Baseball Steroid Thread

[Dan Gould]

Did anyone see the press conference with Ortiz?. I thought he came off very well and the players union guy came off even better According to Weiner, there could be 96 players on the list, not 104 as has been reported. Furthermore, some of those are disputed. The number of confirmed positives is 83, and that includes some players who may have tested positive more than once. And in some cases, the positives could have been triggered by andro, an over-the-counter supplement taken by players.

"David does not know if he tested positive," Weiner said, "or what he tested positive for. We did not tell him he tested positive. ... His reputation has been called into question. He does not know specifically why. And he can't get the information that would allow him to offer a full explanation."

To me what everyone should be more concerned with is that the U.S. government raided the labs and offices and broke the 4th amendment.

They didn't "raid" the labs like an out of control gang. They executed a valid search warrant and in the course of the execution walked out with more evidence than they specifically had a right to seize. It remains an open question whether they violated the 4th amendment.

As for Ortiz, I thought he might have done better in Spanish instead of English, because his statements weren't nearly as strong as they could have been. Of course he might have wanted to avoid the Palmiero finger-in-your-face denial. In a way, while it would be helpful to his case to say that he specifically recalls using whichever supplement it is that is now known to contain a particular steroid, being unable to identify the supplements plays into his claim of being "careless".

The bottom line though is that no one knows if he knowingly used but a lot of people are going to be cynical about it. Show me more proof and I'll declare him a cheat and a fraud. But there's no supporting evidence as we have with Bonds, no lawyering up like we have with McGuire, and absolutely no personal admission as we have with A-Rod. And as I said before, he's basically challenged anyone to prove him a liar and completely destroy his honor, dignity and integrity, and "place the needle in his ass" as it were.

[Tim McG]

He says took some vitamins...he was just careless about which ones he took.

Uh-huh.

Everyone who believes that, stand on your head.

[Dan Gould]

Can't go with my standby that this would be your opinion, which you are entitled to have, and that its wrong.

But here you are simply wrong on the facts.

Two of the nation’s leading specialists on sports doping said yesterday that at least one over-the-counter product legally available in 2003 (19-norandrostenedione) when Ortiz took his urine test could have yielded a positive result for steroids.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...area_of_doping/

[Tim McG]

The bottom line though is that no one knows if he knowingly used but a lot of people are going to be cynical about it. Show me more proof and I'll declare him a cheat and a fraud. But there's no supporting evidence as we have with Bonds, no lawyering up like we have with McGuire, and absolutely no personal admission as we have with A-Rod. And as I said before, he's basically challenged anyone to prove him a liar and completely destroy his honor, dignity and integrity, and "place the needle in his ass" as it were.

Seems to me you could be tanned with your own brush here.

No one knows if Bonds "knowingly" used them either, Dan.

Edited August 9, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Can't go with my standby that this would be your opinion, which you are entitled to have, and that its wrong.

But here you are simply wrong on the facts.

Two of the nation’s leading specialists on sports doping said yesterday that at least one over-the-counter product legally available in 2003 (19-norandrostenedione) when Ortiz took his urine test could have yielded a positive result for steroids.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/reds...area_of_doping/

It is what he was quoted as saying, Dan.

CNN aired it this morning:

"I definitely was a little bit careless back in those days when I was buying supplements and vitamins over the counter -- legal supplements, legal vitamins over the counter -- but I never buy steroids or use steroids,"

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/base...l#ixzz0NhPxOvSg

I mean, you just can't make this stuff up.

Edited August 9, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

Supplements, Timmy, supplements. I don't think he's stupid enough to believe vitamins called the positive test. And it is an established fact that at least one legally available supplement contained a steroid that would cause a positive test.

As for Bonds knowingly using - we've gone over this over and over again. No one with a brain can believe that he simply used flaxseed oil and an arthritis balm. And furthermore, the man who can definitively say what Bonds was told about these BALCO products is refusing to testify. He's never stood up and said "I never told Barry Bonds that these were steroids. Bonds didn't know these were steroids. Hell, he came to me and said his balls were shrinking, and I had to feign ignorance!"

