i want to be clear that i am not attacking retro in any way

again no one is answering me and like any grrrl i hate being ignored

so one more time

i would like someone to please show me some actual real medical proof that a healthy normal 24 year old male who shoots up with HGH will increase his muscle mass or strength

the only stuff i found is about old folks who basically don't have any left and people with diseases

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.

Word up. The self-proclaimed Greatest Fans in Baseball™ have, at least in this thread, shown themselves to be the greatest at one thing: shooting the messenger.

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?

See post 93 (revised). I have no idea when he was on it, how much of it he took, or to what extent his power explosion is the result of that as opposed to, say, fanatical weight-training (actually, I shouldn't say "opposed to"--I suspect that in such extreme cases both the PED and the weight training are sine qua nons). But I *do* believe that his performance indicated he was on something. And he was. And if that his being on something and his subsequent explosion in power are strictly coincidental, so be it, but I'm not buying.

Incidentally, I think this "he got it three years ago" stuff is a red herring. Even assuming the effects of HGH don't carry over for a period of years, the article says he *got a 12-month supply* in '04. Perhaps he spread his use of that supply over more than one year? Is there some correlation between whatever drug/workout regimen he was on and his total absence from professional baseball in '06? There are a lot of questions I don't (and don't pretend to) have the answers to. But you all who're attacking me simply because I correctly supposed his comeback routine had a little chemical enhancement are in denial.

The reason that we do not have good studies on the effect of HGH on young athletes is that it appears for maximum results you must combine it with insulin, and there are probably serious ethical issues involved in the study of this combination (at least for non-diabetics).

I post the following abstract as not determinative of anything, but simply supportive of a notion that apparently finds few takers here, and that is that HGH and other PEDs are forms of cheating as such. This is from an extremely reputable journal; this is no hack job.

Chem. Soc. Rev., 2004, 33, 1 - 13, DOI: 10.1039/b201476a


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sports drug testing – an analyst's perspective


Graham J. Trout and Rymantas Kazlauskas


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sport plays a major role in the lives of many people, both for active participation and as entertainment. Sport is now a huge nationally and internationally based industry. The desire to win has led some athletes to resort to the use of performance enhancing drugs. With huge financial rewards now available in some sports the pressure to excel has grown. Some have argued that drug use should be given free rein, however most people are of the view that it is athletic prowess that should be applauded not the efficacy of various performance enhancing drugs. Apart from the obvious aspects of equality and fair play, the use of drugs is associated with significant health risks. In the 1960's the use of stimulants in sports such as cycling led to the death of at least one cyclist. Since 1968 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has required all Olympic Games host cities to provide laboratory facilities for the analysis and detection of performance enhancing drugs. There are now 29 IOC accredited laboratories throughout the world that routinely test samples from athletes for the presence of such drugs. The purpose of this tutorial review is to give an overview of drug testing procedures, including those that were used at the last summer Olympic Games in Sydney 2000, and the incorporation of the latest developments in analytical chemistry technology in the drug testing process. More recently, developments in biotechnology mean that the use of whole new classes of drugs are banned in sport, often requiring new methodologies and techniques for their analysis. The contest between those who wish to cheat and those who wish to maintain fair play in sport is an ongoing one.

Attempting to gain advantage (whether or not you get such advantage) is cheating. As I've said many, many times, most of us understand that. We understand that the rules don't always cover all behavior, and that they often are playing catch up. So, we can play "niggling" lawyer all we want, and attempt to make public conversation simply collapse into arm-chair legal analysis, but most of us don't live our lives that well (and thank god for that).

And retro, all I can say is that what you're experiencing is par for the course.

And bbc, I'm not ignoring your question. I'm wasting my day researching it, rather than simply spouting, as DMN has, that there's nothing there. In the course of researching your question, I came across the article above.

JC at Sabernomics posted something about HGH a month or two ago. Said a medical professional he knows claims it hasn't been proven to help anything.

As for me, I'm most interested in how Ankiel and his agent handle this. If he denies, a la Bonds, then I think the media won't let it go. If he fesses up (and he should, since this is pretty damning evidence) and say he regrets it, no one should ever take drugs, etc., then the media might make him a hero again.

It will be interesting to see.

i would like someone to please show me some actual real medical proof that a healthy normal 24 year old male who shoots up with HGH will increase his muscle mass or strength

I'm not a big fan of Will Carrol, but someone recommended me the book "The Juice: The Real Story of Baseball's Drug Problems" and it most likely covers this quite in detail. I only started it but it seems like a very good book and would answer all the q's on PEDs.

Facts: (under the assumption that the article is 100% true).

-Rick Ankiel, the pitcher, had Tommy John surgery in 2003.

-Rick Ankiel was prescribed 1-years worth of HGH in January 2004.

-Rick Ankiel received 8 shipments of HGH spanning 1/2004 - 12/2004.

-Rick Ankiel spent 2004 mostly rehabbing and pitching in the minors. He made some appearances with the Cardinals in September. He did not make the pos-season roster.

-Rick Ankiel went to spring traning in February 2005 as a pitcher.

-Rick Ankiel retired from baseball in March 2005.

-Walt Jocketty talked Rick out of retirement and into an attempt to rejuvenate his career has a hitter.

-Ankiel played in the minors in 2005.

-Ankiel missed all of 2006 with a knee injury.

-Ankiel has had a tremendous 2007, especially power-wise.

Call me an apologist all you want. There is nothing even close to proof that Rick Ankiel is currently "on something".

Lisa,

I've been trying to research your question too. There's not much on healthy folks, but I'm finding a few articles here and there. I'll try to figure out which if any are on point and let everyone know later today.

If you want to do some snooping of your own, try www.pubmed.com

Many journals require subscriptions for online access. So for most stuff you may only be able to read abstracts rather than full articles, unless you can do the searches from a library that has institutional subscriptions.

My earlier post may have been lost in the page change, but I'd be interested if someone who knows this stuff could answer:

If Ankiel took HGH in 2004, did he violate the minor league policy? If so, can he be suspended from major league games?

why would the minors have a policy the majors dont have yet?

JC at Sabernomics posted something about HGH a month or two ago. Said a medical professional he knows claims it hasn't been proven to help anything.

I see this a lot, so far, but as Mike Green says, there's not much to suggest that this much more than a void in the literature (due to the ethical questions involved in the kinds of tests needed). It may be true that HGH (alone) does nothing. It may also be true that HGH w/other stuff does quite a bit. It's an interesting question, and I reiterate that I don't know its answer. I have institutional subscriptions to science journals, and am looking, but a lot of the stuff is Greek to me. We need a Kevin or another scientist to show us some stuff.

