Why does everyone only focus on recent 'Roid use???

[Purple Haze]

Steroids have been used by USA athletes since before the 1950's...

So why is it only the recent records are questionable?...when more players; for many years, used before they new the negative effects of the drug...

And why only focus on the offensive increase in numbers, when pitchers would benefit from the use of a steroid more than a hitter would (imho)... You can get stronger, and it really not help you in baseball if you can't hit the ball to begin with ('Roids don't help with hand eye cordination).. Yet..it would add MPH to your velocity, and pitchers who were only average before now are dominating... (Hmmmm...late 60's )

The point is this... No one can go back and determine who was on 'roids (or ANY drugs for that matter) or what records, or career years were boosted by the help of a drug (Maris '61 )... It's unfair to only focus on certain players, or certain periods of history... If you want to ruin, and make light of an entire career, than you must be equal about it... We know for a FACT players have been using steroids for more than 50 years in USA sports... so if your gonna focus on FACTS... make sure you give equal speculation of taking advantage of science

My 2 cents worth

[bselig]

probably because roiding before didnt have as many egregious individual cases...mcgwire with his grotesquely swollen torso, caminiti with blood vessels popping out of ever inch of his body, brady anderson with his skin stretched taught over his abnormally large musculature...these were tremendous physical manifestations of the drug - it led to the mass which led to the strength - now i dont' know if there were earlier cases of guys getting laughably huge like that, but that's why people focus on it now - no one cares that steroids was around since 1951 because that isn't relevant if players weren't turning into tumorous mutants like they are now - the issue is players getting humorously jacked on steroids and the jackedness affecting their games (ie caminiti's mvp year, brady anderson's fifty homers, mcwire's career) not just the fact that steroids happened to exist and happened to have access to them and happened to try them

[Purple Haze]

probably because roiding before didnt have as many egregious individual cases...mcgwire with his grotesquely swollen torso, caminiti with blood vessels popping out of ever inch of his body, brady anderson with his skin stretched taught over his abnormally large musculature...these were tremendous physical manifestations of the drug - it led to the mass which led to the strength - now i dont' know if there were earlier cases of guys getting laughably huge like that, but that's why people focus on it now - no one cares that steroids was around since 1951 because that isn't relevant if players weren't turning into tumorous mutants like they are now - the issue is players getting humorously jacked on steroids and the jackedness affecting their games (ie caminiti's mvp year, brady anderson's fifty homers, mcwire's career) not just the fact that steroids happened to exist and happened to have access to them and happened to try them

That is awfully hypocritical... It's ok to do the drug, as long as you don't get huge from it??? (That is what you claim in your post)

You are the type of individual that made me post this to begin with...
Thank You

How can you only hold individuals who physically show signs accountable, and not ALL users???

It's always nice to create your own set of rules, and parameter's...

[bselig]

wow are you retarded? i'll rephrase some what i typed: roids -> getting ginormously huge -> increased performance

ok? that's how i'm assuming steroids work, maybe i'm wrong. if i'm wrong then and in the 50's they used to work like this:
roids -> no hugeness, no increase in muscle mass, no physical evidence of strength gains -> increased performance

two things (at least) would be nec. for the availability of steroids earlier to be in any way meaningful in regards to performance based criticism of the drugs' effects, which is what you were talking about initially:
-1) evidence players actually used them
-2) evidence player use had a positive effect on player performance


show those two things and the stuff you're saying has a shot at making sense...don't show those things and it's just idiotic rambling. i am taking the absence of #1 as a given since no evidence of use has been presented, and with the absence of #1 the absence of #2 naturally follows. that is all

now if in your second post you are saying that it is equally wrong to take roids (in the drug sense of roids, not in the anti-competitive sense of roids) if you don't manifest any of the effects of roids, then sure, i agree. but obviously that has nothing to do with the performance based unfairness issues of roids and was completely irrelevant and pointless to mention

[CubsFan7724]

How about because those guys weren't about to break the holiest record in sports, the career home runs record. Theres your reason why BASEBALL fans care now.