No, his trainer and friend has refused to testify, taking the hit for Bonds, and for what? How much money will come his way or has already been put somewhere for his future use?

[Tim McG]

Supplements, Timmy, supplements. I don't think he's stupid enough to believe vitamins called the positive test. And it is an established fact that at least one legally available supplement contained a steroid that would cause a positive test.

As for Bonds knowingly using - we've gone over this over and over again. No one with a brain can believe that he simply used flaxseed oil and an arthritis balm. And furthermore, the man who can definitively say what Bonds was told about these BALCO products is refusing to testify. He's never stood up and said "I never told Barry Bonds that these were steroids. Bonds didn't know these were steroids. Hell, he came to me and said his balls were shrinking, and I had to feign ignorance!"

No, his trainer and friend has refused to testify, taking the hit for Bonds, and for what? How much money will come his way or has already been put somewhere for his future use?

That's your opinion and you are entittled to it.

But you are 100% wrong...and I quote:

The bottom line though is that no one knows if he knowingly used but a lot of people are going to be cynical about it.

Sorry, Danny....but getting a lawyer doesn't mean you're guilty any more than having a larger hat size proves you [knowingly] took steroids.

Again I quote:

Show me more proof and I'll declare him a cheat and a fraud.

We still do not have the same proof you are demanding of those who say Bonds "knowingly" was on the juice any more so than we do with Ortiz "knowingly" was on the juice.

But Ortiz tested positive.

Manny got 50 days.

A-Rod got a free pass from the NY press.

Bonds was never suspended nor tested positive.

I seriously do not know how you can unequivocally delare one a cheat and reserve judgement on your guy Ortiz all in the same breath. It is pure conjecture either way you want to go, Danny.

Edited August 9, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

Keep trying Timmy.

Bonds put on 40 pounds of muscle in three months time. Whatever Ortiz did on the field, his body never changed, and certainly never changed in the specific manner that EXPERTS say can only come from hard-core steroid use.

This is the sort of thing I mean by "more proof". There is overwhelming evidence that Bonds used steroids, including a positive test for the specific steroid created and sold by BALCO. In the case of Ortiz, there is a single positive test which could have been triggered by use of a legal supplement.

I said "put the needle in ... ass"

For Bonds, there is his involvement with BALCO - every single athlete involved with BALCO was given PEDs, how can anyone believe in their right mind that Bonds only got flax seed oil and arthritis balm?

For Bonds, there is the positive test result from the 2003 survey tests, for BALCO steroids.

For Bonds, there are the positive results for steroid use from BALCO submitted urine samples. As a matter of law, Bonds may get them thrown out because his buddy won't snitch on him. As a matter of common sense, it is yet another nail in his coffin.

For Bonds there are the doping calendars.

What is there for Ortiz? A reportedly positive result that may have come from a legal supplement. Give me more and I'll hang him by his nuts.

[Soulstation1]

LOL

Big Papi doing the press conference in Spanish???

[Tim McG]

Keep trying Timmy.

Bonds put on 40 pounds of muscle in three months time. Whatever Ortiz did on the field, his body never changed, and certainly never changed in the specific manner that EXPERTS say can only come from hard-core steroid use.

This is the sort of thing I mean by "more proof". There is overwhelming evidence that Bonds used steroids, including a positive test for the specific steroid created and sold by BALCO. In the case of Ortiz, there is a single positive test which could have been triggered by use of a legal supplement.

I said "put the needle in ... ass"

For Bonds, there is his involvement with BALCO - every single athlete involved with BALCO was given PEDs, how can anyone believe in their right mind that Bonds only got flax seed oil and arthritis balm?

For Bonds, there is the positive test result from the 2003 survey tests, for BALCO steroids.

For Bonds, there are the positive results for steroid use from BALCO submitted urine samples. As a matter of law, Bonds may get them thrown out because his buddy won't snitch on him. As a matter of common sense, it is yet another nail in his coffin.

For Bonds there are the doping calendars.

What is there for Ortiz? A reportedly positive result that may have come from a legal supplement. Give me more and I'll hang him by his nuts.

That is your opinion and you are entittled to it, Danny.

However...you are 100% wrong.

