|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Friday, September 07, 2007
Well…so much for that.
St. Louis Cardinals outfielder Rick Ankiel, baseball’s feel-good story of the season, received a 12-month supply of human growth hormone in 2004 from a Florida pharmacy that was part of a national illegal prescription drug-distribution operation, the Daily News has learned.
...According to records obtained by The News and sources close to the controversy surrounding anti-aging clinics that dispense illegal prescription drugs, Ankiel received eight shipments of HGH from Signature Pharmacy in Orlando from January to December 2004, including the brand-name injectable drugs Saizen and Genotropin. Signature is the pharmacy at the forefront of Albany District Attorney David Soares’ two-year investigation into illegal Internet prescription drug sales, which has brought 22 indictments and nine convictions.
...“This is the first I’ve heard of this,” Cardinals GM Walt Jocketty told The News yesterday. “If it’s true, obviously it would be very tragic, along with everything else we’ve had happen to us this year.”
Repoz
Posted: September 07, 2007 at 03:46 AM | 287 comment(s)
| Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, St Louis, Steroids
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
robinred
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Curt Schilling Says Manny 'Quit on the Field,' Teammates Stopped Him From Confronting Slugger (25 - 8:01pm, Feb 10)Last: Kiko SakataNewsblog: Mets owners knew about Maddoff (30 - 7:56pm, Feb 10)Last: bobmNewsblog: MLB: Hall of Fame worthy? Furthest thing from Schilling's mind (41 - 7:55pm, Feb 10)Last: PreservedFishNewsblog: Knobler: Stay away from steroids -- but vote how you want (24 - 7:53pm, Feb 10)Last: BooeyNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, February 2012 (415 - 7:30pm, Feb 10)Last: NJ is feeling betterNewsblog: Sources: Cubs’ Starlin Castro Accused Of Sexual Assault (6128 - 7:22pm, Feb 10)Last: JPWF1313Transaction Oracle: 2012 ZiPS Projections - Oakland A's (55 - 7:09pm, Feb 10)Last: rynoman7Newsblog: Grantland/Bill James: An Open Letter to the Hall of Fame About Dwight Evans (45 - 6:59pm, Feb 10)Last: Ron JNewsblog: ESPN: Law: Top 100 Prospects (paywalled) (11 - 6:54pm, Feb 10)Last: Crispix AttacksNewsblog: 'Duk: Tim Lincecum slims down with swim routine, loses appetite for McDonald’s (298 - 6:51pm, Feb 10)Last: rflohNewsblog: FSKC announces on-air lineup for Royals - Rex Hudler and Steve Physioc to join (12 - 6:32pm, Feb 10)Last: Robert in Manhattan BeachSox Therapy: Offseason Minor League Thread (3 - 6:11pm, Feb 10)Last: DanNewsblog: Jeff Sullivan: The Worst Team Ever Projected? (67 - 6:00pm, Feb 10)Last: Eric J is Financed by a Rich GrandpaNewsblog: Bluetales blog: JetBlue’s 605 Wears Red Sox Colors! (8 - 5:56pm, Feb 10)Last: JE (Jason Epstein)Newsblog: Tom Brady getting new bro-in-law: Red Sox’ Kevin Youkilis! (17 - 4:43pm, Feb 10)Last: The Yankee Clapper
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
OK, I googled "The Health and Rejuvenation Center" with Palm Beach Springs. That's the same place that Rodney Harrison got his HGH from, though his was from a bogus prescription from the firm's brother-in-law.
Doctor Gogan, however, looks to be a legit orthopedic surgeon with published research in his name.
Unknown. Given what Ankiel's already getting, there are likely very good reasons these other pitchers wouldn't come forward.
OK, but do you think Ankiel's prescription was legitimate?
Yeah, but if Dr. Frank Jobe comes forward and says he has recommended it to aid all this TJ pitchers in recovery since 1976, this story goes away real fast.
DMN entering thread in 3... 2... 1...
Yeah, how dare someone have professionals qualified in the law to look out for his best interests. The audacity of some people.
I don't see any reason why a player would want or need to protect himself. Everyone involved in the investigation is fair and cautious, and legal representation can create an impression of guilt. Er, pardon me one sec, brb...
RICK ANKIEL! TROY GLAUS! 45 PLAYERS!
As I was saying, the players' rights and reputations will be fully respected by all concerned, and the union and management are in this together, so the players should be completely cooperative.
That was sort of covered yesterday. Although the FDA approves drugs for very specific indications, "off-label" use is a pretty common practice and is not generally considered illegal. That is, a licensed practitioner can prescribe almost any drug for almost any reason. While there certainly is a lot of controversy about over-prescription of hGH (and not just by athletes), it is also true that it has been legitimately used to speed recovery following surgery (eg -- Eur J Endocrinol. 2000 Nov;143(5):585-92 and Eur J Endocrinol. 2000 Nov;143(5):585-92)*. So yes, based on what I know now, I think Ankiel's prescription would quite probably pass legal muster. Of course, the fact that he and his doctor didn't break the law doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't using the drug as a performance enhancer. Knowing just how much of the drug constitutes "a twelve month supply" might shed some light on that.
* Note that these studies were done in elderly patients recovering from hip fractures; it is not my contention that this is remotely related to TJ surgery in a young athlete. A healthy guy in his early 20s should have all the endogenous GH he needs to heal reasonably quickly. What's relevant however, is that if a licensed doctor decides that a specific patient can benefit from a specific drug, then it's going to be awfully difficult to successfully argue that a particular prescription is illegal based only on another doctor or group of doctors expressing the opinion that the patient shouldn't have needed the drug. A prescription mill is another matter, so if I learn that Ankiel's prescription came from a doc who never met him and also prescribed the drug for hundreds of others, then I'll revise my opinion.
