Non-White Sox Off-Season Hot Stove

[ptatc]

22 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

Im shocked that a player that has his best performances after he turns 30 was living better through chemistry.

[Autumn Dreamin]

 

 

[ptatc]

42 minutes ago, Autumn Dreamin said:

 

 

This will be interesting. Wonder if its a valid test arguement.

[Autumn Dreamin]

A couple more OFs getting popped and maybe someone comes calling for Beni

[GreenSox]

4 hours ago, Lukakke Appling said:

We have a ~$15M DH/lf option ready to go for them. 

Heck pay 1/2 the freight, Getz; make it 2/3.  What a gust of air that would be.

Getz should do more business with Atlanta. Anthopolous ripped him off last time; but he told Getz that he was ripping him off so his honesty was admirable.    

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

8 hours ago, ptatc said:

Im shocked that a player that has his best performances after he turns 30 was living better through chemistry.

Here's a hot take.

They should be allowed. 

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Here's a hot take.

They should be allowed. 

Thats a valid discussion. Do you want to protect the players from shortening their lives or make more money.

Back in the 80s when I was in the NFL, we would give the players surveys about the steroids of the day. It was essentially "would you still take them if you knew it would take 10 years off your life." About 75% said yes because where else could they make that kind of money. Hard to argue that.

It makes the leagues look bad when players have such health especially concussions and tumors (Lyle Alzado) from them.

Doesn't really matter to me as im not treating them anymore. Working with then was tough as they were always pissed off and wouldn't listen to anything. Sometimes we need two guys to calm one down so we could work with them. But if the league has them banned, they need to blood test and have consequences.

Edited 13 hours ago by ptatc

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

35 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Thats a valid discussion. Do you want to protect the players from shortening their lives or make more money.

Back in the 80s when I was in the NFL, we would give the players surveys about the steroids of the day. It was essentially "would you still take them if you knew it would take 10 years off your life." About 75% said yes because where else could they make that kind of money. Hard to argue that.

It makes the leagues look bad when players have such health especially concussions and tumors (Lyle Alzado) from them.

Doesn't really matter to me as im not treating them anymore. Working with then was tough as they were always pissed off and wouldn't listen to anything. Sometimes we need two guys to calm one down so we could work with them. But if the league has them banned, they need to blood test and have consequences.

Shortening lives? Properly administered and utilized drugs today certainly aren't impacting lives, health and etc to the extent they were in the 80's. 

[southsider2k5]

11 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Shortening lives? Properly administered and utilized drugs today certainly aren't impacting lives, health and etc to the extent they were in the 80's. 

If they are playing sports like football and soccer, they are already endangering their health anyway.

[ptatc]

9 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Shortening lives? Properly administered and utilized drugs today certainly aren't impacting lives, health and etc to the extent they were in the 80's. 

While not to the same extent, they still do. The research still shows the damage to the liver, heart and kidneys. Especially the liver as ut needs to filter it all.

The protocols today are also different than the 80s and 90s. Most athletes today use  microdosing to avoid getting caught so the level isnt like Bonds, Sosa and McGwire took. So they won't have as much of an effect. Over time they will still have health issues that will change the life span.

Edited 3 hours ago by ptatc

[ptatc]

9 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

If they are playing sports like football and soccer, they are already endangering their health anyway.

Thats more Musculoskeletal than really life threatening. Its rare for life threatening issues. You can make a case for concussions but that's really it. There are a few cardiac issues but they usually have a underlying congenital issue.

[nrockway]

11 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Here's a hot take.

They should be allowed. 

I think a factor that should be considered is that high school kids would follow suit. The kids on my baseball team certainly were 20ish years ago and several of them developed drug additions as adults. It makes sense when considering that a trusted adult is encouraging you to inject drugs when you’re 14. It’s not worth it for a couple extra homers or whatever. 

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, ptatc said:

Thats more Musculoskeletal than really life threatening. Its rare for life threatening issues. You can make a case for concussions but that's really it. There are a few cardiac issues but they usually have a underlying congenital issue.

I am not going to slow roll CTE.

[ptatc]

52 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I am not going to slow roll CTE.

As I said you can make a case for concussions. One thing we do know is that taking PEDs exacerbates the incidence of CTE. In fact some research shows that drug abuse can cause CTE without the head trauma due to its effect on brain chemistry.

The incidence if concussions is about 7 in 10,000 in soccer and about 10 in 10,000 in football. Even fewer develop CTE on average based on post mortem research.

I agree its a significant problem but its not really that common of an issue. With new equipment and rule changes we have seen about a 20% decrease in concussion even with more detailed and consistent reporting.

Edited 1 hour ago by ptatc

[southsider2k5]

6 minutes ago, ptatc said:

As I said you can make a case for concussions. One thing we do know is that taking PEDs exacerbates the incidence of CTE. In fact some research shows that drug abuse can cause CTE without the head trauma due to its effect on brain chemistry.

The incidence if concussions is about 7 in 10,000 in soccer and about 10 in 10,000 in football. Even fewer develop CTE on average based on post mortem research.

I agree its a significant problem but its not really that common of an issue. With new equipment and rule changes we have seen about a 20% decrease in concussion even with more detailed and consistent reporting.

The big problem isn't single concussions, it is the build up of damage over the long term of repeated damage to the brain, and we know almost nothing about how much and how often.  I would bet money that's why the guy from the Bears just quit football.

[ptatc]

22 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The big problem isn't single concussions, it is the build up of damage over the long term of repeated damage to the brain, and we know almost nothing about how much and how often.  I would bet money that's why the guy from the Bears just quit football.

That is true. However in all sports we are much better about not letting them go back in games/practice when they get one and allow time for recovery. We also have many interventions that help them truly recover from significant ones such a hyperbaric chambers, augmented and virtual reality etc. We can decrease the symptoms, severity and incidence.

The incidence also includes repeated concussions within players.

Edited 55 minutes ago by ptatc