The post office has no record of who lives at a house. I get crap for people that don't live there addressed to me all the time.

To clarify I meant crap for people with different names but my address all the time.

102. ntr Jose Guillen Posted: July 16, 2008 at 04:29 PM (#2861683)

Awwww man.. my HGH shipment went to the wrong house?

102. ntr Jose Guillen Posted: July 16, 2008 at 04:29 PM (#2861683)

Awwww man.. my HGH shipment went to the wrong house?

Jajajajajajaja

here's no evidence that ballplayers think it improves performance

Dave Dave Dave why do you have to offer up such a softball to Kevin?

i swear to GAWD you TRY to misunderstand

Try? He just doesn't try, he's pretty successful.

I love when DMN and Kev get into it, right before, or during, when the insults are flying, they both tend to make completely wrongheaded, but opposite assertions, and proclaim that no reasonable person could disagree.

The fact that they apparently met in person is just so....

both tend to make completely wrongheaded, but opposite assertions

That's a neat trick.

The fact that they apparently met in person is just so.

On top of the Empire State?

I love when DMN and Kev get into it, right before, or during, when the insults are flying, they both tend to make completely wrongheaded, but opposite assertions, and proclaim that no reasonable person could disagree.

It doesn't matter which side we take, our planet is doomed.

Dave Dave Dave why do you have to offer up such a softball to Kevin?

It's constitutively impossible for him to make a believable argument.

In any case, it isn't my fault bc doesn't know what a placebo is, doesn't understand how hGH cannot be used as a placebo, and has no clue about the PED effects of hGH. I was only correcting her, so she could proceed from a standpoint of a stronger factual footage. A great deal of the reeason she and Nieporent are wrong about hGH is because neither of them have a grasp of the essential facts.

You guys have a Sun Belt, right?

We Canadians call it Florida.

We Canadians call it Florida.

Man oh man I ran into so many Quebecers my last trip to Florida, and they wouldn't shut up about the exchange rate...

For the HGH guys there was basically no improvement at all - it was very slight less than 1% IIRC, well within the range of random chance.

Regrettably, I haven't seen this study, but I would be quite interested to review it - not that I would consider myself a genius (I'll let the rest of you consider me a genius. Personally, I don't like to brag), but purely out of curiosity as to the methodology.

With respect to the HGH use, based on what we've heard to date, it appears that a significant number of players who used it did so to recover from injuries. Based on that, it wouldn't be surprising if any benefit (assuming that there is a benefit) to performance was masked by the injuries for which it was being to recover from. Of course, this is total speculation on my part, and I can't think of a good method through which one could control for the impact of specific injuries on production, so its a bit of a moot point.

Now, given the number of players who have been caught (or implicated) in using HGH, I think it is reasonable to assume that players believe the use of HGH benefits them in some manner, whether through increased performance, decreased recovery time, or whatever else. If they didn't perceive a benefit, then its highly unlikely they would be using it.

Man oh man I ran into so many Quebecers my last trip to Florida, and they wouldn't shut up about the exchange rate...

About 3 years ago, the Canadian Dollar was worth something like 65 cents US. For those of us who travel regularly to the States, on either business or pleasure (although there's nothing pleasurable about where my company sends me), it's been a godsend.

As a counterpoint, it's been hilarious to watch the shock on the faces of Americans who haven't been paying attention to the exchange rate when they find out how much the rate has changed - especially when they've already started their vacation in Toronto.

With respect to the HGH use, based on what we've heard to date, it appears that a significant number of players who used it did so to recover from injuries.

You know, I always assumed that when players say that when they get caught using PEDs (or alleged PEDs), that, well, they're lying. They are trying to portray is as, "Look I wasn't cheating, I was doing it because I was injured".

Maybe some players do use banned/ suspect substances because they are injured, and the pace of recovery is discouraging and they're desperate- but I suspect such players are in the minority. Most players who take steroids, or HGH, or amphetamines or what have you do so because they believe or hope it will give them a competitive edge.

That's just my opinion anyway

That's just my opinion anyway

And it's a perfectly valid one. I only made the observation based on the limited number of cases where guys had injuries in the same year or immediately before they allegedly used HGH - Jay Gibbons, as an example. Who really knows their motives, especially since most guys won't talk about it.

For steroids and amphetamines, I agree that it's purely a performance issue.

GOD I can't stand this lack of class.

Then do what I do, and put him on ignore.

kevin has long since stopped having anything of value to add to any conversation, and wandered off into a kind of trolldom that makes RossCW seem positively benign.

People really should also stop quoting his nonsense when they respond to him, so the rest of us are not polluted by it, like second-hand smoke.

Except he's correct regarding placebos.

Man oh man I ran into so many Quebecers my last trip to Florida, and they wouldn't shut up about the exchange rate...

Did they also mention how cheap your gas was? Because your gas is cheap, compared to what we pay.

Srul, why don't you tell us why Rice shouldn't be in the hall of fame because he's black again.

There were some issues with the study and it was only presented in about 25 minutes, but there conclusions showed a definite boost in performance for the guys accused of steroid use, but it wasn't huge, like 5-10% in terms of RC/27. or something.

IIRC, Neyer said they found that the increase was 12% -- but if you remove Bonds, it was 7%. (That in itself is damning to the "steroids cause huge increases OH-MI-GAWD!!" crowd. Because it would mean that steroids don't have much of an effect on any player other than Bonds, which would make no sense.)

If we make the huge assumption that the study was representative of the increase steroids provide, with a 7% increase once Bonds is removed from the equation, a 16-HR guy (call him Brady Anderson) goes to 17. He doesn't go to 50.

A 36-HR guy (call him Sammy Sosa) goes to 38 or 39. He doesn't go to 66.

