PED Suspensions Coming

[El Gordo]

6 minutes ago, Enjoy Terror said:

I’m wrestling with the concept that it wouldn’t be “performance enhancing”. Even if that only meant that you were artificially increasing your counting stats by being able to play more games.

If it's not harmful why not let everyone use it. Just makes the game better by keeping players on the field.

[sportsfan8703]

5 hours ago, El Gordo said:

If it's not harmful why not let everyone use it. Just makes the game better by keeping players on the field.

Seems like the lack of PEDs is really helping the owners. Teams pretty much have control of players through their 27ish season. Then 32 year olds are having a tough time finding contracts. 

Long term deals are stupid when players are using a ton of PEDs. Multi year deals for players over 32 are stupid when players aren’t using PEDs. 

[Bonecrusher52]

11 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I hated Ortiz as much as anyone else, but he was a great hitter, PEDs or not.  I know the cynical, sarcastic Orioles fan out there will say that he was on them his entire career.  I don't know how true that is, but it's sure fun to think that, isn't it?

Anyway, I've done a 180 on PEDs, I don't really care anymore.  I'm sure the Orioles have had guys on them too over the years.  Doesn't take any schadenfreude away from seeing anyone on the Sox get busted.

"Hi I'm Red Sox David Ortiz, and I have DirecTV."

"And I'm Twins David Ortiz, and I have Cable."

[Redskins Rick]

12 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

Agreed.

I dunno, Sandy Koufax took cortaid shots to pitch through pain.  I think there's a thin line between performance enhancing and performance allowing.  But one could argue (and I would) that Koufax's use of cortaid was enhancing, or else he couldn't have done what he did.  

It's when the drug names get really weird looking and hard to pronounce that people start having issues.  

 

Not like Ortez never had issues controlling his anger.:)

[Moose Milligan]

2 hours ago, Bonecrusher52 said:

"Hi I'm Red Sox David Ortiz, and I have DirecTV."

"And I'm Twins David Ortiz, and I have Cable."

I mean, that's not really fair.  Not many people have the same body they had in their early 20s as they did in their late 30s.  

[DrungoHazewood]

12 hours ago, Enjoy Terror said:

I’m wrestling with the concept that it wouldn’t be “performance enhancing”. Even if that only meant that you were artificially increasing your counting stats by being able to play more games.

I want to know why Lasik is okay, but greenies aren't?  If your natural eyesight is 20/50 and you get Lasik to make it 20/15 how is that not performance enhancing?  Or even glasses.  Why are you allowed to correct your vision to such an extent that it turns a non-MLB player into a good MLB player?  Or even better, Brian Roberts' red tinted contacts that allowed him to better pick up the rotation of the pitch.

Tommy John surgery is most definitely performance enhancing.  It takes someone whose body was unable withstand the rigors of Major League Baseball and transforms him, at least in some cases, into a star.  The pool of pitchers would be something like 40% smaller without TJ, because an awful lot of pitchers' bodies can't take the strain of pitching naturally.  ACL repair... same thing.  Pain meds, cortisone, even Sudafed.  Players take them so they can perform better than they would otherwise.

The lines that are drawn are based as much on emotion and randomness as they are on fair play.

[DrungoHazewood]

4 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I mean, that's not really fair.  Not many people have the same body they had in their early 20s as they did in their late 30s.  

And the number of players who OPS 1.000 as a full time player at the age of 40 can be rounded off to one.

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

And the number of players who OPS 1.000 as a full time player at the age of 40 can be rounded off to one.

not like that one player is squeaky clean and its all just conspiracy with no evidence to support it.

[Moose Milligan]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

And the number of players who OPS 1.000 as a full time player at the age of 40 can be rounded off to one.

Bonds, Ted Williams, Ortiz?  I count 3.  

[Aglets]

9 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I want to know why Lasik is okay, but greenies aren't?  If your natural eyesight is 20/50 and you get Lasik to make it 20/15 how is that not performance enhancing?  Or even glasses.  Why are you allowed to correct your vision to such an extent that it turns a non-MLB player into a good MLB player?  Or even better, Brian Roberts' red tinted contacts that allowed him to better pick up the rotation of the pitch.

Tommy John surgery is most definitely performance enhancing.  It takes someone whose body was unable withstand the rigors of Major League Baseball and transforms him, at least in some cases, into a star.  The pool of pitchers would be something like 40% smaller without TJ, because an awful lot of pitchers' bodies can't take the strain of pitching naturally.  ACL repair... same thing.  Pain meds, cortisone, even Sudafed.  Players take them so they can perform better than they would otherwise.

The lines that are drawn are based as much on emotion and randomness as they are on fair play.

I'm a fan of yours Drungo, but I've never been persuaded by this type of argument.........at all.

Most of these things are to restore an 'injured' or 'deficient' body to a 'normal' state.   If your ACL snaps.......that's an injury.   We are pretty ok with people having surgery to repair that injury to try and get them back to their 'normal' state.

