Sun:Grimsley names 3 O's in banned drug case

[El Gordo]

Wow. A glimmer of hope (at least, I'm choosing to interpret it as such).

Also, the point about Clemens having to pass Olympic standard tests for the WBC also applies to Miggy, and even more so since he was playing MLB games in April when Roger wasn't back til June.

Excellent point!

[Why Not?]

Wow. A glimmer of hope (at least, I'm choosing to interpret it as such).

Also, the point about Clemens having to pass Olympic standard tests for the WBC also applies to Miggy, and even more so since he was playing MLB games in April when Roger wasn't back til June.

That would only mean Clemens, Miggy and whoever else weren't on steroids this offseason. They could have been shooting up during the games in 2001.

[blueberryale77]

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/1002dbacks.html

From The Arizona Republic, featuring quotes from Grimsley's lawyer, including:

“As to all five players named, Jason did not attribute steroid use to any of them,” said Novak, vice president of the Arizona State Bar and head of the white collar crime group of the prestigious law firm Quarles & Brady Streich Lang.

“There was no mention of Roberts or Gibbons at all. The agents didn't even mention Roberts or Gibbons.”

Sounds pretty good for B-Rob and Gibby, possibly not quite as good for Miggy...

[2632]

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/1002dbacks.html

From The Arizona Republic, featuring quotes from Grimsley's lawyer, including:

Sounds pretty good for B-Rob and Gibby, possibly not quite as good for Miggy...

Holy crap. I mean, Miggy still might be in some hot water, but it could be for the much more palatable charge of greenies. Or, the somehow marginally less offensive HGH.

Here's hoping someone at the LA Times has some serious 'splainin to do.

[Hallas]

Several posters have wondered why the NFL isn't scrutinized as much as MLB with regards to steroids.

I'll give my take on that. Please note that I haven't actually looked at any official steroids policies so my "facts" could be slightly off but the gist should essentially be accurate. Also, I don't mean to imply that the NFL's steroid testing policies can't be improved upon (they can be) or that it's the best sport at testing for steroids (that would be the Olymics IMO).

1. The NFL has been testing for steroids since 1989 I believe. The MLB only started testing a few years ago. MLB only started testing because of intense public pressure. Otherwise, they probably still wouldn't be testing. At least that's my perception.

2. The NFL has always meted out decent punishment. I believe that a first offense has always been 4 games, or a quarter of the season. A second offense results in a full season suspension. On the other hand, MLB's initial steroid policy only called for treatment for a first time offender. That was later amended to a 10 day suspension. Finally, it was upgraded to a 50 day suspension. This changes were only enacted because of pressure from Congress, not because Donald Fehr and the union believed it was right.

3. Even though baseball is called America's pastime and has been around much longer than fotball, football is really now America's favorite sport. Possible reasons? Football has been ahead of baseball in terms of marketing, revenue sharing, a salary cap etc. Football has enjoyed relative labor peace since 1982. Meanwhile baseball has had multiple work stoppages and has had a World Series cancelled.

Neither baseball nor football currently tests blood samples. Neither has their steroid testing done by an independent agency, ala the Olymics. However, if one of the 2 sports were to incorporate blood testing or turn over their testing to an independent agency, who thinks it would actually be baseball that adopts these changes first? Not me.

If I'm not mistaken, the NFL drug program also allows the user one "freebie" failed test. If you fail a test, you are not automatically suspended. Instead, you are assigned into the drug-testing program, where you get tested once or twice a week. This in and of itself makes the NFL program substantially weaker than baseball's policy, especially with baseball's current 50 game suspension (the equivalent of 5 NFL games).

[DrungoHazewood]

But I have to take exception to his remark about the pitching. The strike zone was not expanded during the 60's It conformed to the rule book dimensions more acurately than it does today. The mound was 15", the regulated height it had been for years. In the 20's it occasionally reached the height of 20" or more in some parks but was uniformly 15"s during the 60's. The strike zone was reduced and the mound lowered in '69 to increase hitting. That year, Bob Gibson and other greats of that era had about a one run increase to their ERA.

You don't really believe the mound was regulation height in the 60s, do you? If so you're the only one. The mound height was like the strike zone today - there was one written rule, and another de facto rule (which was essentially "do whatever you want"). If the mound really was uniformly 15" in the 60s there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of books about the era that got it wrong.

And the strike zone was expanded a year after Maris and Mantle had their home run chase in '61. For 1963 the rule was clarified. Before then it was the armpit to the top of the knees. Afterwards it was the top of the shoulders to the bottom of the knees. Balls that had been called balls for decades were suddenly strikes, and although a few inches doesn't seem like much the effect was dramatic. Between '62 and '63 offenses were down 3/4 of a run a game in the NL, half a run in the AL, and it got worse. A lot of big sluggers fell apart, and it took them a year or two to adjust. Brooks went from .303-23-86 to .251-11-67. Frank went from .342-39-136 to .251-21-91.

[RustyMcNail]

You don't really believe the mound was regulation height in the 60s, do you? If so you're the only one. The mound height was like the strike zone today - there was one written rule, and another de facto rule (which was essentially "do whatever you want"). If the mound really was uniformly 15" in the 60s there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of books about the era that got it wrong.

