Turn Off Ads?
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 49

Thread: Something a bit disturbing

  1. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    128

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    So why is Ivan Drago not starting in left field?

    The drugs that truly enhance performance are not really relevant because they are very easy to detect and long lasting in the tissue. You can look back to Bonds and Jose, and dream of Ivan batting cleanup, but that is not the state of PEDs right now.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #17
    Member smixsell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Jose
    Posts
    1,179

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by Helms1 View Post
    So why is Ivan Drago not starting in left field?

    The drugs that truly enhance performance are not really relevant because they are very easy to detect and long lasting in the tissue. You can look back to Bonds and Jose, and dream of Ivan batting cleanup, but that is not the state of PEDs right now.
    Right..........and Melky Cabrera really is a .350-.360 hitter, the PEDs just helped him fight age and injuries.

  4. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    128

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by smixsell View Post
    Right..........and Melky Cabrera really is a .350-.360 hitter, the PEDs just helped him fight age and injuries.
    Believe what you want. Melky got IDed. Wonder why?

  5. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    721

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by Helms1 View Post
    Believe what you want. Melky got IDed. Wonder why?
    So you're saying all the video game numbers put up while MLB was basically encouraging PEDs during the so call "steriod era" are always possible if only players could stay healthy?

  6. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    128

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by TSJ55 View Post
    So you're saying all the video game numbers put up while MLB was basically encouraging PEDs during the so call "steriod era" are always possible if only players could stay healthy?
    Think of it this way, the steroids of the 90s and 2000s have been replaced to a large extent due to testing. Those steroids led to significant performance enhancement due to multiple effects. IF you want to try them now you may be meeting frequently with Bud.

  7. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    721

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by Helms1 View Post
    Think of it this way, the steroids of the 90s and 2000s have been replaced to a large extent due to testing. Those steroids led to significant performance enhancement due to multiple effects. IF you want to try them now you may be meeting frequently with Bud.
    So you're saying the PEDs from 90s and 2000s actually did improve maximum performance but today's PEDs only help a player avoid injury and recover more quickly?

    I'm not agreeing/disagreeing. Just trying to get a handle on what your point is. Do you consider the Platelet Rich Plasma treatment a PED then? Should the PEDs that you claim players are using now be legal since they won't enhance maximum performance?

  8. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Sad,but I don't think that PEDs are only to blame.Roger Maris hit 61 homers in 1961,a record that stood for 37 years.Along comes 1998 when 3 guys all of a sudden are challenging this record.No one has come close since.I'm not much of a "conspiracy theorist", but I just have to think that MLB was involved in this.If it were only PEDs,this record would be challenged every other year.Just my opinion....
    ...And this one belongs to the Reds!

  9. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    128

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by TSJ55 View Post
    So you're saying the PEDs from 90s and 2000s actually did improve maximum performance but today's PEDs only help a player avoid injury and recover more quickly?

    I'm not agreeing/disagreeing. Just trying to get a handle on what your point is. Do you consider the Platelet Rich Plasma treatment a PED then? Should the PEDs that you claim players are using now be legal since they won't enhance maximum performance?
    Never claimed different. My statement was present tense, I did not clarify today vs the past. Not a writer I suppose. Performance Enhancing Drugs suggests just that, you are correct. I thought we were talking about PEDs that are actually in use? Sorry. Most being used do not appear to increase maximal muscle and physical performance much. If not tested and penalized Ivan Drago would be at every position. PRP is self transfusion of normal blood components. I would not call that a performance enhancing drug. I would call it a recovery enhancing treatment. No, I do not consider PRP to be a PED. Adderall, Viagra, Epogen, HgH, anabolic steroids, diuretics. Yeah, PEDS. Are they legal? Most are and apporved for use, just not as a PED. Depends on baseball I suppose. Now, I see a lot of men with low testerone that I treat. When you elevate the hormone level to the normal range you improve muscle (even Russell) to better function, in essence what it should be without the deficiency. Is that a PED? I think not if monitored and given by a professional. So as with all things, there is so much gray it's hard to say and the players will always push the envelope. I do not treat players btw. How about Toradol? Great NSAID, highly effective, allows you to play with pretty bad pain, but is only approved for 5 days? High risk drug but does not effect performance or mental state, just blocks pain. Allowable for say Johnny Cueto in the NCLS?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/sp...anted=all&_r=0
    Last edited by Helms1; 12-27-2012 at 09:00 PM.

