So, about The Clear and The Cream?

[mikev]

So, it turns out The Clear wasn't a steroid after all.

At least, not until 2005

[jazzrack]

shh. don't let facts get in the way of a good witch-hunt

[Jason Moyer]

Injecting logic into any Bonds argument will never work.

[Skipaway]

Barry Bonds is so passe. Not even Roger Clemens is hot anymore.

[Syd Thrift]

So just the Cream then?

[Jason Moyer]

The cream was a masking agent for the clear, not a steroid in itself.

[Jason Moyer]

Aside from the name making you think it's some horribly evil drug that makes you grow a third arm out of your chest, I wonder if HGH actually made Bonds a better hitter, or if it made him appear to be a better hitter because it kept him healthy at a time when he was struggling with injuries. Right before he allegedly started taking it, and right after he stopped, he started suffering from serious injuries, and I wonder if the difference between a clean and a doped Bonds had less to do with his performance and more to do with whether or not he was still playing baseball.

[KurtBevacqua]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Aside from the name making you think it's some horribly evil drug that makes you grow a third arm out of your chest, I wonder if HGH actually made Bonds a better hitter, or if it made him appear to be a better hitter because it kept him healthy at a time when he was struggling with injuries. Right before he allegedly started taking it, and right after he stopped, he started suffering from serious injuries, and I wonder if the difference between a clean and a doped Bonds had less to do with his performance and more to do with whether or not he was still playing baseball.

Um, don't you perform better when you are healthy?

[jazzrack]

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

Um, don't you perform better when you are healthy?

but thats the rub, you can shoot guys up with cortizone so they can play when they otherwise couldn't and they are called couragous (remember schilling bleeding through his sock?) so if hgh does something similar then whats the big deal? what about advil, or ben gay? don't they enhance performance?

[Skipaway]

The main difference between using steroids and Ben Gay was that the former is a controlled substance that people shouldn't use with proper prescriptions.

Now it turns out what Bonds used wasn't a controlled substance and it wasn't illegal. So it's indeed just like Ben Gay.

Of course there are still a lot of grey area, but now it does look like the government knowingly tried to get someone with accusations they knew wasn't on solid grounds.

[SJM1583]

Whether or not Bonds used steroids or something else that violated MLB's rules I don't know. But it is looking increasing unlikely that he committed perjury, a conviction for which generally requires explicit lying on the stand, not lies by implication.
I doubt that dropped charges or an acquittal would do much for his public image though. He's one of those guys that the media never liked even before the steroids allegations, and they're not going to go out of their way to make him look any better (as I bet they would if there was "evidence" clearing McGwire)

[KurtBevacqua]

Originally Posted by jazzrack

but thats the rub, you can shoot guys up with cortizone so they can play when they otherwise couldn't and they are called couragous (remember schilling bleeding through his sock?) so if hgh does something similar then whats the big deal? what about advil, or ben gay? don't they enhance performance?

Corizone doesn't really heal you, it gives you a false illusion of healing. And things like Ben Gay are hardly dangerous to your health. This goes back to fairness and ethics. Is it right that a guy willing to risk his future health by taking steroids or HGH gets an edge over a guy who is opposed to it? Should a player be made to feel as though he has to risk his future health and go against his own principles to compete for a job against a guy willing to do those things? Some people would say tough, deal with it. I happen to think there is something wrong with that scenario.

[Jason Moyer]

If I were an athlete and there were a product available that was neither illegal nor against the rules of the sport and it helped my body recover faster from workouts and injuries I'd take it without a second thought. I really wonder if people who are critical of Bonds/Clemens/McGwire (assuming McGwire's sin was Andro, and not something else) would do anything differently in their situations.

[Syd Thrift]

Well, yes, the whole point of why steroids are illegal and HGH is not approved for use by MLB players is that most of us would do the same thing. There are situations in which individuals acting in their own self interest has a deleterious effect on society as a whole.

Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[KurtBevacqua]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

If I were an athlete and there were a product available that was neither illegal nor against the rules of the sport and it helped my body recover faster from workouts and injuries I'd take it without a second thought. I really wonder if people who are critical of Bonds/Clemens/McGwire (assuming McGwire's sin was Andro, and not something else) would do anything differently in their situations.