My only minor contribution to all this is that OB should require year around random blood sampling, and store those samples in a safe place until they can devise a method for detecting whatever new breeds of designer drugs that may be able to slip past the current testing procedures. And include retroactive penalties for any currently undetectible PED that is later discovered by any new form of detection.

This at least might make some players a bit more cautious about assuming that they'll never be found out until it's too late.

As for Ankiel himself, if he tests positive now, suspend him. If the story in the Daily News is correct, I'd treat him just like Bonds: I'd let him keep playing as long as he tests clean, but I'd never vote him into the HOF.

And for his own sake I'd suggest that he not follow Bonds and try to hide behind lawyers. But that's up to him. He's going to have to live with whatever decision he makes, smart or stupid.

why would the minors have a policy the majors dont have yet?

B/c the MLB Players Association is really powerful? The guy's question is a good one. I await DMN's reply. And if he violated the minors policy, does this mean he cheated, DMN?

why would the minors have a policy the majors dont have yet?

That's an excellent theoretical question, but I'm 99% sure that the minor leagues had steroid testing before the major leagues did. Actually, I'm guessing that the answer to your question is because minor-league baseball players aren't unionized.

why would the minors have a policy the majors dont have yet?

no union, no collective bargaining

there was steroid testing in the minors long before the majors

I have sat and lurked in these threads for long enough. There people putting forth rational, fact based arguments here. Harvey's is, as always, the voice of reason. Retro-shitte is being argued past (the article proves he was on something, not that he is.) I'm in the camp that believes he's not on something now because the shipments stopped in 2005, and their seems to be no reason for him to switch suppliers at that early date. If the shipments had cut off after that time, perhaps I'd be more likely to believe it.

It is Gaelan's pontificating and JC in DC's subsequent argument that moves me to action. Gaelan and JC in DC's argument, however, is so general as to be insane. Their arguing that attempting to improve yourself in any manner to gain an edge over your competition is cheating. He has stated no where that he is limiting himself to chemical enhancement. JC in DC seems to be deliberately not limiting himself to chemical enhancement. These two have decided not only that doing something that was 1) not against the rules 2) not against the law is immoral, but also "attempting to gain advantage (whether or not you get such advantage) is cheating." (direct quote from JC in DC). What the @#@#@#@# hell? Punishing someone who goes outside the box, but not the rules, would snuff out a lot of what makes humanity so creative. It would eliminate the art of Picasso, destroy the American revolution, and bring down the civil rights movement. Hell, going to the gym would be immoral in this context. This argument taken to its logical end results in the end of human achievement, not the purification of it.

This is not a support of steroids or HGH. They are banned and illegal now, as they rightfully should be. There is anecdotal evidence that steroids increase performance while their is more concrete evidence showing its negative health benefits. HGH's effects are not completely known, but it makes sense to restrict their use (no use without prescription) until it is known. If it turns out that they benefit health, that should removed from the banned list. Otherwise, I'm fine with erring on the side of caution.

But this idea that attempting to gain an edge is in of itself immoral is crazy. I make no apologies for Mr. Ankiel. If he's is juicing, he should be hit with the penalty. Breaking the rules is cheating. Bending the rules is what sports is about. Gaining an edge over your competition or enemies is what competition is about. Perhaps Gaelan and JC would like to narrow their claims. Claim that chemical enhancement is immoral (a statement that's a little to general for my taste, but defensible). Claim that anything against the rules is cheating (which it is). Otherwise, they are essentially claiming they've never tried to get a leg up on the competition, which makes more than their argument crazy, it makes them liars.

If Ankiel took HGH in 2004, did he violate the minor league policy? If so, can he be suspended from major league games?

According to this article in the SF Chronicle, the minor leagues did ban HGH in 2004 (at least by the 12/20 publishing date) but apparently didn't suspend for the first offense. So it appears that Ankiel did violate the policy.

EDIT: I don't think he can be suspended from Major League games for it, but that's really just a guess.

Arva, since this is your first post, you might want to stick around. I suspect that you're thinking about Soviet jewelry. They're not saying what you think they're saying.

Gaining an edge over your competition or enemies is what competition is about. Perhaps Gaelan and JC would like to narrow their claims. Claim that chemical enhancement is immoral (a statement that's a little to general for my taste, but defensible). Claim that anything against the rules is cheating (which it is). Otherwise, they are essentially claiming they've never tried to get a leg up on the competition, which makes more than their argument crazy, it makes them liars.

The presupposition of both our positions is that there is an ethos in sports (or any human activity) that will make fairly clear distinctions between what is acceptable and what is not, and that often the rules trail that ethos, or even that the rules exist only to support that ethos. Athletes are pretty aware where the lines are, and it's why you see almost NO ATHLETE in any sport say, "WTF? Who cares what we use? We're adults." Instead, they deny their use, agree with the public censure, and continue to operate in secrecy (one of the defining elements of cheating). You may disagree w/any of that, but there's nothing novel about it.

Take an analogy, like betraying one's spouse. There are obvious "rules", like "Don't have sex w/someone not your spouse," right? But there's also some unspecified areas where your behavior will indicate acceptance of the ethos despite overt "rules" about what to do or not to do. Okay, so we all understand a married guy shouldn't have sex with another woman, but what about an intimate dinner w/someone he finds sexually attractive and who feels the same about him? What about Clinton's "oral sex is not sex" claim? Often you'll see, like in that last instance, rationalization of the activity, but the secrecy, the felt humiliation, the lies are usually indications the person himself understands the violation.

All I've seen from baseball players is analogical behavior that indicates they, too, understand PEDs as an illicit way of gaining "a leg up" on their competition. And they seem to want it out of their sport as well. Sometimes people want a rule to help them not engage in something they know is wrong.

There is nothing even close to proof that Rick Ankiel is currently "on something".

OK--I think maybe you're misconstruing my argument. Whether he is "currently on something" is frankly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, in my view; I'm concerned with whether his power surge is chemically enhanced. (My statements that "he's on the juice" were probably sloppy in that regard, but whether his power surge results from *current* use of HGH, use of HGH in 2004, or periodic use in between is not really of any concern to me. I suppose I could've said "He's *been* juicing" or "he WAS on the juice in recent years," but it's kind of a silly distinction, and beside the point (as I'm arguing that his performance is chemically enhanced, not that he violated or did not violate whatever prohibition on HGH might have existed at a given point between 2004 and 2007).

It is my belief that Rick Ankiel is not the hitter he has been this year without chemical enhancement, regardless of the precise moment of when that enhancement occurred, or whether it is occuring as we speak.

