Great. Who's gonna save baseball now?

Well, that sucks.

Ouch. This really sucks if true.

About par for the course in the 2007 Cardinals' season.

I kinda suspected it. Not steroids, but HGH. C'mon he's hitting homeruns at a 50 homer clip right now.

Damn, let's just dovetail this thread with the other Ankiel thread from today - that will make for some good reading.

This is a sad, sad story, but Jocketty sounds a little stupid talking about these tragedies in relation to the team and not the individuals...

This makes me sad.

Oof. Retro-shiite was right. Although note that this was three years ago.

Now this is a good story.

HARC also provided a shipment of steroids and growth hormone to former major league pitcher Steve Woodard, who pitched for Milwaukee, Cleveland, Texas and Boston during a seven-year career that ended in 2003, according to records. Woodard and Ankiel were teammates with the Triple-A Memphis Redbirds in 2004.
...
[Ankiel's] agent, Scott Boras, would not comment yesterday, and Woodard did not return messages left on his cell phone.

Did Voros know ?!?!?!?!?
:P

annd I still don't care.

Yeah the article says that its not known if he's taken since it was banned officially and that he only received a 12month shipment in 2004.

Ankiel, 28, has not been accused by authorities of wrongdoing, and according to the Signature records obtained by The News, he stopped receiving HGH just before Major League Baseball officially banned it in 2005. MLB does not test for HGH, but a player who is known to have used it or even possessed it from the time it was banned can face a 50-game suspension.

...

MLB officials also declined comment, saying they would "look into" the allegations, but weren't sure whether any action could be taken. It is likely, however, that officials will ask to speak to Ankiel and will ask whether he used HGH beyond the time he received the shipments.

So, Ankiel will most likely never be suspended by MLB; he also may have been legitimately clean since the ban in 2005. Still, this is a sad twist to an otherwise great story. Why couldn't it have been Chris Truby?

It's kind of classless for Jocketty to refer to this as "tragic", given that the Cardinals have had actual members of their team killed and maimed this year. Sad, maybe, but that's not the same thing.

Damn.

kinda suspected it. Not steroids, but HGH. C'mon he's hitting homeruns at a 50 homer clip right now.

I tend to think HGH doesn't help you so much (and maybe not at all) but if he's takign HGH I think there's a solid chance that he's taking it in conjunction with steroids.

Either way, it certainly wrecks the story if true and diminishes his accomplishment.

I was talking to a former minor league shortstop recently. He only stopped playing a couple years ago. He insisted that HALF the guys he played with used PED's. He said he didn't, but he was very clear in his estimate. Not just some. HALF.

Really, I have very little doubt this is true.

Anyway, according to the story, there is no evidence he used or received or had posession of HGH after it was banned...so screw it.

Not reading the article in depth because of the hysterical tone implied and the fact that the phrase "illegal drugs" is used. These were not illegal drugs and were not obtained illegally. The patient likely had a prescription and received a completely legal prescription drug.

The illegality associated with this pharmacy company is a NEW YORK and maybe other states prescription laws that state a patient a doctor must actually see a patient before a prescription can be written. I don't see any patient misbehavior here, much less illegality.

Looking at his minor league numbers (on bbref, yes!), he started to hit in 2005 and slugged in the .500's, and didn't do anything in 2006 (knee injury) and now 2007...But he also had 100 at bats in 2001 where he slugged 600 in rookie ball. He was always a good hitter at least. I agree that if he didn't receive anything after 2004, then he's not really done much hitting while on HGH, and has reinvented himself...but we don't really know the whole story.

Ankiel had a knee injury in 2006, iirc.

Ah, I didn't see and had forgotten this:

"he stopped receiving HGH just before Major League Baseball officially banned it in 2005."

That's kind of crucial, no? If he was taking a legal substance at the time not banned by baseball in order to heal an injury I'm not sure how this is a big deal.

Re: Ankiel and Woodard being teammates at Memphis: Ankiel spent all of one day with Memphis in '04, his last rehab start before rejoining the Cardinals.

If he was taking a legal substance at the time not banned by baseball in order to heal an injury I'm not sure how this is a big deal.

From other articles I've read, HGH is illegal to use unless you have AIDS or an adult growth deficiency.

EDIT: Ehh, from an earlier 2007 NY Times article on HGH (RR):

Under federal law, the substance is illegal to use except for treating childhood growth disorders, AIDS and a rare adult hormone deficiency.

