The 'Horseshoe Era' and Why It's Not Easier to Hit Home Runs Today

A guilty pleasure of mine is to question some of the folklore behind Babe Ruth. Forgive me for not believing some of the magical stories that we are told about him. On the one hand, we are supposed to believe that the sporting equipment used back then was not that great, yet we are also supposed to believe that Babe Ruth hit a scientifically impossible 650 ft home run.

Someone is stretching the truth :)

Moving on. We are consistently reminded about how much smaller the ballparks are these days. Although technically true, it is a misleading proclamation. Horseshoe shaped baseball fields were the normal in Ruth's day. Although the center field wall would sometimes be as far as 500ft away, right field would be as close as 256 ft away (as was the case in Ruth's home park during his 1920-22 seasons at the 'Polo Grounds') When Ruth played at the Polo Grounds, center field was 433 ft away (comparable to the Astros field today) and right field was 256 ft (comparable to a little league field in your neighborhood). The more I think about it 256 ft would've been an illegal distance in High school and College, where the minimum distance is 300 ft. Let's classify this field as a product of the 'Horseshoe Era'. A time when most major league ballparks had short porches in right and left field (as short as 256 ft) but gigantic center fields with depths sometimes reaching past 500ft. (Creating a horseshoe shape)

Ruth's first season at this little league field was memorable. He hit 54 HR's with 9 triples, while hitting a staggering .376. This was a great production increase from the numbers he put up in the much bigger Fenway park just a year earlier (29 HR's 12 triples in a similar amount of at bats). Also, strong 'lulz' for having to call Fenway park "much bigger".

Turns out Ruth would have been 2nd in triples in the American league with his 9 if he had played today. His 12 with Boston would've given him the triples title. But I thought he was a big slow fat white guy!?! Nope, only the white part is true the rest is just another myth! Look at the picture below. Ruth was really quite fit and a decent runner. To top it off, he also had 14 stolen bases. Cecil Fielder ended his career with 2. (now that was a fat baseball player...not white) At 6'2'' weighing 210 lbs, Ruth was a gigantic human for those times, which I'm sure led to a lot of the legends. Every time someone told their grand kids about Ruth, he got bigger and bigger and his home runs got further and further. (note: 6'2'' 210 lbs. is small to normal nowadays in baseball)


John Goodman perpetuating the myth that Babe Ruth was a super fat white guy.



In 1923, Ruth and the Yankees moved to the house that he built. Now Ruth's right field porch was a staggering 295 ft. away! (still illegal for high school and college) Left Field was 281 ft. away and center a massive 490ft.



Maybe it was the bigger dimensions, but Ruth's home run stats took a hit his first year at Yankee stadium. In a comparable amount of at-bats to his 59 homer campaign at the 'Polo Grounds', Ruth hit 41 homers in his first season at his new home. Still a great number, but still a drop. He did hit 13 triples and set a career high with 45 doubles in his first year at Yankee Stadium. When you take a look at the field you can start to see why there were so many extra base hits. With that massive center field, outfielders had to play deep otherwise a ball over their head was an easy inside the park home run. According to the infallible wikipedia, Babe Ruth may have hit more than a 100 inside-the-park home runs.


I can easily imagine a nice 390ft laser shot into the gap, rolling all the way to the 460+ wall and being a piece of cake inside-the-park home run. I can also visualize the outfield playing deep to avoid such hits, only to surrender otherwise catchable singles and doubles. Perhaps this explains the ridiculous averages of this 'era'? If you get a chance check out the wikipedia triples record page and have a look at the years in which these records were set. here. (spoiler alert: Nearly all of the triples records are pre 1930)
So I have established that if you are able to hit a ball around 400 ft, hitting home runs wasn't very hard during Ruth's era. Hell, if you could hit it 270ft you could make a decent living. The problem was that Ruth was one of the only players who could do that. Everyone else suffered from "too small humanitis". Ruth was one of the only players who had the size and strength to do it. At 6' 2'' he was one of the tallest players in the game, and at 210 he was the heaviest. And as the picture shows above, his weight was not all fat as we were told growing up.

That makes me wonder though, how good was the pitching back then? If we had a bunch of 5 ft nothings throwing a ball that was of less quality, were they really that unhittable? Does anyone honestly believe that with all of their windup gimmickry, pitches could throw 102mph like Joel Zumaya or Stephen Strasburg?