The self-proclaimed Greatest Fans in Baseball™ have, at least in this thread, shown themselves to be the greatest at one thing: shooting the messenger.

It's the Best Fans in Baseball, and unfortunately it isn't just self-proclaimed.

Ankiel's time in the minors in 2004 was solely a rehab assignment, so he's a major leaguer for these purposes, I think.

Arva,

I'll simplify it for you. I watched Ben Johnson break records and win gold medals. I saw him get caught using steroids. I know that steroids made him faster. I learned that this was cheating and not "thinking outside the box." From this I infer that despite the fact that my sport doesn't have a steroids policy and doesn't test for it, taking steroids is still cheating because my sport is of a kind with other sports. It, if you will, participates in the Idea of sports and therefore the standards of Sport are applicable.

I don't see how it can be clearer or more specific. My point isn't general at all. We aren't talk about new and fuzzy ground. This is old, and clear, territory that some people are trying to obfuscate with sophistry.

Fine, I'll play along.

Him receiving HGH in 2004 as a pitcher does not prove that his power in 2007 as a hitter is chemically enhanced.

Cheating on your spouse (or even having intimate contact with someone other than your spouse) is in direct violation to oath you've made (unless you have incredibly strange ideas about wedding vows). Mine, at least, including a line about forsaking all others (not don't have sex with another women, but forsaking all others). If you chose to break your oath, you get punished. It is very similar to the rules of baseball. Breaking those rules is not illegal, but their are punishments.

The ethos of the sport is a worthless line. Twenty years ago it was against the ethos of the sport to lift weights. People who did it were shunned, castigated by teammates in the press until, lo and behold, it works. The leg up also only seems to apply with chemical enhancements, all others are fair game. I agree that everything should be done to get rid of chemical enhancements that have health risks out of the game. But is Viagra cheating for people with ED? How about Adam LaRoche's use of Ritalin? The use of creatine? These are all chemical enhancers hat have no stigma attached to them. All you've stated is that, if the athletes felt no shame about using steroids, then they wouldn't be cheating.

EDITTED: "having intimate contact with your spouse" is definitely not against my wedding vows.

It's fine for you to believe that.

Your belief has not been proven true by this article.

Him receiving HGH in 2004 as a pitcher does not prove that his power in 2007 as a hitter is chemically enhanced.

Perhaps not. But my suspicions based on his power surge that he was on something have been confirmed, whether or not there's an ACTUAL causal relationship between his power and his HGH use. Now, you may argue that there IS no such causal relationship, but (1) that's a different argument than whether he was, in fact, on HGH, and (2) I don't buy it. If you have evidence that there was no such causal relationship, present it.

And as I said above--we don't know that his actual use of HGH was limited to 2004. We just know that's when he got the stuff.

This is old, and clear, territory that some people are trying to obfuscate with sophistry.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

The point of sports is to see who is better under a given set of rules. If the rules aren't followed, it undermines the whole idea.

I've made my opinion on chemical enhancement known. All chemical enhancers with negative health benefits should be banned from sports. They're should be no pressure to do them. My argument has nothing to do with the use of chemicals and everything to do with the idea that attempting to do things better is somehow immoral. Once again, is Adam LaRoche's ritalin cheating?

I saw him get caught using steroids. I know that steroids made him faster. I learned that this was cheating and not "thinking outside the box." From this I infer that despite the fact that my sport doesn't have a steroids policy and doesn't test for it, taking steroids is still cheating because my sport is of a kind with other sports. It, if you will, participates in the Idea of sports and therefore the standards of Sport are applicable.

Alright, suppose every 30 yr old gets Lasik surgery to improve his eyesight, and has a longer career. And then, randomly one day, Selig bans baseball players from having Lasik. Would you be calling those got it before the ban cheaters?

The analogy isn't good. Steroids are banned, not because they enhance performance, as much as they have known detrimental physical aftereffects. HGH is banned, because noone seems to know what it does. Using chemicals to keep your body performing at a high level isn't wrong. But getting illegal substances to do so is. If Ankiel bought HGH before it was banned, why should anyone level any accusations against him?
FWIW, one of England's leading cricketer is getting steroid shots in his ankle so he can play this weekend. The doctors are giving him the shot, and are saying they are going to avoid shooting it into any joints. Does this make Flintoff a cheater?

Sine Nomine

The point of sports is to see who is better under a given set of rules. If the rules aren't followed, it undermines the whole idea.

Ankiel broke neither the rules of MLB or the laws of the land. He was, in fact, following the laws of the land by getting a prescription for them. Evidence says he stopped receiving them when they became banned. That's not up for debate. What is up for debate is what is cheating, what is getting a leg up, and is he doing them now (though that last one is pointless and self defeating because we'll never know).

OK, here's what I got (and admittedly, it's not much):

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 88, No. 11 5221-5226
Copyright © 2003 by The Endocrine Society
High Dose Growth Hormone Exerts an Anabolic Effect at Rest and during Exercise in Endurance-Trained Athletes
M. L. Healy, J. Gibney, D. L. Russell-Jones, C. Pentecost, P. Croos, P. H. Sönksen and A. M. Umpleby
Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, GKT School of Medicine, St. Thomas Hospital, London, United Kingdom SE1 7EH

The anabolic actions of GH in GH-deficient adults and children are well documented. Replacement with GH in such individuals promotes protein synthesis and reduces irreversible loss of protein through oxidation. Although GH is known to be self-administered by athletes, its protein metabolic effects in this context are unknown. This study was designed to determine whether 4 wk of high dose recombinant human GH (r-hGH) administration altered whole body leucine kinetics in endurance-trained athletes at rest and during and after 30 min of exercise at 60% of maximal oxygen uptake. Eleven endurance-trained male athletes were studied, six randomized to receive r-hGH (0.067 mg/kg·d), and five to receive placebo. Whole body leucine turnover was measured at rest and during and after exercise, using a 5-h primed constant infusion of 1-[13C]leucine, from which rates of leucine appearance (an index of protein breakdown), leucine oxidation, and nonoxidative leucine disposal (an index of protein synthesis) were estimated. Under resting conditions, r-hGH administration increased rate of leucine appearance and nonoxidative leucine disposal, and reduced leucine oxidation (P < 0.01). This effect was apparent after 1 wk, and was accentuated after 4 wk, of r-hGH administration (P < 0.05). During and after exercise, GH attenuated the exercise-induced increase in leucine oxidation (P < 0.05). There were no changes observed in placebo-treated subjects compared with the baseline study. We conclude that GH administration to endurance-trained male athletes has a net anabolic effect on whole body protein metabolism at rest and during and after exercise.

