[Archive]

Posted By: John J. Grillo

As a lowly assistant-professor, I read the article and thought some points thought-provoking. The author's analysis on steriods is a bunch of crap imo

The author is missing the argument and limits his argument to the sport of baseball. The author should have focused his research a little more scientifically about the relationship between steriod use and athletic performance. The Olympics ban it for a darn good reason.

I do not think there is a single educated person who thinks steriod use is going to make you hit more home runs. However, what steriods will do is increase your strength, and for those (i.e. athletes) who strength-train, the result is going to be increased muscle mass. In addition, the use of steriods reduces the amount of muscle-recovery time after exercise...(i.e. soreness, nagging injuries). As an athlete becomes tired during a 162 game season, steriod use will enable the athlete to recover quickly, and also extend the career of an athlete beyond their peek years.

What the author should have mentioned is how many home runs did Ruth, Mantle, Killebrew, Mays, et al, hit in their late 30's and 40's. Compare that to the Bonds' McGwire's of the world still bashing a zillion home runs when they should've been on the downside of their career.