Baseball and steroids

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 07 May 2009 19:52

Part of me really wants to like baseball, even though I find it pretty boring to watch. That said, the fact that all the good players in MLB are on steroids makes it impossible for me to take the sport seriously.

Can any baseball fan explain to me how they can enjoy a game where so many of the best players have to cheat by taking drugs?

Iron Clad Ben · Post by **Iron Clad Ben** » 09 May 2009 19:56

I was a huge baseball fan until the strikes. I stopped following it several years ago. Now with the whole steroids crap, it makes me even more disgusted. These guys are paid millions of dollar to play a ball game and do tons of steroids, yet in our there are families living below the poverty level. It's stupid. Major League Baseball can suck my balls.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/ca ... ts_to_come

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 10 May 2009 17:42

Can any baseball fan explain to me how they can enjoy a game where so many of the best players have to cheat by taking drugs?

For me, I've developed quite an interest in baseball by following and rooting for the guys that for sure aren't juicing up. I actually never cared about baseball until it became clear that atleast a sizeable minority were cheating. Now I sometimes watch just to look for the scrwany lead-off hitter to knock one out of the infield against some hulking, enormous thumb-resembling, no-neck having pitcher. Or vice versa. Seriously try it it makes the game way better than it ever has been. The leauge should mandate that a certain number of players MUST use steroids just to add some excitement.

On the other hand, whenever I used to look at A-Rod I saw a smaller, normally defined human being, who I didn't take for a roider. But looking at him now I dunno how I missed it this guys neck grew fourteen inches in cirucmference from the time he left Seattle to when he became a Yankee. I use to like A-Rod a lot. Jeter's my only reason anymore to be a Yankee fan.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 May 2009 19:14

I don't mind watching baseball on TV, or any other sport for that matter, although I tend to watch it about once every 4 years or so, generally as part of the Olympics. I have to confess I find the wikipedia article about baseball at the Olympics more entertaining than the actual sport (especially the speculative reasons for removing baseball and softball from the 2012 Olympics). This is possibly a reflection on how easily entertained I am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_a ... r_Olympics

I tend to think of Baseball as like a poor man's cricket, and since cricket is probably the greatest sport known to humanity, baseball can still be fairly entertaining.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 10 May 2009 20:41

Jeremy wrote:I tend to think of Baseball as like a poor man's cricket, and since cricket is probably the greatest sport known to humanity, baseball can still be fairly entertaining.

One day I will learn how cricket works.

I haven't really cared about baseball since I was a kid and the Jays were the shit. I can't figure out why exactly, since I never cared nearly as much about baseball as I did about hockey, but Joe Carter was probably my favourite athlete of all time. I saw a game at the Skydome once and he hit a huge dinger. They lost, but it still might have been the best day of my life up to that point. Those are all of my feelings about baseball. Apologies to anyone who read them, I sort of started and then didn't stop.

Oh hey, remember when Roberto Alomar spit on that ump?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 May 2009 23:19

I think cricket is actually not to hard to understand, the problem is that when people try to explain it, they also try to explain the different tactics that people use.

Basically teams take it in turns batting and bowl. Each team has 11 players.

The batting team has to hit the ball and then run up and down the pitch - they get one point ("run") each time they run from one end to the other. If they hit the ball to the boundary they automatically get 4 runs and if they hit it over the boundary they get 6 runs.

The bowling/fielding team has to get the batters out or restrict them to the smallest amount of runs (there is always a time limit or a number of balls limit, so if the batting team doesn't get out they still can't bat forever). They have to bowl the ball overarm with a straight arm at the batter from the other end of the pitch. If the ball hits the wickets, would have hit the wickets but the batter stood in the way, or is hit in the air and caught before hitting the ground the batter is out. They are also out if they try to run and the fielders throw the ball and hit the wickets before the batter gets to the other end (there is a line they have to cross). Bowlers only bowl 6 balls in a row before having to give somebody else a go.

That's pretty much all the important rules.

These days there are three main types of cricket as follows;

20/20 Cricket
This is the newest form of cricket. Basically each team gets to bat for 20 overs or until they are all out. This is much shorter than the other forms of the game, which encourages batters to bat more aggressively as there is less danger of getting all out before the 20 overs are up.