(That in itself is damning to the "steroids cause huge increases OH-MI-GAWD!!" crowd. Because it would mean that steroids don't have much of an effect on any player other than Bonds, which would make no sense.)

Or different steroids have different effects.

To quickly summarize, we have no real idea as to what steroids most of these guys really used (or if they really used), what other things they were used in conjunction with (or if they were used in conjunction with anything), for what period they used these steroids, in what quantities they used them, and so on. Rather, we only have what they were allegedly linked to. Unless, of course, you're treating these rumours and accusations as firm, fixed statements of fact, which you don't do.

Even with these items being in an uncontrolled state, it was still estimated that those linked to steroids experienced a performance increase of about 7% (excluding Bonds), which is not an insignificant boost in performance. I think most players would really enjoy an average 7% increase in their run-generation, wouldn't you?

In the case of Bonds, we're also talking about an elite player who allegedly used steroids and HGH in exceptional quantities in conjunction with a rigorous training program, for an extended period, under excessive supervision (as detailed in "Game of Shadows"). Is it not unreasonable, assuming that these accusations are true, to expect that a player doing so would expect to see a larger boost in performance than an individual who used in lesser quantities, for a lesser period, under lesser or no supervision?

Or, in your opinion, do all steroids, in any quantity, used for any duration, under any training regimen, have the same result of exactly 7%?

ok kevin

let's go look for a new word seeing as how you are saying i should stick to a definition of "placebo" as a substance that has no effect on the body

what word would you use to define a drug - let's say - lipitor, which lowers cholesterol - which a man decides to take - and he buys it offn the internet - because he's heard it will make his wang bigger. well, lipitor will lower his cholesterol but it won't do dick to his dong even though the guys believes it will.

what word would YOU use to describe that substance?
besides incorrect medication?

To quickly summarize, we have no real idea as to what steroids most of these guys really used (or if they really used), what other things they were used in conjunction with (or if they were used in conjunction with anything), for what period they used these steroids, in what quantities they used them, and so on.

Right; which makes media conclusions that players realized huge gains from steroids seem rather silly.

Even with these items being in an uncontrolled state, it was still estimated that those linked to steroids experienced a performance increase of about 7% (excluding Bonds), which is not an insignificant boost in performance. I think most players would really enjoy an average 7% increase in their run-generation, wouldn't you?

Sure, although they wouldn't necessarily opt for the 7% since the 7% wouldn't come without risk. But the issue is that 7% is relatively small compared to what many people allege.

In the case of Bonds, we're also talking about an elite player who allegedly used steroids and HGH in exceptional quantities in conjunction with a rigorous training program, for an extended period, under excessive supervision (as detailed in "Game of Shadows"). Is it not unreasonable, assuming that these accusations are true, to expect that a player doing so would expect to see a larger boost in performance than an individual who used in lesser quantities, for a lesser period, under lesser or no supervision?

A larger boost? Sure. One that completely swamps the effects of all other alleged users combined? No. That would damn the theory that PEDs greatly enhance performance, because then we'd left with two alternatives: (1) PEDs don't have much of an impact on performace; or (2) PEDs have a great impact, but Bonds is the only one who realizes it.

The second would make no sense.

Or, in your opinion, do all steroids, in any quantity, used for any duration, under any training regimen, have the same result of exactly 7%?

The 7% isn't my number, but, assuming it's representative for the sake of argument: no. (Though if the actual number is close to 0%, that would mean that all steroids/quantities/durations/regimens WOULD have the same effect: none.)

Right; which makes media conclusions that players realized huge gains from steroids seem rather silly.

So now that we have a study which, even using players who have only been "linked" with steroids, concludes an average offensive performance increase of 7%, we should dismiss the notion that steroids increase performance significantly? An average increase of 7% (for a study with unconfirmed usage by the participants, and removing the individual with the largest gain) is a large gain.

Sure, although they wouldn't necessarily opt for the 7% since the 7% wouldn't come without risk. But that's not the issue. The issue is that 7% is relatively small compared to what many people allege.

An average increase of 7% is a significant increase in offensive performance, and enough to change a bench player to a starter, or an average starter to a borderline all-star, or a borderline all-star into a superstar. For many players, a 7% increase in offensive performance represents a potential difference of millions of dollars over their careers, as well as an increase in the length of their careers. To break it down in terms only of HRs also ignores that a 7% increase may also change the distribution of a players offensive components - say a large increase in HRs being partially balanced by a large decrease in HR.

That would damn the theory that PEDs greatly enhance performance, because then we'd left with two alternatives: (1) PEDs don't have much of an impact on performace; or (2) PEDs have a great impact, but Bonds is the only one who realizes it.

How would it damn the theory that steroids (not PEDs) help performance? By an uncontrolled set of alleged users showing an average 7% increase (which is a significant performance boost) over those individuals not alleged to use steroids?

Incidentally, your two alternative are flawed. Much more reasonable conclusions based on the results of the study, assuming that the allegations are true, would be:
a) Steroids help performance by an average of 7%
b) Those alleged to have undergone an extended period using state-of-the-art steroids in conjunction with state-of-the-art performance enhancers, state-of-the-art training, and state-of-the-art monitoring demonstrate a higher level of performance increase than the average user of steroids.

Incidentally, I'm assuming that there was a spread in performance increases among the other alleged users of steroids, and that not everyone came in at exactly 7%. As a questions, outside of Bonds (who I'm assuming showed the largest performance increase), what were the other performance gains observed by players in the "linked to steroids" group?

say a large increase in HRs being partially balanced by a large decrease in HR.

Dammit. That`s supposed to read "A large increase in HR being partially balanced by a large decrease in doubles."

From The Daily News. Why not just call this "lawyer close to the investigation" by his real name: Richard Emery?