  10. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    906

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by Redsrule5 View Post
    Sad,but I don't think that PEDs are only to blame.Roger Maris hit 61 homers in 1961,a record that stood for 37 years.Along comes 1998 when 3 guys all of a sudden are challenging this record.No one has come close since.I'm not much of a "conspiracy theorist", but I just have to think that MLB was involved in this.If it were only PEDs,this record would be challenged every other year.Just my opinion....
    Yeah they did. They knew it was going on. They didnt test for the stuff and now guys like Bonds, Clemens, Mcgwire, Sosa, etc unrightfully being left out of the HOF b/c baseball chose not to police its sport and allows sports writers to be decision makers on their HOF credentials.

  11. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    721

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by Helms1 View Post
    PRP is self transfusion of normal blood components. I would not call that a performance enhancing drug. I would call it a recovery enhancing treatment. No, I do not consider PRP to be a PED.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helms1 View Post
    PEDs do not improve maximum performance much. They do improve and enhance tissue recupertation from strain, fatigue and injury.
    Ok...so where is the difference above (bold added by me) and where do you draw the line?
    Last edited by TSJ55; 12-28-2012 at 07:19 AM.

  12. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    128

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by TSJ55 View Post
    Ok...so where is the difference above (bold added by me) and where do you draw the line?
    Hmmm. Is someone at MLB offering a consulting fee for definitions? Draw the line? I suppose above my pay scale, but the use of say Hgh for tissue regeneration seems to fall in the PED catergory and the auto transfusion of normal blood products say in the an injured knee for a key player seems to be more like a surgical procedure than a drug. I would say draw the line where the consensus says it should be drawn. I would not allow anabolic steroids or use of hormonal therapy if not indicated by a defined deficiency. I would not allow drugs that are not being used for approved conditions. I would not have a problem with the occasional use of Toradol if the medical team deemed it no risk for long term damage to mask the pain. So yes to PRP, yes to nsaids and steroidal joint/ligament injections when supervised, yes to standard surgical procedures, no to most other stuff.

  13. #27
    Member Tuff Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NW, Tn.
    Posts
    325

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by smixsell View Post
    Right..........and Melky Cabrera really is a .350-.360 hitter, the PEDs just helped him fight age and injuries.
    The PEDs didn't hit the ball.......if the below average, non hitting prospect took them, would he magically be able to hit the ball?

  14. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    721

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by Helms1 View Post
    Hmmm. Is someone at MLB offering a consulting fee for definitions? .
    Definitions are as subjective as anything else so you may be onto something provided your definition suits MLBs needs (read: bottom line)

    Quote Originally Posted by Helms1 View Post
    Draw the line? I suppose above my pay scale, but the use of say Hgh for tissue regeneration seems to fall in the PED catergory and the auto transfusion of normal blood products say in the an injured knee for a key player seems to be more like a surgical procedure than a drug.
    Thanks. This is what I was driving at. Mostly anyway. Your use of the word "normal" and "seems" is still pretty vague. Technically, HGH is natural. Some might even say "normal".

    Quote Originally Posted by Helms1 View Post
    I would say draw the line where the consensus says it should be drawn.
    Who's consensus?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helms1 View Post
    I would not allow anabolic steroids or use of hormonal therapy if not indicated by a defined deficiency. I would not allow drugs that are not being used for approved conditions. I would not have a problem with the occasional use of Toradol if the medical team deemed it no risk for long term damage to mask the pain. So yes to PRP, yes to nsaids and steroidal joint/ligament injections when supervised, yes to standard surgical procedures, no to most other stuff.
    Thanks for the clarification of your opinion and education on a few substances.

  15. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    721

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by Tuff Nut View Post
    The PEDs didn't hit the ball.......if the below average, non hitting prospect took them, would he magically be able to hit the ball?
    This is one of the weakest points commonly heard on the subject. All skill being equal, a player who is bigger, faster, stronger will turn what would have been a sawed off bloop to the SS to a dying quail over his head. What would have been a long out to get over the wall. What would have been a single into a double. In the field they get to balls they wouldn't have ordinarily gotten to and make throws they wouldn't have been able to ordinarily make.

  16. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    128

    Re: Something a bit disturbing

    Quote Originally Posted by TSJ55 View Post
    Definitions are as subjective as anything else so you may be onto something provided your definition suits MLBs needs (read: bottom line)


    Thanks. This is what I was driving at. Mostly anyway. Your use of the word "normal" and "seems" is still pretty vague. Technically, HGH is natural. Some might even say "normal".


    Who's consensus?



    Thanks for the clarification of your opinion and education on a few substances.
    Baseball's consensus, not mine. Anabolic steroids are natural also. Depends on whether they are being administered to replace a deficiency or dosed at what is usually increased levels to affect a PED effect. (did I do that right?)
    Last edited by Helms1; 12-28-2012 at 11:50 AM.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25