Was PUD GALVIN The First Doper?

[Seven]

Originally Posted by JustinD

It's always just us two that get yelled at for this, lol.

I'm firmly in that camp as well. Make it three of us!

[Brick442]

I never understood why modern fans do not realize that cheating has been around forever. Wasn't there an early 1900s American League team that hid a concrete pad in front of home plate in order to hit "Baltimore Chops"? You never hear anything about Gaylord Perry and other spitballers. Tom House's (I believe it was him) allegations that the 70s Braves were juicing (Hank Aaron, Davy Johnson) were swept under the rug or ignored.

I not saying steroids are okay, but they were not illegal in baseball at the time. Heck, for some of the foreign players, they weren't even illegal in their home countries.

[raulus]

Count me in the camp that doesn't understand why historical chemical abuses are ignored or explained away while more modern examples are such a focus.

But that could largely be a function of being a Giants fanboy who feels like my man Bonds gets an oversize heaping of blame for his misdeeds, while others are largely overlooked.

Also explains why I'm boycotting Cooperstown until they let him in.

I guess Ortiz is okay for enshrinement because he wasn't quite the misanthrope towards the writers.

[Smarti5051]

Originally Posted by Seven

I'm firmly in that camp as well. Make it three of us!

I feel like I have spent 20 years being gaslit on the PED controversy. The general assumption by most folks arguing that PED users should be forever stained is that if the Mitchell report and/or media did not specifically call you out as a PED user, you are clean. In both cases, the only PED users discovered typically fall into three categories: (1) the player was unpopular or not generous to the press; (2) the player refused to give into blackmail from trainers/others with knowledge of their use; and/or (3) players outed by others that were against the wall and had to give some names to reduce their own liability.

To suggest that most PED users have been exposed is like suggesting "most" tax evaders have been outed by the IRS and press. It defies common sense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What I don't get are the impassioned arguments people make differentiating between greenies which their "clean" heroes gobbled, and "PEDs." It all improves performance that's why people take it.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What I don't get are the impassioned arguments people make differentiating between greenies which their "clean" heroes gobbled, and "PEDs." It all improves performance that's why people take it.

Okay, I'll take the bait. There are significant differences between yesteryear's greenies, and today's performance enhancers. For brevity's sake, I'll highlight the two main ones.

First, greenies were legal. They were methamphetamines, which were readily available in stores and over-the-counter at the time. Methamphetamines were in diet pills, pills truck drivers took for energy, focus, and to stay awake, etc.

Mantle taking a greenie probably had the same effect as if he had drank a few cups of coffee before a game. Would you argue that gaining focus and energy through drinking 4 cups of coffee constitutes an unfair performance enhancer?

Conversely, non-medically prescribed steroids were and are illegal. Thus, one (greenies - methamphetamine pills) were legal at the time the players used them, whereas the other (steroids) were not.

Secondly, the performance enhancement level is not even questionable. Mantle basically took energy pills that were essentially the equivalent of drinking a few cups of coffee, whereas Bonds took steroids that caused him to hit the ball harder and further. Heck, they even increased his shoe and head size. Comparing greenies and steroids is like comparing apples and oranges.

Focus/energy v. brute strength.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Okay, I'll take the bait. There are significant differences between yesteryear's greenies, and today's performance enhancers. For brevity's sake, I'll highlight the two main ones.

First, greenies were legal. They were methamphetamines, which were readily available in stores and over-the-counter at the time. Methamphetamines were in diet pills, pills truck drivers took for energy, focus, and to stay awake, etc.

Mantle taking a greenie probably had the same effect as if he had drank a few cups of coffee before a game. Would you argue that gaining focus and energy through drinking 4 cups of coffee constitutes an unfair performance enhancer?

Conversely, non-medically prescribed steroids were and are illegal. Thus, one (greenies - methamphetamine pills) were legal at the time the players used them, whereas the other (steroids) were not.

Secondly, the performance enhancement level is not even questionable. Mantle basically took energy pills that were essentially the equivalent of drinking a few cups of coffee, whereas Bonds took steroids that caused him to hit the ball harder and further. Heck, they even increased his shoe and head size. Comparing greenies and steroids is like comparing apples and oranges.

Focus/energy v. brute strength.