They don't say "Who cares? We're adults," because some retard will say, "But what about the children? My kid died, and I want to blame somebody, and I won't accept the blame for being a bad parent, so it's your fault."
The claim that it's a "separate argument" is false. The argument inherently implies the premise that there's a relationship between the evidence and the claim. And so unless such relationship exists, the argument is wrong.
I do believe the drugs helped him. I stated as much in a post above.
I also stated I don't know to what extent they helped him. I'm simply pointing out that my being right about his using PEDs (which was correct, and which I don't think is properly characterized as a "stab in the dark"--if so, it's a pretty damned random one) does not close the debate as to *how much* those drugs helped him.
If your suspicion had been based on his physique or something like that, that would be different.
Why?
Of course, looking strictly at rate stats ignores the fact that he was those different rates were compiled at A/AA in one case (at age 26), and AAA/MLB in the other. And I think the seasons of absence would tend to stunt a normal development curve as well.
Basically, Ankiel went from hitting like a 26-year-old A/AA version of Joe Carter to something, well, a hell of a lot better than that. I don't know what the MLE is for Ankiel's '05 season, but I'm pretty confident it wouldn't be enough to hold a corner OF spot in the major leagues. I think going from that, to a season of inactivity, to a season of 40+ home runs at AAA/MLB is an insane leap forward.
Excellent point.
You guys are in need of a reading comprehension course (either that, or you need to RTFT). I admitted that I believe this (why would I have said "He's juicing" otherwise?). But I also said the only *definitive* conclusion that can be drawn from this is that I correctly surmised that he was juicing. Whether the assumptions UNDERLYING that assumption are correct, however, is debatable, which I have also acknowledged.
No, it isn't. I correctly surmised that Ankiel was using. That is an objective fact. You may characterize my correctly surmising this as based on ill-informed assumptions (and, hell, you might be right), but that is, in fact, a "separate argument" from whether my originally surmising he'd used PEDs was correct. You may characterize my being correct in my suspicion as a shot in the dark, but as I've said, it's a pretty damned lucky one; it's not as if I drew names out of a hat to suspect some random player of PED use, with Rick Ankiel's name coming up. To repeat--I have NEVER, before this, suspected a player of PED use based strictly on stat lines. The first time I do, it's revealed within a MONTH that that player was, in fact, using PEDs. I think you guys need to stop shooting the messenger.
And even if concede that these separate arguments are in fact one and the same, you don't seem to be attacking me on the merits. Please cite some authority showing that there is, in fact, no "relationship between the evidence and the claim." I find the circumstances under which Ankiel was "prescribed" a drug known to increase physical strength (and generally not used to treat sports injuries), accompanied by what seemed at the time to be the Cardinals' bizarre commitment to Ankiel's continued employment in the organization (given his apparent projection to be either a non-pitcher or a fungible fourth outfielder), followed by a explosion in home run rate (sorry, dJf, but you can't ignore the difference between A/AA and AAA/MLB, especially in the case of a player who plays at A ball at age 26, which is virtually unheard of in and of itself--let alone having such a season followed by a dominant stretch at much higher levels) highly suspicious, and suggestive of a causal relationship. No, I'm not being particularly scientific, but then, I'm not a scientist. I simply find the circumstantial evidence pretty compelling. If you have scientific or other evidence that refutes it, let's hear it--otherwise, you're just dodging the question of whether the reasons underlying my original suspicion had some merit.
What is your counter to that, other than a general statement that there's no definitive proof that HGH results in enhanced athletic performances (which is simply a rephrasing of "you can't prove a negative")? (I'd surmise that there aren't many test cases like Ankiel's with which to test that hypothesis.) And, again, I've not suggested that HGH was the SOLE cause of Ankiel's strange development--I stated explicitly that such development likely requires a combination of rigorous weight training and performance enhancement.
Again, you can repeat your assertions that I pulled my accusations against Ankiel out of my ass all you want, but your suggestions that this was simply a matter of my putting on a blindfold and randomly lobbing a dart are laughable, and I suspect you know that, regardless of how you try to spin this, or how many hairs you try to split.
As someone who chided retro for his prior assertions (being opposed to the practice of speculating based on "intuition") I can attest that he has been consistent and thorough in the nature of his arguments.
Since we now have information in the public domain validating his suppositions, statements criticizing retro's comments are, quite frankly, blather.
I still do not agree with the practice, but I am not so foolish so as to ignore what is now fact. Retro was correct.
Yeah, how dare someone have professionals qualified in the law to look out for his best interests. The audacity of some people.
I don't see any reason why a player would want or need to protect himself. Everyone involved in the investigation is fair and cautious, and legal representation can create an impression of guilt. Er, pardon me one sec, brb...
RICK ANKIEL! TROY GLAUS! 45 PLAYERS!
As I was saying, the players' rights and reputations will be fully respected by all concerned, and the union and management are in this together, so the players should be completely cooperative.
Gee, what a sucker Ankiel must be. He actually doesn't think that his fate is going to be determined by the lowest common denominator of yahoos. If only he had the immortal Michael Rains to protect him from the mob.
You can't be so stupid as to think he made those comments without advice of counsel, can you?
I don't agree with this. Retro said that Ankeiil was taking steroids as evidence by his improved performance. Now there's evidence that Ankiel took hgh which many believe does not improve performance. This makes him right? Would he have shown to be right if Ankiel was busted for using coke too?
Ankiel discussions prior to the most recent revelation;
Retro: Ankiel is using peds
Others: no way
Retro: The guy is using peds
Others: you are a bitter Cub fan. Loser.
(News report reveals Rick Ankiel used hgh which is "believed" to aid athletic performance.)