Same thing with poor vision.

We can hem and haw about what it means to be 'normal' but I think if you have two people debating on this who are both intellectually honest they will agree on 95% of what is 'performance enhancing' in the PED sense vs what is just trying to restore someone back to some kind of 'neutral' state.

I really resent the arguments that go like "either you have to say it's ALL bad or it's ALL ok!"   

That's not honest and not how the real world works.

[LookinUp]

12 hours ago, El Gordo said:

If it's not harmful why not let everyone use it. Just makes the game better by keeping players on the field.

 

8 minutes ago, Aglets said:

That's not honest and not how the real world works.

In a perfect world, we would have perfect safety information to know what is harmful and what might be perfectly healthy. In the FDA world, even some of the safest drugs have safety labels. Heck, Aspirin probably wouldn't be approved if it came out today. It is far more harmful than most approved drugs. With large enough samples, pretty much anything we ingest can be hurtful.

The problem is that there is no objective criteria for evaluating what is and isn't harmful, so the league has basically said that if it's a pill/shot/cream and it's meant to improve performance beyond your biological baseline, it's banned.

So I think Aglets' post is basically correct.

[Frobby]

30 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I want to know why Lasik is okay, but greenies aren't?  If your natural eyesight is 20/50 and you get Lasik to make it 20/15 how is that not performance enhancing?  Or even glasses.  Why are you allowed to correct your vision to such an extent that it turns a non-MLB player into a good MLB player?  Or even better, Brian Roberts' red tinted contacts that allowed him to better pick up the rotation of the pitch.

Tommy John surgery is most definitely performance enhancing.  It takes someone whose body was unable withstand the rigors of Major League Baseball and transforms him, at least in some cases, into a star.  The pool of pitchers would be something like 40% smaller without TJ, because an awful lot of pitchers' bodies can't take the strain of pitching naturally.  ACL repair... same thing.  Pain meds, cortisone, even Sudafed.  Players take them so they can perform better than they would otherwise.

The lines that are drawn are based as much on emotion and randomness as they are on fair play.

Is it fair to draw a line at what is legal vs. illegal?    There are reasons why PED’s and amphetimines are controlled substances, and to the extent they can be prescribed, aren’t prescribable merely to enhance athletic performance.    You can question whether those laws make sense, but so long as they exist I don’t have a problem with pro sports leagues banning their use except in limited circumstances where the league is confident they’ve been properly prescribed for a legally accepted purpose.   

[El Gordo]

6 hours ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Seems like the lack of PEDs is really helping the owners. Teams pretty much have control of players through their 27ish season. Then 32 year olds are having a tough time finding contracts. 

Long term deals are stupid when players are using a ton of PEDs. Multi year deals for players over 32 are stupid when players aren’t using PEDs. 

What makes you think there's a lack of PED's?

[El Gordo]

40 minutes ago, Aglets said:

I'm a fan of yours Drungo, but I've never been persuaded by this type of argument.........at all.

Most of these things are to restore an 'injured' or 'deficient' body to a 'normal' state.   If your ACL snaps.......that's an injury.   We are pretty ok with people having surgery to repair that injury to try and get them back to their 'normal' state.

Same thing with poor vision.

We can hem and haw about what it means to be 'normal' but I think if you have two people debating on this who are both intellectually honest they will agree on 95% of what is 'performance enhancing' in the PED sense vs what is just trying to restore someone back to some kind of 'neutral' state.

I really resent the arguments that go like "either you have to say it's ALL bad or it's ALL ok!"   

That's not honest and not how the real world works.

Not all PED's are the same. Some are harmful and should be banned, though fewer are in this category as they become refined. Some like HgH are used primary to aid in healing and are no different than other substances that are allowed,

[Moose Milligan]

32 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Is it fair to draw a line at what is legal vs. illegal?    There are reasons why PED’s and amphetimines are controlled substances, and to the extent they can be prescribed, aren’t prescribable merely to enhance athletic performance.    You can question whether those laws make sense, but so long as they exist I don’t have a problem with pro sports leagues banning their use except in limited circumstances where the league is confident they’ve been properly prescribed for a legally accepted purpose.   

I think it's fair to draw a line at what's legal vs. illegal.

However, correct me if I'm wrong but MLB didn't have anything in place all those years ago.  They didn't have anything that even said, IIRC, "players can't use performance enhancing illegal substances".  And then everyone got butthurt that McGwire was taking something that no one could pronounce.  They didn't have any rules, any testing.  At that time, to fall back on what the gov't deemed illegal, was, IMO, lazy.

It's murky water when you can get stuff at a GNC that'll make you test positive, though.  These guys need to be aware of what they put in their bodies, for sure but I'd be curious to know if MLB is looking at what can be purchased over the counter and making adjustments to rules.  I'm assuming they're not.