2003 the cream was not a banned substance. He has already admitted to using it not knowing it was a steroid. Everybody has a calendar. Ortiz bulked up, too. His numbers spiked. And that is all there is, Danny. But a very nice try anyway.

Edited August 9, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

Check it out:

The man who made the steroids that made Barry Bonds a home run record-setter and accused felon says its "definitely plausible" that Ortiz tested positive due to use of a legal supplement.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball...co_chemist.html

[Tim McG]

Check it out:

The man who made the steroids that made Barry Bonds a home run record-setter and accused felon says its "definitely plausible" that Ortiz tested positive due to use of a legal supplement.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball...co_chemist.html

Still laboring under the delusion that steroids make you hit homeruns, eh?

Then why on Earth are you an apologist for Ortiz?

Using your logic, Ortiz took steriods and now hits homeruns....but the doping test wasn't evidence.

[Aggie87]

Still laboring under the delusion that steroids make you hit homeruns, eh?

I thought this issue had been beat to death years ago, many times. It's no delusion - it seems clear that the stronger you can swing a bat, the further you can hit a ball.

Take a hypothetical clean ball player who's a slugger who routinely hits the ball to the warning track. Suddenly he decides to start taking steroids, for whatever reason. Once he does this, he can build muscle mass he previously didn't have. The added muscle mass can help the slugger hit the ball harder than he used to. Hitting the ball harder can help that ball travel an extra 10-20' and clear the fence, when it didn't previously.

Suddenly balls that would normally be a regular hit or an out are now clearing the fence. These are home runs that are a result of steroids. Sure, some of that slugger's hits were going to be home runs either way, but now some of them are in question. The mix is unknown.

The steroids aren't going to make a consistent ground ball hitter suddenly start hitting home runs, but they will help a power hitter.

[Tim McG]

Still laboring under the delusion that steroids make you hit homeruns, eh?

I thought this issue had been beat to death years ago, many times. It's no delusion - it seems clear that the stronger you can swing a bat, the further you can hit a ball.

Take a hypothetical clean ball player who's a slugger who routinely hits the ball to the warning track. Suddenly he decides to start taking steroids, for whatever reason. Once he does this, he can build muscle mass he previously didn't have. The added muscle mass can help the slugger hit the ball harder than he used to. Hitting the ball harder can help that ball travel an extra 10-20' and clear the fence, when it didn't previously.

Suddenly balls that would normally be a regular hit or an out are now clearing the fence. These are home runs that are a result of steroids. Sure, some of that slugger's hits were going to be home runs either way, but now some of them are in question. The mix is unknown.

The steroids aren't going to make a consistent ground ball hitter suddenly start hitting home runs, but they will help a power hitter.

That "hypothetical" clean player doesn't exist, nor can it be substantiated beyond your own opinion of what that means. It is an unprovable position based upon specious point about a player which may or may not actually be in MLB. Ergo, a pointless argument.

Bonds was HR hitter and a seven time MVP before the accusations, Aggie.

There is absolutely no direct correlation to steroids as it relates to hitting HRs.

None.

And I defy you to show me any proof to the contrary.

Danny, OTOH, made this comment about "a hole" in Ortiz's swing that couldn't be repaired with steroids. Now why, in the same breath, he continues to delude himself into believing there is some legitimate relationship with Bonds and HRs as it relates to steroid use is utter hypocrisy.

Edited August 13, 2009 by GoodSpeak

[Soulstation1]

Anyone see that slip up by Josh Hamilton during spring training?

I hope he can keep it together!!

[Jazzmoose]

That "hypothetical" clean player doesn't exist, nor can it be substantiated beyond your own opinion of what that means. It is an unprovable position based upon specious point about a player which may or may not actually be in MLB. Ergo, a pointless argument.

Bonds was HR hitter and a seven time MVP before the accusations, Aggie.

There is absolutely no direct correlation to steroids as it relates to hitting HRs.

None.

And I defy you to show me any proof to the contrary.

Right. That would be like proving to Orly Taitz that a certain politician was born in Hawaii...

[Dan Gould]

Why do I keep doing this?