To accentuate the point: I remember watching a documentary on a mid 80's Minnesota Twins minor league team. At one point they talk about a "throw off" where the team was going to pick between 2 pitchers. The pitcher that threw the slowest was going to be released. The winning pitcher threw 83 mph, the loser 82 mph. It was epic! The players spoke as if 83 mph wasn't tragically slow. So, even since the 1980's the game has changed drastically. 83 mph wouldn't even get you consideration for most Division 1 colleges let alone a chance in the minor leagues. So again, forgive me for questioning whether the pitchers of Ruth's era would even make a decent Division 2 college team these days.

Today the average height of a man is 5'10''. In the early 1900's it was 5'4 3/4''. So basically 5 inches shorter on average back in Ruth's day. That means Ruth was 7-8 inches taller than the average. So if he were around today he might be 6'6''. Now 6'6'' is a beast for sure, so you can imagine what Ruth appeared to be in his day.

Cliff notes: Ruth was gigantic in his day but would only be an average major leaguer today (in terms of height and weight, Jack Cust is bigger and heavier). He played in a home ballpark that had a right field wall only 256 ft. away. I honestly believe that if Jack Cust played in a home ballpark that had a 256 ft. right field short porch, that he could approach 50-60 home runs. Especially if Cust was facing 5'5'' windup gimmick pitchers who probably threw in the 60-70 mph range.

But the center field wall was almost 500 ft away you say... True, but Ruth may have hit as many as 100 inside the park home runs. Think about that for a moment. Without a doubt it is because of the gigantic center field space. Players these days hit maybe 2 a career. Ruth also hit over 8 triples in a year 9 times! Again a product of the gigantic center field. For more proof of this phenomenon simply go to the wikipedia page for triples records here and note when these records took place. A vast majority took place during the 'Horseshoe Era' as I like to call it. The 'Horseshoe Era' is when nearly every field had a tiny right and left field but an enormous center field (sometimes over 500 ft.)

Why McGwire deserves to be in the Hall

Ok, so we recently found out that Mcgwire did use steroids; effectively blowing everyone's proverbial minds.

Mark Mcgwire wasn't the only one known for his home run prowess. Arguably, the first baseball player to be known for the long ball actually had the nickname "Home run". His name?

Home Run Baker

Home Run Baker was a whopping 5'11'' 173lbs. Despite the fact that the smallest players from the steroid era would dwarf him, 5'11'' 173lbs was actually quite monstrous in the early 1900's. (another reason you have to consider the era someone played in. Humans were tiny back then :)

Known for his unmatched ability to hit home runs (at the time), Mr. Baker hit a league leading 11 HR's in 1911. note: 11 is how many Rich Ankiel hit in 2009 and doesn't even fall in the top 150.

Mr. Baker finished his career with 96 HR, 987 RBI's, .307 avg and 1838 total hits. These numbers would hardly be enough for the 5% threshold needed to stay on the HOF ballot let alone 75% needed to be elected based on today's standards. As evidence of this I submit John Kruk and Mike Greenwell's stats.

John Kruk and Mike Greenwell (whom both didn't sniff the HOF) had nearly identical numbers as Mr. Baker.




None of the statistical achievements of Home Run Baker are considered "shoe-ins" for the Hall. And at 6'0'' 200lbs, Mike Greenwell would have been a real monster back then. Just imagine if he played back then! He'd be a definite HOF.

I think you can see my point. If Mr. Baker had these #'s in today's era he wouldn't make the 5% cut needed to just stay on the ballot. Instead, Mr. Baker's achievements are viewed through the lens of history and the 'deadball era' to which he played.

In this 'dead ball era', Home Run Baker set himself apart from other players as one of the few who could hit a home run and he became a fan favorite as a result.

During his 'era', Mark Mcgwire set himself apart from others. He became the major home run threat of the 90's only to be surpassed by Barry Bonds. Even with how good Bonds was, Mcgwire still has the best home run per at bat ratio in the history of the game! And this is with Mcgwire facing roided up pitchers as well!!!

As I argued in a post back in OCTOBER, Mcgwire's HOF credentials should be judged based on the 'era' he played in.

Mcgwire has the best home run-to-at-bat ratio in the history of the game, while facing roided up pitchers. A less talked about nugget is the fact that pro-hormones were rampant as well (and I still think they are!). You could buy andro at Target in the mid-to-late 90's for god sakes. If some estimates are correct and about 50% of players were using steroids, what would the percent become if pro-hormones (like andro) were included? To put in context, if you used a pro-hormone and tested positive today, you would receive a 50 game ban.

