Originally Posted by CO ump
It doesn't improve their natural talent, it just makes them stronger.
A player not on the juice who hits 30 hr and 35 warning track outs in a year goes on the juice and now hits 38 hrs, 5 doubles off the wall and 22 warning track outs has just become a 'better player' by virtue of added strength. His ability to identify pitches, anticipate how he will be pitched, hand eye coordination and swing mechanics, all necessary talents to play in MLB, has not been affected but his added strength and increased durability makes a big difference..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JRutledge
And folks like me can call you on that BS. Because that is all it is, BS.
|
We will deal specifically with "folks like you" in a minute below.
Quote:
|
Do you have any studies that prove that?
|
Most certainly but let's clear your qualifications, you understand, "folks like you" structured, non philosophical thinkers like you would demand nothing less.;
What is your academic, scientific and personal experience in clinical, human study of sports performance? A Ph.D. in at least pharmacology, biokinesiology or, at the least, human physiology would be a minimum educational requirement. We will pass on the intimacy of your athletic performance training credentials. I'm in a good mood.
How many citations have you studied, with whom did you pass/fail your examination of these citations? What is your relevant background in the determination of qualifying scientific studies? How many pharmacologically enhanced athletes have you personally trained (or observed their training, with records and the determination of those clinical relevancy of those records)? "Folks like you" would assuredly have these available. If not, folks like me can call you on that BS. Because without a good chunk of the qualifications above, that is all your post is, BS.
Lessee, 24 hours, folks like me will give folks like you 24 hours to come up with your answers.
Fair enough?