Just to the bold part. That is so ridiculously unbelievable it is like saying heroin is the same as taking a couple aspirin for pain. If you don't believe me try your silly 4 cups of coffee and then do a nice half gram line of meth and tell me how similar they are.

[G1911]

People will seek a competitive advantage if they are liable to get away with it, by and large. People will generally lie, cheat, steal and do far worse if they believe the act is 1) to their gain and 2) they won't get caught. However, that does not excuse any misdeed because people in another time would have probably also done it if that route was available.

These arguments ignore that Pud Galvin and Babe Ruth gained nothing by weird experiments that were legal and not against the rules. Mickey Mantle did not turn the game into a mockery video game by having a greenie that did not violate the rules. The titanic gap between an energy stimulant and the result of steroids is incredibly obvious. I am very sympathetic to the early steroiders who were not violating baseball's rules at the time of their use, but I do not see any logical or reasonable comparison between Galvin and Bonds.

Would many members heroes have probably done the same thing if they had been able to and had access? Yeah, surely. Did they? No they didn't. A person is responsible for their actual actions, that people are generally of poor moral character and would do the same things if they didn't expect to be caught is not a defense. The steroid users are not special villains, but they are also the ones who actually did violate the rules and actually did turn the game into a video game joke.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

People will seek a competitive advantage if they are liable to get away with it, by and large. People will generally lie, cheat, steal and do far worse if they believe the act is 1) to their gain and 2) they won't get caught. However, that does not excuse any misdeed because people in another time would have probably also done it if that route was available.

These arguments ignore that Pud Galvin and Babe Ruth gained nothing by weird experiments that were legal and not against the rules. Mickey Mantle did not turn the game into a mockery video game by having a greenie that did not violate the rules. The titanic gap between an energy stimulant and the result of steroids is incredibly obvious. I am very sympathetic to the early steroiders who were not violating baseball's rules at the time of their use, but I do not see any logical or reasonable comparison between Galvin and Bonds.

Would many members heroes have probably done the same thing if they had been able to and had access? Yeah, surely. Did they? No they didn't. A person is responsible for their actual actions, that people are generally of poor moral character and would do the same things if they didn't expect to be caught is not a defense. The steroid users are not special villains, but they are also the ones who actually did violate the rules and actually did turn the game into a video game joke.

I am pretty sure this is the first time I have ever seen someone say Ruth and Mantle did not put up video game numbers.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Just to the bold part. That is so ridiculously unbelievable it is like saying heroin is the same as taking a couple aspirin for pain. If you don't believe me try your silly 4 cups of coffee and then do a nice half gram line of meth and tell me how similar they are.

Meth and amphetamines are different.
Adderall is d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine salts in the ratio of 3:1.
It does nothing much to enhance performance of any kind.
At the dose that works for me, it's literally green capsules.

On personal experience, 4 cups of coffee? No. * cups of coffee? Yes.
That's how many cups I usually drank early in the work day before ADD meds.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What I don't get are the impassioned arguments people make differentiating between greenies which their "clean" heroes gobbled, and "PEDs." It all improves performance that's why people take it.

I can say for sure that greenies don't improve performance much at all.

I was prescribed them for ADD, and one dosage was literally green capsules.

If a pro player was having trouble concentrating, then yes it might help with that. I've been to the batting cage both with and without and did not gain any advantage whatsoever. Neither in power, or quickness.

There is an element of things where natural adrenalin during stressful events can give a lot of improvement. But it's somewhat short lived. Many of the old PED things like sheep testoserone have been proven ineffective and occasionally dangerous.

The modern stuff and actual steroids like Alzado had allow more than day on/day off training, and that does increase power and maybe quickness as a side benefit.

So yes, there is a difference between old schemes and newer ones.

[ClementeFanOh]

pieces of the game/Javan-

This topic occasionally pops up on net54, and there are 2 common camps.
The first camp is populated by those who try to "extend the net" of PED use
to encompass almost the entirety of the sport, the 2nd camp tends to pump
the brakes on the "everybody does it and has for years, so it's okay" crowd.
I am in the second camp, so I'll be drawn and quartered very shortly...