Basically, this means that short-term administration of high doses of hGH in trained athletes increases their rate of protein synthesis, especially in skeletal muscle. This is necessary, but not sufficient, for increasing muscle mass. So this paper demonstrates a theoretical, rather than an actual, short-term benefit of hGH for muscle building.

It's worth noting that it is well-established that in the long-term, excess growth hormone does not improve strength or endurance. Andre the Giant was a very strong man because of his size. He was not a strong man for his size. The muscles of acromegalic patients are weaker, not stronger, than the muscles of healthy people. They also exhibit obvious pathology. I'm not sure how long it would take before the theoretical performance enhancing effects of hGH would give way to the theoretical performance degrading effects. It would obviously depend on dose and schedule, and possibly myriad other factors.

OTOH, this study did not show any increase in muscle mass or other performance enhancement with short-term high dose hGH treatment of healthy young people:

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 90, No. 6 3268-3273
Copyright © 2005 by The Endocrine Society
Short-Term Administration of Supraphysiological Recombinant Human Growth Hormone (GH) Does Not Increase Maximum Endurance Exercise Capacity in Healthy, Active Young Men and Women with Normal GH-Insulin-Like Growth Factor I Axes
Annika Berggren, Christer Ehrnborg, Thord Rosén, Lars Ellegård, Bengt-Åke Bengtsson and Kenneth Caidahl
Departments of Clinical Physiology (A.B., K.C.), Endocrinology (C.E., T.R., B.-Å.B.), and Clinical Nutrition (L.E.), Sahlgrenska University Hospital, SE-41345 Göteborg, Sweden; and Karolinska Institute (K.C.), SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden

Context: Despite the fact that the use of GH as a doping agent in sports is widespread, little is known about its short-term effects.

Objective: The objective was to study the effects of GH on exercise capacity.

Design: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study was used, with a treatment period of 28 d.

Setting: Subjects from general community studied ambulatory at a university hospital.

Participants: Thirty healthy active young normal volunteers (15 women and 15 men) were recruited by local announcement, and all completed the study.

Intervention: All subjects were randomized to receive a low GH dose (0.033 mg/kg·d or 0.1 IU/kg·d), a high GH dose (0.067 mg/kg·d or 0.2 IU/kg·d), or placebo.

Main outcome measures: Power output and oxygen uptake on bicycle exercise were the main outcome measures.

Results: We found no effect of the low or high dosages of GH on maximum oxygen uptake during exercise (mean ± SE for placebo, 45.2 ± 1.6 to 45.2 ± 2.1 ml/kg·min; GH low dose, 42.8 ± 1.6 to 42.8 ± 1.6 ml/kg·min; GH high dose, 44.8 ± 3.4 to 44.8 ± 2.2 ml/kg·min; not significant by two-way ANOVA). Neither was there any effect on maximum achieved power output during exercise or on blood pressure, heart rate, or the electrocardiographic ST level at rest or during exercise. GH significantly increased total body weight (P = 0.028), an effect predominantly ascribed to fluid retention (increased extracellular water volume), whereas muscle mass (as indicated by intracellular water volume) did not change. However, changes in the latter correlated to changes in physical performance, possibly due to different training efforts.

Conclusion: Administration of supraphysiological recombinant human GH during a period of 4 wk does not improve power output or oxygen uptake.

I'm sure there's more out there, but I had to wade through 100200 medline hits just to find these two. The overwhelming majority of the studies of hGH effects have been done in patients with serious illnesses or in older people with hGH deficiency.

EDIT: I meant to add that in contrast to this hGH study, taking testosterone or stanozolol or deca-durabinol for four weeks clearly does increase muscle mass and improve power output.

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.

I see you point but I think the question is really whether Ankiel was open about it with teammates and players on other teams (no that he necessarily would have to go blabbing about it all around) and whether it was accepted by peers as within the rules. If Ankiel came out now and said "Yes, I used HGH in 2004 but wasn't doing anything illegal or against MLB rules." peopel would accept that. Of course, if it was against MiLB rules that wrecks his case.

This is old, and clear, territory that some people are trying to obfuscate with sophistry.

This claim of other folks muddying the waters is rich coming from the guy trying to conflate the case of Olympic athletes getting punished for using substances their sport bans with a situation in a different sport with different rules (this "Idea of Sport / law of the consensus" malarkey be damned) at the time the infraction occurred.

As far as this "it's cheating here because it's cheating everywhere" conceit you're banging home, Gaelan: that's all fine and good in the court of public opinion (which seems to be the only court that some folks care about, unfortunately), and it's great if you're worried about what your peers think of you, but it seems to be clear, as I understand things, that A) Rick Ankiel did not break the illegal-substance laws of baseball in 2004, and B) Rick Ankiel has not flunked any drug tests he has been subjected to since that time.

Maybe he still has some 2K4-vintage HGH floating around his medicine cabinet; maybe he hangs out with Miguel Tejada and shares B12 needles; maybe the drugs are actually for TLR to keep him super-smart; maybe he's using the HGH on hamsters in some black-market caged-animal dealie. All I know are the facts that have been presented to me, and (in my mind) extrapolating some sort of HE DID IT scenario based on these facts is the same sort of pointless and reckless witch-hunting Senator Mitchell's engaging in, and I'd like to have as little to do w/ that sort of mindset as possible.

Arva:

The ethos of the sport is a worthless line. Twenty years ago it was against the ethos of the sport to lift weights.

Nah, you misunderstand. Weightlifting was never understood as cheating, but as ineffective. It may have been scorned, but only b/c it was thought to be nonsense technically, not b/c guys doing it were violating some unwritten ethic.

Cheating on your spouse (or even having intimate contact with someone other than your spouse) is in direct violation to oath you've made (unless you have incredibly strange ideas about wedding vows). Mine, at least, including a line about forsaking all others (not don't have sex with another women, but forsaking all others). If you chose to break your oath, you get punished. It is very similar to the rules of baseball. Breaking those rules is not illegal, but their are punishments.

I agree with all this, but it begs all the good questions. What does "forsaking" mean? What does breaking the oath mean? Well, someone can play games with those things, as Clinton may have, and rationalize their behavior as not instances of forsaking or oath breaking. But, you and I and most married men (and women) understand that while there are clear violations the "rules" of marriage, there are also greyer areas where the rules are less clear (can I go to a movie with another woman?) but where our actions will indicate that we have a stronger sense of the permissibility of the activity than the rule indicates (yeah, I'll go to the movie, but I won't tell my wife; or I'll tell my wife I went with a woman, but I sure as hell won't indicate that I'm attracted to her and she to me).

