Ankiel linked to HgH

[DT undercover]

From the New York Daily News http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2007/09/06/2007-09-06_rick_ankiel_received_12month_supply_of_h.html

[orioles119]

So much for the feel good story.

[Baltimoron]

Talk about a foot in the mouth comment:


"This is the first I've heard of this," Cardinals GM Walt Jocketty told The News yesterday. "If it's true, obviously it would be very tragic, along with everything else we've had happen to us this year."

Walt, even suggesting a comparison between Josh Hancock's death and a HGH allegation is classless and stupid at best.

[scOtt]

Talk about a foot in the mouth comment:



Walt, even suggesting a comparison between Josh Hancock's death and a HGH allegation is classless and stupid at best.
Why? Hancock did a very stupid thing. Many stupid things. A senseless waste.

Doesn't make it a crime to say Ankiel is another tragedy for them. At least Ankiel had the sense to not kill himself. At least Ankiel had the sense to deport himself as a normal human being.


:rolleyes:

[mweb]

I think calling this a tragedy is over the top. It does however put a damper on a great story to say the least.

[AgentOrange]

I think calling this a tragedy is over the top. It does however put a damper on a great story to say the least.

I agree. It is a shame because it seems that right now, any feel good story has to have a cloud of doubt along with it.

[Baroquen131]

Ugh. I agree - feel-good story squashed.

[RayFink1e]

It wasnt illegal when he did it. Plus he was still pitching in 04' wasnt he?

[BustaJ2632]

I agree. It is a shame because it seems that right now, any feel good story has to have a cloud of doubt along with it.

Nah, we've said that before. And then Ankiel came along and it was a great feel-good story all over again. Until today, no one insinuated a thing about him.

It's a real shame that this is going to tarnish his story (although it's not as bad as it may seem at first glance), but other feel-good stories will come along and we'll believe them because we want to...that will never change.

[AgentOrange]

Nah, we've said that before. And then Ankiel came along and it was a great feel-good story all over again. Until today, no one insinuated a thing about him.

It's a real shame that this is going to tarnish his story (although it's not as bad as it may seem at first glance), but other feel-good stories will come along and we'll believe them because we want to...that will never change.


Well things like this keep popping up. It doesn't have to be overly vocal as far as people having doubt, but it is in the back of people's minds.

[ScottieBaseball]

Here's my gripe about a story like this...

You have to read WAY down to find it, and even then they don't spell it out in black and white. MLB, the media, and the general public didn't know 1/100th of what we know now about HGH back then. HGH was not a banned substance when he received it, not to mention the prescriptions were written by a licensed physician. It's possible they were written illegally, but unless it can be proven that Ankiel is complicit, he's not to blame. It's no more a patient's responsibility to make himself aware of legalities concerning prescription drugs than it is for a homeowner to make himself aware of the local electrical code and how it applies to his plan to renovate.

I realize I can say it, grouse about it, denounce the New York Daily News all I want and it won't change anything, but it is absolutely unfair for this story to detract from what Ankiel's accomplished. The article pushes the reader to draw a villainous conclusion regarding Ankiel's miraculous return to the big leagues, but the truth is he didn't do anything wrong. Lumping it in with the tragic death of Josh Hancock and LaRussa's DWI is like an apple in a basket of hand grenades.

It's crappy journalism.

[ledzepp8]

I'm not sure that this does squash the feel good story. The article says he got it '04 and stopped before MLB banned it. Plus he did have a prescription, now whether that prescription was on the up and up is another story. I just don't know if something that he did in '04 can effect something he's doing over 3 years later.

[Migrant Redbird]

I'm not sure that this does squash the feel good story.

It largely does. As one Cardinals fan wrote this morning... (http://www.birdsonthebat.org/showthread.php?t=46973)


I woke up this morning with the hope of reading some uplifting stories about Ankiel. Instead, this is the first thing that I read.

I feel sick.

Which is about how I felt when ESPN first began reporting it last night.

Bernie Miklacz of the St. Louis Post Distpatch adds a little perspective in his BLOG (http://www.stltoday.com/blogs/sports-bernies-extra-points/2007/09/rick-ankiel-still-the-natural/).


Generally speaking, our culture generally is titillated by scandal, and quick to assume the worst.

So fairly or unfairly, the perception among some fans and media will be that Ankiel’s eruption of 40 combined homers (so far) with Class AAA Memphis and St. Louis is something manufactured, something fake. His authenticity will be questioned. This will follow him around. Just what he needs. Just what the team needs. More chaos.

.... I’m not saying that’s right; that’s just how it is.

.... So Ankiel’s reputation, outside the circle of adoring Cardinals fans, will float through that murky gray.

I’ll say this in defense of Ankiel: his power was always there.

I researched this in the past when I wrote a column in 2001, suggesting that Ankiel become an outfielder.

I’ll briefly review some of the history for you:

In his final high school at-bat, Ankiel hit a 450-foot homer.

He once bashed three in one high school game.

A few weeks after graduating from Port St. Lucie High School in 1997, Ankiel played for the USA Baseball Junior National Team. He pitched and went 3-0 with a 1.82 ERA.

And when he didn’t pitch, he played left field and batted .387 with two homers, four doubles and 16 RBIs.

In one game, Ankiel hit a three-run homer into the upper deck of SkyDome (now Rogers Centre).

That’s right: an upper-deck shot in the major-league ballpark home of the Toronto Blue Jays.

Ankiel was just about to turn 18 years old at the time.

Ankiel (as a pitcher) hit well in the minors. And as rookie pitcher with the Cardinals in 1999, Ankiel hit a long drive off Atlanta’s Kevin Milwood into the upper deck at Busch Stadium II. It barely landed foul.

My point is, Ankiel always had the ability to launch homers. What we’ve seen in the last month is nothing new. This is a rare athlete.

That was abundantly true long before Ankiel heard of HGH or knew what it meant.

In that context Ankiel was “The Natural.”

Whether he’ll still be viewed as “The Natural” after this disclosure is difficult to say.

If you check out the forums on STLtoday.com, you’ll see that many Cardinals fans are already howling over the story and its timing. Some are questioning the Daily News’ ethics. Many are adamant that Ankiel has done nothing wrong.

(As a quick aside: I believe Missouri grad T.J. Quinn, a Missouri grad, is an excellent investigative journalist. He’s been leading the Daily News’ valuable coverage of doping in pro sports).


.... The article says he got it '04 and stopped before MLB banned it. Plus he did have a prescription, now whether that prescription was on the up and up is another story.

If I understand the reports correctly, it was through reviewing records of prescriptions by that particular doctor that they identified Ankiel as a recipient of the prescription. Miklacz also covered that a little in his BLOG.


As the Daily News pointed out, and I’m quoting here, “Ankiel has not been accused by authorities of wrongdoing, and according to the Signature records obtained by The News, he stopped receiving HGH just before Major League Baseball officially banned it in 2005.”

So if in fact Ankiel received the HGH in 2004, as alleged, he also did so, as reported by the NY Daily News, with a prescription written by a Florida doctor.

The HGH ban didn’t go into effect until 2005.

So legally, because of the doctor’s prescription, Ankiel appears to be in the clear. And he did not violate any baseball regulations at the time.

Ankiel was still a pitcher in ‘04, struggling to cope with physical injuries on top of lingering psychological trauma.

If Ankiel chooses to respond to any of this, perhaps he’ll say HGH was recommended to help him recover from injuries. He underwent reconstructive elbow surgery in July, 2003, and pitched only 33 innings in 2004.

I'm bothered by the quantities of HGH which Ankiel allegedly received, but arm and shoulder injuries can take a long time to heal. Scott Rolen is preparing to have a 3rd surgery on his left shoulder that was injured back in May 2005 when he collided with Hee Seop Choi. While Rolen's injury was on his non-throwing shoulder, he has continued to have limited motion in the shoulder and his power production has been way down.

[Avsfan]

It's still cheating...


Greenies were legal when Aarron, Mays and others were taking them...but that doesn't mean they weren't altering their performance.

The whole "it wasn't illegal until xxxx" is a stupid cop out....cheating is cheating is cheating...

[ScottieBaseball]

It's still cheating...


Greenies were legal when Aarron, Mays and others were taking them...but that doesn't mean they weren't altering their performance.

The whole "it wasn't illegal until xxxx" is a stupid cop out....cheating is cheating is cheating...

To accuse someone of cheating when they played within the rules is...stupid. :rolleyes: And ignorant.

cheat - v. intr. - To violate rules deliberately, as in a game.

You can dislike the use of performance-enhancing substances and cast your own shadow on those who used them (admittedly or otherwise), but if they weren't using illegal, banned substances it wasn't cheating.

I've said it before...there was a point in my life when I was in the gym 4-5 days a week and used various forms of andro, ephedrine, and plenty of other things to enhance my performance and results in the gym and on the baseball field. They were all things I could buy from GNC and didn't feel like I was doing anything wrong. It certainly wasn't anything that a lot of other guys weren't doing. There was no negative stigma associated with it, no shame or embarrassment or attempt to conceal it. I'm sure if I were that vain, 22-year old gym rat now and openly admitted to the above it would be viewed in an extremely different light.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but to charge one with breaking a rule that didn't exist when the offense was committed is wholely unfair and entirely wrong.

[The Wedge]

It's still cheating...


Greenies were legal when Aarron, Mays and others were taking them...but that doesn't mean they weren't altering their performance.

The whole "it wasn't illegal until xxxx" is a stupid cop out....cheating is cheating is cheating...

Uh, what?

If it's legal then any "performance altering" effects are deemed legal for whatever reason.

That's like saying my coworker is cheating at work because he guzzles coffee like it's going out of style while I never touch the stuff.

Or a better analogy, players that use body armor vs those that don't.

[The Wedge]

Not to mention that Ankiel was still trying to salvage his pitching career at the time, and this wasn't for "performance enhancing." It was for recovery from his injuries, during a period when it was legal in the sport, in a situation when the onus was on the doctor.

Scott, you didn't want to say it, but I will: irresponsible journalism. They are obviously putting a negative spin on the story when they should just be reporting the facts. Let the columnists do that.

[ScottieBaseball]

Or a better analogy, players that use body armor vs those that don't.

Great point. Based on Avsfan's logic, if MLB outlaws the over-sized elbow pads for hitters, that makes David Ortiz a cheater.

