A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

[CMH]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

You're asking good questions but I wouldn't be surprised if the truth is in the middle somewhere. Boone may have been going on and off of them, Anderson may have gone on them for a season and then decided it wasn't worth it the next season. Nobody is arguing these are magic pills that can turn anyone into a hall of famer, but given the statistical outliers, the motivation, the culture of the league, the ease of obtaining the drugs... then factor in obvious strength gains with some of these players and the dots start connecting.

Of course this doesn't prove anything because you can't prove something like this without more direct evidence, but in some of these cases you can make a case that is very compelling. The shame of it is having a "career year" is almost a crime at this point because of steroids.

But yes, I would bet anything that Boone, Bonds, Clemens, McGuire, Sosa, etc used steroids and had significantly better seasons because of it.

And I'm definitely going to acknowledge that I can sit here and say, "No test proves steroids enhance performance," and know that there will never be a test to prove it. I'm basically "right" no matter what I say because no player is going to say, "I'm going to take steroids this year and have doctors examine my health and statisticians examine my production." So, I'm sitting pretty just talking.

The point is that while you can hand pick players that you think used steroids and say, "Well, he obviously did it this year because look at that stat, it's not normal," and ignore the many players that have taken steroids and not seen an increase in performance.

So, did Clemens, Bonds, Giambi just get lucky? Did they take a super steroid that other players weren't taking? Or were they just always this good and were bound to have statistically abnormal years? I mean, when you look at the numbers, it's really only Bonds who had one extremely abnormal statistical year. It could just be an anomaly. Or it could be something more.

What I know is that the rules of logic suggest that steroids do not enhance performance.

If all players take steroids and not all players see an increase in performance, then steroids doesn't increase performance. Right?

[CMH]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

I can't believe people still try to say steroids don't help your game. It's a proven fact at this point that they do. They turn people into power MACHINES, when they never were. Barry Bonds is NOT a guy who can hit 50-70 HR's in a season. Period. He never was.

Please provide your facts because I have not seen them anywhere in any book or any source.

Also, Bonds hit 50 homeruns once in his career. I'd bet you say he used steroids more than just 2001. So can you explain why he didn't hit 50 homeruns again after or before 2001 if steroids made him a power MACHINE?

[CMH]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

I think the most telling aspect of Arod's performance in his steroid years of 01 and 02 (he claimed to stop during spring training of 03) is games played. He was playing in the unforgicing heat of Texas but managed to play a full 162 games those years, after only having one year in Seattle over 148 (161 in 1998). For Arod, the recovery aspect of steroids seemed to be the greatest benefit for him. He did play in 161 in 2003 and 162 in 2005.

This seems to be more likely. Steroids have been proven to provide quick relief from physical stress. And we already know that's why a guy can workout more when taking steroids.

So, it's feasible that steroids aided Alex Rodriguez into playing at a consistent high level of performance for 162 games in a season.

This is where I think we're getting closer to understanding what steroids might do for a player. If that player isn't as tired as the rest of the league in August, then that player is definitely performing at a higher level than everyone else. If steroids aid that relief then that player is getting a boost in performance because he has less holding him back from performing at his best.

I still disagree that steroids make someone a good player and there really aren't a lot of stats to prove otherwise.

Let's put it this way, people can't have their cake and eat it too. Lots of people want to argue that Alex did steroids for longer than 2001-2003. If you want to argue that, then you can't say that steroids makes you a power machine because the other years don't correlate to those three seasons. It's also possible, if you don't believe Alex, that he got lucky and handpicked those years because he knew people would believe it. "How could they argue otherwise when the stats clearly show I had three amazing years. I'll point my finger at those years, blame it on the contract and Texas heat, and walk away free." I'm not saying that's what happened here, but we don't have real proof that Alex only did steroids from 2001-2003. So, we're going on a comment, and trying to relate a comment as a fact is definitely a poor decision.

Continuing on with Barry Bonds. I already used the Hank Aaron stat to show that it's possible for a guy (a homerun hitter at that) to hit 40 homeruns at the age of 40. Bonds had three 40+ homerun seasons prior to 2001. He also came close quite a few other times with high 30's. Then in 2001 he had an outlier, and dropped back to Bonds like production with 40+ homerun seasons.

