Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Roger Maris Use Steroids?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Julie
    replied
    Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
    And gunnut contributed to the problem.....tsk tsk.
    He can get away with it...he is the Official Thread Jacker. Pay attention. ;)

    In the meantime barry needs to hit the intro thread. :) Locked.

    Leave a comment:


  • YellowFever
    replied
    And gunnut contributed to the problem.....tsk tsk.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I see dead kittens

    Leave a comment:


  • ace16807
    replied
    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    I think we're going about this the wrong way. They shouldn't take drugs because they're dangerous. NOT they shouldn't take drugs because they help them perform better.

    We should make drugs legal in baseball. If they want to die for our entertainment, I'd say let them. After a while, people will look down upon those people and the fad will die off.

    The more we ban something, the more people would want to do it to see if they can get away with it. Make it legal to remove this temptation.
    I'm rather clueless as to the legal aspects of doping, but afaik some performance enhancing drugs aren't illegal but rather banned by sports organizations. Were these organizations to allow doping I would suspect there would be a significant drop in popularity both among clean players who don't want to compete on an uneven playing field and fans who are disgusted by the fact that drugs are behind the player's performance, not skill/ability. I simply don't see how any sports organization can rationally allow doping. Even if it gets to the point that it's taboo to do so and those who use performance enhancing drugs are frowned upon, all they have to do is deny they use them and the organization has no means of verifying the statement unless they plan to ban performance enhancing drugs again, which puts us back at square one.

    Leave a comment:


  • gunnut
    replied
    I think we're going about this the wrong way. They shouldn't take drugs because they're dangerous. NOT they shouldn't take drugs because they help them perform better.

    We should make drugs legal in baseball. If they want to die for our entertainment, I'd say let them. After a while, people will look down upon those people and the fad will die off.

    The more we ban something, the more people would want to do it to see if they can get away with it. Make it legal to remove this temptation.

    Leave a comment:


  • barrysongpark
    replied
    Roger maris took so much drugs -his hair fell out and he died from hodgkins lymphoma which is caused by taking steroids--lets correct these records, and get the ball players who took drugs off the record books---babe ruth did not take steroids ,he was too busy drinking- any scientist can easily review roger maris records and see the unusual spikes in performance--its very sad he died from these drugs that mickey mantle got him started on --shame on these false heros----

    Leave a comment:


  • barrysongpark
    replied
    Ofcourse he took steroids---alot infact , he learned about them from Mickey Mantle ,just review the facts---he took so much drugs, that his hair was falling out ,and he died from a Hodgkins Lyphoma ,which was caused by the drugs he took, ----The facts are there -look at the strange statistics , --look at the old films of him, take alook up close, Ive researched this ,and its obvious ,on the other hand Babe Ruth did not take these drugs ,infact Babe Ruth was a drunk , but he had exceptional eye coordination and stength--
    REVEIW THE FACTS----ITS VERY SAD ---BUT POOR ROGER MARIS DIED FROM THESE DRUGS--BALL PLAYERS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED THESE RECORDS -THAT HAVE TAKEN DRUGS-

    Leave a comment:


  • Shek
    replied
    Originally posted by cdude View Post
    Oh, you are talking about baseball exclusively.

    David Ortiz, Brett Boone are two obvious ones, with huge HR/AB gains after doping.
    David Ortiz never tested positive again post 2003, and yet more home runs in four seasons since. Not a strong case for steroids providing a large unnatural boost.

    Bret Boone's never tested positive, been seen taking steroids, etc. What we have here is heresay. So the proof is the spike in his numbers, which puts the cart in front of the horse. The effect now proves the cause? Bret Boone's power surge is not inconsistent with past players, especially given how close it came to the peak home run age for career players. In fact, you could look at what Carlton Fisk did at age 37 when he decided to lift weights in the off season.

    http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/718626-post48.html

    Originally posted by cdude
    And to explain the decrease, most dopers started doping at the late stage of their careers. Jose Conseco started doping at a very early age of his career, so we would never know what his natural production level would have been had he not taken PEDs.
    Care to provide evidence that most folks start using PED late in their career? Your source of evidence is someone who used it his entire career. He claims that Big Mac used it basically his entire career. Jason Giambi is a prominent example of an early juicer.

    Originally posted by cdude
    But he has had a pretty good track record on the PED issue in the MLB. So I took his words that PED helps hitting home runs.
    Just two sentences ago you state that we never know what the counterfactual would be, and yet now, he's authoritative in stating the counterfactual? That's pretty inconsistent.

    Originally posted by cdude
    And also the BALCO guy who's a scientist, now that's the scientific evidence you are looking for.
    BALCO didn't employ a scientist. Conte was self-proclaimed nutritionist. He had a doctor that marginally worked for him. They did buy many of their steroids from a rogue chemist out of Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. He was able to work with the chemical compounds and did use himself. However, that's not scientific evidence.

    Once again, we're at back at where we started.

    1. No controlled experiments that demonstrate a causal link between steroids and home run hitting.

    2. Studies that often find a link between muscle mass gain and strength, but nothing that then translates this into a precise power gain based on the mechanics of a baseball swing. However, the evidence often finds the gains from steroids are predominantly weighted towards the upper body, which is the least important part of generating power in the baseball swing. Once you account for this, using several models of the baseball swing by physicists and back of the envelope calculations, you can measure the impact of steroids in inches.

    3. Statistics that show that the rate of home runs increased suddenly and dramatically in 1993-4 and then have maintained that level. For steroids to explain this sudden increase, they would have had to have been adopted over the course of those exact two seasons, and then that same rate of use would have to be continued through today, despite several years of now extensive testing with real penalties for getting caught.

