PED Suspensions Coming

[25 Nuggets]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

What possible difference does it make how effective it would have been?  Either the intent is there to cheat or it isn't.

Ruth tried to cheat.  It didn't work and he fell ill but it doesn't take away from his intent to cheat.

Don't forget Ty Cobb

[El Gordo]

It not cheating if it isn't prohibited. As far as I know sheep testicle injections weren't banned when the babe used them. By the same token PEDs followed wieght trianing into baseball in the early 70's. Any one using between then and 1990 wasn't cheating either.

[CheeryO]

8 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

Any evidence of that? If there were I think we'd hear about it.

Evidence?  It's not an episode of CSI.  Ask them or their doctors and maybe they will tell you or they won't.  And even if they do have some symptoms, linking them to doping may not be provable.  I'm not saying that long-term side effects of doping are a given, but I am saying it would be hard to believe that there wouldn't be some players that wouldn't have any.  Hard drug use -- whether it's alcohol or heroin or something else -- so often leave lasting effects.

[crawjo]

I remember when intending to cheat was seen as a virtuous characteristic for a baseball player to have. Then came PEDs and all the armchair moralizers. 

[El Gordo]

Just now, CheeryO said:

Evidence?  It's not an episode of CSI.  Ask them or their doctors and maybe they will tell you or they won't.  And even if they do have some symptoms, linking them to doping may not be provable.  I'm not saying that long-term side effects of doping are a given, but I am saying it would be hard to believe that there wouldn't be some players that wouldn't have any.  Hard drug use -- whether it's alcohol or heroin or something else -- so often leave lasting effects.

All drugs are not the same. With these new designer PED's side  effects can be safely managed,

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, crawjo said:

I remember when intending to cheat was seen as a virtuous characteristic for a baseball player to have. Then came PEDs and all the armchair moralizers. 

King Kelly was lauded for his ingenuity.

Gaylord Perry is in the hall (as is the aforementioned Kelly)

[CheeryO]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

What possible difference does it make how effective it would have been?  Either the intent is there to cheat or it isn't.

Ruth tried to cheat.  It didn't work and he fell ill but it doesn't take away from his intent to cheat.

It makes every difference how it effective cheating is.  Who would care if Lance Armstrong tried to cheat -- failed -- and then fell outside of the top 10 in ten straight Tours de France?  Nobody would have ever cared enough to investigate the failed cheatings of a cyclist nobody ever heard of.  If Babe Ruth tried to cheat and failed, then that's a completely different conversation with a completely different point -- especially because it pretty much proves his game never needed a boost from doping.

[CheeryO]

4 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

All drugs are not the same. With these new designer PED's side  effects can be safely managed,

I suspect there's really no drug without any side effects, but I'm no expert.  

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, CheeryO said:

It makes every difference how it effective cheating is.  Who would care if Lance Armstrong tried to cheat -- failed -- and then fell outside of the top 10 in ten straight Tours de France?  Nobody would have ever cared enough to investigate the failed cheatings of a cyclist nobody ever heard of.  If Babe Ruth tried to cheat and failed, then that's a completely different conversation with a completely different point -- especially because it pretty much proves his game never needed a boost from doping.

So someone using cutting edge steroid/HGH/training/diet is more of a cheater than someone taking horse steroids or someone who thinks they are taking steroids but are in fact ingesting sugar pills?

Yea, I can't agree with that.

The important piece is the intent.

 

[El Gordo]

5 minutes ago, CheeryO said:

I suspect there's really no drug without any side effects, but I'm no expert.  

No you're right, you can OD on aspirin if you're dumb enough.

[CheeryO]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sorry forgot the other bit.

This is how it works, if you state as a premise that athletes A, B and C were so talented that they didn't need to cheat and I respond with athletes X, Y, and Z were every bit as talented and yet they cheated that is calling into question the validity of your premise.  Since their doesn't seem to be any evidence that athletes that reach a certain performance threshold are less likely to use PEDs.

Of course I wasn't saying that athletes A, B and C would never cheat if they were the best in the game.  In fact, one of my other points stated why these some of these same players might cheat -- mainly their bodies and skills start to decline.  I was pointing out the best have far less incentive to cheat, especially when you consider the drawbacks.  For every Barry Bonds and ARod, how many others are there at the top of the game that were never suspected of cheating?  How man Griffeys, Pujols, Trouts, Frank Thomas's, Jim Thomes, etc. were there?  I can only assume that the great players who presumably never did cheat didn't do so because of the point I originally made.  I'm already better than everyone else, so why take the chance damaging my body and my legacy?  The lesser players have more incentive to cheat because they have a better chance of losing their job -- or losing the big payday -- without that extra boost in performance.  You are right that I can't prove this statement, but I'm making an argument, not a proof.

[CheeryO]

3 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

No you're right, you can OD on aspirin if you're dumb enough.

Do you really think the PEDs guys were taking twenty years ago -- or even the designer ones today -- have the mere side effects of aspirin?  I don't know how much info there is on this on Google but it is an interesting topic.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, CheeryO said:

Of course I wasn't saying that athletes A, B and C would never cheat if they were the best in the game.  In fact, one of my other points stated why these some of these same players might cheat -- mainly their bodies and skills start to decline.  I was pointing out the best have far less incentive to cheat, especially when you consider the drawbacks.  For every Barry Bonds and ARod, how many others are there at the top of the game that were never suspected of cheating?  How man Griffeys, Pujols, Trouts, Frank Thomas's, Jim Thomes, etc. were there?  I can only assume that the great players who presumably never did cheat didn't do so because of the point I originally made.  I'm already better than everyone else, so why take the chance damaging my body and my legacy?  The lesser players have more incentive to cheat because they have a better chance of losing their job -- or losing the big payday -- without that extra boost in performance.  You are right that I can't prove this statement, but I'm making an argument, not a proof.

I think a lot of players from that era used, to include members of the hall of fame.  If I were to find out any of the bolded used I would shrug.  I don't specifically suspect any of the names you listed but I'd bet money at least one of the four used at some point.

[El Gordo]

5 minutes ago, CheeryO said:

Do you really think the PEDs guys were taking twenty years ago -- or even the designer ones today -- have the mere side effects of aspirin?  I don't know how much info there is on this on Google but it is an interesting topic.

If properly manageded they can be used with minimal long term effects. Check out this documentary.  A pretty even handed look at PED's. 

 

[CheeryO]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

So someone using cutting edge steroid/HGH/training/diet is more of a cheater than someone taking horse steroids or someone who thinks they are taking steroids but are in fact ingesting sugar pills?

Yea, I can't agree with that.

The important piece is the intent.

 

Yes, I see what you're saying, but we're talking about grown men who play a game that, on some level, has always tolerated a certain level of cheating. There's that line in the sand of what's acceptable cheating and what's not, but you're the only person I know of that cites a failed attempt at cheating as being as bad effective cheating and getting away with it.  Even murder is worse than attempted murder; but again we're talking about grown men playing a game with some level, however small or big, of cheating in it.  Someone who is ingesting sugar pills is not hitting more home runs or striking out more batters.  He's trying to gain an advantage but failing.  Of course the effective cheater who actually gains an advantage over other players is the one committing the real offense.