First, there's the issue of timing. Cocaine's positive effects on the mind are very real, but they don't last very long. If the goal was to keep themselves wired, they'd have to snort once every 30-45 minutes or so. While that's more possible in baseball than any other sport, it's still a difficulty.

Also, much like how someone crashes after eating too much sugar, when the euphoria and stimulation wears off, the user often feels exaggeratedly sluggish and inattentive.

And finally, why take cocaine for performance enhancing performances, when amphetamines (A) have a longer duration due to a different mechanism of action, (B) are much, much cheaper, and (C) are already more prevalent in baseball clubhouses?

Also, just because a guy was a cocaine addict, doesn't mean he wasn't using amphetamines, too, perhaps as a means of mitigating the "crashing" feeling when a dose of coke wears off. People who take one drug illegally usually have few qualms with taking two. If he was taking both simultaneously, he would likely give more of the credit for his success to the speed.

With steroids and HGH, however, the goal is to gain some kind of performance enhancement. So, even if steroids/HGH don't really help much, the motive is still cheating. It's kind of like the corked bat...every physics study I've seen suggests a corked bat actually hurts the batter, but the action is still abhorant because it's an overt attempt at cheating.

Having said all that, I do agree with your point about challenging the conventional wisdom. For starters, I don't think we know how much steroids/HGH aid performance. Sure, they probably aid in recovery from injury and strenuous workouts, but is that really so bad? Instead of giving HGH such a stigma, wouldn't it make as much sense to study its positive uses (if any exist). Who knows, in 10 years, team trainers may be prescribing HGH to injured athletes (and maybe even doctors to regular patients). How ironic would it be if Barry Bonds' legacy winds up being as a trailblazer in injury recovery, much like Tommy John with his surgery?

I had a reader send me an email saying he remembered one former player, who was promoting a book mention on the Tonight Show that cocaine had improved his focus and strength. Since I didn't hear the same quote, I'm not going to name the player, but I believe the reader who offered it up. The idea is very logical. The drug does make you feel that way. Why do you think Lawrence Taylor was willing to use so much of it, despite already being the most destructive force in NFL history.

Did amphetamines have a much larger effect on Major League Baseball. Sure. They were practically sitting in candy jars in the locker room or being brewed in the coffee pots. Cocaine didn't lend itself to such open aired use, but don't think that there weren't times on the 1979 Pirates and many other teams when the team bathroom looked like something out of Studio 54.

4 As far as cheating goes, players try to overtly cheat every single day. Don't you think Robbie Alomar knew that he actually had to touch the base while turning the double play when he actually was straddling the bag to avoid getting creamed??

The bottom line is that PED's affect people in different ways some seem to help (Bonds), sometimes they seem to hurt by keeping a player off the field (Canseco)...there is no certainty in ingesting these substances. Today's ballplayers should simply stick to all of the legal performance enhancers: Laser eye surgeries, legal nutritional supplements, video of every pitch an opponent has ever thrown, improved bats and a dozen other things that are only available recently and serve no purpose but to artificially improve performance.

My guess? RAUUUUUULLL!!

While the execution of my point I wish would have used a better example, my point was opening the eyes of others who never knew about baseball's long history of PED's before steroids. It also was trying to open the eyes of a lot of people who were around, but have decided to look the other way on amphetamines and steroids.

Now that MLB has an actual drug testing policy, I'm all for throwing the book at players who use. My issue sits with going solely after players from the past 15 years who used steroids when the league, the players, and the fans basically turned a blind eye to them, until just the past 4 years. Hell, the whole subject makes my eyes get so wide open it makes my pupils feel dilated. Hey, who rolled that dollar bill up...how did that mirror get there...why are my gums feeling numb...

And just picking out names of fast black players doesn't mean that's the target audience. I would bet there were a few hundred cocaine users in the 1980s. I'm quite sure that there were not a few hundred speedy players.

It's like trying to pick out steroids users, and saying Giambi, Canseco, and others. But, half the players who fail steroids testing are pitchers.

And in the hierarchy of PED, I don't think there's a soul out there that would argue that, given the choice between amphetamines and cocaine, that they would not choose amphetamines.

As for the overall effect, the pros/cons of cocaine to performance in baseball, I would bet on the cons to far outweigh the pros (just guessing), and the opposite for steroids and amphetamines.