PED Suspensions Coming

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour 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.

I get that we are where we are because things evolve over time and standards are set for a variety of reasons, some logical, some not so much.  Steroids are illegal for a variety of reasons, some health and safety related, some because of cultural stigmas, some because Sosa/McGwire/Bonds used them to break records.  Correcting vision is legal because everyone wants to be able to see well.  

But I don't think it hurts to continually re-assess our (society's) decisions and determine if they still make sense, or ever did.  What is "natural" or "neutral"?  What you're born with?  Average across society?  Average for a MLB athlete?

My vision is pretty good, something like 20/15 even in middle age.  It's my only attribute that even slightly resembles what you'd need to play baseball at a high level.  But oddly, it's also one of the few physical attributes that you can correct or even enhance all you want and still play MLB if you weren't born with it.  A player born with 20/100 vision can fix that with artificial means all day long.  If I had wanted to achieve the stature or strength or speed of an average MLB player, when I was younger, I probably would have had to use steroids or HGH or something along with a lot of hard work.  But that would have been illegal; go with what you're born with or go home.

I think other sports, notably the Olympics, lean a little closer to what I'm talking about.  Athletes in Olympic sports have to be exceptionally careful about cold medicine or any number of other over-the-counter or prescription meds for actual medical conditions because of a very lengthy list of banned substances.  But even there I think they can get Lasik. Not sure about Roberts' red contacts...

 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour 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.   

Yes, I think that's fair.  While also questioning many of the often long-ago decisions that led to various drugs being illegal.  And questioning the "properly prescribed" exceptions.  I'm still trying to figure out the correlation between high athletic performance and ADHD.  It seems that MLB players have ADHD, and require therapeutic exemptions for drugs to treat that, at a rate many times that of the general population.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Yes, I think that's fair.  While also questioning many of the often long-ago decisions that led to various drugs being illegal.  And questioning the "properly prescribed" exceptions.  I'm still trying to figure out the correlation between high athletic performance and ADHD.  It seems that MLB players have ADHD, and require therapeutic exemptions for drugs to treat that, at a rate many times that of the general population.

I've seen the numbers but I don't have them on hand.  It is higher but not anything close to many times.

[atomic]

39 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I get that we are where we are because things evolve over time and standards are set for a variety of reasons, some logical, some not so much.  Steroids are illegal for a variety of reasons, some health and safety related, some because of cultural stigmas, some because Sosa/McGwire/Bonds used them to break records.  Correcting vision is legal because everyone wants to be able to see well.  

 But I don't think it hurts to continually re-assess our (society's) decisions and determine if they still make sense, or ever did.  What is "natural" or "neutral"?  What you're born with?  Average across society?  Average for a MLB athlete?

My vision is pretty good, something like 20/15 even in middle age.  It's my only attribute that even slightly resembles what you'd need to play baseball at a high level.  But oddly, it's also one of the few physical attributes that you can correct or even enhance all you want and still play MLB if you weren't born with it.  A player born with 20/100 vision can fix that with artificial means all day long.  If I had wanted to achieve the stature or strength or speed of an average MLB player, when I was younger, I probably would have had to use steroids or HGH or something along with a lot of hard work.  But that would have been illegal; go with what you're born with or go home.

 I think other sports, notably the Olympics, lean a little closer to what I'm talking about.  Athletes in Olympic sports have to be exceptionally careful about cold medicine or any number of other over-the-counter or prescription meds for actual medical conditions because of a very lengthy list of banned substances.  But even there I think they can get Lasik. Not sure about Roberts' red contacts...

  

I think not being able to see is real handicap in daily life. Not having muscles stronger than the average person of your age is not a handicap in life.  Also wearing glasses or contacts would not affect your health adversely.  Talking things like Steroids and ADHD medicine will effect your health.  Although pain medicine atheletes take isn't going to be good for them either.  

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I've seen the numbers but I don't have them on hand.  It is higher but not anything close to many times.

I believe you’re correct.    

[DrungoHazewood]

17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I've seen the numbers but I don't have them on hand.  It is higher but not anything close to many times.

I won't vouch for the accuracy, but this article says 4-6% of the adult population has ADHD, and MLB granted 110-120 therapeutic use exemptions in 2014 or 2015.  120 out of 750 would be 16%, but if it's more like 1000 total MLB players it would be 12%.  Don't know if those numbers have changed in the last 4-5 years.