Look, I am NOT a crusader on this matter. But I acknowledge the proverbial nose on my face. Retro's claim was correct however displeased I might be about his public speculating.
If you wish to parse I am not a good player at that game. I accept facts even when they disappoint me.
But there others here who will be glad to participate. All you have to do is keep denying that which is real.
Hold on, let me get my English 101 hat on... There.
Retro: Ankiel is using PEDs. (present-tense)
Ankiel's discovered to have used PEDs three years ago. (past-tense)
Now if you want to say that present tense is the same as past tense, its not my English teachers who'll be facepalming. But to some of us, there is a difference.
That's true. OTOH, you also have to take into account the fact that he is just entering what most would believe to be his prime athletic peak.
Because of sporadic play throughout the years, his track record is somewhat sketchy. I don't think, however, that it means it is suspicious per se, at least IMO.
Anyway, I also stand by my original point that there doesn't appear to be such a "sudden, massive" gain as you opine. Obviously, we disagree.
I also believe it's not fair to recite raw numbers in the absence of rate stats, particularly considering that he's seen many more PAs this season than in years past -- which alone would aid his progress.
In your haste to chastise HSFW and me, I believe there is a subtle point that you may be missing:
As I understand it (because I didn't know that you had made accusations of Ankiel before this news came out), you were suspicious of Ankiel simply and solely because of what you perceive to be a "sudden, massive" increase in power. (I'm debating that elsewhere, but this is what I understand your argument to be.)
It would logically follow then, that if Ankiel had a modest improvement in power, you would not suspect him of using PEDs -- he would slip under your radar.
Therefore, it seems to me one can conclude that you believe that to the extent Ankiel is performing at a level beyond what you would consider within the realm of what you would expect, HGH would be responsible for the "massive gain" beyond what you would have considered reasonable.
Conversely, it doesn't make much sense to conclude that "because Ankiel had a sudden, massive increase in power, he must have been using PEDs," then leave open the possibility that HGH may have only had a modest, negliglible effect. If "[w]hether the assumptions UNDERLYING that assumption are correct, however, is debatable," then it seems that for the purpose of initially accusing Ankiel, you took the view that HGH did have a noticeable effect -- a claim on which you now are waffling.
FTR, I think it's perfectly appropriate for you to waffle -- that's my opinion as well. I just don't think it's consistent with a rush to make accusations solely based on his statistics. It seems to me that you must have changed your opinion about the effects of HGH, which is perfectly fine so long as you acknowledge it.
Ankiel's discovered to have used PEDs three years ago. (past-tense)
Now if you want to say that present tense is the same as past tense, its not my English teachers who'll be facepalming. But to some of us, there is a difference.
Uh, nobody's saying there's no difference between the present and past tenses, but once again, if you RTFT, you'll see that I concede that was sloppy tense-usage on my part. My point was that Ankiel's performance was chemically enhanced; I was and am unconcerned with whether he took the stuff in '04, is taking it now, or took it at any point in between. Unless you have some reason to believe HGH has no lasting effects, your kvetching over this distinction is beside the point.
Point is: Ankiel is (or was) a juicer. And I believe that fact is manifesting itself in his present performance. I may be wrong about that, but nobody here has demonstrated that to be the case, and it's a matter of record that I called him on his juicing before it became public.
I would not have suspected him to be using coke on the basis of his athletic performance (or on the basis of his having blue eyes, as Nieporent posited in his weak attempt at an analogy), so I'm not sure what your point is.
Your post was directed to Nieporent, not me, but let me make an additional point to what I said in Post #226 --
One other thing we're missing is the fact that Ankiel wasn't progressing through the system in the same manner as a typical minor leaguer. He had already seen success in MLB, both as a pitcher as well as a hitter -- it's that success that led to his career switch in the first place. Also, while progressing through the minors, Ankiel was also rehabbing injuries along the way.
As a result, I submit that one can't look at his numbers in the same way one would look at a typical college draftee, and be surprised to see improvement at advanced levels that were not there in the lower minors.
For instance, when a MLB player goes through minor league rehab and plays at more than one level, it isn't especially shocking (or relevant) that he may have better numbers in his AAA rehab than he did in his A rehab. He's not only getting healthy, but he's seeing more pitches in the strike zone and refining his skills at the same time. He also has the confidence and knowledge that he's an MLB ballplayer, not a typical minor leaguer who can only hope to get a chance in the show.
Many of these points are true with Ankiel as well. Considering that he had already seen success in MLB and was rehabbing injuries at the same time he was polishing skills, I don't believe it's appropriate to draw conclusions based on raw numbers taken in a vacuum.
Correct.
Conversely, it doesn't make much sense to conclude that "because Ankiel had a sudden, massive increase in power, he must have been using PEDs," then leave open the possibility that HGH may have only had a modest, negliglible effect.
Sure it does. It means I happen to believe HGH has a considerable effect on one's power hitting (though probably NOT by itself, but in conjunction with weight training, etc.), but I'm open to the possibility that I might be wrong if the evidence so confirms. You'd prefer that I state definitively that his power surge is SOLELY attributable to HGH, when in fact I do not know that to be true?
If "[w]hether the assumptions UNDERLYING that assumption are correct, however, is debatable," then it seems that for the purpose of initially accusing Ankiel, you took the view that HGH did have a noticeable effect -- a claim on which you now are waffling.
No--I'm not waffling. I never claimed to have a scientific view of all of this. I made an assumption based on what I *do* know, and what I believe. If "waffling" is "having the humility to know I don't have all of the answers, but in the meantime holding beliefs based on what knowledge I *do* have, than color me a "waffler," but I think that's a misuse of the term.
And anyway--why the hell are all of you so damned concerned with these semantics, rather than the larger point (which I quite frankly bulls-eyed)? Hell, I wasn't even the one who burst on here touting my brilliance in calling this--2 others said I nailed it, at which point danup accused me of "talking out my ass," from which point things have snowballed.
