So many of those arguments are ridiculous, even when used in the context of generic steroids, since the primary benefit of steroids allows the user to heal faster from workouts, therefore training more productively. But HGH? That's some damned scary stuff. I mean, the rumours say that it even improves eyesight.
Here's more on it. From BBTF. "These results certainly do not prove that recent performances are tainted, but they suggest that some suspicion is reasonable," he concludes. That's your conclusion? This just in: Science has officially declared that suspicion of steroid use in baseball is reasonable. In other news, Science thinks heterosexual men are attracted to beautiful women. Good to see you, Science. Unfortunately, we are out of booze and all that's left on the buffet table is some baklava. But, hey, we're glad you made it. It's going to be hard to seriously discuss an article that hasn't been published yet. It will not be hard, however, to kick and scream about how Bonds should only have 500 homers. So let's do that.
Good one, Crafty. This just in: Science has also estimated that corked bats MAY contribute to further distances achieved on batted balls. Also, spit balls have a 90% chance of being sloppier than dry baseballs. Further, with the aid of bionic transplants, ballplayers may be able to run faster, see further, hear better, and be stronger than those without such aids. At least, it is suspected. But steroids are wrong. Stay off the juice, kids.
This just in, 81.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Science has also estimated that corked bats MAY contribute to further distances achieved on batted balls No, they've explicitly said the opposite, though Robert Adair did suggest it might improve average.
This just in, 81.7% of statistics are made up on the spot. I thought it was 81.8%?
Since we're mincing numbers, I think the thread title should be: HGH + The Clear = HR(150%). ..though I could see the logic in saying: HGH + The Clear = HR(50%) ...only if there was a starting formula stating: [unmodified hitting] = HR(100%) ...however, that corollary formula, taken on its own, would be confusing without an in-depth explanation of terms and purpose. I could easily see a fan walking away thinking, "unmodified hitting leads to a homer at every at-bat? That's crazy." So, in the interests of that fan, I think HGH + The Clear = HR(150%) ...is best.
yeah what hugh said. BI, allow 32% for error.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Benjamin Disraeli
Pffft. You can use statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.
USA Today has come out with a new survey: Apparently three out of four people make up 75 percent of the population.
Statistics are more fun when they're illustrated by a jaunty cartoonish graph, aren't they? BTW, what was the margin for error in that USA today study?
increased muscle mass could also be obtained through legitimate means such as weightlifting I knew it. Every athlete is a frakking cheater. Make them all drink beer and watch TV like the rest of us. Then see what they can do. I would be interested in seeing how the physicist justifies his numbers. The story appears to indicate the following: 10 percent greater muscle mass = 5 percent greater bat speed = 4 percent greater ball off bat speed = 50 percent more homeruns. Makes my head spin. Make it stop.
Hugh Janus sighting! I love those.
It can be conclusively proven that Science is hazardous to one's health. After all, 100% of the scientists who were working in their respective fields 100 years ago are now dead.
Science has also estimated that corked bats MAY contribute to further distances achieved on batted balls No, they've explicitly said the opposite, though Robert Adair did suggest it might improve average. The Mythbusters guys put some baseball myths to the test and one of them was the corked bat myth. Their tests showed that the ball went further off of a non-corked bat.
the Wired article: "But then, how to explain the explosion of home run hitting from about 1995 onward?" the Tufts press release: "In the 1990s, home run totals skyrocketed to historic levels, notably dropping off after steroid testing was instituted in 2003." Somebody show me this "explosion" and then I'd especially like to see the "notably dropping off." (Here's a picture to help you out). the physicist: "If you look at other sports, you don't see radical changes in performance. No one is running a 6-second 100-meter dash, no matter what they are taking." Oh, for fuck's sake, you call yourself a scientist? Show me the baseball player who's doing the equivalent of running 100m in 6 seconds.
Their tests showed that the ball went further off of a non-corked bat. F = ma
Awesome. I got two people to call me out on the made-up facts of my joke. Scientists have proven that 104.07% of all SportsFilter regulars think that I am a twit. And an unfunny one to boot.
the physicist: "If you look at other sports, you don't see radical changes in performance. No one is running a 6-second 100-meter dash, no matter what they are taking." I agree with Amateur. When I trained as a physicist, we covered quite a bit of stats - where did this guy get his degree from? F = ma When a bat and a ball collide, it's actually more about conservation of momentum...* *and elasticity of the ball, impetus, dissipation of energy (friction) and a host of other variables, but I get your point.
Y=RFA+MA Finally, I have solved the Theory of Regularity.
Fibre does that for me.
Y=RFA+MA Pretty slick.
Pretty slick. Not funny. You twit. Also, how does one batten a hatch? And does HGH help you batten?
You place the batten through the cleats or whatever on either side of the hatch. I'm rolling straight humorless through this thread. Recognize.
Bonds should really only have about 500 homers.
Not funny. You twit. You right. My bad.
