Steroid issue from a "personal" viewpoint

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
would you mind naming a few examples

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the most obvious and relevant example when we are talking about homerun production, Barry Bonds, and hitting the ball harder and farther as you get older.

Henry Aaron
ages 30-34: 33 HR's per year
ages 35-39: 41 HR's per year

24% increase in yearly power production after age 35, over and above his production during the "peak years" of 30-34.

Age at which he achieved career high in homeruns?

Henry Aaron: Age 37

Hammerin' Henry hit over 40 homers *once* between the ages of 30-34, but accomplished it *three* times between the ages of 35-39, and just barely missed out on a fourth.

As Henry got older, he got stronger, and he got more productive at the plate. He had 'only' 510 HR's when he turned 35.

He hit the remainding 245 (about one-third of his career total) AFTER turning 35.

Moral of the story:

Anyone who argues that a power surge in production after age 35 is evidence of juicing in and of itself...I would ask you if you use that same logic consistently towards everyone, or just when it comes to Barry Bonds?

[RedBean]

And for reference, let's look at admitted steroid users comparative numbers, and see how they fared after age 35:

Ken Caminiti
ages 30-34: 24 HRs per year
ages 35-38: 18 HRs per year

25% decrease.

Jose Canseco
ages 30-34: 31 HRs per year
ages 35-36: 13 HRs per year

58% decrease.



Seems when it comes to this theory of power production going up after age 35 in relation to steroids, Bonds has alot more in common with Henry Aaron, and way less than the polar opposite in admitted steroid users Caminiti and Canseco.

Several known steroid users production DECREASED dramatically between 35-39 compared to 30-34.

Henry Aaron and Barry Bonds INCREASED.

So much for that theory being "proof of juice", eh?

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
And for reference, let's look at admitted steroid users comparative numbers, and see how they fared after age 35:

Ken Caminiti
ages 30-34: 24 HRs per year
ages 35-38: 18 HRs per year

25% decrease.

Jose Canseco
ages 30-34: 31 HRs per year
ages 35-36: 13 HRs per year

58% decrease.



Seems when it comes to this theory of power production going up after age 35 in relation to steroids, Bonds has alot more in common with Henry Aaron, and way less than the polar opposite in admitted steroid users Caminiti and Canseco.

Several known steroid users production DECREASED dramatically between 35-39 compared to 30-34.

Henry Aaron and Barry Bonds INCREASED.

So much for that theory being "proof of juice", eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

hey Redbean,
How come you never answered my question in the other thread?

I'm sure you saw it.

Here it is again:

"simple question Redbean. if you HAD to guess one way or the other when asked this question:

Has Barry Bonds ever used HGH or steroids?

What would you say? You have 2 options:

Yes I think so
No I don't think so.

No other answers are possible."

[RedBean]

Kneel, sorry I must have missed the question previously.

I don't really have any opinion, since I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and when you look deeply at all the factors, it just isn't clearcut definitive either way. There is certainly a mountain of circumstantial evidence surrounding him, but there isn't a smoking gun.

But that said, if I had to guess, just absolutely had to guess based on your possible two answers, I would *guess* yes to HGH and no to steroids.

And no to steroids only because he hasn't failed any of the tests since they started the testing program in 2002, and that is a matter of record.

And strangely enough, I recieved a deptotestosterone shot this morning from my physician as treatment for a case of nagging acute bronchitis I've been trying to shake for over a week. Supposed to help clear me up, but I guess I've ruined my chances at the Hall of Fame..eh?

The nerve of me to mess with the "integrity of life" by using the aid of these new-fangled medical advancements to prolong and enhance it.

And to think, I would have missed another 3 days of work if I hadn't gotten it....hmm....

[Baxter]

You didn't receive anabolic steroids, proving you have no idea what you're talking about. You can try out for MLB and it would not be detected as illegal, and it was prescribed by a physician, not illegially obtained.

[diddle]

OJ used steroids and Bonds killed the Goldmans

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
would you mind naming a few examples

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the most obvious and relevant example when we are talking about homerun production, Barry Bonds, and hitting the ball harder and farther as you get older.

Henry Aaron
ages 30-34: 33 HR's per year
ages 35-39: 41 HR's per year

24% increase in yearly power production after age 35, over and above his production during the "peak years" of 30-34.

Age at which he achieved career high in homeruns?

Henry Aaron: Age 37

Hammerin' Henry hit over 40 homers *once* between the ages of 30-34, but accomplished it *three* times between the ages of 35-39, and just barely missed out on a fourth.

As Henry got older, he got stronger, and he got more productive at the plate. He had 'only' 510 HR's when he turned 35.

He hit the remainding 245 (about one-third of his career total) AFTER turning 35.

Moral of the story:

Anyone who argues that a power surge in production after age 35 is evidence of juicing in and of itself...I would ask you if you use that same logic consistently towards everyone, or just when it comes to Barry Bonds?

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting stuff there

maybe Hank was on the juice

[EricW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

OK, so jihad, after doing all of that work for, now imagine putting on another 30 pounds of muscle. You can't right? But it might be possible with steroids.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm 235 now, and probably only 10 of that is fat, so yes, I can imagine it. It's completely possible, even without help. I'm not saying he didn't, I'm just saying that the point that a lot of people have been making, that these kinds of gains are impossible, are flat out incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddy, your thread sucks and you have no idea what you're talking about. Case in point: you're 235 and only 10 of that is fat... riiiight so you have 4.2% body fat. *rolleyes*

Distorted anecdotal stories from people who have no idea what they're talking about suck.

[Banks2334]

[ QUOTE ]
.

I don't really have any opinion, since I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and when you look deeply at all the factors, it just isn't clearcut definitive either way. There is certainly a mountain of circumstantial evidence surrounding him, but there isn't a smoking gun.

But that said, if I had to guess, just absolutely had to guess based on your possible two answers, I would *guess* yes to HGH and no to steroids.

And no to steroids only because he hasn't failed any of the tests since they started the testing program in 2002, and that is a matter of record.



[/ QUOTE ]
There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence yet because there is no smoking gun you give the guy a pass. Most criminal cases are built on circumstantial evidence, rarely is there a "smoking gun".
And you say no to steroids because he didn't test positive. He was using before they had testing and later moved on to the undetectable HGH. The testing plan sucked then and still is a joke today. You have to be an idiot to test positive. And lets not forget the "flaxseed oil" he was using, that was a steroid. But I guess OJ, Robert Blake, etc..all get the benefit of a doubt.

[Jihad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

OK, so jihad, after doing all of that work for, now imagine putting on another 30 pounds of muscle. You can't right? But it might be possible with steroids.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm 235 now, and probably only 10 of that is fat, so yes, I can imagine it. It's completely possible, even without help. I'm not saying he didn't, I'm just saying that the point that a lot of people have been making, that these kinds of gains are impossible, are flat out incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddy, your thread sucks and you have no idea what you're talking about. Case in point: you're 235 and only 10 of that is fat... riiiight so you have 4.2% body fat. *rolleyes*

Distorted anecdotal stories from people who have no idea what they're talking about suck.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was that I've gained the 40 pounds, and only 10 of the gain has been fat. There are pictures of me floating around on this board, I'm not ripped anymore. I am, however, big. Don't be such a queef.