Anyway--I can't believe that while I don't *know* with precision when Ankiel used HGH, and don't *know* for certain the precise effect it had on his ability to hit for power, the fact that I called him out as a user based on what I *do* know (bizarre career path punctuated by regular extended inactivity, yet seeming unfailing loyalty from his organization, punctuated by a massively striking power spike) before anyone else should entitle me to SOME benefit of the doubt here, especially since none of you know the answers to the questions above, either.
For the umpteenth time: You're all shooting the messenger, rather than discussing what should be the issue. You want to prove HGH didn't contribute to Ankiel's power spike, go ahead and provide the evidence, but dissecting my posts for purposes of scoring semantic points ain't gonna get you there.
Well, that's the crux. I don't find it all that damning. Ankiel slugged .638 in 100+ AB in a Rookie ball rehab stint at age 22. Maybe that was HGH-fueled as well, but seeing him go on a HR splurge in even fewer AB is not all that convincing to me. Sure, it's suspicious, but I don't think anyone can take it further than that.
Bonds' HR total was only 14% higher than the next best guy in 2001.
It's obvious to me, based on my out-of-context interpretation of the numbers compared to that known juicer Bonds, that A-Rod is, was, or will be one day on the juice. Which I assume to be steroids. But could be an entirely unrelated substance - HGH - which I declare is the same thing as steroids. What's the difference anyway? I mean, I'm no medical expert, but I have a right to trumpet my ignorance.
And I'm doing this before anybody leaked any information about A-Rod doing anything other than strippers. Go ahead: PROVE ME WRONG!
Or to put it more bluntly, those of you who respond to "Ankiel's juicing" with "Ankiel's not juicing! He was in '04 or '05, but he's not now!" frankly look pretty stupid.
Actually, I think it makes a lot of intuitive sense to think that the lasting effects would be quite minimal. I don't know whether or not his use was limited to 2004 and/or 2005. But if it was, I'd wager that whatever benefits he got have almost certainly worn off after two years. The therapeutic benefits of hGH when it's used legitimately seem to wear off when you stop taking it. Why should we assume that it should be different for illegitimate users?
It's in post 132.
-- Sure it does. It means I happen to believe HGH has a considerable effect on one's power hitting (though probably NOT by itself, but in conjunction with weight training, etc.), but I'm open to the possibility that I might be wrong if the evidence so confirms. You'd prefer that I state definitively that his power surge is SOLELY attributable to HGH, when in fact I do not know that to be true?
If what you're saying is that he hit your radar screen because you personally believe that HGH leads to "sudden, massive gains in power," but are simply leaving open he possibility that science may differ with that conclusion, I guess I can understand that. Thanks for clarifying.
And anyway--why the hell are all of you so damned concerned with these semantics, rather than the larger point (which I quite frankly bulls-eyed)? Hell, I wasn't even the one who burst on here touting my brilliance in calling this--2 others said I nailed it, at which point danup accused me of "talking out my ass," from which point things have snowballed.
Whoa, pull back the fangs! WTF do you have against me? Why do you keep dragging me into arguments you have with other posters? Is it just because we disagreed about Steve Trachsel or because I don't worship at the feet of Carlos Zambrano?
I'm not trying to dissect semantics; I'm trying to figure out what your view is. That's it. You're arguing other points with different posters, not me. I'm only interested in (a) learning what your conclusion was/is and it's basis, (b) disputing that Ankiel had a "sudden, massive" unforseeable gain in power, and (c) taking issue with the view that a stat line alone is an indicator of PED use.
I just think it's generally silly to simply point at a stat line and say "the numbers spiked, therefore he's juicing," whether the numbers are those of Rick Ankiel, Barry Bonds, Brady Anderson, Norm Cash, Davey Johnson, or anyone else. It's a view I have felt pretty strongly about for several years.
I also never accused you of tooting your own horn and agree that it was Esoteric who mentioned it in the first place. Heck, I wasn't even aware that you had made any accusations until I read Esoteric's post. So what?
I don't give a rat's ass about any other arguments in this thread, whether made by you or anyone else.
retro, i don't think you get to reorganize the debate just because you want to clarify. if you didn't want people to jump on you, you shouldn't have made such a categorical claim. the distinctions you see as necessary in hindsight are not silly; they water down your argument to the point that you look like you are no longer taking a position. but i don't want to get into this anymore. i'm really the type of poster who tries to enjoy my time here, so i'm going back to either lurking or staying out of steroid threads. it's better for my blood pressure.
The fact that the evidence is inconclusive and/or incomplete is also in post 132. But your post sort of implied that no one responded. Isn't it fairer and more accurate to say that the evidence for hGH enhancing athletic performance is scant and inconclusive instead of just repeating that bbc asked for the evidence and didn't get any?
Question: is there evidence here that he "STOPPED getting it"? I know Ankiel <u>says</u> he only did it that one time, but is there evidence here that shows a time period - say, 2005 - where the Feds have prescription records from this doctor and they do NOT include Ankiel? I ask because I notice that the accusation on Glaus also only goes through 2004. Is that because the records in this case only go through 2004 or is this evidence that Glaus and Ankiel definitely did NOT get hGH from this particular source in 2005?
I don't think anyone has reported the story with the level of detail you're looking for. That is, I haven't seen a dump of all the prescriptions. And since a negative can't be proven, I can understand the focus on what the evidence shows rather than what the absence of other evidence might imply.
But you're certainly right that it would be more accurate to say that Ankiel got hGH three years ago and then stopped getting it from this particular pharmacy with a prescription from this particular doctor.
