Manny Ramirez suspended for 50 games

[Hurlshort]

I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that the steroids do two things, they help with power, and they help maintain that power even as you age. I don't think it does anything to increase hitting ability, only hitting power. That's why a guy like Barry Bonds was so successful, he already was a fantastic hitter, the drugs just helped him launch more out of the park and kept age at bay a bit longer.

 

I still don't see where this power boost is going to help a basketball or hockey player, and I think you see that in the star players. They aren't muscle bound guys, they are in great shape, but they don't look like any of the guys everyone is pointing fingers at in baseball. I've never heard of a steroid that increases athleticism.

[Kelverin]

Looking at Barry Bonds stats, as his head inflated so did his stats not only power but average as well

 

This link should be easier on the eyes;

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/pl...php?p=bondsba01

 

Yr Team G AB R H 2B 3B HR GS RBI BB IBB SO SH SF HBP GIDP AVG OBP SLG

 

1986 Pirates 113 413 72 92 26 3 16 0 48 65 2 102 2 2 2 4 .223 .330 .416

1987 Pirates 150 551 99 144 34 9 25 0 59 54 3 88 0 3 3 4 .261 .329 .492

1988 Pirates 144 538 97 152 30 5 24 0 58 72 14 82 0 2 2 3 .283 .368 .491

1989 Pirates 159 580 96 144 34 6 19 0 58 93 22 93 1 4 1 9 .248 .351 .426

1990 Pirates 151 519 104 156 32 3 33 1 114 93 15 83 0 6 3 8 .301 .406 .565

1991 Pirates 153 510 95 149 28 5 25 0 116 107 25 73 0 13 4 8 .292 .410 .514

1992 Pirates 140 473 109 147 36 5 34 1 103 127 32 69 0 7 5 9 .311 .456 .624

1993 Giants 159 539 129 181 38 4 46 1 123 126 43 79 0 7 2 11 .336 .458 .677

1994 Giants 112 391 89 122 18 1 37 1 81 74 18 43 0 3 6 3 .312 .426 .647

1995 Giants 144 506 109 149 30 7 33 0 104 120 22 83 0 4 5 12 .294 .431 .577

1996 Giants 158 517 122 159 27 3 42 2 129 151 30 76 0 6 1 11 .308 .461 .615

1997 Giants 159 532 123 155 26 5 40 1 101 145 34 87 0 5 8 13 .291 .446 .585

1998 Giants 156 552 120 167 44 7 37 1 122 130 29 92 1 6 8 15 .303 .438 .609

1999 Giants 102 355 91 93 20 2 34 0 83 73 9 62 0 3 3 6 .262 .389 .617

2000 Giants 143 480 129 147 28 4 49 0 106 117 22 77 0 7 3 6 .306 .440 .688

2001 Giants 153 476 129 156 32 2 73 2 137 177 35 93 0 2 9 5 .328 .515 .863

2002 Giants 143 403 117 149 31 2 46 1 110 198 68 47 0 2 9 4 .370 .582 .799

2003 Giants 130 390 111 133 22 1 45 0 90 148 61 58 0 2 10 7 .341 .529 .749

2004 Giants 147 373 129 135 27 3 45 0 101 232 120 41 0 3 9 5 .362 .609 .812

2005 Giants 14 42 8 12 1 0 5 0 10 9 3 6 0 1 0 0 .286 .404 .667

2006 Giants 130 367 74 99 23 0 26 0 77 115 38 51 0 1 10 9 .270 .454 .545

2007 Giants 126 340 75 94 14 0 28 0 66 132 43 54 0 2 3 13 .276 .480 .565

Edited May 9, 2009 by Kelverin

[LadyCrimson]

I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that the steroids do two things, they help with power, and they help maintain that power even as you age. I don't think it does anything to increase hitting ability, only hitting power. That's why a guy like Barry Bonds was so successful, he already was a fantastic hitter, the drugs just helped him launch more out of the park and kept age at bay a bit longer.

 

I still don't see where this power boost is going to help a basketball or hockey player, and I think you see that in the star players. They aren't muscle bound guys, they are in great shape, but they don't look like any of the guys everyone is pointing fingers at in baseball. I've never heard of a steroid that increases athleticism.

Well, I've been trying to research steroids for a few hours now and while none of what I can find would be called "definite absolutes" (wiki's, medical and weightlifter articles full of jargon I can barely understand etc), it has led me to several high probability conclusions:

 

1 - the concept that being on steroids means you have to be bulked up to silly or noticeably obvious proportions in order to gain benefits from using them is false. You can use them and have no one ever think you're "bulked up."

2 - 5-15 pounds of weight gain due to steroid-enhanced ability to "grow extra" during training is likely enough to make a difference in performance and that isn't going to make you look freakish at all, especially if you're 6' 10". So you could use them to go beyond your own natural capabilities but not get too carried away w/the muscle growth.

3 - there have been plenty of athletes accused and/or proven of steroid use (track and field, cycling, etc) where what they wanted was endurance/speed, not "power". Cycling, of course, also had the rampant EPO and other "cheat" abuses - which could also benefit basketball/hockey/anyone else if they didn't like steroids. *correction - I guess EPO are steroids?

4 - Most steroids allow faster muscle growth through greater (anabolic) recovery, but there are others that help increase strength which allows for greater stress to be put onto a muscle.

5 - (paraphrased from one article I read) Steroids can have a physiological "pumped" factor that endurance athletes may covet. Anabolic steroids increases production of blood red cells, meaning more blood available in the body during a steroid cycle. This may/can actually increase blood volume and greatly improves the oxygen carrying ability of blood, in turn increasing the efficiency and endurance of skeletal muscle cells. (edit - after more reading I gather EPO is the steroid in question here, I'm confused about blood doping vs EPO, too much info out there to sort through argh)

 

Obviously, I'm not a doc nor a pro athlete of any kind, so I really have no idea how big a percentage boost to performance of all the various types of athletes there might truly be or whether it's "worth it". But it's food for thought and imo if all true, steroids would certainly benefit more than just "power" people.

Edited May 9, 2009 by LadyCrimson

[Hurlshort]

I guess we'll just have to see, this stuff always comes out in the end, so if it turns out Kobe Bryant or Alex Ovechkin are on the juice, I'll definitely concede. We just may have to wait 20 years for the tell-all book