If I were T.J. Quinn, Christian Red, Michael O'Keeffe, or Bill Madden, I'd pay attention when Ankiel's taking batting practice.

Yeah, retro-shiite was all over this. He's to this what Christy Mathewson was to the Black Sox scandal. Well, maybe not quite to that extent ... but he was vocal about it.

The difference is that Christy Mathewson wasn't somebody who got lucky after talking out of his ass a few times on a baseball message board. If retro-shiite had reason to believe beyond "he's having a really good year and I don't like him", it's news to me.

Oh, I have no idea about that either. But on a message board, who can tell?

It's so insane for this stuff to be illegal.

Actually, while I understand 100% why its illegal. Does HGH have known side effects? I honestly have no idea what they are. I'm assuming it does for it to be illegal.

The people who run this country are just afraid of people improving themselves past what they've decided is "normal."

But of course, if such people had gotten what they wanted in the past, the average American man would be 5'6" and have tuberculosis.

I kinda suspected it. Not steroids, but HGH. C'mon he's hitting homeruns at a 50 homer clip right now.

Are you suggesting that PEDs enhance performance?

Does HGH have known side effects?

This comes from Harvard Med School: "Large, pharmacological doses of GH are often associated with the clinical sequelae of GH excess, including fluid retention and hypertension. However, increasingly smaller, physiological, doses of rhGH are currently being used for replacement in GH- deficient patients without such sequelae."

From other articles I've read, HGH is illegal to use unless you have AIDS or an adult growth deficiency.

There is a quasi-legal medical specialty developed entirely around finding excuses to give people hGH for its anti-aging benefits. I'd imagine most ballplayers dabbled in it at some point, though most had the discretion not to use an internet prescription farm.

I will let Rick "HGH Addict" Ankiel have the benefit of the doubt here, because if I don't, then he will unleash a roid rage on me.

So much for "the natural"

############# ####### #### #### #### #####.

Can't we have any heroes anymore?

Can't we have any heroes anymore?

Yeah...they are called soldiers, firemen, police officers..(some of them), EMT's, Teachers, etc....

Baseball players are entertainers. Not heroes.

What is this...the 50's?

I have to admit I'm glad I'm not as dedicated to baseball as I once was. I love the sport, the research, the discussions online and off. But, it feels good to be a bit disconnected right now. I feel like I can actually comment on debates from a more neutral position.

From my perspective, this will look bad for the Cardinals, worse for Ankiel, and "world crashing down" to MLB. I hope its the final straw to clean house. Proffessional sports is more than due for another major scandal. I'm not talking about steroids, I'm talking about a 1918 type crusher. US sports is so dirty its sickening. Almost all world sports is dirty anymore. Its getting time for a crash. I know this is an extreme opinion, but its ready to happen. It almost needs to happen.

Ouch. This really sucks if true.

That's kind of crucial, no? If he was taking a legal substance at the time not banned by baseball in order to heal an injury I'm not sure how this is a big deal.

Barry Bonds. And does it have to be true?

Wait... still don't care.

Yeah...they are called soldiers, firemen, police officers..(some of them), EMT's, Teachers, etc....

Except the ones that abuse little children/their wives/girlfriends, do drugs, and are gay, right? In fact, like ballplayers.

I'll repeat what I said in the Lounge: The media should have kept this story quiet, for the good of American society. With the country’s last living hero brought low, today’s disaffected youth will decide that there’s no point in showing respect to any person or any institution, since they’ll inevitably turn out to be phony. What’s to stop them from seeking the meaning they lack at the bottom of a hash pipe, or in the guts of the people they open up with switchblades on the subway? Yes, I hope the media is very satisfied with itself.

Or the media could actually point out REAL heroes and not professional athetes. But that would make too much sense.

Count me in the "this isn't a big deal" camp for this one. Not banned by baseball at the time, apparently prescribed ... based on the info so far, I don't see how it's an issue.

Not to mention that HGH doesn't appear to do much of anything, except make you look kick-ass. If he was doing steroids at the same time, maybe I could care, but I don't think that's a fair assumption.

Ankiel's doctor seems to be an interesting guy... it appears he was once featured on 48 HOURS because he settled a whole bunch of malpractice suits brought against him in a short span of time.

I'm curious to see if any fans are going to start showing up at games with Ankiel-asterisk signs, or if the nice, respectful white boy with the feel-good story gets a pass from the haters.

