Posted by sjpoker on 7/24/2016 7:39:00 AM (view original):
Sorry BL, I'm not going to respond. If you want to initiate a controversial discussion you'll have to start it yourself.

I can't believe you guys went down the rabbit hole. Thats exactly what BL wanted.

I can't believe you came back.

Posted by sjpoker on 7/26/2016 6:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 7/24/2016 7:39:00 AM (view original):
Sorry BL, I'm not going to respond. If you want to initiate a controversial discussion you'll have to start it yourself.

I can't believe you guys went down the rabbit hole. Thats exactly what BL wanted.

I had an hour to kill.

Posted by Jtpsops on 7/26/2016 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/26/2016 3:59:00 PM (view original):
So we shouldn't hold any PED users accountable pre-2003? Because that's when testing began.

And if your answer is yes, cool. Let's take McGwire off the PED user list.

McGwire should get a pass. That's why voters are stupid. As Mike has said, anyone who used PEDs prior to their being testing for them wasn't really guilty of anything. I don't see how people can say "That guy did something that wasn't against the rules of baseball at the time...BUT IT WAS WRONG! HE STILL CHEATED!"

If you do something that's not against the rules, it's not cheating. Whether a guy used PEDs and whether he broke the rules are two different things. When voters cry "He used PEDs!" they're implication is that player cheated, but if they used before testing/official rules were in place, then the player did nothing wrong.

What really gets me - and Mike and I have both pointed this out before - is that the older generations who denounce the steroid users and glorify the amphetamine crowd are the same generations who in the rest of their lives are huge proponents of the value of "hard work." The "work smart not hard" concept has been embraced by lots of younger people, but Baby Boomers and older are all about hard work. It was preached during the WW2-Vietnam era that if everybody worked hard things would go well and everybody would be able to feed their families and America would be great. And most people from that era still adhere to that value set quite strongly. But steroids are the "work hard" drug. Steroids just give you the ability to work out longer and harder and make yourself stronger by improving recovery. On the other hand, amphetamines are the "work smart" drug. The guys in the '60s would go out, party hard, stay up late, and then rely on the uppers to be able to focus and concentrate during the game. Not only that, amphetamines make you "stronger" merely by having them in your system by allowing your muscles to exert themselves more severely. How is it that the guys who want everybody to work hard and earn everything, the very same crowd who love to preach about how entitled "the young people" are, have no problem with a guy like Mantle who drank too much, slept too little, and relied on daily illegal drug use to keep his head in the game but have nearly endless hate for a guy like Bonds who had, by all accounts, a monster work ethic and put in borderline ridiculous gym time to be the best hitter in the game after his 40th birthday? It doesn't make any sense.

I am the older generation. I just don't think a lot of people understand how steroids work. I've explained it multiple times but it doesn't stick. Anyway, 'roids aid recovery not growth. The growth comes because you work harder. And you're able to do that because the 'roids speed recovery.

Now, if you really want to bust balls, it's the pitchers. They work out but you don't see pitchers looking like Bonds/McGwire. Because having a huge upper body affects throwing. But, using the unconvicted Clemens as an example, getting jacked legs does help pitching. And you get the residual effect of recovery on the arm damage from pitching. If I have to explain how the arm is damaged from pitching, I can't help you.

So, yeah, if you've ever downed a Red Bull because you needed a kick start, you've taken a PED shortcut. Get off Bonds' balls.

Steroids definitely aid muscle growth. I'll have to find it, but there's a published study that showed muscle growth absent weight training.

Here's where you can find the study: http://strengtheory.com/the-science-of-steroids/

"Yes, you’re reading that chart correctly. The group that took a placebo and worked out only gained slightly more strength than the group that took testosterone and sat on the couch for 10 weeks. The group that took testosterone without exercise gained just as much, if not more, muscle mass than the people taking a placebo and actually working out."

...

"So for people who say, “oh, steroids don’t make you bigger and stronger. They just let you work harder,” I’m sad to inform you that such a statement is patently false. They may help with recovery and let you work harder, but I guarantee you that you could stick with the exact training routine you have now, start taking steroids, and gain more size and strength from it – no extra work required. And an untrained person might (would probably) gain more muscle from just taking steroids than they would if they actually worked out."

Posted by bad_luck on 7/26/2016 4:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 7/26/2016 4:05:00 PM (view original):
On the bright side, my little lineup seems to have sparked a NEW BL/MikeT/Tec circle jerk...

now way, tec bowed out and mike is about to.

I just got home from golf. I see you've been stepping on your dick for the past 5 1/2 hours or so. Shocking.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/26/2016 8:31:00 PM (view original):
Steroids definitely aid muscle growth. I'll have to find it, but there's a published study that showed muscle growth absent weight training.

Do amphetamines aid muscle growth?

You know the drill. BL says something dumb. Given a few minutes, he doubles down on his dumbassery.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/26/2016 9:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/26/2016 8:31:00 PM (view original):
Steroids definitely aid muscle growth. I'll have to find it, but there's a published study that showed muscle growth absent weight training.

Do amphetamines aid muscle growth?

Nope

Posted by tecwrg on 7/26/2016 9:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/26/2016 8:31:00 PM (view original):
Steroids definitely aid muscle growth. I'll have to find it, but there's a published study that showed muscle growth absent weight training.

Do amphetamines aid muscle growth?

Steroids aid muscle recovery. I imagine, if one was testosterone deficient, that adding a steady diet of 'roids MIGHT increase natural growth without weight training but one study isn't convincing anyone of that. Probably because full grown men, like athletes, don't take 'roids then sit on their *** eating cream puffs. They lift weights because taking 'roids and not lifting is like drinking non-alcoholic beer. It's pointless.

Although none of that has anything to do with tec's dumbassery.

Do 'roids make you mentally brighter? More energetic?

tec is the older generation duhs was speaking of.

He's gonna tell us how he walked uphill in the snow and was glad to do it pretty soon. Then he'll yell "Git off my lawn, you kids!!!" before tending to his 17 cats.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/26/2016 9:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/26/2016 9:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/26/2016 8:31:00 PM (view original):
Steroids definitely aid muscle growth. I'll have to find it, but there's a published study that showed muscle growth absent weight training.

Do amphetamines aid muscle growth?

Nope

So amphetamines and steroids are not the same?

Interesting.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/26/2016 9:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/26/2016 9:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/26/2016 9:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/26/2016 8:31:00 PM (view original):
Steroids definitely aid muscle growth. I'll have to find it, but there's a published study that showed muscle growth absent weight training.

Do amphetamines aid muscle growth?

Nope

So amphetamines and steroids are not the same?

Interesting.

Is that interesting?