O's claim Travis Lakins, DFA Stevie Wilkerson

[wildcard]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

And artificially boost their focus and reflexes.   Baseball isn't just about strength.

Yep, just like many HOFer have done.

I agee Stevie was wrong.  And he paid for it.   Stevie was a minor leaguer  trying  deal with the bus trips and other travel that saps make the body tired and slows the reflexes.   I doubt that he will do it again.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

Yep, just like many HOFer have done.

I agee Stevie was wrong.  And he paid for it.   Stevie was a minor leaguer  trying  deal with the bus trips and other travel that saps make the body tired and slows the reflexes.   I doubt that he will do it again.

And Hall of Famers have used steroids too.

He cheated.

[SteveA]

I don't think steroid use by MLB players was very prevalent at all before the 1980s.  Because weight training was not a part of the game and VERY FEW players did it.  It was accepted old school wisdom that weight training would build muscles but would slow your bat speed.  When Brian Downing came up in the late 70s and did heavy weight training in the offseason it was considered a shocking change.  It ushered in a new era.  And if players weren't (for the most part) weight training before the late 70s then I don't think they would have been using steroids.  (Not claiming there was NO steroid use in baseball, just that it was not very common at all.  Certainly not as common as amphetamine use   I do think it started getting common in the 80s, not the 90s which is the decade most associated with steroid use in fans' minds.

[Frobby]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

And Hall of Famers have used steroids too.

He cheated.

You love to raise this topic at every opportunity, but it’s largely irrelevant to any roster decisions involving Wilkerson now.   My view is, if you are going to have an established penalty regime for PED’s, then you follow it and move on.    Wilkerson served his suspension and that’s in the past.  I’m judging him now based on whether he fits our team better than some other guy.    

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, SteveA said:

I don't think steroid use by MLB players was very prevalent at all before the 1980s.  Because weight training was not a part of the game and VERY FEW players did it.  It was accepted old school wisdom that weight training would build muscles but would slow your bat speed.  When Brian Downing came up in the late 70s and did heavy weight training in the offseason it was considered a shocking change.  It ushered in a new era.  And if players weren't (for the most part) weight training before the late 70s then I don't think they would have been using steroids.  (Not claiming there was NO steroid use in baseball, just that it was not very common at all.  Certainly not as common as amphetamine use   I do think it started getting common in the 80s, not the 90s which is the decade most associated with steroid use in fans' minds.

Tom House would disagree with you.  But what does he know?  He was only there.

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1206857-ten-years-later-steroid-misconceptions-continue-to-be-reinforced

 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

You love to raise this topic at every opportunity, but it’s largely irrelevant to any roster decisions involving Wilkerson now.   My view is, if you are going to have an established penalty regime for PED’s, then you follow it and move on.    Wilkerson served his suspension and that’s in the past.  I’m judging him now based on whether he fits our team better than some other guy.    

I love to bring this up every time someone starts spouting nonsense about how amphetamines aren't as bad as steroids.  If they stop, I'll stop.

[SteveA]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I love to bring this up every time someone starts spouting nonsense about how amphetamines aren't as bad as steroids.  If they stop, I'll stop.

But doesn't the term "as bad as" pretty much imply that it's a subjective opinion?  Not "as illegal as", but "as bad as".  Kind of implying a level of moral judgement which is always going to be subjective.  So basically if someone is bothered more by one than the other that is their opinion, and your need to constantly point out that their opinion is, in your eyes, wrong is futile.  You are welcome to keep tilting at the windmill, that is your right, but it's like arguing politics has become in the US today...two sides talking past each other, getting cheers for their opinion from people who agree with them but never changing a single mind on The Other Side.

[wildcard]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I love to bring this up every time someone starts spouting nonsense about how amphetamines aren't as bad as steroids.  If they stop, I'll stop.

Are you against Red Bull.   Players use it today to enhance their focus and reflexes.   I don't have any idea why Stevie didn't take a Red Bull instead of the a greenie.  But one is a bad as the other except one is legal and the other is not.    Well, until they ban caffeine.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, RZNJ said:

Even the article that suggests the combination of weightlifting combined with steroid use didn't really take hold until the 80's.  Yes, they may have been used earlier but maximum benefit, particularly to hitters, seems to have been achieved in the 80's and 90's.  There are certainly a lot of gray areas as to who cheated, who gained the most advantage,  etc. etc.  It's not as simple as just saying everyone cheated.

So?  It says 6-7 guys per pitching staff were using.  The congressional study from 1973 agrees.  Guys were using, they just weren't getting as large a result as guys using later.

[Frobby]

8 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I love to bring this up every time someone starts spouting nonsense about how amphetamines aren't as bad as steroids.  If they stop, I'll stop.

I guess we all have our pet causes.    I just hate to see a discussion of a somewhat marginal player get derailed by our 73rd discussion of the topic of amphetamines vs. steroids.    Not that Wilkerson is that exciting of a topic, either.   

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

Are you against Red Bull.   Players use it today to enhance their focus and reflexes.   I don't than any idea why Stevie didn't take a Red Bull instead of the a greenie.  But one is a bad as the other except one is legal and the other is not.    Well, until the ban caffeine.

Red Bull isn't Adderall, that isn't a realistic comparison.  Taking greenies isn't the same as taking caffeine and Taurine.  

Why don't they just tell kids with ADHD to drink coffee?

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, SteveA said:

But doesn't the term "as bad as" pretty much imply that it's a subjective opinion?  Not "as illegal as", but "as bad as".  Kind of implying a level of moral judgement which is always going to be subjective.  So basically if someone is bothered more by one than the other that is their opinion, and your need to constantly point out that their opinion is, in your eyes, wrong is futile.  You are welcome to keep tilting at the windmill, that is your right, but it's like arguing politics has become in the US today...two sides talking past each other, getting cheers for their opinion from people who agree with them but never changing a single mind on The Other Side.

Not in this case.  I was going by what I have read and studies and first hand accounts indicate that they conveyed a similar level of competitive advantage.

And honestly, if someone thinks Adderall and Red Bull are the same thing isn't it our duty to educate them?

[wildcard]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Red Bull isn't Adderall, that isn't a realistic comparison.  Taking greenies isn't the same as taking caffeine and Taurine.  

Why don't they just tell kids with ADHD to drink coffee?

Red Bull is a stimulant.  Amphetamines are stimulants.   Both are meant to improve focus and reflexes.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Red Bull is a stimulant.  Amphetamines are stimulants.   Both are meant to improve focus and reflexes.

Motrin is a pain killer.  Fentanyl is a pain killer.  Should Fentanyl be sold OTC?  Both are meant to alleviate pain right?

[Frobby]

18 minutes ago, wildcard said:

Red Bull is a stimulant.  Amphetamines are stimulants.   Both are meant to improve focus and reflexes.

Shouldn’t we assume that since the FDA regulates one and not the other, they are substantively different?    I’m not a chemist but that is certainly my understanding.    

More to your point, amphetamines were viewed differently in the 1960’s than they are today.    They were passed out to combatants during WWII without prescriptions, and very commonly used thereafter.     It was only with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 that the government really started clamping down on their use and warning of the dangers.    Here’s a good discussion of the topic:  https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/speedy-history-americas-addiction-amphetamine-180966989/

So, I do think that context has to be considered when equating amphetamine use in the 1960’s with steroid use in the late ‘80’s and thereafter.    But I think today, it’s clear that both are prohibited and I don’t excuse Wilkerson in any way for violating the league’s policies.