in which someone could logically come up with numbers for fewer home runs.
Stimulants or any other substance played roles in numbers being manipulated, but pale in comparison to steroids (or whatever you want to call them).

 

[ausbacker]

I'm not going to dance around the issue. The steroid era of baseball impacted stats more then any other period other then pre-Jackie Robinson era. We can never gauge the impact that racism had on baseball. Steroids, on the other hand, can be calculated to a degree in which someone could logically come up with numbers for fewer home runs.
Stimulants or any other substance played roles in numbers being manipulated, but pale in comparison to steroids (or whatever you want to call them).

That's a question best left for the people administering the anabolic agents to the athletes scout. If they follow the progress and performance output, then they can put numbers on it for you. I'm sure the German scientists of the 1930's would be able to answer that better for you than I can.

The same rationale can be applied to the amphetamines. Unless you're in control of the amounts supplied in conjunction with the training regimes, it's just speculation.

 

[JoeSixPat]

It's pointless trying to have a discussion with you are parading as someone who might have a small amount of knowledge pretending it's a big amount of knowledge. Whilst you have your sarcastic and condescending hat on, would you like to discuss the merits of anabolic agents in medicine? Probably not as it's as irrelevant as your silly point.

I's interesting that you did a very quick backtrack and failed to address the initial banning of anabolic agents in Olympic level sports around the world I raised with you. Perhaps if American sports were serious about stamping out drug abuse, then you'd adopt WADA standards across the board in all your sports.

Go back through the thread. You're repeating points I raised at the outset before you went Kanye West on everything.

Yes - clearly I'm a lesser intelligence for thinking that Performance Enancing Drugs would enhance performance.

Do you work for the American Steroids Association or something?

I'm mean seriously. Just click the mouse twice if they're holding your family hostage and won't release them unless you push their talking points.

Has the tobacco industry gotten to you too?

Don't tell me - just like Steroids do nothing unless you work out, Cigarettes don't actually kill people unless the person inhales. Aside from that they're perfectly harmless (and legal - they haven't even been banned in the Olympics!)

Oh and by the way, I know Evolution is technically just a theory. Hasn't been proven.

To recap. Performance enhancing drugs don't enhance performance, Cigarettes don't kill if you don't inhale, and jury still out on whether those dinosaur skelletons are just God's idea of a good practical joke.

 

[Real World]

People in here are truly clueless. Athletes train. I think that's pretty safe to say. Any athlete that trains, and takes steroids, is going to see a significant increase in power, stamina, speed, etc. versus the athlete that does it naturally. The notion that steroids won't help a person hit more home runs, is comical. If steroids didn't provide a significant boost to overall performance, then people wouldn't use them. Steroids are amazing in what they physically do for a user. Now, if you can't hit a baseball cuz your just not good enough to, then taking steroids and training won't make you Roger Maris. However, if you are a fringe player, or an average player, and you take the juice, it will more than likely make you better than you naturally are.

Eating correctly enhances performance. However, trying to equate natural training, or habits, that "enhance" performance, to chemicals that do, is another foolish arguement. The whole point is artificial versus natural. People want the game to be about merrit. They want it to be as pure as possible, without the addition of a test tube, and chemistry set, that artificially raises one player, over another.

 

[ausbacker]

Yes - clearly I'm a lesser intelligence for thinking that Performance Enancing Drugs would enhance performance.

Do you work for the American Steroids Association or something?

I'm mean seriously. Just click the mouse twice if they're holding your family hostage and won't release them unless you push their talking points.

Has the tobacco industry gotten to you too?

Don't tell me - just like Steroids do nothing unless you work out, Cigarettes don't actually kill people unless the person inhales. Aside from that they're perfectly harmless (and legal - they haven't even been banned in the Olympics!)

Oh and by the way, I know Evolution is technically just a theory. Hasn't been proven.

To recap. Performance enhancing drugs don't enhance performance, Cigarettes don't kill if you don't inhale, and jury still out on whether those dinosaur skelletons are just God's idea of a good practical joke.

I thought guns didn't kill people either

 

[ausbacker]

People in here are truly clueless. Athletes train. I think that's pretty safe to say. Any athlete that trains, and takes steroids, is going to see a significant increase in power, stamina, speed, etc. versus the athlete that does it naturally. The notion that steroids won't help a person hit more home runs, is comical. If steroids didn't provide a significant boost to overall performance, then people wouldn't use them. Steroids are amazing in what they physically do for a user. Now, if you can't hit a baseball cuz your just not good enough to, then taking steroids and training won't make you Roger Maris. However, if you are a fringe player, or an average player, and you take the juice, it will more than likely make you better than you naturally are.

