Ankiel linked to HgH

[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.

[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.

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., 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.

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!

[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 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. 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.