Ankiel linked to HgH

[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, "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, "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, "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 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.