If you really fail to see the differences between the Ankiel and Bonds stories, I don't think another post from me is going to change things. Ankiel did something quasi-legal 3 years ago. The rules of MLB and the prosecutors on the related legal case both say he didn't do anything worthy of action, but I guess when reporters or Bonds activists have a point to prove, that doesn't really matter.

I'm curious to see if any fans are going to start showing up at games with Ankiel-asterisk signs, or if the nice, respectful white boy with the feel-good story gets a pass from the haters.

The Cards play a makeup game at Wrigley on Monday... oh, I could see a few taunts and barbs headed Ankiel's way.

Hey, I understand the difference between the Bonds story and Ankiel. I'm just sayin what could and maybe should happen sooner or later.

First, I'm not aware of any evidence that HGH does anything for athletes.

Second, the quote from the NYT is not true. The 1990 law it's talking about bans distribution, or possession with intent to distribute, HGH "for any use in humans other than the treatment of a disease or other recognized medical condition, where such use has been authorized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 355 of this title and pursuant to the order of a physician." It does not penalize "use."

This article, in Brandweek, of all places, provides a lot more detail on the subject than the crappy NYT article. By way of background, we have a very strange system for prescription drug regulation in the U.S. When a drug company submits an NDA to the FDA, the FDA will approve the drug (assuming it does) for a specific use or uses. Those are the only uses which the drug company can mention; the federal government unconstitutionally censors them from talking about any other use for the drug. However, generally speaking, physicians are not limited in that respect; they can prescribe an approved drug for any legitimate medical purpose, even if the FDA never approved it for such use. This is called "off-label," and it's perfectly legal. If a doctor wants to prescribe a cholesterol drug to treat depression (*), he can do it; the check on such behavior is malpractice liability, not regulators. There are more quirks, but I'm not going to get into them here.



(*) To all our medical people around here: yes, that's pretty unlikely; it's just a hypo.

From my perspective, this will look bad for the Cardinals, worse for Ankiel, and "world crashing down" to MLB. I hope its the final straw to clean house.

I agree. Every member of the House who voted for these unconstitutional and immoral laws ought to be removed from office, ASAP. (Was there some other house that was dirty?)

If you really fail to see the differences between the Ankiel and Bonds stories, I don't think another post from me is going to change things. Ankiel did something quasi-legal 3 years ago. The rules of MLB and the prosecutors on the related legal case both say he didn't do anything worthy of action, but I guess when reporters or Bonds activists have a point to prove, that doesn't really matter.

Just say "Ankiel is white." It pretty much sums up all the relevant differences.

Thanks for the link. The FDA rep quoted in the Brandweek article does disagree re: off-label prescription, though, while the drug company lawyer agrees with your view:

EDIT: Whoops. In re-reading your response, you were talking about off-label in general, not HGH.

"FDA believes that a physician who prescribes, dispenses, and/or administers HGH for an unauthorized use violates federal law," said Crystal Rice, an FDA representative, in an e-mail to Brandweek.

Richard Collier, as the former general counsel at Pharmacia, was the company's chief lawyer. He doubted that the FDA's strict interpretation was correct: "It may be ill-advised or inappropriate to market off-label but it is permissible for a physician to prescribe off-label," he told Brandweek in February.

NTN: you're right that an FDA rep says that, but like all bureaucracies, the FDA has a history of overreaching; it also has a history of being slapped down by the courts when it does. Also, note this from the NYT article:

Some of the legal parameters around promoting and dispensing HGH are nebulous. Steven D. Silverman, an assistant director of compliance at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, part of the Food and Drug Administration, says that people advocating growth hormone for anti-aging purposes “may be engaged in protected speech.” But, he adds, “if a doctor or pharmacy is actually dispensing this product for anti-aging purposes, that’s different and it may be illegal.”

Emphasis added. That's also an FDA representative, and it's a lot more non-committal.

Heh...then in the NYT article, the anti-aging guys (Klatz/Goldman, with their medical degrees from Belize) say the law doesn't cover THEIR stuff, but is intended to stop athletes from abusing HGH.

Fun stuff all around.

The first of what surely will be numerous, numerous Ankiel HGH articles :

Yahoo: Passan - Ankiel's feel-good story doesn't feel right anymore

It's not black and white. One's treatment by the media relates directly to how much the media feels you have screwed up a good narrative. A lot of writers who invoked Roy Hobbs in the past month are now going to take their revenge for being "betrayed," and oh yes, they will be using that word an awful lot.

