namelesstavern.net

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:22 am**

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=t ... &type=lgns

I call this justice.

Posted: **Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:03 pm**

I call it retarded.

Posted: **Sat Sep 29, 2007 6:56 pm**

I call his so called record bullshit.

He's a fucking roid using cheater. Fuck Bonds... he didn't break shit other than the record for being the biggest asshole in all of baseball.

Seriously, as far as I am concerned - Bonds didn't break the record.

Posted: **Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:03 pm**

Diekan wrote: Fuck Bonds... he didn't break shit other than the record for being the biggest asshole in all of baseball.

I dunno, some of those old time guys were quite the cocksuckers as well

ted williams for one

Posted: **Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:19 pm**

Look up Ty Cobb sometime. He made Bonds look like Mother Theresa.

-Arlos

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2007 2:21 pm**

Diekan wrote:I call his so called record bullshit.

He's a fucking roid using cheater. Fuck Bonds... he didn't break shit other than the record for being the biggest asshole in all of baseball.

Seriously, as far as I am concerned - Bonds didn't break the record.

As long as baseball has been around, there has been cheating in some form. I am not condoning the use of steroids at all, however some very very famous players from the past (including record holders) all have cheated in some form, used something to get a leg up on the competition etc.

If you also believe that if Bonds did use steroids, that he was the only one, or even one among a handful of players, you are wrong. Quite frankly, by him using (if he did) probably evened the playing field. Roids are rampant (or was) in baseball. Pitchers, back up players, superstars, future hall of hamers. There are roid users among those.

Considering, that Bonds was supposedly taking HGH which is not even classified as a steroid, let alone it doesn't even make you stronger. All it does is add bulk and definition, and promotes growth of lean muscle fibers.

None of which is really going to help you hit a ball further.

The record is real, and i doubt very seriously if after 5 years we will be talking about it "not being the real record"

I believe your hatred towards Bonds, stems from the fact that he is an absolute dick. The guy is a fucking ass hole of the highest order. That does not take away from the fact that he is the most dangerous hitter of our generation.

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:31 pm**

*cough* Gaylord Perry *cough*

Freely acknowledged being a master of the spitball, which has always been illegal. He also admitted to gluing flesh-toned sandpaper into the heel of his palm, so he could scuff the baseballs as he was supposedly just rubbing them like other pitchers. HOF voters knew all this when they elected him, and he's in.

And yes, cheating has always been rampant. Remember Albert Belle and his corked bat? Sosa too? One guy a while back got caught filling the center of his bat with super balls. (those small super-bouncy hard rubber balls). So yeah, Bonds probably cheated. But Cheating has never been a barrier to entering the HOF in any way, so why should it be one for him? (especially considering he won what, 3 MVPs back when it's pretty evident he'd never used a steroid ever, like 93, etc?)

Yeah, he's a dick, no argument there. But I repeat again: Go look up Ty Cobb and some of what he did. Bonds looks like Mother Theresa compared to Cobb.

-Arlos

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:12 pm**

Xaiveir wrote:
Considering, that Bonds was supposedly taking HGH which is not even classified as a steroid, let alone it doesn't even make you stronger. All it does is add bulk and definition, and promotes growth of lean muscle fibers.

None of which is really going to help you hit a ball further.

there was a paper released a month or so ago, where the scientist proved that adding 10% lean muscle mass would equate to hitting a baseball 5% further

ie, you're 100% wrong

That being said, I do agree that probably a big chunk of players are juiced these days

Posted: **Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:49 pm**

I can find papers where "scientists" say all sorts of stupid shit.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:32 am**

who cares. he gunna pay for the drug use later.

Remember Lyle Alzado?

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:43 am**

Tikker wrote:
Xaiveir wrote:
Considering, that Bonds was supposedly taking HGH which is not even classified as a steroid, let alone it doesn't even make you stronger. All it does is add bulk and definition, and promotes growth of lean muscle fibers.

None of which is really going to help you hit a ball further.

there was a paper released a month or so ago, where the scientist proved that adding 10% lean muscle mass would equate to hitting a baseball 5% further

ie, you're 100% wrong

That being said, I do agree that probably a big chunk of players are juiced these days

And i have read numerous reports that says it adds zero "strength", ie not effecting the distance a ball travels. Considering you cannot actually measure how far it would actually increase the distance of a homerun ball. If they can it might be an interesting read, you have a link?

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:26 am**

Xaiveir wrote:
Tikker wrote:
Xaiveir wrote:
Considering, that Bonds was supposedly taking HGH which is not even classified as a steroid, let alone it doesn't even make you stronger. All it does is add bulk and definition, and promotes growth of lean muscle fibers.

None of which is really going to help you hit a ball further.

there was a paper released a month or so ago, where the scientist proved that adding 10% lean muscle mass would equate to hitting a baseball 5% further

ie, you're 100% wrong

That being said, I do agree that probably a big chunk of players are juiced these days

And i have read numerous reports that says it adds zero "strength", ie not effecting the distance a ball travels. Considering you cannot actually measure how far it would actually increase the distance of a homerun ball. If they can it might be an interesting read, you have a link?

it has nothing to do with actual strength, just an increase in mass

ie, if you get hit with a 2 ounce ball moving 50 mph it doesn't hurt anywhere near as much as getting hit by a 20 kg ball moving 50 mph

lemme see if I can dig up the article

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:29 am**

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004603.html

A 10% increase in muscle mass produces a 4% increase in ball speed as the ball leaves the bat.