One Day Cricket
This is the same as 20/20 Cricket except each team faces 50 overs. This is the format that the Cricket World Cup is played in.

Test Cricket
Test Cricket is the oldest and purest form of the game. There are no strict over limits, but the game goes for a total of up to 5 days and each team must bat at twice unless unnecessary (ie. if they bat first and score a very low score, then you bat and score a very high score, then bowl them out before they reach a combined score from their two innings of your score, you don't have to bat again). If the time runs out before a result, the game is called a draw. This makes the game more tactical, as often the team batting has to choose to declare (stop batting) before they are all out with a score they think they can bowl the other team all out for less than - but often they also want to make it an achievable score so that their opponents try to win the game instead of trying to just outlast the remaining time.

Test Cricket is probably in some ways the least popular form of the game, but also the one with the most passionate followers. In Australia it's synonymous with barbecues and beer with mates in summer, as well as smashing the Poms.

Despite a relatively small number of post English Colonial countries playing cricket, it would probably have to be seen as the second largest sport in the world (after soccer), mainly because it's essentially the only major sport played in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

I think this is enough of a hijack for now, but I am always ready and willing to talk more about Cricket

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 11 May 2009 10:25

no amount of aderol, clothespins for my eyelids, or slave drivers with whips could possibly motivate me enough to be able to read that. i even tried.

most of the banned substances in baseball are definitely being used by football player at least. ive heard the nba has a very strict drug testing policy, but looking at some of those players make me feel like some of them are using some form of chemical advantage.

but there are a lot of protein pills and growth shit thats legal that some guys use and some guys dont. some footbaggers use toe walls and some dont. its all about regulation, no?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 11 May 2009 15:36

That's so silly; "ive heard the nba has a very strict drug testing policy, but looking at some of those players make me feel like some of them are using some form of chemical advantage. "

How do you even know what a person using performance enhancing drugs looks like? With the exception of massive body builders, there clearly isn't any way of telling, otherwise drug testers would know too - they aren't stupid.

Look at this image. If you didn't know who the middle runner was, would you be able to pick which of the three runners was using illicit drugs?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 11 May 2009 16:07

Speaking of baseball, this is hilarious;

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... _event.php

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 19 May 2009 14:45

I blame the industry for creating the demand for steroids.

Imagine you are 14 and see some famous (albeit steroid ridden) successful rich baseball player and you want to be one too.

Personally I say let them take drugs and create another league for it. No shame if your face isn't hidden. Here is my reasoning behind it. This is a competitive sport, competition reigns supreme. The best of the best play here. If taking roids makes you better, then those who aren't taking them aren't playing at their best. They are playing at their non-steroid best.

When humans competed back in the day they didn't have Gatorade, lanocane, warming and cooling patches, etc... As the sport progressed so did the market for supplements, drugs, better equipment, etc.... We don't shred seriously with Sipas any longer. Get my point?

Plus these players are getting paid millions of dollars to play. To play I say. One more time.... to PLAY. Let em f__k up their health in order to get a slice of the MLB pie. The roids will kill em sooner and then all the millions will be for nothing. Which puts a smile on my face given that I am not making those millions.

The same for any sport - make a market for it, hell bet on it in Vegas, WIN-WIN.

The negatives are obvious though - the kids. Always got to think about the kids. Which in my opinion is the biggest reason for having a ban. But don't label roids as cheating, it is rather an alternative to organic.

~peace

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 20 May 2009 18:06

not all the best players takr steroids and homeruns are not the only thing that make a good player (baserunning avg fielding chemistry with teamates and of course the media driven power)
when put into that perspective the best players of this generation would be ichiro jeter etc with the steroids users
also to keep in mind just because thy go caugut does not mean they are the only ones

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 21 May 2009 20:04

Footbagger007 wrote: not all the best players takr steroids

Footbagger007 wrote:just because thy go caugut does not mean they are the only ones

Given your second statement, how can you make your first statement?