I agree. Every member of the House who voted for these unconstitutional and immoral laws ought to be removed from office, ASAP. (Was there some other house that was dirty?)

So, just for shits and giggles, why are these laws unconstitutional? The only take I can think of is that you don't believe that drugs are an article in interstate commerce. But that's pretty clearly untrue, so I'm having a hard time seeing what the hook is here.

Jon, I reject the New Deal rewrite of the constitution. The federal government had to pass a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and there has been no amendment since then to give it any more power than it had in 1919. The constitution authorizes the federal government to regular interstate commerce, not objects that might become articles in interstate commerce or objects that used to be articles in interstate commerce. If they want to ban the interstate shipment of HGH, I'd still object but not on constitutional grounds. But they have no constitutional authority to regulate prescription, possession, or use of HGH.

(And yes, I know that the courts no longer protect our federalist system, so I don't need to be told that the courts wouldn't agree with that anymore.)

If a doctor wants to prescribe a cholesterol drug to treat depression (*), he can do it...

(*) To all our medical people around here: yes, that's pretty unlikely; it's just a hypo.

Almost a pretty good hypo, actually. Unfortunately, the relationship seems to be the other way around -- some anti-depressants have been associated with an increase in cholesterol levels in some patients.

That's kind of crucial, no? If he was taking a legal substance at the time not banned by baseball in order to heal an injury I'm not sure how this is a big deal.

Assuming that it was prescribed by the team doctor, or the team knew about it, then no. But it sounds from the Cardinal comments that Ankiel was taking this stuff covertly, which makes it cheating.

Assuming that it was prescribed by the team doctor, or the team knew about it, then no. But it sounds from the Cardinal comments that Ankiel was taking this stuff covertly, which makes it cheating.

Since when is cheating determined by whether the team doctor knows about it, as opposed to whether it's against the rules?

He took a prescription drug for which he had a prescription, at a time when it was not banned by baseball. How is this cheating? And if it is, why does it matter if he did it with or without the knowledge of his team?

(And yes, I know that the courts no longer protect our federalist system, so I don't need to be told that the courts wouldn't agree with that anymore.)

I'm curious. If one day we wake up to find that miraculously the feds and the courts decide just that, and all federal anti-drug laws were repealed, to quickly be replaced by 50 different state drug laws, would you be OK with that? What kind of nightmare would that cause?

Yeah, retro-shiite was all over this. He's to this what Christy Mathewson was to the Black Sox scandal. Well, maybe not quite to that extent ... but he was vocal about it.

My fadeaway pales in comparison, however. 'Course, so had Mathewson's by the time of the Black Sox scandal.

The difference is that Christy Mathewson wasn't somebody who got lucky after talking out of his ass a few times on a baseball message board. If retro-shiite had reason to believe beyond "he's having a really good year and I don't like him", it's news to me.

Hmmm...can't stand my being right about this, can you? Hell, it took kevin several years to start kvetching about Bonds.

As for my "talking out my ass"--it's most certainly not that "he's having a really good year and I don't like him." I don't even dislike him, really, other than his being a Cardinal; in fact, although I'm a Cub fan, I've always thought it was a shame that Ankiel's pitching career got derailed so early on. He was fun to watch, and I can only fantasize about what could've been some epic Ankiel/Prior battles through the years.

It's that his power simply exploded at age 28, out of nowhere. And that, well, let's just say the Cardinals' sticking with him years after it was apparent that (1) he'd never again be an effective pitcher and (2) he projected to be no better than a fourth outfielder by any reasonable expected development curve is highly unusual, and suggested very strongly (to me, at least, having seen his '07 performance) that they knew something about his, uh, development that the rest of us didn't.

The Cards play a makeup game at Wrigley on Monday... oh, I could see a few taunts and barbs headed Ankiel's way.

Given that I'll be in attendance, you can take it to the bank.

Then again, that's Lilly's turn in the rotation, so Ankiel might not even start. The lefty'll give TLR a good excuse to sit him. Well, that, and the fact that the Cards'll be taking a one-day detour to Chicago between road series.

Jon, I reject the New Deal rewrite of the constitution. The federal government had to pass a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and there has been no amendment since then to give it any more power than it had in 1919. The constitution authorizes the federal government to regular interstate commerce, not objects that might become articles in interstate commerce or objects that used to be articles in interstate commerce. If they want to ban the interstate shipment of HGH, I'd still object but not on constitutional grounds. But they have no constitutional authority to regulate prescription, possession, or use of HGH.