    4. Since we know that steroids didn't show up all of a sudden in 1993-4 with a huge cult of juicers (Canseco's story tells of a more gentle increase starting before 1993-4), we can turn to several other plausible hypotheses: expansion, the ball, equipment, stadiums.

    5. Home run output is a random process, and so we should expect variation in output. Temporary spikes are not exclusively a "Steroids Era" phenomenon, but can be found across the entire history of baseball. Sometimes you can find reasons (getting traded to the Cubs and Wrigley Field), but other times it's simply a random outcome. You get more than your fair share of "juiced" balls (on the extreme ends, two balls that fall within MLB specs/tolerances will have a carry distance difference of 50 feet). You happen to hit the ball for power more than your fair share on days when the wind's blowing out. Etc., etc., etc. Thus, spikes in output need not have an explanation (although maybe there will be one that you can pin down that is systemic, like playing at Wrigley or Coors).

    6. We have a study that finds that the average output of users declines. While not sophisticated in its approach, rather than producing smoke in favor of the "Steroids Era" hypothesis, it produces smoke as to why so many people want to assign most if not all power gains in the "Steroids Era" to steroids and other PEDs. Furthermore, the evidence is stacked in favor of finding a steroids effect exactly because of the way that people put the cart in front of the horse. If someone has a spike in power, then they will immediately be under suspicion of juicing and be cited as evidence of juicing. However, given that the physics of it measures the impact in inches and that the statistics of it finds a negative impact, we should expect that there are plenty of folks who experience now power surge. Since no surge is evidenced, no suspicion is cast, and so it's the surviorship bias that Sir Francis Bacon wrote about approximately 400 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • cdude
    replied
    Oh, you are talking about baseball exclusively.

    David Ortiz, Brett Boone are two obvious ones, with huge HR/AB gains after doping.

    And to explain the decrease, most dopers started doping at the late stage of their careers. Jose Conseco started doping at a very early age of his career, so we would never know what his natural production level would have been had he not taken PEDs. But he has had a pretty good track record on the PED issue in the MLB. So I took his words that PED helps hitting home runs. And also the BALCO guy who's a scientist, now that's the scientific evidence you are looking for.


    Originally posted by Shek View Post
    No, you gave me one. The other folks weren't baseball players. Besides, you didn't provide any causal data - all you've got is correlation.



    Please explain for me why the average change in home runs for PED users was negative, i.e., these PED users on average saw their home run output decrease while using?

    Leave a comment:


  • Shek
    replied
    Originally posted by cdude View Post
    That's ONE data point, bro

    At least I gave you four.
    No, you gave me one. The other folks weren't baseball players. Besides, you didn't provide any causal data - all you've got is correlation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/op...cole.html?_r=2

    For the 48 batters we studied, the average change in home runs per year “before” and “after” was a decrease of 0.246.
    Please explain for me why the average change in home runs for PED users was negative, i.e., these PED users on average saw their home run output decrease while using?

    Leave a comment:


  • cdude
    replied
    Originally posted by Shek View Post
    You made a very specific claim that it was science. The reality is that there are no controlled experiments, so all that exists are hypotheses that are untested, or beliefs, to include yours.

    In examining ARod, his performance on steroids is no different than what we would have expected if he had not taken steroids. In other words, using the scientific method (but not a controlled experiment), there is evidence that steroids does not impact home run hitting, or if it does, it is extremely insignificant.
    That's ONE data point, bro

    At least I gave you four.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shek
    replied
    Originally posted by cdude View Post
    Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds and East Germany

    You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe, though.
    You made a very specific claim that it was science. The reality is that there are no controlled experiments, so all that exists are hypotheses that are untested, or beliefs, to include yours.

    In examining ARod, his performance on steroids is no different than what we would have expected if he had not taken steroids. In other words, using the scientific method (but not a controlled experiment), there is evidence that steroids does not impact home run hitting, or if it does, it is extremely insignificant.

    Leave a comment:


  • cdude
    replied
    Originally posted by Shek View Post
    Since it's science, please post the scientific paper that describes the controlled experiment that fails to reject the hypothesis that steroids absolutely helps home run performance.
    Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds and East Germany

    You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shek
    replied
    Originally posted by cdude View Post
    PED absolutely helps performance, it's science.
    Since it's science, please post the scientific paper that describes the controlled experiment that fails to reject the hypothesis that steroids absolutely helps home run performance.

    Leave a comment:


  • cdude
    replied
    People should look into HR/AB, not just HR per season. I bet the HR/AB graph for Barry Bonds looks much more suspicious than the HR/season graph.

    PED absolutely helps performance, it's science. Anyone saw Bonds play would know that, his OPS was ASTRONOMICAL toward the end of his career.

    Now I found this on baseball-reference:

    1988 NL 22.4 (9th)
    1990 NL 15.7 (5th)
    1991 NL 20.4 (10th)
    1992 NL 13.9 (1st)
    1993 NL 11.7 (1st)
    1994 NL 10.6 (4th)
    1995 NL 15.3 (5th)
    1996 NL 12.3 (1st)
    1997 NL 13.3 (3rd)
    1998 NL 14.9 (8th)
    1999 NL 10.4 (5th) BONDS started doping
    2000 NL 9.8 (1st)
    2001 NL 6.5 (1st)
    2002 NL 8.8 (1st)
    2003 NL 8.7 (1st)
    2004 NL 8.3 (1st)
    2006 NL 14.1 (9th)**
    2007 NL 12.1 (3rd)**



    What Big MAC took was not banned by the MLB at the time, so he should be voted in the Hall. Bonds, too. Because what he accomplished before doping.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X