The receipts, coupled with other circumstantial evidence, could play a role in a perjury trial, says one lawyer close to the investigation.

"Roger has spoken 72 times and said a thousand different things," the lawyer said. "He's ruined himself as a witness. You have a massive public figure who will not be able to take the stand. This is his 'get-in-jail-free card.'"

bbc, someone who is convinced to take lipitor to make his penis larger has been scammed. I don't know how else to describe it.

Isn't a doctor that prescribes antibiotics for viral infections playing with fire? They talk about strains of bacteria that have become immune to antibiotics, largely owing to the overuse of antibiotics. Specifically, for inappropriately administering them for conditions they have no effect in treating.

I don't know what you'd call a drug administered for purposes other than what they're intended for, but I know what I'd call someone who used a drug that way: A fool.

Are these guys who used HGH fools? I don't know.

It always struck me that with bonds it wasn't just the chemistry but chemistry + talent + work ethic, unless you put all three together and shake well the results are going to be very mixed. Few players appear to have Bond's talent and or work ethic.

2c.

unless you put all three together and shake well the results are going to be very mixed.

Well, Canseco was a lazy #### with mediocre talent and he won an MVP award so I'm not sure that's true either.

Pretty funny that placebo was the word of the day on the Colbert Report last night . . .

I don't know what you'd call a drug administered for purposes other than what they're intended for, but I know what I'd call someone who used a drug that way: A fool.

It's called off-label use and it's quite common and encouraged by doctors in every field of medicine when the benefits outweigh the risks.

Wrong sport but cycling is the only sport I follow except for baseball. Even though they know they will be getting tested to death this morning the third Tour de France rider has tested positively for EPO (third generation EPO called CERA-Continuous Erythropoietin Receptor Activator). I can somehow understand a guy who has been taking drugs for many years feeling he needs it, but Ricco's only 24 and was considered one of the top young riders.

The last guy they caught spent the night in jail.

The first guy they caught this year, Beltran, was one of Lance Armstong's "lieutenants," as were Roberto Heras, Floyd Landis, and Tyler Hamilton-who all also have been caught.

I can somehow understand a guy who has been taking drugs for many years feeling he needs it, but Ricco's only 24 and was considered one of the top young riders.

But, and this is the problem since these substances are illegal, so no one admits use until after they've been caught, and even then only at the minimal level necessary to explain the test, how do we know that he didn't become one of the top young riders precisely because he has been taking drugs for many years?

For all the problems that baseball may have with PEDs, it's nothing compared to the Tour de France.

bbc, someone who is convinced to take lipitor to make his penis larger has been scammed.

Sort of like someone who is convinced to take hGH for anything, unless he or she happens to be a child who isn't growing?

It's called off-label use and it's quite common and encouraged by doctors in every field of medicine when the benefits outweigh the risks.

Not for scheduled drugs it isn't (either common or encouraged). Maybe you knew that.

According to the FDA:

Human Growth Hormone (HGH) is the active ingredient in a
number of human prescription drugs approved for marketing in
the U.S. under new drug applications (NDAs). FDA-approved
HGH can be legally prescribed for a limited number of
conditions including:

* hormonal deficiency that causes short stature in
children;

* long-term treatment of growth failure due to lack of
exogenous GH secretion;

* long-term treatment of short stature associated with
Turner syndrome;

* adult short bowel syndrome;

* adult deficiency due to rare pituitary tumors or their
treatment; and

* muscle-wasting disease associated with HIV/AIDS.

HGH has important benefits, but also serious, known risks.
Among the possible long-term side effects of HGH is an
increased risk of cancer, and other dangerous side effects
have been reported, including nerve pain and elevated
cholesterol and glucose levels. For this reason, HGH is
carefully regulated in the U.S.

hGH is not approved for improving recovery from injury or surgery, nor is it approved for anti-aging. AFAIK, adult hGH deficiency is not recognized as a medical condition justifying treatment with hGH supplementation (EDIT: except when it is the result of those rare pituitary tumors referenced above). Off-label use of hGH is illegal in the US.

Nice post, sacsns1999. Taking supra-physiological elvels of hGH can also replicate some of the symptoms of hyperpituitism.

Nieporent will now come ina nd claim the FDA is a fascist organization, of course.

New article: Radomski moved TV, found receipt.

Two interesting points (to me). The first re-raises the question of who signed for the package:

"It was addressed to Clemens as a hold for Brian McNamee," Radomski said. "Brian knows what he did with it. They signed for it, because all my packages you always had to sign for. Brian never signed for the package. The package got there before Brian got down there."

The second raises the issue of what other players are going to get burned for lying about their use:

"I just couldn't find the receipt. And just by [accident] this weekend, I moved my TV and whatnot and I found the package, an envelope, and it had [Clemens'] receipt and about seven or eight other receipts."

<snip>

Radomski said he couldn't recall the names of the other players for whom he had receipts for shipments, but he said they had all been previously named in the Mitchell report.

For their sake, they better hope that they haven't already gone in front of Congress, or made other statements to the feds on their use.

Convicted steroid distributor Kirk Radomski told ESPN.com that while he was moving a broken television off a dresser in the bedroom of his Long Island home last Sunday night, he found a shipping receipt for human growth hormone that he claims to have sent to Clemens' Houston home in 2002 or 2003. Radomski said he found that receipt, along with "seven or eight others" for shipments to other baseball players, under the TV.

"My TV broke and I said, 'Damn, I got to get it off the dresser,'" Radomski said Wednesday. "And it was right there."

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

Nieporent will now come ina nd claim the FDA is a fascist organization, of course.

Well, that's a different argument. One he can have with you if he wants, but not me.