(And yes, I know that the courts no longer protect our federalist system, so I don't need to be told that the courts wouldn't agree with that anymore.)

Fair enough. I'm enough of a product of modern jurisprudence that I tend to think that Wickard was correctly decided (although Raich v. Gonzales bothers me enormously, more on ethical grounds than legal), but I take your point.

On a practical level, I'd be nervous about doing away with Congress' expansive commerce power. I don't pretend to know whether your interpretation of the commerce clause is better or worse than the mainstream view: it may well be that Wickard was a practical disaster, I've no way to measure. But for better or for worse, the modern regulatory state is based upon an expansive view of the commerce clause. Taking that away would, I think, create a vacuum that might cause more problems than it solves.

Crystal Rice?

Oh, and danup? I called this about 5 minutes after Ankiel was recalled from AAA (it was his numbers at Memphis this year that set off my suspicions, not his major league performance). If you think Ankiel's ridiculous pace over the last month is the sole basis for my thinking this, you're dead wrong. I take it as further vindication, but it's not the source of my belief.

Just say "Ankiel is white." It pretty much sums up all the relevant differences.

Gary Sheffield. I guess his whiteness explains the lack of backlash.

I'm curious to see if any fans are going to start showing up at games with Ankiel-asterisk signs, or if the nice, respectful white boy with the feel-good story gets a pass from the haters.

An asterisk sign would be pretty stupid since he hasn't broken any records. Did people make asterisk signs to protest Alex Sanchez's one homerun? But I'm sure Ankiel will get his share of heckling and boos when the Cards are on the road.

I'm not casting any doubt on the story, but if you really believe that the Daily News just happened to break it on a)the day after Ankiel had 2 HRs and 7 RBI, and b)the day after a Yankee and Met off-day, you've got a lot more faith in coincidence than I do. (Personally, I vote for a being luck and b not so much.)

Another legal question that occurred to me when the clinic lawyer cited HIPPA - is there any possible liability for whoever leaked this or the newspaper under HIPPA? I know it's supposed to be extremely far-reaching. Not that I would ever expect anything to happen, I'm just curious. That and DMN can always use a new topic.

It's that his power simply exploded at age 28, out of nowhere.

Out of nowhere? You really did pull this out of your ass.

It's that his power simply exploded at age 28, out of nowhere.

The power has always been there. He had it when he was still a MLB pitcher. He showed it the first year he went back to the minors and split time between pitching and hitting - slugging over .600 in rookie ball. The surprising thing is that he's hitting for such a good average considering he was a .260 hitter in the PCL who was not familiar with ball four.

Still could be a fluke, he might just be a .220 hitter regardless of what the HGH news does to him.

I don't know much about HGH but wouldn't it be illegal for a reason, whether it would make you a bit stronger, or you could hurt yourself in excess...I know you can mix it with stuff, like with insulin, called slin, that is apparently very dangerous but 'makes steroids look like tic tacs.'

An asterisk sign would be pretty stupid since he hasn't broken any records. Did people make asterisk signs to protest Alex Sanchez's one homerun?

No offense, but that analogy sucks.

It's that his power simply exploded at age 28, out of nowhere.

Out of nowhere? You really did pull this out of your ass.

Uh, OK, Sparkles--show me anything in Ankiel's major or minor league hitting record that provides a reasonable basis for thinking he'd develop 40-50 home run power at the AAA/MLB level at age 28 (after a year off). Surely you don't think it's his combined 21 homers at A and AA at age 26.

Surely you're not projecting 40-50 HR power based on less than 100 ABs in his first season as a MLB hitter.

Surely you're not projecting 40-50 HR power based on less than 100 ABs in his first season as a MLB hitter.

He's hit 43 homers this year between AAA and the majors. There's no need to "project" anything.

TO add to retro-shiite's point....when he was a good hitter in 2001 (in Rookie ball no less once he had already seen major league pitching), he was still young in his pitching career and a good hitter. But it happens to so many pitchers long-term, once they devote to pitching, they lose their potential as hitters because all the time is invested into pitching. Could John Van Benschoten become a 30 homer hitter now? It'd be pretty tough. He's hit .200 in 94 minor league at bats in his career. I'm looking at Micah Owing's stats right now and he has a 942 OPS in 50 at bats, but that won't last. The best hitting pitcher's are pathetic compared to position players.

