73414D4D596B48414C494641200 wrote:
It's worth pointing out that there is a significant difference between recreational use of drugs like cocaine and the use of performance enhancing drugs by MLB players. Your suggestion otherwise is a classic case of false equivalency. A player who decides to screw up his life by illegally using cocaine (which is not a performance enhancing drug) isn't lessening any other player's chance to make a living by having an unfair on-the-field advantage. The PED using MLB player is usurping the livelihood of someone else.
But how about greenies? Apparently "Pops" was handing them out like skittles.
I'm not asking to judge or attack you--i'm asking myself the same thing.
A valid question, but as a pharmacist I hesitate to speculate about "greenies" because I don't know specifically what drug(s) may have been involved. If we knew with certainty then perhaps a rational discussion could take place, but otherwise I think it would be somewhat pointless given that we aren't certain whether "greenies" have or do not have potential for performance enhancement.
Rafael Palmeiro
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Rafael Palmeiro
Baseball's history of people cheating to get an advantage goes far beyond the steroid era.
There are spitballers and guys who doctored balls in the hall of fame. How many players used corked bats? Mike Schmidt admitted to using amphetamines and it seems like it was pretty common at the time.
Part of the reason I don't get worked up about steroid users is that until comprehensive testing began, we really don't know who used. I'd bet big money that there are guys with the reputation of "doing it the right way" back then who used. They just didn't get caught.
There are spitballers and guys who doctored balls in the hall of fame. How many players used corked bats? Mike Schmidt admitted to using amphetamines and it seems like it was pretty common at the time.
Part of the reason I don't get worked up about steroid users is that until comprehensive testing began, we really don't know who used. I'd bet big money that there are guys with the reputation of "doing it the right way" back then who used. They just didn't get caught.
Rafael Palmeiro
7279717D7879622721566F777E7979387579160 wrote: Cocaine is an upper and can help with motor skills too.
Baseball didn't enforce anything. Did I think it was wrong, yes. Were any rules broken, no. There also isn't much proof that that PEDs made players better. It is all speculation.
I would still put those players in the Hall of Fame, but I totally understand why others feel they shouldn't get in and how it ruined the game to some.
While it's true that cocaine is a stimulant it also is a potent vasoconstrictor and has the potential for cardiac and cognitive adverse effects. As a PED it is at best a mixed bag with the advantages of enhanced alertness/concentration (similar to that which the "legal" drug caffeine affords) plus the potential downside of heart arrhythmia, numbness of extremities, anxiety, tremor and confusion. Cocaine used as a PED would not give consistently positive results as obviously anxiety, numbness, tremor and confusion would not help to enhance motor skills. In addition its short half-life (duration of action) would require dosing (possibly multi-dosing) during games.
Anabolic steroids have side effects as well but their benefit in helping to build muscle mass and strength is a more consistent, long-lasting, quantifiable enhancement to performance, and the side effects more easily controlled than those of cocaine. Again, there is no real equivalency in comparing cocaine to anabolic steroids as PEDs.
Baseball didn't enforce anything. Did I think it was wrong, yes. Were any rules broken, no. There also isn't much proof that that PEDs made players better. It is all speculation.
I would still put those players in the Hall of Fame, but I totally understand why others feel they shouldn't get in and how it ruined the game to some.
While it's true that cocaine is a stimulant it also is a potent vasoconstrictor and has the potential for cardiac and cognitive adverse effects. As a PED it is at best a mixed bag with the advantages of enhanced alertness/concentration (similar to that which the "legal" drug caffeine affords) plus the potential downside of heart arrhythmia, numbness of extremities, anxiety, tremor and confusion. Cocaine used as a PED would not give consistently positive results as obviously anxiety, numbness, tremor and confusion would not help to enhance motor skills. In addition its short half-life (duration of action) would require dosing (possibly multi-dosing) during games.
Anabolic steroids have side effects as well but their benefit in helping to build muscle mass and strength is a more consistent, long-lasting, quantifiable enhancement to performance, and the side effects more easily controlled than those of cocaine. Again, there is no real equivalency in comparing cocaine to anabolic steroids as PEDs.
Rafael Palmeiro
1532391A570 wrote: Baseball's history of people cheating to get an advantage goes far beyond the steroid era.
There are spitballers and guys who doctored balls in the hall of fame. How many players used corked bats? Mike Schmidt admitted to using amphetamines and it seems like it was pretty common at the time.
Part of the reason I don't get worked up about steroid users is that until comprehensive testing began, we really don't know who used. I'd bet big money that there are guys with the reputation of "doing it the right way" back then who used. They just didn't get caught.
All excellent points! It's an extremely complex issue given MLB's history.