I'm pretty sure that hGH is not a PED, and I think the furor over it in the anti-doping community is misplaced. But like I said in a different thread, although I disagree with MLB's policy on hGH, I agree with FDA. Whether they're fascist or not, they exist in large part to protect the citizens of the USA from quackery, especially quackery that involves potentially dangerous substances.

"My TV broke and I said, 'Damn, I got to get it off the dresser,'" Radomski said Wednesday. "And it was right there."

That really bothered me, as I thought the Feds were supposed to have searched his place. If they did, and they missed something like that, then they did a really half-assed job. It wouldn't surprise me if more receipts keep slipping out over the next couple months, whenever Radomski decides to clean things a little.

I agree with FDA. Whether they're fascist or not, they exist in large part to protect the citizens of the USA from quackery, especially quackery that involves potentially dangerous substances.

Of course. Even doctors with honest intentions lack the expertise to keep up with the latest pros and cons of the various new drugs emerging. So how can you expect the average citizen to? That's what we pay the FDA to do, to make evaluations on things we have neither the time, the training nor the inclination to do for ourselves.

kevin,

i still didn't get no answer from you

- leaving doctors/FDA/govt out -

lets try powdered aloe extract. which is legal and NOT a FDA drug. a person buys and uses it because he THINKS it will act like testosterone and give him bigger muscles. but what it DOES do to the body really is give diarrhea and has no affect at ALL on anything else.

since you don't want to use the word "placebo" to describe a substance that a person use because he THINKS it will do something to his body that it DOESN'T do but in fact does something else, WHAT WORD IS CORRECT HERE so i don't keep getting told by you that i used the wrong word?

because you know damm good and welll that i am NOT saying that HGH has zero effect on a human body, just that i can't find any evidence that it has any effect on the athletic performance of a young male baseball player. AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!!!!!! and whether or not you do/don't have to have a prescription is NOT relevant!!!!!

140. kevin Posted: July 17, 2008 at 09:33 AM (#2862066)

I agree with FDA. Whether they're fascist or not, they exist in large part to protect the citizens of the USA from quackery, especially quackery that involves potentially dangerous substances.


Of course. Even doctors with honest intentions lack the expertise to keep up with the latest pros and cons of the various new drugs emerging. So how can you expect the average citizen to? That's what we pay the FDA to do, to make evaluations on things we have neither the time, the training nor the inclination to do for ourselves.

Of course this is correct. But, if an athlete knows these risks, weighs them with consult of a doctor, and STILL wants to do HGH you think he shouldn't be able to? Why is it any different than smoking?

But, if an athlete knows these risks, weighs them with consult of a doctor, and STILL wants to do HGH you think he shouldn't be able to?

Because he's compelling his peers in his chosen profession to do the same thing agains their will.

Players also shouldn't be given a special dispensation from existing drug laws.

Finally, a doctor advising a player to take these substances would be violating their oath to do no harm. This is why the players seem to be getting their stuff either through black or gray markets and not legitimately through reputable physicians.

And, if you ask me, cigarettes should be subject to regulation by the FDA. They're clearly a drug.

Of course this is correct. But, if an athlete knows these risks, weighs them with consult of a doctor, and STILL wants to do HGH you think he shouldn't be able to? Why is it any different than smoking?

Smoking is legal, but only under certain restrictions - you can't just smoke wherever and whenever you feel like it. HGH is the same way - its use is legal, but only under a defined set of circumstances, and for a defined set of conditions.

If athletes want to go ahead and use it for one of the non-approved applications, that's fine. However, they have to understand and assume the legal risks of their actions, in addition to the medical ones.

"It was addressed to Clemens as a hold for Brian McNamee," Radomski said. "Brian knows what he did with it. They signed for it, because all my packages you always had to sign for. Brian never signed for the package. The package got there before Brian got down there."

Whoops. There goes the claim that Radomski sent it to Clemens. Yes, he sent it to Clemens' house, but he was intending it for McNamee. Which means McNamee ordered it, which means this doesn't do a thing to bolster McNamee's story.

You can only smoke in certain places because of the public health issues associated with 2nd hand smoke. Where's the public health issue with HGH?

And Kevin's arguments are of course, in the realm of whether MLB should restrict/prohibit HGH, not why the government should make HGH illegal. I don't think athletes should get special dispensation from the drug laws, I just dont see a good justifctaion for outlawing HGH from a govt standpoint.

And Kevin's arguments are of course, in the realm of whether MLB should restrict/prohibit HGH, not why the government should make HGH illegal.

Is that how it should work? MLB should function as a health-advisory agency?

How about give the mining companies sole authority on how much coal dust or aspestos it's safe to inhale while we're at it? Because if you're going to allow MLB health expert status, then you're going to have to allow it for everyone else too.

No, kevin, you're overreaching. MLB should look to FDA to decide whether HGH represents a health hazard such that this 'compulsion' issue you state warrants them to take action. MLB doesnt decide health matters, it decides what's best for its sport.

I don't think athletes should get special dispensation from the drug laws, I just dont see a good justifctaion for outlawing HGH from a govt standpoint.

And that's a reasonable position, assuming that HGH doesn't actually impact health in a notably negative way. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), at this point, HGH is currently a government regulated substance, and athletes are (much as the rest of us) subject to these same laws.

Should these laws be changed, however, I agree that the issue then becomes a matter of personal regulation and choice, and possibly a matter for collective bargaining between the union and the owners.

Whether they're fascist or not, they exist in large part to protect the citizens of the USA from quackery, especially quackery that involves potentially dangerous substances.

Well, apparently some fascism is good fascism.

How about give the mining companies sole authority on how much coal dust or aspestos it's safe to inhale while we're at it? Because if you're going to allow MLB health expert status, then you're going to have to allow it for everyone else too.

