Steroids and science

Disclaimer: I’ve only read blurbs on the Mitchell Report, the fallout, etc., but I do know Bud Selig, and Bob DuPuy, and have a couple friends who played independent league ball, and one who pitched big league ball (he can be seen congratulating McGwire after his 62nd in all the footage).

So,

1) Power is a secondary benefit of steroids; the recuperative effects of ‘roids are what most of these guys were going for, not the muscle. HGH, for which there currently is no test, is especially effective. That’s why there are so many second- and third-tier names on this incomplete list.

2) Bud Selig was the perfect shill for all of this – he used to be a used car salesman (Selig Ford, but he drove a Ferrari, which is not a Pinto). This Mitchell Report, which apparently pales in comparison/depth to the Dowd (Pete Rose) report, is only the beginning of baseball’s troubles.

3) medical/legal: team doctors and trainers have known about this stuff for years, and basically weren’t allowed to say anything. There are many telltale signs of use, including 32 year-old players with joints of 65 year-olds. Team doctors were directed to give thumbs up or down on physical-contingent signings, nothing more, even though the physical side effects of habitual users are obvious. There was, and still is, an implicit don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy in place.

4) Roger Clemons’ denial: Lance Armstrong (and various other athletes) used this defense: “I have never tested positively for any banned substance.” That’s a carefully worded denial – it means “I have never been caught,” not “I have never used.” That’s a very important distinction to make.

This is a terrible event, but an expected one. Results:

1) more useless government hearings and oversight,

2) increased scrutiny and regulation,


3) diminished product,


4) more Bud Selig saying “We need to take action, and we will,” followed by no action,


5) a generation of baseball players who will never get into Cooperstown.

Where’s Kenesaw Mountain Landis when you need him?

I dispute the analysis of the impact of steroids on home run hitting, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdinardo/lawsofg...>

First of all, De Vany's comparison of hitting lots of home runs to winning multiple PGA Championships and World Chess Championships is laughable on many levels. But I'm sure his statistical methods are solid.

So I understand that his conclusion is that we haven't seen an uptick in the number of home runs during the steroid era; therefore, there is no effect, and we have nothing to worry about. I suggest that while his statistics may reflect a macro view, he ignores the micro view.

What am I talking about? Let's take The Mitchell Report's findings that approximately 10% of MLB players were using banned/illegal substances. That includes pitchers and hitters. So we have 4 scenarios:

Cheating pitchers vs. non-cheating hitters - we should see fewer home runs in these matchups

Cheating pitchers vs. cheating hitters - just guessing here, but I'll posit that this is a push

Non-cheating pitchers vs. non-cheating hitters - should be "normal"

Non-cheating pitchers vs. cheating hitters - we should see an uptick in the number of home runs in these matchups

So if these micro effects do, in a way, cancel each other out, why shouldn't the macro numbers stay roughly the same???

Let's have this argument yet again:

The top of the rubber is to be no higher than ten inches (25.4 cm) above home plate. From 1903 through 1968, this height limit was set at 15 inches, but was often slightly higher, sometimes as high as 20 inches (50.8 cm), especially for teams that emphasized pitching, such as the Los Angeles Dodgers, who were reputed to have the highest mound in the majors.

I'm sure the surveying techniques at the time were far superior to the Garmin GPS I just gave my father-in-law for Christmas. Hope he's not reading this blog.

[Here's David Cone making a retrospectively humorous argument about an additional adjustment, in a highly questionable paper.]

Since gravity is (usually) a constant force of -9.8 m/s2, this is a pretty banal analysis. Distance to home plate is constant; strike zone (variation) is supposedly consistent (unless you’re in Atlanta and on the outside corner); airspeed resistance is relatively constant, especially in indoor stadiums (elevations above 1500 ft MSL, or atmospheric variations beyond 2 sigma of STP). So what variables to change?

I'm actually with tw on this, probably minimal impact statistically.

Let's have this argument yet again:

The top of the rubber is to be no higher than ten inches (25.4 cm) above home plate. From 1903 through 1968, this height limit was set at 15 inches, but was often slightly higher, sometimes as high as 20 inches (50.8 cm), especially for teams that emphasized pitching, such as the Los Angeles Dodgers, who were reputed to have the highest mound in the majors.

I'm sure the surveying techniques at the time were far superior to the Garmin GPS I just gave my father-in-law for Christmas. Hope he's not reading this blog.

