User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.0926 seconds
61 querie(s) executed
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.
Uh oh. Since they were banned at the time does this mean he could be suspended?
Or maybe he'll get the Giambi treatment.
I listened to about five minutes of sports talk radio (a mistake I know), and what kind of irks me is that people are using this as evidence that baseball still hasn't cleaned up its act. This and the Ankiel story happened in 2004. How is this evidence that baseball hasn't cleaned up its act? I'm not naive enough to think that baseball is a tight ship now, but I don't see how these kind of stories show baseball is tainted now.
Just wait until SI finds photos of naked Jeter and A-rod, injecting steroids in each other's butts.
Wait? Hell, that's my screensaver.
I think they should suspend Erstad for life, just in case.
I blame Sandfrog.
I understand what you're saying. But Ankiel's linked to hGH and MLB STILL doesn't test for it (even though it's banned). In the case of Glaus, the intro here explicitly says that these things were banned at the time he used them. Now, they've jacked up the penalties considerably since that time, but these stories do suggest that there may still be a culture in baseball on the part of players of trying to stay one step ahead of the testers.
Then I hope it's Michael Kay.
You can't test for something that a test doesn't exist for.
well you can test for it, but it does you no good- we (99% of us) all have some levels of HGH in our systems anyway, our bodies make the stuff, it's a naturally occurring substance.
What is needed (and not yet available) is a test to determine whether or not the HGH in your system was there naturally.
"Hey guys, let's pretend we're that cool band Menudo!"
So the steroid shipments match up with him trying to deal with some serious medical problems. Maybe he saw them as a last resort before opting for surgery.
(sigh)
Ah well, hopefully soon folks will realize steroids were an era, not just a few bad apples looking for an edge.
Well, he's paying the price now...he's still young but look at the time he has missed (and doubtless will continue to miss.)
Best Regards
John
The sunken-chested pencil neck is Rey Ordonez. I think the other is Alex Gonzalez, Blue Jays version.
Teh article about the 10 WWE wrestlers suspended said there were 24 MLB ballplayer on the Signature lists. If Ankiel and Glaus came from these lists, then, yes, we can expect more. In other news....
RODNEY HARRISON!
RODNEY HARRISON!
its football. Who cares?
I asked this question in the other thread, Are prescription steroids legal in baseball?
I was thinking everyone except for Shinjo.
I was thinking everyone but Eckstein.
That depends. Is 45 a tidal wave?
Ankiel's linked to hGH and MLB STILL doesn't test for it (even though it's banned)
Nobody tests for it. That's because you can't test for it. That, in turn, is because it disappears from the blood and urine within hours of being injected. You'd have to test every player every day to catch the hGH users. Even if you don't care about imposing that on the athletes, it would present a bit of a logistical challenge, no?
I didn't mean to blame MLB for not testing for hGH. But because they don't test for it, it's still a relevant issue and not one that MLB can really come out and believably argue is one that they've "solved".
"Were"?
1. The drop in home run rate from 2006 to 2007 has been well within normal year-to-year variation.
2. There was a similar-sized rise in home run rate from 2005 to 2006.
3. Both runs scored and slugging average in 2007 are right around exactly where they've been since 2000.
Oh stop muddying up theories with facts.
Following the lead of Mike Greenwell/Jose Canseco, shouldn't Barry Bonds issue a public statement demanding that Glaus' dirty award be rightly given to him?
Oops. My bad :-) Maybe I was speaking prophetically?
Best Regards
John
Overshadowing what it really is...live ball era, part whatever.
In 2003 they tested but but only to determine if a stronger policy was needed (at least 5% of players positive?). In 2004 they tested but there was no penalty until a second offense. So Glaus may have tested positive.
Just out of curiousity, does anybody know if such a "positive" counts against you going forward? In other words, if Glaus tested positive once in 2004 and he tested positive again tomorrow, would he be suspended for 50 games (1st offense) or 100 games (2nd offense)?