Footbagger007 wrote:
and homeruns are not the only thing that make a good player (baserunning avg fielding

I don't think anybody has made that claim. Indeed, nobody has claimed that steroids only improve homerun hitting ability. If anything, I would imagine steroids help with any aspects of the game that involve strength, speed, and stamina.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 22 May 2009 00:51

I'm a bit of a cycling fan so I've often thought about similar issues. I can see an argument for allowing anything not illegal, but I do think its a shame its no longer athlete/coach v athlete/coach and has become athlete/coach/chemist/doctor/institute of sport etc v athlete/coach/ chemist/doctor...

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 22 May 2009 05:32

I don't reckon there's anything wrong with taking drugs in sport. Its no less unfair than people trying to use the latest high-tech swimsuits or runners or whatever.

I reckon everyone should just do whatever it takes to be optimal at their sport, and then we judge the people at the end.

JoshC. · Post by **JoshC.** » 22 May 2009 08:08

I dont know how you guys can justify drugs in sport.
The latest high tech equipment effects performance yes, but you can have the best bike on the planet and still not compete with the best cyclists on the planet. But If you take drugs, its giving you a huge unfair advantage. Now if every cyclist has the best bike, than its fair. But if every cyclist takes drugs it must be fair too right? Wrong...
Sports are about bringing a person to their highest level of athletic ability, and ultimately, drugs tear you down. Anything that is toxic to your body is not going to be fair in competition. Eventually, drugs destroy you, yet many of you are encouraging athletes to take them just because of their income... Athletes train harder and are more dedicated to their profession than almost any other in the world.
So many of you bitch about such a high income for athletes, but I think the income is deserving if they work as hard as they do. But with the drugs, the income is absolutely rediculous.
Steroids are the worst thing happening to sports.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 22 May 2009 20:00

the whole baseball testing system is awful it is random so many of the stars have passed drug tests manny in the past arod in the past the only ones you are about are the one test that the stat fails so not all the stars are doing it or the evidence has not come foward yet
the megastars are not the only ones mike cameron tested positive served his suspension and is back (the only people we have a problem with i think is the ones going into the record books and passong greats)(bonds sosa mcgwire rodriguez ramirez palmeiro clemens and many more)
i was not claiming that steroids and other drugs only help baseball players help homeruns but those are the records that baseball fans hold most dear( with a few exceptions dimaggio and ripkens records)

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 22 May 2009 20:04

JoshC. wrote:I dont know how you guys can justify drugs in sport.
The latest high tech equipment effects performance yes, but you can have the best bike on the planet and still not compete with the best cyclists on the planet. But If you take drugs, its giving you a huge unfair advantage.

I'm 100% sure if you pumped up an average joe with steroids and HGH you still wouldn't be seeing them at the 2012 olympics.

JoshC. wrote:Sports are about bringing a person to their highest level of athletic ability, and ultimately, drugs tear you down. Anything that is toxic to your body is not going to be fair in competition. Eventually, drugs destroy you, yet many of you are encouraging athletes to take them just because of their income... Athletes train harder and are more dedicated to their profession than almost any other in the world.
So many of you bitch about such a high income for athletes, but I think the income is deserving if they work as hard as they do. But with the drugs, the income is absolutely rediculous.
Steroids are the worst thing happening to sports.

I don't really get what your point is here. You seem to be simultaneously saying that drugs are tearing athletes down, but also give them an unfair advantage.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 25 May 2009 00:52

Anything that is toxic to your body is not going to be fair in competition. Eventually, drugs destroy you

These are pretty broad generalisations take EPO for example, which I believe is not toxic but rather a chemical that occurs naturally in your body - the reason it is dangerous when taken by people who are not naturally defficient in the chemical is because it can thicken the blood causing high blood pressure, heart attack and stroke - but to say that it will eventually destroy you is not necessarily true, as these risks can be managed.
Now if you were to argue that not everyone would be able to take a drug like EPO safely due to physiological differences, how is that different from the fact that not eveyone is born 6 feet tall, or some people are born with asthma? Physiological differences already make it harder for some athletes, drugs don't change that. True some athletes take drugs that cannot be taken safely and this should never be allowed, but not all banned performance enhancing substances are equally dangerous to health.