Wait...Ortiz a cheater? Maybe I'm cool with that. :D

[Baroquen131]

Maybe I'm the only one uncomfortable with the idea that anything's ok as long as the player stay "ahead" of the rules? It's not banned (yet) so it's ok to use. Steroids, to HGH to whatever is next... body armor or contacts or whatever new equipment...

Yeah, it may be an outdated notion to expect everyone to compete on a level playing field, but that doesn't mean I have to like being suspicious about a game that I want to sit back and enjoy.

[ScottieBaseball]

Maybe I'm the only one uncomfortable with the idea that anything's ok as long as the player stay "ahead" of the rules? It's not banned (yet) so it's ok to use. Steroids, to HGH to whatever is next... body armor or contacts or whatever new equipment...

Yeah, it may be an outdated notion to expect everyone to compete on a level playing field, but that doesn't mean I have to like being suspicious about a game that I want to sit back and enjoy.

The problem, though, is that it may have seemed innocuous at the time just like all the Ripped Fuel and andro I was taking did at the time.

You're not alone in wanting to just sit back and enjoy the game. There was a time not long ago that contract terms and player salaries were either unknown or rarely discussed.

Between the drugs and money, sometimes I can't tell if we're still talkin' baseball or recapping an episode of "The Wire."

[mweb]

Where were these people defending Ankiel when the Bonds debates were going on?:confused:

[DrungoHazewood]

Where were these people defending Ankiel when the Bonds debates were going on?:confused:

Yea, really. If this is fine for Ankiel, if the "it wasn't against the rules at the time" defense works for the media-anointed real life Roy Hobbs, then it sure better work for Barry Bonds.

[AgentOrange]

Where were these people defending Ankiel when the Bonds debates were going on?:confused:

Because Ankiel isn't breaking any records.

[geschinger]

It's still cheating...


Greenies were legal when Aarron, Mays and others were taking them...but that doesn't mean they weren't altering their performance.

The whole "it wasn't illegal until xxxx" is a stupid cop out....cheating is cheating is cheating...

I don't know... If you use that simplistic of an approach, would we have to say a player guilty of cheating if for example they use PECs (performance enhancing contacts)?

[mweb]

Because Ankiel isn't breaking any records.

And he's a great story, beloved by many, white, not ripped, anything else I might be missing?

[geschinger]

Where were these people defending Ankiel when the Bonds debates were going on?:confused:

Shouldn't there be a distinction between using something that is illegal and something that is perfectly legal?

[mweb]

Shouldn't there be a distinction between using something that is illegal and something that is perfectly legal?

"According to records obtained by The News and sources close to the controversy surrounding anti-aging clinics that dispense illegal prescription drugs, Ankiel received eight shipments of HGH from Signature Pharmacy in Orlando from January to December 2004, including the brand-name injectable drugs Saizen and Genotropin. Signature is the pharmacy at the forefront of Albany District Attorney David Soares' two-year investigation into illegal Internet prescription drug sales, which has brought 22 indictments and nine convictions."

Doesn't sound perfectly legal to me. I really don't see much of a difference here besides the length of use, and the intent of the user(getting big vs recovering from injury). Both took HgH before it was banned by MLB, and both got them by illegal means. Sure, Ankiel got a prescription, but from a corupt pharmacy, I highly doubt Ankiel thought this was on the up and up.

And would you disagree that if this was the circumstances with Bonds, the vast majority of people would still be all over him for it?

[tywright]

Troy Glaus just got linked according to SI

[Lt Melmo]

Where were these people defending Ankiel when the Bonds debates were going on?:confused:
Because...

Bonds favored HGH, according to the excerpt, because it allowed him to stay muscle-bound and maintain his thirst to train while also feeling flexible. It also seemed to improve his eyesight.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/07/MNG90HJF4N22.DTL
That is, of course, if you choose to believe what you hear from Game of Shadows.

Ankiel, on the other hand, was using HGH while recovering from TJ surgery and to salvage his pitching career, assumably. From the looks of that, it doesn't seem like he was using it for its PED capabilities.

It's all in the usage. Bonds used HGH to grow abnormally stronger. It wouldn't surprise me if Ankiel started using it simply because his physician said, "Hey, I've found this perfectly legal drug that'll help you rehab quicker." As Scottie said, not much was known at the time about HGH. I'd say the chances of Ankiel using it to help his recovery along are about a million times that of his chances to make him stronger than before. And I personally can't care if someone only used it, while it was legal, to get back into the game.

[geschinger]

"According to records obtained by The News and sources close to the controversy surrounding anti-aging clinics that dispense illegal prescription drugs, Ankiel received eight shipments of HGH from Signature Pharmacy in Orlando from January to December 2004, including the brand-name injectable drugs Saizen and Genotropin. Signature is the pharmacy at the forefront of Albany District Attorney David Soares' two-year investigation into illegal Internet prescription drug sales, which has brought 22 indictments and nine convictions."

Doesn't sound perfectly legal to me. I really don't see much of a difference here besides the length of use, and the intent of the user(getting big vs recovering from injury). Both took HgH before it was banned by MLB, and both got them by illegal means. Sure, Ankiel got a prescription, but from a corupt pharmacy, I highly doubt Ankiel thought this was on the up and up.

And would you disagree that if this was the circumstances with Bonds, the vast majority of people would still be all over him for it?

I'm still not sure if Ankiel had a legitimate doctors prescription why filling that prescription from a pharmacy w/problems makes what he did suspect. Now if the script was obtained illegaly, then that changes the equation.

Anything equivalent that Bonds does is absolutely going to be treated worse. Any time you have someone who acts like he does, the media / fans etc... will relish in trying to bring him down.

[mweb]

Because...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/07/MNG90HJF4N22.DTL
That is, of course, if you choose to believe what you hear from Game of Shadows.

Ankiel, on the other hand, was using HGH while recovering from TJ surgery and to salvage his pitching career, assumably. From the looks of that, it doesn't seem like he was using it for its PED capabilities.

It's all in the usage. Bonds used HGH to grow abnormally stronger. It wouldn't surprise me if Ankiel started using it simply because his physician said, "Hey, I've found this perfectly legal drug that'll help you rehab quicker." As Scottie said, not much was known at the time about HGH. I'd say the chances of Ankiel using it to help his recovery along are about a million times that of his chances to make him stronger than before. And I personally can't care if someone only used it, while it was legal, to get back into the game.

Well it looks like it was probably an illegal prescription, so I wouldn't use the it was legal card compared to Bonds.

Yes, it seems like there was a difference in intent of use, but I don't see why that should make much of a difference.

[mweb]

I'm still not sure if Ankiel had a legitimate doctors prescription why filling that prescription from a pharmacy w/problems makes what he did suspect. Now if the script was obtained illegaly, then that changes the equation.

Anything equivalent that Bonds does is absolutely going to be treated worse. Any time you have someone who acts like he does, the media / fans etc... will relish in trying to bring him down.

I'd be shocked if this was a legit legal prescription. But I guess people are more willing to give a guy like Ankiel the benefit of the doubt.

And concerning the baseball aspect of this, which is what really matters to most, I couldn't care less how someone got the HgH.

[Lt Melmo]

Well it looks like it was probably an illegal prescription, so I wouldn't use the it was legal card compared to Bonds.

Yes, it seems like there was a difference in intent of use, but I don't see why that should make much of a difference.
How does that not make a difference? You think it's fine to condemn a guy for using legal drugs to help get healthy again? You don't see any difference between getting healthy and purposely gaining an unfair advantage over your opponents?

[geschinger]

I'd be shocked if this was a legit legal prescription. But I guess people are more willing to give a guy like Ankiel the benefit of the doubt.

And concerning the baseball aspect of this, which is what really matters to most, I couldn't care less how someone got the HgH.

My standard is that if there is no prohibition either legally or in the MLB rules then it isn't an issue. Today's perfectly acceptable supplement might later be find it's way onto a banned list and it is unfair to retroactively punish a player for something that was perfectly acceptable at the time. Obtaining illegal steroids was never acceptable regardless of whether or not MLB banned 'em so those caught doing that do not deserve a pass.

[mweb]

How does that not make a difference? You think it's fine to condemn a guy for using legal drugs to help get healthy again? You don't see any difference between getting healthy and purposely gaining an unfair advantage over your opponents?

Probably not obtained legally, so once again, the legal part doesn't matter here to me, people don't really care about that when it comes to baseball anyway, it's just something to use to either crucify or defend someone.

One can get healthy without HgH, one can get a lot stronger without HgH, it's just easier and quicker to do both with HgH. And both benefits likely will come into play regardless of the intent of user. So I guess I can sympathize with Ankiel more, but both examples gave the player an unfair competitive advantage.

[mweb]

My standard is that if there is no prohibition either legally or in the MLB rules then it isn't an issue. Today's perfectly acceptable supplement might later be find it's way onto a banned list and it is unfair to retroactively punish a player for something that was perfectly acceptable at the time. Obtaining illegal steroids was never acceptable regardless of whether or not MLB banned 'em so those caught doing that do not deserve a pass.

We're not talking about whether the drug was legal or not, we're talking about whether the drug was obtained legally or not, and I couldn't care less about that concerning it's affect on baseball.

[geschinger]

One can get healthy without HgH, one can get a lot stronger without HgH, it's just easier and quicker to do both with HgH. And both benefits likely will come into play regardless of the intent of user. So I guess I can sympathize with Ankiel more, but both examples gave the player an unfair competitive advantage.

Where do you come down on things like performance enhancing contacts? Unfair competetive advantage or acceptable?

[mweb]

Where do you come down on things like performance enhancing contacts? Unfair competetive advantage or acceptable?

It's funny that I'm being asked this since I'm the one who defends players using ped's more than most. You're talking about contacts that give one better than normal vision I assume? To answer the question, it's probably both unfair and acceptable. I've said it before, athletes have always tried to get an edge on their competition, often by unfair ways, so that makes it at least somewhat acceptable. It be nice if none of these ped's we talk about were in baseball, but since they're and so prevalent, I can't blame a player for keeping up by using them.

[ledzepp8]

Well it looks like it was probably an illegal prescription, so I wouldn't use the it was legal card compared to Bonds.

Yes, it seems like there was a difference in intent of use, but I don't see why that should make much of a difference.

Is this just guilt by association then? Why does it look like the prescription was illegal just because this pharmacy was under investigation? The authorities have said that Ankiel did nothing wrong and didn't even say the prescription wasn't on the up and up.

