Was Baseball Better With PEDs?

[TJ Wrangler]

Simple objective poll. Was the sport of baseball better with PEDs or without PEDs? I don't want this to turn into a moral debate, health of the players debate, cheaters or non cheaters debate, or anything of the sort.

Simply put, is baseball better off now without PEDs or was baseball better overall while PED use was rampant?

I understand this may be a controversial poll and if you feel compelled to argue your response one way or another, be my guest, but I would really like to get an objective what was best for the sport answer from everyone to see what the consensus opinion is.

[scOtt]

I think I'm in the minority... but I'd rather see a pitcher's duel any day. 2-1 over 10-8 any time.

[Skeletor]

I think the ball changed. And I don't think it's a coincidence that they changed the ball so they can point to lower scoring as proof that PED testing is working (even thought it's the ball, if that makes sense).

[MikeAD]

I don't know how to answer it. I don't think PED's are "gone." Its a game where people get paid money if they succeed, or if people think they will succeed, of course they are going to find any way possible to get an edge. We might have gotten rid of certain types or formulas of enhancers but there has always been enhancers of some sort and there always will be.

[TJ Wrangler]

My opinion is that there isn't anything unethical about putting your body in the best physical condition to succeed at what you need to do. If you want to argue legality of using a controlled substance, then maybe there's a case there, but steroids were banned by Congress against the recommendation of the DEA and the AMA. As far as player health goes, back when steroids were becoming widely used, there was not much knowledge of post cycle therapies and anti-estrogen drugs to counteract the negative side effects of steroid use and to allow your body to quickly recover its natural hormone balance after using. Yes there is risk involved, but that can be said of almost anything you put in your body. There's also the fine line between use and abuse. One of which is a fairly healthy way to improve your performance and gain body mass, while the other is a psychological addiction to use in excess, consequences be damned. Again, that could be said of anything you put in your body, from unhealthy foods, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, or even alcohol and tobacco.

As far as the game goes, numbers all around were up. Some of the greatest pitchers in the history faced and dominated some of the most known and greatest hitters/steroid users in the game. There were still your scrubs, there were your elite players, and the players in between. McGwire and Sosa's home run chase put bodies in the seats and returned baseball to the mainstream in the post-strike era. If you saw the Giants playing on TV, you'd switch over to watch Barry Bonds bat. As far as the best interest of the game, I'd say that steroids did a lot of good for baseball.

Now I fully understand that there are other ends of the argument and I understand why people will take those positions. I also understand that my position is very likely in the minority. I understand that steroids are capable of throwing bodies out of whack and altering lives when used before proper research has been conducted. I also realize that the same can be said of most medicines, drugs, substances, or things that are otherwise put into your body. I don't view it as cheating or immoral and think it's well within someone's right to do what they see fit with their body.

There are positives and negatives of both sides of this argument, but ultimately, I stand on the side that baseball was better off when PED use was not regulated and common.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think the ball changed. And I don't think it's a coincidence that they changed the ball so they can point to lower scoring as proof that PED testing is working (even thought it's the ball, if that makes sense).

I don't think PEDs ever had quite the dramatic effect everyone proscribed to them, and I think they tinkered with the ball to provide an obvious, tangible piece of evidence that they'd been eliminated. Testing has lowered the use of PEDs, and that has impacted scoring to some small degree. But it's probably also impacted pitchers nearly as much.

If all of the scoring drop was from the elimination of PEDs, why didn't it happen in 2005 or 2006 with the new testing? Is someone going to claim that it takes 2, 3, 4 years for the effects to wash out?

[crissfan172]

I think I'm in the minority... but I'd rather see a pitcher's duel any day. 2-1 over 10-8 any time.

I agree.

[JTrea81]

Yes it was because it was more entertaining. No stories have rivaled those of the HR chase days between Sosa and McGwire.

And last year there were so many perfect games and no-hitters that it ruined the accomplishment value of the perfect game or no hitter.

I understand it's not good for the athletes but if you look at it from a pure entertainment value, baseball was more exciting when PEDs were not tested for and it made those pitching accomplishments much more rare.

It seemed to be much easier to get a perfect game in the year of the pitcher than it was to hit 50+ HRs even in the steroid era. So even though PEDs existed, the offensive accomplishments were still rarer than that of those of the pitching accomplishments in the year of the pitcher and the rareness of the perfect game or no-hitter was also preserved.

[Hank Scorpio]

I agree.

Me too.

[WietersCorner]

PEDs are so yesterday... its all about those stem cells now.

[Remember The Alomar]

I'm not a conspiracy guy, but I agree that they did something to the ball to make it less "live".