Ohmygod! What if everyone could decide for themselves how much risk to accept? Then we might be free! We can't have that!

the amount of dust behind the tv must have been a foot tall.

if an athlete knows these risks, weighs them with consult of a doctor, and STILL wants to do HGH you think he shouldn't be able to? Why is it any different than smoking?

Because we got it wrong on nicotine? Seriously, though, why should any scheduled drug be different from any non-scheduled drug? Well, the answer is that we, through our elected legislators and their appointed regulators, have decided that there are risks associated with off-label use of these substances that outweigh the potential benefits.

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is about. I don't see how MLB could specifically condone illegal drug use, regardless of the soundness of the basis for a specific drug being illegal. Now, I happen to think that MLB would still ban hGH even if FDA decided to lift the prohibition on off-label use, but that's purely hypothetical and an entirely different matter. But as of right now, FDA is deciding the health matters, not MLB, so what's your objection?

Nieporent will now come ina nd claim the FDA is a fascist organization, of course.

From David:

Well, apparently some fascism is good fascism.

Looks like someone nailed that one on the head.

No, kevin, you're overreaching. MLB should look to FDA to decide whether HGH represents a health hazard such that this 'compulsion' issue you state warrants them to take action.

The FDA already has ruled on hGH, and the recommended usages are included in the licensing agreement. That's why it's scheduled. So, if MLB is looking to the FDA on how they should proceed, the question has already been settled. The players should NOT be using it.

Ohmygod! What if everyone could decide for themselves how much risk to accept? Then we might be free!

No. We might be dead. Which is why regulatory authorties exist in the first place. Private companies who's primary motive is profit have shown themselves to be incapable of policing themselves. That's also why the founding fathers imbedded checks and balances in the constitution as well. Self-interest and the profit motive imbeds a conflict of interest that often encourages corruption and scandal that isn't in the public interest.

Well, apparently some fascism is good fascism.

Yeah, I don't believe that all government regulation is intrinsically evil, and I don't lose any sleep worrying about whether libertarians might make semi-clever jokes at my expense because I feel that way.

the amount of dust behind the tv must have been a foot tall.

Except that the article clearly said under the TV, rather than behind:

Radomski said he found that receipt, along with "seven or eight others" for shipments to other baseball players, under the TV.

With that being said, it still reflects poorly on anyone who searched Radomski's home. He'll probably find more receipts next week when he opens his desk drawer, or looks in the cupboard.

With that being said, it still reflects poorly on anyone who searched Radomski's home. He'll probably find more receipts next week when he opens his desk drawer, or looks in the cupboard.

Maybe it was a real big tv. The feds get bad backs, too.

No fair enough. I got that.

I did find it funny that this drug dealer, not only kept receipts of his illegal activity's, but when questioned as to the other players within the receipts, didn't know. Yet knew exactly what he shipped to Roger. Its all to bizarre.

bbc, someone who is convinced to take lipitor to make his penis larger has been scammed.

Sort of like someone who is convinced to take hGH for anything, unless he or she happens to be a child who isn't growing?

As I said later in that post, I don't know.

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is about. I don't see how MLB could specifically condone illegal drug use, regardless of the soundness of the basis for a specific drug being illegal.

MLB can't "condone" it in the sense of handing out hGH shots in the locker room or putting out a memorandum saying, "We order everyone to use hGH on pain of firing."

They can "condone" it in the sense of saying, "It's none of our business." If I get speeding tickets, you know what my senior partner says? Nothing. He couldn't give a crap. Does he punish or sanction me? No. Is he "condoning" it? In a sense. Is it okay if he does so? Yes. An employer is not required to enforce criminal laws, except insofar as those laws impose a specific obligation on him -- a very narrow set of circumstances. (For instance, if I stole from a client, he is legally obligated to report me and to notify the client.)

Ohmygod! What if everyone could decide for themselves how much risk to accept? Then we might be free!

No. We might be dead.

True. Then again, we all die eventually. The question is whether we live first.

True. Then again, we all die eventually. The question is whether we live first.

Hey, if you want to check out prematurely, then by all means be my guest. Nobody's stopping you.

Sane Joe Bivens, Permanent Guardian Posted: July 17, 2008 at 11:34 AM (#2862172)

bbc, someone who is convinced to take lipitor to make his penis larger has been scammed.

- agree

and at this particular time, i think that a baseball player who is convinced to take HGH to improve his baseball performance has been scammed. because i don't see that it is different then taking amoxicillin or any other prescription drug or flaxseed oil or whatever to improve his baseball performance.

and by the way i know that it is against the law to take ANY prescription drug without a prescription.

but the whole question is to me - if roger did take a prescription drug that he got illegally, should that be looked any different then if he had taken amoxicillin?

and i say no

because even kevin admits that he has no evidence that HGH is a baseball performance enhancing drug

i think it is actually like what i said earlier - like men eating powdered rhino horn because they think it will give them a bigger penis. it is what they THINK that makes them take it. because it has zero affect on a penis medically

because even kevin admits that he has no evidence that HGH is a baseball performance enhancing drug

Just because I'm not convinced hGH is a PED doesn't mean it isn't one. All it means is there is a sufficient paucity of data that to make a judgment one way or the other is inadvisable.

If I get speeding tickets, you know what my senior partner says? Nothing. He couldn't give a crap. Does he punish or sanction me?

Improper analogy. How about if he catches you cooking the books or double-payrolling yourself? Does he sanction you then? Of course he does.

And what of your officemates? What if they went to your boss and complained that your speeding was compelling them to speed too and they didn't want to endanger their lives? What do you think your boss would say to you then?

i think it is actually like what i said earlier - like men eating powdered rhino horn because they think it will give them a bigger penis. it is what they THINK that makes them take it. because it has zero affect on a penis medically

Now I really feel guilty about taking that rhino's horn.

