Jump to content



Photo

The PED era vs The Amphetamine era


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 greinke

greinke

    Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts

Posted 18 May 2011 - 07:53 PM

I didn't want to sully the Harmon Killabrew thread with this question, but his passing brings this question back to the forefront. The national writers I have heard comment on his legacy all want to increase his standing at the expense of guys like Bonds and McGwire. Don't mistake what I'm saying. I'm not condoning the use of performance enhancers, in any way shape or form. However, it is a widely accepted fact that amphetamines were given out like candy in the 50s and 60s. What makes those any different from the PEDs of today? I say absolutely nothing. Yet, the amphetamine use of that era is widely ignored.

To me, there's no difference in taking amphetamines before/during a game and taking PEDs to recover from injury.

#2 cheaptrick77

cheaptrick77

    Rock & Roll Snöb

  • Administrators
  • 20,308 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mike Carter Field
  • Interests:Baseball, Hockey, Obscure Rock & Roll, Obscure Movies, Proud to be the only East Texan who does not worship at the football alter...

Posted 19 May 2011 - 03:48 AM

Perhaps because:
  • Amphetamines do increase bat speed nor sharpen hand-eye coordination
  • Amphetamines do not turn mediocre players into great players (Brady Anderson) and great players into super-human players (Barry Bonds)
  • Amphetamines did not lead to the complete obliteration of sacred and time-owned records

BTW -- I do not condone the use of either substance, but there is a BIG difference in a substance that speeds up recovery from an injury and a substance that has a Frankenstein effect. A mediocre player who recovers from an injury quickly by taking amphetamines is still a mediocre player...

#3 shoelessjoelives

shoelessjoelives

    THE PRIDE OF LSU SPORTS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LET'S GO RANGERS! <clap><clap><clap>

Posted 19 May 2011 - 05:50 AM

You mean that Brady Anderson didn't really come out of a phone booth in '96 with those 50 homers after averaging a little over 10 per year the rest of his career ? He had only been on the DL 4 times before that "50 homer year of the homer season"....... Shezam, Sgt. Carter !!
"The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, it part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that is good, and all that could be again. Oh, people will come, Ray. People will most definitely come."............Terence Mann

#4 greinke

greinke

    Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts

Posted 19 May 2011 - 02:19 PM

Perhaps because:

  • Amphetamines do increase bat speed nor sharpen hand-eye coordination
  • Amphetamines do not turn mediocre players into great players (Brady Anderson) and great players into super-human players (Barry Bonds)
  • Amphetamines did not lead to the complete obliteration of sacred and time-owned records

BTW -- I do not condone the use of either substance, but there is a BIG difference in a substance that speeds up recovery from an injury and a substance that has a Frankenstein effect. A mediocre player who recovers from an injury quickly by taking amphetamines is still a mediocre player...


So, a well-documented boozer, partier, and womanizer (Mickey Mantle) would not benefit from popping amphetamines when he arrived at the park after a long night? I'm to believe that the amphetamines did not serve to enhance his performance?

If you know anything about amphetamines, they would enhance/sharpen focus and attention. As such, hand-eye coordination wouldn't suffer from a late night of partying. And by virtue of this sharpness and focus, a player like Mantle would continue to be great and put up numbers that you can worship.

I have no doubt in my mind that most records set in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s were amphetamine-aided.

To imply that amphetamines are/were not performance enhancers is extremely short-sided.

#5 cheaptrick77

cheaptrick77

    Rock & Roll Snöb

  • Administrators
  • 20,308 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mike Carter Field
  • Interests:Baseball, Hockey, Obscure Rock & Roll, Obscure Movies, Proud to be the only East Texan who does not worship at the football alter...

Posted 19 May 2011 - 04:03 PM

To imply that amphetamines are/were not performance enhancers is extremely short-sided.

As you think.

Prove to me that amphetamines alter record books and un-level the playing field at the same overkill level that steroids do & I will reconsider that fact that Mickey Mantle was a superior power hitter to Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa.

Mickey Mantle on amphetamines is still Mickey Mantle.

Mickey Mantle on steroids is a the greatest athlete who ever walked the Earth!

AGAIN -- I do not condone the use of either, nor I am I implying that 1950s-1980s players were "squeaky clean" ... I just think comparing "greenies" to steroids is like comparing Vivarin to Heroin.


[I am not implying that this is YOUR point of view, greinke]:
In my ever-so-humble opinion :) , the 1950s-1980s amphetamines vs. 1990s-2000s steroids debate is nothing more than a red herring for modern athlete apologists.

#6 greinke

greinke

    Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts

Posted 19 May 2011 - 05:14 PM

As you think.

