steroid use in pro baseball in the '60's

schlam_of · 05-03-2005, 04:46 PM

Here is an article about steroid use in pro baseball in the '60's

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2052364

Lean One · 05-04-2005, 08:42 AM

GH use in baseball in the 60s? 70s? Doubtful.

Sounds like someone who's looking for publicity.

"We were taking steroids they wouldn't give to horses"... Huh??

Nullifidian · 05-04-2005, 09:03 AM

This guy is so full of ****. "we didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed." Gimme a friggin break. I'd believe that he was taking steroids. I'd believe a lot moreso he was taking amphetamines. I might be inclined to believe he could have been taking growth hormone (the kind harvested from cadavers). However he describes it like the drugs were the only thing that made anyone good back then and that just isn't true. Drugs don't make you a more accurate pitcher. They don't make you hit the ball better. For baseball, they make pitchers throw faster and able to play longer and more frequently, and they make hitters hit the ball harder and be injured less frequently.

Lean One · 05-04-2005, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

I might be inclined to believe he could have been taking growth hormone (the kind harvested from cadavers).

I Doubt it. That was a risky bussiness back then. GH from cadavers sometimes carried a virus that led to a fatal Nervous system disorder.Kinda like Mad Cow I think. Recombinant HGH wasn't even available til the 80s or even 90s. Even back then BBers were likely the only ones experamenting with it. It certanly wasn't mainstream knowledge.

Grassroots082 · 05-04-2005, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lean One

I Doubt it. That was a risky bussiness back then. GH from cadavers sometimes carried a virus that led to a fatal Nervous system disorder.Kinda like Mad Cow I think. Recombinant HGH wasn't even available til the 80s or even 90s. Even back then BBers were likely the only ones experamenting with it. It certanly wasn't mainstream knowledge.

Yeah, this dude is a lying sack of ****.

Lean One · 05-04-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grassroots082

Yeah, this dude is a lying sack of ****.

Somebody should e-mail the author and tell him his source is full of **** and that he should have done some research before publishing that garbage.

natedogg · 05-04-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lean One

Somebody should e-mail the author and tell him his source is full of **** and that he should have done some research before publishing that garbage.

And give up a chance to create more controversy and make some money. No way. Most of these writers could care less about the truth/fact.

UNDERTAKER · 05-04-2005, 04:59 PM

i think reporters should be held personally accountable for the quality of their sources. If the source is shady mr reporter, THEN DONT ****EN PUBLISH IT.

Boss_K · 05-04-2005, 07:50 PM

It could be true, in the 70's they could have been using the cadaver extracted gh...that **** was dangerous but they didnt realize it until the 80's....I wouldn't doubt they weren't using, seems no different than nowadays to me.

UnicronSpawn · 05-07-2007, 03:52 PM

Cadaver extracts of GH were pretty rare in the 70's and I doubt most athletes even knew what GH WAS back in the 60's.
I'll buy the ampehetamine use. And it's feasable that some degree of AAS use was happening. But the way this guy speaks about it implies a profound lack of any kind of basic understanding of what he was talking about.

"but we know NOW, and that's whats important"
??????
Im sitting here wondering.....What exactly IS IT that this ignoramus thinks that he "knows".

Oh well, just some people trying to get attention w/ poorly put together "info".
Not like he's going to make the country's opinion of performance enhancing drug use any worse or more misinformed than it allready is. (Wich is pretty bad allready in my estimation).