All I think Gaelan and I are trying to get at is that any human activity has areas marked off by rules and by accepted norms that may not be expressed as rules (in the written sense), and that athletes usually understand this pretty well. He and I seem to agree that PED use, both before and after MLB changed its rules, was understood by many athletes - even those who used - as violating those accepted norms. And he and I agree that the view we're espousing is not some novelty to justify hammering Bonds or Ankiel, but a fairly common understanding.

Retro,

Just in case some people who complain about "shooting the messenger" here are thinking of my posts, let me tell you I am doing no such thing. You suspected he was on something long before this story broke, and he certainly was trying something. I disagree with you on some points, such as how much it has helped him or using stats to say something must have happpened, but I'm not attacking. My personal opinion on Ankiel has gone from thinking its a great story and I'm rooting for him to just another player that I could care less about.

As for the performance, the PCL is a great hitter's league, and Ankiel had possibly more room for growth than most 26-28 year old hitters, because he had so much less experience. All that combined, I was not the least surprised by his 2007 PCL stats, given that he was healthy this year. His major league stats are surprising, but its less than 100 at bats, and I still think in the end it will be seen as a serious fluke.

I don't know if HGH actually does anything for a ballplayer. If it does, maybe he used in 2004 then switched suppliers and kept using up till yesterday. Maybe his willingness to use that means he also tried other steroids that are thought to be more performance enhancing. But looking at the difference between his 2005 and 2007 stats, I'm sorry, there ain't nothing there that should be declared with any certainty. Not unless we find that he was doing something (chemically) different this year that he wasn't in 2004-05.

Harveys,

For the 3 categories you listed, 40+ power, Jenkins power, pure fluke, my guess is Ankiel ranks between 2 and 3. I'm convinced his power is for real, and he's strong enough to hit 30 or more bombs in the majors. I'm not convinced that his plate discipline and onbase skills are good enough that he'll continue to get the chance to show that power.

Late to the party, and with little to contribute to these epic battles anyway, but post 30 made me laugh aloud.

Carry on.

I'm think its pretty clear that Clinton did not forsake all others, no sophistry required. I'm not sure just because something is an accepted norm means that it shouldn't be violated. You start moving into homosexuality, integration, surgery, drinking, being buddy-buddy with other players, so on and so forth. All those things were against accepted norms at one point and time, but it is no longer the case. PED use was rampant, and not thought of as a big deal by anyone before the offensive explosion. Uppers, greenies, and such were well known about, and they both enhance performance and have negative health benefits, yet were not against the norms of the time. I would even argue about how secret they were. They appeared in books by players, and apparently were left out for all the world to see, just no one cared. Not only that, but they were illegal, even if not banned by the rules of baseball. Your common understanding seems only to apply to those you chose to apply it to, rather than ballplayers as a whole. Ankiel and Bonds do not appear comparable, either.

Based on the evidence we have, Ankiel got injured (if its before his injury, my mistake), took HGH (neither banned or illegal due to his prescription), stopped using it (my first post tells why I think he's no longer using). It does not appear he used it to enhance his performance, but rather to bring himself back to the performance he had when healthy. If he was healthy when he began taking it, then I do have issues, because he should never have received a prescription for it, and it becomes illegal.

He and I seem to agree that PED use, both before and after MLB changed its rules, was understood by many athletes - even those who used - as violating those accepted norms.

Since 1968, when Americans started to lose medals to Commies who had better PEDs than they did.

And long after that in baseball, apparently, it was still OK to use PEDs to which the Olympic movement had assigned the "cheater" label.

Before the late 60s, PED use in pretty much all sports was like weightlifting: never understood as cheating. Especially in the Olympics, where the Americans had introduced many of the types of PEDs still in use today, and won heaps of medals in the process.

Which leads to the obvious economic rationale for the Olympics to change their tune and start calling PED use "cheating" beginning in the late 60s: if the Americans were losing in the medal count because they were losing the PED development race (The PED Gap! Worse than the Missile Gap!), that also meant a loss of American audience, and ultimately the loss of the American TV dollars that greased so many Olympic-associated palms.

In this case, as in so many others, newfound moral absolutism had a price tag attached to it.

Chip

Any links or cold hard facts to back that up? I'm not jumping on you, but it would help support my argument about norms.

I've read some comments about using insulin as a sports performance enhancer. Anyone have links on how this is done?

Sorry if my asking makes me as despicable as Bonds or Ankiel, but I've had to take insulin for the last decade just to stay alive. I figure if I can, I'd like to get some homeruns out of it too.

I've read some comments about using insulin as a sports performance enhancer.

uh oh, we better retroactively vote Catfish Hunter out of the hall

Guess its the end of Ron Santo's slim chances too.

I've read some comments about using insulin as a sports performance enhancer. Anyone have links on how this is done?

No its how you use HGH. An ex-body builder posted on this site several months ago and he mentioned that HGH by itself doesn't do much, but in conjunctino with insulin, called slin, its like a 'deathwish' and makes steroids look like tic tacs.

Anyway, where there's smoke there's fire.

So how about 'slin without the HGH?

Can it do more than keep me out of a diabetic coma?

Any links or cold hard facts to back that up? I'm not jumping on you, but it would help support my argument about norms.

Ivor Waddington is a sociologist at the University of Leicester in the UK whose academic research focuses on the sociology of sports. He covers the history of the moral relativism about drug use in his book Sport, Health and Drugs. Here's a page that links to a PDF file of one of the chapters in that book, "Doping in Sport," which includes a hilarious takedown of some of the contemporaneous coverage of McGwire in '98 - written in '01, long before the attitudes about him changed based on his Congressional testimony.

I'm not sure just because something is an accepted norm means that it shouldn't be violated.

Super. We agree about something not at issue.

Your common understanding seems only to apply to those you chose to apply it to, rather than ballplayers as a whole.

What? I don't get this at all. I'm applying it to those I know to have cheated. I'm applying it in precisely the same way I've seen baseball players (and other athletes) apply it. I've heard Mike Greenwell, Mike Sweeney, Mark Kotsay, Curt Schilling, Bob Feller, and many others say what I'm saying, and say it without recourse to the explicit rules. They accept weightlifting and cross training, and diets, and all kinds of things, but exclude PEDs. I'm going to guess, even though there's currently no rule against it, these players would object to someone with bionic arms whose strength vastly exceeds human arms.

Anyway, where there's smoke there's fire.

But is the fire destroying damning evidence, or cooking delicious hamburgers?