Surely you don't think it's his combined 21 homers at A and AA at age 26.

Actually, yes, because he hit those in only 85 games.

At this point he's more Kevin Maas/Shane Spencer late season fluke than Ryan Braun/Ryan Howard next power hitting superstar. But if he really does turn out to be a 40 homer guy at the major league level (really, really unlikely), its not like he's a mediocre minor league hitter turning himself into major league superstar with the magic powers of HGH.

He got this stuff in 2004. If it helped him at all it still doesn't explain why he's hitting better in the majors than he did in the minors.

Ok, let's all back up and set the frame of reference.

I BELIEVE what we have here is a failure to communicate.

There have been a goodly number of fans gushing over Ankiel and making some pretty outrageous claims on his ability to hit home runs at the major league level.

retro is responding to THOSE claims.

I believe that others think that Ankiel has SOME ability to hit homers in the majors but somewhere along the lines of say 25 as opposed to 40.

Then there are others still who think Ankiel is just one in a long line of guys who show up, get hot, and then vanish rarely to make an impact in the game again.

So for those discussing the HGH in relationship to Ankiel declare FIRST to what camp do they belong:

"OMIG&D;RICK ANKIEL IS AMAZING!! 45 HOME RUNS BABY!!"

"Hey look, the Cardinals found a Geoff Jenkins type. Pounds righties, good defense, strike zone is his hat to his ankles, better arm, couldn't hit lefties with a paddle."

"Kevin Maas baby. Book it."

On a practical level, I'd be nervous about doing away with Congress' expansive commerce power. I don't pretend to know whether your interpretation of the commerce clause is better or worse than the mainstream view: it may well be that Wickard was a practical disaster, I've no way to measure. But for better or for worse, the modern regulatory state is based upon an expansive view of the commerce clause. Taking that away would, I think, create a vacuum that might cause more problems than it solves.

I agree that from this point, immediately revoking an expansive commerce clause would create a hell of a mess. That doesn't mean that granting that power years ago was a good idea. The founders established a federal system with a lot of power in the states for some very good reasons, most of which have or are coming true now that the federal government uber alles. But, whatever, republics aren't designed to last very long. Pass me a beer.

He's hit 43 homers this year between AAA and the majors.

Not that 2 HRs make that much difference, but I see 32 in AAA and 9 (to date) in MLB. More importantly, he hit those 26 AA HRs in about 321 ABs, which projects out to approximately 40-50 HRs (in about 500-600 ABs). But I guess since, three years ago, Ankiel purchased 12 months' worth of a substance that wasn't banned by his sport at the time of its purchase, we should stamp his forehead (and, hell, what about those guys like Maas and Spencer and Plantier and Agbayani that did it for a small part of the season, then shriveled up ha ha ha ha) (hell, how about every athlete in thesport, since WE WILL NEVER KNOW) with an asterisk and bask in our moral superiority because we guessed that some guy playing over his head for a month was using PEDs.

There have been a goodly number of fans gushing over Ankiel and making some pretty outrageous claims on his ability to hit home runs at the major league level.

retro is responding to THOSE claims.

I have never claimed that Ankiel lacked any power hitting ability--as others have noted, he showed some power even as a 21-year-old rookie pitcher. But his performance this year (both in the majors and minors) is completely out of line with what one would reasonably expect based on his history. And as I've said from the beginning, I don't believe he's come by this newfound power naturally.

I'm also responding to the massive simultaneous medialatio that Ankiel's been benefitting from, complete with copious Roy Hobbs references, which were stomach-turning even before the HGH stuff was made public.

Uh, OK, Sparkles--show me anything in Ankiel's major or minor league hitting record that provides a reasonable basis for thinking he'd develop 40-50 home run power at the AAA/MLB level at age 28 (after a year off).

How about the tape measure shots he was hitting in high school? The fact that he had a respectable, near-average ISO as a 21 year old rookie pitcher? Slugging .638 in '02 while still taking a regular turn in the rotation?

But it happens to so many pitchers long-term, once they devote to pitching, they lose their potential as hitters because all the time is invested into pitching.

Of course, this happens to the pitchers who are juicing, too.

All:

I just get confused because I think at times folks talk past one another based on having a different frame of reference.

If nothing else my suggestion helps ME follow the discussion. I need to know what folks are using as the foundation for their remarks.

Thanks.