I bring this up because the regular argument is that Bonds suddenly got better in his late 30's. I'd argue that he pretty much performed just the same with the exception of 2001.

Even Babe Ruth had Bonds' like years in his late 30's. Ruth was averaging over 40+ homeruns a year from the ages of 35-38. Why is Ruth different than Bonds? Why are people ignoring that this has happened before and that it's not some ridiculous notion that a guy at 35 can hit 40+ homeruns? All of the top homerun hitters have done it.


I'll leave it at this. We can argue back and forth what steroids does for a player. I'm only presenting a devil's advocate argument that it is very possible that steroids did not aid in anyone's performance. That Bonds's tail end of his career are similar to an Aaron and Ruth. It's been done before. Do not ignore true statistical facts by clouding it with opinions that have only become facts as a result of lack of information.

[Misfit]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

Please provide your facts because I have not seen them anywhere in any book or any source.

Also, Bonds hit 50 homeruns once in his career. I'd bet you say he used steroids more than just 2001. So can you explain why he didn't hit 50 homeruns again after or before 2001 if steroids made him a power MACHINE?

Bonds never came close to 70+ homeruns again because no one pitched to him after 2001. In 2001 he had 476 official at-bats to go along with 177 walks. His highest at-bat total after that 2001 season was 403 in 2002. 2001 was his peak as he averaged a homerun once every 6.5 at-bats, but after that he averaged one every 8.6 at-bats until his decline in 2006. In 2000 he averaged one every 9.8, in '99 one every 10.6, and in 98 and most of his career it was over one every 15 or so.

I agree that steroids don't make a bad player good, but in the case of Bonds they made a great player into a videogame. I think part of that is due to the quality of PED's he was purchasing, and also because of his drive and ego. Without steroids, I don't think he would have been able to produce well enough and long enough to eclipse Aaron. I think its also fair to say steroids affect people differently. Just like some people can take one Advil and see their headache go away, others need 3. Some guys who do roids might see a big increase in what they are capable of while others may not notice much of a difference.

Guys can still produce late in their careers. Aaron was a hell of a player and his quick wrists allowed him to still hit for power into the twilight of his career. Bonds didn't just have one career year though, he had several as he got older and it just doesn't smell right. He certainly looks worse since his numbers dropped off considerably once MLB started testing. I say the burden of proof is on him.

[keRplunK]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

I still disagree that steroids make someone a good player and there really aren't a lot of stats to prove otherwise.

Continuing on with Barry Bonds. I already used the Hank Aaron stat to show that it's possible for a guy (a homerun hitter at that) to hit 40 homeruns at the age of 40. Bonds had three 40+ homerun seasons prior to 2001. He also came close quite a few other times with high 30's. Then in 2001 he had an outlier, and dropped back to Bonds like production with 40+ homerun seasons.

I bring this up because the regular argument is that Bonds suddenly got better in his late 30's. I'd argue that he pretty much performed just the same with the exception of 2001.

Even Babe Ruth had Bonds' like years in his late 30's. Ruth was averaging over 40+ homeruns a year from the ages of 35-38. Why is Ruth different than Bonds? Why are people ignoring that this has happened before and that it's not some ridiculous notion that a guy at 35 can hit 40+ homeruns? All of the top homerun hitters have done it.

Two things:

1) No one is arguing that steroids MAKE you a good player, it just can help the talented play even better. That's a straw man you are arguing against.

2) When it comes to Bonds I think you need to look at the stats closer. Essentially the seem to tell the story of the one of the best hitters in the game becoming the best hitter of all time at the end of his career. He never slugged over .700 before 01' and then suddenly: .863, .799, .749, .812. He only hit 50 once because other teams walked him so often. If you think his production earlier in his career is comparable to those seasons I'd argue you don't comprehend how good those seasons are.

And yes, when you stop taking steroids you can lose your strength very quickly in comparison to non-steroid strength loss.

[CMH]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

The SLG is definitely up. I definitely noticed that. But, it's not entirely true that people just stopped pitching to him. He was always good at drawing a walk and the numbers aren't ridiculously different from year-to-year after 2001 with the exception of 2004, which was absurd.


