Was PUD GALVIN The First Doper?

[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.

[G1911]

I'm slow and dumb, but I still don't understand how something is cheating if the action committed was not against the rules at the time the action was done.

It's not cheating to throw a spitball in 1905. It is cheating to throw it in 1995, because the rules changed. Being in violation of the rules seems to be a prerequisite to cheating.

What am I missing here?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm slow and dumb, but I still don't understand how something is cheating if the action committed was not against the rules at the time the action was done.

It's not cheating to throw a spitball in 1905. It is cheating to throw it in 1995, because the rules changed. Being in violation of the rules seems to be a prerequisite to cheating.

What am I missing here?

Do people really object to the cheating, or is the performance enhancing? Nobody is bitching about Gaylord being in the Hall, or Whitey Ford who scuffed baseballs constantly, and so on and so on. And greenies, even if not prohibited by baseball rules, were prescription drugs and surely these guys did not have prescriptions, so taking them was illegal.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Do people really object to the cheating, or is the performance enhancing? Nobody is bitching about Gaylord being in the Hall, or Whitey Ford who scuffed baseballs constantly, and so on and so on. And greenies, even if not prohibited by baseball rules, were prescription drugs and surely these guys did not have prescriptions, so taking them was illegal.

It's neither. Galvin possibly taking some miracle BS is factually not cheating as there was no rule against this and is also factually not performance enhancing; it's an illogical narrative that just suits what people want to find and has been latched onto the last decade because of this. There's nothing to object to if either of those options were the cause of the objection. Both claims are demonstrably false.

Personally I would draw a consistent line at actual cheating, i.e. breaking the actual rules of baseball, requiring specific evidence. Galvin, Ruth, and the fabrication about Aaron did not break the rules. Neither did McGwire's andro at the time he used it. This just seems like the basic common sense, and thus unpopular as it doesn't suit either narrative (as it does not punish the old timers that factually did not cheat but also excuses some of the steroid generation that also did not violate the rules), line. For the cheating to result in severe punishment like a ban or keeping out of the Hall, the cheating should be severe and endemic. I would thus not ban Whitey Ford from the hall for his late career spitters, but if caught he should have been suspended and slapped for it. Gaylord and those around him have made such disparate claims at different times about how much he actually cheated vs. created a mystique is something I'm not versed enough in to judge right now.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm slow and dumb, but I still don't understand how something is cheating if the action committed was not against the rules at the time the action was done.

It's not cheating to throw a spitball in 1905. It is cheating to throw it in 1995, because the rules changed. Being in violation of the rules seems to be a prerequisite to cheating.

What am I missing here?

Point taken. I should used the phrase "trying to gain a competitive advantage through PEDs that were later deemed illegal" instead of outright cheating.

[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.

[ClementeFanOh]

JustinD-

1) You would have been in "prime fandom time" in the late 90s when this
PED issue really mushroomed. So, you are in the thick of it agewise. I am
too, I just didn't go all in on it..

2) What was it you said? You're comfortable dealing in probabilities? Nice word
salad... and I'm dealing in "believed" facts? Nah, just facts. Nice try...

3) You have toned down the "tarnishing the silver claret" nonsense, at least.
Good call...

Trent King

[JustinD]

You remember Bobby Higginson? Have that be your star player and tell me you were "prime fandom time".

[StraightRaceCards]

Nothing substantial to add here except that I am trying to work on the connection between Pud Galvin and my family (the Galvins)

Apparently he grew up in the Kerry patch in St. Louis. My family immigrated over from Ireland in 1904 and I had a few great great uncles already residing in the Kerry patch well before that.

So who knows!

The man had a poor legacy outside of his baseball prowess, that is shadowed by PED use.

Still proud to be a Galvin though! We also ran all the speakeasy’s during prohibition, call us the Irish Mafia!

Matt Galvin

[piecesofthegame]

Glad this thread generated some actual discussion other than “how much more will all my cards be worth in 2024.”

I actually posted the article half jokingly. The guy was just trying the latest craze. There were so many products back then claiming to be the elixir of life, and especially in an era where you didn’t have to prove any claims whatsoever, there were surely suckers born every minute buying into the claims.

Ultimately I’d agree with those who basically stated the simple premise:
If the rules state one thing and you do another , it’s breaking the rules and therefore cheating. If it’s not in the rules, knock yourself out. And thus, the great testicular fluid experiment. 🙂

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by piecesofthegame

Glad this thread generated some actual discussion other than “how much more will all my cards be worth in 2024.”

I actually posted the article half jokingly. The guy was just trying the latest craze. There were so many products back then claiming to be the elixir of life, and especially in an era where you didn’t have to prove any claims whatsoever, there were surely suckers born every minute buying into the claims.

Ultimately I’d agree with those who basically stated the simple premise:
If the rules state one thing and you do another , it’s breaking the rules and therefore cheating. If it’s not in the rules, knock yourself out. And thus, the great testicular fluid experiment. ��

There continue to be many such products and services with essentially no science backing them and based entirely on anecdotal testimonials or outright deception.