What if they used today's baseballs?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by steve B

Since this claim probably needs some backup...

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...her-of-juicing

And from here a bit more balanced look at it. It was actually dog and guniea pig testicles....And apparently didn't actually work
https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/38c553ff

With the publication of Roger I. Abrams’ The Dark Side of the Diamond: Gambling, Violence, Drugs and Alcoholism in the National Pastime, in 2007, Galvin became 21st-century news. He was given the title of baseball’s first user of performance-enhancing drugs. Abrams found an article in the Washington Post from August 14, 1889, that said:
“Galvin was one of the subjects at a test of the Brown-Séquard elixir at a medical college in Pittsburgh on Monday. If there still be doubting Thomases who concede no virtue in the elixir, they are respectfully referred to Galvin’s record in yesterday’s Boston-Pittsburg game. It is the best proof yet furnished of the value of the discovery.”34
In that game Galvin pitched a two-hit shutout and was uncharacteristically successful at the plate. Abrams takes the article at face value, connecting Galvin’s participation in the trial with his success in the following game, in the process defying the long-held and correct notion that correlation does not imply causation.
The Brown-Séquard elixir was invented in 1889 by Charles Brown-Séquard, a French-American doctor. The elixir, which was injected, was based around extracts from guinea-pig and dog testicles and was apparently the first known modern treatment that contained testosterone. Abrams thus relates the elixir to the anabolic steroids that we know of today and ties Galvin to cheating and performance-enhancing drugs.
Abrams, however, fails to take into account the primitive nature of the Brown-Séquard elixir, which made it biologically ineffective according to scientific research published in 2002. The only possible benefit for Galvin, therefore, would have been a placebo effect. Moreover, the instance cited by Abrams appears to have been isolated. Abrams’ association of Galvin’s one-time use of the Brown-Séquard elixir in 1889 with modern-day steroid use is further undermined because the elixir was not banned by professional baseball. It is anachronistic to look back at Galvin’s one-time use of this elixir and consider it performance enhancement, cheating, or unethical behavior. Still, national news outlets and websites publicized and excerpted Abrams’ work, thus helping to slightly tarnish Galvin’s reputation and legacy.

This is certainly missing the point and putting up an odd defense by the author. It does not matter if it worked or not. Nor should his reputation be tarnished in anyway.

Intent is what should be measured and certainly he was hoping it would help him. If I either successfully or unsuccessfully rob a bank, the charges are the same.

What I believe is that when you are under pressure to be a professional athlete and a supplement is available that is legal that could better that effort then you are more likely than not to use it. This was what he was trying and what is logical for players of past. To discount that the same guys with candy dishes of speed and pain killers in the locker room next to the tobacco, sunflower seeds and bubble gum had some moral dilemma on a legal practice is absolutely silly.

There are plenty of accounts available if you look for them, but generationally those players are honestly less likely to be "rats" as the Jose's of the 90s that redirected attention every time it came to him by throwing people under the bus.

I just personally hold the notion that the "steroid era" was less of an increase in steroids but a change in user habits as they were using the healing properties in a more modern way for weight training recovery. They didn't just appear in 1987.

Lyle Alzado admitted he started using in college. Mind you this was 1967 at Yankton College in the NAIA in South Dakota. Let's hit some simple logic here, a 19 year old kid at a tiny no-name college in 1967 can find steroids with no effort but a professional athlete in the MLB can't? There is no logical argument to say that based on high moral grounds they ignored it. In all likelihood it was far more common than ever as it was not tested for and probably on par with the other drug use. That is my opinion of course, but I consider it not an excessive leap of faith.