I was thinking everyone but Eckstein
I think it would be far more awesome if Eckstein were caught on roids.
If Glaus was on roids before, I sure wish he'd get the #### back on them.
Also Francisco Rodriguez was definitely juicing. Because I hate him.
Suspicions sank some D-Backs
Hmmm. Who did the Dbacks "quietly" get rid of before the 2006 season? I can think of Troy Glaus, Javy Vazquez, Alex Cintron, Luis Terrero...
Ha, who remembers when (San Francisco) Mayor (Frank) Jordan, while running for reelection in 1995 against Willie Brown, posed for photos NAKED in the shower WITH TWO MORNING RADIO DISC JOCKEYs? He was NOT reelected.
Yeah, that was great when the Angels beat the Giants in the 2003 World Series.
Thanks AROM. I think if MLB could help restore it's creditibility by testing every player monthly. I have the sinking feeling that they test once or twice a year or something. I'm not sure how long steroids stay in your system, and I hope that MLB is testing for masking agents and trying to test guys randomly (i.e., a week after their scheduled tests). But I fear they are testing haphazardly.
Assuming it was true from 1997 through 2004, what leads you to believe it still isn't true in 2007?
The White Sox wanted there to be mandatory testing and were planning to all decline to be tested. The union talked them out of it.
A few more quiet DBack transactions:
October 27, 2005
Royce Clayton granted Free Agency.
Shawn Estes granted Free Agency.
October 28, 2005
Buddy Groom granted Free Agency.
December 7, 2005
Traded Lance Cormier and Oscar Villarreal to the Atlanta Braves. Received Johnny Estrada.
March 24, 2006
Released Felix Heredia.
Yes, you're right.
I was buying into sportswriters' ideas that there was a Steroid Era and we are now in the Post-Steroid Era in which Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols get the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe there was such an era, but the point is that there shouldn't be any scapegoats. Players do what they can to help their careers survive in a certain environment.
Because of the foolproof PED-testing program. And, of course, because of those ads on TV that show balls deflating.
That's how we know Everything Is Good Now.
Heredia was suspended in October 2005, and was with the Mets then, so Arizona would have had to have picked him up post-steroids. Which cuts against Kendrick.
Which of course the "media" is not claiming. Don't we want all the players to get the benefit of the doubt? You guys are precious. If they are not giving the players the benefit of the doubt, they're on witch hunts. If they are, it's b/c they're glossing over the current steroid era.
And meanwhile, of course, this is all being done by people who clawed against suggestions and insinuations that Bonds was using, who disrobed retro for suggesting Ankiel might be on something, and now have NO PROBLEM accusing some 50% of baseball of cheating. Well, it's always easy to blame the abstraction and pardon the individual, I guess.
Which of course the "media" is not claiming. Don't we want all the players to get the benefit of the doubt? You guys are precious. If they are not giving the players the benefit of the doubt, they're on witch hunts. If they are, it's b/c they're glossing over the current steroid era.
And meanwhile, of course, this is all being done by people who clawed against suggestions and insinuations that Bonds was using, who disrobed retro for suggesting Ankiel might be on something, and now have NO PROBLEM accusing some 50% of baseball of cheating. Well, it's always easy to blame the abstraction and pardon the individual, I guess.
the only person in MLB I'm certain isn't on HGH is David Samson!
Because of the foolproof PED-testing program. And, of course, because of those ads on TV that show balls deflating.
I thought deflating balls were one of the signs of PED use.
Don't worry, only here through Monday! (off on vacation for a month, sporadic primering during that time)
More importantly, each time a star-level player (Glaus has been there, on and off at least) is associated with PEDs, I'm sure a few BBWAA voters vow never to vote for any player (position player at least) from this era. Almost all of the players from 1993-present are going to have a hard time getting in, at least on the first ballot.
JC, I can tell you from experience that this line of reasoning usually gets you nowhere here. It's often "you can't prove that Bonds juiced" combined with "you don't know for sure that Ripken didn't." You have to look at this sort of thing with an anthropological eye to appreciate it to its fullest extent.