Bonds' home run rate through 1998 season:

1 per 18 ABs

Bonds' home run rate after 1998 season (also after he began using BALCO PEDs, shrunk his testicles, suffered from back acne, watched his head expand and put on 40 pounds of muscle in a superhuman length of time):

Better than 1 per 9 ABs

Bonds MVP trophies before 1998:

Three

Bonds MVP trophies after 1998 (also after he began using BALCO PEDs, shrunk his testicles, suffered from back acne, watched his head expand and put on 40 pounds of muscle in a superhuman length of time):

Four

[Jazzmoose]

Why do I keep doing this?

You might as well face it, you're addicted to glove.

[Soulstation1]

Has Dan seen Barry's balls and back acne?

Unless you have seen it how can you make a statement?

Edited August 13, 2009 by Soulstation1

[Tim McG]

Why do I keep doing this?

Bonds' home run rate through 1998 season:

1 per 18 ABs

Bonds' home run rate after 1998 season (also after he began using BALCO PEDs, shrunk his testicles, suffered from back acne, watched his head expand and put on 40 pounds of muscle in a superhuman length of time):

Better than 1 per 9 ABs

Bonds MVP trophies before 1998:

Three

Bonds MVP trophies after 1998 (also after he began using BALCO PEDs, shrunk his testicles, suffered from back acne, watched his head expand and put on 40 pounds of muscle in a superhuman length of time):

Four

With four batting titles totalling seven awards. Yet you pick at trivial details.

Ortiz was juicing, Danny.

Why do you pretend that the very same evidence you blast Bonds with isn't the same reason we can assume Ortiz was on steroids?

Because he's your guy? Because to do so would leave you with egg on your face? Because it would mean that the BoSox cheated to get those WS rings?

It's multiple choice, you see

That "hypothetical" clean player doesn't exist, nor can it be substantiated beyond your own opinion of what that means. It is an unprovable position based upon specious point about a player which may or may not actually be in MLB. Ergo, a pointless argument.

Bonds was HR hitter and a seven time MVP before the accusations, Aggie.

There is absolutely no direct correlation to steroids as it relates to hitting HRs.

None.

And I defy you to show me any proof to the contrary.

Right. That would be like proving to Orly Taitz that a certain politician was born in Hawaii...

Good point.

[Soulstation1]

I need a pic of Beavis and Butthead for these two!!!

Can't post one with my crackberry

[papsrus]

Why do you pretend that the very same evidence you blast Bonds with isn't the same reason we can assume Ortiz was on steroids?

This seems like a self-defeating argument. To use your words: Why do you pretend that the very same evidence you blast Ortiz with isn't the same reason we can assume Bonds was on steroids?

Now granted, the evidence against each seems to be quite different, in both scale and possibly substance, but you don't make that distinction in your question.

It's late. Just asking.

Edited August 14, 2009 by papsrus

[Tim McG]

Why do you pretend that the very same evidence you blast Bonds with isn't the same reason we can assume Ortiz was on steroids?

This seems like a self-defeating argument. To use your words: Why do you pretend that the very same evidence you blast Ortiz with isn't the same reason we can assume Bonds was on steroids?

Now granted, the evidence against each seems to be quite different, in both scale and possibly substance, but you don't make that distinction in your question.

It's late. Just asking.

Of course these are two different cases with a different set of circumstances to go along with them.

All I'm saying is you can't assume one set of circumstances to be any more valid than the other without the substatiated evidence to back it up. In that instance...they are both circumstantial. Assumption, no matter how many times Danny will try and make people believe otherwise, is not fact.

And if I may quote Wm. Shakespeare: Ay...there's the rub.

[Chalupa]

Court: Investigators wrong to seize list

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4424048

Uh - oh.

[Dan Gould]

Well that decision was pretty obvious, and if they appeal, they'll probably lose again.

This does not however impact Bonds' case, as his test results were subject to the subpoena, among others. Old "clean" result, but lo and behold, if you look for BALCO 'roids, you find them!

But he never knowingly took them. No, never. Didn't even wonder about his arthritis balm and his flaxseed oil even when his balls shrunk, his head grew and he had home run power to an extent he never ever came close to when he was a young man, not in his late 30s.