Personally, I think all new, small stadiums had more of an effect on HR's than PED's did.

Also, I once remember reading a Bill James article where he argued that advent Lasik had a bigger effect on baseball than PED's did. Can't remember the details, but it was interesting.

Yes it was because it was more entertaining. No stories have rivaled those of the HR chase days between Sosa and McGwire.

And last year there were so many perfect games and no-hitters that it ruined the accomplishment value of the perfect game or no hitter.

I understand it's not good for the athletes but if you look at it from a pure entertainment value, baseball was more exciting when PEDs were not tested for and it made those pitching accomplishments much more rare.

It seemed to be much easier to get a perfect game in the year of the pitcher than it was to hit 50+ HRs even in the steroid era. So even though PEDs existed, the offensive accomplishments were still rarer than that of those of the pitching accomplishments in the year of the pitcher and the rareness of the perfect game or no-hitter was also preserved.

Low scoring games are a million times more tense/exciting then slug fests. The entire game hangs on an edge. Low scoring games are also more aesthetically pleasing and enjoyable to watch than 6 hour, high scoring trudges. It's just the nature of baseball.

[JERSEYORIOLE]

Yes it was because it was more entertaining. No stories have rivaled those of the HR chase days between Sosa and McGwire.And last year there were so many perfect games and no-hitters that it ruined the accomplishment value of the perfect game or no hitter.

I understand it's not good for the athletes but if you look at it from a pure entertainment value, baseball was more exciting when PEDs were not tested for and it made those pitching accomplishments much more rare.

It seemed to be much easier to get a perfect game in the year of the pitcher than it was to hit 50+ HRs even in the steroid era. So even though PEDs existed, the offensive accomplishments were still rarer than that of those of the pitching accomplishments in the year of the pitcher and the rareness of the perfect game or no-hitter was also preserved.

To me, those HR chases where stupid and cartoonish. Opposing players shaking hands with guys that hit home runs against them? It was sickening.

PED's are not gone from the league. Only steroids are.

Give me a 1-0 pitchers duel any day.

[JERSEYORIOLE]

My opinion is that there isn't anything unethical about putting your body in the best physical condition to succeed at what you need to do. If you want to argue legality of using a controlled substance, then maybe there's a case there, but steroids were banned by Congress against the recommendation of the DEA and the AMA. As far as player health goes, back when steroids were becoming widely used, there was not much knowledge of post cycle therapies and anti-estrogen drugs to counteract the negative side effects of steroid use and to allow your body to quickly recover its natural hormone balance after using. Yes there is risk involved, but that can be said of almost anything you put in your body. There's also the fine line between use and abuse. One of which is a fairly healthy way to improve your performance and gain body mass, while the other is a psychological addiction to use in excess, consequences be damned. Again, that could be said of anything you put in your body, from unhealthy foods, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, or even alcohol and tobacco.

As far as the game goes, numbers all around were up. Some of the greatest pitchers in the history faced and dominated some of the most known and greatest hitters/steroid users in the game. There were still your scrubs, there were your elite players, and the players in between. McGwire and Sosa's home run chase put bodies in the seats and returned baseball to the mainstream in the post-strike era. If you saw the Giants playing on TV, you'd switch over to watch Barry Bonds bat. As far as the best interest of the game, I'd say that steroids did a lot of good for baseball.

Now I fully understand that there are other ends of the argument and I understand why people will take those positions. I also understand that my position is very likely in the minority. I understand that steroids are capable of throwing bodies out of whack and altering lives when used before proper research has been conducted. I also realize that the same can be said of most medicines, drugs, substances, or things that are otherwise put into your body. I don't view it as cheating or immoral and think it's well within someone's right to do what they see fit with their body.

There are positives and negatives of both sides of this argument, but ultimately, I stand on the side that baseball was better off when PED use was not regulated and common.

I agree with this. However, if it isn't legal, then it shouldnt be done. If caught, you face not only MLB, but the crimminal justice system. There are plenty of people that have jobs where they are tested and if found dirty, lose their job.

[SammyBirdland]

"Was"? I would wager that greater than 50% of Major League Baseball players use PEDs. Canseco taught them that they need to be smarter about hiding it. The Players Union will continue to push for no blood testing so that guys can continue to use PEDs.

[TJ Wrangler]

I agree with this. However, if it isn't legal, then it shouldnt be done. If caught, you face not only MLB, but the crimminal justice system. There are plenty of people that have jobs where they are tested and if found dirty, lose their job.

I agree here. There is definitely a legal consequence to doing it and with the way the laws are currently set up, getting caught in possession should carry the legal consequences. I do, however, disagree with the ban from a legal perspective.