And the strike zone was expanded a year after Maris and Mantle had their home run chase in '61. For 1963 the rule was clarified. Before then it was the armpit to the top of the knees. Afterwards it was the top of the shoulders to the bottom of the knees. Balls that had been called balls for decades were suddenly strikes, and although a few inches doesn't seem like much the effect was dramatic. Between '62 and '63 offenses were down 3/4 of a run a game in the NL, half a run in the AL, and it got worse. A lot of big sluggers fell apart, and it took them a year or two to adjust. Brooks went from .303-23-86 to .251-11-67. Frank went from .342-39-136 to .251-21-91.

Didn't MLB lower the pitching mound ("officially") after the big pitchers year in 1968? Thought I remembered that. Not sure where you could look that up.

[oriole_way]

If I'm not mistaken, the NFL drug program also allows the user one "freebie" failed test. If you fail a test, you are not automatically suspended. Instead, you are assigned into the drug-testing program, where you get tested once or twice a week. This in and of itself makes the NFL program substantially weaker than baseball's policy, especially with baseball's current 50 game suspension (the equivalent of 5 NFL games).

That doesn't apply to steroids.

If a NFL player tests positive for a performance enhancing drug such as steroids or certain supplements such as ephedra (added after Korey Stringer's unfortunate death in 2001; cause of death determined to be heatstroke and although no ephedra was found in his system, he had ephedra in his locker), you're automatically suspended 4 games the first time.

On the other hand, the first time a NFL player tests positive for recreational drugs such as cocaine, marijuana or alcohol, you're right; they are not suspended but are forced to get help and are subjected to further testing.

I'm not defending this policy, just correcting the above quoted post.

This actually brings up 2 other questions I have.

Is ephedra banned in baseball? I know Steve Bechler's death in 2003 brought attention to ephedra use in baseball, but I don't think that baseball tests for it. Is that correct? It wouldn't surprise me if baseball didn't, but I am not completely sure.

Also, does baseball test for recreational drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, alcohol? If so, is there any punishment?

I know Odell Thurman (linebacker for the Bengals) had his 4 game suspension extended to a year after his recent DUI.

Meanwhile, Sidney Ponson has had multiple documented alcohol related problems in the past, including 2 DUI's, but MLB obviously never suspended him. I don't even know if he was forced to seek treatment.

Can anyone expound on this? If this is true, then it just further illustrates that while the NFL's policies against drugs may not be beyond reproach, they are still usually way ahead of MLB.

[Flosman]

The difference in the NFLs program and MLBs program is the players actually wanted the testing to a degree in the NFL. I think this is because of the nature of the game. NFL players in the 80s even were taking near toxic doses of steroids. In football more was almost always better it is a game of brute power , explosiveness, size and agressiveness. Players were actually dying as a result. Baseball players were not and are not talking the high doses common in the NFL. The perception is you can actually get to big to play baseball and that is not really the case in football.

[oriole_way]

The difference in the NFLs program and MLBs program is the players actually wanted the testing to a degree in the NFL. I think this is because of the nature of the game. NFL players in the 80s even were taking near toxic doses of steroids. In football more was almost always better it is a game of brute power , explosiveness, size and agressiveness. Players were actually dying as a result. Baseball players were not and are not talking the high doses common in the NFL. The perception is you can actually get to big to play baseball and that is not really the case in football.

Yes, the NFL has had players who have ascribed their health problems to steroids (Lyle Alzado for example).

I already mentioned Korey Stringer's death and how the NFL reacted by banning ephedra.

However, baseball has had it's tragedies as well.

I already mentioned Steve Bechler's death from ephedra.

Ken Caminiti admitted steroid use and substance abuse problems and then died at 41 from a heart attack. The official cause of death stated that Caminiti died from an overdose of cocaine and opiates, but also had coronary artery disease and cardiac hypertrophy (the walls of the heart were thickened), which were listed as contributing factors. Anabolic steroids have been linked with cardiac hypertrophy. Cocaine has many known cardiac effects, including coronary artery vasospasm, arterial dissection, marked hypertension and thrombotic occlusion.

Yet, has baseball reacted at all? We all know they grudgingly enacted a steroid plan, mainly due to external pressures, and that Congress had to get involved.

But what about ephedra, substance abuse etc?

Ephedra has been banned by the FDA because of it's potential complications, yet may not be tested for by MLB.

Here are a couple links about steroids and associated cardiac effects:

http://heart.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/90/5/473

http://menshealth.about.com/cs/fitness/a/anab_steroids.htm

This link discusses the effects of steroids and HGH on the heart:

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/koert/anabolic-steroids-gh-and-the-heart.htm

Here are links about ephedra:

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3010681

http://heartdisease.about.com/library/weekly/aa031703a.htm

[blueberryale77]

Here are a couple links about steroids and associated cardiac effects:

http://heart.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/90/5/473

http://menshealth.about.com/cs/fitness/a/anab_steroids.htm

This link discusses the effects of steroids and HGH on the heart:

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/koert/anabolic-steroids-gh-and-the-heart.htm

All the more reason I find it really hard to believe that Brian Roberts, having been born with a heart defect and survived open heart surgery, would be dumb enough to mess with the stuff even if he were otherwise inclined to cheat.