Just some of the most influential and prominent members of it. A couple days ago Boswell proclaimed a "Return to Normalcy," declaring in the first two sentences of his column that "The Steroid Era is over in baseball. A period that began almost 20 years ago has quietly receded while few were watching."
This isn't nearly so contradictory as you seem to be implying. Seriously. One needn't be an apologist for either users in general or any specific user in particular to find the MSM's behavior WRT the topic hypocritical. Or schizophrenic, I'm not quite sure which.
I prefer "laughable" myself.
Boswell's is a bad column, in my opinion, but I had it mind when I posted what I posted b/c he is certainly not claiming what I said the media is not claiming...
Here's from that column:
No sport is ever clean. Some athletes will always cheat, especially if they think they can afford an elite chemist who can beat the testing system. Also, in baseball, there is no blood testing -- the only method to detect human growth hormone. So suspicions, and defenses against performance-enhancing drugs, should not be relaxed.
Nobody (I'm aware of) is saying all is well. Though I do grant he thinks it's (paul) weller than I do.
There are plenty of criminals in America. That is not blaming the abstraction that is America, although it would certainly be nice if there was less crime. At the same time, I oppose lynching individual suspects. There's no contradiction here.But both these statements are true. Of course, I don't think any less of Ripken simply because no-one can prove this negative - I'm happy to assume that he didn't take steroids, subject to future evidence of course. But presumably you would accept that the overwhelming likelihood is that there are a number of players from Ripken's era who took steroids and whose names are not yet known. That doesn't give me (or anyone else) the right to point fingers at Ripken without good evidence, of course.
Of course that's true, Larry. And mind, there's been no evidence that Cintron or Terrero used steroiods (even though one may question Cintron's 2003 season or Terrero's rage episodes in the minors). I was just listing players under contract for 2006 who were traded or released before the season started. You could throw in Royce Clayton in that category if you want... :)
As JC said to E-X the other day, "Pretty unhelpful comment(s), no?"
Andy's basic point--that we have a very strong circumstantial case against Bonds and no particular reason to suspect many other guys whose names get thrown around--is well-taken.
But, I think the idea that a whole hell of a lot of players were/are using is certainly worth discussing and that can be done without it being a "witch hunt" IMO, since "witch hunt" suggests that one wants to severely punish/ostracize the presumed witches when one finds them and that they are a small minority that represents a great danger to the group. Saying one thinks a bunch of players were/are using is not really a "witch hunt." So, I agree that the whole stance is not really all that contradictory in many respects.
I said a few weeks ago that I'd guess that pre-testing you had maybe 5-10% of guys seriously using and 25-35% who had tried some form of steroid/PED.
Now, hard to say. You have the hGH detectability issue, possible new variations that escape testing, and the way the program itself is set up. In spite of that, I think it is reasonable to assume the number of users has declined, at least somewhat, due to the testing.
But that's Boswell using the classic CYA tool of journalists doing "news analysis" pieces or, in Boswell's cause, a column. It's even got a name: the "To Be Sure" paragraph - an escape hatch you leave for yourself. Every other paragraph, the entire thrust of the column, from the headline to the lede to the final graf, is that "all is well" again in baseball. Not just "weller."
The stuff about Wily Mo was particularly cringe-inducing.
I can't quite fathom the mindset which holds the opposite -- that it's okay to attack people based on guesses and gossip but unfair to note that lots of criminal activity was going on.
And nice imputation of motive. Your on your A game tonight, aren't you? Game playing with commonly used words, insults, misrepresentations. Good stuff, DMN.
But both these statements are true. Of course, I don't think any less of Ripken simply because no-one can prove this negative - I'm happy to assume that he didn't take steroids, subject to future evidence of course. But presumably you would accept that the overwhelming likelihood is that there are a number of players from Ripken's era who took steroids and whose names are not yet known. That doesn't give me (or anyone else) the right to point fingers at Ripken without good evidence, of course.