The article about Galvin is interesting, it reads almost as humorous. The
reality is that we have no idea if ole Pud decided that one dose of animal
testicular fluid was enough, and decided not to do so again. We also can
imagine that the shot of testicular fluid wasn't the reason he threw a good
game the very next day(!), and we know for sure no one can prove it. In
2023, however, the science has very much evolved and we do indeed know
the tangible benefits of PED use. We also know that a number of modern
players engaged in elaborate efforts to use PEDs and to mask their
usage, sometimes in pursuit of treasured MLB records. We can also see the
physical results of these abuses- all we need do is look at the before/after
photos of Sosa, Bonds, etc... I am thinking of a guy who kipes his
neighbor's newspaper off the lawn (when there were papers), versus the guy
who mugs the delivery person after the round and takes all their profit.
Sure, both people did something wrong, but one guy went way off the
reservation- they are NOT the same thing, and equating them is unwise.

My response is lengthy already, so I'll remark that recent cunning and
planning involved is exponentially greater than that of someone like Galvin,
and was deliberately undertaken with prior knowledge of likely benefits.
These abuses definitely constitute an "era" of the game's existence.
I'll note that the folks who are indignant about this topic often come from
the "everybody does it" crowd. JustinD above tells us he doesn't care, while
using words like "self-righteous" and phrases about "tarnish(ing) the silver
claret". Seems he very, very much cares...

I'll conclude by saying I don't "refuse to believe" my favorite players use
PEDs. I'm a big Roberto fan, also Rod Carew, Koufax, Gibson- I feel pretty
confident they were who we thought they were. I like Hank Aaron too, and
no one can possibly prove his "greenie" use- such as it was- produced
tangible statistical results. I don't think these players were "perfect" either,
and can't recall claiming any of them were. I know I respect them a heck of
a lot more than some of the names mentioned in the thread, though.

Trent King

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't doubt that more modern PEDs are more potent in terms of improving performance. And that the Mays/Aaron generation probably got less mileage out of whatever they were taking. My point, though, is that since they all (I believe) knowingly took advantage of whatever edge they could get, it's inappropriate to vilify Bonds, Clemens etc. while giving a pass to Mays, Aaron, etc. from a character perspective. The fact that the drugs in the 60s and 70s were less effective doesn't make that generation more heroic. I believe there is a lot of nostalgia bias in people's assessments.

[z28jd]

I don't think this story actually happened after checking for it. There are zero mentions of it in Pittsburgh at any point before someone dug up the footnote, though there are jokes about it during that era, just like there are fountain of youth jokes when an old player did well. There were no experiments in Pittsburgh on that date. It was basically huge news everywhere at the same time that he had a great game, so I think it was a comical connection. When there were experiments done, they named the people in it and shared the results. August 13th for instance was done in Philadelphia, where they were also at the previous day.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if players tried it because they had no trouble finding people (healthy and not healthy) who were willing to try it. Many people reported negative side effects the next day. I wouldn't consider it to be anything different than trying a new aspirin back then that was said to cure headaches.

It's not comparable to players in the 60s doing pills or PED players, and definitely not comparable to players who failed after testing was put in. Those to me are the worst. There was nothing keeping your favorite player from the 60s from trying anything to help them.

What's more interesting about Galvin is the fact that he's known now still by the "Pud" nickname, which was almost never used in print before he was elected to the Hall of Fame and a bio was shared in all of the papers that used that nickname. Most people like the nickname for the obvious wrong pronunciation (it rhymes with Good not Dud), so of course it has stuck. It shouldn't be anything more than a footnote to his life, definitely not how he is known now. He would likely be shocked it's how he is known now if you could give him an elixir of life for a day

Also this story calls him the first guy to pitch a perfect game. How did no one notice that mistake?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by z28jd

I don't think this story actually happened after checking for it. There are zero mentions of it in Pittsburgh at any point before someone dug up the footnote, though there are jokes about it during that era, just like there are fountain of youth jokes when an old player did well. There were no experiments in Pittsburgh on that date. It was basically huge news everywhere at the same time that he had a great game, so I think it was a comical connection. When there were experiments done, they named the people in it and shared the results. August 13th for instance was done in Philadelphia, where they were also at the previous day.

Galvin openly admitted he used Brown-Séquard elixir. It most likely had zero effect even though his win the next day was hailed as proof of how amazing it was by the Washington Post. If it worked though is not really important, a failed bank robbery is still a bank robbery. So he is the first admitted PED user in baseball.