Prove to me that amphetamines alter record books and un-level the playing field at the same overkill level that steroids do & I will reconsider that fact that Mickey Mantle was a superior power hitter to Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa.

Mickey Mantle on amphetamines is still Mickey Mantle.

Mickey Mantle on steroids is a the greatest athlete who ever walked the Earth!

AGAIN -- I do not condone the use of either, nor I am I implying that 1950s-1980s players were "squeaky clean" ... I just think comparing "greenies" to steroids is like comparing Vivarin to Heroin.


[I am not implying that this is YOUR point of view, greinke]:
In my ever-so-humble opinion :) , the 1950s-1980s amphetamines vs. 1990s-2000s steroids debate is nothing more than a red herring for modern athlete apologists.


If you want to continue worship at the altar of drug abusers, be my guest. It's hypocritical, though, to give earlier generations a pass and not be willing to do the same with the current generation. That was exactly the origin of this thread. National baseball "experts" totally ignore the fact that amphetamines were widely used. You're only confirming that your following their lead.

BTW, after a long night of partying, I doubt Mickey Mantle could've have often been great without the performance enhancements of his day.

#7 mellon

mellon

    Elen síla lumenn’omentielvo

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,088 posts
  • Location:Somewhere in Texas

Posted 19 May 2011 - 05:19 PM

I'll hold my opinion on the "which drug is more beneficial to a players career", but who ever said Harmon Killebrew took amphetamines?
Spread your arms and hold your breath and
Always trust your cape.....Guy Clark
_______________________________________

Old Charlie stole the handle..

#8 greinke

greinke

    Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts

Posted 19 May 2011 - 05:27 PM

I'll hold my opinion on the "which drug is more beneficial to a players career", but who ever said Harmon Killebrew took amphetamines?


No one said that, or even implied that. In fact, I specifically said I would not sully the Killabrew thread with this question.

This question came back to mind when I heard baseball experts raise their "rankings" of Killabrew by subtracting the more recent guys who were known cheaters. I don't know that I would disagree with experts on that, but I don't understand why the players of earlier eras get a break. The whole point is drugs were used then to compete and drugs were being used recently to compete. What's the difference?

If I take amphetamines to perk me up after partying hard the night before, I am using them to enhance my performance.

#9 junglejim

junglejim

    Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 356 posts

Posted 19 May 2011 - 05:39 PM



If you know anything about amphetamines, they would enhance/sharpen focus and attention.


The above statement is absolutely not true. As someone who has dealt with amphetamine users for a long time, it does not sharpen their focus and attention, quite the opposite. Would you recommend your surgeon to take some to help his skills before he does your bypass?
.
However, the argument can be made that it can pick up someone who is tired, hung over, or worn down from the season. They will not be a better hitter, but at least they will be more conscious. The general consensus from players and reporters of that era is that the players took them to help get through the grind of the season, and increase their energy level, which it certainly will do. If you were hitting 12 homers a year, amphetamines will not get you to 30.


Sorry to interrupt a good argument, carry on.
.......
.
If you're gonna be a bear , be a grizzly

#10 cheaptrick77

cheaptrick77

    Rock & Roll Snöb

  • Administrators
  • 20,308 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mike Carter Field
  • Interests:Baseball, Hockey, Obscure Rock & Roll, Obscure Movies, Proud to be the only East Texan who does not worship at the football alter...

Posted 19 May 2011 - 05:54 PM

If you want to continue worship at the altar of drug abusers, be my guest.

What do you say we stay away from hyperbole & continue with a mature conversation ?? :)

No one is “worshiping” drug abusers ... you asked why they are not scolded as much as steroids users & I answered you.

Baseball fans cherish sacred records. Steroids have the ability to completely obliterate records, amphetamines do not.

That does mean that 1950s-1980s players get a “pass” for popping greenies (as the great Mr. Mackey said, "drugs are bad ... n'kay") it just means their statistics are more believable.

#11 greinke

greinke

    Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts

Posted 19 May 2011 - 06:02 PM


The above statement is absolutely not true. As someone who has dealt with amphetamine users for a long time, it does not sharpen their focus and attention, quite the opposite. Would you recommend your surgeon to take some to help his skills before he does your bypass?
.
However, the argument can be made that it can pick up someone who is tired, hung over, or worn down from the season. They will not be a better hitter, but at least they will be more conscious. The general consensus from players and reporters of that era is that the players took them to help get through the grind of the season, and increase their energy level, which it certainly will do. If you were hitting 12 homers a year, amphetamines will not get you to 30.


Sorry to interrupt a good argument, carry on.
.......
.