No argument with any of this, especially since you include that last sentence. See my response to rr below.
-----------
Andy's basic point--that we have a very strong circumstantial case against Bonds and no particular reason to suspect many other guys whose names get thrown around--is well-taken.
But, I think the idea that a whole hell of a lot of players were/are using is certainly worth discussing and that can be done without it being a "witch hunt" IMO, since "witch hunt" suggests that one wants to severely punish/ostracize the presumed witches when one finds them and that they are a small minority that represents a great danger to the group. Saying one thinks a bunch of players were/are using is not really a "witch hunt." So, I agree that the whole stance is not really all that contradictory in many respects.
rr, there's absolutely nothing objectionable about discussing the possibilities that "a bunch of players were / are using" steroids. I've never said that there was.
What is a tad slimy is the sort of segue that I referred to: the attempt to blur the distinction between the overwhelming likelihood that Bonds juiced and the almost nonexistent likelihood that Ripken did. In both cases the argument is essentially an attempt to convert "not-impossible" into "not proven," and to pretend that it's not kosher to make note of the difference between 99% and 1%. You don't do this, of course, but you've certainly seen others who have.
-----------
And meanwhile, of course, this is all being done by people who clawed against suggestions and insinuations that Bonds was using, who disrobed retro for suggesting Ankiel might be on something, and now have NO PROBLEM accusing some 50% of baseball of cheating. Well, it's always easy to blame the abstraction and pardon the individual, I guess.
I don't see why you and Andy have such trouble with this -- except that it negates your wish to attack specific people. You don't see a difference between "There was a lot of fraudulent activity going on at Enron" and "I accuse X, Y, and Z, of being criminals"? I don't know about you, but I have higher evidentiary standards for specifically accusing an individual than i do for making a general observation.
I can't quite fathom the mindset which holds the opposite -- that it's okay to attack people based on guesses and gossip but unfair to note that lots of criminal activity was going on.
Since this is coming from someone who's reduced the evidence against Bonds to "guesses and gossip," there's no real way even to address this without getting stuck into one of those "not proven" briar patches. I may be dumb, but even Br'er Bear learns a few things once in a while.
Yes, Glaus probably didn't even try to get steroids until they were being tested for in MLB...
We have evidence that many were using, at least to hear the users describe it.
And a higher percentage than that were using PEDs (or do you not consider amps PEDs this week?)
If he's not roiding, he should F!@#ing start.
But this is garbage. The 1% is pure fiction. There's no reason why the likelihood that Ripken used is "almost nonexistent."
But you're not rushing to defend Ripken's honor; if people were accusing Ripken based on the notion of a "steroids era," I'd agree with you that this was unfair. Nor are people using the notion of a "steroids era" to argue that Bonds didn't use steroids; if people were doing that, I'd agree with you that it was bad logic. Rather, what you're upset about is that if there were a "steroid era" -- if steroid use was widespread, commonplace, and accepted -- you can't single out one or two people for opprobrium.
See my post in the other thread for a response to your claim about "game playing." And I don't think I am misrepresenting your motive; I know I'm not misrepresenting Andy's. You want to point fingers. The only reason to object to talk about the "Steroid era" is that if it was accepted, then Bonds isn't a special case who deserves to be run out on a rail.
I don't think most employees at Enron were guilty of fraud -- I'm pretty sure janitors weren't concocting phony transactions to fill out the balance sheet -- but I think large numbers of people were complicit. They knew how much business they were doing. If you don't like that example, pick a different one. Pick slavery in the American south. It's legitimate to condemn the South as a whole for supporting slavery, but not to condemn individuals unless there's actual historical evidence that they owned slaves.
Have you been reading Primer today? We have someone spraining his shoulder rushing to pat himself on the back for guessing that Ankiel's performance was the result of PEDs, based on evidence that several years ago, Ankiel legally used a substance which probably isn't performance enhancing. Guesses and gossip indeed.