Food for thought: Is it cheating if everyone was doing it?

NFL VS Barry Bonds

One thing I am sick of hearing is how "great" football's steroid testing is. One thing is for sure... Football players have taken advantage of the long offseason and have scheduled their steroid cycles accordingly.

Barry Bonds, perhaps the most muscular of all the baseball players during the 'steroid era', couldn't hold a candle to the amount of muscle mass football players enjoy.


Instead of getting into a long explanation and stating numbers, I'm just going to submit photo evidence of known steroid users compared to a few nfl stars... You be the judge.

Now remember, Barry Bonds is supposed to be the 'freak' of baseball. He is the guy that got so big it was craaaazy! The sad fact is, Bonds isn't even close to some of these football players... Am I supposed to believe that football is clean and not believe Barry was clean?

Give McGwire the benefit of the doubt...lulz

Jose "Pissed that a team wouldn't give him another chance to hit 500 HR's" Canseco famously wrote a book that sent shockwaves through the sportswriters and fans. All of the sudden the bulging biceps didn't make sense anymore. I think we didn't notice because we loved every second of it. The increase in homerun production wasn't because of "juiced baseballs" it was because of juiced man balls.


I remember playing baseball video games as a kid and thinking that guys who had 15 homeruns had some power. Lol!!! In the steroid era, 15 homeruns got you sent back to the minors (unless you were Kenny Lofton who went from 1 homerun to 12, in less games between 93-94...oh ya and he gained 15 lbs.)


In that vein I'd like to extend a congratulations to Mark Mcgwire for becoming the St. Louis Cardinals new hitting coach. In honor of his new job, I will poke some fun at the controversy that surrounded his career.



One look at the picture above (and noticing that his forearms w/the Cardinals are bigger than his biceps w/ the A 's) you know that Mcgwire used steroids. Judging by the picture alone, he must have gained 40-50 lbs of pure lean muscle, while dropping major body fat.

Believe it or not, Mcgwire hit 49 HR's as that skinny guy on the left! Of course he hit 52, 58, 70 and 65 as the guy on the right.

There are people who think we need to give Mark Mcgwire the benefit of the doubt on whether or not he used steroids. When you make a "smoking gun" argument in favor of Mcgwire you aren't doing him any favors. First of all, it is all too easy to take a look at him and know that he took something. Because of this, he already is guilty in everyone's mind and that's before the dreadful testimony to congress. in Mark's defense re: congress, everybody there that day had their own angle on how they would approach their testimony and appear steroid free. Palmerio forcefully denied with his famous finger point ( then tested positive shortly after) and Sammy Sosa forgot how to speak and understand English. Turns out Mcgwire was actually the most honest of the bunch that day, but that's because he went with the "Doc in the DeLorean " approach.... only wanting to talk about the future.


Jay Mcgwire (Mark's younger brother) came out and said he introduced Mark to steroids. You see, Jay has recently found god and wants his older brother to repent and come clean. And the only way Jay could think of doing this is by pitching a tell-all book (I think god told him he needed to cash in).



What Jay seems to forget, praising god has never been an issue for Mark. Mark pointed to the heavens (or outer space for you realists) after every home run and award.

Mark Mcgwire apologists need to realize that there is a more sensible approach than to pretend Mark might not have used steroids because there is no "smoking gun". The guy did steroids. Instead I recommend they argue that each baseball era and that era's player's stats should be considered and approached as separate from previous era's and player's stats and voted on accordingly. The question then simply becomes, "Was he one of the best/elite players of his time?"

In this sense I don 't think there is any doubt about it. Mcgwire was arguably the most thrilling hitter to watch of all-time, let alone his era (Bonds an acceptable answer). We sat in awe of his 584 foot homerun off 99mph gas thrower Randy Johnson. We put Mark on the cover of all the magazines as an american hero! Sports Illustrated went as far as making him co-Sportmen of the Year with Sammy Sosa.

So how can the public and the sportswriters turn on somebody so fast and so venomously? I've always wondered about this phenomenon and I think it's simply our human desire for apologies. I really do believe that if Mark Mcgwire came out publicly and admitted steroid use and said he was sorry for using them, the public would have accepted the apology and he just might have been in the hall of fame by now.

On the other side of the token, the public misconception that steroids automatically guarantees extra muscle is ridiculous. I had a roommate who took two cycles of steroids and only gained 3 lbs of pure fat. Why you ask? Because he never worked out and was lazy.