Eating correctly enhances performance. However, trying to equate natural training, or habits, that "enhance" performance, to chemicals that do, is another foolish arguement. The whole point is artificial versus natural. People want the game to be about merrit. They want it to be as pure as possible, without the addition of a test tube, and chemistry set, that artificially raises one player, over another.

Oh believe me Real World, there's plenty of naturally occurring substances which can give athletes an unfair advantage over other athletes too.

I think we've all flogged this thread to death anyway.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Oh believe me Real World, there's plenty of naturally occurring substances which can give athletes an unfair advantage over other athletes too.

Not to worry. We've asked Ian to track back your ISP. A SWAT team is on it's way to neutralize the thugs from the Australian Steroids Association (who we understand are pretty big guys for some reason) that have taken you and your family hostage.

After that, to address the Stockholm Syndrome, the best Cult Deprogrammers money can buy will help you come to terms with the fact that Performance Enhancing Drugs might just enhance performance. (Trust me - these guys are good... it's the same Deprogrammers who talked Paul McCartney out of Wings!)

 

[ausbacker]

Not to worry. We've asked Ian to track back your ISP. A SWAT team is on it's way to neutralize the thugs from the Australian Steroids Association (who we understand are pretty big guys for some reason) that have taken you and your family hostage.

After that, to address the Stockholm Syndrome, the best Cult Deprogrammers money can buy will help you come to terms with the fact that Performance Enhancing Drugs might just enhance performance. (Trust me - these guys are good... it's the same Deprogrammers who talked Paul McCartney out of Wings!)

In conjunction with ASADA (the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency) could I make a request that the SWAT Team you send consists of Kate Beckinsale, Charlize Theron, Megan Gale, Clare Daines and Jessica Alba? I think it's only fair

P.S
My bad if I get too involved in the name calling. Everyone love everyone

 

[scout]

I reiterate, there has been two instances of stats being skewed dramatically during the history of Major League Baseball. One was during segregation, the other during the steroid era. End of discussion.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Mark McGwire Admits It Was Really ****ing Fun Hitting Baseballs So Far | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[JoeSixPat]

I reiterate, there has been two instances of stats being skewed dramatically during the history of Major League Baseball. One was during segregation, the other during the steroid era. End of discussion.

What about the Vitamin Era? Because really, when you come right down to it, there's no difference between Vitamins and Steroids.

 

[IcyPatriot]

What about the Vitamin Era? Because really, when you come right down to it, there's no difference between Vitamins and Steroids.

Vitamins bind you up ... I'd go for the roids 1st.

 

[Synovia]

Here is a question for you. Would Hank Aaron have hit more home runs had he taken steroids and excersised versus whatever he actually did?

Most likely.


He also would have hit less had he not been on amphetimines.

 

[Synovia]

I reiterate, there has been two instances of stats being skewed dramatically during the history of Major League Baseball. One was during segregation, the other during the steroid era. End of discussion.

You're absolutely naive if you don't think amphetamines dramatically skewed stats.

You're also naive if you think that the "steroid era" was 15 years long, and not 50.

 

[scout]

You're absolutely naive if you don't think amphetamines dramatically skewed stats.

You're also naive if you think that the "steroid era" was 15 years long, and not 50.

In conclusion, players have been taking steroids for 50 years but haven't been working out, tthus, we didn't see the drastic changes in bodies or the results in stats during the early years.

 

[JoeSixPat]

You're absolutely naive if you don't think amphetamines dramatically skewed stats.

I'm not defending amphetamine use but unless I'm mistaken, steorids are just a little bit different in what they do than amphetamines.

It could be the slight lack of outrage over the "dramatically skewed" amphetamine stats is that amphetamines were primarilly used to fight fatigue, increase awareness and sharpen reaction time primarilly when they were exhausted. In other words they sought to bring themselves back to where they would have been if only they had been their normal, non-exhausted self.

Does bringing one's self up to "normal" then "dramtically skew" the stats the same way that steroids - which have the effect of (yes, with working out) allowing someone to be bigger, stronger. faster, hit the ball further than they normally would?

Certainly if someone would be out of the game with exhaustion but in turn played and hit home runs, the stats are affected. But I'm not expecting the same amount of fan outrage over that because steroids are dramatically different.

The acceptance of the "it allows me to play when I otherwise wouldn't" drug seems more acceptable to fans than the "it allows me to get bigger, faster and hit the ball farther" drug.

If you can't see the distinction, I don't think anyone can help you, though it's pretty simple

In conclusion, players have been taking steroids for 50 years but haven't been working out, tthus, we didn't see the drastic changes in bodies or the results in stats during the early years.

