And PED's clearly improve performance.  If you look at the website Will referenced above (Steroid Nation) you will find a recent report by a physicist that demonstrates how using PED's can increase a player's homerun total by 50%.  That is just one example of how performance is improved.  Players would not be taking them if they did not improve performance.

I'll be glad when this whole era is done, but exposes like this are just part of the process of ending it.  That is how I see it at least.

For myself, I can say I don't approve of steroid use, and never have.  But I don't consider it a total blight on the human condition either, and am suspicious of scenarios drawn in absolute black and white.  I don't think that makes me an apologist.  

http://grg51.typepad.com/about.html

and here is a link to the study I mentioned above:

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/09/steroids-theore.html

I don't see any reason not to take his information seriously.  He seems to have the credentals and background.

I also don't understand why you are uncertain about the effectivness of PED's.  We already know that almost all the track and field and baseball players who broke long-standing records during the "era" were users.  If for no other reason that alone makes the case for me.  No one hits more than 61 homeruns in 50 years and than three players break the record in two years?  And we know that two of them (McGuire and Bonds) were users of PED's, and I would eat my foot if it turns out Sosa was clean.

I know that HGH was not listed as one of the specifically banned substances until March of 2005, but that does not make its use acceptable for baseball players if they were using it to improve their performance.  There were lists of specific drugs compiled in 2004 and 2005, but that doesn't mean any drug not on those lists is fair game.  In truth, I am not really sure what purpose those lists serve other than as information for players.  I guess I need to learn more about them, but I do know that taking a prescription medicine for no purpose other than to improve performance has been banned by MLB since 1991.  

According to Byrd, he decided to start injecting himself with HGH at home to treat a life long hormonal imbalance which may have caused him to develop brain tumors.  Byrd did in fact have that hormonal imbalance and it can be treated with HGH.  However, he has not yet provided a name of a doctor who he consulted with before buying the HGH.  He paid for the HGH with his credit card, rather than just submit it to insurance as a person normally would when buying a drug for legitimate reasons.  Also, he bought $25,000 worth of HGH, the last shipment received only a few weeks before it was added to the banned list.  That is a lot of drugs.  He says he stopped taking it when it was banned, (even though it had been banned for non-medical purposes since 1991) but since there is no test for HGH no one really knows when he stopped using - or if he ever stopped using.

Byrd's "prescription" for HGH was signed by a dentist who he never met.  Dentists cannot prescribe HGH.  And this particular dentist lost his license in 2003 due to incompetence, two years before he wrote Byrd's prescriptions.  The dentist is currently being prosecuted for illegal distribution of drugs.

Who treats a brain tumor on their own without consulting a doctor?

Who pays $25,000 for drugs rather than let insurance pick up the bill?

Who buys their brain tumor drugs from an out of state "wellness center," (which obtained their drugs from an organized crime syndicate which was smuggling them into the U.S. from illegal Chinese labs) rather than just drive down to the local drug store?  If I was treating a brain tumor I wouldn't go internet shopping for the "cheap stuff."

Byrd's latest claims - He is being persecuted as backlash for a recent interview in which he claimed his religious "piety" prevented him from succumbing to the temptation to cheat as had other players such as Jose Cansaco. --  Or, his suggestion that his name may have been leaked by George Mittchel, who is a part owner of the Red Sox, to embarrass the Indians before game seven.  Byrd just keeps digging that grave.

Because not everyone, nor even most players were using PED's.

Why didn't the longest HR of the year go from say, 500 ft to 750 ft?

He's saying that PED's helped players increase the times they can get a ball far enough to go over the wall by 50%, not that they would hit the ball 50% farther.  There's a big difference there.

Why didn't a pitcher somewhere suddenly start throwing 140 MPH instead of a mere 95 MPH?

Why didn't the league K leader suddenly fan 400 instead of 275?

Why didn't the league SB leader steal 120 instead of 80?

First, I think he was talking about just home runs.  Second, I don't think he was saying that PED's will help anyone and everyone do whatever they do 50% better.

Seriously, that doctor is such an IDIOT. I can't believe I had to waste even 5 minutes ranting about his STUPIDITY.

50% MY ASS.

You may be right.  But what that study represents was someone trying to actually quantify the degree to which PED's genuinely enhance performance.  I appreciate the effort.  The 50% figure doesn't sound right to me.  Maybe it is actually 35%.  Or 15%.  I'm sure it isn't uniform over various drugs in various doses for various players, but I'm sure they do, generally, enhance performance.  I think there should be more studies done on the degree to which that is true, if for no other reason than to silence those willfully blind people who continue to claim that PED's do not actually enhance performance, despite the raft of evidence.

The "Steroid's Era" is considered to have started in 1995-1997.

Rafael Palmeiro
1992 - 1994 - 27.3 HR/yr avg.
1995-1997 - 38.7
... a 66% bump.

Ken Caminiti
1992 - 1994 - 14.7
1995 - 1997 - 30.1
... a 104% bump

American League as a whole during the same six years.
1992 - 1994 - 0.91 HR/game
1995 - 1997 - 1.13 HR/game
... we know not all players were juicing, but somehow league wide HR totals were bumped 24%.

Obviously this is not a very good study but it does seem to support that steroids usage does in fact significantly increase HR production.  

I don't know why people are quick to dismiss the 50% figure.  To my eyes it looks like a pretty reasonable "ballpark" guess.  

We know when Bonds started using from "Game of Shadows" and we know he went from a 30-40 HR guy to 50-70 HR guy.  We have pysical science and game play evidence to work from here, and they seem to pretty well reach the same conclusion.  Steroids = a lot more homeruns.

We all want this PED obsession in baseball to end. It takes joy out of baseball for all fans.  I suggest the best way to end it is to actually enforce the rules and hold players accountable, not look the other way and ignore the problem.  Unless a person is fine with baseball players actually using PED's I encourage them to support this latest effort at enforcing accountability.  I think it is the best and fastest way to end the juicing culture.