So this week we saw Bonds hit 755 and Neifi Perez get suspended for violating the league’s amphetamine policy (which is a whole different punishment schedule than steroids). It’s an interesting pairing to me because one of the things I really found in the years I took to write the book is that as far as we know from test results and anecdotal evidence in the grand jury testimony is there’s a huge split in steroid use between the marginal player, who stands to gain a lot if he can stay in the majors over AAA, and the huge sluggers, the Bonds-McGwire-level guys.
What I didn’t know, and I’ve been following this with great interest, is if that’s true of amphetamine and stimulant use. Historically, every account of players using uppers has made it sound that everyone in a clubhouse would do it, from the utility guys to the bullpen pitchers.
So far, though, you could really make the same argument. Bonds supposedly failed one of his amphetamine tests, and now we’re seeing Perez, a no-hit glove guy, get punished under the same policy. I wonder if, despite what we know about how the drug used to be used, the same cost/benefit tradeoff is driving the same players willing to use steroids to use other drugs, and what that might mean in the long term for baseball’s drug policy.
Panev | 11-Aug-07 at 9:26 pm | Permalink
Rex Hudler told a story of taking uppers for a game when he was a guest on the Jim Rome Show. Since he was already so hyper, they had the opposite effect and slowed him down. He had a terrible game and never used them again.
Great story – and of course he tells it very well.
smokeralarm | 17-Aug-07 at 9:51 am | Permalink
Panev, and mr. leyritz told a different story…
I guess it depends on the person. Or maybe Rex just based it on a small sample size. Who knows, the next day it could have worked.