I did find it funny that this drug dealer, not only kept receipts of his illegal activity's, but when questioned as to the other players within the receipts, didn't know. Yet knew exactly what he shipped to Roger. Its all to bizarre.

Well, he remembered enough to know that they had all already been named in the Mitchell report, which he stated. It's also reasonable to expect that it wasn't hard for him to recognize the one receipt as relating to Roger, since it did have his name on it (in addition to McNamee's).

Also, as a dealer, he needs to keep some form of records, so that he knows whether or not he's filled his "orders", or what "orders" he has. Strangely enough, to be effective as a certain type of criminal, you often need a reputation for honesty and trustworthiness. His personal records are just one way of assisting in presenting that trustworthiness.

How about if he catches you cooking the books or double-payrolling yourself? Does he sanction you then?

What if an attorney submits billable hours that do not accurately reflect the number of actual hours worked on a client's behalf? That's fraud any way you slice it.

Not only do most firms encourage this behavior, but the level of abuse required to get any substantial disciplinary action by the bar association itself is so extreme that it's understood in the industry as standard practice. It's really a repulsive aspect of the profession and part of the reason I got out of personal injury defense.

Exactly, CB. Corruption in any form is repulsive.

CrosbyBird Posted: July 17, 2008 at 12:05 PM (#2862200)

i think it is actually like what i said earlier - like men eating powdered rhino horn because they think it will give them a bigger penis. it is what they THINK that makes them take it. because it has zero affect on a penis medically

Now I really feel guilty about taking that rhino's horn.

- don't feel bad
i should have known better than to click on that email that said Mr. Lisa Gray, you can grow 8"

Improper analogy. How about if he catches you cooking the books or double-payrolling yourself? Does he sanction you then? Of course he does.

No, it's a proper analogy. My taking money from him costs him money. My speeding does not. And a player's use of steroids does not.

And what of your officemates? What if they went to your boss and complained that your speeding was compelling them to speed too and they didn't want to endanger their lives? What do you think your boss would say to you then?

I think he'd tell them to grow up, and find another job if they don't like the working conditions at this one.

In any case, that's an improper analogy, since ballplayers' officemates didn't complain. It would be more like, "What if a moralistic schmuck with too much free time on his hands complained to my boss that my speeding was endangering my officemates, even though my officemates didn't care?"


And, once again, Kevin manages to make comments irrelevant to the point. Someone talked about whether MLB could "condone" the use of hGH if hGH is illegal. I pointed out that a business is free to "condone" illegal acts by employees if it chooses, if by "condone" you mean "not care about."

They can "condone" it in the sense of saying, "It's none of our business."

OK. Possibly poor word choice on my part. As I said, I disagree with MLB's activist policy WRT hGH. I would prefer that they more or less ignore it, since I really do not think it's much of a PED (if it even is one at all) and I further believe that continually calling attention to it as a) undectable and b) a PED is likely to lead to more use rather than less.

So let me try again: given the current state of public opinion on the subject of PEDs and the current state of the law on hGH, if an MLB player is caught up in a federal investigation of hGH distribution, I do not think that MLB can afford to be perceived as condoning the use of this illegal drug by its players.

My taking money from him costs him money. My speeding does not. And a player's use of steroids does not.

An individual players use of steroids (assuming that steroids positively effect performance) effects other players monetarily. Thus, assuming that steroids improve performance, players should care about whether others with whom they are competing for jobs are using steroids to enhance their performance.

Additionally, with respect to MLB, numerous surveys have indicated that fans are anti-steroid (for whatever it's worth) and would prefer to see "clean" players. If MLB gives a "clean" game to the fans, which is what they claim to want (assuming that fans aren't lying), isn't it reasonable to expect that revenues would increase? If so, then the use of steroids by players are costing their employers money.

Basically, an isolated players' use of steroids potentially costs both his co-workers and his employers money (assuming that steroids enhance performance, and fans really do want to see a "clean" game).

So let me try again: given the current state of public opinion on the subject of PEDs and the current state of the law on hGH, if an MLB player is caught up in a federal investigation of hGH distribution, I do not think that MLB can afford to be perceived as condoning the use of this illegal drug by its players.

That's a fair statement, although I would say less because of public opinion than because of the fear of being hauled before Congress again.

seeking a clever screen name since 1999 Posted: July 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM (#2862233)

They can "condone" it in the sense of saying, "It's none of our business."

OK. Possibly poor word choice on my part. As I said, I disagree with MLB's activist policy WRT hGH. I would prefer that they more or less ignore it, since I really do not think it's much of a PED (if it even is one at all) and I further believe that continually calling attention to it as a) undectable and b) a PED is likely to lead to more use rather than less.

- agree

So let me try again: given the current state of public opinion on the subject of PEDs and the current state of the law on hGH, if an MLB player is caught up in a federal investigation of hGH distribution, I do not think that MLB can afford to be perceived as condoning the use of this illegal drug by its players.

- agree
because too many customers believe that use of that particular chemical is a bad thing, and therefore its KNOWN (condoned) use is bad for business. same thing with androstenedione, which you used to be able to buy offn the shelf, which NOW has been shown to actually not build muscle at all - at least in males. no idea what it does to females, but since we don't play MLB, don't nobody really care

I would say less because of public opinion than because of the fear of being hauled before Congress again.

That is also a fair statement.

I think he'd tell them to grow up, and find another job if they don't like the working conditions at this one.

Yeah, sure he would, Dave. In fact, the office would be empty in two weeks and all your office mates would be working for the rival firm across town if he told them he didn't care what they thought and they should go on endangering their lives just because the a$$hole in the next cublicle insisted on doing it.