[DrungoHazewood]

11 minutes ago, atomic said:

I think not being able to see is real handicap in daily life. Not having muscles stronger than the average person of your age is not a handicap in life.  Also wearing glasses or contacts would not affect your health adversely.  Talking things like Steroids and ADHD medicine will effect your health.  Although pain medicine atheletes take isn't going to be good for them either.  

I think that's reasonable.  But folks who use the "athletes should only perform naturally" justification for PED bans need to be careful.  For many people naturally means bad eyesight and a torn UCL.

[Redskins Rick]

5 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I won't vouch for the accuracy, but this article says 4-6% of the adult population has ADHD, and MLB granted 110-120 therapeutic use exemptions in 2014 or 2015.  120 out of 750 would be 16%, but if it's more like 1000 total MLB players it would be 12%.  Don't know if those numbers have changed in the last 4-5 years.

They seam to align with the CDC numbers. I know personally, 1 in 4 of my kids had it severely, and now two of my six grandkids (not even from that child) has it.

 

Quote

ADHD Statistics: How Common is ADHD?

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that 11 percent of all children in the U.S. aged 4-17 have been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADHD or ADD) — that was roughly 6.1 million American children in 2016, a 43 percent increase since 2003. According to its 2015 report, the CDC says the total number of Americans — adults and children — with ADHD continues to rise — up from 7.8 percent in 2003 to 9.5 percent in 2007 and 11 percent in 2011.

Boys are nearly three times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD (13.2 percent) than are girls (5.6 percent). In adults, the rate is much lower (about 4.4 percent), but experts caution that this reflects only reported diagnoses; the prevalence of ADHD may be significantly higher since many adults, particularly women with inattentive symptoms, remain undiagnosed.

 

[NCRaven]

I wonder if aspects of ADHD have a positive impact on athletic performance.  If so, you might expect to see high level athletes having a higher incidence of ADHD diagnoses.

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I won't vouch for the accuracy, but this article says 4-6% of the adult population has ADHD, and MLB granted 110-120 therapeutic use exemptions in 2014 or 2015.  120 out of 750 would be 16%, but if it's more like 1000 total MLB players it would be 12%.  Don't know if those numbers have changed in the last 4-5 years.

1,379 players batted in the majors last year.   There’s also a group of pitchers who didn’t bat — maybe 200 of the 988 pitchers?   So, figure 1500+ played in the majors last year.    That would knock the percentage down to 7-8%.     

[DrungoHazewood]

7 minutes ago, Frobby said:

1,379 players batted in the majors last year.   There’s also a group of pitchers who didn’t bat — maybe 200 of the 988 pitchers?   So, figure 1500+ played in the majors last year.    That would knock the percentage down to 7-8%.     

I don't know how they handle the exemption process.  Do minor leaguers have access to it?  Do you put in for an exemption when you're called up the first time, or in spring training?  

[atomic]

12 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

I wonder if aspects of ADHD have a positive impact on athletic performance.  If so, you might expect to see high level athletes having a higher incidence of ADHD diagnoses.

Or doctors more willing to say they have ADHD.  ADHD diagnosis is an opinion. It isn't like having HIV or a Broken leg where you can say factually this person has it. 

Doctors make make money telling you that you have ADHD.  

[El Gordo]

58 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I won't vouch for the accuracy, but this article says 4-6% of the adult population has ADHD, and MLB granted 110-120 therapeutic use exemptions in 2014 or 2015.  120 out of 750 would be 16%, but if it's more like 1000 total MLB players it would be 12%.  Don't know if those numbers have changed in the last 4-5 years.

The ADHD percentages among males are higher than general population, and MLB players are all males....so far

Edited March 7, 2019 by El Gordo

[Redskins Rick]

30 minutes ago, atomic said:

Or doctors more willing to say they have ADHD.  ADHD diagnosis is an opinion. It isn't like having HIV or a Broken leg where you can say factually this person has it. 

Doctors make make money telling you that you have ADHD.  

The doctor that tested my child, had several activity tests he used to see if they could stay focus to complete a simple short task.

Trust me, I get many quacks and too quick to put kids on RX.

My daughter would not have made it through school without medications, holidays, weekends and summer was difficult as there was no reason to be on any drugs.

 

[weams]

18 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.

He was on them after he left the Brewers that's for certain.