Something a bit disturbing

[Helms1]

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.

[smixsell]

Originally Posted by Helms1

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.

[Helms1]

Originally Posted by smixsell

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?

[TSJ55]

Originally Posted by Helms1

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?

[Helms1]

Originally Posted by TSJ55

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.

[TSJ55]

Originally Posted by Helms1

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?

[Redsrule5]

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....

[Helms1]

Originally Posted by TSJ55

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

[webbbj]

Originally Posted by Redsrule5

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.

[TSJ55]

Originally Posted by Helms1

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.

Originally Posted by Helms1

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?

[Helms1]

Originally Posted by TSJ55

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.

[Tuff Nut]

Originally Posted by smixsell

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?

[TSJ55]

Originally Posted by Helms1

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)

Originally Posted by Helms1

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".

Originally Posted by Helms1

I would say draw the line where the consensus says it should be drawn.

Who's consensus?

Originally Posted by Helms1

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.

[TSJ55]

Originally Posted by Tuff Nut

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.

[Helms1]

Originally Posted by TSJ55

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?)