It's a bit difficult to tell for sure if it was testing that dropped his production or the fact that he turned 41 and had just suffered an injury that took him out for pretty much all of 2005 when he was 40.


Can you show me the source that says steroid strength is lost faster than non-steroid strength. Not a challenge. Just interested in reading it.

[wwharton]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

That's a good point. Steroids were banned for their health issues. I don't know all of the history, but for some reason, people started associating it with performance. It's probably because it made people bigger. Bigger players were assumed to be better players. Not sure if that was the original mentality, but I wouldn't be surprised.

There are still no scientific connections to steroids and performance enhancement.

Doesn't really matter to me whether or not steroids work as they are believed to. Players legally take all kinds of substances, are on specific diets, etc. They take some things now that will be considered illegal in the future, and have taken things that are illegal in the past long before steroids was considered an issue.

I completely understand banning things that create health risks, while allowing everything that isn't, but doing that says you WANT your athletes to be bigger, stronger and faster... you just want them to do it in a healthy way. If a player got there by doing something unhealthy, how does that mean they tainted a record? I know you agree with me, so that question isn't really directed at you. It just doesn't make sense to me.

How people didn't figure this stuff out earlier is beyond me.

Everybody knew Brady was on roids. They joked about it forever in Baltimore even. People just didn't care as much as they do now that the media has hyped up the tarnishing of records.

[steelcurtain311]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

You're making it seem like steroids is this magic drug that just makes you strong. You still need to work out to get big if you take steroids. The effects of working out shouldn't just go away because you stopped taking steroids.

I have yet to see a valid argument against this problem with steroids aiding performance

Do you have any idea how much they can aide your workout if you're using them right? See Barry Bonds turning into a pro wrestler sized man in one offseason.

There's plenty of reasons as to why someone's numbers could drop off after a season of using. Perhaps they stopped? Perhaps they weren't consistent with their training and working out? Or in someone like Brady Anderson's case, perhaps they just weren't a good hitter to begin with. You give a guy like Bonds this kind of power, a guy who already has one of the greatest hitting eyes the game has ever seen, a guy who has a great swing, you give him what is basically the fountain of youth and much increased power and batspeed, the results are his video game like statistical performance.

Please provide your facts because I have not seen them anywhere in any book or any source.

Do you watch HBO? Real Sports has covered this story for years. They've interviewed one of the co-creators of the Clear/Cream, who said himself what the purpose of the invention was: An undetectable performance enhancing drug. He said himself that the idea was to increase power, batspeed, hand-eye coordination, it was meant to do all of those things, despite what some people want to say about it.

I mean dude, just think about it. Why in the world would they invent this drug, and sell it to hundreds of athletes in every professional sport, from baseball to football to the olympics to boxing, why would these athletes be taking it if it didn't enhance your performance? It makes no sense. If the steroids didn't work, people wouldn't of experimented with them, period.

Also, Bonds hit 50 homeruns once in his career. I'd bet you say he used steroids more than just 2001. So can you explain why he didn't hit 50 homeruns again after or before 2001 if steroids made him a power MACHINE?

I'm sure he was on them from '01-'05ish, I would say, since his body started to break down from age and years of steroid abuse in 05. It isn't even just the numbers spike he got, it's the sheer force his HR's were hit with that said it all. I grew up watching Barry Bonds in a Pirates uniform. Barry Bonds NEVER hit a baseball like he hit it in 2001-04. He was downright murdering the ball, hitting HR's at such distances with such force that he simply never did before, and never had the power to.

But yeah, it's already been explained as to why he didn't put up 50+ HR's again, and it's not to say he couldn't have. He still put up cartoonish numbers, given his walks. The man was still hitting the baseball like the Incredible Hulk.

[BigDofBA]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

Do you have any idea how much they can aide your workout if you're using them right? See Barry Bonds turning into a pro wrestler sized man in one offseason.

Agreed.

There is a lot of misinformation when it comes to this issue. Steroids don't make you a professional athlete but if you already have the god given talent, they will only make you better. Why do people think that athletes workout in the first place? It's to increase strength, size, speed, etc. so they can perform better.