[geschinger]

It's funny that I'm being asked this since I'm the one who defends players using ped's more than most. You're talking about contacts that give one better than normal vision I assume? To answer the question, it's probably both unfair and acceptable. I've said it before, athletes have always tried to get an edge on their competition, often by unfair ways, so that makes it at least somewhat acceptable. It be nice if none of these ped's we talk about were in baseball, but since they're and so prevalent, I can't blame a player for keeping up by using them.

Not really better than normal vision. I'm not sure exactly how they work but the net result is that when wearing them it makes the seams of the baseball stand out more than one would be able to naturaly. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point they are disallowed and if that happens I don't think it would be fair to look back at those whom did use them and consider them to have done anything wrong.

That's why my standard is anything that is legal and not banned by the rules of baseball is acceptable. Anything outside the realm of legality or banned and MLB, the media, the fans, etc... should show no mercy.

[Migrant Redbird]

Yea, really. If this is fine for Ankiel, if the "it wasn't against the rules at the time" defense works for the media-anointed real life Roy Hobbs, then it sure better work for Barry Bonds.

Bonds has admitted to using steroids without a prescription, which was illegal, even while claiming that he didn't know "the clear" contained steroids. I don't know what the time line was for the period when Bonds admitted using steroids, and I don't recall when MLB banned them. There has been speculation that Bonds switched to HGH to avoid the testing for steroids, but nothing that I'm aware of in the way of evidence.

According to this report, Ankiel received HGH shipments from a legal clinic per a legal prescription from a medical doctor. It occurred at a time when Rick was having problems coming back from TJ surgery. Usage of HGH to promote healing is not an FDA approved usage, but there are a lot of drugs prescribed by doctors for purposes beyond those the FDA approved them for -- in many cases it's because the drug companies didn't want to fund enough tests to meet the FDA criteria. Whether the HGH that Ankiel allegedly received was to promote healing or to boost performance, it was apparently completely legal if he didn't use it after the ML ban the next season. I'm not claiming that it was right, but Rick should be in the clear legally and professionally -- if he didn't use any HGH after the ban.

If Ankiel's physician was justified in prescribing HGH to help Rick recuperate from his TJ surgery -- and I'm not arguing that he was -- then it only makes sense that he would refer Rick to a clinic with several years of administering HGH to elderly patients, to ensure that Rick used the medications as safely as possible. They teach diabetics the proper way to administer themselves insulin injections; I would expect similar instruction to an athlete who was going to be administering himself injections. I would think that probably explains why Ankiel's doctor would have sent him to THARC for the HGH.

A much bigger difference between Ankiel and Bonds is that Rick has a much greater hold on the American heart strings. He had such well-publicized problems with the control and has had such a difficult, injury-plagued comeback (missed all of the 2006 season) that it was a "feel-good" story for just about everyone (except fans of the Cubs and Brewers). Bonds is the kind of guy that I have to work hard trying not to hate, without appreciable success.


Doesn't sound perfectly legal to me. I really don't see much of a difference here besides the length of use, and the intent of the user(getting big vs recovering from injury). Both took HgH before it was banned by MLB, and both got them by illegal means. Sure, Ankiel got a prescription, but from a corupt pharmacy, I highly doubt Ankiel thought this was on the up and up.

Ankiel allegedly received the drugs from a legal anti-aging clinic. The use of HGH to counteract the effects of aging is not an FDA-approved usage, but there are a lot of reputable doctors who prescribe medications for purposes beyond those approved by the FDA. (An example is the prescription of drugs for children when the FDA has only approved them for adults, because the drug companies weren't willing to fund the additional studies on children.) The usage of HGH to facilitate recovery from injuries is just another usage not approved by the FDA. Whether it has any efficacy or not is a different question.

Here is the web site (http://www.tharc.com/) where Ankiel allegedly received his HGH[/url]. Here's their "legal compliance" statement.


PRESCRIBING PROCEDURES LEGAL COMPLIANCE

No prescription will be provided unless a clinical need exists based on required lab work, physician consultation, and current medical history provided either through a patient's personal physician or an associate physician of The Health & Rejuvenation Center (THARC.COM). Agreeing to lab work does not automatically equate to clinical necessity or a resulting prescription.

No claim or opinion on the THARC network is intended to be, or should be construed to be, medical advice. Please consult with a healthcare professional before starting any therapeutic program.

You might be able to make a good case against the ethics of THARC, but they're probably on solid legal ground.


I'd be shocked if this was a legit legal prescription.

The article indicates otherwise. The doctor was authorized to write prescriptions and they identified Ankiel's name from the prescription records where he sent Ankiel to get the medicine. Whether you believe the purpose of the prescription was legitimate, there didn't appear to be anything illegal about it. It's not like when Rush Limbaugh went to multiple doctors for his pain killer meds without telling them he was getting multiple prescriptions. There's no suggestion in the report that either Ankiel, his doctor, or the anti-aging clinic where he got the HGH, have done anything illegal. The only implication of illegality was that the New York pharmacy which provided the meds is being investigated by that states attorney general for illegal prescription activities. There's nothing in the article which suggests Ankiel's prescription was illegal.


But I guess people are more willing to give a guy like Ankiel the benefit of the doubt.

Of course they are. When a kid has gone through all that he has (and my daughters think he's hot), he gets a lot of sympathy. I've met Rick and talked with him when he was at Johnson City and he's a nice kid. He comes from a broken home and his dad is in jail on drug dealing charges. From reports I've heard, Rick has lived a pretty wild life since he's been with the Cardinals, and it may be an endemic problem with that team (and others) -- Darryl Kile had marijuana in his hotel room the night of his unfortunate death, and Josh Hancock had marijuana in his rental vehicle the night he killed himself crashing into the back of a tow truck. That's apparently just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm not claiming that Rick didn't use HGH to enhance his performance because I don't know. He was recuperating from injury during the time frame when he's reported to have received HGH and the usage was apparently legal and within baseball rules if that was why he took them. There's nothing in the report which indicates what Rick has done since 2004 and I'm not going to make any assumptions.

[blueberryale77]

It's funny that I'm being asked this since I'm the one who defends players using ped's more than most. You're talking about contacts that give one better than normal vision I assume? To answer the question, it's probably both unfair and acceptable. I've said it before, athletes have always tried to get an edge on their competition, often by unfair ways, so that makes it at least somewhat acceptable. It be nice if none of these ped's we talk about were in baseball, but since they're and so prevalent, I can't blame a player for keeping up by using them.

I really don't see how space age contact lenses fit into any part of this equation. Why not ban all bats designed after 1930 while we're at it? What about "performance enhancing" spikes that are scientifically designed to help players run faster? I just can't see any reason why people would have a problem with the use of technology that's widely available and doesn't cause any harm. I guess maybe a handful of players have dry eyes and can't wear contacts, but I'm sure there are also players who can't drink regular protein shakes because they're lactose intolerant or can't drink sugary energy drinks because they're diabetic. A perfectly level playing field is an unattainable illusion anyway.

Just for the sake of talking, though, let's say MLB were to decide that they needed to start regulating contact lenses... how on earth would they do that? You can't ban them altogether. They're basically a medical necessity for a lot of guys. Are you going to say that players can't wear contacts that make their vision better than 20-15 or something? Are you going to have Joe Torre going out to the umpire and asking him to take the contacts out of a player's eyes and bring an eye doctor down onto the field to check the prescription? Are you going to ban the UV-protecting daytime lenses? How are they different from prescription sunglasses... or any sunglasses?

As for the larger issue at hand, I also tend to be pretty blah about PED use and have some sympathy for the players who've done it. Like I've said before, when a model develops anorexia or bulimia we don't condemn her for "cheating" to make herself a more successful model or gain an unfair advantage over the non-anorectics, we get her treatment and blame society for giving her an illness. Why is our treatment of male (and sometimes female) athletes who harm their own bodies for professional advancement so different? I think the ideal approach to both problems would be somewhere between the two extremes and based more on educating young people to prevent the problems before they happen.

[Migrant Redbird]

From the BOTB Ankiel HGH thread (http://www.birdsonthebat.org/showthread.php?t=46973&page=3)


I just got done listening to Dibble and Kennedy's interview of Scott Boras, and wow. I can understand why the players love this guy. He could talk his way through anything, which isn't suprising.

Not only did he do a magnicificent job of protecting Ankiel, he completely turned the argument on it's ear, lambasting the medical profession, the journalists, and Major League Baseball. He had such good points, it completely changed my perspective on the entire steroid issue.

He said Rick would make a statement when he got to the ballpark, and discussed what he would say. It brought a grin to my face. I am so glad Boras is in Rick's corner. He is in attack mode.

[MChance]

Where were these people defending Ankiel when the Bonds debates were going on?:confused:

It's a black versus white issue.

[mweb]

I really don't see how space age contact lenses fit into any part of this equation. Why not ban all bats designed after 1930 while we're at it? What about "performance enhancing" spikes that are scientifically designed to help players run faster? I just can't see any reason why people would have a problem with the use of technology that's widely available and doesn't cause any harm. I guess maybe a handful of players have dry eyes and can't wear contacts, but I'm sure there are also players who can't drink regular protein shakes because they're lactose intolerant or can't drink sugary energy drinks because they're diabetic. A perfectly level playing field is an unattainable illusion anyway.

Just for the sake of talking, though, let's say MLB were to decide that they needed to start regulating contact lenses... how on earth would they do that? You can't ban them altogether. They're basically a medical necessity for a lot of guys. Are you going to say that players can't wear contacts that make their vision better than 20-15 or something? Are you going to have Joe Torre going out to the umpire and asking him to take the contacts out of a player's eyes and bring an eye doctor down onto the field to check the prescription? Are you going to ban the UV-protecting daytime lenses? How are they different from prescription sunglasses... or any sunglasses?

As for the larger issue at hand, I also tend to be pretty blah about PED use and have some sympathy for the players who've done it. Like I've said before, when a model develops anorexia or bulimia we don't condemn her for "cheating" to make herself a more successful model or gain an unfair advantage over the non-anorectics, we get her treatment and blame society for giving her an illness. Why is our treatment of male (and sometimes female) athletes who harm their own bodies for professional advancement so different? I think the ideal approach to both problems would be somewhere between the two extremes and based more on educating young people to prevent the problems before they happen.