True, but that's only because they were actually government agents who were too caught up in trying to cover up UFOs and planning the Kennedy Assasination to focus on working out.

The way you make it seem, it's implausible, yet when you look at the Big Picture like I do it makes perfect sense.

 

[ausbacker]

I'm not defending amphetamine use but unless I'm mistaken, steorids are just a little bit different in what they do than amphetamines.

It could be the slight lack of outrage over the "dramatically skewed" amphetamine stats is that amphetamines were primarilly used to fight fatigue, increase awareness and sharpen reaction time primarilly when they were exhausted. In other words they sought to bring themselves back to where they would have been if only they had been their normal, non-exhausted self.

Does bringing one's self up to "normal" then "dramtically skew" the stats the same way that steroids - which have the effect of (yes, with working out) allowing someone to be bigger, stronger. faster, hit the ball further than they normally would?

Certainly if someone would be out of the game with exhaustion but in turn played and hit home runs, the stats are affected. But I'm not expecting the same amount of fan outrage over that because steroids are dramatically different.

The acceptance of the "it allows me to play when I otherwise wouldn't" drug seems more acceptable to fans than the "it allows me to get bigger, faster and hit the ball farther" drug.

If you can't see the distinction, I don't think anyone can help you, though it's pretty simple

True, but that's only because they were actually government agents who were too caught up in trying to cover up UFOs and planning the Kennedy Assasination to focus on working out.

The way you make it seem, it's implausible, yet when you look at the Big Picture like I do it makes perfect sense.

Believe me, amphetamines are just as effective in aiding in competition results as anabolic agents are in helping training loads. They trigger all sorts of responses in your neurological system ranging from alertness, decreases in fatigue levels and what not.

Taken in the right dose, if you can concentrate better and for longer, of course your performance is going to increase.

Either way, your reasoning for performance enhancing substance abuse justifications amongst fans is quite poor given you've already passed commentary earlier on level playing fields.

If you looked at the big picture as you claim, then you'd have equal disdain for all illegal performance enhancing agents, either direct or indirect.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Believe me, amphetamines are just as effective in aiding in competition results as anabolic agents are in helping training loads. They trigger all sorts of responses in your neurological system ranging from alertness, decreases in fatigue levels and what not.

Taken in the right dose, if you can concentrate better and for longer, of course your performance is going to increase.

Either way, your reasoning for performance enhancing substance abuse justifications amongst fans is quite poor given you've already passed commentary earlier on level playing fields.

If you looked at the big picture as you claim, then you'd have equal disdain for all illegal performance enhancing agents, either direct or indirect.

No doubt improved concentration and alertness are important factors in the game.

I'm just trying to help the intellectually challenged understand why some might look upon the addition of 30lbs of muscle and strength differently from a drug that affects "alertness, decreases in fatigue levels and what not" as you put it.

I know I'm not on top of my game without a few cups of coffee in the morning. It improves my "alertness, decreases in fatigue levels and what not" as well - but I'd never compare the drug caffine to steroids any more than I would compare amphetamines to steroids.

I agree, no one should look the other way for amphetamines as they have for so long - but if you're wondering why fans and baseball itself have not focused on Amphetamines the same way they have Steroids (at least until very recently) you might ask yourself if there's a reason for that - and that's because Steroids have a much more dramatic impact on the game than Amphetamines do.

Don't mistake talking through an issue calmly and rationally as acceptance of their use.

 

[ausbacker]

No doubt improved concentration and alertness are important factors in the game.

I'm just trying to help the intellectually challenged understand why some might look upon the addition of 30lbs of muscle and strength differently from a drug that affects "alertness, decreases in fatigue levels and what not" as you put it.

I know I'm not on top of my game without a few cups of coffee in the morning. It improves my "alertness, decreases in fatigue levels and what not" as well - but I'd never compare the drug caffine to steroids any more than I would compare amphetamines to steroids.

I agree, no one should look the other way for amphetamines as they have for so long - but if you're wondering why fans and baseball itself have not focused on Amphetamines the same way they have Steroids (at least until very recently) you might ask yourself if there's a reason for that - and that's because Steroids have a much more dramatic impact on the game than Amphetamines do.

Don't mistake talking through an issue calmly and rationally as acceptance of their use.

The reality is the fans don't look at it the same way because the public media witch hunt in regards to steroids has been pushed far more than amphetamines. People actually aren't aware that a lot of substances are performance enhancing and they invariably come back to "just" anabolic agents in one form or another.

It's much the same with EPO in cycling or growth hormone etc. People hear it, but they don't know what it means. Steroids.. well that's been flogged to death.

 

[IcyPatriot]

You guys are like camels ... some serious bladders in this thread.