ryan braun is a good example of someone coming back to earth after all the juice was out of his system.

sammy sosa is not only skinny but he is now white.
a few years off the juice and mark mcquire turned into tim mccarver.

Posted by dino27 on 1/23/2019 6:10:00 PM (view original):
one helps you reach your everyday normal potential.
one enhances beyond normal potential.
there is a major difference there.
greenies dont bulk you up..they wake you up.

To me this argument is utterly irrelevant unless you can counter the argument that Bonds and Clemens were already on a HOF pace before they started using.

As a moralistic argument this is nonsense. When Bonds and Clemens were playing MLB didn't have rules against using HGH or anabolic steroids. The argument is that they obviously should not have done this because using these substances without a prescription was illegal under US law. Players broke the law because they believed these substances would improve their performance on the field. Well guess what? Greenies were also illegal. Players used them because they believed that they would improve their performance on the field. There is no moral bright line separating one from the other. And it's reasonable to assume that many/most of the players who used the illegal drugs available during the 60s and 70s would likely have used the illegal drugs available in the 90s if that's when they happened to play. Why would they not? If you're willing to utilize one illegal substance to improve your performance why would you say no to another? All of these guys were prioritizing improving their on-field performance over following the law.

So it has to be a performance-oriented argument. And this only works if you believe the player in question would NOT have been a HOF without using the substances; IE steroids and not natural talent were what made them great. I think this argument works for guys like Sosa and McGwire who were basically not much but power. But Bonds had the best batting eye of his generation. He was a .298 career hitter. And he stole over 500 bags. Steroids didn't give him that eye or that sweet swing, and had very little to do with his baserunning prowess. As has already been argued here, he was already playing at an easy HOF pace before he started using in the late '90s. Same goes for Clemens. Statistically, Clemens has a strong argument as the best pitcher in the history of baseball. If you want to argue that without steroids he would have petered out from the late '90s, I buy that. You can hold him out of the greatest of all time argument. But through the end of 1998, while he was generally considered to be clean, he had more wins, more Ks, more innings, and a much better career ERA than Roy Halladay, who just went in on his first ballot. A 151 ERA+ to Halladay's 131 ERA+. If Halladay belongs - and I don't think he does - Clemens was already a shoe-in. Before steroids.

So there's no moralistic argument to separate them from Mays and Aaron. And there's no performance argument to separate them from 70% of the HOF. So how can you keep them out?

i disagree.....baseball did not have to ban illegally used drugs.
everyone knew the drugs were used for unfair advantage
till you are blue in the face greenies and hgh/steroids are apples and oranges and the culture was completely different.
finally i dont care about b.c. before cheating...when you cheat the game for many many seasons you can disqualify yourself.

Everyone knew greenies were being used for advantage. And were illegal. Where is the bright line in your mind that differentiates one from the other?

I want someone, ever, to explain to me rationally how one thing is "cheating the game" and the other isn't. That's a moral/ethical judgement. There is no moral/ethical difference. Each generation used what was believed to be the most effective illegal substance available to improve their performance.

If you have 2 college kids who take adderall before a test and one turns out to be a sugar pill, and the administration finds out, do they let the guy with the sugar pill off and expel the guy who had real adderall? Or do we treat people with the same intent in the same way? It's not Mays' fault that the drugs to which he had access weren't as effective as the drugs to which his godson had access.

Frankly, for most of the people making this argument it comes down to the fact that the greenies generation were their childhood heroes and the steroid generation broke their heroes' records. So their heroes are still their heroes, and the guys who dethroned them are the bad guys. But the harsh reality is that nobody has ever demonstrated an ethical bright line to differentiate one form of substance abuse from the other.

false equivlency....yeah greenieswere bad.....sometimes they took them...different kind of drug....im not going to repeat the differences ad neasem...greenies did not make them better players...they could have drank more coffee instead....greenies did not create physical attributes..or add to god given talent.
false equivlancy and never really came up until the apologists for the steroid cheaters.
btw..you are very snarky.

God I wish antonsirius and sdeadalus were here.......

Sure Sosa hit 600 homers. But he still wasn’t much special. Career 128 OPS+ from a roiding Corner Outfielder. There’s better players to put in the Hall

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/23/2019 11:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 1/23/2019 6:10:00 PM (view original):
one helps you reach your everyday normal potential.
one enhances beyond normal potential.
there is a major difference there.
greenies dont bulk you up..they wake you up.

To me this argument is utterly irrelevant unless you can counter the argument that Bonds and Clemens were already on a HOF pace before they started using.

As a moralistic argument this is nonsense. When Bonds and Clemens were playing MLB didn't have rules against using HGH or anabolic steroids. The argument is that they obviously should not have done this because using these substances without a prescription was illegal under US law. Players broke the law because they believed these substances would improve their performance on the field. Well guess what? Greenies were also illegal. Players used them because they believed that they would improve their performance on the field. There is no moral bright line separating one from the other. And it's reasonable to assume that many/most of the players who used the illegal drugs available during the 60s and 70s would likely have used the illegal drugs available in the 90s if that's when they happened to play. Why would they not? If you're willing to utilize one illegal substance to improve your performance why would you say no to another? All of these guys were prioritizing improving their on-field performance over following the law.

