Question:

 

Is Creatine considered to be a PED?

If so, when did it become one?

Where's the line? Creatine? Anabolic Steroids? HGH?

 

I haven't really paid attention to it all.

 

Creatine is not. It is closer to protein shakes then steroids. Steroids manipulate hormones, especially testosterone.

Didn't Randy Johnson kill a bird with a pitched ball in spring training? Is it really politically correct to vote him in?

Creatine is not. It is closer to protein shakes then steroids. Steroids manipulate hormones, especially testosterone.

 

I publicly used Creatine for years, and I'm convinced that's why I'm not in the HOF. That and my lack of talent.

But Rose didn't enhance his performance with drugs, he just bet on games.

 

Are you sure he didn't dip into the bowl of amphetamines that was in most clubhouses in the 60s and 70s?

Are you sure he didn't dip into the bowl of amphetamines that was in most clubhouses in the 60s and 70s?

 

Are we sure none of the HOFs did either.

Are we sure none of the HOFs did either.

 

Exactly!!!

Are we sure none of the HOFs did either.

 

That's the whole point. The vast majority (I'd venture 75-80%) of the guys currently in the Hall did some sort of "PED" use during their careers. It's incredibly hypocritical of the voters to just now start caring.

That's the whole point. The vast majority (I'd venture 75-80%) of the guys currently in the Hall did some sort of "PED" use during their careers. It's incredibly hypocritical of the voters to just now start caring.

 

I think that the vast majority of people 45 and younger feel this way. Too bad voters are still in the minority. I want to see Bonds, Clemens, and McGwire in the Hall. Like it or not, the '98 season saved baseball and what they did deserves to be recognized just as positively as it is negatively.

I think that the vast majority of people 45 and younger feel this way. Too bad voters are still in the minority. I want to see Bonds, Clemens, and McGwire in the Hall. Like it or not, the '98 season saved baseball and what they did deserves to be recognized just as positively as it is negatively.

 

McGwire is an interesting case, because even with all his HRs, his career numbers were only borderline HOF worthy IMO. He couldn't play defense, he couldn't hit for average, all he did was hit it deep.

McGwire is an interesting case, because even with all his HRs, his career numbers were only borderline HOF worthy IMO. He couldn't play defense, he couldn't hit for average, all he did was hit it deep.

 

Very good points.

McGwire is an interesting case, because even with all his HRs, his career numbers were only borderline HOF worthy IMO. He couldn't play defense, he couldn't hit for average, all he did was hit it deep.

 

And winning a gold glove doesn't count as good defense. Votto ruined that argument for everyone. He just got lucky.

And winning a gold glove doesn't count as good defense. Votto ruined that argument for everyone. He just got lucky.

 

Did McGwire ever win one? If he did, it had to be the very beginning of his career, and had to be a fluke.

And winning a gold glove doesn't count as good defense. Votto ruined that argument for everyone. He just got lucky.

 

I agree w/ that, but the last three years of McGwire's career he could barely get to 1st in time to receive throws on ground outs. Let's not even talk about defending balls hit to him.

Did McGwire ever win one? If he did, it had to be the very beginning of his career, and had to be a fluke.

 

He won one in 1990.

Did McGwire ever win one? If he did, it had to be the very beginning of his career, and had to be a fluke.

 

Before he got quite so bulky McGwire wasn't a horrible first baseman. Don't forget he came up as a third baseman. He was originally pretty nimble around the bag. The year that he won the gold glove he had a .997 fielding percentage on 1429 total chances. As he got bigger his performance at first went down but early on he wasn't bad.