In any case, that's an improper analogy, since ballplayers' officemates didn't complain.

Well, you're wrong about that too because a lot of players, and a lot of trainers, did complain. They just did so privately so as not to precipitate a public scandal (see: Joyner, W).

Give it up, Nieporent. This argument of yours is such a loser for you. You're as bad as Dick Cheney.

An individual players use of steroids (assuming that steroids positively effect performance) effects other players monetarily. Thus, assuming that steroids improve performance, players should care about whether others with whom they are competing for jobs are using steroids to enhance their performance.

First, I thought we were talking about hGH.
Second, if by "should" you mean "ought to," then it's an odd statement; how can someone decide what someone ought to care about? If OTOH by "should" you're simply making a prediction, then it seems empirically like an inaccurate prediction. The vast majority of players didn't seem to care. (For instance, players who used PEDs didn't seem to conceal it very diligently from other players, and in addition players who have been revealed to have used PEDs didn't and don't seem to have suffered any ostracism from their peers as a result.)

Additionally, with respect to MLB, numerous surveys have indicated that fans are anti-steroid (for whatever it's worth) and would prefer to see "clean" players. If MLB gives a "clean" game to the fans, which is what they claim to want (assuming that fans aren't lying), isn't it reasonable to expect that revenues would increase? If so, then the use of steroids by players are costing their employers money.

And once again, I think a prediction must give way to empirical observation, which is that fans don't seem to actually care. Even the most rabid anti-steroid jihadists here didn't/don't seem to have put their money where their mouth was. Just because people claim to disapprove doesn't mean that they care.

Even the most rabid anti-steroid jihadists here didn't/don't seem to have put their money where their mouth was. Just because people claim to disapprove doesn't mean that they care.

so true.

And what of your officemates? What if they went to your boss and complained that your speeding was compelling them to speed too and they didn't want to endanger their lives? What do you think your boss would say to you then?

Piss off?

Second, if by "should" you mean "ought to," then it's an odd statement; how can someone decide what someone ought to care about?

When we ask them to. For example, we have collectively asked the FDA to investigate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of new drugs for us because we have neither the time, training nor inclination to do it for ourselves. And we have granted them the power to license or not license them. Now, whether you like it or not, that's what we've done. And if people are taking it upon themselves to go off the reservation and ignore the ramifications of such an agreement when it suits them, then they're going to have to pay the price for that.

We live in a complex society. As such, we have to trade some freedoms in order to safeguard others. Almost everyone gladly allows the FDA to investigate drugs for them so they don't have to spend every waking hour trying to figure out for themselves whether some new medication is going to cause their teeth to fall out or their nads to shrivel up overnight if they take it.

Maybe you disagree. Tough. That's the country we live in and the insitutions we have built to regulate the things we have no time to do ourselves were created by concensus agreement. You don't like it? Buy an island:

Island Real Estate

First, I thought we were talking about hGH.

You clearly stated steroids in your comment, as it was quoted.

Second, if by "should" you mean "ought to," then it's an odd statement; how can someone decide what someone ought to care about? If OTOH by "should" you're simply making a prediction, then it seems empirically like an inaccurate prediction. The vast majority of players didn't seem to care. (For instance, players who used PEDs didn't seem to conceal it very diligently from other players, and in addition players who have been revealed to have used PEDs didn't and don't seem to have suffered any ostracism from their peers as a result.)

This was a response to your statement that, since an action like an individual taking steroids doesn't cost other people money, then others shouldn't care or act against it. Steroid use by one individual in MLB does cost other individuals money (assuming that steroids improve performance). Thus, by your reasoning, it should be a cause of concern to other players. I agree whether or not they do care is unclear - as you note, they don't seem to have isolated the players who were caught using, but they did agree to much more extensive testing and penalties (under outside pressure).

And once again, I think a prediction must give way to empirical observation, which is that fans don't seem to actually care. Even the most rabid anti-steroid jihadists here didn't/don't seem to have put their money where their mouth was. Just because people claim to disapprove doesn't mean that they care.

I agree with you as well, which was why I qualified it with "which is what they claim to want (assuming that fans aren't lying)". I'm far too aware that people will often give what they perceive to be the right answer to a survey, even if they don't happen to believe it.

Piss off?

And that would be followed by a scenario like the one in that old TiVo commercial where the exec gets tossed out the skyscraper window.

I guess when Nieporent talks about freedom, he's only speaking about the freedoms he cares about, and not the ones others care about.

Sound a little like fascism to you too?

Well, you're wrong about that too because a lot of players, and a lot of trainers, did complain. They just did so privately so as not to precipitate a public scandal (see: Joyner, W).

Joyner didn't complain privately, whatever that means. He just decided not to use himself, apparently -- after first deciding to. (Of course, he used the same line as everyone who people disbelieve: "He tried them a couple of times and then decided not to use them after that.") And the caveat doesn't make sense anyway; if they cared so much, they would have complained publicly. Apparently they really didn't care enough to take action.

Yeah, sure he would, Dave. In fact, the office would be empty in two weeks and all your office mates would be working for the rival firm across town if he told them he didn't care what they thought and they should go on endangering their lives just because the a$$hole in the next cublicle insisted on doing it.

Uh, yeah. That's why BigLaw can't get any associates to work for them: people go to the rival firm across town when the firms explain the crappy work conditions they'll have to endure. (Endangering lives? No. Marriages? Yes. You try billing 2500 hours.)

And once again, I think a prediction must give way to empirical observation, which is that fans don't seem to actually care.

FAIL.

I guess when Nieporent talks about freedom, he's only speaking about the freedoms he cares about, and not the ones others care about.

You're free to quit your job any time you don't like what the job requires.