I think it's a bogus assumption to say most people would take this stuff. I ran track at a Div 1 school and there was plenty of availability of steroids. Shoot, I remember a friend of mine who was on the football team having problems bulking up and asking the strength coach what he could do. The strength coach told him, "Obviously I can't advise you to juice up, but if you did here's how I would go about it." And the coach proceeded to give him a lesson on the best mix and use of steroids. My friend was pre-med and understood all this stuff very well. He was extremely disillusioned to have an authority figure he trusted and respected go down this path. My friend refused to juice up. This was back in the mid 80's before the federal law against steroids and before the NCAA tested for it. My friend could have done this and easily gotten away with it.

The juice was there and any one of us could have gone down that path. None of my friends did it. Sure, I knew some guys on the football team were, but the point is each person can make their own choice and to assume most everyone would sell themselves out to go down this path is false. There are still some people with integrity left in this world.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

I think it's a bogus assumption to say most people would take this stuff. I ran track at a Div 1 school and there was plenty of availability of steroids. Shoot, I remember a friend of mine who was on the football team having problems bulking up and asking the strength coach what he could do. The strength coach told him, "Obviously I can't advise you to juice up, but if you did here's how I would go about it." And the coach proceeded to give him a lesson on the best mix and use of steroids. My friend was pre-med and understood all this stuff very well. He was extremely disillusioned to have an authority figure he trusted and respected go down this path. My friend refused to juice up. This was back in the mid 80's before the federal law against steroids and before the NCAA tested for it. My friend could have done this and easily gotten away with it.

The juice was there and any one of us could have gone down that path. None of my friends did it. Sure, I knew some guys on the football team were, but the point is each person can make their own choice and to assume most everyone would sell themselves out to go down this path is false. There are still some people with integrity left in this world.

Good points and I agree, but there's a big difference between running track at a Div 1 school and performing at a high level in the Pros with a chance at a multi-million dollar contract if you put up good numbers. Just seems to me, (going back to the age old adage of money makes people do crazy and sometimes stupid things,) there's a lot more incentive at one end of the scale here.

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Good points and I agree, but there's a big difference between running track at a Div 1 school and performing at a high level in the Pros with a chance at a multi-million dollar contract if you put up good numbers. Just seems to me, (going back to the age old adage of money makes people do crazy and sometimes stupid things,) there's a lot more incentive at one end of the scale here.

Not to mention the incentive the guy paying those millions has to see you perform everyday too. This is why the owners are just as "guilty" as the players.

[OldFatGuy]

Originally Posted by jazzrack

but thats the rub, you can shoot guys up with cortizone so they can play when they otherwise couldn't and they are called couragous (remember schilling bleeding through his sock?) so if hgh does something similar then whats the big deal? what about advil, or ben gay? don't they enhance performance?

Yep, good points. I agree. If a player uses HGH (gasp!) to recover from an injury, that's wrong. If a player has an infection and takes antibiotics to recover, that's perfectly ok.

Our society's "anti-drug" craze can be quite humorous at times.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

Corizone doesn't really heal you, it gives you a false illusion of healing. And things like Ben Gay are hardly dangerous to your health. This goes back to fairness and ethics. Is it right that a guy willing to risk his future health by taking steroids or HGH gets an edge over a guy who is opposed to it? Should a player be made to feel as though he has to risk his future health and go against his own principles to compete for a job against a guy willing to do those things? Some people would say tough, deal with it. I happen to think there is something wrong with that scenario.

Pitching a baseball itself is a risk to future health. Playing professional football is a huge risk to future health. How many professional athletes retired with cripping damages to their own bodies and minds? I don't think what you said is really convincing considering the job these guys have. Players who are hiding their injuries to get playing time is essentially doing the same thing: endangering their own health to get ahead of others. Lying too.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Pitching a baseball itself is a risk to future health. Playing professional football is a huge risk to future health. How many professional athletes retired with cripping damages to their own bodies and minds? I don't think what you said is really convincing considering the job these guys have. Players who are hiding their injuries to get playing time is essentially doing the same thing: endangering their own health to get ahead of others. Lying too.

Yeah and they could endanger the health of other players. Like a offensive lineman who plays hurt and his qb gets killed. I wouldnt mind if a player took HGH if it helped until he is healthy. After that if he is no longer injured im not sure the player should still use it.