I'm absolutely not making any sort of accusation or claim about burden of proof with respect to anything that Ankiel may or may not have done since 2004.
But is the second half of your sentence here - that Ankiel "<u>stopped</u> getting it from this particular pharmacy with a prescription from this particular doctor" - supported by the evidence? I've seen several people who want to use this as some evidence in Ankiel's favor, but based on my reading of what's been reported, I don't see that - as I read the report, the story is that "Ankiel got hGH from these guys in 2004". With nothing one way or the other being said about 2005 or later.
You'd put an end date on what you have evidence of because that's a relevant factual question. What I'm saying is that there are two possible reasons why it has not been reported that Ankiel received hGH from Signature Pharmacy in 2005
(a) Because the people reporting this have seen Signature Pharmacy's 2005 records and Rick Ankiel's name does not appear there - that's the affirmative argument that Ankiel did NOT get hGH from this supplier after 2004 that you and others have made, or
(b) Because the people reporting this have not seen any Signature Pharmacy records for any year more recent than 2004.
Do we know that the correct answer here is (a)?
This revelation does not prove that r-s's earlier comments were accurate. It does make it a little bit more likely that they were were.
See this is the insanity of the apologist position. They are actually arguing that because this happened in 2004 that the information is irrelevant. That the suspicions regarding Ankiel, who we know used these drugs, and A-Rod, for whom there is no evidence ever used these substances, are equivalent. There are no words to describe this kind of thinking.
Sure Retro might have been talking out of his ass. I totally agree that improved performance is not evidence of use of PED's. So what. This time he was right and your denials of that fact amount to willful blindness.
Gee, what a sucker Ankiel must be. He actually doesn't think that his fate is going to be determined by the lowest common denominator of yahoos. If only he had the immortal Michael Rains to protect him from the mob.
1. By itself, "Yes, I will cooperate with the MLB investigation" is a for-public-consumption statement not much more stirring than "I look forward to telling a jury my side of the story" or "we shall conduct a fair and thorough inquiry."
2. Let's assume he means it. One cooperative player, or two, or twenty-six doesn't negate the trend of allegedly confidential data from grand juries/MLB investigations being leaked.
But you're right, Ankiel's not a sucker to trust in the tender mercies of George Mitchell. There are so many examples of MLB good-faith actions towards the players' union in general and steroids in particular during Bud Selig's period of influence, there simply isn't room to list them all here.
Look, if you're going to deny others the chance to match retro's prescience, we're not going to get very far.
He went out on a limb about Ankiel. I'm going out on a limb about A-Rod. My talking out of my ass points are just as valid as his.
Name one innocent player whose career has been negatively affected by George Mitchell. I'm assuming that Ankiel is innocent.
Of course if he's not, I couldn't care less what they do to him; at that point the discussion on this end has no meaning. And you're right, in that case he'd better hire Nieporent or someone equally talented to defend him, because he'll surely need someone like that to salvage anything at all out of this.
But if Ankiel produces a valid medical reason for having procured that HGH, I honestly don't see that he has much to worry about, from Mitchell or from anyone else other than a few wingnuts who can't affect him in any substantive way.
And if he doesn't have to have it dragged out of him, he'll look so much the better. That's my admittedly hopeful (though perhaps naive) scenario, but how it all unfolds remains to be seen one way or the other.
What's been proven is that he took HGH in 2004. That isn't the same thing as saying that his performance in 2004 was chemically enhanced, and it's not even close to the same thing as saying that his performance in 2007 is chemically enhanced.
Unless you have some [good] reason to believe HGH has any performance enhancing effects -- let alone the massive effects you're claiming for it -- you're still no closer to being right than you were two days ago.
Uh, it doesn't work that way. One doesn't get to make fantastic claims and then demand everyone else prove them wrong, and declare oneself to have been right until the point where other people do prove them wrong. You're the one stating the proposition, so the burden of proof is on you.
You're right about discussing the messenger -- but when the messenger sits around patting himself on the back for being right without actually being right, he makes himself the issue. But the underlying issue is whether Ankiel's 2007 performance is "chemically enhanced," and there's no evidence of that.
Thanks, David. I missed that - I tend to skim these things.
RTFT. I didn't even get involved in this thread until, after a couple of other posters mentioned my having called Ankiel out, I was accused of "talking out of my ass." I was "made the issue" by the posters who made those accusations.
Out of curiosity, what is this "believe" stuff? Facts are not a matter of "belief."
OK, wiseguy--show me the factual proof that controverts my claim. The truth is, you don't know the "facts" any better than I do. And don't pretend you don't "believe" certain things without having every single pertinent fact at your disposal.
Uh, it doesn't work that way. One doesn't get to make fantastic claims and then demand everyone else prove them wrong, and declare oneself to have been right until the point where other people do prove them wrong. You're the one stating the proposition, so the burden of proof is on you.
RTFT. I've repeatedly presented evidence, in the form of (1) Ankiel's having used HGH; (2) Ankiel's services having been retained by the St. Louis Cardinals when there was no apparent reason for them to do so, given his apparent upside, and (3) his having an extremely unusual (indeed, virtually unprecedented) career arc. Now, that may not be *conclusive* evidence, but it *is* circumstantial evidence. And none of you who're raking me over the coals have bothered to counter with even THAT much. I may not have all the evidence necessary evidence to prove that HGH *caused* Ankiel's power spike, but I sure as hell have reason to suspect it. And none of you have provided ANY evidence to suggest that that suspicion was wrong. And, as we now all know, it was NOT wrong.
This isn't a criminal trial. I don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ankiel not only was a OED user, but that his HGH use caused his power spike to say, reasonably, that I believed him to be a PED user based on circumstantial evidence.
I'd prefer that you not claim to have been proven right when in fact you do not know that to be true.