Chip: thanks for the link. It looks interesting.

But is the fire destroying damning evidence, or cooking delicious hamburgers?

Why is it always either or with you?

But my suspicions based on his power surge that he was on something have been confirmed

No they have not.

We can confirm he sought HGH in January 2004, 14 months before he was talked into becoming a hitter by his GM.

It takes a highly illogical assumption that he saved enough drugs from back then to have some impact on his performace today.

I will grant that today it is either to finger Ankiel as a player who would use HGH to gain an advantage. But we have no confirmation that he has done so to help his hitting performace. In fact, we do have confirmation that he stopped receieving HGH from a notable supplier in December 2004.

How many more Cardinals have to linked to HGH before they can be called the Roidbirds?

Just curious

How many more Cardinals have to linked to HGH before they can be called the Roidbirds?

Just 1 more. David Eckstein.

I've got a buddy who is a Cards fan and I have been telling him for years that all the Cards are is a bunch of roided up jocks. Edmonds, McGwire, JD Drew, Pujols, Lankford, Polanco, Vina, all of them. My only proof is there stats and Tony LaRussa. Hopefully one day I like Retro will be proven "right"

I'm applying it to those I know to have cheated.

That's our whole argument. What is cheating? Why is what Ankiel did cheating when it was neither against the rules nor illegal? Yuo say that its cheating for two reasons: he tried to get a competitive leg up on the competition and it is against the norms of baseball. I'm not sure what that even if what he did was against the norms of baseball was cheating becaause it seems possible he took HGH to get healthy. Not enhance his performance, but an attempt to get to where he was before he was injured.

Bionic arms? I've got a scenario for you JC. 16 year old kid gets his armed torn off in a car accident (Mom was driving). Gets a bionic arm, can suddenly do things no one else can. Because of his tragic accident, he no longer has feeling in that arm, it looks like a something out of a horror movie, but as a benefit he can throw a ball 100 miles per hour. Even though ball players object to it, should he be banned from baseball for life? Its not his fault arm got torn off, yet he should be punished for the tragedy because it vastly exceeds human strength. Does that sound right too you? I'm not sure how that would be different than a pitcher getting TJ surgery and throwing harder when he gets back. I do think ball players would object, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. It might be a different story if someone deliberately had a surgeon cut off the arm and replace it but that seems unlikely to happen, especially with the other sacrifices inherent.

Ankiel's HGH use seems to be in response to a legitimate medical condition (his injury). If its not, what he did was illegal, and therefore cheating. Its a whole different ballgame from Alex Sanchez, Juan Rincon and such.

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.

This manages to not only be absurd, but also to be self contradictory and nonsensical. Bravo, sir. I applaud your ability to make as little sense as possible.

BTW, as I've stated before, the endocrine system is the human body's second most complicated system, behind only the brain. The endocrine system is filled with feedback loops and chemical messages upon messages. It regulates everything that goes on in a body from birth until death. Screwing with it is a bad idea, and regulating HGH is a good idea from a public health standpoint.

What other Cardinals have been linked to HGH?

I'm sure there are others that use it, but I'm not aware of them being linked to HGH publicly.

Arva: that's a great scenario, I agree. And I suspect MLBPA will fight his ability to play if his arm strength vastly exceeds human strength, and I'd support it. Imagine what allowing him would mean: You'd get a young man with a virtually tireless "Joba Chamberlainian" (YES!) arm. You could use him almost every day, call them RobotJoba Rules. I think that would pretty well contravene the spirit of baseball. I think, too, the PGA was right to exclude Casey Martin (sp? memory?).

So how about 'slin without the HGH?

Can it do more than keep me out of a diabetic coma?

Insulin is very potently anabolic. However, you're taking it to replace the insulin you should be making naturally, so no benefit for you. Also, there are rather obvious problems with taking supra-physiologic doses. I know that it is used by body builders cycling off steroids.

Joba Chamberlainian

Good word. PGA tried to stop Casey Martin from playing, but the court forced them to let him play. The spirit of baseball would be hurt by excluding an entire class of people because they don't fit in with the norm for a baseball player. They've done this before. Just because the young man's arm would be tireless doesn't mean that he would be tireless. Perhaps new rules should be enact about use. But whether or not the bionic arm is cheating would be defined by the rules of baseball, not by the players peers in the dugout.

the endocrine system is the human body's second most complicated system, behind only the brain

The immune system is pretty darned complex, too.

You'd get a young man with a virtually tireless "Joba Chamberlainian" (YES!) arm. You could use him almost every day, call them RobotJoba Rules.

Of course, you'd have to muddle this hypothetical even more and acknowledge that even if he had a tireless arm the rest of his body would still be subject to normal wear and tear - wear and tear that would probably be worsened if you tried to treat him as RobotJoba and use him almost every day.

Of course, Torre does that already even when they don't have artificial limbs.

why does it matter if he is using it as a pitcher? it just means he is trying to get an edge by having a stronger arm.

and just because he stopped receiving shipments of it doenst mean that he still couldnt have it. hell i still have some scripted meds from a few years ago

and just because he stopped receiving shipments of it doenst mean that he still couldnt have it. hell i still have some scripted meds from a few years ago

Vicodin party at Meatwad's tonight!

Gets a bionic arm, can suddenly do things no one else can. Because of his tragic accident, he no longer has feeling in that arm, it looks like a something out of a horror movie, but as a benefit he can throw a ball 100 miles per hour.

I saw that movie. I think the kid was only 12. Didn't pitch for the Cubs? Whatever happened to him, anyway, another ruined arm consigned to the Dust(y Baker)bin of history?

why does it matter if he is using it as a pitcher? it just means he is trying to get an edge by having a stronger arm.

Because the claim was, "He's hitting better than I expected, he must be on something".

I think most HGH users began using more secretive avenues to obtain HGH after the MLB ban in 2005. If you look at the story, before the ban the process of obtaining HGH was so transparent and easy to track; heck, prescriptions were written to Ankiel himself and shipped to the pharmacy close to where he lived. How much simpler can this process be?

After the ban, it's really a no brainer that any user would move to more secretive & harder to track avenues to obtain HGH. Probably no more prescriptions to Ankiel, no more direct shipments in his name, etc. The whole process would be more complicated and more expensive, but I don't buy it for one minute that the HGH ban in 2005 put an end to HGH use in baseball. Thus, I think there's very good chance that Ankiel used HGH in 2005 and 2006 as he did in 2004, despite the ban.