I didn't bring up the contacts, nor did I say they should be banned, so not sure why you quoted me.

[mweb]

Is this just guilt by association then? Why does it look like the prescription was illegal just because this pharmacy was under investigation? The authorities have said that Ankiel did nothing wrong and didn't even say the prescription wasn't on the up and up.

Well Ankiel is not the one who would get in trouble, it would be the doctor and the pharmacy. And my impression from reading that article, is that prescription was not perfectly legal.

But once again, for the most part, I think it's a bunch of nonsense that people use the legality issue regarding this topic. Most people don't really cares if someone got the stuff illegally, or if the stuff is negatively or positively affecting the person's health, all they really care about is the effect is has on players performance on a baseball field. They just like to use that aspect of the issue when it suits their argument imo.

[geschinger]

But once again, for the most part, I think it's a bunch of nonsense that people use the legality issue regarding this topic. Most people don't really cares if someone got the stuff illegally, or if the stuff is negatively or positively affecting the person's health, all they really care about is the effect is has on players performance on a baseball field. They just like to use that aspect of the issue when it suits their argument imo.

I'm not sure why you think distinctions of legality are nonsense. Assuming he didn't get the prescription illegally why should anyone care if he was taking something that MLB didn't prohibit. It's like all the hoopla around McGwire when all this steroid talk started... If a product (andro) is legal and available at the local GNC and the sport has no prohibitions against its use how can that not be considered vastly different from the acquisition and use of illegal or sanctioned substances? How are players supposed to divine what MLB or the media might have a problem w/years from now? From what I gather on the Ankiel situation he ceased acquiring the substance once it was known that MLB was going to ban its use. I'm still not sure what he's supposed to have done wrong (if of course the prescription he obtained was obtained legitimately).

[mweb]

I'm not sure why you think distinctions of legality are nonsense. Assuming he didn't get the prescription illegally why should anyone care if he was taking something that MLB didn't prohibit. It's like all the hoopla around McGwire when all this steroid talk started... If a product (andro) is legal and available at the local GNC and the sport has no prohibitions against its use how can that not be considered vastly different from the acquisition and use of illegal or sanctioned substances? How are players supposed to divine what MLB or the media might have a problem w/years from now? From what I gather on the Ankiel situation he ceased acquiring the substance once it was known that MLB was going to ban its use. I'm still not sure what he's supposed to have done wrong (if of course the prescription he obtained was obtained legitimately).

It's nonsense because people don't care how they got it. If Bonds had a presciption, that wouldn't matter, and you know that. They just care that a player took something that has given them an "unfair" advantage. So it's ok if one player took HgH if they found a doctor that would give it to them, but not ok if a player took HgH if they got it from a place like BALCO?

I'm not talking about it being banned by baseball or the gov't, I'm talking about how it was aquired. But since you keep on bringing up the other aspect, baseball did nothing to stop anyone from using anything before 2005. And very few cared about grown men taking illegal ped's in life until if began affecting our pastime. So even that argument isn't very strong coming from people who've ripped people who used stuff before 2005 imo.

If it is later shown that this was not perfectly legal, which I expect, I hope you and the others rip Ankiel and Glaus and whoever else the same way you've ripped Bonds.

[geschinger]

It's nonsense because people don't care how they got it. If Bonds had a presciption, that wouldn't matter, and you know that. They just care that a player took something that has given them an "unfair" advantage. So it's ok if one player took HgH if they found a doctor that would give it to them, but not ok if a player took HgH if they got it from a place like BALCO?


It would matter to me even if it didn't to the masses. I'd have a lot more sympathy towards Bonds if his "unfair" advantage was obtained at the local GNC or from a legitimate doctor rather than doing something he knew and everyone else knows was wrong from the second he did it. It was never acceptable behavior like buying andro at the local GNC would of been at the time..



If it is later shown that this was not perfectly legal, which I expect, I hope you and the others rip Ankiel and Glaus and whoever else the same way you've ripped Bonds.

Same way, sure. Same amount? Depends on how long either is in the spotlight. I'd like to think I'd still be ripping Palmeiro similarly to Bonds if he was approaching 600 HR or some other achievement, but his trangressions hastened the end of his career.

[Lt Melmo]

It's a black versus white issue.
That's funny, seeing as nobody's making excuses for Glaus...

[mweb]

It would matter to me. I'd have a lot more sympathy towards Bonds if his "unfair" advantage was obtained at the local GNC or from a legitimate doctor rather than doing something he knew and everyone else knows was wrong from the second he did it. It was never acceptable behavior like buying andro at the local GNC would of been at the time.



I will. I believe I've been just as hard on others like Palmeiro but the perception might be that Bonds is getting it worse. The only difference is that Bonds still has the spotlight whereas Palmeiro's career was ended. I do have a bit more sympathy for a player like Giambi whom has shown a bit of remorse for doing something he knew was wrong.

Not talking about going into GNC here, I'm talking about finding a doctor to give you something that you could otherwise get from a BALCO type of place. We're not talking about stuff you can get in GNC. If two guys are using the same thing to help their baseball career, I don't care how they got it. Of course, I don't think it's that big of a deal that they're using such things anyway.

BTW, here's what HgH was approved for at the time Ankiel was using it according to this (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/515665), "The FDA has approved GH only for GH deficiency-related syndromes causing short stature in children, adult GH deficiency caused by rare pituitary tumors and their treatment, and muscle-wasting disease associated with HIV and AIDS."

Doesn't seem like that was a legit prescription to me.

[mweb]

That's funny, seeing as nobody's making excuses for Glaus...

I don't agree that it's all a black and white issue, although I think that plays a small part. But who is even talking about Glaus on here? And anyone who is defending Ankiel should also defend Troy.

[square634]

Not talking about going into GNC here, I'm talking about finding a doctor to give you something that you could otherwise get from a BALCO type of place. We're not talking about stuff you can get in GNC. If two guys are using the same thing to help their baseball career, I don't care how they got it. Of course, I don't think it's that big of a deal that they're using such things anyway.

BTW, here's what HgH was approved for at the time Ankiel was using it according to this (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/515665), "The FDA has approved GH only for GH deficiency-related syndromes causing short stature in children, adult GH deficiency caused by rare pituitary tumors and their treatment, and muscle-wasting disease associated with HIV and AIDS."

Doesn't seem like that was a legit prescription to me.

Random interjection: I was short enough in middle school that I could have gotten a prescription for HGH, but I decided I didn't want to take a shot every morning. Now I am the remarkable height of 5'5" ;)

[mweb]

Random interjection: I was short enough in middle school that I could have gotten a prescription for HGH, but I decided I didn't want to take a shot every morning. Now I am the remarkable height of 5'5" ;)

Maybe you should have taken those shots.;) I'm only 5'8, so it would have been nice to have gotten some shots to make me taller, although I hate shots, so not sure I would have went through with it. I do know someone who would probably be my height or so that took them and is now 6'1, he did it mostly because he played basketball.

[Migrant Redbird]

BTW, here's what HgH was approved for at the time Ankiel was using it according to this (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/515665), "The FDA has approved GH only for GH deficiency-related syndromes causing short stature in children, adult GH deficiency caused by rare pituitary tumors and their treatment, and muscle-wasting disease associated with HIV and AIDS."

Doesn't seem like that was a legit prescription to me.

And your medical degree is from who?

What we're discussing is "Off-label use", the use of an FDA approved drug for a different purpose than what the FDA approved it for. Here's what wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_use) has to say about this topic.


Off-label use is the practice of prescribing drugs for a purpose outside the scope of the drug's approved label, most often concerning the drug's indication. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires numerous clinical trials to prove a drug's safety and efficacy in treating a given disease or condition. If satisfied that the drug is safe and effective, the drug's manufacturer and the FDA agree on specific language describing dosage, route and other information to be included on the drug's label. More detail is included in the drug's package insert. However, once the FDA approves a drug for prescription use, they do not attempt to regulate the practice of medicine, and so the physician makes decisions based on her or his best judgment. It is entirely legal in the United States and in many other countries to use drugs off-label. Exceptions to this are certain controlled substances, such as opiates, which cannot be legally prescribed except for approved purposes (at least in the U.S.). In Australia, amphetamines are included in these drugs which cannot be prescribed off-label.

Some drugs are used more frequently off-label than for their original, FDA-approved indications. A 1991 study by the U.S. General Accounting Office found that one-third of all drug administrations to cancer patients were off label and more than half of cancer patients received at least one drug for an off-label indication[citation needed]. Frequently the standard of care for a particular type or stage of cancer involves the off-label use of one or more drugs. An example is the use of tricyclic antidepressants to treat neuropathic pain. This old class of antidepressants is now rarely used for clinical depression due to side effects, but the tricyclics are often effective for treating pain.

.... once a drug has been approved for sale for one purpose, physicians are free to prescribe it for any other purpose that in their professional judgment is both safe and effective; they are not limited to its official, FDA-approved indications. This off-label prescribing is most commonly done with older, generic medications that have found new uses but have not had the formal (and often costly) applications and studies required by the FDA to formally approve the drug for these new indications. However, there is usually extensive medical literature to support the off-label use.

The example that I'm familiar with is the practice of doctors prescribing anti-depressant drugs to children which the FDA has only approved for adults. In these cases, the drug companies have not been willing to fund the degree of testing required to obtain FDA approval of using the drugs for children because the potential market is too small, but doctors exercise their own judgment to go ahead and prescribe those drugs to their child patients because they believe they're the best available medications to treat their patients.

I have no particular insight into why Ankiel's doctor prescribed HGH for him, but two points are important:

(1) Rick was having difficulties recovering from TJ surgery which had not been a full success for him, in that he didn't have the same level of performance that he had prior to the injury requiring the surgery. He was under the care of a physician and the HGH was prescribed for him by a physician.

(2) HGH was not banned by baseball at the time, so the only difference between using HGH under prescription to treat an injury and using something like cortisone injections for the same purpose was the fact that it was "off-label". However, off-label use of prescriptions is relatively common, as the Wikipedia article explains.

I see a couple of issues here.

