Jump to content

Ryan Braun Tests Positive For PEDs


Remember The Alomar

Recommended Posts

I think Camden Yards vs Oakland did more for that guy. But who knows.

Lots of foul teritory in Oakland.

That is probably part of it too, but he made a jump from 2-3 HR a year to 7-8 a year in OAK before he signed here too. Then he went to like 10, 13 and 20 HR here. I think he went from 3 a year up to 13-20 in the same time frame Roberts went from 5 to 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Is there anything written anywhere, that says the players in the Mitchell Report were treated any differently (as far as testing) than any other players? I honestly don't know. I just didn't think so. Let's assume Roberts stopped using as soon as his name came out in the reports. Is it unbelievable that he might have still benefited from years of use, for the next couple of years or more?

It is easier to maintain then it is to make gains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe Roberts only used once. That must have been one hell of a shot to add 14 HRs to his previous years total.

With so much money on the line, ballplayers will constantly be looking for an edge. It's been that way for decades. And with so much money available now, ballplayers can invest quite a bit trying to stay one step ahead of the testers. Barry Bonds looked like an alien and still tested clean. No, the cat and mouse game will continue because the stakes are enormous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there anything written anywhere, that says the players in the Mitchell Report were treated any differently (as far as testing) than any other players? I honestly don't know. I just didn't think so. Let's assume Roberts stopped using as soon as his name came out in the reports. Is it unbelievable that he might have still benefited from years of use, for the next couple of years or more?

Nah, they'd never do anything like that on the record, without a policy on violations in place before hand it would be discriminatory. But off the record I'm SURE they tested those guys MUCH more often than other players because they had a blanket we can test as much and as random as we want policy. If all those guys tested positive after saying they never used it would make them scapegoats. If he would have used through 07 and stopped it wouldn't have had any effect at all on 2009 and that year he almost matched that outlier season from 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is probably part of it too, but he made a jump from 2-3 HR a year to 7-8 a year in OAK before he signed here too. Then he went to like 10, 13 and 20 HR here. I think he went from 3 a year up to 13-20 in the same time frame Roberts went from 5 to 16.

Could be, I just never thought that way. He did play with The Bash Brothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to think that Prince isn't happy about this coming out before he signs. At a minimum, you have to think that it enters GM's minds. Prince is a friend, smae clubhouse. I wont say that Prince isn't going to get tons of money, but I'm sure he wished this was reported after he signed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to think that Prince isn't happy about this coming out before he signs. At a minimum, you have to think that it enters GM's minds. Prince is a friend, smae clubhouse. I wont say that Prince isn't going to get tons of money, but I'm sure he wished this was reported after he signed.

I don't think it effects his situation in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be, I just never thought that way. He did play with The Bash Brothers.

I like to think some players just learn how to hit better as they get older, and maybe Mike and Brian fall into this category. It's not like they were putting up Uggla or Utley kinda numbers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Mike Bordick ever been linked to steroids? I undestand the spike in his numbers for a few years at age 32 in a hitter's park but it seems like we're linking Bordick with Roberts to make Roberts look clean.

You can't link Roberts to dirty players just to make them look dirty, you have to understand that there ARE statistical patterns that don't follow the norm that don't mean someone is dirty too. Just saying that it is very much in the realm of possibility that Roberts was completely honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible that Roberts was being honest, but let's not ignore logic. Roberts linked to steroids in 2003. Information doesnt' come out until late 2007. Roberts career starts to take off in 2003, culminating with career season in 2005. I'm not linking Roberts to clean players or dirty players. I'm just talking about Roberts and my opinion is that he wasn't being honest. Agree to disagree.

As far as passing tests go, the whole thing is a joke. It's a wonder that anyone gets caught. The poster boy for steroids, Barry Bonds, never failed a test. That about says it all for me.

Yeah but I don't think Bonds was ever tested until the Mitchell stuff, and he had plenty of notice that was coming to get off of them in order to test clean.

But you're right, he might have been dirty, he might not have been. We will never know for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think the testing system in place is effective in regards to catching users? Do you think there are a few players beating the system or a lot of players beating the system. We all know that there are just a few being caught.

I have my doubts. I think it hurts MLB worse than it hurts the individual players to have a positive test, so I have a feeling the testing isn't happening as much as it should, or certain results are discarded. If pro sports are serious about doing testing, they will have a 3rd party with a vested interest in catching violators take control of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...