Do I care, however? I don't. I never cared if Bonds used HGH/steroids, or Giambi and Sheffield used them, and I don't care if Ankiel or Glaus used them. And if some people felt it was OK to attack Bonds and Giambi and Sheffield, but it's not so OK to blame Ankiel, then they are a bunch of hypocrites.

oit doesntmatter if he is a pitcher as long as he would be in the nl he would hit, plus the advantage of adding mph to the fastball and an arm with more stamina

and the vicodin is long gone, need to get more actually

Retro,

Just in case some people who complain about "shooting the messenger" here are thinking of my posts, let me tell you I am doing no such thing.

I was not thinking of you, AROM, when I wrote that, just for the record.

"And for his own sake I'd suggest that he not follow Bonds and try to hide behind lawyers. But that's up to him. He's going to have to live with whatever decision he makes, smart or stupid."

Yeah, how dare someone have professionals qualified in the law to look out for his best interests. The audacity of some people.

But is the fire destroying damning evidence, or cooking delicious hamburgers?

Why is it always either or with you?

Damn. Beat me to it. :)

My local grocery doesn't carry Mesquite-flavored Damning Evidence Briquettes, to its everlasting discredit.

But my suspicions based on his power surge that he was on something have been confirmed

No they have not

It takes a highly illogical assumption that he saved enough drugs from back then to have some impact on his performace today.

And you continue to argue past me, and to misconstrue the point I originally made.

I looked at Rick Ankiel's stats, which showed a sudden and massive increase in power. I drew a conclusion that he had used PEDs based on those stats. Those are facts. And they are the ONLY definitive claims I have made. You may argue about whether I had a sufficient factual BASIS for believing that, but believe it I did, and that belief turned out to be inarguably correct. And whether I had a sufficient factual basis for believing it (i.e, whether his performance is actually a RESULT of his PED use) is a completely separate argument.

*You* are the one imputing to me a statement that I have not made--that Ankiel's PED use constitutes definitive proof that the PEDS *caused* his power surge. (I happen to *believe* that [at least to a degree], but I have never stated that there is a *proven* link between A and B.)

Because the claim was, "He's hitting better than I expected, he must be on something".

Any other arguments made in this thread you'd care to mischaracterize and/or grossly oversimplify? (Boy, those strawmen are scary...)

So how about 'slin without the HGH?

Can it do more than keep me out of a diabetic coma?

There is little doubt that being conscious is performance enhancing, you evil, evil man.

why does it matter if he is using it as a pitcher? it just means he is trying to get an edge by having a stronger arm.

Yeah, I've been pondering that bit of illogic too; just because he was nominally a pitcher when he took the stuff (which is assumed, but not necessarily the case--as I said before, we don't know how long he spread out his HGH usage), any effects it might've had on his BATTING prowess during that time don't count?

I looked at Rick Ankiel's stats, which showed a sudden and massive increase in power. I drew a conclusion that he had used PEDs based on those stats. Those are facts. And they are the ONLY definitive claims I have made.

That's BS.

You've been claiming that this article proved you correct, and that's what I'm arguing against.

This only proves that Ankiel received some drugs to use 3 years ago, when he was pitching.

It does not "prove" anything else, and you took a giant leap to assume it means he must be currently chemically-enhanced.

I don't know if he is or isn't, but neither do you.

You've been claiming that this article proved you correct, and that's what I'm arguing against.

No. I claimed when Rick Ankiel came up this year that I believed he had used PEDs. In fact, he did.

Ergo, I was right in believing he had used PEDs. Whether the PEDs were the cause of his power surge is irrelevant to whether I was right about his having used PEDs.

This really isn't that difficult to grasp. May I recommend a remedial course in reading comprehension?

This only proves that Ankiel received some drugs to use 3 years ago, when he was pitching.

So are you arguing that (1) he "received drugs" but didn't use them, and/or (2) that if he took them when he was pitching, that wouldn't have any beneficial effect on his hitting ability (even if he wasn't hitting full time at the time)? Either way, I think you're full of it.

Do we have Primeys for Sophistry, Rhetorical Leaps, and Twisted Logic?

We all know you weren't talking about 2004, which is why you have been trying to argue the point all thread long that he could have spread out his HGH supply to current day.

Keep on back-tracking if you want, but your implication this entire time is that this article vindicated your belief that Ankiel is chemically enhanced.

So are you arguing that (1) he "received drugs" but didn't use them, and/or (2) that if he took them when he was pitching, that wouldn't have any beneficial effect on his hitting ability (even if he wasn't hitting full time at the time)? Either way, I think you're full of it.

(1) No.

(2) Anything he used in 2004 is not helping him today.

Keep on back-tracking if you want, but your implication this entire time is that this article vindicated your belief that Ankiel is chemically enhanced.

I'm not backtracking (and have never once posited that he "spread his use out to the current day;" I specifically stated that we DON'T KNOW when he actually was using the stuff), as anyone with the reading comprehension of an eighth grader can discern by reading the entire thread. As you clearly do not fall into that category, I'm done with ya.

Anything he used in 2004 is not helping him today.

Cite, please.

Why is it out of the realm of possibility that he is in fact using HGH now? Used once, certainly possible he used again. Just a different supplier or different PED. There is also the possibility that he is not using HGH anymore. But both are possible.

And a question, this all comes out of a illegal prescription investigation. But people are saying that HGH Ankiel might not be illegal or was a legal prescription. Where does this info come from?

Just one thing. Ankiel allegedly wasn't dinking around in the clubhouse with Jose Canseco or knocking on Victor Conte's door. He picked up the HGH with a doctor's prescription, while he was recovering from the Tommy John surgery. On the books and above the board, nothing illegal like what's alleged against Barry Lamar or Troy Glaus.

Call it sophistry, but if Ankiel was taking the HGH - on his doctor's advice - to aid with his recovery, is that any worse than someone taking a steroid shot to aid their own recovery?

Why is it out of the realm of possibility that he is in fact using HGH now? Used once, certainly possible he used again. Just a different supplier or different PED. There is also the possibility that he is not using HGH anymore. But both are possible.

Right. I'm not the one giving unsupported, categorical answers to unanswerable (at least, not-easily-answerable) questions here (i.e., "He's not using now," "Whatever he used in '04 isn't helping him now," etc.). That's been the province of the Ankiel apologists.

I've got a buddy who is a Cards fan and I have been telling him for years that all the Cards are is a bunch of roided up jocks. Edmonds, McGwire, JD Drew, Pujols, Lankford, Polanco, Vina, all of them.

Polanco?

