PED in Baseball

Article originally appeared in InsideSTL.com in 2014 and was updated in 2020.

Former HR Hero Returns as Coach

Little has galvanized local sports opinion lately like the return of Mark David McGwire as hitting coach for the St. Louis Cardinals. McGwire has been the lightning rod of the Performance Enhancing Drugs (PED) controversy in baseball perhaps more so than any other player. Unquestionably, his “testimony” before Congress in March of 2005 did little to establish his credibility. That said, without immunity from prosecution, how many of us would have testified against ourselves? McGwire’s evasion of congressional questioning angered many, but realistically what choice did he have? Was he going to be the sole fall guy for a problem that appeared rather ubiquitous in baseball for many years? At least he did not suddenly forget how to speak English like Sammy Sosa.

For all the oratory about not talking about the past during the testimony, McGwire did establish his stance for the future, which was to educate the youth of America about steroids. As he put it “steroids is bad”. To date I am not aware of any sustained campaign on the part of McGwire to promulgate the ills of steroid use.

McGwire went into seclusion for several years. He then emerged as a West Coast, private hitting instructor for the likes of Jared “Skip” Schumaker and Matthew Thomas Holliday. Then last fall we had the surprise announcement about McGwire becoming hitting coach while Hal McRae was given his walking papers. On a parenthetical note, notice how little attention the media gave to McRae’s dismissal given what can only be termed a successful tenure as hitting coach in St. Louis.

Bob Costas Interview

McGwire then had his celebrated interview with Bob Costas in which he admitted using PED. The controversy of the interview focused on McGwire’s belief that:

a.      PED usage was primarily intended for injury recovery and training

b.      PED usage did not give him a performance edge

What Are PEDs?

Let us look at each of these points. PED’s fall under a category of substances known as ergogenic aids. Ergogenic aids are substances or phenomena that enhance performance. There are many ergogenic aids, of which PED merely constitute one segment. Other ergogenic aids include amphetamines, beta-blockers, caffeine, bicarbonate, phosphates, and some nutritional supplements. I mention these other aids since popular discussion omits them from a broader discussion on performance enhancing substances. [2020 commentary: there is ample evidence of these other ergogenic aids being used in various sports though they’ve not received the same scrutiny.]

For baseball, the terms anabolic steroid and human growth hormone (HGH) are the most frequently used. These two substances fall under the category of hormonal agents. The use of hormonal agents began in competitive athletics in the late 1940s or early 1950s. Steroids achieved greater usage between the 1950s and 1980s. After the 1980s, a new hormonal agent emerged with the introduction of a synthetic human growth hormone.

One important thing to remember about HGH is that little conclusive scientific evidence exists that it enhances athletic performance. Keep this in mind when drawing conclusions about HGH usage in sports. In addition, early studies on the effect of steroids showed great division. Some studies revealed little positive effect on performance while others concluded that increased mass and strength contributed to performance gains. The performance gains focused on such measures as leg and arm strength. To my knowledge, there was no formal research on the effect of steroids on baseball performance.

PED Research

A problem with almost any study in this area is that it is impossible to observe in a research laboratory the effects of steroid dosing in any sport. It’s not as if Bud Selig (or Rob Manfred, today) is going to commission a study using MLB players as test subjects for steroid research. Again, I mention this to point out that much of the popular discussion about steroid and HGH usage is anecdotal.

With respect to Big Mac’s usage of steroids to aid in injury and workout recovery, we know that doctors do prescribe steroids for injury recovery. Doctors are important in this equation since steroids are controlled substances with penalties for unauthorized possession or distribution. It also stands to reason that if McGwire believed this premise, he would have abandoned steroid usage upon recovery from his injury(ies). This leads to his second point during the Costas interview that steroid usage did not grant him a performance edge. If he did believe this, it made no sense to continue the administration of steroids.

The research does indicate that anabolic steroids can increase muscle mass and strength. The extent of the increase, however, is dependent on the dosage. Since professional sports are not a well-studied laboratory, it is difficult to know the dosage levels required to achieve specific size and strength.

So what does increased muscle mass and strength say about hitting a baseball? An increase in muscle mass and strength by itself does not translate into being a better hitter. The other necessary components are improved hand-eye coordination and increased bat speed. While there is conjecture on the subject of improved hand-eye coordination, I did not find any research supporting this. With respect to increased bat speed, I might suggest a potential experiment.

I remember years ago watching a game where they contrasted the bat speeds of Ken Griffey Jr. and Big Mac. I believe they estimated the bat speed from videotape of their swings. Those who watch golf also know that technology has the ability to measure swing speeds. What if a researcher took video of McGwire, Bonds et. al. from when they first broke into the league and compared it to video after these players  became demonstrably larger? If the bat speed increased, it would lay a further foundation to the argument that PED allowed these players to exceed their previous capabilities. But what if the video showed the bat speeds to be similar?

Errors

Here is another point to consider. While we have evidence that some baseball players used PED and were at the pinnacle of their sport, what do we know about players who also used PED and experienced a) no increase in success or b) less success?  It’s unlikely we’ll ever know this.  [2020 commentary: But it’s also important to know this when establishing hypotheses about PEDs in baseball.  Without this information, it’s impossible to minimize what are known as Type I and Type II errors in statistical analysis.]

Conclusion

This article is not an advocacy for PED nor is it attempting to absolve players from their potentially false assaults of previously sacred records. The article does attempt to establish that using PED to improve athletic performance is not a well-studied phenomenon. Since we have no laboratory or controlled experiment, our “evidence” is largely anecdotal. Perhaps my greatest concern is that we might ignore or unfairly categorize athletes who through nutrition and improved training techniques increase muscle mass and strength without the use of PED. The modern athlete is markedly bigger and stronger than his or her predecessor. It is easy to become cynical and suspicious in sport now when we see someone with a particular body mass and vascularity and automatically assume there is PED usage. We need to give the science of sports training its credit as well.

[2020 commentary: Ultimately, we will have to reconcile that athletes will try to obtain an edge and that the science of obtaining that edge is in a constant state of advance.  Respective sports or competitive leagues will be responsible for establishing the proper level of scientific enhancement allowed for performance and associated penalties for violations of standards.]

The research cited in the article is from the second edition of “Physiology of Sport and Exercise” and the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.