Was PUD GALVIN The First Doper?

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

Yes, not suggesting it proves anything, all these retrospective statistical analyses are by definition speculation, but it's interesting.

[ClementeFanOh]

JustinD- in a previous thread on this very topic, maybe 2 years ago, I
stated that using Aaron as an example of (totally unproven) sneaky
PED use, is a non-starter. Nothing has changed, he is a BAD choice by
anyone who carries a torch for modern day players who clearly abused...

Aaron was a model of consistency throughout his career of 22 full seasons.
He averaged 34ish HR and 104ish RBI per season and was steady in batting
average. It wasn't until his last 3 seasons (74,75, partial 76) that we see a
clear decline in production consistent with ageing. I cannot overstate
that anyone who uses Aaron as an example of "you can't tell me
HIS production wasn't buoyed by PEDs" is barking up the wrong tree. There
is zero basis for such a claim, it is utter fantasy.

My guess is you either grew up watching the true PED wonks crush the ball
all over the place, either admiring them or enjoying the spectacle, and were
possibly a fan of their team. Years later, you learned it was a sham. That's
a bummer, you feel cheated- it was a waste of rooting time. Sadly, all of
that is true. The answer, however, isn't to slash and burn anyone who came
before in an effort to exonerate "your" player or fandom. If you- or someone
with similar feelings- simply assume "everybody was doing it", why even
bother to collect, or enjoy the sport? The entire line of thought seems
destructive and, unless someone conducts the most successful seance in the
history of the field and compels these players to "confess from beyond the
grave", is little more than impotent speculation. Pud Galvin and (insert PED
abuser here) didn't do similar things and surely didn't enjoy similar results.

Trent King

[cgjackson222]

I posted this in the watercooler section a couple of weeks ago, but thought I'd post it here to:

I am not sure the PED/'roids guys deserve to be in the Hall, but to some extent they are a victim of their own success.

PEDs can be traced all the way back to 1889, when Pud Galvin used Brown-Sequard Elixir, which is testosterone derived from other animals, most notably dogs and guinea pigs. Even Babe Ruth tried to inject himself with extract from sheep testicles in 1925. This act only made him ill and forced him to miss some playing time. So cheaters have gotten more sophisticated and better at it over time.

Steroids found there way into baseball in the 1970s. Tom House, a former pitcher for a few teams, was the first player to openly acknowledge that there were 6 or 7 players per team experimenting with steroids and human-growth hormone. Steroids then took a backseat during the 1980s when amphetamines became the drug of choice. Players from Mike Schmidt to journeyman Dale Berra, were using amphetamines.

MLB practically sanctioned the use of steroids with their lack of any testing/enforcement. In 1990, Congress cracked down on anabolic steroids with the Anabolic Steroids Control Act, which effectively made them an illegal drug. The next year in 1991, MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent made it clear in a memo that it was against the rules to use steroids, but there was no plan for testing/enforcement.

If players like McGwire, Sosa and Bonds hadn't completely re-written the record books, few people would care about their "cheating."

So cheating has been around forever. They just got really good at during the steroid era.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

JustinD- in a previous thread on this very topic, maybe 2 years ago, I
stated that using Aaron as an example of (totally unproven) sneaky
PED use, is a non-starter. Nothing has changed, he is a BAD choice by
anyone who carries a torch for modern day players who clearly abused...

Aaron was a model of consistency throughout his career of 22 full seasons.
He averaged 34ish HR and 104ish RBI per season and was steady in batting
average. It wasn't until his last 3 seasons (74,75, partial 76) that we see a
clear decline in production consistent with ageing. I cannot overstate
that anyone who uses Aaron as an example of "you can't tell me
HIS production wasn't buoyed by PEDs" is barking up the wrong tree. There
is zero basis for such a claim, it is utter fantasy.

My guess is you either grew up watching the true PED wonks crush the ball
all over the place, either admiring them or enjoying the spectacle, and were
possibly a fan of their team. Years later, you learned it was a sham. That's
a bummer, you feel cheated- it was a waste of rooting time. Sadly, all of
that is true. The answer, however, isn't to slash and burn anyone who came
before in an effort to exonerate "your" player or fandom. If you- or someone
with similar feelings- simply assume "everybody was doing it", why even
bother to collect, or enjoy the sport? The entire line of thought seems
destructive and, unless someone conducts the most successful seance in the
history of the field and compels these players to "confess from beyond the
grave", is little more than impotent speculation. Pud Galvin and (insert PED
abuser here) didn't do similar things and surely didn't enjoy similar results.

Trent King

I am NOT accusing him, but people who question him use that very consistency as the basis for their argument -- he should have had an earlier, age-related dropoff than he did.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

JustinD-

My guess is you either grew up watching the true PED wonks crush the ball
all over the place, either admiring them or enjoying the spectacle, and were
possibly a fan of their team. Years later, you learned it was a sham. That's
a bummer, you feel cheated- it was a waste of rooting time. Sadly, all of
that is true. The answer, however, isn't to slash and burn anyone who came
before in an effort to exonerate "your" player or fandom. If you- or someone
with similar feelings- simply assume "everybody was doing it", why even
bother to collect, or enjoy the sport? The entire line of thought seems
destructive and, unless someone conducts the most successful seance in the
history of the field and compels these players to "confess from beyond the
grave", is little more than impotent speculation. Pud Galvin and (insert PED
abuser here) didn't do similar things and surely didn't enjoy similar results.

Trent King

I think you are insinuating a bit much.

At my age, my heroes are late 70's and 80's. As steroids were officially banned in 91', I could do the same and state they are all above it because it was legal under the rules. Thank you for making me 20 years younger though.

I also am not stating Aaron was a PED user, but again not vehemently not saying that. I admit I don't know. What I do know is that items were available, some players have stated that use was there in the 60's and 70's. So there is no specifics.

As I do not have the ability to somehow uncover information held secret by dead people, I cannot say yes or no.

The difference is you are speaking in your believed facts, I am comfortable in speaking in probabilities.

[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.