Anyway--this has been an interesting thread, but I've got a weekend of travel ahead, so I must take leave. Carry on, lady and gents.

lets not forget the logic of how he did it when a pitcher. i guess when you chnage positions everything you did prior to that is irrelevent and cant help you at all
what a crock of ####

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's you in this thread pal. Are you going to sit there with a straight face and insist that is not in reference to this season? It obviously is. And that's your belief, I am fine with that. You might be correct.

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.

This is where I take issue, the article doesn't prove your belief right.

this all comes out of a illegal prescription investigation. But people are saying that HGH Ankiel might not be illegal or was a legal prescription. Where does this info come from?

If I understand it, differences in state laws. It's an Albany, NY investigation of a Florida pharmacy. New York law requires a physician to actually see the patient he or she prescribes for. So if a pharmacy fills prescriptions written by doctors who were just sitting in offices responding to e-mail requests, and ships those drugs to New York, they're violating New York law. The same arrangement may not be illegal if the drugs are shipped to another state, and the Albany DA wouldn't have jurisdiction anyway.

retro, if your suspicion that he was using PEDs was based on his stats, and he's now shown to have used something, you can't turn around and argue that you were "right" about his using PEDs while at the same time claiming that you don't know whether they actually helped him. That doesn't make sense. Your entire original argument rested on the supposition that you thought his numbers had been artificially enhanced. Therefore, you *have* to believe that the drugs helped him, or your original accusation makes no sense as a logical argument. It was just a wild stab in the dark anyone could make about any player with a power surge. If your suspicion had been based on his physique or something like that, that would be different.

If I understand it, differences in state laws.

Thanks. I hope we get more clarification of what was illegal in the media. I'm sure we will.

I looked at Rick Ankiel's stats, which showed a sudden and massive increase in power. I drew a conclusion that he had used PEDs based on those stats.

I just don't buy the premise that what Ankiel is doing this season is off-the-charts insane, beyond any possible realm of realism. Here's his career:

1999 (age 20) -- 41 AB/1 HR (AA, AAA, MLB) -- 41 AB per HR
2000 (age 21) -- 68 AB/2 HR (MLB) -- 34 AB per HR
2001 (age 22) -- 113 AB/10 HR (Rk, MLB) -- 11.3 AB per HR
2002 (age 23) -- DID NOT PLAY
2003 (age 24) -- 25 AB/1 HR (AA) -- 25 AB per HR
2004 (age 25) -- 5 AB/0 HR (AA, MLB)
2005 (age 26) -- 321 AB/21 HR (A, AA) -- 15.3 AB per HR
2006 (age 27) -- DID NOT PLAY
2007 (age 28) -- 454 AB/37 HR (AAA, MLB) -- 12.3 AB per HR

Is it that outrageous for a 28 year old who suddenly gets more PAs than he's ever had before to go from ~15 ABs per HR to ~12? I don't really think so. Yeah, it's a decided step up, but I don't buy that it's either "sudden" (as his HR rate has been improving nearly continually) nor "massive" and therefore automatically worthy of suspicion.

Right. I'm not the one giving unsupported, categorical answers to unanswerable (at least, not-easily-answerable) questions here (i.e., "He's not using now," "Whatever he used in '04 isn't helping him now," etc.). That's been the province of the Ankiel apologists.

I don't think anybody has said they know "He's not using now".

I know I said "Whatever he used in '04 isn't helping now". Is that wrong? Does HGH stay in your system for 3 years? Is it a permanent thing? I could be wrong here, I thought I was making a safe assumption with that comment.

lets not forget the logic of how he did it when a pitcher. i guess when you chnage positions everything you did prior to that is irrelevent and cant help you at all
what a crock of ####

Nobody is arguing that, you are either dumb or the crock.

Call it sophistry, but if Ankiel was taking the HGH - on his doctor's advice - to aid with his recovery, is that any worse than someone taking a steroid shot to aid their own recovery?

1. Is this his real doctor or some quack making money filling questionable prescriptions?
2. Is the use of HGH normally prescribed to pitchers recovering from TJ surgery? There are a lot of them out there. If Ankiel's the only one getting HGH then he deserves what comes from this news.

retro, if your suspicion that he was using PEDs was based on his stats, and he's now shown to have used something, you can't turn around and argue that you were "right" about his using PEDs while at the same time claiming that you don't know whether they actually helped him. That doesn't make sense. Your entire original argument rested on the supposition that you thought his numbers had been artificially enhanced. Therefore, you *have* to believe that the drugs helped him, or your original accusation makes no sense as a logical argument.

Excellent point.

If I understand it, differences in state laws. It's an Albany, NY investigation of a Florida pharmacy. New York law requires a physician to actually see the patient he or she prescribes for. So if a pharmacy fills prescriptions written by doctors who were just sitting in offices responding to e-mail requests, and ships those drugs to New York, they're violating New York law. The same arrangement may not be illegal if the drugs are shipped to another state, and the Albany DA wouldn't have jurisdiction anyway.

Ankiel's precription was not online, like a lot of the others, so I assume he did meet the doctor face-to-face.

I've been covering this story for my paper, sort of peripherally... ignoracio has it right; in fact, the albany county DA has said as much -- if the meds recipient doesn't live in NY, then no law has been broken -- as far as he's concerned. the DA's people have pretty steadfastly refused to talk about the athletes; my guess is the leaked names are coming from the florida dept of law enforcement or the feds, though I don't know that first-hand. spirit of 82 also is on the mark -- the doc in question has a valid license and there's clearly a good chance the prescription came after a legit examination.

spirit your the one arguing that by say that he was getting them as a pitcher, which infers it doesnt matter that he later became a position player

Ankiel's precription was not online, like a lot of the others, so I assume he did meet the doctor face-to-face.

The fact that the prescription was of the good old fashioned hand-written variety doesn't say anything about how the prescription was obtained. I assume that it was legal in some sense because the authorities have said that they do not believe he did anything improper. That might mean that this was a real doctor-patient relationship, or it might only mean that they don't think they can prove that it wasn't. Or it may mean that the actions were legal where they took place, but might not have been legal had they taken place in a different jurisdiction.

Great. Who's gonna save baseball now?

Max Mercy.

No, I don't think HGH is normally prescribed to a 25-year-old recovering from surgery. As far as I know, there are basically two population groups for whom HGH is medically indicated: the very young, or the very old. And as a treatment for aging I believe it's controversial and has potentially serious side effects (for example, if you have cancer, it will grow the tumors). The only widely agreed upon legitimate use is for developmentally stunted kids with a growth hormone deficiency. There have even been some controversial cases where it was given to kids who were smaller than average but had no real medical necessity; their parents just wanted them to be taller.