The statement is absolutely true. If not, why is amphetamine the primary active ingredient in ADD drugs? If the "users" you are talking about are speed junkies, then that's a completely different scenario. Players of earlier generations wouldn't have abused amphetamines to that level. They would have popped a pill or two to enhance their ability to perform on that day. The fact that players became more alert, and had more energy, made them a better hitter than they would've been fighting a hangover.

The fact that amphetamines, or if you prefer "pills containing amphetamine derivatives", enable alertness, focus, and increased energy is unquestioned.

#12 greinke

greinke

    Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts

Posted 19 May 2011 - 06:06 PM

What do you say we stay away from hyperbole & continue with a mature conversation ?? :)

No one is "worshiping" drug abusers ... you asked why they are not scolded as much as steroids users & I answered you.

Baseball fans cherish sacred records. Steroids have the ability to completely obliterate records, amphetamines do not.

That does mean that 1950s-1980s players get a "pass" for popping greenies (as the great Mr. Mackey said, "drugs are bad ... n'kay") it just means their statistics are more believable.


Who cares if a record is obliterated or just broken? If Mantle took amphetamines before every one of his HRs, why should they be considered any more significant than McGwire's HRs on steroids? The fact that you say older records are "sacred" tells me that you worship them. Pointing that fact out might hurt, but it's not hyperbole.

Ultimately, we're both on the same page when it comes to cherishing the records. I just don't believe there should be any distinction between the two performance enhancing methods.

#13 cheaptrick77

cheaptrick77

    Rock & Roll Snöb

  • Administrators
  • 20,308 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mike Carter Field
  • Interests:Baseball, Hockey, Obscure Rock & Roll, Obscure Movies, Proud to be the only East Texan who does not worship at the football alter...

Posted 20 May 2011 - 04:38 AM

I just don't believe there should be any distinction between the two performance enhancing methods.

You truly do not see the distinction of the results of a Baseball player on greenies and one on steroids ???

#14 shoelessjoelives

shoelessjoelives

    THE PRIDE OF LSU SPORTS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LET'S GO RANGERS! <clap><clap><clap>

Posted 20 May 2011 - 06:07 AM

Greenie is that guy on now with Golic ........AFLAC !!!
"The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, it part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that is good, and all that could be again. Oh, people will come, Ray. People will most definitely come."............Terence Mann

#15 cheaptrick77

cheaptrick77

    Rock & Roll Snöb

  • Administrators
  • 20,308 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mike Carter Field
  • Interests:Baseball, Hockey, Obscure Rock & Roll, Obscure Movies, Proud to be the only East Texan who does not worship at the football alter...

Posted 20 May 2011 - 06:25 AM

^ I see you started the weekend early again...

#16 shoelessjoelives

shoelessjoelives

    THE PRIDE OF LSU SPORTS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LET'S GO RANGERS! <clap><clap><clap>

Posted 20 May 2011 - 06:30 AM

No, Bambino, I haven't. That will be around 7 tonight for me. :rolleyes:
"The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, it part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that is good, and all that could be again. Oh, people will come, Ray. People will most definitely come."............Terence Mann

#17 greinke

greinke

    Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts

Posted 20 May 2011 - 12:20 PM

You truly do not see the distinction of the results of a Baseball player on greenies and one on steroids ???




I don't believe there should be a distinction between the two. A performance enhancer, in whatever shape or form, is a performance enhancer.





#18 cheaptrick77

cheaptrick77

    Rock & Roll Snöb

  • Administrators
  • 20,308 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mike Carter Field
  • Interests:Baseball, Hockey, Obscure Rock & Roll, Obscure Movies, Proud to be the only East Texan who does not worship at the football alter...

Posted 20 May 2011 - 02:08 PM

^ that is not what I asked :)

an updated version of the question:

You truly do not see the distinction of the on-the field results of a Baseball player on greenies and one on steroids ???

#19 greinke

greinke

    Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts

Posted 20 May 2011 - 08:16 PM

^ that is not what I asked :)

an updated version of the question:

You truly do not see the distinction of the on-the field results of a Baseball player on greenies and one on steroids ???


Of course I do. That's not the point of this thread, though. The point was why is there a distinction? Both are performance enhancers and both affected the quality of the game.

#20 cheaptrick77

cheaptrick77

    Rock & Roll Snöb

  • Administrators
  • 20,308 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mike Carter Field
  • Interests:Baseball, Hockey, Obscure Rock & Roll, Obscure Movies, Proud to be the only East Texan who does not worship at the football alter...

Posted 20 May 2011 - 10:09 PM

The point was why is there a distinction?

...because the effect of players and The Game on steroids is so much greater than on amphetamines. Comparing the two is like comparing proverbial apples to oranges. They are not equal.

We are talking in circles, so I agree to disagree with you :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users