[Here's David Cone making a retrospectively humorous argument about an additional adjustment, in a highly questionable paper.]

Since gravity is (usually) a constant force of -9.8 m/s2, this is a pretty banal analysis. Distance to home plate is constant; strike zone (variation) is supposedly consistent (unless you’re in Atlanta and on the outside corner); airspeed resistance is relatively constant, especially in indoor stadiums (elevations above 1500 ft MSL, or atmospheric variations beyond 2 sigma of STP). So what variables to change?

I'm with tw on this, probably minimal impact statistically.

That’s the first time I’ve repeated myself myself courtesy of Firefox updates updates.

Digital delay delay delay delay …

Here’s the reality:

1) appraisers set home prices, just like the old NYSE specialists

2) umpires have the most influence on baseball, and they have a powerful union.

That’s your real problem, along with the reputation of a used car salesman as your commissioner.

I'm an MD with an interest in drugs and hormones - but I am inclined to trust the market rather than the experts on this issue. I believe that performance enhancing drugs are effective, because the market says so.

Anabolic steroids are also used in cricket, and the use is punished more more severely than in baseball - for example Shane Warne (some would say the greatest spin bowler ever) served a year ban for illegal drug use. He took a banned diuretic which is used in steroid regimes to counter side effects and make the steroid less detectable.

The general pattern in cricket is that anabolic steroids and similar drugs have been used by bowlers (equivalent to pitchers) to speed up recovery from injury.

It is obious why professional sports athletes want to speed recovery from injury - they spend a lot of theor careers doing this, on average.

Anyway, that's what the market seems to be telling us in cricket - performance-enhancing steroids work best at speeding recovery from injuries.

"Tis much ado about nothing".

Contemplate this. Barry Bonds takes steriods, kicks back with the remote in hand and watches TV. Come practice time he goes to the ballpark, juices up again, and sits on the bench until it is his time to hit. He takes his cuts, goes home, eats and kicks back again. Come game time he goes to the park, gets dressed, takes some cuts and plays the game.

Where in that routine is the steriods going to help Barry Bonds in other than the recuperative effect mention by the good doctor above?

If that is all the steriod taker does, than the recuperative effects is all we are going to see.

Now, in the scenario above, lets throw in a rigorous routine of weight training instead of TV watching. Barry bulks up, his reaction time becomes a tad sharper (his vision doesn't), and he is driving balls farther and harder.

The question becomes did he cheat by taking the steriods or did he cheat by weight training and becoming stronger and faster?

Should weights be banned substances as well?

Athletes and non athletes have used artificial methods to gain advantage since athletic and mating competition began in those long long ago days.

This entire topic is of no importance what so ever. Which ever way the decisions or results come down it won't affect the price of anything I need or want. I won't work harder or easier, I won't sleep easier or more restless, my blood pressure won't go up or down, my brother's heart condition won't change......the topic is just so amazingly trivial that I am baffled as to why any one really wastes time on it.

Baseball is a fleeting amusement for Christ's sake!

Steroids DO help hitters.

The rate at which a hitter can rotate is a function of two factors. First, how quickly his fast-twitch fibers can rotate his torso. Second, how compactly they can rotate.

Steroids help hitters increase the centripetal force they can apply to the bat, which helps them overcome the centrifugal force that is trying to pull the bat away from him.

As a spinning figure skater demonstrates, the closer you hold your mass (arms in the case of a figure skater and arms and bat in the case of a batter) the faster you will spin.

Barry Bonds' use of steroids gives him the strength he needs to help him keep his mass closer to his body/axis of rotation which helps his shoulders rotate faster.

That's also why Bonds likes to hit pitches that are inside. It helps him stay compact and maximizes the rate at which his shoulders rotate.

Certainly not a scientist and haven't read your report overly closely, but did notice many of the figures seem to be some statistic (lets take home runs) per attempt. If you are correct that one of the advantages of steroids are their recuperative effect then wouldn't such a figure be practically meaningless to assess the effect that steroids have had on the game?

If you get X more at bats per season because of the positive regenerative effects then the measure of your advantage over your non steroid assisted competition would be something like X times your likelihood of hitting a home run in any given at bat. Wouldn't it?

I have a hard time believing that those studies tested effectiveness at the doses these athletes actually us it. They probably juice at levels not ethical for a laboratory study.

Very good Blog