On Jan 31, 11:56 am, "mwhaught" <mwhau...@excite.co­m> wrote:

<snip a bunch of garbage>

This stuff is so ridiculous. I can't speak about other sports, but

urine tests show that less than 1% of baseball players use steroids,

and evidence suggests that it has a minimal impact on performance

anyway. Further, the negative effects are also way overblown. Baseball

doesn't have a steroids problem; the media and fans have an ignorance

problem.

Eric Walker did an excellent job summarizing recently. Well, it came

to my attention recently. I'm not sure when he wrote it.

http://steroids-and­-baseball.com/

On Jan 31 2008 9:32 PM, isaiahcamacho wrote:

No. It is not ridiculous at all.

By its own admission, MLB's testing methods were inadequate. Most players

had a good idea in advance of when their testing was to take place.

Still, more than 5% of the tests were positive (closer to 7% by some

accounts). There was no provision for off-season testing.

Amongst athletic trainers, they joke that you have to be a very unlucky, a

very dumb and/or a very greedy athlete that get caught by most current

testing methods. And I have known a few of those trainers through the

years that work with professional and collegiate level athletes.

Eric Walker may be 100% correct. He may be very wrong. But we'll never

know. This is because of how performance enhancing drugs came upon the

scene and how organized sports responded. George Mitchell's investigation

is part futile, part witch hunt. It will never be quantified who may have

done what and how performance was changed.

But we have seen enough athletes perform better, longer to know something

changed.

Yes, athletes train harder and more scientifically today than ever

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:13:11 -0500, Edmund wrote

(in article <47a069d7$0$8370$bf­4948fe@news.tele2.nl­>):

Certainly drugs in pro sports are used by a significant number. But I would

have to see real evidence before I agreed that the "majority" used them or

that they are even "widely" used.

Oops! Meant to say:

Casual and unscientific observations:

-mwh

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:47:20 -0600, mwhaught wrote

(in article <893a75xfkd.ln2@rec­groups.com>):

Who's Rambo and what division does he fight out of and why the boycott???

On Feb 1, 8:53 am, "The Sanity Cruzer" <sanitycru...@comca­st.net>

wrote:

Here's a tip: When the evidence contradicts your uninformed

assumptions, go with the evidence.

In my barely skimming the article,

This is pretty funny. He studied the issue and reached a conclusion,

you have an agenda and are refusing to bother doing any research.

Generally, the steroid debate isn't between people who interpret the

data in differing ways, it's between people who look at the data and

people who don't.

Two hundred and fifty dollars on the GIANTS to win!!!

On Feb 2 2008 4:57 PM, Ruddell wrote:

Sheesh! You got this one right!

I was going to put a few bills on NY because I thought they'd beat the

spread. Bummer for me as I was busy the last few days and didn't get

around to it. Betting on a win was more than I'd go for today. Good call!

-mwh

On Feb 2 2008 4:57 PM, Ruddell wrote:

Sheesh! You got this one right!

I was going to put a few bills on NY because I thought they'd beat the

spread. Bummer for me as I was busy the last few days and didn't get

around to it. Betting on a win was more than I'd go for today. Good call!

<isaiahcama...@hotm­ail.com> wrote in message

there you go. Beyond that, would you use the same reasoning to support

the claims of "alternative medicine"?<

Until very recently, MLB (players' assoc. and owners combined) never

really

wanted to find who was using steroids.

If you believe that only 1% of MLB

players use (have used) steroids, you've got your head in the sand and "

No

offense, but that's really too stupid to even

warrant a response."

I said testing shows that fewer than 1% of MLB players use steroids in