Okay up front let me confess my passion for sports. I was an outstanding athlete in my younger days. I even pursued a career in professional baseball.
Over the years I have been hooked on the box scores, the scoreboards, and the sports fodder across the board. And yes I even get caught up in the side bar subjects at times. The trades, the money, and the juicy tabloid stuff/scandals.
This brings me to the steroid or even more specific, the performance enhancing drugs (PED's) debate.
Let me state unequivocally that I do not endorse dangerous drugs. I also have a big problem with cheating.
However there is an aspect of this subject that flies under the radar. While people argue the merits of statistics, mostly concerning baseball, I continue to ask the same question. Exactly how do these drugs and/or supplements help? Can we quantify it in any way?
In fact in a recent Congressional hearing Bud Selig, MLB Commissioner, andDonald Fehr, MLB Union President were asked this question. No one was quite sure of how to answer. It is assumed it helps.
First let me say, even though it goes without saying, there must be some tangible or perceived benefit or no one would try it. Or is it both tangible and perceived?
This is an important place to start when you consider that every drug ever tested also has a percentage of human "guinea pigs" who claim benefiting from a placebo.
Or look at the enormous amount of weight loss pills people are taking. Remember the Hydroxy cut craze or the Trim Spa fascination? Many claim these drugs were the impetus for there weight loss. The fact that they changed their diet and exercised also is almost completely overlooked as a factor. Who is to say if or how much the pills helped? Maybe the pills in themselves helped?Or maybe the pills got the people to do the right thing? Or both?
Also what is our definition of performance enhancing? If someone cannot perform without the aid of a cortizone shot or a painkiller is that a performance enhancer? Massive caffeine consumption or other stimulants. How do they factor in?
It is commonly excepted that extreme increase in body size and strength comes from steroids and human growth hormones (HGH). Which although true, one will not benefit without a rigorous workout program. Look up the scientific data, you cannot just get injected and skip the gym and expect too grow into a muscular brute.
It also believed that these drugs expediate recovery. Whether from injury or work out related fatigue and/or tissue damage. It does seem that for many "juicers" that te capacity for workout is increased dramatically. This would be a benefit of sorts. May also help with longevity.
The question is then how is it that literally thousands of pro baseball players have done these PED's and yet only a relative few have been benefited? Maybe there is more gain from talent and hard work than injections? Perhaps it is relative to your skill and work ethic?
Also consider Roger Maris, never known for his physique or prowess, held the season home run record at 61. Barry Bonds, 73, Mark McGwire, 70 and Sammy Sosa a few times in the 60's, are the only ones to surpass the Maris bar. So there is a 12 home run difference between the Maris non PED's record and the Bonds presumed juiced record. How do you determine how much or if PED's were the difference? It wasn't PED's that put Maris in the record books.
So what is the point of critical mass? If someone hits 63 HR's in a season then they are cheating? Is the spike in the numbers from year to year? Take note of this then.Roger Maris's best stretch 1959 KCAAL 16 HR, 1960 NYYAL 39 HR 1961 NYYAL 61HR, 1962 NYYAL 33 HR, 1963 NYYAL 23 HR, 1964 NYYAL 26 HR. Clearly a spike.
Some would argue that the fact he did this from the age of 24 to 29 that is different. Quite logical. How do you accurately figure that in? The debate is fueled because Barry Bonds best stretch was from the age of 35 - 39. He did hit 445 HR in the 14 seasons prior to that stretch. Maris only hit 275 HR in his entire 12 year career.
My point is you can bend and spin numbers to make an argument of how much PED's literally effect your statitics. I believe that we overestimate the enchancement and underestimate the skill level of the athlete in question.
Also times have changed. In the late 1980's there were numerous reports of a juiced baseball. Some of the dimension of these new ballparks are also very conducive to more home runs. Some also contend that more teams have diluded the quality of pitching that is faced throughout a baseball season. This was not the first era to face a significant increase in home runs. In 1899 Buck Freeman hit 25 home runs in a season. More than twice then he ever had before. Babe Ruth broke the mark in 1919 with 29. Then in 1920 bypassed 30 and 40 and hit 54 home runs! He changed baseball. In fact there were years in the beginning where Ruth hit more home runs than entire teams! In time more and more power hitters emerged. Now we hear "well Babe did it on hot dogs" chant. Well for a time he was head and shoulders above what everyone else was doing in the home run department SHould we be suspicious of that?
In conclusion then I invite everyone to examine all the variables in this equation and not be so quick as to say someone has done something because of a drug. I am not saying that it has not helped anyone either. I just don't understand how the media has drawn conclusive evidence without considering all the facts. What do they know that no one else knows?
