[sumo] [spoilers]Takanohana and steroid abuse

[Scott M. Kahn]

I see that you have chosen to attack the debater, by intentionally
mischaracterizing my points and putting your own incorrect time
frame on the period that I was referring to.  It is too bad that
you need to resort to such petty attacks, you lose all perspective
by trying to make an issue out of something that is not there.

So let me make it a little clearer for you.  "That era" does not
specifically mean 1996.  I fail to see how you can so badly
misinterpret such a statement.  I was referring to the general
period during which home runs went up drastically.

For an example of a report on the baseballs of the time, 1999 vs
2000, see-

http://webusers.npl.uiuc.edu/~a-nathan/pob/baseball-study-report.doc

If I remember correctly, studies were also performed on balls from
before 1996, and these led to the conclusion that the balls were
not juiced.  I am sure that others can come up with the direct
citations.

Following these reports, it was then speculated that the players
were juiced instead of the ball.

No misinformation given.  Your own timeline supports what I posted. 
I suggest that you take a breath to understand the meaning of the
posts that you read with opposing opinions before replying with
such a vengence.

Respectfully,
Sukubidubidu

Quoting Joshua Maciel <joshua.maciel at gmail.com>:

> To be quite clear, there was NOT discussion of steroid abuse in
> 1996 when
> Brady Anderson hit 50 home runs.
>
> Number of articles citing 'steroids' by year (post
>
20<http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/oberjuerge_q_a_with_bill_james_baseball_analyst/>
> ):
> 1997--0
> 1998--1
> 1999--8
> 2000--8
> 2001--3
> 2002--358
> 2003--135
> 2004--510
> 2005--934
> 2006--387
>
> You are making yourself look ignorant about this issue and
> spreading
> disinformation in the process. I'd also love to see this
> information about
> the 'physics' of doctored balls, as I'd love to know how they
> controlled for
> all factors when they didn't have access, I'd assume, to the
> actual game
> balls used by year (let alone kept under the same conditions).
>
> As we all know from the recent addition of a humidor at Coors
> Field that the
> conditions the balls are kept in change the behavior of the ball
> quite a
> bit.
>
> For more information on this stuff, I recommend 'Cheater's Guide
> to
> Baseball' by Derek Zumsteg (sp?), as well as the Baseball
> Economist by J.C.
> Bradbury (author of sabernomics.com).
>
> What I don't recommend is stating this as if they are true
> without proof to
> back it up.
>
> - Josh
>
> On Dec 11, 2007 1:59 AM, Scott M. Kahn <smk1 at columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> > As for the home run race, there was talk of a "juiced ball"at
> the
> > time, but physics studies showed that not to be the case.  But
> when
> > the likes of Brady Anderson were hitting 50 home runs, there
> was
> > talk of players being juiced.  At that time, steroid abuse was
> not
> > the topic it is today.  But at least baseball is now revisiting
> > that era.  Mark McGwire was most likely abusing steroids, this
> > might come out in the soon to be released Mitchell report.  He
> will
> > be denied election to the Hall of Fame in his first year of
> > eligibility because of the questions.  The public would
> eventually
> > forgive him if he owned up to cheating, they will not forgive
> him
> > if it is shown in other ways that he cheated.  Lying is worse
> than
> > the crime.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Sumo mailing list
> Sumo at webtrek.com
> http://www.webtrek.com/mailman/listinfo/sumo
>