There is much written about Brown-Séquard in the National Library of Medicine and other documents. It was very well known at the time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474613/

https://www.historytoday.com/hormone...and-eccentrics

[h2oya311]

Originally Posted by z28jd

What's more interesting about Galvin is the fact that he's known now still by the "Pud" nickname, which was almost never used in print before he was elected to the Hall of Fame and a bio was shared in all of the papers that used that nickname. Most people like the nickname for the obvious wrong pronunciation (it rhymes with Good not Dud), so of course it has stuck. It shouldn't be anything more than a footnote to his life, definitely not how he is known now. He would likely be shocked it's how he is known now if you could give him an elixir of life for a day.

Learned something new. Thank you for this tidbit. Not how I’ve been pronouncing Pud in my head all these years. Similar to Kiki Cuyler, where it rhymes with bye-bye, not tee hee. I assume short for pudding?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

I'll note that the folks who are indignant about this topic often come from
the "everybody does it" crowd. JustinD above tells us he doesn't care, while
using words like "self-righteous" and phrases about "tarnish(ing) the silver
claret". Seems he very, very much cares...

I never said I agreed with the premise of cheating, I disagree with the idea of an "era". The East German Olympic Teams of the 60's and 70's more than proved that those drugs were more than placebos. The German's had a full program in place. I disagree with ignoring all other issues for a focus only on one era when innumerable players who took shortcuts are idolized.

The agreements about mass are silly as steroids were more likely used for their true use much like Armstrong did in his career. Without weight training, there is no gains in mass. What the key use of steroids and HGH is concerns healing factor and speed of that. You can gain mass due to pushing your body to the limit and the healing of those muscles without the natural time for rest. If your naturally overwork muscles without the healing time, they will actually shrink in mass with the tightening of the fibers. The healing factor is precisely why pitchers and others are caught post-injury using these to heal, not grow mass.

If the training was not involved as much like Sparky Anderson would discourage and get upset with over muscled players as the leading belief was it would slow them down. Players would have been using it for recovery factor. Comparing size of players, is not a valid argument.

As for Greenies being less so important, many players have written and discussed how amphetamines would slow the game. Making hitting the ball an easier task. When the comparison was made that Focus/energy v. brute strength is somehow a defense of greenies is somewhat odd. Anyone would take focus and energy over brute strength as it would make a better ball player. WWE wrestlers are not going to hit a ball better because they are stronger.

We can completely ignore Tom House talking about how common steroids were in baseball during the 60's and 70's. You can ignore completely the oddity of Aaron and how somehow his entire 73' team leapt in hitting strength and HRs. Or how he led the National League in home run percentage in three consecutive years late in his career at ages 37, 38 and 39. I am sure it was happenstance as it happens all the time.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Or how he led the National League in home run percentage in three consecutive years late in his career at ages 37, 38 and 39. I am sure it was happenstance as it happens all the time.

We don't think this has to do with a ballpark built for Aaron to hit as many homers as possible?

The source for Aaron's greenies is his own autobiography where he said he tried them once in 1968, felt like it was going to give him a heart attack, and it was "a stupid thing to do." The book was published long before the steroid scandal and anyone cared.

Does anyone have 1) evidence greenies produce more home runs and, 2) that Aaron was a consistent and regular user of them during his Atlanta years? I'd love to see this evidence used to make the claims, as I'm not familiar with it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

We don't think this has to do with a ballpark built for Aaron to hit as many homers as possible?

The source for Aaron's greenies is his own autobiography where he said he tried them once in 1968, felt like it was going to give him a heart attack, and it was "a stupid thing to do." The book was published long before the steroid scandal and anyone cared.

Does anyone have 1) evidence greenies produce more home runs and, 2) that Aaron was a consistent and regular user of them during his Atlanta years? I'd love to see this evidence used to make the claims, as I'm not familiar with it.

https://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_na...in_hank_a.html

[Peter_Spaeth]

Evans and Johnson had freakish HR years in 73 as well. The park was the same the other years they played in Atlanta. Who knows. Tom House, maybe.

https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news...n-was-juicing/

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

https://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_na...in_hank_a.html

Did you read this? There is not a single shred of evidence provided at all, purely speculation.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

We don't think this has to do with a ballpark built for Aaron to hit as many homers as possible?

The source for Aaron's greenies is his own autobiography where he said he tried them once in 1968, felt like it was going to give him a heart attack, and it was "a stupid thing to do." The book was published long before the steroid scandal and anyone cared.