Due to the fact that public perception on steroids is that it equals (=) cheating, athletes feel the desire to deny any allegations in hopes to hold on to the credit they feel they rightly deserve. Bonds didn't deny steroid use because he didn't use steroids; He denied it because people would have taken all of his accomplishments that he worked so hard to obtain, and flush them down the proverbial toilet. Mcgwire didn't admit he "cheated" to congress because all of the love and praise we gave him would all be taken away and his ridiculously sick season of 70 HR's would be given 0 credit. As humans, we have a strong desire to get credit for things we worked hard at. could you imagine if you spent all of your free time trying to make yourself better in the weight room and batting cages, have it pay off only to be told that you would not get any credit for that hard work?

What the writers and fans did to Mcgwire was unfair. First we gave him credit for saving baseball. We gave him sportsman of the year awards, put him on every magazine cover you could think of and even gave him a cameo on Saturday Night Live. All of this affirming to Mcgwire that he was doing the right things, making the right choices and mixing the right steroid-cocktails.

BOTTOM LINE:
Don't give Mark Mcgwire the benefit of the doubt... give him a break.

During Steroid era, Eric Karros was Growing.....(pains)

Eric Karros is not the guy who stared on Growing Pains and then got delusional. Although there is a striking resemblance, Kirk has his head in the clouds while Eric had his hands on the weights. Eric Karros is the guy who started the Dodgers improbable 5 straight rookie of the year awards and showed great promise after gaining 20 lbs pure muscle and drastically increasing his homerun production.

..........did Kirk shoot up? you decide...

One sunny day at Wilson Park (located in Torrance, Ca.), the Dodgers were kind enough to send some of their rookies to talk to eager kids at the park. Once I found out the names of who was attending (Pedro Martinez, Eric Karros, Tom Candiotti....wasn't Candiotti's rookie year so he must have drew the short straw) I grabbed all of their cards out of my collection and eagerly went to get their autograph.

One gem that came out of that is an autographed rookie card by potential HOFer Pedro Martinez. What was more important to me at the time was the rookie of the year autograph from Eric Karros!

I was thrilled to have it and I remember asking the owner at a card store how much he thought the card would be worth. He offered me 35 dollars. Whoa, I could almost get a new video game with that money! I turned him down as I anticipated it being worth way more and went ahead and spent 20 dollars to buy a Darryl Strawberry rookie card (a no-brainer).

As history would have it, both investments turned out to be a flop. Although Karros gave me some hope when he got dramatically better in 1995, Strawberry never panned out (to say the least).

In 1994, the baseball player union went on strike. During this season, Eric Karros was on pace to hit 19 HR's. The following season, Eric Karros (now a solid 15-20 lbs heavier) hit 32 HR's and drove in 105 runs.

The extra weight that Karros added certainly helped him quite a bit, and started to make me feel like my decision to turn down the 35$ for his autographed rookie card was a good idea. He then hit 34 HR's, 31 HR's, 23 (injury shortened season, was on pace for 28) then hit 34 in 1999 (his all around best season) and then another 31 in 2000. Karros had started to look like he was a guaranteed 30 HR 100 rbi guy, and a serious threat at 400 career homeruns if he could keep the pace up for another 5 or so years.

Unfortunately, Karros started getting the injury bug. That injury bug sure happened to a lot of performance enhancer users. He finished his career hitting 15, 13, 12 and 2 homeruns in his last 4 seasons.

So the autograph card isn't worth much anymore, but the nostalgia is still a great memory. I used to get so fired up when Eric Karros and Mike Piazza would come to the plate. One look at Piazza's rookie card and you know he is an obvious user, so I won't waste my time doing an entry on him.

My official prognosis on Karros is that he used a pro-hormone like andro. Most likely he started once the players went on strike. He came back built like a horse, and really was fun to watch the following 5-6 years as a result.

Of course, andro wasn't illegal during that time but lets not forget that those substances would result in a 50 game ban today. Which brings me to the main point in my who would you start...Babe Ruth or Jack Cust? I'd go with Jack post. You can't compare players from different era's to eachother and base a Hall of Fame selection on that. Babe Ruth would be terrible if he played today. At 6'2'' 215 lbs., he would have almost been small, and his goofy swing that worked against slow pitching would simply not work. Eric Karros was not one of the greatest to play the game in his (steroid)era so he should not be a Hall of Famer. At 6'4'' 225 lbs., the legends would have been rediculous if he played during Babe's era. If we went on actual skill, Karros was better than the Babe. But when you look at them through the context of their era.... Babe Ruth was a no-brainer hall of famer and Karros a no-brainer non-HOFer....