And once again, I think a prediction must give way to empirical observation, which is that fans don't seem to actually care.

For instance, even the biggest jihadist here looks the other way when Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz use steroids, because they're on his favorite team.

You're free to quit your job any time you don't like what the job requires.

So, I'm not free to make my job safer so I'll continue to be healthy enough to perform it adequately? Gotcha, Dave.


Announcement to all BTFers: The only freedoms you have are the ones Nieporent is willing to allow you to have.

So, I'm not free to make my job safer so I'll continue to be healthy enough to perform it adequately?

You're free to make your job safer for you, but not for the rest of us who may have a different cost/benefit analysis than you do. Or you can open your own office where you control the safety standards and set up tighter requirements. Or you can find a place to work that has a safety environment that more precisely suits your needs.

You are also free to sue your employer if he is creating an unsafe environment. If it rises to the level of legitimate negligence, you'll win some money for your troubles.

You're free to make your job safer for you, but not for the rest of us who may have a different cost/benefit analysis than you do.

But, of course, others are equally free to make my job less safe for me or risk losing it.

Not sure where you're going here but it's certainly towards fascist territory.

You are also free to sue your employer if he is creating an unsafe environment.

Instead of inundating the court system with millions upon millions of wrongful injury and death suits, wouldn't is be a little easier, efficient and regretless to set work guidelines that establish mutually agreed upon safety standards?

Doesn't that make just a little more sense?

Instead of inundating the court system with millions upon millions of wrongful injury and death suits, wouldn't is be a little easier, efficient and regretless to set work guidelines that establish mutually agreed upon safety standards?

Doesn't that make just a little more sense?

It would, if they were actually "mutually agreed upon." But they're not; they're imposed by the government.

It wasn't imposed by the government. It was imposed upon the government by a public victimized by all the abuses occcurring in the drug industry and demanding action.

David, you lost. Give it up. This argument you continue to engage in is a loser for you. End it while you still have a strand of dignity left.

It wasn't imposed by the government.

Uh, yes, it was, my fascist young friend. And by friend, I don't actually mean friend.

No, it wasn't. Read Upton Sinclair.

I don't think even you would regard Upton Sinclair as a fascist.

Again, every time you open your mouth, the depth of your ignorance just gets exposed more and more. Give it up. This line of argument is a total loser for you. That's my advice to you, my friend. And by friend, I mean hopelessly overmatched student.

I guess when Nieporent talks about freedom, he's only speaking about the freedoms he cares about, and not the ones others care about.

You're free to quit your job any time you don't like what the job requires.

So that's a confirmation....


What's so fascinating about the DMN/Kevin debates, are ones like this, Kevin's right (more or less), and Nieporent is wrong (more or less), but Kevin can't actually win the debate because DMN is a much better debater, who stays calm and seemingly rational (I said seemingly for a reason), whereas Kevin comes off as slightly insane even when he's right about something.

but Kevin can't actually win the debate because DMN is a much better debater

I've already won the debate. I won it 4 years ago. I just enjoy pounding Nieporent into the ground. Apparently, he enjoys being pounded into the ground becaue he keeps coming back for more.

That you think Nieporent is a good debater after you yourself posted this:

104. JPWF13 Posted: July 16, 2008 at 04:34 PM (#2861684)

here's no evidence that ballplayers think it improves performance


Dave Dave Dave why do you have to offer up such a softball to Kevin?

makes me think you're even more batshit than he is. And that's saying something.

What's so fascinating about the DMN/Kevin debates, are ones like this, Kevin's right (more or less), and Nieporent is wrong (more or less), but Kevin can't actually win the debate because DMN is a much better debater, who stays calm and seemingly rational (I said seemingly for a reason), whereas Kevin comes off as slightly insane even when he's right about something.

So I take it that Kevin and DMN did not sit next to each other at the Orioles game meet up? In most years, I would say that meet up would have more interesting than the Orioles game itself.

No, it wasn't. Read Upton Sinclair.

1) Upton Sinclair was a novelist.
2) That doesn't have the foggiest thing to do with what I said. (*)

I don't think even you would regard Upton Sinclair as a fascist.

Sinclair was an avowed socialist. Since socialism and fascism are really just two forms of statism, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. They're both ideologies that seek to use government to impose their will on the public to fulfill their utopian visions.

Sinclair, incidentally, correctly understood that the government response to The Jungle was done for the benefit of the industry, not the public.


(*) EDIT: To elaborate on this point, you seem to think that if a particular law is popular, it therefore is not an infringement on our freedom. But tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

1) Upton Sinclair was a novelist.
2) That doesn't have the foggiest thing to do with what I said. (*)

Good lord:

Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr. (September 20, 1878 – November 25, 1968), was a Pulitzer Prize-winning prolific American author who wrote over 90 books in many genres and was widely considered to be one of the best investigators advocating socialist views. He achieved considerable popularity in the first half of the 20th century. He gained particular fame for his 1906 muckraking novel The Jungle, which dealt with conditions in the U.S. meat packing industry and caused a public uproar that partly contributed to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act in 1906.[1]

So yes, it does have something to do with what you're talking about. It has everything to do with what you're talking about.

Sinclair was an avowed socialist. Since socialism and fascism are really just two forms of statism, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other

As opposed to having private entities impose their will, as you are clearly advocating in this very thread? For instance, you are advocting that individuals be forced to take drugs against their will in order to keep their jobs. That's fascism.
What difference does it make from whence tyranny comes, as long as it comes?

To elaborate on this point, you seem to think that if a particular law is popular, it therefore is not an infringement on our freedom.

The reason drugs laws are popular is because they are liberating, not confining. We are making a small concession in freedom in order to gain a much larger one back. Of course laws like that are going to be popular.