No issues with it at all.

 

That's sad.

 

There are rules/laws against taking certain drugs for a reason. The drugs are dangerous. The fact that steroids may temporarily and artificially boost the production of the players belies the integrity of the game and comes with serious risk. I’d prefer to know who the best athletes in the game really are and not simply who has access to the best drugs and doctors. I’d also prefer not to have my son, and the rest of the youth/highschool/college population, think it’s acceptable to put anything into their bodies they want for the sake of improving their play and takes precedence over hard work and talent. But that’s just me – I’m a “baseball purist.”

That's sad.

 

There are rules/laws against taking certain drugs for a reason. The drugs are dangerous. The fact that steroids may temporarily and artificially boost the production of the players belies the integrity of the game and comes with serious risk. I’d prefer to know who the best athletes in the game really are and not simply who has access to the best drugs and doctors. I’d also prefer not to have my son, and the rest of the youth/highschool/college population, think it’s acceptable to put anything into their bodies they want for the sake of improving their play and takes precedence over hard work and talent. But that’s just me – I’m a “baseball purist.”

 

:clap::clap::clap:

 

I've never known "baseball purist" to be an insult until this thread.

That's sad.

 

There are rules/laws against taking certain drugs for a reason. The drugs are dangerous. The fact that steroids may temporarily and artificially boost the production of the players belies the integrity of the game and comes with serious risk. I’d prefer to know who the best athletes in the game really are and not simply who has access to the best drugs and doctors. I’d also prefer not to have my son, and the rest of the youth/highschool/college population, think it’s acceptable to put anything into their bodies they want for the sake of improving their play and takes precedence over hard work and talent. But that’s just me – I’m a “baseball purist.”

I think it's sad that the vast majority of Americans think it's their right to legislate morality. But that's a whole other thread.

 

If you are against artificially boosting production than get rid of caffeine, many supplements that are legal (at least at the time of this typing), etc.

The rules and laws are in place because a vast majority of Americans prefer to legislate morality. I on the other hand was taught to mind my own business.

 

Are you equally offended that with laws governing rape, murder, arson, theft, etc?? I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of Americans support laws making such immoral acts illegal. We're getting quite a ways off the topic here, but I don't think you'd much enjoy living in a society in which everyone has open and easy access to narcotics/opiates/and other psychotic drugs. But to each his own, I guess . . . .

Are you equally offended that with laws governing rape, murder, arson, theft, etc?? I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of Americans support laws making such immoral acts illegal. We're getting quite a ways off the topic here, but I don't think you'd much enjoy living in a society in which everyone has open and easy access to narcotics/opiates/and other psychotic drugs. But to each his own, I guess . . . .

:rolleyes:

 

There is a huge difference between rape, murder, arson, theft than with taking drugs. If the difference isn't glaringly obvious than there is no reason to continue this conversation.

Prove it.

 

i think it should be common knowledge. if you take a pro athlete at the top of his game let him hit 100 balls clean and 100 balls on the juice then just compare the numbers. i bet anything thing that the homerun numbers would almost double. if this isnt the case then why would anyone take them to begin with? i played division II baseball and seen players using and players not using and trust me there is a difference.

:rolleyes:

 

There is a huge difference between rape, murder, arson, theft than with taking drugs. If the difference isn't glaringly obvious than there is no reason to continue this conversation.

 

Well considering that the overwhleming percentage of those crimes are committed by persons on drugs, to get money to support their drug habit, or in a drug-related deal, I think they are very much connected. And the very reason why these drugs are controlled and/or illegal. You've advocated de-criminalizing drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and LSD - go ahead and make your best case for why this should be done and if doing so just might have some negative consequences attached to it.

i think it should be common knowledge. if you take a pro athlete at the top of his game let him hit 100 balls clean and 100 balls on the juice then just compare the numbers. i bet anything thing that the homerun numbers would almost double. if this isnt the case then why would anyone take them to begin with? i played division II baseball and seen players using and players not using and trust me there is a difference.

Correct me if I am wrong but 2005 was the year baseball really started testing. If what you say is true then you should see this in Manny and Ortiz's numbers (will use these two since we know in 2003 they were using).

 

Ortiz

2003 - 31 HR

2004 - 47 HR

2005 - 40 HR

2006 - 35 HR

2007 - 52 HR

2008 - 30 HR

 

Manny

2003 - 37 HR

2004 - 43 HR

2005 - 45 HR

2006 - 35 HR

2007 - 20 HR

2008 - 37 HR

 

So other then Manny being down (goes against the winning the WS juiced arguement) in 2007 and Ortiz being up (which goes against your argument) the numbers have been pretty consistent.

Well considering that the overwhleming percentage of those crimes are committed by persons on drugs, to get money to support their drug habit, or in a drug-related deal, I think they are very much connected. And the very reason why these drugs are controlled and/or illegal. You've advocated de-criminalizing drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and LSD - go ahead and make your best case for why this should be done and if doing so just might have some negative consequences attached to it.

I'd love to see the stats that show an overwhelming majority. Also, if drugs were legal they would be easy to get and you wouldn't have the violence that comes with trafficking them. I see no negative consequences.

 

But, I don't see this discussion really going much further.

Fine, delete LSD and even heroin, for that matter. I assure you cocaine could improve the performance of some players. I've seen some very, very high-functioning cocaine users.

I believe it has been proven that cocaine does not improve performance. Just ask Gooden and Strawberry.

Correct me if I am wrong but 2005 was the year baseball really started testing. If what you say is true then you should see this in Manny and Ortiz's numbers (will use these two since we know in 2003 they were using).

 

Baseball started testing back in 2003 (that's when they caught the 104 players that are named in the Mitchell report). Steroid use started to tail off amongst many around this time (for example, that's around when A-Rod stopped) as players became worried that a new, full-scale testing program would be put into place by MLB.

I believe it has been proven that cocaine does not improve performance. Just ask Gooden and Strawberry.

 

Actually, both had very productive seasons during periods that they have admitted they were using cocaine. Eventually, the continued cocaine usage - and increasing ages - took a serious toll on them and their productivty greatly declined. You are mistaken if you think you cannot be very high-functioning, and even improve your functioning, while on cocaine - for a while. Eventually the drug takes a toll on the body.