Who would you start... Babe Ruth or Jack Cust? I'd go with Jack

If there is one thing that really grinds my gears, it's when a sports announcer talks about how the pitchers these days just don't have the guts and mental toughness to pitch the amount of innings that pitchers of older generations could.

All anybody has to do is watch the 2009 playoffs to understand immediately why pitchers don't throw as many innings as they did in the 80's, 70's, 60's, 50's ,1890's ... etc. Every freaking pitcher throws at least 92 mph, with at least 7-10 pitchers per each team throwing mid to upper 90's.

Cy Young once threw 453 innings in a season, and he was 5th in the NL that year in innings. Bill Hutchison was 1st in the NL with 622 innings and a 36 - 36 record to accompany a 2.76 era. Holy shit! 2.76 era and you lose 36 games!! LULZ! Hutchison also had 314 k's that season, which sounds like a lot until you realize that its only a 4.5 k's per nine inning ratio. Cy Young's K per 9 innings was even worse. He only recorded 168 strikeouts that season for a 3.3 k per 9 innings ratio. Players today that record a 3.3 k per nine inning never get called up to the bigs.

Let's compare some of those #'s to todays. Justin Verlander led all of baseball with 240 innings pitched. He had 269 k's in 240 innings for a 10k per 9 inning ratio. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Cy Young and Bill Hutchinson did not throw consistantly 99mph like Verlander. The simple reason for this declaration... the human arm would not be able to handle the stress. Also, players those days and rediculously goofy windups that were more circus than maximizing their body's potential.

Nolan Ryan, who's career high in innings pitched for a season is 332.2 (which would have been good for 20th in just the NL in 1892) His total career innings (5,386) are almost 2,000 innings below Cy Young's career innings pitched. Nolan Ryan is remembered as being an absolute work horse. He sticks in our minds and hearts because he was an absolute rare breed of power and longevity. Key word being "rare". If Nolan Ryan threw more innings than we think is even possible, what does that make Cy Young?

I'll tell you. It makes Cy Young a soft throwing nobody. If Cy Young had any velocity, he simply would not have been able to pitch so many innings. My predictions are that Cy Young threw about 65-70 mph, and relied on a deceptive (and rediculous looking) delivery and the fact that everybody pretty much sucked at baseball back then. To their credit, it was a new sport and people were still learning how to play it more effectively.

However, if Nolan Ryan pitched back then, he would have had a career era of .000000001, with his only run coming from a game in which he walked 4 batters in a row after getting the first two outs on k's and then losing his cool. He would have been the only pitcher in history to never give up a base hit. He would have been looked at as unable to throw a decent amount of innings though. He would have had the reputation of being a pussy. LULZ

So if the pitchers were far less talented back in the hay day of baseball, so were the hitters (and fielders for that matter). Am I the only one who sees Willy Mays' basket catch and feels ripped off that it always gets "best catch ever made"? Jim Edmonds has at least 15 catches better than that one. Also, Jeter's patented catch, spin and throw deep in the hole, did not happen in the early 1900's. Those were base hits. Hitters were hitting off slow pitching, and they themselves had limited skills. Just look at some old video footage of some of the rediculuos batting stances, and hitting approaches. Ty Cobb's hands were spread apart on the bat for instance. There is no way they would have had a sniff of a chance against a 99 mph fastball from Verlander, let alone a 90 mph fastball from low single A prospect, Aaron Jones.

One day Babe Ruth came along and revolutionized baseball. He was pretty much the first player who actually had any force behind his swing. One thing that is never said though, Babe Ruth was facing some brutal pitching. Pitchers still did their goofy devliveries that did not maximize their body's potential, and Babe Ruth was the first player to make them pay for that.

Babe Ruth stands in our minds as a monster sized player. A long running joke in contemporary US culture is when you see a fat kid you call him Babe Ruth. Well hold on, Babe was listed at 6'2'' 215lbs. Hmm, that would be fairly small if you compare to today's stars. Ryan Howard for instance is 6'4'' 260lbs. Could you imagine what the legends would have been of Ryan Howard if he played back in Ruth's day? The story would go... "One time Ryan Howard hit a 645 ft homerun with one hand". Actually Ryan Howard was black and wouldn't have been allowed to play. Another thing to remember, baseball back then was "white people's" best talent. Not the world's best talent like it is today.