Was that me? I don't think so. I haven't said a word about Ankiel other than to repeat that I think that all OB players should be given random blood tests on a regular basis, and that the specimens should be kept and used if and when future methods of drug detection are found.
What is a tad slimy is the sort of segue that I referred to: the attempt to blur the distinction between the overwhelming likelihood that Bonds juiced and the almost nonexistent likelihood that Ripken did. In both cases the argument is essentially an attempt to convert "not-impossible" into "not proven," and to pretend that it's not kosher to make note of the difference between 99% and 1%. You don't do this, of course, but you've certainly seen others who have.
But this is garbage. The 1% is pure fiction. There's no reason why the likelihood that Ripken used is "almost nonexistent."
But you're not rushing to defend Ripken's honor; if people were accusing Ripken based on the notion of a "steroids era," I'd agree with you that this was unfair. Nor are people using the notion of a "steroids era" to argue that Bonds didn't use steroids; if people were doing that, I'd agree with you that it was bad logic. Rather, what you're upset about is that if there were a "steroid era" -- if steroid use was widespread, commonplace, and accepted -- you can't single out one or two people for opprobrium.
No, David, but I am asking that before one throws terms like "steroid era" around, one waits for a bit more evidence other than random estimates being thrown out by the likes of Canseco or the late whatsizname from the Padres.
If and when evidence emerges that the level of steroid usage in the "steroid era" was approaching (not reaching) 40% or 50%, then that would put Bonds's juicing in a different light. He'd still be guilty, but his relative PED advantage would have been reduced. We can argue about the specific percentages required to reformulate this, but in any case the operative words are "if and when."
Paging Tom Boswell. Mr. Boswell to the front again, please. You've got another customer.
The response there was terrible and nonresponsive. You did misrepresent his claims, and did insult him. But whatever. This is nonsense. Despite your claim, I don't give a #### about pointing fingers at anybody. Really, I don't. I don't give a damn about Bonds. I'm more interested in the rationalizations of people defending him. That is much more fascinating to me. I can understand very well Bonds as a product of this era in baseball. I've said he holds the HR record.
What I want is baseball preserved from PEDs. (Mock me for that, if you wish, as I'm sure you will.) And in terms of contradictions, I see no problem calling this the steroids era (even if the percentage of users is low) and still condemning those who are guilty. This is something we accept in the law all the time.
You sound more like a liberal than a libertarian individualist with each of these posts. But maybe I misunderstand your politics. I'm not going to touch slavery out of fear it'll ignite a different conversation, but your Enron example is fine for demonstrating what is wrong with your position. No matter what you're "pretty sure" about now, you'd be wrong to besmirch "Enron employees" in general for the problems of Enron, wouldn't you? To my mind it'd be akin to, say, condemning the entirety of the US for slavery. But people at this site, and I guess you're to be counted among them, have been accusing the entirety of baseball for the steroids problem, and I'm surprised you see enough evidence to do so.
Paging Tom Boswell. Mr. Boswell to the front again, please. You've got another customer.
I'll be glad to read any evidence that Boswell or any other writer presents. I'll be impressed if it's based on actual knowledge and not assumptions.
I guess you missed the point. Boswell throws the term around without reservation. You're asking people here not to do it; why not include one of the chief national agenda setters at the same time? Write him an email, send him a letter, accost him the next time you're in Oriole Park or RFK.
I hereby appoint you as my DH in this matter, Chip. Go for it.
I don't care about the term. You do, apparently.
Youneverknow; this accusation lines up exactly with when he'd be trying to come back from an injury, which in the absence of other evidence certainly is consistent with a guy trying to recover.
A positive in the first round of tests doesn't count going forward.
Bless you. Unfortunately maybe he is using and he'd be a lot smaller without it. I mean, how many people bruise their foreheads when they walk into a coffee table in a dark room, or need to hire a guide when they have to go into a room with deep pile carpeting?
Best Regards
John
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main