[Purple Haze]

wow are you retarded? i'll rephrase some what i typed: roids -> getting ginormously huge -> increased performance

ok? that's how i'm assuming steroids work, maybe i'm wrong. if i'm wrong then and in the 50's they used to work like this:
roids -> no hugeness, no increase in muscle mass, no physical evidence of strength gains -> increased performance

two things (at least) would be nec. for the availability of steroids earlier to be in any way meaningful in regards to performance based criticism of the drugs' effects, which is what you were talking about initially:
-1) evidence players actually used them
-2) evidence player use had a positive effect on player performance


show those two things and the stuff you're saying has a shot at making sense...don't show those things and it's just idiotic rambling. i am taking the absence of #1 as a given since no evidence of use has been presented, and with the absence of #1 the absence of #2 naturally follows. that is all

now if in your second post you are saying that it is equally wrong to take roids (in the drug sense of roids, not in the anti-competitive sense of roids) if you don't manifest any of the effects of roids, then sure, i agree. but obviously that has nothing to do with the performance based unfairness issues of roids and was completely irrelevant and pointless to mention

Bottom line is this..You claim that "SIZE" is the key factor in making you a better player when utilizing 'roids... If this was true, than Canseco would still be playing today... My arguement is that you must hold ALL generations resposible for the use of enhancing drugs, or none of them...Just believe in equality..Silly me
(And if players were using and getting away with it, how can other's be held responsible for making the playing ground equal, unless you hold ALL of them responsible including the Non- SuperStar player...)

You can act ignorant to the fact that 'roids have been used in the USA for over 50 years... (and many athletes over that time have gained from the use) The drug itself has changed over the years, and is now much more potent, but it doesn't take away the fact that it's been used for many, many , many years in our sports society...

[Purple Haze]

How about because those guys weren't about to break the holiest record in sports, the career home runs record. Theres your reason why BASEBALL fans care now.

How do you know the records weren't set while on some type of enhancement drug?


You can't and that is my point..Regardless if you agree with it, or not.. We don't know, who or when the drugs were being used, since we know for a fact they have been used for more than 50 years in our sports society....

[CubsFan7724]

How about because those guys weren't about to break the holiest record in sports, the career home runs record. Theres your reason why BASEBALL fans care now.

How do you know the records weren't set while on some type of enhancement drug?


You can't and that is my point..Regardless if you agree with it, or not.. We don't know, who or when the drugs were being used, since we know for a fact they have been used for more than 50 years in our sports society....

Easy, theres far more evidence that Bonds took steroids than Aaron took horse testosterone.

[Purple Haze]

How about because those guys weren't about to break the holiest record in sports, the career home runs record. Theres your reason why BASEBALL fans care now.

How do you know the records weren't set while on some type of enhancement drug?


You can't and that is my point..Regardless if you agree with it, or not.. We don't know, who or when the drugs were being used, since we know for a fact they have been used for more than 50 years in our sports society....

Easy, theres far more evidence that Bonds took steroids than Aaron took horse testosterone.

Still doesn't prove that the record wasn't set under the influence of an enhancement..and that is my point

[CubsFan7724]

How about because those guys weren't about to break the holiest record in sports, the career home runs record. Theres your reason why BASEBALL fans care now.

How do you know the records weren't set while on some type of enhancement drug?


You can't and that is my point..Regardless if you agree with it, or not.. We don't know, who or when the drugs were being used, since we know for a fact they have been used for more than 50 years in our sports society....

Easy, theres far more evidence that Bonds took steroids than Aaron took horse testosterone.

Still doesn't prove that the record wasn't set under the influence of an enhancement..and that is my point

This is ridiculous. It may have, but you cant prove that it was either. And the burden of proof is on you. Case closed. You can make a legit case Bonds took steroids. You can't do that with Aaron.