Does anyone have 1) evidence greenies produce more home runs and, 2) that Aaron was a consistent and regular user of them during his Atlanta years? I'd love to see this evidence used to make the claims, as I'm not familiar with it.

There is no way to have evidence.

As far as the mostly BS confessions PED users make for their use, they are hilariously fantasy land. As an example older bodybuilders like Arnold have pretty much all admitted to their PED use. They all also admit to a dose that is so small it is literally the same as a current TRT dose. It's like asking the drunk driver how many drinks he has had and expecting a honest answer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

On a tangent, one of the greatest moments in sports history IMO was when Shirley Babashoff and the US 4x100 relay team beat Kornelia Ender and the East German PED team.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

There is no way to have evidence.

As far as the mostly BS confessions PED users make for their use, they are hilariously fantasy land. As an example older bodybuilders like Arnold have pretty much all admitted to their PED use. They all also admit to a dose that is so small it is literally the same as a current TRT dose. It's like asking the drunk driver how many drinks he has had and expecting a honest answer.

The first statement is untrue. It is, very very obviously, possible to have evidence.

People lie. That does not mean any statement you don't like is a lie. A rational person would use evidence. You're drunk driver would be shown wrong by evidence, not an assumption he is lying (many people truly have had 0 drinks when asked by a cop if they have been drinking during a stop) because that is what you want the case to be.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by G1911

We don't think this has to do with a ballpark built for Aaron to hit as many homers as possible?

The source for Aaron's greenies is his own autobiography where he said he tried them once in 1968, felt like it was going to give him a heart attack, and it was "a stupid thing to do." The book was published long before the steroid scandal and anyone cared.

Does anyone have 1) evidence greenies produce more home runs and, 2) that Aaron was a consistent and regular user of them during his Atlanta years? I'd love to see this evidence used to make the claims, as I'm not familiar with it.

If you have some time, I would read "Your Brain on Cubs: Inside the Heads of Players and Fans". It has some great discussions relating baseball to neurology. It uses Cubs fans as a discussion point of fandom. They have some interesting information as to these substances and baseball.

On Greenies - "Amphetamines produce little or no enhancement in reaction time but significantly reduce the effect of fatigue on a person’s ability to track a moving object such as a ball. Dextroamphetamine, an amphetamine variant this is popular as a recreational drug, improves decision-making and reduces impulsivity in healthy human beings, which would be an effective enhancement for batters that tended to swing at balls outside of the strike zone.”

This was the how and why so many used them to slow the game. My personal favorite description of greenies was used by Doc Ellis, an avid user of just about everything, in "No No, A Dockumentary". If you have not seen it yet, I would reccomend. It is fantastic.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JustinD

If you have some time, I would read "Your Brain on Cubs: Inside the Heads of Players and Fans". It has some great discussions relating baseball to neurology. It uses Cubs fans as a discussion point of fandom. They have some interesting information as to these substances and baseball.

On Greenies - "Amphetamines produce little or no enhancement in reaction time but significantly reduce the effect of fatigue on a person’s ability to track a moving object such as a ball. Dextroamphetamine, an amphetamine variant this is popular as a recreational drug, improves decision-making and reduces impulsivity in healthy human beings, which would be an effective enhancement for batters that tended to swing at balls outside of the strike zone.”

This was the how and why so many used them to slow the game. My personal favorite description of greenies was used by Doc Ellis, an avid user of just about everything, in "No No, A Dockumentary". If you have not seen it yet, I would reccomend. It is fantastic.

I'd not be surprised if there was some small positive impact on home run totals; energy stimulants may well produce a gain here. I've never seen any evidence at all or any real attempt at a statistical analysis, merely quoted opinions like this. But it would not be surprising.

The unanswered second question, logically necessary to make Aaron guilty of anything, is of course impossible to answer as there is no evidence whatsoever beyond the fact that some people want him to be guilty so that it can justify the desired perspective that the big stars of all eras are guilty.

There's another big difference between the previous past eras and the steroid era. Even simply ignoring the falsehood that any attempt to gain performance is the same whether or not it violates the rules and whether or not it works - is that one of them works on a logical and evidentiary basis and the other is not evidentiary. We have mountains of evidence against Bonds, and pure speculation that simply suits some folks narratives on Aaron. These are not the same.