RTFT. I made no such claim, and expressly disclaimed it.
I did, however, claim that I *believed* Ankiel to be a PED user.
That belief was correct.
Deal with it. All of you.
Nieporent, do you even know how to fecking read? I've stated numerous times in this thread that I don't know (and neither do you) the precise extent to which HGH effects performance, let alone "claiming its massive effects." I think that HGH, combined with other factors, CAN have such an effect. I believe Ankiel to be a data point for that proposition.
Bullshite. And WTF does Dan Contilli's completely unrelated post have to do with me? You think "us guys" sit around teleconferencing ways to slam Rick Ankiel?
I can just as easily "shrug you off" as being an irretrievable Cardinals fanboy.
And in making that statement, you are effectively advancing an affirmative argument that HGH use in 2004 (assuming that's the only time Ankiel was using) cannot effect 2007 performance, for which you have advanced no supporting evidence.
Yes, and your "intuitive sense" is no more "evidence" than anything I've put forth.
That is precisely my position, and I have no idea why it appears to be so controversial among numerous posters here, other than resentment at my having correctly identified a PED user before that fact became public knowledge in this particular case.
And anyway--why the hell are all of you so damned concerned with these semantics, rather than the larger point (which I quite frankly bulls-eyed)? Hell, I wasn't even the one who burst on here touting my brilliance in calling this--2 others said I nailed it, at which point danup accused me of "talking out my ass," from which point things have snowballed.
Whoa, pull back the fangs! WTF do you have against me? Why do you keep dragging me into arguments you have with other posters? Is it just because we disagreed about Steve Trachsel or because I don't worship at the feet of Carlos Zambrano?
You do know what "all of you" means, don't you? The comment above wasn't directed specifically to you, and you weren't the one who originally (or ever, AFAIK) accused me of "talking out my ass." And I could not care less whether you "worship at the feet of Carlos Zambrano" or not. It should be perfectly clear after the last Zambrano thread that while I'm a big Zambrano fan, I do no such thing myself.
I never said it was evidence, but I know a little bit about endocrinology and biochemistry, so I do think it's logical. But my point there was simply that 75% of this thread is basically about whether or not your intuition was right, and I didn't think it was appropriate when you called people stupid for having some intuition of their own.
Please point to the post in which I even INSINUATED such a thing.
With apologies, I just want to jump in to not only point out that I don't believe his statistical record is especially ludicrous (as I've stated most recently in Post #s 226 and 232) . . .
. . . but, more pertinently, it isn't true that his career is "virtually unprecedented." Smokey Joe Wood, Lefty O'Doul, even Babe Ruth to a limited extent are at least vaguely similar. It is certainly true, though, that Ankiel's career has been highly irregular.
I've got nothing against retro and was not displeased about his public speculating. In fact, I think Ankiel's use of hgh (which I think is probably not a performance enhancer) certainly increases the likelihood in my mind that Ankiel was using an actual performance enhancer, ie steroids so he may well be right. Now, hgh is *defined* as a performance enhancer so if retro have speculated based seeing ankiel trying to hide something or based rumors of his connection with shady doctors I think his claims woudl be validated but given that he speculated based on Ankiel actual performace I think he's only validated if Ankiel is taking something that's *actually* performance enhancing not something that's defined as performance enhancing. I don't think that's parsing. I think that's an important distinction. I'll give credit where credit is due if either a) new (at least to me) evidence suggests that hgh IS a performance enhancer or b) Ankiel is linked to steroids. Until then, I think it's too soon that say that he was right. Kevin, regarding Bonds, was right.
Do I have to remind you that this is the Internet? People want you to take one black/white position and stick to it at all costs, no matter what may happen down the road. If you don't, you're a hypocrite and a flip-flopper.
You do know what "all of you" means, don't you? The comment above wasn't directed specifically to you, and you weren't the one who originally (or ever, AFAIK) accused me of "talking out my ass." And I could not care less whether you "worship at the feet of Carlos Zambrano" or not. It should be perfectly clear after the last Zambrano thread that while I'm a big Zambrano fan, I do no such thing myself.
Ok, but you stated this in response to one of my points, which made me reasonably think that you were directing it to me.
But do you recognize the possibility that you may be the metaphorical blind squirrel who happened upon an acorn?
Understood, but that wasn't my intention. It was a general comment at the end of a post in which I responded to you.
Do I have to remind you that this is the Internet? People want you to take one black/white position and stick to it at all costs, no matter what may happen down the road. If you don't, you're a hypocrite and a flip-flopper.
Obviously.
And before my positions are mischaracterized further, I will NOW take my leave of this thread (HA--HE'S POSTED *TWICE* SINCE "TAKING LEAVE" FOR THE FIRST TIME--FLIPFLOPPER!!!!).
Just one addendum to your characterization of my position--I think it's absolutely correct with one minor quibble--I'm not convinced HGH by itself has "massive effects" on power, but I do believe such substances (as well as other PEDs) in combination with weight training *can* produce such massive effects. Other than that, your statement is spot on, and reflects what I think is my ongoing learning process about this whole issue. Which doesn't make my initial suspicions about Rick Ankiel wrong. They may have been incompletely informed, but they weren't wrong. They turned out to be right.
Sure, it's a possibility, but I'd say it's a pretty serious longshot given (1) the number of players I could've randomly named as suspected PED users, and (2) the quickness with which the HGH story regarding the very player I named broke.
I can consider the possibility that I'm the proverbial blind squirrel, if others can consider the horrible possibility that I just might've been on to something.
Here is #229:
Please find where I have ever said Ankiel is not currently juicing.
My argument, which I have spelled out repeatedly, is that I don't know, and neither do you. My argument is that this news is not proof that Ankiel is currently juicing. He could be, I just don't know. And I'll say it again, neither do you.