Hell, if we took Jack Cust's 6'1'' 240lbs, we realize that Ruth wasn't that fat after all. He was just big for his time. Lucky for Ruth he was also facing shit pitching.

If Babe Ruth were to play today he would be viewed as small, unable to hit high velocity pitching, problem hitting sick curveballs, medium power. So in short, he and Jack Cust would really battle for that last starting spot on the Oakland A's.

I predict that Babe Ruth would eventually lose that spot to Cust, go to the minors, do a few cycles of steroids, come back up and hit 25 homers with a .222 BA and 186 k's during his rookie campaign drawing comparisons to Nick Swisher. After finishing 3rd in the rookie of the year voting, Ruth disapoints with a mediocre sophmore campaign (.232BA 15 HR 55 RBI's 195 k's). After the Pirates take a chance on Ruth on the free agent market, Ruth sets the single season strikeout record with 245K's to go along with .235 BA, 17 Hr's and 62 RBI's. Ruth then gets released and signs with a Japanese team and America would never hear of him again. Lucky for Ruth he played in the era that he did!

Moral of the story: It is rediculous to compare era's. If you did, you will have to accept the fact that athletes are better now than they ever ahve been. In 50 years, they will be better than they are today and so on and so forth.

Bernie Williams Used Something...

Bernie Williams will always have a fond place in any Yankee fan's heart. He played the game hard, had a great mentaility, and seemed to always deliver the big hit in playoffs. As a young teenager (13-15 yrs old) I remember watching as Bernie's power #'s increased, along with his bulk. At the time everyone was bulking up so it wasn't all too noticeable, but when you look back with the skepticism that exsists today, I can't help but wonder if Bernie was on a little something special.

Bernie didn't get rediculously big like Mark Mcgwire or Barry Bonds. However there was a definite increase that just so happens to have occured in the thick of the "steroid era". And, of course, his power numbers increased as a result.

In 1993, Bernie weighed 180 lbs and hit 12 homeruns. In 1994, Bernie weighed 180 lbs and hit 12 homeruns in a strike shortened season. In 1995, Bernie weighed 180 lbs and hit 18 homeruns. Solid consistancy, no fluctuations in weight.

In 1996 (pictured above) he gains 15 lbs and hits 29 homers. What's noticeable about the pic above (bottom) is that not only did Bernie gain 15 lbs, but he is also more ripped and toned, with much greater vascularity. This means that he probably dropped 5 pounds of fat, and gained 20 lbs of muscle. His body fat percentage clearly dropped a great deal as well.

His homerun totals responded nicely to this new muscle. The next 6 seasons, Bernie averages 25 homeruns in 143 games (compared to averaging 14 homers in 131 games*). Then 2003 happens (note: this is the year where the MLB player union agreed to anonymous steroid testing). Bernie's homerun total dips to 15 in 119 games (on pace for 18 homeruns if he matched his 143 games average).

Bernie finishes his last 4 seasons (post steroid testing) averaging 15 homeruns in 135 games.

I understand that Bernie's numbers can easily be explained by a player doing better in his prime and slowly trailing off. But that doesn't explain a player putting on 20 lbs of muscle in half a year and morphing into a real homerun threat during the height of the "steroid era." It is a near impossibility to gain 20 lbs of muscle in 5-6 months without some help.

I'm not convinced Bernie was a steroid guy, but his gains are consistant with an andro user or other pro-hormone over-the-counter supplements that were legal and readily availble during those infamous years.

Pro-hormone drugs, such as andro, were legal and unregulated during the steroid era. They have since been banned by major league baseball, and any player who takes them today would fail a PED test and be suspended for 50 games. With that said, today's steroid testing is not very effective. If they really want to catch people using PED, they would have to test every 6 -8 weeks for the entire year. If they did that, I guarentee it would put an end to players coming back from the offseason gaining 20 lbs pure muscle.

Seriously WTF: Why the hell does football get a free pass on steroids!?! Every single guy in football is more muscley than baseball players with the exception of the kickers. Its funny because people would often say about Mcgwire "he's built like a lineman". But somehow the lineman gets a free-pass and Mcgwire is demonized shortly after being credited for saving baseball....

If Jose Canseco is correct with his assertion that 70% of major league baseball players used steroids, I would argue that at least 98% football players are users.