Quote:
Originally Posted by johall111
Fair enough. Sorry to offend Gramuel. I do find your argument to be weak cus it was based on a "debatable assumption" and I doubt from your posts that you've got more than a passing knowledge of how PEDs affected minor and major league baseball. Actually I've read articles arguing that a juiced ball and a shrinking strike zone was responsible for HR surge(there were other non-ped possible culprits as well) and the pitchers were juicing too, so just saying that PEDs = more better results is way too simplistic to me.
I actually have a fairly decent knowledge of the effects of PEDs (I noted earlier than a lot of the side effects are transient) but I think the difference is in how we're looking in it.
I think it's unfair to expect kids to take them to keep up with their counterparts that are, you think it's unfair to deny those just off the pace a chance at making it (and other things to). I think your argument is flawed because it's not exactly a stretch to say that if they were allowed and thus everyone was on it those same kids would still be on the edge for the same reasons as before, maybe even further behind.
There are obviously advantages in using PEDs in terms of muscle regeneration and rehabilitation, nobody is denying that. There are also a bunch of negative side effects and I think it's horrendous and immoral to force people to go through them to compete.
Anyway, done arguing this now (again) because you lot seem to care about your entertainment only.
If you want me to post you to all of the studies on negative side effects I can. And yes many will claim they're transient (as I've said).