I understand that I am just a lurker who's posted only a handful of times when I've been really annoyed by a Cardinal-related subject. And I understand that this retro guy posts here all the time. So you guys have your loyalties. But I can't understand that so few people who have actually read through this thread have called him on this BS.
Maybe people haved saved themselves the frusturation and avoided this. I should have.
Of course if he's not, I couldn't care less what they do to him; at that point the discussion on this end has no meaning. And you're right, in that case he'd better hire Nieporent or someone equally talented to defend him, because he'll surely need someone like that to salvage anything at all out of this.
In past threads, several of the lawyers here have written about the folly of innocent people talking freely to the authorities under the assumption that their innocence will protect them from harm.
I could put the reverse challenge to you: Name one guilty player whose career has been negatively affected by George Mitchell. There isn't any yet, and that's not the point.
It is my belief that the MLB steroid investigation is likely to absolve entire categories of people who knew all about PEDs and benefited from them. It is my belief that Selig & Co., who have embraced contraction and collusion and scab players, would be only too happy to use media sensationalism and Congressional gameplaying as a club with which to clobber the players' union.
The recent PED negotiations are widely characterized as a "win" for the owners and a rare "loss" for the players, even though the two groups presumably share the identical goal of cleaning up baseball, both groups certainly share the responsibility for past sins, and neither group entered the negotiation willingly. But the result gets spun as the resolute owners finally slapping down the druggies.
In this light, it would be foolish for the clean players-- Ankiel or anyone else-- to allow themselves to be played off against the PED users, no matter how sincere they feelings may be. Not by an adversarial CEO who has demonstrated that reducing the strength of the union is an ambition of his office.
That's only my speculative belief, of course. I'll be happy to be surprised by a candid, comprehensive Mitchell Report. But the fine to Gary Sheffield for daring to say aloud that Selig "knew what we knew" tells you how this cha-cha is probably going to go.
Name one innocent player whose career has been negatively affected by George Mitchell. I'm assuming that Ankiel is innocent.
Of course if he's not, I couldn't care less what they do to him; at that point the discussion on this end has no meaning. And you're right, in that case he'd better hire Nieporent or someone equally talented to defend him, because he'll surely need someone like that to salvage anything at all out of this.
In past threads, several of the lawyers here have written about the folly of innocent people talking freely to the authorities under the assumption that their innocence will protect them from harm.
I could put the reverse challenge to you: Name one guilty player whose career has been negatively affected by George Mitchell. There isn't any yet, and that's not the point.
I hate to say it (though I don't really), but doesn't this kind of contradict your sarcastic jibes about "the tender mercies of George Mitchell"? If he hasn't hurt any innocent player, and he hasn't (yet) hurt even any guilty player, why the seeming fear that you seem to urge upon the players?
It is my belief that the MLB steroid investigation is likely to absolve entire categories of people who knew all about PEDs and benefited from them. It is my belief that Selig & Co., who have embraced contraction and collusion and scab players, would be only too happy to use media sensationalism and Congressional gameplaying as a club with which to clobber the players' union.
The recent PED negotiations are widely characterized as a "win" for the owners and a rare "loss" for the players, even though the two groups presumably share the identical goal of cleaning up baseball, both groups certainly share the responsibility for past sins, and neither group entered the negotiation willingly. But the result gets spun as the resolute owners finally slapping down the druggies.
In this light, it would be foolish for the clean players-- Ankiel or anyone else-- to allow themselves to be played off against the PED users, no matter how sincere they feelings may be. Not by an adversarial CEO who has demonstrated that reducing the strength of the union is an ambition of his office.
Leaving aside the obvious rebuttal that the Player's Union largely has brought this upon themselves with their questionable strategy of resisting testing until it was forced upon them kicking and screaming by public scorn and Congressional jawboning, I won't argue with you about the mixed motives of Selig and the owners. Which is why in my many discussions here, particularly with robinred, I've supported the idea of going after both Selig and the owners with the same enthusiasm as I'd hope they'd go after the juicers themselves. I'm not interested in any coverups of anybody, least of all the likes of Selig or Steinbrenner. I'd like to see them grill Papa George about that Giambi contract for starters. And you know that I'm a Yankee fan.
But I might suggest that the better way to advance this goal is to agitate for openness on all sides, rather than advising one side to clam up. And remember this hopeful (though maybe a bit too hopeful) historical parallel: Archibald Cox was appointed by Richard Nixon's own Attorney General to investigate Watergate. Neither he nor Eliot Richardson lasted very long on their jobs, but by the time of the Saturday Night Massacre it was too late for Nixon to stop the truth from spilling out.
Well... no, it doesn't. The whole problem here IS the self-interest. Like I said, I'd be delighted to have my distrust proven wrong by a solid, sweeping report. But the only baseball wager that pays better than going against Armando Benitez in October is betting against transparency in the commissioner's office.
We're in agreement on the obvious stuff (PEDs should be expunged as much as possible, penalties should now be stringent, it would be good to get as much information as possible). However, Giambi's not being grilled over his MLB-approved contract exemption for roids, he's being grilled over what he insinuated to a reporter. Jason Giambi: the lone gunman of decadurabolin.
As long as the people in charge of the investigation are in a position to ask, "What did I know, and when did I know it," and then decline to answer, it's not cynicism to expect a 50% whitewash. It's realism.
And if Bud Selig (and by extension, we fans) never do get to the bottom of it all? The union's "kicking and screaming" may have a lot to do with it, sure. But perhaps some thought should be given to the repercussions of the decades of union-busting antagonism, and its corrosive effect on Selig's "let us come together" invitations.
In a fairminded situation, sure, Rick Ankiel should tell George Mitchell everything and then label the files personally. But in a fairminded situation, Mitchell wouldn't even be there. Since he is, better to be a weasel than a lamb to the slaughter.