Does it matter to anybody that even if this story is 100% accurate, he got the stuff as a pitcher?

And that the authorities are not accusing him of doing anything wrong?

And that he got a real prescription, not an internet one?

But I guess since, three years ago, Ankiel purchased 12 months' worth of a substance that wasn't banned by his sport at the time of its purchase, we should stamp his forehead (and, hell, what about those guys like Maas and Spencer and Plantier and Agbayani that did it for a small part of the season, then shriveled up ha ha ha ha) (hell, how about every athlete in thesport, since WE WILL NEVER KNOW) with an asterisk and bask in our moral superiority because we guessed that some guy playing over his head for a month was using PEDs.

I never claimed to be "morally superior;" I merely claimed he was juicing (and as stated above, not based on his hot month in the majors--I said this almost immediately after his callup). And I treat the hot streak he's on now as vindication because it really ISN'T that far out of line with his AAA numbers this year (he's hit BETTER in the majors [particularly in terms of OBP] than he did in AAA, but the power difference 32 homers in 4 months of AAA versus what he's done in a month-plus in the majors isn't all that great).

And for what it's worth, Ankiel is the ONLY player for whom I've ever looked at simple minor league stat lines and said "he's on something." That I was proven right about that pretty damned quickly doesn't make me "morally superior," but I certainly don't think it rightfully subjects me to the trashing I'm getting here.

And that the authorities are not accusing him of doing anything wrong?

Whether what he did was legal or not is irrelevant to me. I merely thought that his power blowup seemed awfully odd, and developed suspicions accordingly.

You weren't proven right about anything.

How about the tape measure shots he was hitting in high school?

Whatever. I know people who did the same thing and never sniffed the majors.

Slugging .638 in '02 while still taking a regular turn in the rotation?

In 105 at-bats, in low A.

Look--I hate to sound like a broken record, but I *don't* deny that Ankiel is and was a quite talented hitter. But after his small-sample .638 SLG in '01 [not '02], he had a grand total of 38 professional ABs over the next three seasons *combined*, followed by his decent-but-not-overwhelming performance at A/AA in '05, when he was seriously overaged for his leagues. And then another year off.

There is no way in hell that track record projects to anything close to what Ankiel has done this year.

Was HGH banned in the minor league in 2004? If so, if Ankiel violated the minor league drug policy does that affect his ability to play in the majors?

You weren't proven right about anything.

Uh--I said he was on something, which he was. You, sir, are in need of a reality check.

Again, I am not commenting on legality, ethics, or anything else of that nature. Nor am I claiming to know the precise synergy between HGH, workout regimens, and whatever factors went into making Ankiel what he has become, and which of those factors play the greatest role. But it is now clear that HGH *was* part of that synergy in Ankiel's case, and I think it was probably a significant enough part to make a large difference in his power hitting ability, though how much is impossible to ascertain. I simply looked at the progression of his career and said "this ain't normal." And I was right about that.

i guess the other thread is dead so let me once more ask what i posted there

is there ANY actual science that shows that if a 24 year old MALE shoots up with HGH that it makes more or stronger muscles?

can someone please give a link because i looked all day yesterday and all i can find is rumors and i don't know how to find medical stuff besides webMD

also if he shot up 3 years ago how can it last that long?

Did you even read the article?

Where is there anything close to resembling proof that he is on something?

The apologist are without shame. Retro-shiite has been proven right in a dramatic manner that rarely happens in life and you people are turning it into a personal attack.

Apologists have no souls.

Whatever. I know people who did the same thing and never sniffed the majors.

That made me laugh as I thought the same thing. My friend Jeff hit some fantastically long HR's and he washed out of DIII baseball.

Nice guy though, and a good insurance agent.

retro:

I think Bill Clinton is in the house. I think the current contention is based around verb tense.

"Is" meaning now. "Was" meaning then.

Or maybe the poster believes Rick received the goods and didn't do anything with them.........................

followed by his decent-but-not-overwhelming performance at A/AA in '06, when he was seriously overaged for his leagues.

Since he was not overwhelming in 2006, does it matter that he was on hGH in 2004? I assume that you are assuming that he's still using. Fine. But are you saying that the stuff takes three years to work, or that he was off it in 2006 and back on in 2007, or what exactly?

Or maybe the poster (ME) believes he received it as a pitcher in 2004, and used it.

And I am struggling to figure out how that constitutes proof that he is currently juicing.