There is a huge difference between working out naturally and working out on the juice. If you take a natural person that works their *** off and is dedicated they would still get blown out of the water by someone that trains moderately with chemical assistance.

This isn't even debatable. Just look at the numbers from 1995-2003.

[CMH]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

Bonds's stats still don't explain why the average player isn't becoming the Incredible Hulk.

Alex Rodriguez is more talented that Bonds was when he played for Pittsburgh. So, Alex was playing in Texas - a hitter's ballpark - taking steroids, and still couldn't pass 60 bombs, yet he was hitting more homeruns than Bonds did in his early career.

The correlation is off here. Bonds obviously had a spike in SLG. I'm not ignoring that. But, why didn't better players that used steroids not experience his spike especially when playing in better hitter's ballparks because San Fran was not a good hitter's ballpark despite what Bonds was doing.

Also, just because players take it doesn't mean it actually works. Some people like to believe that things work. Companies that produce the stuff know that it'll help someone workout longer. It's preconceived that people are going to associate that with baseball performance. It doesn't mean that it'll make a player better.

Wouldn't you tell people it makes them better if they believe it does? I don't buy the argument that they produce it and sell it to them because it works. There are plenty of things in this world that are advertised to work that don't. Steroids isn't any different, or might not be any different.

Basically, the steroids does make you a better player defenders are hand picking a small percentage of players that over performed. You guys choose Bonds, Rodriguez, and maybe another player or two like Sosa and McGwire and perhaps even Canseco.

But steroids has been a problem for much longer, and many many more players are using them. So, why aren't they experiencing this huge spike in production? They might not all be Barry Bonds-like in SLG spikes, but they should have a similar percentage jump, no?

And if no, then what are the steroids doing for them if they work so well?

[keRplunK]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

Here's an easy question for you, do certain steroids help players gain muscle easier? When someone has more muscle does that change the amount of strength they have?

"many many more players are using them. So, why aren't they experiencing this huge spike in production?"

If it helps someone who normally hits 5 home runs hit 12 home runs than that is a huge spike but not something you would notice. And why should every player have the same percentage jump? The level and type of steroid use can be different, the ability of their body to take on weight is still constrained to some degree (david eckstein will never be able to look like McGwire). You seem to make the assumption that everyone is saying steroids make the player good. I could take steroids all day long and never make the major leagues, but if a minor league player who is on the fringe takes them, it may give them a season or two in the league as a bench player rather than staying in AAA for their career.

Also, in baseball there are unique skills that adding strength wouldn't magically create. The obvious example would be hand eye coordination. If you are already an all-star who has that skill in abundance, and THEN you add more strength, of course it's going to have a multiplier effect. The production increase isn't going to proportional in every player, just like if a body builder stepped into the box he wouldn't be able to hit like McGwire.

Another guy that admitted to using them, Ken Caminiti. At the ages of 26-30 (usually a player's prime) he hit (home runs): 10, 4, 13, 13, 13. Then suddenly, at the ages of 32-35 he hits: 26, 40, 26, 29.

But that line of reasoning doesn't shake your confidence in your thesis, so one last question. You honestly think that none of these stats are inflated due to steroid use?

You think it was a coincidence that a long standing record was shattered by Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds all around the same time frame, all suspected to have used steroids heavily after already being considered home run hitters earlier in their respective careers?

[ehh]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

Here's an easy question for you, do certain steroids help players gain muscle easier? When someone has more muscle does that change the amount of strength they have?

"many many more players are using them. So, why aren't they experiencing this huge spike in production?"

I would guess that the biggest effect steroids have is that they allow you to stay fresh during a long and brutal season. When you typically get fatigued, bumps and bruises, sore, small injuries etc you probably don't have those when you're juicing.

[keRplunK]

Re: A-Rod tested positive for 'roids in '03

I would guess that the biggest effect steroids have is that they allow you to stay fresh during a long and brutal season. When you typically get fatigued, bumps and bruises, sore, small injuries etc you probably don't have those when you're juicing.

There are different kinds of steroids. There are some that help recovery time and some that help put on muscle. Obviously, both would be beneficial to performance. That's why a guy like Ryan Franklin (who is tiny) tested positive for steroids, pitchers wouldn't benefit if they gain muscle and lose flexibility.