(1) Was the HGH prescribed to facilitate recovery from Ankiel's injury and surgery? I certainly can't answer that. The time frame of the HGH shipments does coincide with the period that Ankiel was attempting to come back from the surgery, but his doctors would have to address why they prescribed HGH. Rick Ankiel and Walt Jocketty held a news conference this afternoon, at which Jocketty explained that the law prohibits doctors from discussing treatments with the ball club (or the media) without the permission of the patient. Rick confirmed that he was prescribed HGH, but declined to discuss what medications he was prescribed or why he took them, citing doctor-patient confidentiality. If that off-label prescription by the doctor was inappropriate, the appropriate medical review authorities would need to review it and take any appropriate action. Unless the medicine is an opiate, I don't believe that there's much of a precedent for taking action against the doctor(s).

(2) Has Rick used HGH since MLB banned it?

[mweb]

Well what I found says that's all HgH is allowed to be prescribed for, as regulated by the FDA, I'm not sure one way or the other. However, considering the pharmacy involved in this is now in trouble, there's a decent chance that my link has some validity. Maybe I'll do some more research on this later, or hopefully someone with more knowledge on this will interject.

As far as your two issues, I agree they're valid concerns. It's rather obvious by now that I don't think the prescription was on the up and up. He probably got it to help recover, but I don't believe that makes the prescription ok. Regardless, it would help him with getting stronger.

Who knows on the last part. It would have been easy for him to do so considering testing doesn't catch that.

[Migrant Redbird]

Well what I found says that's all HgH is allowed to be prescribed for, as regulated by the FDA, I'm not sure one way or the other.

There is a lot of controversy regarding off-label prescriptions and I recall reading an extensive debate regarding the prescription of anti-depressants to teenagers when the FDA has only approved it for adults. The obvious concern is about safety -- have enough studies been done to provide assurance that it's safe for younger patients?

Cancer patients get a lot of off-label prescriptions. Doctors can't prescribe a drug outside of controlled clinical trials until the FDA has approved it, but once the FDA approves the drug for one usage, doctors are free to prescribe it for off-label purposes, subject to their medical judgment and ethics. In the case of cancer patients, particularly those who are terminal, doctors will prescribe whatever they believe is in the best interests of their patients, without respect to what the FDA has gotten around to putting on-label.

HGH is a little different situation, kind of like Botox before it was approved. There is a lot of HGH being prescribed for treatment in anti-aging clinics because old people want to recover part of their youth and a lot of them can afford to spend thousands on HGH. The proliferation of anti-aging clinics treating the elderly with HGH may have dubious standing in the medical community, but it's still legal as of now. The use of HGH for recuperation is much less common, but it falls into the same gray area as its use to counter the effects of aging.

[ScottieBaseball]

And he's a great story, beloved by many, white, not ripped, anything else I might be missing?

Puh-lease. I take offense to that.

I haven't rushed to Bonds' defense because steroids and HGH are entirely different animals. The dangers and legalities of steroids were well-documented (see Alzado, Lyle) before Bonds' melon grew freakishly large. Steroids abuse and its effects were and are obvious and well-documented in his case.

At the time, HGH was way more legitimate (while still somewhat experimental) as a drug used for a variety of reasons, one of which was speeding recovery from major muscular/skeletal injuries and the subsequent repair of. In 2004, it was being prescribed by some legitimate doctors in the same capacity it was prescribed for Ankiel.

[mweb]

Puh-lease. I take offense to that.

I haven't rushed to Bonds' defense because steroids and HGH are entirely different animals. The dangers and legalities of steroids were well-documented (see Alzado, Lyle) before Bonds' melon grew freakishly large. Steroids abuse and its effects were and are obvious and well-documented in his case.

At the time, HGH was way more legitimate (while still somewhat experimental) as a drug used for a variety of reasons, one of which was speeding recovery from major muscular/skeletal injuries and the subsequent repair of. In 2004, it was being prescribed by some legitimate doctors in the same capacity it was prescribed for Ankiel.

Take offense to that, really, I didn't say anything about you. Bonds took HGH and has been ripped for it. The prescription does not seem legit.

[ScottieBaseball]

Take offense to that, really, I didn't say anything about you. Bonds took HGH and has been ripped for it. The prescription does not seem legit.

I took offense to it because of the comment I highlighted. I defended Ankiel and you posted a justification for it afterward (not SPECIFICALLY about me) regarding the color or his skin. THAT'S what I took offense to.

If you think HGH is what Bonds took then there's a bridge I'd be willing to sell to you, dirt-cheap.

[mweb]

I took offense to it because of the comment I highlighted. I defended Ankiel and you posted a justification for it afterward (not SPECIFICALLY about me) regarding the color or his skin. THAT'S what I took offense to.

If you think HGH is what Bonds took then there's a bridge I'd be willing to sell to you, dirt-cheap.

Well that's reaching to be offended imo, that was not my intent at all. I'm not saying you or anyone on here is racist. But I'm quite sure it's a factor among some in this country. I'm the one who disputed the it's a black and white issue which was posted earlier. Maybe you missed that. I think it's a small part of the issue, but Bonds' attitude/personality along with the sacred records he's set are the biggest issues by far here.

Well you might want to try selling that bridge to the SF Chronicle (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/07/MNG90HJF4N22.DTL)

"Bonds also complained of pain in his knee and back, leading Anderson to search for other drugs in 2000. Soon thereafter, Anderson put Bonds on Deca-Durabolin, the excerpt says, and later added human growth hormone (HGH). Bonds favored HGH, according to the excerpt, because it allowed him to stay muscle-bound and maintain his thirst to train while also feeling flexible. It also seemed to improve his eyesight."

I'm not saying that's all Bonds took, because it wasn't, but he did take HGH.

[mweb]

Stark article: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3009424

From his chat:

"It's a non-story? How is it a non-story? I suggest you read it more carefully. It's NOT legal to get a prescription for HGH if you're not a patient of the doctor. And there has to be a specific medical purpose for a specific malady. The story quotes Gary Wadler of WADA saying there are very few legitimate medical reasons a healthy athlete in his 20s would need a prescription for HGH. And if this had taken place after 2005, I have no doubt that baseball would suspend him, much as the NFL did with Rodney Harrison. Now if you want to get into the inconsistency between how people react to a baseball player and a football player essentially being accused of the same offense, I'd be more sympathetic. But I completely disagree that it's a non-story."

[square634]

This (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3009424&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos1)is a great article by Jayson Stark about the double standards being applied in this case. I don't even see how Ankiel could be defended when other guys have been vilified.

[Migrant Redbird]

This (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3009424&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos1)is a great article by Jayson Stark about the double standards being applied in this case. I don't even see how Ankiel could be defended when other guys have been vilified.

Stark wrote a lot of words, but it's all crap!

Ankeil needed to address the issue of the 2004 HGH prescription, and he did, with the blanket statement that all of his medications in 2004 AND 2005 were legally prescribed and supervised by his physicians. Period! Whether that was a truthful statement or not, he was under no obligation to go beyond that. He's not a doctor, and has no business getting into a discussion of whether his treatment was medically sound or not.

What I think that many people are overlooking is that Rick was an extremely frustrated individual by 2004. His rehabilitation from "Blass syndrome" had not gone well and had been delayed for a seemingly interminable period by the injury and slow recovery from the TJ surgery. In situations like that, many individuals look to go beyond the traditional methods of mainstream medicine in a desperate search for a cure. My wife takes herbal remedies for her arthritis which I distrust, but she swears by them. Cancer patients abandon radiation and chemotherapy for holistic remedies that don't leave them feeling sick all the time. Other patients seek out chiropractors, acupuncturists, and quacks of various descriptions. When it hurts and it's been hurting for years and your life and career seem to be slipping from beyond your grasp, you do tend to become a little desperate. If Rick sought out a Florida physician who was willing to treat him with an off-label application of HGH to try and recover from his surgery, I have no problem with that. It's his body and his right to try whatever has the possibility of making him well.

If he were using the HGH for performance enhancement, it would be different, but Rick wasn't trying to "enhance" his performance in 2004, he was just trying to heal up his body so that he could achieve the level of performance he once had. In my opinion, there was absolutely nothing wrong with that, and people who are determined to make something else out of it are just sick and twisted!

Ankiel still has a basic right to privacy -- legally guaranteed by recent medical legislation -- which he doesn't want to relinquish. I fully support that right. When I was in the hospital recently, I even had to sign a form which said that it was OK for the nurses to tell my wife and children how I was doing if they called the hospital. Just because you or someone else has a morbid and insatiable curiosity to know all the personal details of Rick's or someone else's personal life doesn't place any obligation upon Rick to bare his soul to the media for you. He's a very private person, and he has a right to keep as much of that privacy intact as he can while playing on the fishbowl of a baseball field.

One of the reasons that Ankiel needed to keep his statement to the minimum which had been discussed with his agent and advisors is that if he attempted to simply answer questions extemporaneously, he would inevitably misstep and every word he said would be parsed and re-parsed for some hidden clue of meaning. For example, Rick stumbled during the news conference and used the wrong terminology when he asked reporters to respect his doctor-patient privilege. His doctors are legally and ethically bound by doctor-patient confidentiality, but Rick is not. What Rick exercised was his right to privacy, which is guaranteed to him by numerous U.S. laws and simple human decency -- something which seems to be in short supply among the folks thirsting after blood.

Stark has columns to fill and there wasn't much meat to grind upon from Rick's news conference yesterday, so Stark had to make some up out of whole cloth. That's how reporters make a living.

[square634]

What I think that many people are overlooking is that Rick was an extremely frustrated individual by 2004. His rehabilitation from "Blass syndrome" had not gone well and had been delayed for a seemingly interminable period by the injury and slow recovery from the TJ surgery. In situations like that, many individuals look to go beyond the traditional methods of mainstream medicine in a desperate search for a cure. My wife takes herbal remedies for her arthritis which I distrust, but she swears by them. Cancer patients abandon radiation and chemotherapy for holistic remedies that don't leave them feeling sick all the time. Other patients seek out chiropractors, acupuncturists, and quacks of various descriptions. When it hurts and it's been hurting for years and your life and career seem to be slipping from beyond your grasp, you do tend to become a little desperate. If Rick sought out a Florida physician who was willing to treat him with an off-label application of HGH to try and recover from his surgery, I have no problem with that. It's his body and his right to try whatever has the possibility of making him well.

Isn't Blass syndrome just a synonym for dropping off the table and performing terribly? So he took HGH as a desperate search for a cure to pitching badly? Tons of other guys have recovered from Tommy John without using HGH, but if Ankiel was still in pain, he could have used painkillers or just retired from baseball. Jason Grimsley also used HGH to recover from Tommy John, so was that OK?