So it has to be a performance-oriented argument. And this only works if you believe the player in question would NOT have been a HOF without using the substances; IE steroids and not natural talent were what made them great. I think this argument works for guys like Sosa and McGwire who were basically not much but power. But Bonds had the best batting eye of his generation. He was a .298 career hitter. And he stole over 500 bags. Steroids didn't give him that eye or that sweet swing, and had very little to do with his baserunning prowess. As has already been argued here, he was already playing at an easy HOF pace before he started using in the late '90s. Same goes for Clemens. Statistically, Clemens has a strong argument as the best pitcher in the history of baseball. If you want to argue that without steroids he would have petered out from the late '90s, I buy that. You can hold him out of the greatest of all time argument. But through the end of 1998, while he was generally considered to be clean, he had more wins, more Ks, more innings, and a much better career ERA than Roy Halladay, who just went in on his first ballot. A 151 ERA+ to Halladay's 131 ERA+. If Halladay belongs - and I don't think he does - Clemens was already a shoe-in. Before steroids.

So there's no moralistic argument to separate them from Mays and Aaron. And there's no performance argument to separate them from 70% of the HOF. So how can you keep them out?

Yes they did. In every CBA since the dawn of time, anything scheduled illegal by the federal government was disallowed by the MLB CBA.


Greenies were made illegal in 1971.

HGH is not scheduled. Most of the anabolic steroids were not scheduled until 2004.

They're still generally illegal without a prescription, like all other prescription medications. But players have argued that the lack of Federal scheduling got around the wording in the CBA at the time. I'm not saying that justifies their use. There were always explicit or implied ethics clauses in players' contracts and/or CBAs that made it clear players were to obey the laws of the land.

Anabolic steroid act of 1990 pretty much covered it all. I thought it was 1996, it was 1991

HGH is regulated through The FDA.

I can't speak to Steroids. Never saw or used them.

But, I'll admit one of the finest defensive games I ever played at SS was while "on" a "Black Beauty".
Not sure how that compares to a "greenie" but I think they are both pharmacological grade "speed" or amphetamines.

To address Dino's position. I will admit it probably didn't make me "better" than my own ability. BUT, (what it did) it heightened my senses somehow.

I had a quicker jump/1st step. I was (it seemed) anticipatory------ I could seemingly jump ahead of the event. Line drives that MAY have got by me, I was able to backhand. Grounders to the whole that would normally have been a clear base hit I was able to get to, backhand and gun the runner down at 1st.
I don't believe I would have made those plays without the "aid" of that drug.

Now, I only played in this condition one time, one day, one tournament. And I had not expected to play that day so had gone out partying nearly all night long, which is why I took the pill in the 1st place.
All I can say to my story is that for one day I was the best defensive SS I had ever been. Quicker. By Far.
Folks were noticing my play. Heads were nodding, etc. I had always been decent but NEVER had folks treated me like they did that day.
I stood out on the field that day like I had never done before.
Was voted to the all tournament team at SS, without having a super tournament at the plate.
I was still a weak armed SS, but that day it really didn't matter. I could play in tight. Cut off angles, etc. Didn't have to play as deep as my 1st step was so quick. Thus my arm was less of a weak spot.
Was a fun day, nearly 40 years ago now.
IF I could still see the ball I'd still be playing..............lol

Posted by laramiebob on 1/24/2019 11:01:00 AM (view original):
I can't speak to Steroids. Never saw or used them.

But, I'll admit one of the finest defensive games I ever played at SS was while "on" a "Black Beauty".
Not sure how that compares to a "greenie" but I think they are both pharmacological grade "speed" or amphetamines.

To address Dino's position. I will admit it probably didn't make me "better" than my own ability. BUT, (what it did) it heightened my senses somehow.

I had a quicker jump/1st step. I was (it seemed) anticipatory------ I could seemingly jump ahead of the event. Line drives that MAY have got by me, I was able to backhand. Grounders to the whole that would normally have been a clear base hit I was able to get to, backhand and gun the runner down at 1st.
I don't believe I would have made those plays without the "aid" of that drug.

Now, I only played in this condition one time, one day, one tournament. And I had not expected to play that day so had gone out partying nearly all night long, which is why I took the pill in the 1st place.
All I can say to my story is that for one day I was the best defensive SS I had ever been. Quicker. By Far.
Folks were noticing my play. Heads were nodding, etc. I had always been decent but NEVER had folks treated me like they did that day.
I stood out on the field that day like I had never done before.
Was voted to the all tournament team at SS, without having a super tournament at the plate.
I was still a weak armed SS, but that day it really didn't matter. I could play in tight. Cut off angles, etc. Didn't have to play as deep as my 1st step was so quick. Thus my arm was less of a weak spot.
Was a fun day, nearly 40 years ago now.
IF I could still see the ball I'd still be playing..............lol

Yup I also popped em before games later in life, black beauties as well. I felt like superman out there

i used to take greenies on occasion in my wiffle ball days.....once one of my friends hit a screaming line drive striking the excessivly cushioned rear end of our neighbor when she had the temerity to come out of her house.
you can get the same from that jolt stuff today.
players who took greenies only took them on occasion...not every game.
mike schmidt said in his day if greenies were banned the players would adapt by drinking a couple of cups of coffee.
greenies were far more widespread and the playing field was much more even.