|
I came across an interesting article on MLB.com today regarding a device called the I trac Vision Training System. Essentially, it is a tool that is supposed to help hitters see the ball better or to help them focus at a higher level. The system is setup similar to a batting cage except instead of throwing baseballs, the I trac system throws tennis balls with differently colored numbers on them up to 150 mph. The point is to train the eye to distinguish the different colors of balls and be able to read the numbers at these high speeds. The supposed benefit is that if a person is able to do this successfully, then they will be able to pick out the rotation on a baseball and determine what type of pitch it is. Therefore, increasing their chances of making good contact. It's not the first system to imploy this tactit and I'm sure it won't be the last.
There are varying beliefs displayed throughout the article about the actual effectiveness of the device. Some professionally trained folks thinks it helps, others think it's hocus pocus. However, I don't want get into the actual effectivness of the system. After reading the I trac article and our own Jack Cobra's article and comments about Barry Bonds/Steroids, it got me to thinking about where the line should be drawn when it comes to performance enhancers. The I trac System, to some, could be seen as a performance enhancer but I wouldn't ever imagine that it could be reviled as much as steroids/greenies/etc. I realize that there is a vast difference in chemical steroids and a training aid, but when you come down to it, all of these performance enhancing chemicals, equipment, items, etc. are a product of further advancements in science and technology.
Where can we draw the line? If it doesn't go into your body, then it's ok? Nike introduced contacts for athletes a couple of years ago that enhanced or blocked certain wavelengths of light in order to make a baseball or golf ball "pop" out against the background. I don't know if these are currently illegal to use in MLB, but I do know Brian Roberts of the Orioles used them when they first came out. That's something you put in your body that supposedly enhances your performance. Every athlete wants to gain an edge on an opponent. Most, as we've come to believe will do nearly anything to maintain and extend that edge over their competition. We have athletes that sleep in bubbles just so they get more oxygen flow in their blood. We have athletes that experiment with all types of drugs, illegal and legal to gain an edge. Athletes have almost anything imaginable at their disposal to increase their performance and everyday more and more things come out to help them. Again, where do we draw the line?
Leave a comment
|
2008 Cubs Preview
Excellent points, Buck. To take it further, no one really cares (or seems to get too bothered) about greenies in baseball, right? Yet which provides more help to a baseball player: being able to lift more weight, or being able to play at a top level day in and day out?
There's a reason why every single player, going back to the 60's and 70's, uses greenies.
It's equally as illegal as steroids, and enhances the player's skills just as much, if not more. After all, strength is important to HR hitters, but alertness enhances every facet of your game, including hitting.
Very interesting article. It's as if we've become the '60 Minutes' of Performance Enhancing Tools.
I believe Edgar Martinez was one of the first one's to use this and was a big believer. Also, Ron Kittle used it quite a bit on a few guys I know who trained with him awhile back.
I think there is a big difference between a 'tool' and a 'drug'. I don't have time to go into it now, but feel free to comment away on that.
SML: Greenies are/were a big problem also. Hell, you can't even go into a gas station and get some "mini thins" without showing ID and signing a sheet that tracks that shit.
Jack: Def a big difference between "tool" and "drug" but at some point a line will have be drawn with some of these tools. As I said, I wasn't sure if the Nike contact lenses were banned or not, but something like that should be.
At some point in the future there will a nano-bot implanted in the eye connected to a nano-chip in your forearm or thigh that sends and electrical current to your brain that disseminates between fastball, curve, whatever and makes you swing at a precise moment!
Buck-
So you are saying sunglasses should be banned? That's what the contacts essentially were. They are no different than polarized lenses, except the fact they aren't as big as sunglasses. Mark Grace used to use as baseball with different colors on it and would call them out as he was hitting it. That cheating color-coated bastard!!
Buck-
So you are saying sunglasses should be banned? That's what the contacts essentially were. They are no different than polarized lenses, except the fact they aren't as big as sunglasses. Mark Grace used to use a baseball with different colors on it and would call them out as he was hitting it. That cheating color-coated bastard!!
Sorry about the double post..hit the post button twice I guess
This is rather old news. Several teams, including the Royals, have been using this device for several years now. Sportscenter did a report on it a few years ago. It is a training tool, much like watching film, lifting weights, or doing plyometrics. Comparing it to drugs that effect the overall chemistry in your bloodstream beyond natural levels is quite a stretch. And for the record, contacts go ON your body, not IN your body. They aren't ingested or injected. Should batting gloves, pine tar, and cleats be taken away as well? They help with gripping the bat and the dirt respectively which gives players an edge. Suggesting that a training tool like that is anywhere near the realm of steroids is a travesty.
Back in college I wrote a letter to the editor of my fine college newspaper claiming adderol and uppers should be banned because they give students who take them an unfair advantage when it came to studying for tests. I even suggested a urinalysis for students prior to taking tests to see who was unleveling the academic playing field. Needless to say, my suggestion went nowhere. But in my opinion, they were just like steroids.
I can see it now:
Professor - Class, I am very disappointed today to announce that the overall average on this test was a 73%. However, Mr. Scrubbings, you managed to score a 98%. It has come to my attention that there may have been some "doping" going on before you studied. I will need you to go to the Urinalysis lab before the close of business today.
Wow, I can't wait until baseball gets into full swing again tonight...then we can stop talking about this crap...You guys hear about Beckham making his debut today, that guy makes a lot of money.
Jordi, I am going to print that mother out. That is priceless. Great work.
I propose a simple plan I call Operation CR�ME LA Drugs (Condemnation, Restriction, and Education of Mind Enhancers and Legislation Against drugs)
Jordi, nice one.