If he were using the HGH for performance enhancement, it would be different, but Rick wasn't trying to "enhance" his performance in 2004, he was just trying to heal up his body so that he could achieve the level of performance he once had. In my opinion, there was absolutely nothing wrong with that, and people who are determined to make something else out of it are just sick and twisted!

Oh, give me a break. Recovering from injuries faster isn't performance enhancement? Would it be OK for Bonds to use steroids if he was only trying to recover from a shoulder injury by regaining strength?


Ankiel still has a basic right to privacy -- legally guaranteed by recent medical legislation -- which he doesn't want to relinquish. I fully support that right. When I was in the hospital recently, I even had to sign a form which said that it was OK for the nurses to tell my wife and children how I was doing if they called the hospital. Just because you or someone else has a morbid and insatiable curiosity to know all the personal details of Rick's or someone else's personal life doesn't place any obligation upon Rick to bare his soul to the media for you. He's a very private person, and he has a right to keep as much of that privacy intact as he can while playing on the fishbowl of a baseball field.

One of the reasons that Ankiel needed to keep his statement to the minimum which had been discussed with his agent and advisors is that if he attempted to simply answer questions extemporaneously, he would inevitably misstep and every word he said would be parsed and re-parsed for some hidden clue of meaning. For example, Rick stumbled during the news conference and used the wrong terminology when he asked reporters to respect his doctor-patient privilege. His doctors are legally and ethically bound by doctor-patient confidentiality, but Rick is not. What Rick exercised was his right to privacy, which is guaranteed to him by numerous U.S. laws and simple human decency -- something which seems to be in short supply among the folks thirsting after blood.

Bonds is a very private person, too, which is why he is always in conflict with the media. I'm sure Bonds has also been advised to remain silent. I know Ankiel is a great story, but I'm sorry, it is a double standard to vilify others but be fine with this.

[Migrant Redbird]

Tons of other guys have recovered from Tommy John without using HGH, but if Ankiel was still in pain, he could have used painkillers or just retired from baseball. Jason Grimsley also used HGH to recover from Tommy John, so was that OK?

(1) Did Grimsley have a legal prescription for the HGH? I don't recall.

(2) Didn't Grimsley receive his HGH after the MLB ban? That's why he got the suspension, irrelevant as it was since his career was already finished.


Oh, give me a break. Recovering from injuries faster isn't performance enhancement? Would it be OK for Bonds to use steroids if he was only trying to recover from a shoulder injury by regaining strength?

If Bonds took steroids under a doctor's prescription to recover from a shoulder injury, that would be fine from a legal perspective. I don't know how MLB would view that, now that they've banned steroids. The two situations are not at all analogous, and it's just a red herring to compare Ankiel with Bonds, by people who can't come up with any legitimate points.


Bonds is a very private person, too, which is why he is always in conflict with the media. I'm sure Bonds has also been advised to remain silent. I know Ankiel is a great story, but I'm sorry, it is a double standard to vilify others but be fine with this.

I don't like Bonds, but I've taken pains in the past to point out that his use of HGH is only alleged, whereas he has testified himself before a grand jury that he used steroids, albeit it in "secret" grand jury testimony that we shouldn't know about.

[DrungoHazewood]

Methinks that if your handle was Migrant Brewer you'd have an entirely different take on this situation. Kind of like the Pujols incident a few days ago.

[Migrant Redbird]

Methinks that if your handle was Migrant Brewer you'd have an entirely different take on this situation. Kind of like the Pujols incident a few days ago.

Of course I would. Well, not so much a different take as a lack of incentive to take the lead in trying to insert a little rationality into the discussion. However, I don't believe that anything I've written was incorrect or out of line. You're welcome to pick apart any points I've made that you consider invalid. Time permitting, I'll attempt to respond.

And I'm impressed by the relative balance overall which I've observed in how O's fans are discussing this issue. I've not gone to a Cubs, Brewers, or Astros forum to see what they're saying there because I suspect it wouldn't be good for my hypertension. I did look at the Redzone forum regarding the Phillips-Pujols incident last weekend and I saw a couple of pretty reasonable Reds fans whose opinion coincided with mine :), along with a couple who wanted Arroyo to bean Pujols in the first inning of the following game and suggested going after Ankiel when La Russa benched Albert.

[square634]

(1) Did Grimsley have a legal prescription for the HGH? I don't recall.

(2) Didn't Grimsley receive his HGH after the MLB ban? That's why he got the suspension, irrelevant as it was since his career was already finished.

If Ankiel got HGH solely to recover from Tommy John surgery, there is no way you can convince me that the prescription was legal. If he got a prescription it all, it was from a pharmacy running a scam, in which case Ankiel's only defense could be that he didn't know it wasn't a legitimate prescription. It's possible, but it's just as believable as Bonds not knowing that the "flaxseed oil" was a steroid, which everyone seems to dismiss. I mean think about it. If Ankiel wanted something prescribed and didn't think he had to use covert means, wouldn't he have just gone through his team doctor or personal physician? And wouldn't he have just gone to his local pharmacy? Why buy it online unless you know that it isn't legal or the correct prescription?


If Bonds took steroids under a doctor's prescription to recover from a shoulder injury, that would be fine from a legal perspective. I don't know how MLB would view that, now that they've banned steroids. The two situations are not at all analogous, and it's just a red herring to compare Ankiel with Bonds, by people who can't come up with any legitimate points.

They both used performance enhancing drugs, and as far as I'm concerned, that's enough to make them comparable. Now, you're right that baseball didn't explicitly ban HGH until 2005, but that isn't enough of an excuse to me because it was still illegal by federal law to use it off-label.


I don't like Bonds, but I've taken pains in the past to point out that his use of HGH is only alleged, whereas he has testified himself before a grand jury that he used steroids, albeit it in "secret" grand jury testimony that we shouldn't know about.

This is a probe in which both Rodney Harrison and Wade Wilson admitted they used HGH. In fact, Ankiel admitted it already as well. I'm sure the information is valid; he took HGH. The question is whether you care or not. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal, but I didn't think Bonds was a big deal either because baseball wasn't testing, and I'm guessing that at least 80% of players were on something. I just have a problem with burying one guy for it and not another.

[geschinger]

If Ankiel got HGH solely to recover from Tommy John surgery, there is no way you can convince me that the prescription was legal. If he got a prescription it all, it was from a pharmacy running a scam, in which case Ankiel's only defense could be that he didn't know it wasn't a legitimate prescription. It's possible, but it's just as believable as Bonds not knowing that the "flaxseed oil" was a steroid, which everyone seems to dismiss. I mean think about it. If Ankiel wanted something prescribed and didn't think he had to use covert means, wouldn't he have just gone through his team doctor or personal physician? And wouldn't he have just gone to his local pharmacy? Why buy it online unless you know that it isn't legal or the correct prescription?


Palm Beach Post says a source familiar w/the situation says that Ankiel had a consultation w/an orthopedic surgeon and was prescribed the medication. The targets of these investigations are where prescriptions are given out w/o an in person consultation which is not the case w/Ankiel. If he's working with the surgeon at his clinic and they can fill the prescription why wouldn't he obtain it that way? What would be interesting to find out is how Ankiel started working w/the orthopedic surgeon... Was he doctor shopping looking for someone to write him a script he knew a legitimate doctor wouldn't? Was he recommended by the team doctor?



This is a probe in which both Rodney Harrison and Wade Wilson admitted they used HGH. In fact, Ankiel admitted it already as well. I'm sure the information is valid; he took HGH. The question is whether you care or not. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal, but I didn't think Bonds was a big deal either because baseball wasn't testing, and I'm guessing that at least 80% of players were on something. I just have a problem with burying one guy for it and not another.

Would you apply the same "no big deal" standard to other illegal drugs that MLB doesn't test for like cocaine?

[square634]

Palm Beach Post says a source familiar w/the situation says that Ankiel had a consultation w/an orthopedic surgeon and was prescribed the medication. The targets of these investigations are where prescriptions are given out w/o an in person consultation which is not the case w/Ankiel. If he's working with the surgeon at his clinic and they can fill the prescription why wouldn't he obtain it that way? What would be interesting to find out is how Ankiel started working w/the orthopedic surgeon... Was he doctor shopping looking for someone to write him a script he knew a legitimate doctor wouldn't? Was he recommended by the team doctor?



Would you apply the same "no big deal" standard to other illegal drugs that MLB doesn't test for like cocaine?

If he got it legally, then I stand corrected, but I think it is fishy to say the least. When I say no big deal I mean I'm not outraged over steroids use in baseball when no testing was in place. I know that is as much the fault of the players union as the owners. But still, considering the economic incentives involved with baseball, if I placed myself in someone like Miguel Tejada's shoes, I cannot honestly say I wouldn't have taken steroids when it was not being punished. Now that testing is actually in place, I hope that many players are caught and punished accordingly.

What I mean to say is that I don't care about the steroids use in the past; what happened in those seasons is done and can never be changed. Therefore, in a way I agree with those that say that this Ankiel business isn't a big deal. However, I think you have to apply the same standards to other players that used performance enhancers.

[mweb]

Palm Beach Post says a source familiar w/the situation says that Ankiel had a consultation w/an orthopedic surgeon and was prescribed the medication. The targets of these investigations are where prescriptions are given out w/o an in person consultation which is not the case w/Ankiel. If he's working with the surgeon at his clinic and they can fill the prescription why wouldn't he obtain it that way? What would be interesting to find out is how Ankiel started working w/the orthopedic surgeon... Was he doctor shopping looking for someone to write him a script he knew a legitimate doctor wouldn't? Was he recommended by the team doctor?



Would you apply the same "no big deal" standard to other illegal drugs that MLB doesn't test for like cocaine?


Ankiel doesn't match the standards needed for a HGH prescription according to the FDA. So again, doesn't seem perfectly legal to me.

Yes, I would apply a no big deal to someone using cocaine.

[mweb]

I'm curious to know if the Game of Shadows authors have bought that bridge yet.:D

[geschinger]

Ankiel doesn't match the standards needed for a HGH prescription according to the FDA. So again, doesn't seem perfectly legal to me.

Yes, I would apply a no big deal to someone using cocaine.