The only thing "questionable" about the union's strategy was agreeing to re-open a collective bargaining agreement twice -- making huge concessions to the owners and agreeing to severe privacy restrictions -- while getting nothing in return.
I don't see why testing was so great for the players, given that it's a lose-lose for them: if they test positive they face penalties and public scorn; if they don't test positive, they're just assumed to be ahead of the testing anyway. And face public scorn.
I'd like to see them grill Papa George about that Giambi contract for starters.
Again, it's doubtful Steinbrenner ever knew anything about the circumstances surrounding the so-called "controversy" associated with Giambi's contract.
Agreed!
Somebody needs to start a list.
1) Scouts. They routinely told prospects to 'bulk up'.
2) Coaches at every level. Rookie Ball to AAA.
3) Team Doctors. Hell they worked on the players. They knew what was in their blood.
4) Managers. Saying Tony LaRussa did not know what was going on his locker room, is a stretch at best. And you all know it.
5) GM's and front office people. Chit, Kevin Towers openly admits he knew. He can't be the only one.
6) Selig certainly knew about Greenies. He has mentioned in the past that his first encounter with them was in a Milwaukee clubhouse, four or five decades ago.
No. Saying that you don't have evidence for X being true is not "effectively" the affirmative statement that X is false. It is the statement that you don't have evidence, which you don't.
I think you were right to use the word "belief" in the spot where I questioned it. It's a religious thing for you, an article of faith. Theists always confuse lack of belief in X with assertions that X is false. Frankly, I "believe" that leprechauns caused Ankiel to have a good season in 2007. You can't prove it wrong, so it's just as valid as your theory.
Because the science is supposed to come first. Not the "belief."
thats true!
thats true!
It's also true that the only reason that the Union agreed to that 2003 testing was because a refusal to be tested was going to be recorded as a positive, which would have been logical.
If the Union had ever been sincere about wanting to eliminate steroids in baseball---and you can say the same thing about Selig and the owners; I'm not exempting their culpability---it would have not only agreed to the sort of testing we have today without the need for any so-called Congressional "tantrum," it would be in the forefront right now, in the wake of these latest revelations, in demanding blood sampling in order to detect drugs that are not found by urine samples. Blood can be stored and when new tests are developed that can detect HGH and other such substances, those stored blood samples can then be re-checked.
Such a plan---if the testing is random and unannounced---would likely deter all but the dimmest bulbs from trying to put one over on anyone. The "cost" would be nothing more than the sort of bogus "privacy" issue that the usual suspects rail about, but all that says is that those usual suspects have no interest themselves in seeing steroids and other designer drugs removed from baseball. The more honest of those usual suspects like Nieporent will admit this, and to me that's a legitimate position, even if their priorities are different than mine.
Blood that can be re-examined over and over again. That to me just crosses into some serious issues with regards to privacy, not to mention the number of false positives that are sure to come about, destroying players careers, as they test out new drug tests.
Is there another sport that does this, actually stores blood samples for future testing? Cycling maybe, but other that I can't think of one.
Personally I think it is nuts.
As I said, if you see blood sampling (not exactly a radical concept) as being so invasive of privacy that it overrides the potential benefits of reducing future designer drug use, I can respect that. This was and is the position of the Players' Union.
But don't say in the same breath that the Union has ever been serious about eliminating steroids and other, currently undetectible drugs, from baseball. It's like saying you're against crime but want to disarm and blindfold the police. You can certainly build in guidelines and procedures that can deal with the important issue of false positives, especially those that stem from legitimate medical reasons. The last thing I have in mind is falsely identifying innocent players and giving them no chance to defend themselves.
The bottom line for you is that ridding the game of steroids is distinctly less important than ensuring the level of privacy that would be compromised by blood testing. If you can just acknowledge that, just as I acknowledge that my priorities are the opposite, we can maybe get away from some of the namecalling---not that you and I have ever done that; I'm referring to the tone in lots of these threads.
Uh-huh. That explains why Ankiel took HGH during his training regimen/slash "injury rehab," rather than fantasizing about leprechauns, which surely would've been a hell of a lot cheaper (after all, the demonstrated or presumed effects of the two are equal!). Great analogy, Dave.
Because the science is supposed to come first. Not the "belief."
Tell that to Antonin Scalia (see Bush v. Gore), substituting "legal reasoning" for "science."
In any case--the "science" on the effects of HGH are inconclusive at this point; this doesn't mean (except in your world) that I need to wait for a unanimous agreement among the scientific community to speculate as to its effects, especially given the other extrinsic factors in Ankiel's case.
Circular logic, thy name is Retro-shiite.
Circular logic, my ass. It'd be circular logic if Ankiel were the ONLY data point out there and I made the same assumption, but he's not. It's use of (you may reasonably say overreliance upon, but that's not the same thing as a circular argument) circumstantial evidence, combined with the (admittedly unsettled question of, but certainly not disproven) strengh-enhancing effects of HGH, and the performance trajectories of other players known to have used HGH, to draw an admittedly layperson's conclusion.
Look--I'm not looking to convict Ankiel of anything, and I never said my statement at the time of his callup that Ankiel was performance-enhanced was infallible. It is not reasonable to expect an unassailable level of scientific "proof" (which is lacking in, oh, about 10 billion areas of scientific inquiry) in order to make a lay supposition reasonable. Not certain, not foolproof--REASONABLE. And, well, that supposition's being correct in hindsight is a point in favor of that supposition's reasonability.
You may, as you see fit, continue to view my having called this to be mere coincidence, and to view the performance/strength enhancing effects of HGH versus fantasizing about leprechauns or having blue eyes to have been demonstrated to identical degrees.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main