Tobin reviewed previous studies of the effect of steroid use and concluded that muscle mass, the force exerted by those muscles and the kinetic energy of the bat could each be increased by about 10 percent through the use of steroids. According to his calculations, the speed of the bat as it strikes the pitched ball will be about 5 percent higher than without the use of steroids and the speed of the ball as it leaves the bat will be about 4 percent higher.

To determine the ultimate impact on home run production, Tobin then analyzed a variety of models for trajectory of the baseball, accounting for gravity, air resistance and lift force due to the ball's spin. While there was considerable variation among the models, "the salient point," he says, "is that a 4 percent increase in ball speed, which can reasonably be expected from steroid use, can increase home run production by anywhere from 50 percent to 100 percent."

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007 ... ore-m.html

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation ... heore.html

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene ... EROIDS.xml

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:46 am**

But for professional baseball players playing in parks that were designed with normal human biological strength constraints in mind, that extra 4 percent means an “increase home run production by anywhere from 50 percent to 100 percent," according to Tobin.

That just sounds fucking retarded.

I'm not supporting the use of steroids or anything of that nature, but shit if that doesn't look like someone doesn't play many sports.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:53 am**

I think all he's saying is that the extra 4% ball speed changes long fly balls to home runs

I know personally, I can hit the ball a lot further now at my current weight, than I could at 150lbs

I don't get nearly as many doubles anymore tho, haha

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:59 am**

Harrison wrote:
But for professional baseball players playing in parks that were designed with normal human biological strength constraints in mind, that extra 4 percent means an “increase home run production by anywhere from 50 percent to 100 percent," according to Tobin.

That just sounds fucking retarded.

I'm not supporting the use of steroids or anything of that nature, but shit if that doesn't look like someone doesn't play many sports.

Not terribly retarded at all. It is skewed a bit, but not out of the Realm of possibility. My argument is the effects of HGH though, not anabolic steroids. Absolutely, an increase in muscle mass can deffinatley make a ball go farther. However, HGH does not increase mass, just size and definition.

I am going through these articles, but i do not see the formula used. I am going to try and find it, its really interesting stuff.

As an example Harrison, look at Brady Anderson. He was thought to be using steroids when he hits 72 homeruns in 7 years, then in '96 he hits 50. Then poof back to 16 a year. So yeah, if steroids were the reason, it most deffinatly could be that big an increase.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:02 am**

err, how do you add size without adding mass?

and as for his formula, I never ran across the actual paper, so no clue how he came up with the 4% increase in ball speed as it leaves the bat

and yeah, Brady Anderson was exactly the example I was going to trot out

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:15 am**

Tikker wrote:err, how do you add size without adding mass?

and as for his formula, I never ran across the actual paper, so no clue how he came up with the 4% increase in ball speed as it leaves the bat

and yeah, Brady Anderson was exactly the example I was going to trot out

Mass means the size of the gravitational pull on the object; that is, how heavy it is, measured in units of force. The mass of an object is proportional to its weight, but HGH does not add weight, just size. The actual muscle that is built has the lean fibers, not the heavier fibers which actually is what makes you stronger.

I am no physics major, so just going on my understanding of it. I could be wrong, again just the way it was written.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:22 am**

mass is more of a measurement of density and volume, it's independent of weight

ie, a 20kg block on earth is still a 20kg block on the moon, but it's weight changes from 44 lbs to 8 lbs (or whatever)

So i'm not really sure what you're trying to get at?

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:33 am**

Here is the way i understand the difference between HGH and anabolic steroids. Muscle fibers that run through your body are divided into 3 types.

Type one are your high endurance fibers (SO fibers) Slow oxidative. Think of dark meat in a chicken. Has a very narrow diamater, used for things that require endurance. I believe this is what HGH actually effects.

Type two, are actually divided into 2 subclasses.

Type 2A, are fast oxidative-glycolytic fibers (FOG). They fatigue at a medium rate.

Type 2B are the fast twitching glycolytic fibers. They are much wider and heavier than the previous 2 types. These are what weight lifters, baseball players use as their fast twitch muscle. These make up the bulk of and size of muscles. They are the fast firing, and what anabolic steroids effect the most.

That is my take, thank you College text book about the human body.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:34 am**

By using HGH and increasing your type 1 fibers, they get bigger yes. However, it is not what is used to hit a baseball. Guess thats what im trying to get at.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:35 am**

Having this conversation is very tough through typing. Would be much easier to describe over a beer or something yo. So i appologize if not everything is being described well. My brain works faster than i can type :wink:

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:42 am**

well, I think mostly you're just misunderstanding it a bit

either way, whether taking HGH makes you a physically larger person, or if it helps convert you to more muscle mass, you're still increasing mass (strength isn't a factor in the calculation)

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:51 am**

Easy one on HGH though. If it is not effecting the "fast twitch" muscle fibers, its not going to increase bat speed. its not going to help you hit the ball farther. Your fast twitch fibers have to increase in speed and strength for it to be effected, especially at the 4% quoted on steroids.

There are other benefits to HGH, however adding distance on a homerun i doubt very seriously.

Steroids, absolutly.

Posted: **Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:35 pm**

adding mass behind the swing will allow you to hit the ball harder which translates to the 4% ball speed as it leaves the bat

ie, force of the ball hitting the bat isn't as great as the bat hitting the ball

namelesstavern.net

The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball

Re: The fate of the Barry Bonds 756 ball