Bonds has actually gotten off quite easy compared to many/most implicated as using cocaine. There is a double standard that he is benefiting from when it comes to the documented use of illegal but not tested for substances.

[ScottieBaseball]

Well that's reaching to be offended imo, that was not my intent at all. I'm not saying you or anyone on here is racist. But I'm quite sure it's a factor among some in this country. I'm the one who disputed the it's a black and white issue which was posted earlier. Maybe you missed that.

My bad...I misunderstood and didn't associate the argument against it being a black and white issue with you.


I think it's a small part of the issue, but Bonds' attitude/personality along with the sacred records he's set are the biggest issues by far here..

You know...stepping and looking at the big picture, a part of me might be guilty as charged. I despise Bonds. Years of surly behavior directed at the media, arrogantly skipping team workouts and stretching...man. Throw in his freakishly expanded cranium, and peculiarly rapid increase in muscle mass, BALCO, the cream and the clear...it's easy for me to find every reason to take an anti-Bonds stance.

I still think we can draw all the conclusions we want about Ankiel, but so far it seems pretty clear that he stayed within the rules of Major League Baseball. As far as the legality of his prescription, I don't know that there's enough information to establish clearly one way or the other if Ankiel is guilty of any wrong doing.



I'm not saying that's all Bonds took, because it wasn't, but he did take HGH.

Gotcha. I guess I should have said that HGH isn't his biggest offense in my opinion.

[ScottieBaseball]

Ankiel doesn't match the standards needed for a HGH prescription according to the FDA. So again, doesn't seem perfectly legal to me.

Yes, I would apply a no big deal to someone using cocaine.

I don't know much about the legal system, (and trust me when I say I'm playing devil's advocate) but wouldn't that make the physician the guilty party and (stretching it) Ankiel a victim of malpractice? Ugh...I feel filthy for even thinking like that. :o

[geschinger]

I don't know much about the legal system, (and trust me when I say I'm playing devil's advocate) but wouldn't that make the physician the guilty party and (stretching it) Ankiel a victim of malpractice? Ugh...I feel filthy for even thinking like that. :o

That is a reasonable possibility. Learning how he became a patient of that particular orthapedic surgeon would have an impact on what I think about this situation. If he was having trouble recovering from surgery and was legitimately recommended to the orthapedic surgeon he used and the doctor said HGH is the best form of treatment I'd find it difficult to put any blame on Ankiel. On the other hand, if we were to find out that he wanted to get his hands on HGH and went doctor shopping to find one who would get it for him then I'd have a real problem w/Ankiel.

[Migrant Redbird]

... so far it seems pretty clear that he stayed within the rules of Major League Baseball.

This is the main point which I'd like to get across. Based upon what has been reported, no evidence has been presented that Ankiel did anything wrong whatsoever, but because of the stigma associated with HGH, a lot of the media and fans have been jumping to a rash of conclusions. I understand there's nothing which I can do about that, except to point out how unfair it is.

I've met Ankiel and talked with him. He autographed a baseball for me, personalized to a friend of mine who was dying of lung cancer, and who was a big fan of his. No big deal -- most other ballplayers would have done the same thing. I have been told -- and I emphasize that the information was second hand and unverified, at least by me -- that Rick has been a little wild during his time with the Cardinals and engaged in a lot of activities which I don't personally approve of, along with some of his current and former team mates. I don't believe that his behavior is unusual for young pro athletes with lots of money to spend and young women chasing after them all the time. Had I been in situation 40 years ago, I very possibly would have been doing the same thing, and only didn't back then because of more limited opportunities. Some of you reading this probably were engaged in similar activities just last night.

So, it wouldn't surprise me if additional information regarding Rick's behavior comes out through the course of this investigation. However, I'm going to wait for those revelations -- if they occur -- and not engage in scurrilous speculation or misrepresent apparently legal activities on his part as being something nefarious.

The comparisons with Bonds are totally out of line, in my view. A closer parallel would be Gary Matthews Jr. (http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=2951014), who was also linked to alleged purchases of HGH in 2004. Matthews took 16 days to assess the situation before he appeared at a news conference and denied that he ever used HGH.

The difference with Ankiel, based I'm convinced on wise counsel from Scott Boras, is that Rick held a news conference within about 18 hours after the story broke, did not deny having used HGH, stated that all the medications he used while recuperating in 2004 and 2005 were prescribed and supervised by his physicians, and refused to discuss details of any medication usage -- which was his right.

Yet, how much have any of you read about Gary Matthews Jr. since his news conference last spring? Or about Jerry Hairston Jr.? The furor over both of those players died down fairly quickly, once they spoke to the media and denied using HGH. Even if they were lying about using HGH, that use was not banned by MLB at the time they were alleged to have received HGH, and federal prosecutors have little interest in pursuing users, except to obtain their cooperation in getting sanctions and/or convictions on the doctors and pharmacists who are peddling HGH unethically and/or illegally.

Unless there is more information forthcoming about Ankiel using HGH since the MLB ban, or conspiring with his doctors, clinic, or pharmacy to obtain the HGH illegally, this current flap will die off quickly. Ankiel is a bigger story than Matthews or Hairston because of his remarkable transition from a wild pitcher in the 2000 NLDS into an extremely promising outfield slugger, but he has always been a great hitter throughout his career. He hit 9 home runs in just his first 22 games this season, but he also hit a couple in his rookie season in 2000 and 10 the following year as a DH when he was trying to work through his control problems down in the Appalachian Rookie League. 9 home runs in 22 games isn't all that remarkable; Dale Long once hit 8 home runs in just 8 games, then only hit 124 more in the other 1,005 major league games in which he played.

If the Cardinals somehow manage to make the post season, the Ankiel story will have new life. That doesn't appear likely at this point, with the Cards 2 games back of both the Cubs and Brewers. The Cards had opportunities against the NL West leading Diamondbacks: Adam Wainwright matched up well against last year's Cy Young winner, Branden Webb, in Friday's game, but sloppy defense by the Cards provided 2 unearned runs that were the difference. Braden Looper had a rare bad outing last night, but the offense rallied and converted an 0-3 deficit into a 6-3 lead; unfortunately, the pitching wasn't up to the task as the Diamondbacks edged the Cards 9-8. Today's game doesn't bode well either, since the Snakes are starting a young lefthander whose ERA in his last 5 starts or so has been below 3.00, while the Cards seem to always have difficulties with lefthanders. AL rehab, Joel Piniero will start for the Cards and has pitched well since his acquisition, but the Cards are in serious jeopardy of getting swept and falling completely out of contention.

[mweb]

I don't know much about the legal system, (and trust me when I say I'm playing devil's advocate) but wouldn't that make the physician the guilty party and (stretching it) Ankiel a victim of malpractice? Ugh...I feel filthy for even thinking like that. :o


That's possible, but I find it hard to believe that he didn't know about it, in fact, I would be surprised if he wasn't seeking it out.

[mweb]

My bad...I misunderstood and didn't associate the argument against it being a black and white issue with you.



You know...stepping and looking at the big picture, a part of me might be guilty as charged. I despise Bonds. Years of surly behavior directed at the media, arrogantly skipping team workouts and stretching...man. Throw in his freakishly expanded cranium, and peculiarly rapid increase in muscle mass, BALCO, the cream and the clear...it's easy for me to find every reason to take an anti-Bonds stance.

I still think we can draw all the conclusions we want about Ankiel, but so far it seems pretty clear that he stayed within the rules of Major League Baseball. As far as the legality of his prescription, I don't know that there's enough information to establish clearly one way or the other if Ankiel is guilty of any wrong doing.




Gotcha. I guess I should have said that HGH isn't his biggest offense in my opinion.


Yes, it was within the rules of baseball, probably not within the laws of this country. That's fine, I'm not trying to rip the guy, I was just surprised by the defense of him on here compared to Bonds and others. I think we can assume that if Bonds only took HGH and took it before 2005, people wouldn't be lining up to defend him. Even if we just isolate Bonds usage of HGH, I haven't seen people defend his use of that.

[square634]

That's possible, but I find it hard to believe that he didn't know about it, in fact, I would be surprised if he wasn't seeking it out.

Yeah, I agree with this 100%. While it is possible that Ankiel didn't go "doctor shopping" as Geschinger put it, I think there is a parallel in that it is also possible that Bonds, Palmeiro, etc. didn't really know they were using steroids.

[ScottieBaseball]

That's possible, but I find it hard to believe that he didn't know about it, in fact, I would be surprised if he wasn't seeking it out.

The further I step back and try to get an unbiased perspective, the more it looks like this could be possible.

Except in the case of Barry Lamar Bonds, I believe the court of public opinion should refrain from convicting anyone until they're proven guilty. For Bonds? Lock the door and throw away the key! :D

[Migrant Redbird]

Even if we just isolate Bonds usage of HGH, I haven't seen people defend his use of that.

I have seen it, although I've not done that myself. My own opinion is that Bonds used HGH, but I still regard the allegations as unproven. Bonds testified to using steroids -- while claiming he didn't know that's what was in "the clear" -- in his "secret" grand jury testimony. I've little doubt that someone has credible evidence of his use of HGH, but I tend to take newspaper articles and book exposes with a grain of salt until I see something a little more authoritative.

I did defend Palmeiro though. I guess that I'm one of the few who felt that his explanation of how he might have gotten stanazol might have been true. No one has disputed that Raffie got a B12 injection from Tejada, and I've seen B12 advertised over the internet which included stanazol. The pharmacy industries in countries like the Dominican Republic are relatively unregulated, compared to the U.S., and it would have been easy for Tejada to have gotten a hold of some B12 with stanazol along with the regular kind, with or without him being aware the B12 contained a steroid banned by MLB. With the kind of career that Palmeiro had, I don't see him as being a likely candidate for having used steroids, nor do I see him suddenly beginning to use them to salvage the tail end of his career.

I don't place any credibility in Canseco's claim that he introduced Palmeiro to steroids when they were with the Rangers. I'm convinced that Canseco inserted the names of fellow players into his book willy nilly to juice interest in the book and potential sales, choosing players who were famous and/or who were already being rumored as steroid users, with his publisher counting on the fact that winning a libel suit would be virtually impossible for those he accused. Mike Wallace essentially shredded Canseco's credibility when he interviewed him on 60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/05/60minutes/main761932.shtml) and Jose admitted that much of what he had written about McGwire was false. (Jose wouldn't admit to Wallace that it was a complete fabrication, but I think there's a good chance it was.)

