There is more to hitting for power than steroids? This makes it sound like anyone that's all there is to it. There are plenty of people who take steroids that couldn't hit a home run to save their life. Babe Ruth wasn't known for hitting for power at the start of his career? Is Rick Hummel going to tell me that he was on steroids? And why is an article dealing with the Cubs in a paper in their archenemies town?
No one is saying that steroids alone can make you a good hitter, or that you need steroids to be a good hitter. Steroids are a "performance enhancing" drug, which means they can make a bad hitter a little better, and a good hitter a little better; they can't make a lousy hitter a great hitter.
Certainly. But, steroids can make the difference between a long fly-out and a HR.
And why is an article dealing with the Cubs in a paper in their archenemies town?
From my reading of the article, it sounds like Sutcliffe, a former Cardinal, was in town to work a game for ESPN, and Hummel took the opportunity to get a good story. I'm sure I'm far from being the only Cardinals fan who remembers Palmeiro's days as a Cub and got a real kick out of reading Sutcliffe's recollections.
That's because Babe Ruth started out as pitcher. Check his stats and you will find that he became a legitimate slugger at about the same time he became a regular position player. And while you are at it, check out the career stats for Aaron, Mays, Robinson, and Jackson. All of these guys were legitimate sluggers from their first full year as a starting player in the majors.
Babe Ruth was a starting pitcher in his first few years, meaning he was in the line-up only every 4th or 5th day, so he didn't get a lot of at-bats.
I think people totally miss the point of banning steroids. It is the detrimental effects they have on your health, not the fact that it makes you stronger "artificially". I wouldn't have a problem with anyone using steroids AT ALL if there was no downside to using them, but the testimony of Steve Courson, ex-Steeler, before Congress about steroids and the devastating effect they had on his health -- and then, of course, Lyle Alzado -- convinced me that steroid use is truly bad news. Then there's the psychiatric effects of 'roid raging and all that that causes users to go nuts and get themselves in trouble.
But if you could find some super-food that had the same positive effects on strength and speed and overall health as steroids with ZERO negative effects, not only would I favor athletes eating it, wouldn't any member of the general population have to be a fool not to eat it?
Anyone who chooses one diet over another to gain strength, lose weight, etc., is chemically altering their body just like a steroid user. The difference is the effect isn't as immediate or as great and the long term health effects are all positive. But do we put an asterisk next to the name of players who eat a lot of fruits and vegetables? No, because they're not breaking any rules.
Steroids are wrong to use because not only are they so destructive to your health, they make you a danger to others around you, which is why they are banned. But if someone ever invents a truly safe steroid (unlikely) with no negative side effects or some other safe drug or superfood that has such an effect on strength and performance, I say everybody -- athlete or not -- go for it.