Hypothetical Steroid Question

by VolPowers on Dec 14, 2007 2:34 AM CST

Here's what I cannot get past. Babe Ruth. The Best Ever. But a drunk. To me, the most consistent theme of what steroids can do for you is not necessarily make you bigger (see Jerry Jr. listed twice on the report), but make you recover faster from exertion. Well, if there isn't a guy who ever played the game who would've loved faster recovery than Babe Ruth, then I don't know who it would be (Mickey Mantle)?

My question: if they knew it could make them better and recover more quickly from workouts (or whatever ailed them at the time), would these greats have taken the junk? I say yes. Especially considering that in their era the likelihood that anyone would've found out would have been nil.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Of course...

...they would have. Which is why almost every player started taking amphetamines when they became available.

by jolietconvict on Dec 14, 2007 7:24 AM CST reply actions

And how readily available were steroids in his day

I cannot speak to what players knew of steroids then.

MMMMM...Golden shrimp and chicken combo from Ron of Japan!

by Kinky Reggae on Dec 14, 2007 3:58 PM CST reply actions

Well there was a striking omission from the report

There was absolutely no mention of baseball's amphetamine problem at all. Baseball's speed problem dates back way further than the steroid problem, and it took baseball even longer to get ahold of that than it did steroids.

But casting a dragnet over that was sure to net some baby boomer heroes - no one wanted Hall of Famers getting caught in it, this was about impeaching the 90's, nothing more.

by Wreckard on Dec 14, 2007 4:50 PM CST reply actions

It was actually addressed

by Mitchell in the beginning. He mentioned that the report would not cover it, since it would take too much time and too many resources in an already spread-out and costly investigation.

by jjmarie30 on Dec 15, 2007 7:51 AM CST up reply actions

The only thing better than historical fiction?

Historical speculation.

"There are no curses here...Games are won and lost on the baseball field" - Lou Piniella

by El Borto on Dec 14, 2007 4:50 PM CST reply actions

just a thought

this is just something that's been floating around in my brain for about a year now and this seems like a good thread to just voice it.

everybody says steroids is cheating because it's using medical science to give yourself a competitive edge not gotten through hard work. to me, then another question you can ask along those lines is why, if steroids is cheating, doesn't such other recent medical breakthroughs such as Tommy John surgery, Lasik eye surgery, and things like that count as cheating too?

I'm not saying they should, but if you're using steroids to help recover from a legit injury, isn't that almost identical to the pitcher using ligament replacement to help get his career back?

like i said, just something that's been floating in the back of my mind since all this started.

by petrie on Dec 14, 2007 5:28 PM CST reply actions