[mweb]

Well I think it's proven that Bonds took steroids, he did admit to it, and there is a lot of evidence out there.

Concerning Big Mac, of course you think Jose is making all that up. I think McGwire certainly used as well.

[square634]

Well I think it's proven that Bonds took steroids, he did admit to it, and there is a lot of evidence out there.

Concerning Big Mac, of course you think Jose is making all that up. I think McGwire certainly used as well.

His "I'm not here to talk about the past" routine was enough proof for me. Also, in the article about Gibbons, is says Gibbons received a prescription for HGH and steroids (which was obviously bogus), which further leads me to believe that Ankiel knowingly and deliberately searched for a bogus prescription himself.

[Migrant Redbird]

Concerning Big Mac, of course you think Jose is making all that up. I think McGwire certainly used as well.

I didn't say that McGwire didn't use, although there's no real evidence that he did. What I said is that Mike Wallace totally destroyed Canseco's credibility when he appeared on 60 Minutes. You should read the transcript if you don't believe that -- Canseco backed off of virtually all the statements he made about McGwire in the book.


Aug. 7, 2005
Former slugger Jose Canseco speaks with Mike Wallace about steroid use in Major League Baseball. (CBS)


(CBS) Canseco's admission that he used steroids for his entire career has surprised almost no one in baseball. But everyone in the game is stunned that he has gone farther in the book than they expected. He names five names, players he claims to have used steroids with.

And at the top of the list is Mark McGwire.

"Mark and I weren't really in a sense of buddy buddies," says Canseco, who says McGwire used steroids with him. "We were more acquaintances than actually anything else. But there are certain subjects that we could talk about, like obviously steroids and so forth."

The gargantuan McGwire was best known for his remarkable 1998 season, the year he shattered one of baseball’s most hallowed records, Roger Maris' single season home-run mark of 61 homers. Canseco played with McGwire at Oakland from 1986 to 1992, and again in 1997.

"You write repeatedly about injecting steroids and growth hormones with and into Mark McGwire," says Wallace. "Tell me about your firsthand experiences with McGwire and steroids."

"Just the first time, injecting them in his buttocks," says Canseco, laughing. "It wasn't like you gave a lot of thought. It was something so common."

"What we did more times than I can count was go into a bathroom stall together, shoot up steroids," read Wallace from Canseco's book. "After batting practice or right before the game, Mark and I would duck into a stall in the men's room, load up our syringes and inject ourselves. I would often inject Mark."

"I injected him probably twice," adds Canseco. "But it wasn't like, I mean, we would just walk in and a lot of times they were pill form. A lot of times, you would just, a quick injection of whatever and that's it."

"I'm just repeating what you say in the book," says Wallace. "And if we're to believe what you say in the book, 'I would often,' not twice, 'inject Mark.'"

"Well, I think it was more inject ourselves. I think I injected him. I mean, this is a long time ago. Once or twice for sure. I didn't keep track," says Canseco. "An athlete may prepare his needle and may ask another athlete to inject him quickly. And that's the way it works."

So are we to believe that Canseco checked his facts in the book when he wrote that he often injected McGwire, or believe his statement to Mike Wallace that "I think I injected him."

I repeat, Mike Wallace totally destroyed Canseco's credibility regarding any accusations he made against McGwire. Just because Canseco has no credibility doesn't make his assertion that McGwire used steroids false; it just means you can't take Canseco's word for it, and probably not for anything else he wrote in his book that can't be independently verified.

The closest thing to "evidence" that I'm aware of with McGwire was his testimony, or "non-testimony" when he was under oath before Congress. McGwire could have denied using steroids, like Sosa and Palmeiro, but he took the tack that he wasn't going to discuss it.


Asked by St. Louis congressman William Clay whether he could assure fans he had played "with honesty and integrity," McGwire said, "I'm not going to go into the past or talk about my past..."

He also refused to address allegations of steroid use leveled against him and other ballplayers by his one-time Oakland A's teammate Jose Canseco -- the author of a recent tell-all book on the issue -- and said he would not be "naming names."

"My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family and myself," McGwire said.

There could be any number of reasons why McGwire didn't follow the course that Sosa and Palmeiro took, whether he had used steroids or not. He had already made a statement to CBS prior to the 60 minutes that he had not used steroids so, if he was lying to CBS, why would he not simply lie to Congress too?

It's possible that McGwire wouldn't discuss steroid use because he was under no risk of being prosecuted for such use -- assuming he did use steroids -- but he would certainly have been at risk for prosecution of perjury if he lied under oath to Congress and a credible witness -- let's say one or more of his suppliers -- had come forth with evidence that McGwire bought steroids. I'm assuming that most suppliers keep some kind of record accounts -- just as Rose's bookies kept his betting slips -- and it wouldn't have taken much in the way of documentation to support a charge of perjury if it was consistent.

It's also possible that McGwire tried steroids long ago as a high school or college athlete in Southern California, hanging around the gym with all the body builders who were heavily into steroids at that time, but that he only tried it briefly and never used them again while he was a professional ballplayer. If McGwire had attempted to assert that he'd never used steroids while playing professional baseball, the inquisitors would have wanted to know why he was hedging, and whether he admitted experimenting with steroids as an amateur or not, the majority of the public would have simply assumed he used steroids to break the home run record. They're making that assumption now, without any credible evidence to support it, why should McGwire perjure himself or attempt to talk around any prior use of steroids or other illegal drugs just to satiate the Congressional poseurs?

But the bottom line is that McGwire's testimony raised questions for which there are no satisfactory answers right now. I can speculate on why he took the tack he did, but no one knows except him and his lawyers, and the public has already jumped to their own conclusions anyhow.

The biggest difference between me and so many others is that I apply logic to ascertain what I can reasonably believe and what I can't. I may think that Roger Clemens could not possibly have posted the lowest ERA of his 24 year career at the age of 42 without the aid of some kind of performance enhancing drugs, but I have absolutely no evidence that he did so aside from his atypical performance. Maybe Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds really are the greatest studs in the history of major league baseball?

[mweb]

If a guy didn't use steroids, he's going to say as much in front of Congress, to believe otherwise makes no sense imo. The difference between you and others on this is you're a Cardinals fan and probably a McGwire fan.

[Migrant Redbird]

If a guy didn't use steroids, he's going to say as much in front of Congress, to believe otherwise makes no sense imo.

I'm glad that you know so well what other people will do or say. 60 years of experience has left me a little less positive.

McGwire's statement implied that he was protecting other people. I suspect that was a smoke screen, but I don't know. Yes, he was protecting something, but I'm unwilling to jump to conclusions that I know what that was. It could have been that he was protecting team mates who used steroids. He might have experimented with steroids briefly as a teenager or while he was at USC. He might have used amphetamines or HGH or recreational drugs, and not been willing to open up a line of questioning that could lead to uncovering that. He might have begun using steroids in the minors, or with Canseco in Oakland. He might have just used them for his HR surge in 1998, or he might have used steroids for 20 years. We simply don't know, and it's asinine to assume that we can arrive at valid conclusions from one evasive statement to a congressional witch hunt.

I do assume that McGwire had something questionable in his background which he wasn't willing to discuss. I don't assume I know what that was.

If McGwire was using steroids during 1998, I'm puzzled why he would have been using the andro and creatine. Everything which I've read suggests that andro simply isn't effective; at most, he might have gotten a placebo effect. If McGwire was a steroids user, he had access to some of the best experts in the world among the Southern California Muscle Beach community; why would he take both steroids and andro?

My experience with the media has been that, in every story with which I've had any personal knowledge, the reporter has made significant errors of fact, sometimes to the point of invalidating the main thrust of his article. I assume that there's a high percentage of errors in the other stories which I read in which I don't have any personal knowledge. I don't object to people speculating on the background behind the stories -- since I do it myself -- but I do object when people draw conclusions from that speculation and insist that I accept it as established fact.


The difference between you and others on this is you're a Cardinals fan and probably a McGwire fan.

I'll plead guilty to that, but the greater difference is that I'm willing to analyze issues a little more deeply and logically instead of jumping to conclusions, making up my mind, and never changing it. Labeling me a "homer" doesn't refute anything which I've said, and I've always admitted that I'm concerned about the prevalence of PED usage among young ballplayers in the Dominican Republic, where Pujols grew up. I desperately want to believe that Pujols is as pure as his public image, but I'm willing to acknowledge that everyone has warts and Albert may be no exception.

And when a story on Albert and PEDs usage hits the street, I'll evaluate it upon the basis of what appears to be the facts in the story, and wait until I have a reasonable basis before developing firm conclusions.

[mweb]

Yep, my logic on all issues is cleary inferior to yours.:rolleyes: It's assinine to assume anything other than him using steroids at some point in his life. Your "logic" on why he wouldn't answer the question even though he hasn't used makes no sense at all. Protecting teammates has nothing to do with what he was asked, and he would never have been forced to reveal anything on them. All of your other conclusions says he tried steroids. So your only non-steroid possibility makes no sense whatsoever. Use your logic to figure out what that means.

[Migrant Redbird]

Yep, my logic on all issues is cleary inferior to yours.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Hey, I'm quite aware that I have a high regard for my own opinions, but I've worked pretty hard on them and I probably have dug a little deeper into some issues than the rest of you. OTOH, I try not to become engaged in discussions where I'm not willing to do some heavy lifting in terms of research and analysis. I'm also eager to hear from individuals with greater expertise than I have on any aspect of an issue, even if I won't always genuflect to their greater "authority", unless they have a convincing argument.

That's one reason that I've stayed out of the Gibbons discussion so far. I've only made it through the first 6 pages of the thread, but I've not seen anything so far where I thought I had a comment worth contributing. It's tempting to chortle when I see speculation regarding Roberts and Markakis, but it's also quite sad for the game. The post which touched me the most was the one about the 15 year old kid who had Jake as his hero. There were 3 Cardinals players with whom I developed a strong attachment in the 1999-2001 time frame: Joe McEwing, Jack Wilson, and Rick Ankiel. Maybe at age 60, I should be past that, but if I was, I probably wouldn't be a baseball fan anymore.

[mweb]

Wow, you actually agree with my sarcastic comment, I'm done talking to you.

[Migrant Redbird]

Wow, you actually agree with my sarcastic comment, I'm done talking to you.

Thanks! Bye!