Ankiel linked to HgH

[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 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

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?

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.