Amphetamines are potentially effective PEDs. It would be interesting to compare the effects that amphetamine use has had on performance in baseball (through statistical data) versus steroid use. Unfortunately I think it would be all but impossible to get reliable information about either drug's usage from players. Is there an acknowledged time in MLB that could be called the amphetamine era? If so then perhaps a comparison of eras might yield some interesting results.
There are spitballers and guys who doctored balls in the hall of fame. How many players used corked bats? Mike Schmidt admitted to using amphetamines and it seems like it was pretty common at the time.
Part of the reason I don't get worked up about steroid users is that until comprehensive testing began, we really don't know who used. I'd bet big money that there are guys with the reputation of "doing it the right way" back then who used. They just didn't get caught.
All excellent points! It's an extremely complex issue given MLB's history.
Amphetamines are potentially effective PEDs. It would be interesting to compare the effects that amphetamine use has had on performance in baseball (through statistical data) versus steroid use. Unfortunately I think it would be all but impossible to get reliable information about either drug's usage from players. Is there an acknowledged time in MLB that could be called the amphetamine era? If so then perhaps a comparison of eras might yield some interesting results.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Rafael Palmeiro
5B7F6B63660A0 wrote:
It's worth pointing out that there is a significant difference between recreational use of drugs like cocaine and the use of performance enhancing drugs by MLB players. Your suggestion otherwise is a classic case of false equivalency. A player who decides to screw up his life by illegally using cocaine (which is not a performance enhancing drug) isn't lessening any other player's chance to make a living by having an unfair on-the-field advantage. The PED using MLB player is usurping the livelihood of someone else.
But how about greenies? Apparently "Pops" was handing them out like skittles.
I'm not asking to judge or attack you--i'm asking myself the same thing.
A valid question, but as a pharmacist I hesitate to speculate about "greenies" because I don't know specifically what drug(s) may have been involved. If we knew with certainty then perhaps a rational discussion could take place, but otherwise I think it would be somewhat pointless given that we aren't certain whether "greenies" have or do not have potential for performance enhancement.
From what I gather, amphetamines
It's worth pointing out that there is a significant difference between recreational use of drugs like cocaine and the use of performance enhancing drugs by MLB players. Your suggestion otherwise is a classic case of false equivalency. A player who decides to screw up his life by illegally using cocaine (which is not a performance enhancing drug) isn't lessening any other player's chance to make a living by having an unfair on-the-field advantage. The PED using MLB player is usurping the livelihood of someone else.
But how about greenies? Apparently "Pops" was handing them out like skittles.
I'm not asking to judge or attack you--i'm asking myself the same thing.
A valid question, but as a pharmacist I hesitate to speculate about "greenies" because I don't know specifically what drug(s) may have been involved. If we knew with certainty then perhaps a rational discussion could take place, but otherwise I think it would be somewhat pointless given that we aren't certain whether "greenies" have or do not have potential for performance enhancement.
From what I gather, amphetamines
Rafael Palmeiro
0F2B3F37325E0 wrote:
It's worth pointing out that there is a significant difference between recreational use of drugs like cocaine and the use of performance enhancing drugs by MLB players. Your suggestion otherwise is a classic case of false equivalency. A player who decides to screw up his life by illegally using cocaine (which is not a performance enhancing drug) isn't lessening any other player's chance to make a living by having an unfair on-the-field advantage. The PED using MLB player is usurping the livelihood of someone else.
But how about greenies? Apparently "Pops" was handing them out like skittles.
I'm not asking to judge or attack you--i'm asking myself the same thing.
A valid question, but as a pharmacist I hesitate to speculate about "greenies" because I don't know specifically what drug(s) may have been involved. If we knew with certainty then perhaps a rational discussion could take place, but otherwise I think it would be somewhat pointless given that we aren't certain whether "greenies" have or do not have potential for performance enhancement.
I thought they were even given out by trainers and sometimes dissolved in coffee. Thought main intent was to enable players to drink a lot and still play.
It's worth pointing out that there is a significant difference between recreational use of drugs like cocaine and the use of performance enhancing drugs by MLB players. Your suggestion otherwise is a classic case of false equivalency. A player who decides to screw up his life by illegally using cocaine (which is not a performance enhancing drug) isn't lessening any other player's chance to make a living by having an unfair on-the-field advantage. The PED using MLB player is usurping the livelihood of someone else.
But how about greenies? Apparently "Pops" was handing them out like skittles.
I'm not asking to judge or attack you--i'm asking myself the same thing.
A valid question, but as a pharmacist I hesitate to speculate about "greenies" because I don't know specifically what drug(s) may have been involved. If we knew with certainty then perhaps a rational discussion could take place, but otherwise I think it would be somewhat pointless given that we aren't certain whether "greenies" have or do not have potential for performance enhancement.
I thought they were even given out by trainers and sometimes dissolved in coffee. Thought main intent was to enable players to drink a lot and still play.